
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2020-09-01</date>
    <parliament.no>46</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>4</period.no>
    <chamber>Senate</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" style="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" background="" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;"></span>
            <a type="" href="Chamber">Tuesday, 1 September 2020</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Scott Ryan)</span> took the chair at 12:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.</span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Line" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Line"> </span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tabling</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Meeting</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, Senator Cormann, you were seeking the call?</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Senate Procedure</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—Pairing arrangements in this chamber are, of course, informal arrangements. They are very important arrangements to ensure that the decisions in this chamber properly reflect the will of the Australian people as expressed at the previous election. They have worked very effectively for a very, very long time and, despite all of our appropriately robust engagement in the battle of ideas, senators from all parties and the crossbench have respected the important convention in relation to pairing arrangements. There have been some informal discussions in relation to pairing arrangements in the context of the current COVID induced arrangements in the Senate, with a number of senators—indeed entire parties—participating in these proceedings remotely.</para>
<para>In this context, what I would like to set out on behalf of the government is that the government agrees, for the ongoing operation of pairing arrangements in the Senate, that, where requested by any whip, voting instructions for any party or senator that will not otherwise be represented in the chamber during a division shall be provided by that party's whip or the senator concerned before the commencement of any division. It is indeed reasonable for voting instructions that have been received and are intended to be claimed in the context of pairing arrangements to be provided by the relevant party or senator concerned where requested. Disclosing this information ensures the transparent operation of pairing arrangements and its ongoing success moving forward and that the voting intention of any party or senator not represented in the chamber is accurately reflected by governments and oppositions. I thank the Senate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I thank the Leader of the Government in the Senate for his contribution and I just want to make a few comments on <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> from the opposition's perspective.</para>
<para>As Senator Cormann has said, the system of pairing in the Senate has operated successfully for decades, and that has been as a consequence of arrangements between the parties. The pairing of senators who are absent ensures that in all divisions where government and opposition are voting in opposite ways the result in this chamber is not determined as a consequence of the absence of particular senators voting one way or the other. This is a system of benefit to all parties in a chamber where there is no one group which has a majority and the balance of power exists with a number of crossbench senators. An important feature of this system is the convention of governments and oppositions accommodating minor party and Independent senators in their pairs in divisions where government and opposition are on opposing sides in divisions. Clearly, in a hybrid parliament we do have to look at how we ensure that this system continues to operate, and we agree with the government that, in order for this system to work in this context, pairing instructions from senators who are not otherwise represented in the chamber during a division should be transparent, provided in writing and made available equally to whips of all parties upon request.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS</title>
        <page.no>2</page.no>
        <type>PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Temporary Chairs of Committees</title>
          <page.no>2</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to standing order 12, I lay on the table a warrant nominating Senator O'Neill as an additional Temporary Chair of Committees when the Deputy President and Chair of Committees is absent.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>2</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Jobkeeper Payments) Amendment Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>2</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" style="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" background="" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word">
            <a type="Bill" href="r6583">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Jobkeeper Payments) Amendment Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>2</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill, and I seek leave to move all these amendments together.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the Senate, and I move government amendments (1) to (6) on sheet SW102:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 2, item 10, page 9 (line 6), omit paragraph (a) of the definition of <inline font-style="italic">eligible financial service provider</inline> in section 789GC.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 2, item 10, page 9 (line 7), omit ", BAS agent or tax (financial) adviser", substitute "or BAS agent".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 2, item 12, page 9 (after line 17), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">quarter</inline> in section 789GC, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">registered tax agent or BAS agent</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Tax Agent Services Act 2009</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 2, item 12, page 9 (lines 18 and 19), omit the definition of <inline font-style="italic">registered company auditor</inline> in section 789GC.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 2, item 12, page 9 (lines 20 and 21), omit the definition of <inline font-style="italic">registered tax agent, BAS agent or tax (financial) adviser</inline> in section 789GC.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 2, item 13, page 11 (lines 1 and 2), omit "states that, in the opinion of the eligible financial service provider,", substitute "confirms that".</para></quote>
<para>These amendments are minor and technical in nature. They are the result of continued consultation with stakeholders who have indicated to the government that a specific wording used in the bill as it stands, combined with the very technical nature of tax and accounting services, could combine to cause practical issues. As such, for the avoidance of that, these amendments will alter the definition of 'financial service provider' in the bill to remove 'registered company auditor' and 'tax (financial) adviser' from the definition of 'eligible financial service provider', leaving qualified accountants, registered tax agents and BAS agents. And, to ensure that the policy intention of the provision is given effect, it will make clear that the issuing of the 10 per cent decline in turnover certificate involves a declaration from an eligible financial service provider that relates to a specific employer and confirms that, based on the information provided, the employer satisfied the 10 per cent decline in turnover test for the designated quarter applicable to a specified time. This replaces the existing requirement that the provider express an opinion.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor will not oppose this amendment, but this is very embarrassing for the government and, particularly, for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Yet again it appears that the government has made an announcement, then discovered they'd forgotten to do some pretty important consultation with professionals responsible for an important accountability message. I can see you're agreeing with me, Leader. It seems they forgot to tell the accounting profession that they would be responsible for ensuring the emergency IR powers were legitimately used and that they would provide a certificate to testify that the employer was suffering a 10 per cent turnover decline.</para>
<para>The legislation, as it stands, states that a business which employs more than 15 people would have to obtain a certificate from an eligible financial service provider, which means either a registered company auditor or a registered tax agent, a BAS agent, a tax financial adviser or a qualified accountant. The government has just found out that this doesn't sit well with the accounting profession. How does someone who is not a registered tax agent or a BAS agent calculate turnover if they are not qualified or even, possibly, legally able to do so? These amendments show that they won't. Second, the reference in the bill to an eligible financial service provider stating their opinion that the employer has satisfied a 10 per cent decline in turnover test for the designated quarter applicable to the specified time is also highly problematic. The phrase 'in the opinion' has particular meaning and it is suggested that this would entail the conduct of an audit. This, of course, would add substantial cost and time, but to do otherwise would increase their risk exposure. Again, we have an amendment dealing with that concern.</para>
<para>It's better late than never, but what is actually quite unbelievable is that, while the government has listened and responded to the concerns of the accountancy profession—whom they forgot to consult with prior to introducing this bill and who are concerned that they may be legally impacted—the government has deliberately chosen to reject Labor's amendments which would ensure low-paid workers in this country aren't forced to have their take-home pay cut at the same time as their employer's business is recovering. This says everything about the government—absolutely everything.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move Greens requests for amendments (1) and (5) on sheet 1009 together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2 , page 2 (at the end of the table), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Page 33 (after line 21) , at the end of the Bill, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 5 — Extension of jobkeeper scheme to casual employees</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 At the end of section 7</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Requirements relating to casual employees</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) In determining the entitlement of an entity to a payment for an employee of the entity, the rules must provide that the types of employee that an entity is entitled to receive a payment in respect of include an employee of the entity who satisfies the requirements in subsection (9), regardless of the period of time that the individual has been employed by the entity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) The requirements are that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the individual was a casual employee of the entity on 1 July 2020; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) it is reasonable to assume that the individual would have continued to be an employee of the entity if the entity had not been directly or indirectly affected by the Coronavirus known as COVID-19.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendments (5), (6), (7) and (8)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendments (5), (6), (7) and (8) are framed as requests because they amend the bill in a way that is intended to direct funding under the jobkeeper scheme to additional persons.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendments (5), (6) and (8) would require the Treasurer to make rules which include additional classes of employees when assessing an entity's entitlement to receive a payment under the scheme amended by the bill. Specifically, the effect of these amendments would be to include certain casual employees and temporary visa holders as eligible employees when assessing an entity's eligibility for payments from the Commonwealth under the rules. Eligibility would also be extended to approved providers of approved child care services.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendment (7) would require the Treasurer to make rules which do not apply differently to, or disproportionally affect the eligibility of, higher education providers to receive a payment under the jobkeeper scheme amended by the bill. Specifically, the effect of the amendment would be to ensure higher education providers are eligible entities for payments from the Commonwealth under the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As the amendments would increase the number of employees for whom employers would be eligible to receive payments, the amendments will increase the amount of expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 16 of the <inline font-style="italic">Taxation Administration Act 1953</inline> .</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendments (1), (2), (3), and (4)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendments (1), (2), (3) and (4) are consequential to amendments (5), (6), (7) and (8).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendments (5), (6), (7) and (8)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If the effect of the amendments is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 16 of the <inline font-style="italic">Taxation Administration Act 1953</inline> then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendments be moved as requests.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendments (1), (2), (3) and (4)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These amendments are consequential on the requests. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request.</para></quote>
<para>If the government were serious about keeping jobs they would have listened to workers, they would have listened to unions, they would have listened to academics, they would have listened to the Greens and they would have listened to the countless organisations that have been calling for the expansion of JobKeeper to all casual workers, temporary visa holders, university workers and childcare workers. Instead, the government are overseeing a wage subsidy called JobKeeper that has allowed millions of workers to lose their jobs and be forced into unemployment. It is a job keeper in name only, I have to say. The scheme is leaving millions of workers behind and the scheme is still $44 billion under budget even with a six-month extension. There is absolutely no excuse for leaving these workers behind. We should be expanding the payment to all workers who need it, not cutting it.</para>
<para>I'm moving a series of amendments about this. The first ones are (1) and (5). These amendments will expand eligibility for JobKeeper payments to casual workers who have been employed for less than 12 months. The government continues to deny over one million casual workers access to JobKeeper. The majority of these workers are under 24 years old and work in the industries which have been hardest hit in this pandemic, such as retail, hospitality, arts, tourism, accommodation and education. So, by ignoring the calls from workers, unions, the Greens and businesses to expand JobKeeper, the government is forcing workers into unemployment and really forcing struggling businesses to the brink. I commend the amendments to the Senate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government will not be supporting these amendments. I might just talk to all amendments on sheet 1009 together. In relation to casuals, temporary visa holders, childcare workers and university workers, casual employees who have been employed for under 12 months as at 1 July 2020 are not eligible for the JobKeeper payment. The JobKeeper payment is a significant program of support for businesses and employees. The program is targeted at employers and employees with an ongoing relationship. Casual employees who have been employed for more than 12 months on a regular and systematic basis are eligible for the JobKeeper payment as they are expected to have a strong connection with their employer.</para>
<para>From 3 August 2020, the relevant date of employment moved from 1 March 2020 to 1 July 2020, which will allow casual employees who have been employed on a regular and systematic basis on or before 1 July 2019 to be able to meet this eligibility requirement. This has meant that the JobKeeper payment is available to more casual employees. The proposed amendment to change the rules by instead requiring for it to be reasonable to assume that the employee would have continued to be an employee of the entity if the entity had not been directly or indirectly affected by the coronavirus would be very difficult for employers to apply and for the Australian Taxation Office to administer, as it is a highly subjective test. An employer may say that it is not reasonable to expect the employee to remain in that employment, thereby potentially disentitling employees who are currently eligible. So it also has counterproductive consequences, even from the perspective of the mover of these amendments.</para>
<para>In relation to temporary visa holders, employees on temporary visas, with the exception of New Zealand citizens under special category subclass 444 visas, are not eligible for the JobKeeper payment. The eligibility for the JobKeeper payment is broadly aligned with eligibility through the income support system for JobSeeker. Australia has historical and special reciprocal arrangements with New Zealand to allow citizens to live and work in each country. For this reason they are the only temporary visa category to receive access to the scheme.</para>
<para>The government has announced the following measures to support temporary visa holders. Many are eligible for the early release of their superannuation if they meet other eligibility criteria for either 2019-20 or both 2019-20 and 2020-21. Bridging visa holders may be able to access the status resolution support services program, which provides short-term, tailored support to individuals. During the COVID-19 period applications for support under the SRSS will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and several state governments and tertiary institutions have also announced support packages for international students.</para>
<para>In relation to child care, from 13 July 2020 the childcare subsidy and additional childcare subsidy recommended, along with a range of new measures to support the sector and its families through the transition, including an activity test for families and a new transition payment for providers, have been put in place. Nearly one-third of the early childhood workforce was ineligible for the JobKeeper payment. The government is providing a $708 million transition payment, which will support services more broadly and equitably than the JobKeeper payment, which was designed to provide support quickly across the whole economy. As a condition of receiving the transition payment, providers must offer an employment guarantee by continuing to employ those employees over the transition period who were working or being paid JobKeeper at the end of the ECEC Relief Package. The Minister for Education undertook broad consultation with the childcare sector during the development of the transition package. Therefore, to ensure government support is appropriately targeted, JobKeeper ceased on 20 July 2020 for employees of childcare-subsidy-approved providers operating a childcare service.</para>
<para>In relation to higher education, in response to the COVID pandemic, the government introduced an $18 billion funding guarantee for universities in 2020. It guarantees more than $7 billion in 2020 Commonwealth grant scheme payments as well as around another $7 billion in Higher Education Loan Program advanced payments to providers. The government's funding guarantee is designed to complement the JobKeeper payment. Universities and non-government schools which are also registered charities are unable to access the 15 per cent decline in turnover test and must use the 30 or 50 per cent turnover test, as applicable, to be eligible. Universities and non-government schools already received significant Commonwealth funding that will support them with maintaining services and employees. Most universities will need to meet the turnover decline test by comparing their turnover for the six-month period of January to June 2020 with turnover for January to June 2019. This clarification addresses the timing of income for universities, which is focused around the start of academic terms.</para>
<para>Changes to the JobKeeper rules to exempt table B universities from the six-month turnover decline test were implemented on 22 May 2020 through the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Amendment Rules (No. 3) 2020. The change took effect from 30 March 2020. Table B universities will need to meet a monthly or quarterly decline in turnover test in line with the test for other entities. Table B universities are the University of Divinity, Torrens University, Bond University and the University of Notre Dame Australia. These universities have fewer Commonwealth supported students than table A universities and they also operate under a different structure, with trimesters or more students enrolled over the summer break, meaning the six-month test applying to table A universities wasn't appropriately targeted to these universities.</para>
<para>The core Commonwealth government financial assistance provided to universities is included when they determine their decline in turnover. This will ensure that the bulk of revenue received by universities is taken into account in assessing eligibility for the JobKeeper payment. This change addresses an anomaly that many universities would not have had to count the bulk of their revenue provided by the Australian government for the turnover decline test.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on this amendment. My comments about this amendment will also apply to all of the remaining amendments by the Greens party. Labor has called for the government to expand support for those workers who need it and to ensure that economic support is tailored to the conditions in the economy, including rising unemployment. However, we will not be supporting this amendment, which would not be supported by the other House, as it would increase the appropriation. The government should not have excluded millions of workers from JobKeeper while overpaying some workers. Yet the government has the extraordinary power to set the rates and include those workers they have deliberately excluded from the JobKeeper payment.</para>
<para>The important test of the Morrison government's management of this recession and its aftermath is what happens to jobs and the businesses which create them. Workers, businesses and communities need and deserve a plan from the Morrison government to promote growth, protect and create jobs, support business and set Australia up for the recovery. We can't afford to see more Australians left out and left behind because the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are not prepared to respond to developments in the labour market or to come up with a proper plan for jobs.</para>
<para class="italic">The CHAIR: Senator Faruqi, I am wondering if you are interested in moving the rest of those amendments on sheet 1009?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am moving them separately. I haven't spoken to them yet.</para>
<para class="italic">The CHAIR: The question is that the requests (1) and (5) on sheet 1009, as moved by Senator Faruqi, be agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [12:25]<br />(The Chair—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>7</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                  <name>Griff, S</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J</name>
                  <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                  <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                  <name>Siewert, R (teller)</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>29</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A</name>
                  <name>Askew, W</name>
                  <name>Bragg, AJ</name>
                  <name>Brockman, S</name>
                  <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C</name>
                  <name>Cormann, M</name>
                  <name>Davey, P</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D</name>
                  <name>Fierravanti-Wells, C</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                  <name>Green, N</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H</name>
                  <name>Hume, J</name>
                  <name>Lines, S</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M (teller)</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                  <name>McMahon, S</name>
                  <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J</name>
                  <name>Payne, MA</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                  <name>Smith, DA</name>
                  <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names></names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move Greens amendments (2) and (6) on sheet 1009 together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Page 33, at the end of the Bill, after proposed Schedule 5, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 6 — Extension of jobkeeper scheme to temporary visa holders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 At the end of section 7</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Requirements relating to temporary visa holders</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) In determining the entitlement of an entity to a payment for an employee of the entity, the rules must provide that the types of employee that an entity is entitled to receive a payment in respect of include an individual that on 1 July 2020 was an employee of the entity and was the holder of a temporary visa within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline> .</para></quote>
<para>These amendments will expand eligibility for JobKeeper payments to workers on temporary visas. It is a real shame that this government has created this arbitrary division between temporary visa holders and permanent citizens, as if the virus discriminates based on visas. People are in the same terrible situation in the pandemic and they need all the support that this government can provide them. It is our job to support people who are in Australia. There is report after report of international students who are basically being left destitute. The minister did say that the states were providing some support packages for them, and good on them! But they not nearly enough. International students and higher education are the responsibility of the federal government, and they are abrogating their responsibility by not providing support to students who are finding it hard to put food on the table and have roofs over their heads at the time when they need it most. The government has watched as thousands of temporary visa holders have lost their jobs and stood by as hundreds have resorted to lining up at food banks because they have denied them access to the financial support that they deserve and need.</para>
<para>They are not even being transparent in actually telling us if they ever considered such support. The door was shut on my OPD to actually get some documents, which we know that the government has. There was a big debate happening on government transparency and accountability yesterday, and many senators on this side of the chamber spoke very eloquently about the government hiding everything in the dark. At a time when we need to be more transparent, you won't even tell us if you ever considered supporting international students, let alone providing them with any support. Migrant communities, unions and support organisations have been raising concerns since the beginning of this pandemic, but the government yet again has ignored their calls.</para>
<para>This humanitarian crisis is unfolding here in our own country, which is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Surely the government can find it in their hearts, in their budgets, in their coffers to provide enough support to international students for them to live above the poverty line during this pandemic. I commend the amendments to the Senate.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that Australian Greens amendments (2) and (6) on sheet 1009 be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [12:35]<br />(The Temporary Chair—Senator Fawcett)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>6</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                  <name>Griff, S</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                  <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                  <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                  <name>Siewert, R (teller)</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>29</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A</name>
                  <name>Askew, W</name>
                  <name>Bragg, AJ</name>
                  <name>Brockman, S</name>
                  <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C</name>
                  <name>Cormann, M</name>
                  <name>Davey, P</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                  <name>Fierravanti-Wells, C</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H</name>
                  <name>Hume, J</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M (teller)</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                  <name>McMahon, S</name>
                  <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J</name>
                  <name>Payne, MA</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                  <name>Smith, DA</name>
                  <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names></names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move Greens amendments (3) and (7) on sheet 1009 together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Page 33, at the end of the Bill, after proposed Schedule 6, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 8 — Extension of jobkeeper scheme to higher education providers</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 In the appropriate position</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7B Requirements for rules that provide for jobkeeper payments scheme—payments to higher education providers</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If the rules provide for a kind of payment that is intended to assist businesses affected by the Coronavirus to cover the cost of wages of their employees (whether known as a jobkeeper payment or otherwise), the rules relating to that kind of payment (the <inline font-style="italic">jobkeeper scheme rules</inline>) must comply with the requirements in subsection (2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The jobkeeper scheme rules, in providing for the classes of entities to which payments in respect of employees are to be made, must comply with the following requirements in respect of entities that are higher education providers:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the rules must not have eligibility requirements:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) that apply only to higher education providers; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) that apply thresholds to higher education providers that are different from the thresholds applied to other similar entities; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) that are substantially different in their application to higher education providers compared with other entities;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">with the effect of making it impractical or unlikely that higher education providers will be able to satisfy the eligibility requirements;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the eligibility requirements must not have the effect, whether directly or indirectly, of excluding all or substantially all higher education providers from the jobkeeper scheme.</para></quote>
<para>I did expect the government to have no sympathy for casual workers and those on temporary visas, but it is pretty sad to see the Labor Party sitting again and again with the Liberals, working with them against the interests of workers. That is a very sad situation and a very sad scene to see.</para>
<para>These amendments are about reinstating JobKeeper for early education workers. It's quite inexplicable, and it really boggles my mind, that child care became the first and only sector to be kicked off JobKeeper. There's been report after report, day after day, telling us of the importance of that sector for children, for parents, for families, for women in particular—and for our society and economy—yet JobKeeper was taken away from them in July and the government keeps saying it will not be reinstated.</para>
<para>Everyone in the community knows that childcare support is a vital part of our response to the pandemic. Childcare workers have been on the front line providing essential support while also being on the front line for these horrible cuts. We know that axing JobKeeper for childcare workers will predominantly impact women. There's discussion after discussion about the pink recession that we are having—how women already make up the vast majority of the low-paid workforce; the gender pay gap that persists year in, year out; and how women have been left to pick up the bulk of childcare responsibilities at home, while juggling work, while this pandemic is happening.</para>
<para>We are in this for a while. The government keeps saying we're in this together, but obviously we're not in this together, because there are so many people who are being left behind and left out of support. The government should immediately reinstate JobKeeper for early education workers. I commend the amendments to the Senate.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that Australian Greens amendments (3) and (7) on sheet 1009 be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [12:45]<br />(The Temporary Chair—Senator Fawcett)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>5</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                  <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                  <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                  <name>Siewert, R (teller)</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>28</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A</name>
                  <name>Askew, W</name>
                  <name>Bragg, AJ</name>
                  <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C</name>
                  <name>Cormann, M</name>
                  <name>Davey, P</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                  <name>Fierravanti-Wells, C</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M (teller)</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                  <name>McMahon, S</name>
                  <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A</name>
                  <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                  <name>Smith, DA</name>
                  <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names></names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move Greens amendments (4) and (8) on sheet 1009 together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">14. Schedule 9</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Page 33, at the end of the Bill, after proposed Schedule 8, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 9 — Extension of jobkeeper scheme to child care providers</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 In the appropriate position</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7C Requirements for rules that provide for jobkeeper payments scheme—payments to child care providers</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (1) If the rules provide for a kind of payment that is intended to assist businesses affected by the Coronavirus to cover the cost of wages of their employees (whether known as a jobkeeper payment or otherwise), the rules relating to that kind of payment (the jobkeeper scheme rules) must comply with the requirements in subsection (2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (2) The jobkeeper scheme rules must ensure that payments are able to be made to entities that are approved providers (within the meaning of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999) of one or more approved child care services (within the meaning of that Act), including in respect of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) employees whose ordinary duties relate principally to the operation of one or more of those services; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) individuals who are not employees but who are actively engaged in the business carried on by the approved provider.</para></quote>
<para>These amendments are about expanding eligibility for JobKeeper to the workers who have been left behind by the government in this pandemic, and I want to talk about universities now.</para>
<para>Tens of thousands of workers in the universities have already lost their jobs and there are tens of thousands who are going to lose their jobs even before the end of the year—all during this pandemic. The government changed the JobKeeper rules three times to make sure that no public university was left eligible for JobKeeper. The government were warned that this was going to happen and that they could actually stop this from happening, but they didn't. Even worse than that, today, in the other place, the government brought forward a bill that will further cut funding from universities, hike fees for students and decimate our higher education sector. There is no shame at all in this government. They don't hide their hatred for universities at all; they have just accelerated their attacks on universities during the pandemic. Following years of funding cuts which we have seen in the sector under various governments of both colours, now they have denied this vital wage subsidy and are further punishing universities.</para>
<para>This is the time to actually invest in education. This is the time to fully and publicly fund universities, so that staff and teachers can educate our young people—our students—to the highest of quality standards, while also having job security. This is the time to make higher education, universities and TAFE fee-free so students can train and retrain in what the future of our country and the world needs. But what this government is doing is leaving universities completely abandoned, completely high and dry, with thousands of jobs being lost and little funding for research. There is nothing in this package that is being debated in the other place today that improves the situation for any university, or for any student or any staff member. It's an attack on universities and it must be stopped. I commend the amendments to the Senate.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that Australian Greens amendments (4) and (8) on sheet 1009 be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [12:52]<br />(The Temporary Chair—Senator Fawcett)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>5</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                  <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                  <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                  <name>Siewert, R (teller)</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>26</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A</name>
                  <name>Askew, W</name>
                  <name>Bragg, AJ</name>
                  <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C</name>
                  <name>Cormann, M</name>
                  <name>Davey, P</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                  <name>Fierravanti-Wells, C</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M (teller)</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                  <name>McMahon, S</name>
                  <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A</name>
                  <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                  <name>Smith, DA</name>
                  <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names></names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1011 together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Page 33 (after line 21), at the end of the Bill, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 7—Preventing tiered jobkeeper payments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 After section 7</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7A Requirement for rules that provide for jobkeeper payments scheme—no tiered jobkeeper payments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (1) If the rules provide for a kind of payment that is intended to assist businesses affected by the Coronavirus to cover the cost of wages of their employees (whether known as a jobkeeper payment or otherwise), the rules relating to that kind of payment (the <inline font-style="italic">jobkeeper scheme rules</inline>) must comply with the requirement in subsection (2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (2) The jobkeeper scheme rules, in providing for the amount of the payment under the jobkeeper scheme, must not provide for there to be different amounts payable in relation to employees.</para></quote>
<para>This amends the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020 to prevent the minister from establishing a tiered payment system. While the JobKeeper bill doesn't deal specifically with tiered payments, it does extend the rule-making power which allows the minister to establish tiers. The amendment will insert a new section that specifies that the minister must not create rules for different rates of pay for different employees.</para>
<para>On 21 July, the government foreshadowed a number of changes to the JobKeeper program, including the introduction of tiered payments from 28 September 2020. Under the changes announced by the government, the hours worked in the four weeks prior to 1 March 2020 or 1 July 2020 will determine what level of payment workers will receive—specifically, whether they worked more or fewer than 20 hours. This is despite the high unemployment rate during those times.</para>
<para>In March, the underemployment rate was eight per cent—10.6 per cent for women compared to 7.2 per cent for men. It was 19.1 per cent for young people aged between 15 and 24 years old. In July, the underemployment rate soared to 11.2 per cent. It was 12.2 per cent for women and 19.6 per cent for young people aged between 15 and 24 years old. This government intends to slash payments for underemployed low-income workers in insecure jobs, predominately impacting women and young people, and this sends one resounding message—that the government won't hesitate to kick workers when they're down and throw vulnerable workers off a financial cliff in the midst of a recession in the midst of a pandemic.</para>
<para>Also of concern is the impact that tiered payments will have on workers who work more than 20 hours across multiple jobs. Someone who works 38 hours a week across two jobs—that's 19 hours in each—will still see their JobKeeper payments slashed. The Greens, of course, support the extension of JobKeeper but not at the expense of low-paid workers in the midst of a recession. I commend the amendment to the Senate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government will be opposing these amendments. Two tiers of payment under JobKeeper enable employers to more closely align the JobKeeper payment made to eligible employees with the payment they received prior to the public health restrictions being imposed to address coronavirus. This is one of the outcomes and recommendations out of the review conducted by Treasury after the initial three months of operation of the JobKeeper program, and that is the basis on which we oppose these amendments.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that Australian Greens amendments (1) and (2) on Sheet 1011 be agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [12:58]<br />(The Temporary Chair—Senator Fawcett)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>4</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                  <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                  <name>Siewert, R (teller)</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>30</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A</name>
                  <name>Askew, W</name>
                  <name>Bragg, AJ</name>
                  <name>Brockman, S</name>
                  <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C</name>
                  <name>Cormann, M</name>
                  <name>Davey, P</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                  <name>Fierravanti-Wells, C</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M (teller)</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                  <name>McMahon, S</name>
                  <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J</name>
                  <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A</name>
                  <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                  <name>Smith, DA</name>
                  <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names></names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATRICK</name>
    <name.id>144292</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move my amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1028 together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Page 33 (after line 21), at the end of the Bill, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 3—Repaying jobkeeper payments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 After section 7</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7A Requirements for rules that provide for jobkeeper payments scheme—conduct by entities that indicates jobkeeper financial support not necessary</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If the rules provide for a kind of payment that is intended to assist businesses affected by the Coronavirus to cover the cost of wages of their employees (whether known as a jobkeeper payment or otherwise), the rules relating to that kind of payment (the <inline font-style="italic">jobkeeper scheme rules</inline>) must comply with the requirements in subsections (2) and (3).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The jobkeeper scheme rules must provide that an entity is taken not to be, or not to have been, entitled to a payment under the jobkeeper scheme rules if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) during the prescribed period the entity:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) pays dividends to shareholders of the entity; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) pays a bonus to an executive or other officer of the entity; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) makes other payments of a similar nature that relate to distributing profits of the entity; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Commissioner is satisfied, having regard to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the amount of the dividend, bonus or other similar payment and the extent to which it exceeds the amount of the last such payment made by the entity; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) any other matters the Commissioner considers relevant;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">that the entity's conduct in making those payments indicates that the entity was not affected directly or indirectly by the Coronavirus known as COVID‑19 to the extent that the entity required financial support under this Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Under section 9 of this Act, if an entity was not entitled to a payment, the entity is liable to repay the amount to the Commonwealth.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) To avoid doubt, rules made for the purposes of subsection (2) must be able to apply to an entity that has already received a payment before the commencement of this section.</para></quote>
<para>We've got a situation where taxpayers' money which is designed to support businesses and is designed to support their workers and keep them connected is being funnelled into companies' investors' pockets by way of dividends and is also being funnelled into executives' salary packages by way of executive bonuses. In expressing my concern to the chamber, I'm actually going to read from the contribution of the Hon. Dr Leigh, the member for Fenner, yesterday in the other place. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">But a scheme designed to reduce inequality is being misused by a small number of firms, who are channelling it to executive bonuses. Accent Group received $13 million in JobKeeper and gave CEO Daniel Agostinelli a $1.2 million bonus. IDP Education received $4 million in JobKeeper and gave CEO Andrew Barkla a $600,000 bonus. Last year he was Australia's highest paid CEO, taking home $37 million. Star Casino received $64 million in JobKeeper and gave CEO Matt Bekier an equity bonus worth $800,000. SeaLink received $8 million in JobKeeper and gave CEO Clinton Feuerherdt a $500,000 bonus. Then there is 'dividend keeper', diverting money for workers into shareholder payouts. Furniture firm Nick Scali received $4 million from Australian and New Zealand taxpayers. Its increased dividend will deliver $2 million to the Scali family. 1300SMILES got $2 million in JobKeeper and paid out $3 million to shareholders. Managing director Daryl Holmes owns two-thirds of the company and so will get about $2 million, roughly what his company received in JobKeeper support. As Ownership Matters' Dean Paatsch puts it: 'I don't think it was ever the intention of the government to subsidise executive salaries'. If you're getting taxpayer subsidies, the CEO should not be getting a bonus.</para></quote>
<para>My amendment requires the equivalent payment being paid for workers under JobKeeper to be returned by the company back to the taxpayer in circumstances where the commissioner is satisfied, having regard to the amount of the dividend bonus or other similar payments and the extent to which they exceed the amount of the last such payment by the entity, or any other matters that the commissioner considers relevant. There is a caveat in here that the entity's conduct in making those payments indicates that the entity was not affected directly or indirectly by coronavirus, known as COVID-19, to the extent that the entity required financial support under this act.</para>
<para>What this amendment seeks to do—just to be really clear—is stop money that is designed to support businesses, that is designed to support workers, getting taken from the taxpayer and funnelled into the pockets of investors or the pockets of chief executives and senior executives within the company. No-one would have anticipated that this sort of conduct would occur. It's unethical, and we should do something about it. I point out my amendment is retrospective, so we can go back and look at those companies that have reaped a taxpayer benefit whilst claiming JobKeeper. For that reason, I ask that the Senate supports this amendment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The JobKeeper payment was designed to apply consistently across a range of business sizes, structures and industries, and to target support to the entities who have been significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. It was also designed to deliver support quickly and at scale, which is why it was important that the eligibility criteria were as straightforward as possible, drawing upon existing tax and revenue concepts and definitions. To support confidence and encourage businesses to get back up and running, the government decided that once a business had established its eligibility, assistance would be provided until the end of the first six-month phase of the program.</para>
<para>The review of the JobKeeper program recommended there should be a retest of eligibility for any extension to the program to ensure the payment is targeted to those businesses who are the most in need of ongoing support and, indeed, who are in need of continuing support. Modifying the eligibility criteria to include a measure of the profitability of a business or other criteria, such as a payment of dividends, would introduce significant complexity into the program. Such a test would be difficult to design and implement with integrity on the scale required, given the variety in business models and structures across industries and given the flexibility that businesses have in the management of their balance sheet. While there may be merit in considering such design elements if this was intended to be an ongoing program, it is less clear this would be feasible or desirable in the current context of a temporary transitional support program. Some countries have, under their wage subsidy schemes, placed limitations on the payment of dividends; however, there are many that have not, including the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Singapore. In other cases where limitations have been put in place, it is not clear how these are being appropriately enforced. The government will be opposing these amendments.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor will also be opposing this amendment. This amendment's only been circulated this morning and does propose some quite significant changes to the scheme, as it currently operates. Really, we haven't had the time to understand the impact of the proposed changes. If businesses are getting JobKeeper and not using it for the right purposes or using it to support investors or executive remuneration, that is an issue the government should be looking at. If further changes need to be made, probably the government and the ATO, the people collecting the data, are in the best position to respond. There are concerns around the retrospectivity of the requirements, where eligibility criteria would have been satisfied at the point of being provided these payments but then, subsequently, the rules change. Those are legitimate issues which would normally, if we were going through legislation, be examined and scrutinised in the context of some sort of Senate process that this morning hasn't allowed, so Labor won't be supporting these amendments.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Greens do agree in principle with what this amendment is trying to achieve. The Greens first raised concerns about this in April, during a COVID-19 committee hearing, when Senator Whish-Wilson asked Treasury secretary Steven Kennedy whether the JobKeeper review would consider changing the eligibility criteria for businesses recording profits and paying increased dividends. Disappointingly, it was not considered in that review. Senator Whish-Wilson also wrote to Secretary Kennedy last month proposing that eligibility criteria be changed for companies paying dividends. Unfortunately the government has not acted to address this loophole.</para>
<para>And I'm afraid the amendment was circulated only a little while ago. The Greens really have not had enough time to review fully the amendment and its consequences, and from the short time we have had to look at it we are concerned that, under section 9 of the enabling payments and benefits legislation, workers of these companies would be liable to repay the amount. I don't think that's what Senator Patrick has intended, but that is how it appears at face value. So, we are concerned that there may be other unintended consequences. The Greens definitely support the principle of what Senator Patrick is trying to achieve, but unfortunately the Greens can't support this amendment at this time, and we hope we get another opportunity to address this important issue.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATRICK</name>
    <name.id>144292</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I just have a couple of questions for the minister. Does the minister think it's ethical for companies to take taxpayers' money and funnel it into the hands of investors or indeed executive pay packets?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The test here is whether what businesses do is lawful in all the circumstances, and I've explained in my contribution on this amendment the reasons the government moved as swiftly as we did. There was clearly a need to act quickly. There was a need to ensure that the system was as simple and efficient as possible in terms of providing the necessary support on a large scale. That is what we've done. That is what countries in other parts of the world have done—including, as I've indicated, New Zealand, the UK, Canada and others—on a similar basis to Australia, similarly not making the arrangements overly complex. Nobody is forced to participate in these arrangements, but the arrangements should be available on an equal basis, on the same terms and conditions, to all businesses, and any business that complies with the law should be able to participate as appropriate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATRICK</name>
    <name.id>144292</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I note the contrast in the approach taken by government to allow funding to go to dividend recipients and/or executive pay salaries. For example, in this instance you're not trying to recover money, but in the case of robodebt the government has found that it's legally insufficient to pursue money where in the past it has pursued this money. Can you see the frustration that most Australians would have with your dogged pursuit of people on welfare versus allowing investors and company executives to receive bonuses through a taxpayer funded arrangement?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't agree with the analogy, on a whole range of grounds. Clearly, whether it's our tax laws or our income support payment arrangements, there are provisions for if somebody pays too little tax compared with what the law requires or somebody has paid more than they should have, based on the law of the land. This has been a position for governments of both persuasions, forever and a day—appropriately so. Then, of course, part of the compliance arrangements, appropriately, seek to recoup any money that is not paid in taxes—that's what our anti-avoidance measures in our tax laws are all about—or to recoup any money that has been overpaid.</para>
<para>The issue that Senator Patrick mentions is not so much that principle. The issue that Senator Patrick raises relates to the fact that governments of both persuasions, again, have used a particular methodology where income support recipients do not engage with the government. Governments have been forced to make assumptions and have used a methodology which, ultimately, the court found to be unlawful. Of course, governments, businesses and individuals—everyone—have to comply with the law. Governments have to comply with the law, and, given the findings there, the government is acting consistently with legal requirements, in the same way that businesses have to act consistently with legal requirements when they access the JobKeeper support payments. I don't think that anything that Senator Patrick has raised in any way suggests or provides proof for the proposition that any of the businesses that he references are breaching the law.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATRICK</name>
    <name.id>144292</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, if I accept your proposition that these companies have been acting lawfully, I can ask the question: do you think they're operating ethically? Moving forward, how do we prevent a situation where we've got companies that are profiting from JobKeeper and that money is being funnelled into the pockets of investors and/or executives? What are the government's plans moving forward to prevent that sort of situation from occurring again?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is really the last contribution I can sensibly make on the same point. Businesses make commercial decisions all the time, in the context of the legal framework that is applicable at any one point in time. The government, with the support of the parliament, has made the JobKeeper payment arrangements available to support businesses and to support employees in businesses that were experiencing significant reductions in turnover, subject to the same terms and conditions. We understood, because of the speed that was required in terms of getting the support into the economy and to businesses and employees, that there were some trade-offs there in terms of the simplicity required.</para>
<para>In terms of the question about what the government's proposing to do about this moving forward, as I've indicated, this is a temporary arrangement. This is not proposed to be an ongoing program. If this was to be an ongoing program that was going to operate for years or decades on end, then you would ensure that you refined your integrity and compliance arrangements accordingly. But this is a temporary support mechanism to provide much-needed support into the economy at a difficult time in the context of the economic impact of a global pandemic here in Australia, and we believe we got the balance right. We thank the opposition for their forbearance in relation to this amendment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATRICK</name>
    <name.id>144292</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Changing tack slightly, there are 1,119 grandfathered large proprietary companies in Australia that do not have to file financial reports to ASIC. Is the minister aware of how many of those 1,119 companies are receiving JobKeeper?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is obviously an issue that has been discussed at length in the Senate in the context of a number of bills. The short answer is: no, I'm not aware. But I'm happy to get that information for Senator Patrick on notice.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATRICK</name>
    <name.id>144292</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In circumstances where, of course, the public can't see these companies' financial reports—they can't see what's happening, and there's a complete lack of transparency—is the government confident that there's no abuse of JobKeeper taking place in those particular companies that have elite status and don't have to report their financial circumstances or make financial reports to ASIC?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I reject that final assertion that, somehow, some businesses don't have to provide appropriate reports to the tax office. The issue that Senator Patrick raises relates to tax arrangements. ASIC has got no role in relation to the administration of the JobKeeper program—none whatsoever. This is a program that is appropriately administered through the ATO. The ATO has appropriate compliance arrangements in place—but, bear in mind, in the context of a program that was rolled out necessarily very quickly. We believe that we've got the balance right.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATRICK</name>
    <name.id>144292</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I apologise if I said 'tax office'. Any information that's reported to the tax office is reported as what is protected information and can't be revealed publicly, generally. The normal way in which people who are observing and watching the behaviour of companies obtain information is by going and looking at the financial reports that are filed with ASIC. There are 1,119 grandfathered large proprietary companies in Australia that simply don't have to do that. They have a privilege that has been in place since 1995, a temporary measure—obviously, a lot of wealthy people are involved in these companies—so they don't have to file financial reports with ASIC. I apologise for perhaps misdirecting my previous question. Going back to that: how can the government be satisfied—because it doesn't have a view as to these companies' financial reports—that there's no abuse taking place in respect of JobKeeper?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, it is a final contribution on this point. Senator Patrick didn't say the ATO; he did say ASIC. What I said is that ASIC is irrelevant here. I understand that Senator Patrick is always keen to find a way to make this an ASIC related point whenever he can, and that's fine. It's one of the issues that Senator Patrick feels strongly about, and I respect that. But ASIC has no role here. The compliance arrangements are managed through the Australian Taxation Office, and every business that generates income and profits in Australia needs to provide relevant information about their income and their tax arrangements to the tax office on the same basis, subject to the same laws and the same conditions. The same applies in relation to JobKeeper.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Given that we have no vaccine and this COVID-19 pandemic could go on for another year, two years or three years and given that you're talking about taxpayers' money that's probably being rorted into dividends, are you going to get anyone from one of the departments to at least have to look at it? It may go on for years, and you're talking about the economy and the dark contrast that it's sitting in, but are we just going to leave this sitting on the side? I don't want to come back here in two years and say, 'We had this conversation two years ago and we're still in the same situation.' It's rorting into the dividends, and, quite frankly, it is ethically wrong.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't accept that it's rorting. All businesses are required to comply with the law, and there are compliance arrangements in place to ensure that the law is—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The compliance arrangements are in place as appropriate through the usual agency and the usual processes. What I would say is that the bill that is in front of us deals with the extension of JobKeeper to the end of March 2021. We're not putting in place arrangements on an ongoing basis. In the scenario that Senator Lambie envisages where this goes on for years and years, which is a plausible scenario—I certainly accept that it's not an impossible scenario—the Senate will be required to reconsider any arrangements down the track to provide advice on the economy in that context at that point in time. We're not dealing here with legislation that puts in place an ongoing arrangement beyond the end of March. We're dealing here with an arrangement that is in place only until the end of March.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] Minister, you're extending this COVID out to March next year. In light of the budget not being handed down, what was the forecast that told your government that you must extend it out to March?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Senator Hanson. You would be aware that the government released an economic and fiscal update in July which provided our assessment of the fiscal impact of the various measures that we've adopted as a result of COVID, as well as the fiscal impact of the economic parameter changes and our assessment of the cost over the two financial years 2019-20 and 2020-21. Treasury also conducted a review of the JobKeeper arrangements over the initial three months, halfway through the initial six-month operation of the program, and Treasury provided advice based on the review and based on their assessment of the economic outlook moving forward.</para>
<para>In the context of what's been happening in Victoria, in particular, in more recent times, we've made the judgements that we've made. The judgement is that, yes, we do need to transition out of this historically unprecedented level of transitional support. We're phasing down the payment from the end of September to the end of December and then again from January to the end of March, and we're also reapplying the turnover test to ensure that the businesses that receive this support still genuinely require that support on an ongoing basis. We believe that the steps we're taking are part of a pathway to transition the economy out of what is historically unprecedented fiscal support for businesses and workers.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] Minister, it is unprecedented to have the COVID that has hit Australia and worldwide. Of course, we had to put measures in place to ensure that people—those on JobSeeker and JobKeeper—were protected. The fact is that the government has made a huge mistake by putting people on JobKeeper, in light of the fact that it is $1,500 a fortnight, when a lot of these people were earning only possibly around $400 or $500 a week. So you have actually overpaid them.</para>
<para>What you've done, in light of that, is set a precedent in this country. People expect those high payments. Now you're trying to get out of it, but people are getting paid this money from the government and they don't want to go back to work. People are getting paid. Prior to COVID, on 27 April, we had approximately 727,000 people on Newstart allowance. Immediately, those people went onto JobSeeker, with an increase of $550 a fortnight. Their circumstances have not changed whatsoever, but you put them on that. Then you actually started JobKeeper, to connect people with businesses. Regardless of the number of hours that they worked, you put them on $1,500 a fortnight.</para>
<para>What we've found now—I'm hearing this from businesses—is that people don't want to go back to work. We have the agricultural sector. People who want their fruit picked can't even get workers. No-one wants to apply for the job, because they're getting paid more on JobSeeker and JobKeeper. I heard about an accountant. A kid who goes to work three days a week for an accountant said: 'I'm not going to come into work. Why should I work? I get paid more on JobKeeper.' These are the circumstances in which it is happening.</para>
<para>What I can't understand is why you are passing this bill today, with the support of Labor, to take it out to seven months. Admittedly, you are reining it in, so JobSeeker is now going to go down from $1,115 a fortnight to $815 a fortnight, but you're going to give them $300 a fortnight, which they can actually make. They can go out and work for it. Then you've got JobKeeper, which is actually going to be reduced as well, to $1,200 a fortnight. But that is not actually encouraging businesses or people to go to work. My question is: what are you going to do? Why extend it out to March when it should've actually just been taken out to November to see if we are recovering? You are actually saying to people out there: 'Don't bother going to work. Don't bother finding a job, because we're going to keep paying you till March next year.' You're actually putting so much pressure on businesses out there—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Hanson. We have Senator Hanson-Young on her feet.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hanson-Young</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On a point of order: perhaps Senator Hanson could reflect on her comments about people not showing up to work, when neither she nor her colleague have bothered to come to Canberra.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is not a point of order!</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is not a point of order. Senator Hanson.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What I'm saying is that you're not giving the businesses out there any guarantee that they're going to get people who actually want to go to work—who will turn up to work. Why didn't the government actually look at having this law—you were going to cut it off in September, and I understand what's happening in Victoria and the problems down there because of poor leadership by Daniel Andrews, but you are actually going to extend this out for seven months. Give me any reason why this should not have been cut off by the end of November, having seen how the economy was travelling at that time and how businesses were recovering, to encourage people to go out there and start working instead of being supported by the government.</para>
<para>I truly believe that this is why the states are keeping the borders shut, particularly here in Queensland. It has a political motivation. People are getting paid these JobKeeper and JobSeeker payments; they're reluctant to go back to work. It's destroyed tourism and industry here in Queensland and there are no incentives for people to go back to work. Why doesn't the government actually cut it off at the end of November and reassess it then? We'd come back to parliament in December and you could actually extend it at that time.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Senator Hanson. The truth is that we're dealing with a very, very difficult set of circumstances. We're dealing with a global pandemic with devastating health effects all round the world, including here in Australia. We're dealing with a pandemic which is having a very severe impact on our economy and jobs, on people's livelihoods and on families. And, yes, we did have to make very quick decisions to provide the appropriate and necessary supports into the economy and to support families.</para>
<para>We knew at the time, because of the requirement for speed and the scale, that the need for simplicity and speed would mean there would be trade-offs in terms of some of the equity issues that you referenced, Senator Hanson. In this bill we address those somewhat—in particular, the issue around people who previously were earning less and then getting $1,500 under JobKeeper. Of course, we have separated payments into two: if you work less than 20 hours you are on one payment and if you work more than 20 hours you are on another payment.</para>
<para>I would also make the more general point that different parts of the economy are impacted in different ways. It's true to say that some parts of the economy and some businesses have recovered better than others. The design of the ongoing JobKeeper arrangements for six months takes that into account. If you're a business which is fortunate enough to have recovered—if you're a business in Western Australia or Queensland which is fortunate enough to have recovered—then you will no longer be eligible for JobKeeper. JobKeeper will come to an end, as you are calling for, for those businesses at the end of September. But for those businesses which are not in such a fortunate position, but which are employing workers on the basis that they believe they have a future beyond this next six-month period and the heaviest impact of the coronavirus in the Australian economic context, then we do believe that it's appropriate to provide additional support to those businesses on a somewhat scaled-back basis as part of a sensible transition out of this crisis level of support.</para>
<para>But, nevertheless, we don't believe that it would have been sensible to go cold turkey from one day to the next, given the circumstances that Australia and Australian families continue to be in. I'm grateful that there is overwhelmingly a consensus around this chamber that that is indeed appropriate for a further six-month period.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] Minister, I have grave concerns that the Australian people have not been told the truth about COVID deaths in Australia. I have a letter here which is on government letterhead from Dr Brendan Murphy on 8 August. He states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I write to seek your assistance in the reporting of COVID-19 related deaths in your respective facilities.</para></quote>
<para>This was to the aged-care providers in Victoria—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson, I believe we have Senator Gallagher on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Gallagher</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a point of order, Madam Temporary Chair, asking for your direction on the relevance of this contribution to the bill that we are currently considering. I can't seem to draw a link between the two issues and I wonder whether you could explore that with Senator Hanson and bring her back to the amendments.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Gallagher. I would direct Senator Hanson to be relevant to the amendments moved by Senator Patrick, which we are currently discussing.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>When we're talking about COVID deaths—in relation to Senator Patrick's amendment—if it comes down to the government paying out for JobSeeker and JobKeeper, this is all related to, brought about because of, COVID deaths in the nation. That's why we're in the situation that we're in. So I think it's very relevant to actually speak about the truth of the COVID deaths. I think it is very relevant and the people need to hear it.</para>
<para>I'll go back to the letter. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I write to seek your assistance in reporting of COVID-19 related deaths in your respective facilities. Specifically, I'm asking that any death of a resident who has tested positive for COVID-19 be reported immediately to the Victorian Public Health Unit … and the Australian Government Department of Health via agedcareCOVIDcases@health.gov.au. This request relates to all COVID-19 related deaths, including those involving other causes or comorbidity factors.</para></quote>
<para>So he means it's not necessarily to say they died of COVID-19; they could have died of related issues. But we're putting this in the basket of COVID deaths, which is making the people very frightened.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order! Senator Hanson, I think there may be other times during the day when you can make the points you are currently trying to make. I would turn your mind to the amendments as moved by Senator Patrick.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Alright. Well, Senator Patrick and I want to know, with regard to these people who have paid huge dividends or bonuses to themselves in relation to increased business turnover: if these businesses have received JobKeeper over the period of time, will you be asking these businesses to pay back the JobKeeper payment to the Australian taxpayer?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's very hard for me to make a judgement without knowing the individual circumstances of specific businesses. What I would say is that the eligibility requirements for JobKeeper are very clear. They are applied consistently to all businesses. They involve a turnover test. If the turnover test is appropriately complied with then obviously relevant businesses are able to access JobKeeper payments to help support the wages of their eligible employees. That is the beginning and the end of it. As long as the businesses acted lawfully, there is no ground and no reason for the government to seek reimbursement of the funds that have been disbursed under this program.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] Minister, how often do these businesses have to report to the government to keep on the JobKeeper program?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Any business that is profitable, that has recovered and that has the turnover test reapplied at the end of September, as we've indicated, will no longer be eligible and will no longer receive the JobKeeper payment moving forward.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] That wasn't my question. I said you've extended these payments out to March next year. If you're going to keep paying these businesses, how often are you going to be asking them to send in reports on where their profits are or where their turnover is at? You can't just extend it and then allow it to go for seven months. A lot of these businesses actually make a lot of money out of the government, and they're getting paid the JobKeeper payments. How often do they have to report to the government to see if they still comply with the rules and regulations? If you've paid them JobKeeper they've been making profits over these months. You've said you won't be asking them for the taxpayers' dollars back. How often do they have to report? Is it weekly, is it monthly, is it three-monthly, or are you going to let them go for the full six months?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I've indicated in my remarks in response to Senator Patrick moving the amendments, as to the initial six-month period, we said that, once qualified, a business would be eligible for the full six months. The turnover test will now be reapplied at the end of September and again at the end of December.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Patrick be agreed to. Senator Lambie, Senator Patrick and Senator Hanson will have their approval of the amendment recorded.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
<para>Bill, as amended, agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>18</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020, Payment Times Reporting (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>18</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" style="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" background="" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word">
            <p>
              <a type="Bill" href="r6542">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a type="Bill" href="r6544">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Payment Times Reporting (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>18</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm doing this on behalf of Senator Farrell. Labor welcomes the debate on the Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020 and Payment Times Reporting (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020, as we have long advocated for better payment practices to small business suppliers. From the onset I emphasise that Labor supports the intent as a first step in improving payment practices of large businesses to their smaller suppliers of goods and services. As my colleagues and I are all too aware, cash flow and prompt payment times are critical for small businesses. Unlike large businesses, which have a variety of ways to increase working capital, small businesses rely far more on payments and bank finance, the latter of which often involves high interest rates. Yet increasingly in Australia we see large businesses using small businesses as their piggy banks to boost their own working capital position.</para>
<para>Labor has been particularly concerned by the unconscionably long contracted payment times, often coupled with the practice of supply chain financing or reverse factoring. In situations where long payment times are coupled with reverse factoring, if the small business supplier wants to be paid on time, they essentially pay a fee, often to a third-party financier. Labor has been saying for years that this is unacceptable. As my colleague in the other place the member for Fenner noted in 2016:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The reason these companies are squeezing suppliers is simple: it improves their cash flow and makes them money.</para></quote>
<para>That was 2016. At the time, data from Dun & Bradstreet showed that, on average, large companies in Australia are almost 20 per cent slower in paying their bills than small companies.</para>
<para>However, during the COVID-19 crisis we've heard some shocking examples of large companies unilaterally telling small suppliers that their payment terms are being blown out to 180 days or more from the day of invoicing. In fact, just this fortnight we've seen more examples. One of the most egregious is by Premier Investments and Just Group—run by a supporter of the Treasurer, Solomon Lew—who wrote to their small business suppliers saying that due to COVID-19 they were unilaterally extending payment terms to 180 days, six months. What makes this particularly galling is that Mr Lew and Just Group also told landlords they weren't paying rent. They accessed JobKeeper and reported record profits for the financial year. Now we've learned that this company told small businesses they wouldn't pay them for six months.</para>
<para>But Just Group aren't the only ones; the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Kate Carnell, has been inundated with examples of small business suffering because big business refused to pay them on time, and that's not to mention the ones who abuse reverse factoring, where payment times are blown out well beyond 30 days and a third-party financier steps in to pay the bill on time but at a discount. In other words, small business needs to pay a fee to be paid on time. It's outrageous, and nothing in this bill will stop it. Only Labor has a plan to reduce payment times and stop these practices, which I'll discuss in more detail in committee of the whole.</para>
<para>In contrast, while we welcome this as the first step, this bill has clear and obvious loopholes. Labor found it troubling that this transparency initiative originally provided no means to differentiate a firm that pays in 61 days from a firm that pays in 180 days or more. We understand the government will move an amendment to fix this glaring error, which we will support. This bill introduces a new payment times reporting scheme, which requires approximately 3,000 large businesses and government enterprises with an annual turnover of $100 million and above to publicly report biannually on their payment terms and practices for their small business suppliers. The government argues that, by providing access to information on large business payment performance, small business will be able to make a more informed decision about their potential customers. The government also contends that greater transparency on payment practices and performance will create pressure for cultural change to improve payment times.</para>
<para>Payment times reports also include aggregated data on the reporting entity's payment terms and practices, identify the entity and provide other relevant information. Reporting entity reports will be published by the regulator on a central public register known as the Payment Times Reports Register, and a regulator will be created to oversee the scheme. Entities that fail to maintain payment records or provide false and misleading information in a report may contravene a civil penalty provision.</para>
<para>It is at this juncture that we should start to put forward reasons we are sceptical about the government's soft-touch approach to payment times for small business. Internal documents reported on in <inline font-style="italic">The Australian</inline> reveal that the government's planned procurement linked policy has not been implemented to date. Implementation is likely to take place in late 2021. Furthermore, should the procurement linked payment time policy be enacted after this bill, it only provides an incentive for large businesses looking for federal government contracts to pay small businesses within 20 days. Many of the businesses with payment times of 60 days or more are not ones that provide services to government, and therefore the government's three measures are unlikely to have an effect on their behaviour. The bill does not mandate maximum payment times to small businesses, nor does it provide penalties or remedies on invoices that are paid late or with payment times greater than 30 days.</para>
<para>Small business stakeholders, including COSBOA and the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, have welcomed the reporting framework as a step in the right direction, as we do. But the reason it remains a first step is, as many stakeholders note, that the government's argument for reporting involves a belief that small businesses can shop around for large-business customers. Such a belief is not reflective of the power imbalance large businesses have over their small suppliers. Small business stakeholders unanimously welcomed transparency but noted that the framework is unlikely to significantly change the behaviour of most firms. Importantly, it is likely this regime will not dampen the abuse of supply chain financing.</para>
<para>Supply chain financing has attracted scrutiny from the opposition; the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; small business stakeholders, including the small business ombudsman, who issued a critical report on the practice; and, of course, the media. It isn't just Labor raising concerns about supply chain finance solutions; stakeholders across the board are particularly concerned about the increasing prevalence of reverse factoring. Given these concerns, the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Kate Carnell, has launched a review of supply chain financing. In addition, we know that the Australian Accounting Standards Board is already looking into the tiger trap of reverse factoring and will be discussing it further with international accounting standard boards and other regulators. Labor is part of an international chorus of voices concerned about certain supply chain finance arrangements, including ratings agencies and the international audit firms.</para>
<para>It is also telling who isn't raising their voice. The Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, and the small business minister, Michaelia Cash, like to talk a big game on small business but are conspicuously silent on this issue. We've heard barely a peep about the practice from the government. The banking royal commission was a lesson on how our economy has become overfinancialised. We've seen the problems that arise when middlemen financiers insert themselves into the arrangements of small business. But it appears the government hasn't learned anything from this.</para>
<para>In November 2019 <inline font-style="italic">The Guardian</inline> reported that the Prime Minister had a one-hour meeting with a leading proponent of reverse factoring, Lex Greensill, who had pitched the use of reverse factoring in the payment system for public servants. While local and international regulators swim one way, the government swims another. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission confirmed in correspondence to the opposition that it was investigating the use of such arrangements by an unnamed large firm for possible noncompliance with auditing and financial reporting requirements.</para>
<para>As senators in the chamber know, the Senate Economics Legislation Committee conducted an inquiry into the bill. During the course of the inquiry, coalition senators ran defence for the big business arguments against incentives to pay in 30 days. Their only additional recommendation was to review the bill in two years time. In stark but unsurprising contrast it was Labor senators who outlined the flaws in the bill and the areas that need fixing. We will elaborate on these concerns and how Labor's payment time fail-safe mechanism can fix this issue during the committee stage. In the meantime, as mentioned, Labor welcome this debate on such an important issue.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] The Greens have long led on policy and new legislation to help small business in Australia. We care about small businesses and recognise their importance and how hard they work. Indeed, my wife and I have both successfully run small businesses for a number of years; my better half still does. We're small-business people. Ultimately, much of our good work here in the Senate—and I will recognise the collaborative and cooperative approach of politics over many years in regard to small business from both sides of the chamber—has been focused on tackling the power imbalance between big business and small business and indeed the abuses of market power. In a nutshell, that's what we're attempting to do today with this legislation. I concur with Labor in the speech Senator Gallagher has just given that this reporting framework is a step in the right direction.</para>
<para>In the 2013 election, the Greens were the first to campaign for a tax cut for small business, which I note was legislated in the Senate shortly after, in 2014. We also campaigned on increasing the instant asset write-off threshold from $6,500 to $10,000 in 2013 and proposed new loss carry-back provisions. These initiatives provided small businesses with new incentives to invest both in their businesses and in their employees. The instant asset write-off threshold was successfully increased, legislated again after the 2013 election, although I note that initially the new Abbott government tried to wind back the threshold from $6,500 to $1,500. I'd like to think that Greens leadership on this issue sent a clear signal to the Liberal Party and to small business that they had a true ally in the Senate to help get these changes through parliament.</para>
<para>I also introduced a bill to the Senate in 2014 called the Small Business Commissioner Bill 2013 to have a properly resourced advocate for small business with significant powers. Three years later, this resulted in the creation and appointment of an Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman.</para>
<para>Speaking about power imbalances and small business getting bent over a barrel, one of the Greens' most proud achievements in helping small business was leading the campaign to have a bank, or financial misconduct, royal commission to hold the big end of town, the big banks and big insurers, to account. I will note on this point that I look forward to that significant legislation being in this chamber in a few months time. I certainly hope there are no more delays to this critical reform because of COVID.</para>
<para>Many of the recommendations by Commissioner Hayne will help tip the balance in favour of small business, especially in areas of access to finance, insurance claims, fees for no service and financial redress. Most importantly, we pushed for years—since 2012—to get an effects test to reform competition policy in this country. In a rare political opportunity, our friends from the National Party joined the Greens to pass the long overdue and significant reform to section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. I understand that was legislated in 2016. That's a very interesting story in itself.</para>
<para>For those who didn't follow competition policy reform, we managed to get the effects test through because the National Party supported a Greens motion and crossed the floor and voted against their Liberal colleagues on the day that Malcolm Turnbull toppled leadership in this country. It opened up a significant reform that we feel will make a big difference. We could throw in the establishment of a financial ombudsman as well—another piece of legislation initiated thanks to pressure from opposition in this place and ultimately thanks to cooperative politics.</para>
<para>To come back to the legislation before us today: it was a successful Greens amendment to the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Bill 2015 that ensured most small businesses would be protected from unfair terms in standard contracts. We worked very closely with a number of small-business stakeholders over many years to successfully get that legislation through the Senate. That, by the way, included franchise agreements. This amendment increased the coverage of legislation from 80 per cent of small businesses to 95 per cent of small businesses—businesses that were under that unfair contracts legislation.</para>
<para>I don't want to leave this chamber with the impression that the Greens have had only wins in regard to small business. We haven't seen every Greens policy legislated yet. We still continue to push for the small business entity threshold to increase from $2 million to $10 million per annum, as we've seen in many overseas countries, and an increase in the threshold for the GST registration from $75,000 to $150,000 and $150,000 to $300,000 for not-for-profit entities. That, of course, would significantly reduce the burden on many small businesses and their constant requirement for paperwork, which I know is a huge, huge burden for any operator and owner of a small business.</para>
<para>We support any measures that help correct the power imbalance between small business and big business—any measures that level the playing field. We will be supporting today's legislation because this is a step in the right direction. We hope that we see improvements to this legislation. A register provides transparency, but, without further developments—especially in relation to coercive powers and penalties—we remain sceptical that this will tip that power imbalance. The Greens would also like to see more detail around Labor's amendments and Senator Lambie's amendments, if she's still going ahead with her amendments, but we will wait until we get to Committee of the Whole before we will talk on those issues. The Greens will be supporting this legislation today as a step in the right direction, and we look forward to assisting Australian small business as we have done proactively and constructively together for nearly a decade.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STOKER</name>
    <name.id>237920</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mark is a tradesman on the Gold Coast. Yes, Mark is his real name. His business works for builders in residential construction. He's a contractor. In his career of 40 years, he has hired tradesmen, he has hired apprentices and he has hired subbies. He's really proud of what he does. In his career, he has seen this industry go up and down. He recalls with frustration the late eighties and early nineties, during the recession we had to have, where he had in quick succession—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Stoker, you will be in continuation. Thank you for your understanding.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>21</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>21</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Gallagher is correct; the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner does report on a quarterly basis, as is required, and the quality and safety commissioner provides a reporting process to government as well. The expectation of government is that all aged-care providers respond to and comply with the regulatory framework that is in place across the country. My conversation with the quality and safety commissioner is to ensure that the regulatory actions that are being taken by the commission, as an independent agency of government, ensure that they work with the providers to ensure that they are brought to compliance with the requirements of the quality code. That's the requirement. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, as an independent agency, has the responsibility to ensure that it takes appropriate regulatory action and compliance action with respect to what it finds as a result of its inspections and reporting processes. So my expectation is that all providers comply with the quality standards and, again, my expectation of the quality commission is that they ensure that providers do come back to compliance once they have met.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister confirm that, for the October to December 2019 reporting period, standards were not met in 45 per cent of site audits and 100 per cent of review audits? When did the minister become aware of these alarming results and what immediate action did he take in response to this warning?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I've just said in my answer to the primary question, it is the responsibility of the quality commissioner, as an independent regulator, to take regulatory action and to work with providers to ensure that they bring their compliance back to standard. That's the responsibility of the commission. The Labor Party voted with the government late last year to complete the formation of the quality commission, to bring it under one control, to ensure that we—as has been recommended by a number of reform processes—bring it into one organisation that has regulatory responsibility across the aged-care sector. I expect the providers to meet the standards and the quality commission to fulfil its role, which is to ensure that they do.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>From January to March 2020, the latest reporting period, standards were not met in 41 per cent of site audits and 87.5 per cent of review audits. Given that these appalling and shameful audit results came before the series of warnings he ignored, including Dorothy Henderson Lodge and Newmarch House, how can Australians possibly have confidence he will ever protect Australians in aged care?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>All of us have our various responsibilities—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What's yours?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>within the government—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Watt.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and within the regulatory process. My expectation as minister is that all providers comply with the quality standards. That is the expectation of the government, and I expect that it's an expectation of all of those who use residential aged care in this country. We all expect high-quality care to be provided by residential aged-care providers, and that's why we have the regulatory frameworks in place. That's why the quality commissioner has the responsibility for the oversight of those regulatory frameworks and of compliance with those frameworks: to ensure that providers conform with those standards.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Vocational Education and Training</title>
          <page.no>22</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McLACHLAN</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. Can the minister please update the Senate on how the Morrison government's skills reform agenda has strengthened our vocational education system for the road to economic recovery?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator McLachlan for the question. As Australia and Australians recover from the devastation of COVID-19, supporting a skilled workforce has never been more important. In addition to the support of the JobKeeper payment, which, as we know, is seeing around 3.5 million Australians maintain that so-important connection with their employer, the Morrison government will invest a record $6.5 billion in skills, not only to keep apprentices and trainees on the job but also to ensure that Australians have the skills they need to move into employment.</para>
<para>Our $6.5 billion investment includes $2.8 billion in support for apprentices and trainees to keep them on the job, and the $1 billion JobTrainer fund to help Australians upskill and reskill in areas of demand. South Australians will be pleased to know that yesterday I announced, with the South Australian Premier, Steven Marshall, and the South Australian skills minister, David Pisoni, the launch of the South Australian JobTrainer fund, a skills funding boost of around $69 million for South Australia. I congratulate the South Australian government on working with the Commonwealth to ensure that we have this important injection of additional funds into the South Australian economy. That around $69 million will now support thousands of South Australians to transition into further training or employment in areas of demand in South Australia.</para>
<para>The $1 billion JobTrainer investment by the government, matched by the states and territories, builds on the substantial skills reform agenda that we have been implementing since 2018. We have established the National Skills Commission to improve labour market forecasting and skills needs assessments which will inform the work of the JobTrainer fund.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McLachlan, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McLACHLAN</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In addition to this record investment and training, what steps has the government taken to repair the reputation of our vocational education system since coming to government and why is this essential to support a skilled workforce to drive our economic recovery?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The former Labor government, as we know, were the architects of the greatest damage ever on the vocational education and training sector in Australia. They implemented, in Labor policy wisdom, the failed VET FEE-HELP scheme. What did that scheme do? It saw billions of dollars defrauded from vulnerable students, who were simply trying to attain a qualification to better their employment prospects. Colleagues, to date, the Australian taxpayer has now recredited in excess of $2 billion because of Labor's VET FEE-HELP failure. In fact, in South Australia, around 8,500 students to date—because there will be more—have had their funds recredited. Senator Watt, 38,000 students in Queensland have had to be recredited because of Labor's failed VET FEE-HELP policy.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McLachlan, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McLACHLAN</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>How is the government building on this achievement to ensure quality remains at the centre of our skills and training system as we emerge from the economic impacts of COVID-19?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As Senator Wong is saying so eloquently across the chamber: 'Seven years in government and you're still talking about what Labor did.' You see, Senator Wong, when you wreak devastation on Australia's vocational education and training sector, when you actually decimate its reputation, it does take years to rebuild. We have now re-credited in excess of $2 billion because of Labor's failed scheme. There were 8½ thousand students in South Australia who had to have their money re-credited because of your failed scheme.</para>
<para>What else have the Morrison government done to ensure that we restore the integrity to Labor's failed system? As you know, skills is a priority for the government and, as such, we've taken action to bolster the regulator, the Australian Skills and Quality Authority, to ensure that quality training is now being delivered by private providers. That is what we are doing.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>22</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KENEALLY</name>
    <name.id>LNW</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck. Yesterday the minister was not able to advise the Senate how many older Australians had died in aged care this year not as a result of COVID-19 but as a result of neglect. When asked about the deaths by neglect, the minister shrugged and dismissed deaths as 'one of the functions of residential aged care'. Can the minister today outline to the Senate—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, across the chamber! Senator Watt! Senators Payne and Wong! Senator Keneally, I will ask you to continue your question from the conclusion of the quotation you referenced.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KENEALLY</name>
    <name.id>LNW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister today advise the Senate how many older Australians have died as a result of neglect in aged-care residential homes he is responsible for?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have to say again, the dishonest misinterpretation—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>or misuse of my words by Labor again, and the mischaracterisation of what I was saying yesterday, continues in the chamber. Senator Keneally is a master at this. In fact, she attacked the former CMO in a Senate inquiry over the use of language—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, I can anticipate it, but I am going to let you make your point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order on direct relevance: the response is not directly relevant to the question, which is a serious question about how many people have died as a result of neglect in aged-care homes for which this minister is responsible?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cormann on the point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cormann</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister could not be more directly relevant. Just because he's not following the partisan political script that Labor would like him to follow doesn't make him irrelevant.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On the point of order: Senator Wong has a point on the minister turning to characterising other actions of the first senator who asked the question. That is not directly relevant. It is, however, directly relevant that the minister, immediately prior to that, was challenging the way a quotation was used to characterise a question. Turning to other conduct of a senator asking a question, however, is not directly relevant. But the minister is allowed to challenge the way the question was put.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What I did yesterday was to merely state a fact—to state a fact, Mr President—that about 60,000 Australians pass away in aged care every year. It is a sad fact. I don't believe that you could characterise, in any sense—</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Watt interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Watt!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't think that you could characterise in any sense the question that Senator Keneally tries to imply—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a direct quote. They're your words.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Watt!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr President, how do you classify what Senator Keneally is trying to pursue? There are 40 per cent of residents in aged-care facilities in this country who pass away with no visitors. Yes, the royal commission's report talked about neglect. It talked about the system that we have all—</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Keneally interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order on my left!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>that governments over a period of time have not built to a standard that it should be. That is the focus of this government. We want to see all senior Australians treated with respect in a healthy and safe way and ensure that all residential aged-care providers are providing aged care in a way that we all expect. The royal commission's report—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Colbeck! Senator Keneally, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KENEALLY</name>
    <name.id>LNW</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The head of Monash University's Health Law and Ageing Research Unit, Professor Joseph Ibrahim, told the royal commission:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… hundreds of residents are and will die prematurely, because people have failed to act.</para></quote>
<para>Isn't this why the royal commission has characterised the Morrison government's handling of aged care with a single word: neglect?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government has contested the evidence provided to the royal commission by Professor Ibrahim, and that was quite strongly contested by the former chief medical officer and now secretary of my department at the hearing of the royal commission just a few weeks ago. So we contest the evidence provided to the royal commission by Professor Ibrahim. Senator Keneally might like to select one witness; that's fine. The Labor Party can select one witness who suits their particular argument. But the government has been working with the sector since January to assist them to be prepared for COVID-19, which is the subject Professor Ibrahim was talking about, and we quite rightly took the opportunity to contest the evidence provided to the royal commission by Professor Ibrahim.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KENEALLY</name>
    <name.id>LNW</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Morrison government refused to act when the royal commission said it would take an additional $621 million per year to improve the aged-care system. Why is the minister putting off until tomorrow what he knows older Australians need today? How can Australians possibly have confidence he will protect Australians in aged care?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The report Senator Keneally refers to is a submission made to the royal commission recently. It makes an assessment of the aged-care sector based on a number of combined criteria, not the criteria we are using in the context of the assessment of quality of care. It makes a number of estimates as to what the cost might be with respect to the system as it currently stands. But what we're looking to do is to improve the aged-care system. That is the whole point of the royal commission. So the point of that report is to assess the system as it stands now and to give the royal commission and the government some direction as to where we might go in the future, including on a range of issues incorporating potential additional costs under a number of different frameworks—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Colbeck! Senator Hanson-Young.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environmental Legislation</title>
          <page.no>24</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to Senator Cormann, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Senator Cormann, isn't it true that, without Commonwealth environmental protections, the Franklin River would have been dammed, the Great Barrier Reef would have been riddled with oil rigs and whaling in Western Australia would have continued?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Hanson-Young for that question, and it's my great privilege to confirm for Senator Hanson-Young that our government supports environmental protection.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson-Young, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Note that the minister didn't actually answer my question. The environment minister has said that this government will introduce national environment standards after the passage of this piece of legislation currently before the House. Why would we trust that this government would do anything to act in the interests of the environment, when we know that all they're doing is acting in the interests of the fossil fuel industry?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I completely reject the premise of that question. What I would say is what I have said often in this chamber over my 13½ years here, and that is that on our side of the chamber we support environmental protection in a way that is economically responsible. We do want to see Australia continue to go from strength to strength, creating opportunities for Australians today and into the future to get ahead. We want to have projects get up across Australia, and we want those projects to be rigorously assessed to ensure</para>
<para>they comply with all of the relevant environmental laws at a state and federal level, but we want those processes to be conducted in a way that is efficient. That is why we are prepared to entrust these sorts of arrangements to state governments. In Western Australia, that is a state Labor government. Unless you are saying that the state Labor government in Western Australia are a bunch of environmental vandals, I don't know what it is that you're accusing us of. I'm not accusing them of that; I think that the state government in WA has the same objective as us.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Cormann. Senator Hanson-Young, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's interesting that the minister refers to WA, because of course we've seen what happens when there are not strong enough environmental protections: Rio Tinto blows things up. How many times has this government had representatives meet with Rio Tinto or Santos in relation to the Narrabri gas projects to get these laws passed to vandalise our environment?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the issue that Senator Hanson-Young is referencing there relates to state legislation, actually, not federal legislation. The second point I would make is that our government does not ever support environmental vandalism. We support environmental protection in a way that is economically responsible. We want to see opportunities created for Australians today and into the future to get ahead, while we are also preserving and protecting the great value of our environment. But we don't want to lock Australia up. We don't want to prevent further development that is environmentally responsible.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The truth is, listening to the interjections—which I should be ignoring, I know—there is no level of development that the Greens would ever accept. If it came down to the Greens, we would all be going back into the caves. We wouldn't be driving any cars, although I'm sure you got here by a car. We wouldn't fly planes, although you came here by a plane.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Cormann. Senator Griff.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Bushfires</title>
          <page.no>25</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GRIFF</name>
    <name.id>76760</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the minister for emergency management, Senator Ruston. In the past week we have had two reports flagging problems with aerial firefighting arrangements. Yesterday, the royal commission into natural disasters published an interim report which found the Commonwealth's aerial firefighting procurement requires reassessment. Last week, the NSW Bushfire Inquiry report found a lack of aircraft hampered firefighting, including the vital work of extinguishing small fires before they spread out of control. That inquiry recommended a review of the current mix of aviation assets. Minister Littleproud has committed to acting quickly and says the government's financial commitment will be there, but, Minister, what will the government actually do?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Senator Griff, for the question and for some advanced notice on the topic. As you rightly point out, the royal commission interim report in relation to the natural disaster arrangements was brought down yesterday and made reference to Australia's capacity to deal with natural disasters, particularly in relation to bushfires. It also did make the point that bushfires are not the only natural disaster which we have to address.</para>
<para>In relation to aerial firefighting, Minister Littleproud has made it very clear that the Australian government understands that we do need to address aerial firefighting capability on the basis of what is going to be the new normal when it comes to bushfires. In fact, I think the royal commission itself acknowledged the fact that the conditions leading up to last year's bushfires were absolutely unprecedented, but we should never expect them to be unprecedented again. As part of that, the Australian government has made a commitment in this year's budget to over $26 million to the National Aerial Firefighting Centre, and this money will contribute towards the lease of 150 firefighting aircraft. They will be made up of a number of different types of aircraft, some of which will be dedicated to the response to the smaller fires that you refer to, whilst others, like the large, fixed-wing aircraft and air tankers, are much more dedicated to delivering a service to fight fires on a much wider scale. The government has absolutely acknowledged the need for and the commitment to supporting our amazing firefighters out on the ground to deal with what has proven to be over recent years a continuing worsening of our bushfire season. I also acknowledge the extraordinary on-the-ground support that we received from the ADF.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Griff, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GRIFF</name>
    <name.id>76760</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, both reports identified procurement arrangements, which include leasing, which you referenced, as being inadequate. Both flagged that the risk of converging fire seasons will make it far more difficult to ensure access to aircraft. Has the government studied the possibility of having an Australian dedicated firefighting aircraft fleet? And, if not, will you commit to undertaking such a study urgently?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As the senator has pointed out, the changing nature of our bushfire seasons require us to take a new look at how we address the assets we need in order to combat them. One of the things that the royal commission's interim report did highlight was that we need to have a look at that ongoing Australian capacity. As the senator would be aware, in the past we have used leased aircraft for a number of reasons. One is, clearly, that the cost of purchasing aircraft is extremely high, and there is the maintenance of specialist firefighting equipment which may only be used occasionally. We hope that it would only ever be used occasionally. We compare that with the capacity to lease aircraft and also the opportunity to share resources with colleagues and counterparts in the Northern Hemisphere, whose seasons are often countercyclical.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Griff, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GRIFF</name>
    <name.id>76760</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, recommendation 50 of the bushfire inquiry was that the Commonwealth trial the feasibility of retrofitting RAAF C-130 aircraft with modular airborne firefighting systems. The New South Wales government also supported this recommendation. Will the government support such a trial and, if not, why not?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government is obviously very keen to investigate all options, to make sure that we have full capacity for our firefighters come fire season. It's been very clear that the ADF is not trained or equipped or certified to undertake firefighting, whether that be on-ground firefighting or aerial firefighting. Civilian aircraft that are used for aerial firefighting are modified significantly for the purpose of firefighting. Defence's transport aircraft fleet is primarily configured for airlift missions to support military activities. Those are terribly important when it comes to assisting our firefighting activities. However, whilst of course we're going to look at all the recommendations that exist in the interim report, as we will in the final report, clearly the ADF's capability is much better suited for on-ground activity because of the extraordinary requirements for modification.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>26</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck. In its response to the final report on the Newmarch House COVID-19 outbreak, the Liberal New South Wales government determined:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… neither the Commonwealth nor Anglicare Executive had an operational plan for how the residents should be managed.</para></quote>
<para>Why did the minister fail to have a COVID-19 plan for aged care?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As we've discussed a number of times in this chamber, there are responsibilities of varying parties with respect to who controls what particular matters. As I've said before in the chamber, the responsibility for the public health response to a COVID-19 aged-care outbreak lies with the state government. That information is actually confirmed in the agreement we have published on the New South Wales health department's website, and on ours—that the public health response lies with the New South Wales government.</para>
<para>Aged-care providers are all required to have an infection control management plan—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McAllister on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McAllister</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My point of order goes to relevance. I asked why there was a failure to plan. So far I've heard about a public health response. Mr President, I would ask you to ask the minister to return to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm listening carefully to the minister. That was the end of the question, and I appreciate that the preamble was quite narrow. I'm unwilling to go to the exact terminology a minister uses to rule on direct relevance, whether it be a response or a plan. I'll continue to listen carefully.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The COVID-19 National Health Plan, which was released early in March, contemplates a range of health responses, including for those in residential aged care, and is supported by the Communicable Diseases Network Australia guidelines, which provide advice to residential aged-care providers on how they will establish themselves to manage a COVID-19 outbreak. All of these things are considered. So our plan, backed up by the COVID-19 National Health Plan, which was launched in March of this year, supported by the CDNA guidelines, contemplates the cooperation between state and Commonwealth in the management and the public health management of a COVID-19 outbreak, and that's exactly what occurred at Newmarch House.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McAllister, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In its response, the Liberal New South Wales government also found:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… Anglicare had difficulty acquiring adequate supplies from the Commonwealth Government medical stockpile.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Although the provision of PPE is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government, NSW Health stepped in to provide this equipment …</para></quote>
<para>Isn't this yet another failure and another example of the Morrison government's neglect of aged care and of its failure to take responsibility to fix it?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As the COVID-19 National Health Plan contemplates, the national government provides—and this government built a significant stockpile of PPE at a time of global shortage. We do support residential aged care and we do that in cooperation with state governments. In fact, much of the PPE is channelled through state government services to providers around the country. So this is not an either/or situation. Both the Commonwealth and the states support residential aged-care providers, and that is what occurred in this particular circumstance. New South Wales provided support directly to Newmarch House and we backfilled their stockpile. So there is a cooperation and there was a cooperation at Newmarch House. My conversations on a regular basis with the— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If even the New South Wales Liberal government led by Premier Berejiklian—a state which the Prime Minister commended last week as being the 'gold standard'—doesn't have confidence in the Morrison government's handling of aged care, why should anyone else?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor never cease to put words into other people's mouths. They just make things up, assert somebody else might have implied them or said them and then bring them into question time. All through the Newmarch House outbreak, the New South Wales health minister and I were in regular discussion to ensure that we were both asking the questions that needed to be asked to ensure the provider had resources in every sense that they were required. In fact, we worked extremely closely together to ensure that occurred. It was a very cooperative process.</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Keneally interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's a lie, Senator Keneally. That is a lie. I spoke to—</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Keneally interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Keneally</name>
    <name.id>LNW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He took my interjection. So I ask your indulgence so that I can correct the record.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You don't get to correct the record via a point of order. I'm going to carefully review what he said. I heard a word there that would normally be unparliamentary but it depends if it was directed at somebody personally. Senator Colbeck, I'll ask you to withdraw that.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If it will assist, I'll withdraw.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>But I had very regular conversations and discussions with Minister Hazzard to ensure that services were provided at Newmarch House. It was very much a cooperative process all through the COVID-19 outbreak at Newmarch House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Community Services</title>
          <page.no>27</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister Ruston. Can the minister advise the Senate as to the immediate financial services that are available for Australians who have suffered from the economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Hughes for her question. Clearly many Australians have found themselves in very, very challenging circumstances as a result of the COVID pandemic and many of those people may need access to financial tools now or in the future to assist them to make stable and safe financial decisions going forward. To make sure that people get the advice they need we have made available an additional $20 million to scale up the capacity of our existing financial counselling services in Australia. Of that, we've provided $6 million to Financial Counselling Australia. We did this most particularly because we wanted to make sure that they had the ability to train more interns through their financial counselling traineeship so they could get out on the ground and start assisting Australians who need them. This has allowed us to fast-track the time frame in which we are able to get these students accredited. So far I'm pleased to say that 70 agencies have agreed to employ these students to make sure that they are able to get the hands-on experience they need to get their qualifications. Increasing the workforce capacity of the sector means that we as a country are in a position to respond to what we expect to be an increased demand.</para>
<para>I'd also like to take the opportunity to remind all Australians that the supports that have been put in place are there to assist Australians to make sure that when they go through the difficult times that clearly many Australians are going to have to go through over coming months the resources are there and confidential, free advice is available to them. So I would recommend that anybody who finds themselves in difficult financial circumstances contact a financial adviser and get the advice they need to assist them in their negotiations. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hughes, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, how is the Morrison government building capacity in the financial counselling sector over the longer term to support vulnerable Australians?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Clearly part of our response to the COVID pandemic has been around making sure that we provide the resources to the financial counselling sector into the future not just to deal with the COVID pandemic, which we know is going to put many people into financial difficulty, but also to make sure that in an ongoing sense we have the kind of capacity and capability built into our financial counselling services so they are able to assist Australians in the future.</para>
<para>Certainly I'd like to recognise the huge work undertaken through the Sylvan report, where recommendations were made about providing greater capacity in the longer term. It was probably very timely that this capacity was being built and we were providing additional funding to the financial counselling sector to build that capacity because when the COVID pandemic hit we realised the need for those services was going to be very strong. So we as a government will continue to invest in financial counselling services to assist Australians no matter what the circumstances. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hughes, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister advise the Senate how no-interest loans are assisting Australians through the pandemic?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Part of the suite of measures that are available to us through the financial counselling mechanisms that occur in Australia are no-interest loans. As part of our COVID response package, we have increased the amount of money that's available to Good Shepherd Microfinance, who have been delivering no-interest loans to Australians for years. But the most important reason we wanted to make sure that we provided this money was to enable them to leverage that money with other providers.</para>
<para>I acknowledge the National Bank of Australia, who have made available $40 million worth of loan capital on the back of the support that this Australian government has put into these microfinance loans to make sure that loans of up to $3,000 are made available to people to pay for such things as essential household products that they may need and the payment of bills. It also gives them the capacity to access an alternative to high-risk, high-interest products— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>28</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KITCHING</name>
    <name.id>247512</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck. Does the minister agree with the counsel assisting the aged care royal commission, Mr Peter Rozen QC, that the stories of large-scale death in aged-care homes in the Northern Hemisphere in February and March meant:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian aged care sector and the government agencies that fund and regulate it were on notice about the particular vulnerability of the elderly residents in our own care homes.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government and the health officers, the CMOs and CHOs, from around the country were all very well aware that senior Australians were extremely vulnerable to this terrible virus, COVID-19. We all very much knew that it could have a devastating impact. We all knew that. That's why in our plan to deal with COVID-19 in this country, including in aged care, the national COVID-19 healthcare plan, aged care was a significant component. That's why the AHPPC put that document together, to support the government's response to COVID-19 across the country, including in aged care, supported by the guidelines provided by the CDNA to the aged-care sector. It was all part of our plan to deal with COVID-19 across the country.</para>
<para>So from the beginning of the year, from January, we started working closely with the aged-care sector, providing advice on how providers would improve their infection control plans, how they should upgrade their procedures with respect to the utilisation of PPE and how they should upgrade the plans within their facilities so they could be prepared in the circumstance of an outbreak.</para>
<para>The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission also started working with providers to test their preparedness. So, yes, we were well aware of the vulnerabilities of the aged-care sector and of those who reside within it, very well aware. That's why our plan, right from the outset, contemplated a number of actions, based on the AHPPC advice through the COVID-19 health management plan that was issued during February.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Kitching, supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KITCHING</name>
    <name.id>247512</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] Given the warnings of Dorothy Henderson Lodge in March and Newmarch House in April, why did the minister still wait until June to advise aged-care providers that 80 to 100 per cent of their workforce might need to isolate in a major outbreak?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The advice that an aged-care provider might expect to have to replace its own staff was contained in the early advice from the CDNA back in March this year, which contemplated that an aged-care provider might—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order on my left! Senator Keneally, Senator Watt! Senator Wong!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>be required to replace 30 to 40 per cent of its workforce should they be required to isolate. What we saw as the pandemic proceeded was the circumstance at Newmarch, where that number grew significantly. In fact, even the report into Newmarch that we received said that that level of staff isolation was not contemplated—couldn't be. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Kitching, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KITCHING</name>
    <name.id>247512</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] This minister was warned of the need to bolster the aged-care workforce in the 2018 aged-care workforce strategy, the October 2019 aged-care royal commission interim report, entitled<inline font-style="italic"> Neglect</inline>,and in the early aged-care outbreaks. Again and again, the minister ignored the warnings and failed to act. How can Australians in aged care and their families possibly have confidence in this minister?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I completely reject the premise of the question. We acted very quickly to bolster the aged-care workforce through the surge capacity we announced on 11 March this year. So we acted very quickly. Before Dorothy Henderson Lodge was over, we acted extremely quickly because we saw what had happened. We had received the advice of the AHPPC, so we put in place over $100 million in capacity for surge workforce early in March. So I completely reject the premise of the question. We acted quickly to make sure that resources were available to residential aged care in this country so that any facility that was impacted had the capacity to be supported by the government in the form that it needed to continue to provide quality care.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck. How many residents of aged-care facilities funded and regulated by the Morrison government have passed away from COVID-19? How many active cases of COVID-19 are there currently in Australia's aged-care system?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As of eight o'clock this morning there were 462 Australians who had passed away across Australia from COVID-19—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Rennick</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Are you saying he killed them, are you?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and there were 876—</para>
<para>An honourable senator interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGrath</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're a grub, Senator O'Neill, an absolute grub. You should withdraw that.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Please resume your seat. Interjections are unhelpful at all times, particularly when they are of that nature and they descend across the chamber. While I'm talking, I ask senators to remain quiet.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Gallagher</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On a point of order: Senator McGrath called Senator O'Neill a term that I would imagine is extremely unparliamentary, and he should be asked to withdraw it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There were so many interjections, I didn't hear. I'm going to offer the opportunity for anyone to withdraw if it would assist the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGrath</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I didn't hear the word, but thank you, Senator McGrath. Senator Colbeck, to continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>At the same time, there are 876 residents who are currently positive within residential aged care in Australia and 252 staff members.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last Thursday, the minister told the Senate he first realised he hadn't got it right. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">When the circumstances at St Basil's occurred in the way that they did, it was clearly obvious to me that we didn't get it right.</para></quote>
<para>Given there have now been more than 400 deaths in aged care from COVID-19 since this minister first realised he hadn't got it right, how many more deaths will occur on this minister's watch before he finally gets it right?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong attempts to make a very, very unfortunate correlation between the circumstances that occurred at St Basil's—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order on my left!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>She makes a very, very unfortunate and, I think, dishonest correlation between the circumstances at St Basil's—the government has acknowledged that, with 24 hours notice, we didn't have in place the staffing requirements to replace the entire staff of that facility, and there were some things that occurred there that we would have wished had not occurred.</para>
<para>The Labor Party seem to exist in this little local bubble where they don't understand that there is a global pandemic of COVID-19 occurring. There is significant community transmission of COVID-19 in Victoria. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>30</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Attempted Censure</title>
            <page.no>30</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr President, I seek leave to move a motion relating to the censure of the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, as circulated in the chamber.</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion of censure of the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians.</para></quote>
<para>This is a motion which goes to the failure of this minister to take responsibility for the devastating crisis in the aged-care sector, which has caused death, grief and untold trauma for vulnerable Australians and their families. We move this motion because ministers are accountable to the parliament. Despite the protection racket being run by Mr Morrison, Senator Colbeck is accountable to this Senate and Senator Colbeck has been found wanting.</para>
<para>How much grief and loss must be suffered by Australians as a result of the incompetence of this minister? When the incompetence of a minister is measured in the sum of lives lost, when the most vulnerable of our older Australians are the victims of this neglect, when does this chamber say someone must be held accountable? When the consequences for Australian families is the death of a loved one, the consequence for the minister responsible cannot simply be a shrug.</para>
<para>A government senator interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take that interjection. You know what is shameless? His failure to take responsibility and your involvement in the protection racket. That is what is shameless. That is what is shameful. A minister cannot simply about absolve himself of responsibility by shrugging and blaming someone else. He cannot absolve himself of responsibility for death by neglect simply by saying that that is a function of aged care, because the deaths by neglect are a function of the neglect of aged care by this government. $1.7 billion was ripped from aged care by Mr Morrison when he was Treasurer. The situation is so dire that Mr Morrison was forced to call a royal commission into the government's own mismanagement of aged care—a royal commission that summarised this government's care of older Australians in the title of its interim report, <inline font-style="italic">Neglect</inline>.</para>
<para>There were warnings from overseas, where aged care was ravaged well before COVID-19 took hold here. There were warnings from experts and unions representing carers. Carers were given one glove and had to choose which hand to put it on. There were warnings from tragedies already experienced in Dorothy Henderson Lodge and Newmarch House in New South Wales. These are warnings that have still not been acted upon by a government that even now has not produced a COVID-19 plan for aged care, despite more than 460 aged care residents, on today's figures, having died. The royal commission has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Had the Australian government acted upon previous reviews of aged care … the suffering of many people could have been avoided.</para></quote>
<para>Yet even now this minister ignores the royal commission.</para>
<para>Yesterday this government made more announcements. Senator Colbeck, like Mr Morrison, loves to list his announcements. But you know what? Announcements don't save lives. It's delivery that matters. It's follow-up that matters. Until Senator Colbeck delivers on the recommendations of the royal commission, the one word which will always come to mind at the sound of this minister's name is 'neglect'. The royal commission has warned Senator Colbeck it will take an additional $620 million per year to improve the aged-care system, and once again this minister ignores yet another warning. He says, 'We'll wait and see what the final report says.' Well, when lives are on the line, when the neglect in the Morrison government's aged-care system is clear, why is this minister putting off until later what he knows older Australians need today?</para>
<para>Ultimately, this neglect is not just on Senator Colbeck; it's also on Mr Morrison, and we will soon see if it is on every senator opposite. Will they be part of the protection racket Mr Morrison is running for Senator Colbeck? Will they be part of that? The neglect of our most vulnerable older Australians is in Senator Colbeck's name, but it is not just in Senator Colbeck's name; it is in the name of even each and every senator who shields him from accountability. There is no-one on that side who has confidence in this minister anymore. The Senate should do the right thing and censure this minister.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Richard Colbeck has worked flat out—absolutely flat out—to do the best he can to ensure that those residents in aged-care facilities across Australia are safe. Listening to the Labor Party, you'd think that somehow there is no pandemic happening anywhere. Listening to the Labor Party, you'd think that all of this is happening in isolation of any context whatsoever. Senators—through you, Mr President—of course every passing of a loved one is tragic. The minister, like every senator in this chamber, of course is deeply empathetic to the grief felt by families who lose a loved one—in particular, in circumstances where they sadly, because of the restrictions that have had to be imposed to keep everybody else in the community safe, pass away on their own. Of course that is tragic, but the reason we have a particular aged-care problem in Victoria is that we have a COVID problem in Victoria. If you look at the—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is a fact.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cormann, I ask you to resume your seat for a moment. It's not your fault. I cannot hear a word. Your quite loud voice is capable of dominating the chamber. I need to be able to hear the minister. I ask for compliance with the standing orders and if not complete compliance then at least compliance at a level of volume at which I can hear the minister.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It might be an inconvenient truth and it might interfere with your base political strategy in this chamber, but it is a fact nevertheless.</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Wong interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Here is Senator Wong using the sad passing of Australians as a political weapon. You should be ashamed of yourself, Senator Wong. As tragic as the passing of any Australian in these circumstances is, in Australia, by any measure, despite what's going on in Victoria, we are in a comparatively better position. I would challenge you to look at what's happening in the United Kingdom, what's happening in the United States and what's happening in a whole range of comparative jurisdictions and compare the performance of our aged-care system with the performance of the aged-care system in other parts of the world.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Here again, we get the political attack. How much is alright? Of course we want to absolutely minimise the risk, but to suggest that, in the context of a global pandemic which is costing lives all around the world and which is having a devastating impact all around the world, somehow this minister is to blame because of what is happening in individual aged-care facilities is absolutely and utterly unreasonable. Let me tell you, I have admired Senator Colbeck this fortnight. I have absolutely admired him. He has stood here calmly with his usual compassion and with his usual dedication to the job. He's been directly accountable, he's been answering all of your questions and he's ignored your political provocations.</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Watt interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Watt!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You are here trying to use and abuse the tragedy of individual Australians as a desperate political weapon, and it is a sad reflection not just on Labor senators in this chamber but on the Labor Party under the leadership of Anthony Albanese. You should collectively be ashamed of yourselves. Our government and this minister will continue to do what we have done every single day during this pandemic—that is, make judgements about the best way forward in very difficult circumstances. I've sat there in the ERC as this minister has come forward with measure after measure to strengthen our capacity to respond to what is a very difficult circumstance. You haven't seen that clearly.</para>
<para>This minister could be walking on water, and you would still be finding reasons to criticise him because he can't swim. The truth is you will try. You've seen an opportunity. There was a clumsy moment captured on television, and the minister has apologised for not having a set of numbers at his fingertips at that time. That is what you have used to pursue a base partisan political campaign. This is not about you genuinely caring about what is right and what is wrong. This is about you pursuing the partisan political interests of the Labor Party, and you should be seriously ashamed of yourselves. On this side of the chamber, we understand that we are dealing with a very serious challenge. We will continue to do the best we can to ensure that all Australians have the best opportunity to get through this period safely. We are sad that some Australians in the context of a global pandemic will sadly—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Cormann.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KENEALLY</name>
    <name.id>LNW</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Colbeck is not the minister for aged care. He is the minister for walking away. He walked away from this chamber when we were moving our motion the other day. He walked away from a media conference yesterday, refusing to answer questions from the media about the aged-care crisis. He is the minister who walks away from interviews, who walks away from this chamber. Quite frankly, the only place Minister Colbeck should be walking to is back to his office to clear his desk and resign. Too slow, too late: that is this government's response to the COVID-19 crisis in aged care.</para>
<para>When John Howard was Prime Minister, when there was one kerosene bath incident, what happened to Bronwyn Bishop, the Minister for Aged Care? She was gone. Right now we have evidence from the royal commission that Senator Colbeck has presided over—in fact, it's not just evidence; it is a report from the royal commission into aged care. This minister has presided over a system of what? Neglect. He has presided over a system of neglect—neglect that meant when we had an aged-care crisis hit with COVID-19 he had no plan. Don't take my word for it. Take Gladys Berejiklian's word for it—the Liberal Premier of New South Wales. Don't just take my word for it. Take the royal commission evidence that has made clear that in no way, shape or form was the aged-care system ready for a highly contagious virus that could devastate older Australians. One kerosene bath and the minister was gone under John Howard; 462 deaths, 876 active cases, workers who only have one glove, aged-care residents who have ants in open sores, who are malnourished, who are suffering physical abuse, who have maggots in their mouth—</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Payne interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KENEALLY</name>
    <name.id>LNW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will take that interjection from Senator Payne. She said, 'How did that happen?' It is in the royal commission's report titled <inline font-style="italic">Neglect</inline>. It is clear that the cabinet ministers in this government have not even read the royal commission's report called <inline font-style="italic">Neglect</inline>.</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Cormann interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KENEALLY</name>
    <name.id>LNW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister didn't just have one clumsy moment, Senator Cormann. He couldn't even remember if he had briefed the cabinet on the royal commission's report called <inline font-style="italic">Neglect</inline>, so neglectful is he of his responsibilities. But we know that older Australians are being left behind, older Australians are being ignored and older Australians are being neglected by the Morrison government, specifically by this minister, Richard Colbeck.</para>
<para>I want to say to those people watching at home that, when you hear us talking about the word neglect, it is not a word the Labor Party invented. It is the title of the royal commission's report into aged care that was established by this government.</para>
<para>Day in and day out, we have seen the minister in this place really puffing himself up. He talked about the high watermark that Australia has achieved—unbelievable! He talked about how 'the system has performed exceptionally well'. Well, it's not exceptionally well if your family member is one of the 462 people who have died, if your family member is one of the over 800 active cases in aged care. How do you think it feels for the son or the daughter to hear the minister and this government gloating about how well it's all going out there, about what a high watermark Australian aged care is? Come on! When is this minister going to take some accountability? Where does the buck stop in this government? All we have heard today is: 'It's the New South Wales government's fault. It's the Victorian government's fault. It's the regulator's fault.' It's anybody's fault but his.</para>
<para>What we know about this minister for aged care is he follows the example set by his Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, who never accepts responsibility, who hates accountability and who is all about the photo-op and the announcement but never about the follow-through. Well, if there was one group of Australians who should have been able to rely on their government to look after them, it is the vulnerable and the precious senior citizens, our elderly who live in residential aged-care homes. They have been failed by this minister, and the Senate should censure this minister for failing to do his job.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's really quite tragic that the Labor Party seeks to play such base politics with what is a complete and utter national tragedy.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As we've indicated, there are 462 Australians—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cormann?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cormann</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a very serious point of order. We sat here in comparative silence—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We did, during your contribution, Senator Wong, and yours, Senator Keneally! This is a very serious matter. This is a censure motion debate, and to have the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and various other senior frontbenchers continually and aggressively interjecting is out of order at the best of times. But it is particularly inappropriate and a very low way of operating at this point in time.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm taking the traditionally liberal view that motions to suspend standing orders for the purposes of a censure debate allow certain material. After an initial flurry there was general silence from the government side, compared to the previous address. The minister, in particular, sat there and listened to the speeches in silence. I am going to say that the standing orders have a place here, and I have to be able to hear the minister speak—which I was having trouble doing. Senator Colbeck to continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is tragic that the Labor Party takes to playing such base politics with what is a really tragic issue: 462 deaths in this country so far. Unfortunately, because of the infection rates, there will be more. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate has said, there are correlations with the level of community spread. As the government has said, and as many experts have acknowledged, there is a correlation between the level of community spread—the level of infection in the community—and the level of infection that will occur in residential aged care. If we want to overlay the statistics there is a direct correlation.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, in Victoria we had the situation where we got to the circumstance of over 700 infections every day. And, unfortunately, some of those people who were infected in the community were working in residential aged care, and the only way we can completely protect residential aged care from that community transmission is to completely isolate. That's not been done anywhere in the world. But when we consider that 97 per cent of the facilities in this country have not had a case of COVID-19 which has infected a resident, that demonstrates that a large number of aged-care providers in this country have been well prepared—a large number of them. There are a few—about 20-odd—that, tragically, have had significant infections. And, as was put to me by one of the clinical experts in infection control and infectious diseases, by the time the first case of infection is discovered the infection has largely occurred.</para>
<para>So it's a very tragic circumstance. I have issued my condolences on a number of occasions to all the families who are involved for their extremely tragic loss. Every single death is a tragedy—in fact, I wish that every case in this country had never occurred. But we're living in a global pandemic and governments at all levels are struggling with this. We continue to work every day to ensure that we provide the resources and the capacity to protect senior Australians in residential aged care, and we'll continue to do that.</para>
<para>The Labor Party can misrepresent my words and my actions in any way they like; it's not going to change the facts. This government set out its plan for dealing with COVID-19 very early in the outbreak. We started working with the sector extremely early. We did act, and we continue to work with the sector to improve the capacity to provide them with additional resources. In fact, over $1.5 billion of resources have been supplied to this sector to ensure that it has the resources available and the capacity to assist us to work with them to look after the residents in residential aged care in this country.</para>
<para>I reject the base politics that Labor is attempting to play with this. Every single death is an absolute tragedy. And I know, from the health professionals at the AHPPC and the CDNA right down through all members of the government, that they have been working every day to ensure that Australians more broadly as well as Australians who are residing in aged care have the best chance, have the best level of resources available, so that we can continue to protect them. The Labor Party scoff at our national performance, but on a global scale we have as a country performed extremely well. You only need to look at our capacity and the level of COVID-19 in this country. I have to say, I would rather be here in this country than in almost any other country in the world. In respect of residential aged care, it's the same: in the UK , over 20,000 deaths, each one of them a tragedy, as all of the 462 in this country are a tragedy— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Greens will be supporting this censure. We are sick of having Australia compared with global situations. Australians are sick of hearing that. They are desperately upset that so many people have died in aged care in this country. We are sick of hearing that there was a plan when quite obviously there was no plan. You rip a cover off one report and stick another one on it and say, 'Here's our plan.' The planning included self-assessment by providers of their preparedness for the pandemic—self-assessment! And guess what? Most of them said, 'We're prepared.' Well, quite obviously they were not.</para>
<para>We should have had people in these facilities from the beginning. We should have made sure infectious disease control training was mandatory—and not online. It's come to the point where we've got the defence forces there in these residential facilities providing the training that should have been provided from the start. I will admit that the scene for this was set a long time ago; it didn't just suddenly happen. There is the fact that we don't have a sufficient number of hours of provision of care, for a start; the fact that we don't have enough workforce in place; and the fact that we don't even have minimum standards in residential aged care for staffing ratios. All that has set the scene. The fact that funding for the provision of care hasn't been dealt with has also set the scene. The fact that we haven't got it right with clinical care, the balance of which is provided in aged care, is also a factor. But the fact is that we knew that if COVID got into aged-care facilities it was going to have a devastating impact.</para>
<para>Where I will accept international comparisons is where we look and see what happened. There have been facilities that have kept it out. All the facilities in this country should have had an audit, not a self-assessment. They should have had an audit. They should have been prepared for this pandemic, for the fact that it might get into the facilities and the fact that more staff needed training and made sure that we had sufficient PPE—so that people weren't having to share masks, weren't having to use just one glove—and knew how to use it. Then we had the excuse that the staff were bringing it in, that that's how residents were catching it, when in fact we know that healthcare workers predominantly have caught it in the workplace and weren't bringing it into the aged-care facilities.</para>
<para>This has not been handled. We didn't have a plan. We don't a system that's set up to protect workers. And now all of a sudden we will have someone who's ensuring that we have infectious disease control in place in facilities—now. Now we put it in place. Why wasn't that—making sure we had somebody checking that—there from the beginning? We get accused of base politics. It is base politics not to accept and acknowledge that you did not have a plan, that you weren't prepared, that you didn't learn the lessons internationally.</para>
<para>The fact that the regulator does not have enough staff and that the regulator has not been there doing its job also needs to be strongly considered and factored in. A strong regulator in place, a strong cop on the beat, would also have helped to ensure that this did not happen. The fact that we have so many notices now in place on these facilities that have had a lot of infection and a lot of deaths again points to the failure of the regulatory process. And it's not as if we hadn't been warned. I will keep saying it: 35 reports over 40 years—a lot of them on the watch of this government. This was not inevitable, and I will not have it said that it was inevitable. It wasn't! We could have done more and we should have done more.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The opposition does not move this censure motion lightly. In fact, we have been asking questions of this minister and holding him to account for the last five question times, following his appearance before the select committee. We have been holding him to account, and we get accused of base politics. It's not base politics to require that a minister does his job properly. The minister has failed to lead. He has failed to plan. He has failed to protect. He has failed to take responsibility. He has failed to provide an environment where the appropriate level of care is provided to older Australians.</para>
<para>Since this outbreak in Victoria occurred, we have seen the number of cases grow from just a few cases in aged care to its peak at over 2,000 cases across 125 aged-care facilities where older Australians were taken on trolleys, put into ambulances and taken to private hospitals because the system was broken. Older Australians were malnourished, dehydrated and soiled. They hadn't eaten for at least 24 hours. They hadn't had their medication. Their families didn't know where they were. The people providing care to them didn't know who they were. This is the system that this minister oversaw, and this is why we are holding him to account. People are angry. People are upset. People go into aged care because they think they're going to be protected. People think the environment of residential aged care will help their loved ones, will care for them and will keep them safe.</para>
<para>The minister told the select committee that he was first worried about community transmission levels rising in Victoria in mid-June, but action in aged-care facilities didn't happen until cases were well underway and until staff working across multiple facilities had it. The Victorian Aged Care Response Centre wasn't established until 23 July. By then, there were more than 100 outbreaks, with thousands of cases, hundreds hospitalised and the death count increasing. Today, we hear that 462 Australians have succumbed to COVID-19 in residential aged care in a system that this minister is in charge of. That's why we're having this debate today. It's not trivial. It's not base politics. It's real. It's about 462 families who entrusted their loved ones to the aged-care system, and it failed them.</para>
<para>And you were warned. That's the other thing that makes people angry—not just what has happened but the fact that this government was warned. It was warned in October. This minister couldn't tell the select committee whether or not he had briefed the cabinet on a report titled <inline font-style="italic">Neglect</inline>. He couldn't recall whether he'd been invited to the decision-making table with the people who run this government. He couldn't recall whether he had briefed them on <inline font-style="italic">Neglect</inline>! You were warned. You were warned in October, and you were warned every three months by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. Every three months they told you, 'This system is failing.' More than half of their site audits failed, and 100 per cent of the review audits failed. And what happened? What happened was: 'Oh, well. We'll wait for the next one, shall we? We'll see what happens.'</para>
<para>The standard that was most not met was personal and clinical care. Personal and clinical care for older Australians means showering, getting medication, being cared for, meals. That's care. That's what failed. And this minister did nothing. Then he got Dorothy Henderson Lodge and then he got Newmarch House. Then he saw what happened in the Northern Hemisphere. Still, we just kicked along and waited as community transmission rates grew.</para>
<para>You've blamed the Victorian government. You've blamed the New South Wales government. You've blamed the regulator. This motion today—and hopefully the Senate supports it—is about your actions, your responsibility and your accountability for the job you have. It's hard. No-one's saying it's not hard. But we expect you to be able to do your job. If you can't do your job, get out of the way and give it to someone who can do the job, because older Australians deserve that.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cormann</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>24</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                  <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                  <name>Green, N</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                  <name>Keneally, KK</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J</name>
                  <name>Lines, S</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M</name>
                  <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                  <name>Polley, H</name>
                  <name>Pratt, LC</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                  <name>Siewert, R</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J</name>
                  <name>Watt, M</name>
                  <name>Wong, P</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>26</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Askew, W</name>
                  <name>Birmingham, SJ</name>
                  <name>Bragg, AJ</name>
                  <name>Brockman, S</name>
                  <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                  <name>Cash, MC</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                  <name>Cormann, M</name>
                  <name>Davey, P</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hume, J</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                  <name>McMahon, S</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J</name>
                  <name>Payne, MA</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A</name>
                  <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                  <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                  <name>Smith, DA (teller)</name>
                  <name>Van, D</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names></names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>36</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians (Senator Colbeck) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to aged care.</para></quote>
<para>Early in the pandemic, Senator Colbeck announced a scheme that was supposed to deliver 36,000 food boxes to older Australians who were unable to shop safely because of COVID. Just 38 of those 36,000 boxes were ultimately delivered, and, when asked about it in this chamber, Senator Colbeck perversely insisted that he regarded this as a success. That should have been a bit of an early warning sign about this minister's approach to his job, because that scheme was a failure, and that failure was predictable. The CEO of the Council on the Ageing explained that he was not surprised that this occurred, because the program didn't match what older Australians needed or wanted.</para>
<para>Early on, we saw the qualities that have allowed Minister Colbeck to oversee a shocking tragedy in Australia's aged-care homes: his refusal to listen to stakeholders and older Australians; his unwillingness to take responsibility for his failures; his determination to deny facts, to call a fork a spoon, in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence; and, of course, his rank incompetence. You can draw a line from the tragedy that is currently consuming our aged-care system to the neglect that the government have shown this sector over their three terms in office.</para>
<para>They have failed to respond to the recommendations from the many inquiries before them, and the commissioners presiding over the royal commission said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Had the Australian Government acted upon previous reviews of aged care, the persistent problems in aged care would have been known much earlier and the suffering of many people could have been avoided.</para></quote>
<para>It puts it in perspective, doesn't it, when this government insists that the matters that have unfolded in Victoria were unforeseeable. That's not what experts are telling them and it's not what the royal commission is telling them. Senator Keneally asked, earlier in the week and today, how many older Australians have died from neglect. What was the answer today? 'How would we define this?' There are plenty of sources of evidence which could be used to define this. The minister could go, for example, to the reports that have piled up on his desk—quarter after quarter after quarter—which have found that between October and December last year standards were not met in 45 per cent of site audits and 100 per cent of the review audits. There are the reports which landed on his desk which said that between January and March this year standards were not met in 41 per cent of site audits and 87.5 per cent of review audits.</para>
<para>What was the minister's response to these facts? On the basis of his evidence to this chamber today, on the basis of his answers—absolutely nothing. The minister could not point to a single thing he had done or a single action he had taken. But he did revert to type: he did the thing he has done on every occasion when he's been called to account for his failures, and that is to blame somebody else. Today he blamed the regulator. In his answers to question after question after question, there was always somebody to blame. If it wasn't the aged-care quality and safety regulator it was the Victorian state government. Or it was the New South Wales state government, because he didn't like their scathing critique of his mishandling. Or it was the aged-care facilities themselves, or it was the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee—there's always somebody, somebody other than this minister, this minister who cannot point in any concrete way to a thing he has done. This is a minister who can't remember the occasions on which he has engaged the national cabinet or the Commonwealth cabinet on these questions.</para>
<para>The consequence of this unwillingness to accept his responsibility for managing this system and this crisis has been a complete unwillingness to learn from mistakes and to listen to experts. Experts knew that aged-care facilities would struggle to find staff during a coronavirus outbreak, but nothing was done. We knew this from Newmarch House in my home state of New South Wales, but the government and this minister knew nothing, did nothing and did not have a plan to prevent this from happening in Victoria.</para>
<para>The great shame of all this is that one of the most incompetent ministers in this government has been left in place by this uncaring Prime Minister to preside over a sector full of vulnerable people who deserved our collective protection. It is a disgrace. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's nice to hear Senator McAllister acknowledge that there is a Victorian government. During these continual attacks on Minister Colbeck—these disgraceful efforts targeting some of the most vulnerable people in our community, who are being absolutely well protected—these vulnerable people are being put at risk thanks to the efforts of a security guard who decided to get a bit of action during his work, thanks to the outstanding management of quarantine by 'Chairman Dan'. We don't hear any recognition—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hughes! It is not okay not to use people's proper titles. That extends to state parliaments. I ask you to withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw. My mistake—I actually thought that was his title after the six-months grab for emergency powers—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hughes, please resume your seat—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Urquhart</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You can't just withdraw, can you? You've got to—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! When I ask you to withdraw, Senator Hughes, please don't make reference to your previous comment. I would like you to withdraw and then move on with your speech, please.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, I withdraw. Premier Andrews continues his grasping for emergency powers, as he claims that the state of emergency doesn't exist, due to his absolutely woeful incompetence. His management of the quarantine program led to the Victorian second wave—not that those opposite have acknowledged that these terrible and tragic deaths occurring in aged-care homes are because of the second wave. They are occurring in Victoria because of the actions of Premier Andrews and his incompetent cabinet, who are now, thanks to their incredibly poor legislative agenda at the beginning of this year, staring down the barrel of manslaughter charges for their incompetence. It's an extraordinary fact that those opposite have continually failed to acknowledge. You wouldn't know there was a state of Victoria. Luckily, a lot of these people in Victoria are locked away, unable to work, trying to stay safe and keep themselves away from the COVID spread as Premier Andrews gives himself more and more power, increases his reach into people's lives and ruins the Victorian economy—but let's not mention any of that.</para>
<para>It is a tragedy, but of course when COVID gets into the community it's going to get into our aged-care facilities. Of course we had planned for that, and Minister Colbeck had been working across the board to ensure those preparations and plans were in place. We have made sure there is a surge workforce available. Incredibly, many of the other state premiers suggested, volunteered and offered the assistance of workers from their states to go to Victoria—not that Premier Andrews could be trusted to acknowledge that, particularly after his disgraceful efforts in defaming the ADF and the offers that were made there. He seems to think that just because you say it on Zoom it doesn't count as misleading the parliament. But, anyway, that is Victoria.</para>
<para>Whilst these deaths are incredibly tragic, what is also incredibly tragic is the people who are dying alone. And they're not only dying alone in Victoria. People are dying alone across the country because of the actions of other Labor premiers who have implemented hard borders, keeping families and loved ones separated during a time when it is absolutely unnecessary. We have seen an unborn twin die because medical assistance was unable to be accessed. We are seeing a situation at the moment between Queensland and New South Wales that is absolutely tragic. We have boarders at schools who are supposed to be going home for school holidays, leaving areas in Queensland with no COVID and heading to their family properties 15, 20 or 50 kilometres south of the border as harvest kicks off. We've got the first good harvest in a number of years. As I'm sure Senator Davey will recognise here, farmers are finally looking like having a good year. But the kids aren't coming home to help drive the headers or muster the cattle, because if they do they won't be allowed back to school under the absolutely ridiculous and overzealous border closure which everybody can see is politically motivated for Premier Palaszczuk.</para>
<para>I wonder what's going to happen on 1 November. Are we going to get a change of heart from Premier Palaszczuk after the election? Let's hope it's former Premier Palaszczuk by November, for the sake of all Queenslanders.</para>
<para>We are seeing so many people being affected and yet those opposite don't acknowledge what Premier Andrews has done. They don't acknowledge the hard borders and the hardship being created for families on the border thanks to Premier Palaszczuk. We certainly don't hear any acknowledgement of Premier McGowan putting electronic trackers on the ankles of those in quarantine. It is an extraordinary breach of people's human rights, but those opposite, who decry all of these things— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That was a nice deflection from the government senator on that side! We don't hear her saying anything about the closing of the Tasmanian borders by Premier Gutwein, because he just happens to be a Liberal premier.</para>
<para>But I'm not going to have my attention diverted from where it should be, and that is on the minister for neglect. We have seen day after day, death after death, the minister come in here and accuse the opposition and anyone else who wants to hold him accountable for his responsibilities as the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians of playing base politics. Well, for those who are listening, base politics is: when you are a minister of the Crown the buck stops with you. You are responsible. You are accountable and responsible for your portfolio area, and unfortunately—and it is unfortunate—too many older vulnerable Australians have died under Minister Colbeck's watch.</para>
<para>But it also goes all the way to the top—that is, to the Prime Minister. We have known for more years than we can count—since this Liberal government has been in power—that the aged-care sector has been in crisis. We have been calling out for more unannounced visits to residential homes, and what have we seen? No action at all by this government. The minister today could not answer in response to questions in relation to whether or not he could confirm that, from July to September last year, standards were not met in 37 per cent of site audits and 100 per cent of review audits. What is he doing? What is this minister doing to restore the confidence of the Australian people so that they can have confidence, if their loved one has to go into residential aged care, that they're going to be safe? He's not done anything.</para>
<para>You know how there are some television programs that say, 'Call a friend'? Today in question time, I was waiting for the minister to call Minister Hunt. Yesterday it was quite extraordinary that in a supposed joint-media conference, we had the Minister for Health talking over the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians. It was supposed to be for an announcement over aged care—one to put on another bandaid. We know this government is very, very good at making announcements and having a photo op, but they fail in the delivery.</para>
<para>We know that there has been warning for month after month that the impact COVID-19 was going to have on older residents was going to be enormous. Older Australians are all vulnerable, but if you were in residential aged care you were more vulnerable than those people in the wider community. We know there have been failings of this government for almost eight years to address the training of people who work in this sector, we know that there was not PPE available to those who were caring for the most vulnerable in our community and we know their compliance failure has been too high. But we've seen nothing. There have been excuses from this minister coming into this chamber, blaming everyone else for his failings as minister. If you accept the portfolio responsibilities then you have to take responsibilities for the failings. It's not as if the government and the minister had not been briefed over and over and over again.</para>
<para>I've lost count of how many reports there's been into the failings in the aged-care sector, but we've had seven ministers in seven years and each and every one of them has failed to fundamentally fix the very broken system. The fundamental funding of the aged-care system is broken in this country. We've waited seven years and have had no action, and now we have a minister who wants to blame everyone else and accuse Labor—and anyone who disagrees with him and who wants to hold him accountable—that we're playing base politics. Base politics, as I said from the outset, is a minister being responsible for his portfolio area. The Prime Minister is responsible, and gave a commitment at the last federal election that he would make aged care a priority. He has failed dismally. He fails every single day when he doesn't have the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians in the cabinet. That's where the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians belongs. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We heard today that 462 people have, sadly, lost their lives in aged-care facilities across this country due to COVID-19. That is an absolutely tragic number. It represents not just 462 lives but 462 families who right now are grieving and who right now are no doubt really, really distraught at the loss of their loved one, whether it be a family member or a friend. What we've seen here today—and not just today, but for this whole sitting fortnight—is, time and time again, the Labor Party really, I would say, besmirching the memory of these individuals and the families that are dealing with it by coming in here with cheap politics, coming in here with smear and coming in here to make a political point. Ultimately, as much as those on the other side hide behind their bravado and the loud noises that they like to make, they're really doing it at the expense of those 462 individuals, their families and their loved ones.</para>
<para>They come in here with their confected outrage, but really what they should be doing is coming in here and asking questions about what the situation actually is and how things might be improved. No-one on this side is saying that all is perfect. No-one on this side has said that it's all gone to plan. Of course there have been times throughout this pandemic where we've had to recognise and adapt to the necessary circumstances and changes to make sure that we're responsive and are implementing plans that are dealing with the pandemic. But this is a pandemic. These are unusual circumstances. These are unusual times. But the Labor Party doesn't want to acknowledge any of that.</para>
<para>And, as we heard from Senator Hughes before, the Labor Party aren't coming in here and mentioning at all the source of the pandemic and the crisis that is prevailing right now in Victoria. The fact is, because there was no effective control of the virus and of the people who were in quarantine in Victoria, we have had the outbreak that we've seen. It's the preparedness of the state government in Victoria that has caused this problem that we're now debating here today.</para>
<para>I reflect that in Western Australia, thankfully, we've actually managed quite well with the health crisis. Businesses are back open. Businesses and cafes are enjoying great trade. Holiday spots, north and south of Perth, have enjoyed a terrific winter season—thankfully. I was up there in Kalbarri and I got to see some magnificent new infrastructure that's been built by the parks and wildlife department. It's magnificent. But the reality is I'm concerned about whether or not we're actually fully prepared. Because what the WA government has done is put up this hard border and convinced the population that we're safe behind this hard border. And do you know what? The border does provide some protection. There is no doubt about that. But what happens when one of those 450 trucks that necessarily come across the border to bring food and produce and necessary supplies is driven by someone who has the virus, because they come from a virus hotspot? Or what happens if someone breaks out of a quarantine hotel, like we saw over the weekend in Perth? Someone broke out, went down to the pub and had a few drinks. They were from Queensland and they didn't come from a hotspot, but what if that person had actually come from an area where there was the virus and they themselves had the virus? Is WA prepared? Is WA actually ready? Have we got the testing capability? Have we got the capability to deal with it? I wonder whether we do.</para>
<para>What we need to see is a refocussing on our efforts to ensure that we are protecting our states. We didn't see that in Victoria. We didn't see a preparation. We didn't see a preparedness to take the tough decisions to ensure that we've got the capability across the systems to ensure that we lock up the virus where it breaks out. I want to encourage Premier Mark McGowan to look at the system and make sure that we're prepared. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What we have are a minister and a government who have presided over neglect in our aged-care system: neglect of aged-care residents prior to COVID-19 and neglect of aged-care residents during this pandemic. And what we've heard today is a minister and a government who refuse to take responsibility for their inaction. They refuse to take responsibility for the neglect that they have presided over in the aged-care system for seven years. Whether it's about the extraordinary number of aged-care homes consistently failing quality and safety checks prior to this pandemic and this minister's inaction, or whether it's about the warnings of COVID outbreaks earlier this year at Dorothy Henderson Lodge and Newmarch House and his inaction, or whether it's about the tragic deaths in aged care from neglect, in addition to the tragic loss of life from COVID-19 and his inaction, or whether it's about last year's royal commission report titled <inline font-style="italic">Neglect </inline>and his inaction, what we have heard today is a minister who refuses to take responsibility, a minister who has no explanation.</para>
<para>He has no answers. He can't tell us what he did about the 45 per cent of aged-care homes that were failing audits last year, prior to COVID-19. He can't tell us what he did to prevent further outbreaks after the lessons of Dorothy Henderson Lodge and Newmarch House should have been learnt. He can't tell us why mistakes were still being made at St Basil's in Victoria, months later. And he can't tell us why he hasn't acted on the recommendations of the royal commission, which called for $600 million a year in extra funding. He can't tell us what the government's response is to the royal commission's interim report titled <inline font-style="italic">Neglect</inline>. He can't explain any of it here today. He won't take responsibility for any of it. But he is responsible, and this government is responsible, for aged care in this country. He is responsible for not taking action on the warnings that were there—the warnings overseas and the warnings here in Australia, in New South Wales, earlier this year. He is responsible.</para>
<para>We're talking about the deaths of over 460 people, who have tragically died as a result of COVID-19 in aged care in Australia. We are talking about mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and grandparents. These are real people; they are not numbers in a report and they deserve a better explanation of what has happened than we have heard from this minister and from this government today. I cannot begin to imagine just how difficult it has been for the families of those more than 460 people, unable to see their loved ones as they were dying of COVID-19 in aged-care homes. The stories we hear have been absolutely heartbreaking. It is a tragedy. We are facing an aged-care disaster, and we have been facing this disaster not just for weeks and not for months but for years. We have been facing it and we have had warnings. We have had report after report, and we have had minister after minister in this government refusing to take any action, refusing to put plans in place, refusing to take responsibility, refusing to be accountable and unable to explain to us how it is that they believe that they can keep older Australians safe in our aged-care facilities today.</para>
<para>This is a minister who last week literally turned his back on this parliament. He literally walked out on the questions that he was being asked to answer, that he was being asked to be accountable for. He turned his back on his accountability, on his responsibility to the parliament and on his responsibility to the Australian people. The Australian people have lost confidence in this minister, Senator Colbeck. They have lost confidence, and it is time for this minister to resign—to pack up his office and to resign.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion as moved by Senator McAllister be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environment</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Hanson-Young today relating to the environment.</para></quote>
<para>I asked Senator Cormann about the government's plans to rush through legislation that is ultimately going to weaken Australia's environmental laws and to make it easier for big mining corporations and big gas companies to continue to destroy Australia's precious environment and to put in harm's way our native wildlife and animals.</para>
<para>We know that the environment is already suffering greatly. It is in a huge state of decline. We know climate change, land clearing, pollution are pushing our environment and our natural world to the brink. And what do we have from this government? More ways to make more money for these companies while destroying our environment, and it's being done under the cover of COVID-19. I ask the minister: why on earth would we want to hand powers over in the states without any form of strong environmental standards?</para>
<para>We know that big intervention from the Commonwealth government, important intervention from the Commonwealth government, has actually saved some of the most iconic parts of Australia's environment—the Great Barrier Reef, the Franklin. Whaling stopped in Western Australia because the federal government stepped in, when state governments were failing to protect our precious species and our environment. We would have oil rigs on the Great Barrier Reef, the Franklin would be dammed and whaling may still be going on in Western Australia if the federal government at the time had not intervened. Real leaders like former Prime Minister Bob Hawke and former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser stood up for their nation's environment, not like these cowards over here on the red benches, who do nothing but hand over more and more ways for big corporations to destroy our environment in the name of profit.</para>
<para>I'm not going to take much of what Minister Cormann has said seriously, because this guy doesn't really know anything about protecting the environment. Minister Cormann doesn't really care about the environment. I was interested to read in the new book by Marion Wilkinson, <inline font-style="italic">The Carbon Club</inline>, that Mr Cormann's experience with the environment was huddling together on a weekly basis with Cory Bernardi—remember him?—to destroy carbon-protecting, environment-protecting legislation in this place. Minister Cormann has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to looking after the environment. This government simply don't care. They can't be trusted, they don't care and they're trying to make an easy path for big corporations to keep polluting, to keep mining, to keep logging and to keep making profits off the back of Australia's environment and the habitat of our wildlife.</para>
<para>I asked a question in relation to Rio Tinto. The reason I asked that is because the head of Rio Tinto is currently in Australia. He just arrived two weeks ago. He's been through quarantine. I was listening today about all the Australians still stranded overseas trying to get home. Well, we know one person who managed to get into Australia. What is he doing here? He's meeting with the traditional owners in Western Australia who own the caves that his company blew up. He's having to apologise, because we didn't have laws that were strong enough to stop this environmental vandalism. So if there's anyone in this country right now who knows why we need stronger environmental laws, you'd think it would be the head of Rio Tinto. Why on earth would we trust that this government are going to do the right thing by our country's environment? Their track record is atrocious. I call on Rio Tinto to stand with the Greens and to argue that there needs to be stronger environmental protections and to declare their opposition to this push from the government, because they, of all people, know firsthand what happens when there aren't proper protections in place. You know what happens? Big companies blow up ancient Aboriginal heritage and destroy our environment.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>40</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of Senator Fierravanti-Wells, the chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of her intention at the giving of notices on the next sitting day to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in her name for two sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Dairy) Regulations 2019.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Postponement</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that the question may be put at the request of any senator.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the interim report of the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements stated that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is a trusted broadcaster of emergency messages and warnings during bushfires and that ABC managers should be embedded in all state and territory emergency management centres to ensure delivery of critical information to the public,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) emergency reporting during the bushfires cost the ABC an additional $3 million,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the ABC has been an essential source of news during the COVID-19 pandemic with digital, television and radio broadcasts all seeing a dramatic increase in ratings, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Government has cut more than $783 million in funding from the ABC, and the ABC is currently operating with its smallest budget since 1996;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) expresses gratitude for the essential role that the ABC has played in keeping Australians informed and safe throughout the bushfire season and the COVID-19 pandemic; and</para></quote>
<para>(c) calls on the Morrison Government to restore every dollar cut from the ABC budget since 2013.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>41</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>44</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education and Employment Legislation Committee</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>44</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the provisions of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020 be referred to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 November 2020.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that business of the Senate motion No. 3, in the name of Senator Faruqi, be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:06]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>24</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                  <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                  <name>Green, N</name>
                  <name>Griff, S</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J</name>
                  <name>Lines, S</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M</name>
                  <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                  <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                  <name>Polley, H</name>
                  <name>Pratt, LC</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                  <name>Siewert, R</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J</name>
                  <name>Watt, M</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>24</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Askew, W</name>
                  <name>Bragg, AJ</name>
                  <name>Brockman, S</name>
                  <name>Cash, MC</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                  <name>Davey, P</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H</name>
                  <name>Hume, J</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                  <name>McMahon, S</name>
                  <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J</name>
                  <name>Payne, MA</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A</name>
                  <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P</name>
                  <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                  <name>Smith, DA (teller)</name>
                  <name>Van, D</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names></names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Works Committee</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>45</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Seselja, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in accordance with the provisions of the <inline font-style="italic">Public Works Committee Act 1969</inline>, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Department of Health — Proposed fit-out of new leased premises at Fairbairn Business Park, Canberra Airport.</para></quote>
<para>I table a statement in relation to the work, together with an accompanying document.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>45</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Ruston, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the notice of motion proposing the disallowance of the Industry Research and Development (Water for Fodder Program) Instrument 2019 standing in the name of Senator Hanson-Young for 1 September 2020 has not been finally resolved by 12.45 pm on Wednesday, 2 September 2020, the notice of motion shall be called on and considered at 5 pm that day; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if consideration of the motion is not concluded by 5.30 pm, the question on the unresolved motion shall then be put.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Days and Hours of Meeting</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Ruston, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the hours of meeting for Tuesday, 6 October 2020 be from midday to 6.30 pm and 8.30 pm to adjournment, and for Thursday, 8 October 2020 be from 9.30 am to 5.30 pm and 8 pm to adjournment, and that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the routine of business from 8.30 pm on Tuesday, 6 October 2020 shall be:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) Budget statement and documents 2020-21, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) adjournment; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the routine of business from 8 pm on Thursday, 8 October 2020 shall be:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) Budget statement and documents – party leaders and independent senators to make responses to the statement and documents for not more than 30 minutes each, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) adjournment.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>46</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GRIFF</name>
    <name.id>76760</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Federal Government is entirely responsible for aged care funding and regulation,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the many weaknesses in our aged care system have not been caused by COVID-19 – they have been exposed in glaring focus by the pandemic,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the aged care system has long been broken, evidenced by the need for the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety to examine the systemic issues facing the sector including chronic underfunding, under-skilling and underpayment of staff, no minimum staffing requirements, no minimum training qualifications and no transparency with how $21 billion paid to the sector is spent, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) it should not have taken the pandemic to make aged care a political priority;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) on 21 February 2020, Counsel Assisting, Mr Peter Rozen QC, recommended to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, that minimum staffing levels should be implemented urgently to protect senior Australians in care, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) minimum staffing levels in residential aged care, on every shift, with the right mix of skills and qualifications, is a critical part of providing quality care; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) calls on the Government to legislate for minimum staffing levels pursuant to recommendations made by Mr Peter Rozen QC.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Future staffing and funding models in aged care are currently being explored by the royal commission and work is progressing in the department of health regarding the development of a new funding model for aged care. The government will not pre-empt the findings of the royal commission. It is important to take the time necessary to get the aged-care model right.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>46</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Northern Australia Committee</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reporting Date</title>
            <page.no>46</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senators Chisholm, Dean Smith and Siewert, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the time for the presentation of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia on its inquiry into the destruction of caves at the Juukan Gorge in the Pilbara region of Western Australia be extended to 9 December 2020.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>46</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Technical and Further Education</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Polley and Senator O'Neill, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Technical and Further Education (TAFE) system in Australia derives $92.5 billion per year in economic benefits associated with direct operation of TAFE establishments, higher incomes and productivity generated by the TAFE–qualified workforce and reduced social welfare costs,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the costs of investment in TAFE are modest, at $5.7 billion per year, representing only 0.3% of GDP; despite this, the direct tax revenue which is generated as a result of an increase in productivity and incomes is worth $25 billion per year and represents 4.4 times the return on the investment in the TAFE system, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Liberals have cut more than $3 billion from TAFE and training, 140,000 apprentices and trainees have been lost, and Australia has had widespread shortages of critical workers including plumbers, carpenters, metalworkers, hairdressers, and aged care staff; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Government to stop the cuts to the TAFE system and to support our apprentices and trainees – we need to boost our skills at this pivotal point, where we can rebuild our economy with an appropriately skilled work force.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The government rejects the premise of this motion. The Morrison government is strongly committed to ensuring we have a high-quality skills sector that is responsive to industry needs, flexible and attractive to students. Our vocational education and training investment will increase to $6.5 billion in 2020-21, including $3.6 billion in skills programs and employer incentives for Australian apprenticeships, $1.6 billion to the states and territories, and $0.7 billion to states and territories via a set of national partnership agreements, including JobTrainer, the Skilling Australians Fund and the revitalising TAFEs initiative. It's important to note that TAFEs are funded and operated by the states and territories.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>For decades we've seen our TAFE system ripped apart by successive federal governments and state governments through neglect, through lack of funding and through privatisation. This is incredibly short-sighted and destructive. TAFE educates and trains the skilled workers that communities, businesses and industries across the country depend on. TAFEs will be at the centre of rebuilding after the bushfires and the pandemic as we transition to a renewable energy future. A high-quality, publicly owned and fully funded TAFE system is essential for building an economically and socially just society. Everyone has a right to education, regardless of what you want to study and what stage of life you're at. Not only should TAFE be properly funded; it should be free.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Special Air Services Regiment</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) acknowledges all those who paid the ultimate sacrifice while serving in the Australian Army's elite Special Air Service Regiment (SASR) since its formation on 25 July 1957;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) recognises that 5 August 2020 marked the 60th anniversary of the first death recorded on 'The Rock', when Private Anthony Frank Smith (5410311) lost his life during a platoon patrol training exercise in the Avon Valley, on 5 August 1960; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) 'The Rock' is located at the centre of the Garden of Reflection at Campbell Barracks, Swanbourne, Western Australia, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) is inscribed with the name of every Australian SASR soldier who has died while on active service or during training exercises.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gas Industry</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Steele-John, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate opposes the development of any new gas fields in Australia.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The government supports a gas fired recovery, and Australians can be proud of our gas industry. In 2019, Australia was the largest exporter of LNG, with an export value of $49 billion and more than 26,000 people directly employed in the LNG sector. New gas suppliers will help to drive down gas and electricity prices for Australian households and businesses. Gas is an essential feedstock and energy source for many of Australia's manufacturers and it provides hot water heating and a cooking source for millions of Australian households. Australia's competitive advantage has always been based on cheap energy, and gas will be central to our ongoing economic recovery.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that motion No. 764 be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:15]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>4</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                <name>Siewert, R (teller)</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>34</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Antic, A</name>
                <name>Askew, W</name>
                <name>Bragg, AJ</name>
                <name>Brockman, S</name>
                <name>Cash, MC</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                <name>Davey, P</name>
                <name>Duniam, J</name>
                <name>Farrell, D</name>
                <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                <name>Green, N</name>
                <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                <name>Hughes, H</name>
                <name>Hume, J</name>
                <name>Lambie, J</name>
                <name>McAllister, J</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                <name>McMahon, S</name>
                <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                <name>Paterson, J</name>
                <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                <name>Payne, MA</name>
                <name>Rennick, G</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                <name>Ruston, A</name>
                <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                <name>Scarr, P</name>
                <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                <name>Smith, DA</name>
                <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                <name>Van, D</name>
                <name>Watt, M</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names></names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Temporary Visa Holders</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) since Australia's borders closed on 20 March 2020 many thousands of temporary visa holders have been separated from their families, jobs, and homes,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) temporary visa holders contribute significantly to the Australian economy, having invested their time, energy, skills, and passion into Australia – they are part of our communities, our schools, and our businesses,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) many temporary visa holders were invited to Australia under our skilled migration program, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) temporary visa holders returning to their families, jobs and homes in Australia will be subject to the same mandatory quarantine arrangements as Australian citizens and permanent residents returning to Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Government to grant 'inwards' travel exemptions for all temporary visa holders who are separated from either their immediate family (including children, partners, and spouses), their established homes, or their jobs in Australia, in line with available daily travel caps set by states and territories.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Decisions to grant exemptions are considered on a case-by-case basis and must be balanced against the potential health risks posed to the Australian community by international travellers. The Australian Border Force is working with state and territory governments to maximise the number of returning Australians, particularly those Australians considered vulnerable or suffering hardship. Australian citizens must be our first priority. Temporary visa holders may apply for an exemption to enter Australia if they have a compelling reason. Exemptions are considered on their merits, based on all of the relevant facts and, of course, also supporting evidence.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor will not be supporting this motion. While we appreciate the intent of the motion, we don't believe that the blanket granting of exemptions is an appropriate way to handle the cases of those temporary migrants wishing to return to Australia. There are a range of issues facing temporary migrants at the moment, starting with those currently living in Australia. There are also 18,000 Australian citizens stranded overseas who are trying to get home, with 15 per cent of those classified as vulnerable according to the Department of Home Affairs. They, along with the many Australians and migrants in Australia facing difficult times ahead, need to be the Senate's priority.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that motion No. 765, in the name of Senator McKim, be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:20]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>6</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                <name>Griff, S</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                <name>Siewert, R (teller)</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>32</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Antic, A</name>
                <name>Askew, W</name>
                <name>Bragg, AJ</name>
                <name>Brockman, S</name>
                <name>Cash, MC</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                <name>Davey, P</name>
                <name>Duniam, J</name>
                <name>Farrell, D</name>
                <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                <name>Hughes, H</name>
                <name>Hume, J</name>
                <name>Lambie, J</name>
                <name>McAllister, J</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                <name>McMahon, S</name>
                <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                <name>Paterson, J</name>
                <name>Payne, MA</name>
                <name>Rennick, G</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                <name>Ruston, A</name>
                <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                <name>Scarr, P</name>
                <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                <name>Smith, DA</name>
                <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                <name>Van, D</name>
                <name>Watt, M</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names></names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Renewable Energy</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Rice, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) transport accounts for almost 20% of Australia's carbon emissions,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) preliminary estimates suggest that, due to the pandemic, emissions from the consumption of petrol, diesel and jet fuel as at June 2020 have fallen 17.9% relative to June 2019,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) Australia must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 75% on 2005 levels by 2030 and to net zero by 2035 in order to meet its Paris Agreement targets, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the use of bicycles and other forms of active transport has surged as Australians respond to the challenges of the pandemic; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Government to act to permanently reduce our transport carbon pollution by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) investing in active transport infrastructure, public transport, and high speed rail, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) supporting the uptake of electric vehicles, including through investment in renewable energy to power them.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The government has a strong record on delivering a real reduction in emissions, down 1.4 per cent in the year to March 2020. We have strong targets and a clear plan to achieve them. The government's record $100 billion infrastructure pipeline is supporting public transport, including active transport and rail projects right across the nation. The government is also developing a strategy to ensure that consumers are empowered to choose their preferred future fuel technology, whether that is electric vehicles, hybrids, biofuels or hydrogen.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Forestry Industry</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before moving motion No. 767, I would like to advise that Senators Brockman, Askew, Van, Chandler, McKenzie, Canavan, McMahon, Davey and McDonald would like to have their names added to this motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators Brockman, Askew, Van, Chandler, McKenzie, Canavan, McMahon, Davey and McDonald, move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that a report used by the Australian Greens to assert that forestry operations cause bushfires has been retracted and withdrawn after insistence from the academic community;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) further notes that the withdrawal of this paper was required because of the number of significant errors and wrong conclusions and that it did not meet the standard for 'high-quality scientific works' as required by the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) condemns the Australian Greens and the Bob Brown Foundation for consistent use of bodgy science to attempt to back-up their falsehoods about forestry; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) calls on the Bob Brown Foundation and the Australian Greens to apologise to the hardworking men and women of the forestry industry that they use misinformation to demonise.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr President, Senator Whish-Wilson seeks leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] This motion is not only rubbish; it's childish and it's disrespectful. Senator Duniam and his government consistently attack, criticise and ignore scientists and cut science funding. The study referred to in this motion is not alone in concluding native forest logging practices increase fire risk. There are other respected studies. This study was withdrawn because of problems with access to data withheld by Forestry Tasmania. The Tasmanian Liberals need to make this data and these fire maps available and let the scientific process take its course, rather than allow science and research to be politicised by Senator Duniam. If the Liberals started listening to scientists like Dr Matthew Webb in Tasmania, whose research highlighted the devastating risk logging presents to threatened species like the swift parrot, the industry might have a chance of ultimately getting FSC approval. Senator Duniam and his government— (<inline font-style="italic">Time expired</inline>)</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that motion No. 767 be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:26]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>35</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Antic, A</name>
                <name>Askew, W</name>
                <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                <name>Bragg, AJ</name>
                <name>Brockman, S</name>
                <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                <name>Cash, MC</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                <name>Davey, P</name>
                <name>Duniam, J</name>
                <name>Farrell, D</name>
                <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                <name>Griff, S</name>
                <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                <name>Hughes, H</name>
                <name>Hume, J</name>
                <name>Lambie, J</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                <name>McMahon, S</name>
                <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                <name>Paterson, J</name>
                <name>Payne, MA</name>
                <name>Polley, H</name>
                <name>Rennick, G</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                <name>Ruston, A</name>
                <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                <name>Scarr, P</name>
                <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                <name>Smith, DA (teller)</name>
                <name>Urquhart, AE</name>
                <name>Van, D</name>
                <name>Watt, M</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>4</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                <name>Siewert, R (teller)</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names></names>
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Drought</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I, and also on behalf of Senators McKenzie, Canavan and McMahon, move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) that many drought affected communities in the eastern states have recently seen much ­needed rainfall, and many farmers are reporting good winter crops,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) that severe drought remains in many parts of western New South Wales and southern Queensland, and Western Australia is coming into drought,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) that farmers and their communities will continue to need support, both during drought and in the recovery, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the importance of developing programs that contribute to boosting community leadership, connectedness and collaboration, which build drought resilience;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) commends the Liberal and National Government for committing more than $10.8 billion to farmers and communities in drought, including more than $300 million through the Drought Communities Program, more than $460 million through the Farm Household Allowance, and $180 million through the Drought Communities Support Initiative; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) also commends the Liberal and National Government for further support in helping communities build drought resilience through the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) Networks to build Drought Resilience Program, which will increase the presence and reach of community networks working together to build drought resilience, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) Drought Resilience Leaders Program, which will provide drought resilience leadership courses to young and emerging leaders in rural, regional and remote communities.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor will not be supporting this motion. Rather than writing self-congratulatory motions, Nationals senators should focus their attention on drought affected farmers and their communities that continue to do it tough through a drought that their motion acknowledges remains severe and ongoing in many parts of Australia.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the Nationals for bringing the current state of the drought across the country and the value of supporting farming communities to the attention of the Senate. However, the Greens fundamentally disagree with this motion, because the coalition has failed farmers. The climate emergency is already costing farmers a billion dollars a year, and farmers are feeling the brunt of the devastating heat, drought and fires more than most. They will be going bankrupt across the country, and regional jobs are going to be devastated by the climate crisis if we have a gas led recovery and if the government keeps propping up coal. The coalition should be ashamed of themselves. Of course we support the little they're doing, but we call on them, instead of passing self-congratulatory motions, to tackle devastating drought seriously by taking serious action on our climate crisis.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>One Nation supported these programs and will support this motion. Our sense and integrity, though, mean that we need to go further, because the best drought resilience programs are not training programs on leadership. The best drought resilience programs are (1) water from dams; (2) restoration to, or compensation for, farmers who lost their rights to use the land they had bought and they owned when the Howard Liberal-Nationals government stole farmers' property rights to use their land in order for government to comply with the United Nations 1996 Kyoto protocol; (3) lower electricity costs; and (4) productive infrastructure. We must improve and restore Australia's productive capacity and economic resilience after years of governments handing sovereignty to UN treaties, protocols, declarations and agreements. Yesterday, in answer to my questions, Senator Cormann clearly and repeatedly put compliance with overseas agreements ahead of the needs of Australian citizens. Parliament and political parties must start to put the needs of Australians first— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr President, I ask that the Greens' opposition to that motion be recorded.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Absolutely. It is so recorded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>52</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, 18 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question on which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator McCarthy:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The crisis in aged care caused by Minister Colbeck's failure to listen to warning after warning and to have a COVID-19 plan for aged care, instead responding to the pandemic with self-congratulation and hubris, turning his back on scrutiny and dismissing deaths by neglect as a 'function' of aged care.</para></quote>
<para>Is the proposal supported?</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on this matter of public importance: the crisis in aged care caused by Minister Colbeck's failure to listen to warning after warning and to have a COVID-19 plan for aged care, instead responding to the pandemic with self-congratulation and hubris, turning his back on scrutiny and dismissing deaths by neglect as a function of aged care.</para>
<para>Firstly, let me acknowledge the incredible tragedy that's facing families across the country—the significant number of deaths in aged-care facilities, with more than 450 older Australians having died, in either residential aged care or other aged-care settings, as a result of COVID-19. I remind those opposite that we are talking about real people, not numbers in a report. These were Australians with families, friends, memories and stories of lives lived, who contributed to our society—people like Maria Rukavina, the little girl who hid in a haystack from enemy troops and survived World War II and who passed away on the other side of the world. She was a resident of St Basil's Homes for the Aged and she died of COVID-19. People like Maria and her family deserve our respect and care.</para>
<para>First Nations people look at our old people as our elders. They are our elders: they are the carriers of our stories, our families' stories, our culture and our kin, passed down from generation to generation. I want to tell the Senate about one elder, Ms Numamurdirdi, a traditional owner from Numbulwar, who, since March 2018, lived in residential aged care in Darwin 800 kilometres from her home. She was one of 52 witnesses who gave evidence to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety when it was in Darwin in July last year. Ms Numamurdirdi was supported to give evidence by her doctor, Dr Meredith Hansen-Knarhoi, a general practitioner with Danila Dilba Health Service, an Aboriginal community controlled organisation providing primary health care and community services in Darwin and the surrounding areas. She told the commission it was difficult for Ms Numamurdirdi to maintain contact with her family in Numbulwar, on the far eastern side of the Northern Territory. It took some months to arrange a mobile phone for her, and, despite exploring options, it was not possible at all over that period of time for Ms Numamurdirdi to return to Numbulwar. In a video statement to the royal commission in July, Ms Numamurdirdi described how she felt living away from her family and country. These are her words:</para>
<quote><para class="block">My heart is crying because I far away from my family… Because if I pass away here, I've got my spirit, my culture, my ceremony way back… at home and my family, they don't want that way, because we've got everything there in the home. And if we pass away, culture there, our spirit. That is my family, because I'm the eldest out of my family and that's my mother land Numbulwar.</para></quote>
<para>Sadly, Ms Numamurdirdi passed away not too long ago. She was not able to return to her country of Numbulwar. When elders and older people are away from country it doesn't just affect the individual; it has consequences for families and communities, who miss out on being the recipients of cultural knowledge. Why do I share this story with the Senate? Because it's about aged care. It's about the care of our elders right across Australia—not just in southern Australia but right across this country. The responsibility for all our aged care across Australia comes right back here to this parliament. Indeed, it is Australia as a whole that suffers when that knowledge of our elders is gone.</para>
<para>Ms Olga Havnen, the Chief Executive Officer of Danila Dilba Health Service, told the commission in Darwin:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The point I really want to emphasize is that Aboriginal people have by far the most complex health conditions, complex level of needs and who actually receive the least level of service, and these things are not new. We have talked about it for decades…</para></quote>
<para>One of the things we were incredibly concerned about and still are, certainly in northern Australia and the Northern Territory, is the impact of COVID-19 and the possible impact of COVID-19 on our First Nations people. Just like our elders, the First Nations people have been considered one of the most vulnerable groups in our community. I raise this issue with the Senate because, again, aged care is the responsibility of the Commonwealth government. We have a minister here who has not talked about a report from that royal commission which these members of the Northern Territory constituency gave evidence to. This minister, Senator Colbeck, could not even remember if he took that report titled <inline font-style="italic">Neglect</inline> into the cabinet to talk about it with the Morrison government and the cabinet ministers. That report came down in October 2019. These constituents in the Northern Territory gave passionate evidence about the failings of the aged-care system. This parliament was given notice back in October 2019.</para>
<para>But that's go back even a few more years before that, to the database of workers. That report about aged care and the workforce sat on the desks of our Prime Minister and his fellow ministers. They were warned about the failings in the aged-care system, and today is about facing the reckoning and the responsibility, or lack thereof, of this minister. The royal commission heard about the stark challenges faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in terms of poverty, food insecurity, difficulties in accessing services, lack of culturally safe and secure services and the distances from services. The <inline font-style="italic">Neglect</inline> report found that the aged-care system fails to meet the need of older, vulnerable citizens. Read that report!</para>
<para>It impacts, even now, as every single day goes by. It found that the aged-care sector does not deliver uniformly safe and quality care. It's unkind and uncaring towards older people and, in too many instances, it neglects them. For those in the sector, this is not new; this is something they've been talking about for decades, and yet the Morrison government has chosen to ignore the royal commission that the Prime Minister set up. It has ignored the warnings from experts and unions and it has ignored the warnings from the tragedies already experienced at Dorothy Henderson Lodge and Newmarch House. This is a system that puts profit above people.</para>
<para>The truth is that after seven years of neglect, Australia's aged-care system was broken long before COVID-19. The Morrison government is in charge of aged care: the Morrison government regulates aged care and it funds aged care. And the Morrison government has the legislation which determines the quality of the aged care that older Australians get in this country. When Mr Morrison was the Treasurer he cut $1.7 billion from aged-care providers. The Aged Care portfolio has churned through seven ministers over seven years—Minister Andrews, Minister Fifield, Minister Morrison, Minister Ley, Minister Wyatt, Minister Hunt and Minister Colbeck. If things are not working—if systems are not working—the Morrison government is ultimately responsible for this. The buck stops with the Prime Minister.</para>
<para>The Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck, has admitted that the federal government has no idea about how many aged-care employees are working across multiple sites, despite the serious risks of this issue. This is critical to preventing the spread of infection. The aged-care workforce is casualised, insufficiently remunerated and has no entitlement to paid sick leave. It means that workers work in multiple aged-care centres. The minister has also admitted that the Morrison government's regulator ceased unannounced visits to aged-care homes at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. This minister needs to go. He needs to take responsibility and go.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This virus, COVID-19, has drastically changed the world we live in and the way we live our lives. But, as a government, we are working to keep Australians safe and to prevent the further spread of COVID-19. We understand that we need to do everything we can to prevent COVID-19 from spreading to vulnerable Australians, and this government is working with aged-care providers and state and territory public health authorities to support arrangements to manage infection control and COVID-19 outbreaks.</para>
<para>This has been an extremely difficult time for Australians, and we offer our deep condolences to those families who have lost loved ones. As a government, we've been building on our response to COVID-19 in residential aged care since January 2020. Since the beginning of the pandemic the federal government has announced funding of more than $1 billion in new measures to respond to the impacts of COVID-19 on aged care. Overall the Morrison government is delivering record investment across the aged-care system over the forward estimates, from $13.3 billion in financial year 2013 under Labor and growing to $21.4 billion last financial year under a coalition government. That is, on average, $1.2 billion of extra support for older Australians each year over the forward estimates.</para>
<para>It's important to note when considering our COVID-19 response, particularly as it pertains to aged care, that we're incorporating learnings from not only our country's own experience of this issue but also the experiences of other countries in order to provide a wider understanding of the virus, its impact on aged care, and effective control measures. We are taking all the advice and using all the information available to us to inform the aged-care response to COVID-19, which has been closely incorporated into the health response to the pandemic and is a critical part of the health pandemic plan. Across the country, 97 per cent of aged-care facilities have not had an outbreak of COVID-19, and we are working incredibly hard to try to keep it that way.</para>
<para>Making improvements to aged care for all senior Australians has always been a priority of the Morrison coalition government, and it continues to be a priority. That is why the Prime Minister called a royal commission into aged-care quality and safety. Our recent track record in improving aged care, including since the royal commission was called, is extensive. Since the 2018-19 budget we've invested $3 billion into home care packages to support more Australians to remain living in their own homes for longer. That's an increase of more than 50,000 home care packages. We've released almost 15,000 new residential care packages, including 13½ thousand residential places and 775 short-term restorative care places. We're investing $5.3 billion from 1 July this year to June 2022 for existing Commonwealth home support program service providers to ensure continuity of in-home support services for more than 800,000 clients across Australia. We've invested $21.9 million for My Aged Care operating costs. We've provided a $320 million boost to residential aged-care subsidies. We've given providers who are operating residential and home care access to independent business advisory services—and so much more. Unfortunately, in this debate I'm not hearing from those on the other side much mention of this great work that this government has done.</para>
<para>Recently the Morrison government announced a scale-up of aged-care support programs in Victoria and across Australia, with an additional $171.5 million. This provides a new funding boost for a new COVID-19 response plan as agreed by national cabinet last week. It demonstrates that we are continually assessing and adapting to this situation, on the basis of the best medical advice, to protect older Australians. Funding will be used to continue current programs for infection control training and surge workforce staff, alongside greater compliance by the aged-care commissioner and coordinated response centres. As I said in my initial remarks, we understand that we need to do everything we can to prevent COVID-19 from spreading to vulnerable Australians, and we are committed to working with aged-care providers and the state and territory authorities to try to get this outbreak under control. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make a contribution to this matter of public importance debate. I articulated earlier in this place today how concerned we are about the failures in aged care in this country, particularly as it relates to the COVID crisis and the number of deaths that have occurred in aged care in this country and the fact that this government appears to see it as, 'Well, it's less than in Europe'—to justify it because it's less than what's happened in Europe and other countries and as if it is an inevitability. Well, it's not an inevitability. The fact is that we didn't have a plan. We had a lack of preparation. We haven't had enough money invested in aged care. We lack the workforce. We lack a surge workforce. We don't provide the hours of care that people need when they are in aged care. Those are just a few of the things that need to be addressed and that have led to the failures to adequately protect older Australians in residential aged care.</para>
<para>What I want to focus on here are the issues around our regulator. We don't think that the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission is adequately supported or resourced, or has the appropriate regulatory powers to fully enforce standards in aged care. COVID-19 has further exposed the already significant problems in aged care and the significant problems with our existing regulatory framework—and, in fact, our approach to regulation. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission has been perfectly happy with assessing providers' readiness for COVID-19 through self-assessment tools and phone contacts. That is clearly inappropriate in the face of the potential impact of COVID on older Australians in aged care. They must have known about the significant problems we have in our aged-care sector in this country: the lack of staff, the fact that we are still arguing about whether we should have a nurse in the facility 24/7 and the fact that there is still conflict over provision of clinical care. They must have known that these problems were there.</para>
<para>I think it's incredibly telling how the commission has approached regulation in general. It is simply not appropriate to use self-assessment tools and phone contact to regulate in the face of this pandemic. The tick-box approach around assessing aged-care quality has been known to experts in the sector for years now. I've had constant complaints about it. People in the sector will openly tell you that quality assessors are not adequately equipped to do their jobs. They often don't have the capacity to observe outcomes and factors contributing to substandard quality care. In fact, in a submission to the aged-care royal commission in June, the CPSU said that nearly 60 per cent of assessors felt ill-equipped to identify gaps in care because they didn't have enough time on site to identify problems. The CPSU also noted that without additional staff to share the workload of monitoring aged-care assessments will continue to be rushed, while care is poor. One staff member told the union:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We often feel we are regulating with our hands tied behind our backs. We are not allowed to photographically record information, copy and take information, audio record key interviews. The Commission is a bit toothless in holding providers to account …</para></quote>
<para>Another assessor said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… there is no real penalty to failing the meet Standards. Just the inconvenience of additional visits from the Commission …</para></quote>
<para>It is crystal clear that the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission has failed to properly investigate facilities during the outbreak of COVID-19. I strongly believe that the decision to cease unannounced visits was the wrong decision. The regulator should have been there to make sure these facilities were up to scratch. The commission is underresourced and understaffed, not only to deal with this pandemic but also the fundamental problems in aged care. As at 31 August, Australian Defence Force personnel had visited a total of 252 aged-care facilities. In contrast, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission had conducted spot-checks and carried out 118 checks. This means the ADF are conducting more than double the amount of checks on our aged-care facilities. While that is a good thing, you would think the people with the expertise should be the ones in there. It is obvious that the commission doesn't have enough staff to inspect every single facility and undertake the spread of the work that needs to be done.</para>
<para>The minister told us at a COVID committee hearing in August that if the commission requires additional resources then the government will provide them. If that's the case, why isn't the minister providing the commission with significant extra resources and funding to bolster its workforce and let it do the regulation properly? Many stakeholders in the aged-care sector—including COTA, OPAN and the AMA—have been calling for a strengthening of the commission's functions and powers since it was established. The Greens have also been calling for this. In fact, we tried to amend legislation passed by the Senate last year to strengthen the commission's powers.</para>
<para>It is imperative that the government immediately look at how the commission can be strengthened and better resourced to support facilities throughout the pandemic and beyond COVID-19. This is yet another failure of this government in adequately ensuring that our regulator had the teeth, the powers, the funding and the resources to make sure that it could properly regulate this sector so the sector was in the best state possible as it faced this pandemic. It is unacceptable that this continue any longer.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There have been a lot of words thrown around this chamber in the last couple of speeches and through the debate we've had not just today but also over the last couple of days, and there will be a lot of words thrown around in the weeks ahead. Labor's been accused of confecting outrage over the deaths of vulnerable Australians. Labor's been accused of using cheap politics. There's nothing cheap about the lives of vulnerable Australians.</para>
<para>When the minister today was given an opportunity to explain himself, he referred to the motion in the Senate as 'tragic'. It is tragic that vulnerable Australians relied on this minister and relied on this government to take care of them during this outbreak, because we know that there were warnings, we know that the government received a report entitled <inline font-style="italic">Neglect</inline>and we know that there were warnings of outbreaks and what outbreaks would do in an aged-care facility and to older Australians. But still this government and this minister didn't have a plan, and now they're trying to shift blame, shift responsibility and direct focus away from where it should be. Where it should be is on this minister and his job, and he should be resigning.</para>
<para>Under this government's watch, 450 aged-care residents have died, and there are currently 890 active cases in residential aged care. These aren't just numbers. This isn't a debate just about numbers. These are real people, family members and elderly residents. Our most vulnerable Australians are dying without their families by their sides because this government failed to develop a plan for the aged-care sector. The lack of a plan culminated in a situation where a third of all COVID deaths in Australia have occurred in aged-care homes, but we know that the government was warned.</para>
<para>There is only one word to sum up this government's response, and it is 'neglect'. They had a report entitled <inline font-style="italic">Neglect</inline>. They knew. They had warnings. And now they want to shirk responsibility. It is very difficult for this government to shirk responsibility when they had warning after warning that this would happen. The warning bells were ringing in March, but the government wasn't listening. It is now September, and their inaction has been staggering.</para>
<para>The other curious thing that has happened as the aged-care minister walked away from responsibility and shrugged off responsibility in this chamber is those opposite having to come to his defence. In doing so, they've made one of the most illogical, circular arguments I think I've ever heard in this chamber. First of all they say, 'We've listened to the best medical health advice about aged-care failures, and it's heaps worse in other countries, so we're doing okay.' Then they say, 'Actually, this is a result of community transmission in Victoria.' They want to lay the blame on somebody else—on another government and on other people who are not responsible for aged care. Then they say, 'Victoria needs a road out of lockdown.' They say, 'Premiers need to stop making political decisions about borders.' They say, 'Premiers aren't listening to health advice and expert advice.'</para>
<para>Can I tell you that one of the reasons that people in other states are terrified about COVID-19 coming into their community is that this government is responsible for aged-care and they know that this government and this minister will not take care of them. So instead of trying to shrug the blame off onto someone else, why don't you do your job? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator VAN</name>
    <name.id>283601</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to Senator McCarthy for moving this motion. There is no doubt that in the current environment any death relating to COVID-19 is tragic and that older Australians are the most vulnerable to its impacts. In this debate, we mustn't forget the tragic losses that families, friends and loved ones are experiencing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, for the sixth time in this sitting period, the Australian Labor Party have come into this chamber and set up a debate that seeks to shift blame away from their own failings in aged-care policy. For the sixth time this sitting period, the Australian Labor Party have come into this chamber and tried to protect their Victorian mates from accountability for their systemic failings. Is this just another union protection racket for the Victorian Labor Party? There have been failings in quarantine that have seen community transmission spread right across the state and force the most severe lockdown conditions in Australia and failings in governance that have seen the wrong departments running the hotel quarantine, the refusal of Australian Defence Force resources and the catastrophic underresourcing of contact tracing.</para>
<para>For the sixth time this sitting period, the Australian Labor Party have come into this chamber and ignored the facts from the government by continuing to argue there was no plan in place. I'm very pleased to say that on 24 August the Liberal Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, provided a detailed response to the Leader of the Opposition about the plan. Those opposite in this chamber have clearly not followed what has already been said in the other place. As such, for the benefit of those opposite, I would like to seek leave to table the Prime Minister's answers.</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator VAN</name>
    <name.id>283601</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I expected that, because they don't want to listen to the answers. It is clear that those opposite do not want to listen to facts. They do not care about the facts or good policy. For those opposite, this is about politics, grandstanding and trying to get a news grab. Well, shame on you.</para>
<para>I'll tell you what, on this side of the chamber we do care about facts. We do care about the truth, and no matter how often the Labor Party want to deny the existence of a plan, the evidence is clear.</para>
<para>An opposition senator interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator VAN</name>
    <name.id>283601</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Give me leave to table it, Senator. I've got it right here for you. You can read it any time. I'll drop it around to your office. There was always a plan, and you know it. The fact that you won't give me leave just proves it.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Green</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a point of order. If the senator could direct his comments through the chair, that would be appreciated. And I note that the document he is seeking to table is a matter of public record. It's not necessary—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's not a point of order, Senator Green. Senator Van, could you direct your comments through the chair, please.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator VAN</name>
    <name.id>283601</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I said earlier in my comments and as I have said on three occasions, all my comments so far have been through the chair. It is curious—through you, Chair—that each time those opposite decide to bring this debate on, there is not one Victorian senator leading the charge on their side. Where are they? What are they hiding from? They're just not about to take any accountability for what's happened in Victoria. Not once have I heard one Labor senator even mention the word 'Victoria'. This is despite the alleged failing of aged care in their home state. I note that Senator Walsh has been the only Labor senator to be brave enough to come into this chamber and debate this issue; although I do note she did not mention Victoria once. I do wonder where the rest of her Victorian ALP Senate colleagues are? We saw Senator Carr earlier, so we know where he is. Senators Kitching and Ciccone—not there. I haven't heard anything from Senator Rice—she is attending virtually—on this issue. We have had Labor senators from the ACT, New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania, Western Australia and now the Northern Territory but no Victorians. Is it because, as Victorians, they're too ashamed of Dan Andrews to come into this place and defend his appalling record? There is nothing more hypocritical than every senator on that side failing to call out the Victorian government for their disastrous handling of this pandemic. Considering this remarkable situation, I welcome the opportunity to talk fact and refute their unjustified attacks on the minister for aged care and their spurious allegations.</para>
<para>Senator Rennick, let's talk facts. When Labor left office, total aged-care spending was $13.3 billion. This year, under the Liberal-National coalition government, it is $22.6 billion, increasing to $25.4 billion by 2022-23. In case your maths needs refreshing, that is an increase of over $1.2 billion each year. When those opposite were thrown out of government, there were 60,308 home-care packages across the country. Under this government, we will see that grow to 164,135 places by 2022-23. That is an increase of 170 per cent. At the same time, corresponding funding will also increase by 258 per cent.</para>
<para>One thing about those opposite that annoys voters in Victoria is their ability to say one thing and do another. Let's consider the last election, where the Labor Party had so much new spending, it would have resulted in an extra $387 billion in new taxes. But let me just check. How much of that was promised for aged care? Zero, absolutely zero, none—the hypocrisy! Those opposite had a plan to increase taxes on everything yet they didn't have a plan for aged care. This is despite the Leader of the Opposition reminding us last week at the National Press Club that he had been shadow ageing and senior spokesperson back in 2001. Yet those opposite come in here all high and mighty and decide to lecture us on issues they have clearly ignored.</para>
<para>I tell you what: this government takes aged care seriously. This is a government that values older Australians, a government that realises that the system isn't perfect and that the test of a government is what they do. The Morrison government is a government that is getting on with fixing the problems in the system. We have a Prime Minister who knew that there were significant issues in aged care when he took the job and that is why this government called a royal commission in October 2018. We knew that the royal commission was going to find issues; that's its job. Those opposite need to be reminded of the words of the Prime Minister when he announced the royal commission. The Prime Minister said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I think we should brace ourselves for some pretty bruising information about the way our loved ones, some of them have experienced some real mistreatment.</para></quote>
<para>He also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I think that's going to be tough for us to deal with, but you can't walk past it.</para></quote>
<para>I can say proudly, right here, we are not walking past it. We are tackling it head-on.</para>
<para>There is no doubt that the royal commission's interim report was damning. There is no denying that. But that's why we called a royal commission—to shine a light on areas and to get to the bottom of the problems. It is a reminder that perhaps the government should call a royal commission to investigate the quarantine failures or the contact-tracing failures in Victoria. That would shine some light on why we now have such high community transmission in Victoria which has spread into aged care. The aged care royal commission was highly critical of the inaction of successive governments towards the aged-care industry. We acknowledge that, and we are actioning responses as quickly as we can. We're acting on the recommendations that have already been made and we will act on further recommendations. Work continues to progress through the Aged Care Workforce Industry Council. We continue to progress reforms and invest in the critical skills that our aged-care sector needs.</para>
<para>But where is the commitment from those opposite? In every area in this portfolio, they dither and point-score and yet, time and time again, they have failed. They have provided no policy and no commitment to additional funding, but they come in here, day after day, throwing mud at Minister Colbeck, who was appointed some seven months after the royal commission and some five months before its report was handed down. He is diligently working through the challenges of this sector. Those opposite reek of total hypocrisy.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to contribute to this debate—again, another speech on aged care because it has been such a major issue confronting not just Victoria but our whole country in recent months. I have to say that I was disappointed to hear from Senator Van a continuation of the failure to take responsibility that we have seen from Minister Colbeck and from the Prime Minister himself. Not a single person in this government seems willing to take responsibility for the aged-care failures that we have seen in his country, particularly but not only in Victoria, over the last few months.</para>
<para>It could not be any clearer that aged care is a federal responsibility. The federal government fund aged care. The federal government regulate aged care, or they're supposed to regulate aged care. Yet, despite that, they continue to avoid taking responsibility for what we have seen occur in our aged-care facilities. They will find anyone else to blame. Their preferred target is Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews. They will also blame—</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Van interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Van, you were listened to in silence. I would appreciate you not interjecting whilst speeches are being made.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I say, whether it be Minister Colbeck, the Prime Minister or senators in this chamber, they will always find someone else to blame for what we have seen occur in our aged-care facilities, as long as that person is not themselves.</para>
<para>Clearly, this is the responsibility of the federal government and in particular the aged-care minister, Minister Colbeck. It isn't that long ago that I remember there being another aged-care minister in this country under a Liberal government, Bronwyn Bishop. She was the minister who oversaw what became known as the kerosene baths scandal—disgraceful circumstances in Australian aged-care homes. One death resulted. She at least had the good grace to resign from her post. Yet, in contrast, we have a minister here, completely asleep at the wheel, completely failing to take responsibility for the pandemic entering and spreading like wildfire through aged-care facilities in Victoria and now claiming the lives of over 450 older Australians, who remains in the job. Everyone knows—and you only have to look at the Senate backbench to see that they know—that this minister is not going to be in the role for very much longer. It is a matter of time. We are all just waiting for the reshuffle that will occur when Senator Cormann retires. We all know that the deckchairs will be reshuffled and rearranged and there will be someone else put into the role of aged-care minister.</para>
<para>But you'd have to say that, in this government, it doesn't really seem to matter who is the minister, because whoever has been the minister has presided over a complete disaster in our aged-care system. This government has been in power for seven years. They have had seven years to fix the aged-care system that they are responsible for. They have had report after report after review after submission after framework after guideline telling them over and over again that the aged-care system is broken, that it needs more funding and that it needs fundamental overhaul. Yet, no matter who we've had sitting in the chair as aged-care minister, they have ignored those warnings and they have failed to do what has been recommended. They've been called out by their own royal commission for failing to implement recommendations and failing to have a plan, and now, of course, we're seeing the consequences.</para>
<para>It's not just about the numbers of people who are affected. Just think about those stories that we've heard of maggots and of ants crawling all over older Australians. My father turned 80 this year. Realistically, it won't be too many more years before he'll be in an aged-care facility. I'm just horrified at the idea that he might end up being in a facility where they are the kinds of conditions in which people are treated. But that is how people are being treated in the aged-care facilities that this federal government is responsible for.</para>
<para>The time for action is well past due. This government simply has got to do something about this. We've had this interim report, labelled <inline font-style="italic">Neglect</inline>, handed down recently, and we're still seeing problems in the aged-care system. They set up a royal commission, saying that that was going to be the solution, and, now that it's providing solutions, they're ignoring those as well. We cannot leave older Australians to continue to suffer. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I say to Senator Watt: I do actually think about those stories. I think about the story of a mother who lost a child, a baby, because she couldn't cross the border because of an outrageous, bigoted statement that said: 'Queensland hospitals for our people'. I don't seem to recall Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister, or the minister for aged care ever saying—</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Pratt interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pratt, interjections are disorderly.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That the Labor Party have again sought to engage in the politics of smear and blame is testament to the fact that they are bereft of ideas and policy. They are an entity focused solely on negativity and profiting politically from human misery. Today's MPI and the litany of repetitive and malicious questions and statements directed at our aged-care minister borders on obsession.</para>
<para>The root cause of the second wave in Victoria and in the bulk of Australia can be found in the failings of the Victorian state government and their failed hotel quarantine program, their failed community transmission program and their failure to consult with the federal government when they pulled 100 aged-care staff out of the St Basil's aged-care centre with as little as 24 hours notice. Don't you think you would've at least rung up and had some backup in place before you pulled the staff out and left those residents to fend for themselves? We shut down in March so that the state governments would have enough time to get their health systems up to scratch. The federal government has funded hundreds of billions of dollars for the state governments to get their health system procedures up to scratch, to get their quarantine up to scratch and to get their community transmission up to scratch, yet the one government that failed us, the Victorian Labor government, was the one with the strictest rules and the worst execution.</para>
<para>Those opposite will do anything to run cover for the Victorian Premier. They will constantly run cover for the Victorian Premier. Not once in question time here in the last two weeks have we had a question about how we're going to get out of this, because these guys opposite don't want to get out of this. They want to keep the country locked down because Labor love command and control.</para>
<para>In a global pandemic, with a new and unknown virus disproportionately affecting the elderly, it was a horrific reality that it was inevitable that some elderly Australians would, regrettably, pass away from this virus. All loss of life is tragic. But those opposite come into this place, screeching and preaching that the minister is responsible for every death and that, had they been in government, no-one would have died from this virus. It is ludicrous. As the Chief Medical Officer in Victoria has already stated, a number of these people counted as COVID deaths were already in palliative care. That seems to have been overlooked. We are supposed to be fighting our common enemy—the virus and the resulting economic carnage—but, of course, the Labor Party want to find a scapegoat for political pointscoring, and, unfortunately, the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians has become the distraction that Labor need to divert attention from the Victorian Premier's gross failings.</para>
<para>The unfair and dishonest language used in this motion demeans us all. We've heard mistruths spoken again this afternoon by those opposite, suggesting that the LNP has cut $1.2 billion out of aged care. Let me tell you: the ABC, who are no great friends of the coalition, have said that this claim is misleading. Yet, those opposite continually repeat the same old mistruths, time after time after time, instead of asking some constructive questions about how we're going to get out of this and how we're going to look after our children. They're the ones who have been forgotten in all this. They're the people who will have to inherit the debt and inherit this new way of living. Hopefully, we can restore their freedoms. I know some of the state premiers are intent on keeping the place locked down and destroying any liberty left in this country.</para>
<para>I don't know what I can say, but this idea that the minister has avoided scrutiny is a farcical claim. He has come into this chamber every day for the last two weeks, and he has stood up and answered those questions. He faces the media and he answers their questions. He has been doing an outstanding job. What's going on here is nothing short of bullying for crass political pointscoring purposes. I take issue with the notion thrown up by this motion that the minister—or, indeed, any member of the government—has responded to the pandemic with self-congratulation or hubris. I think, if anything, the pandemic has humbled us all. An invisible enemy which we have been thus far unable to completely defeat reminds us all of our shared humanity. The Labor Party, in their relentless focus on this, seem to imply, firstly, that they have a mortgage on compassion and, secondly, that somehow they could have prevented to a much greater extent the spread of the virus.</para>
<para>We know how the state Labor government managed the outbreak in Victoria, yet we hear nothing from those opposite. The most sinister implication of this MPI from those opposite seems to be that those on this side of the chamber don't care about our elderly. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those in the coalition care deeply about our elderly. We all love our parents, and this attempt to imply otherwise is just woeful. In my first speech, I said that there is no substitute for mum and dad. It's why I fight. I fight to place the importance of the family at the front and centre of everything I do because, when it comes to child care and aged care, there are some things governments can't do as well as the family. We should remember who set up the royal commission. We want to hear the stories and to do our best to make sure that aged care is the best we can possibly make it. The fact is that 97 per cent of aged care is COVID-free. This is a good result both by objective standards and when compared with the rest of the world. It is not a perfect result, but, against an insidious enemy like the virus, it is a good result.</para>
<para>Labor seem to think it is acceptable to lie in the context of this debate. We know their repeated claim that this government cut aged-care funding. It is a brazen lie. Funding has increased by almost $10 billion under the coalition government. Furthermore, it should be remembered that the Victorian Chief Medical Officer himself said that people dying with COVID are dying with COVID rather than from COVID but they are being included in the count. For those on the other side to be gloating over these deaths and saying that they were all unavoidable is despicable. He noted that many deaths classified as being COVID have been patients in palliative care. Palliative care is one of the toughest parts of our healthcare system. It is about kindness and minimising suffering. This is an unfortunate reality.</para>
<para>I want to go now to another important issue, which is that, according to those opposite, we haven't had a plan for COVID. Those opposite us love to refer to the royal commission, but they never actually refer to the medical officers who put the submissions in to the royal commission. They're happy to refer to the barristers, the non-medical experts. I will conclude by remarking on comment 7 from the witness statement of Brendan Murphy, the Chief Medical Officer:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In January 2020, the Australian Government led the preparation of the Australian Health Sector Emergency Response Plan for Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) (COVID Response Plan). This was published on 18 February 2020 and was activated on 27 February 2020. This plan addressed the response to aged care in the context of the overall Commonwealth, State and Territory response plan.</para></quote>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LINES</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You just wonder what it's going to take to get the Morrison government and the government senators in this place to take responsibility, once and for all, for aged care. What is it going to take? It is very clear that the Morrison government fund aged care, regulate aged care and have legislation around the quality of aged care, so they have a lot of control over this sector, yet we have seen them passing the buck, blaming others and, somehow, blaming us—when we are in opposition. What nonsense!</para>
<para>I've got to tell you, Madam Acting Deputy President, that ordinary Australians out there are very, very concerned about aged care, and they know it is Mr Morrison and Minister Colbeck who are ultimately responsible for aged care. Sadly, we've seen a minister who is not up to the job. Clearly, the buck stops with the minister. Quite frankly, if Mr Morrison really cared about what's happening in aged care across this country he would withdraw that minister and put in someone who is at least competent and capable.</para>
<para>My thoughts, of course, are with every single person who has lost a loved one during this pandemic, but particularly those in aged care. Who hasn't been moved by the horrific stories that we've heard where loved ones don't know where their family members are, or where family members are not at the bedside when their loved one dies? Many of us in this place have seen our parents pass on. I was with my father when he passed away. Some of the social workers, meaning well, suggested that I put my father into a nursing home. This was a couple of years ago, and even at that point I said: 'No way. No way is my father going into an aged-care facility.' I was very firm about it. They put quite a lot of pressure on me, but, having worked for the union that organises aged-care workers, the United Workers Union, I knew what nursing homes looked like and there was no way my father was going to go into that aged-care facility.</para>
<para>Workers in aged care are low paid. They earn $20 to $21 an hour, and they don't have enough hours. No wonder they work across two or three other facilities just to make ends meet. I heard Pat Sparrow, from Aged & Community Services Australia, say on the radio today that the new funding announced yesterday was welcome but still not enough. So once again we've seen this piecemeal approach. We saw it in the bushfires—a running-behind, piecemeal approach from the Morrison government—and we're definitely seeing it in aged care. It is a tragedy, and we should demand better. We are a wealthy country. We can afford to treat aged-care workers with respect. We can afford to pay them properly for the jobs they do. Loved ones are currently dying in their arms when family members are not there, yet we treat these workers with such disrespect. They get about 30 hours a week. They earn $20 to $21 an hour. And they are the people who are currently on the front line. Yet we see a pathetic attempt from the Morrison government to somehow support them because they've taken away their second-job options.</para>
<para>Clearly it is way over time for this government to take responsibility, to act, to have a plan for the future. I bet if we asked Minister Colbeck, 'What will aged care look like in 12 months?' he couldn't tell us, and if we asked the Prime Minister that he couldn't tell us. Aged-care providers have been saying for years that the system is in crisis. We have a report titled <inline font-style="italic">Neglect</inline>. That should have given some clues to the Morrison government that things were not good—a report titled <inline font-style="italic">Neglect</inline>, where there were horrific stories, which I'm not going to repeat today, but we've heard over and over again of that neglect. We heard about Newmarch House, St Basil's and Dorothy Henderson Lodge; we heard those horrific stories from family members about their relatives. Imagine banging at the window? So, get real, and take responsibility. Thank you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] To come into this place to contribute to this debate on aged care and to excuse the loss of life—to suggest that it is ever acceptable for people to die in these circumstances simply because they were already on their way out—is absolutely vile and completely unacceptable. Those senators who have made those suggestions during the course of this debate should hang their heads in shame and, while they are at it, go and look at some of the accounts of what it is like to suffer with this virus and ask themselves whether they would be comfortable if their relative, their loved one, were ending their life struggling to breathe as their body shut down due to COVID-19.</para>
<para>Let us be very clear: the government had no plan. The regulator was ineffective and underfunded. The government failed to listen to report after report. The royal commission's report, titled <inline font-style="italic">Neglect</inline>, says it all in one word. There was failure to collect data. There was failure to support workforce. And as in aged care, so with disability: an ineffective regulator, no plan at the outset of the pandemic, failure to listen to reports, failure to collect data and failure to support workforce, and in addition to that a total and continual failure to provide the adequate financial support to those on the DSP and carer payment. And that is before we even touch on PPE and the preparedness of the workforce in terms of infection control. On aged care, the response of the government is to run a protection racket for one of the most incompetent ministers ever to congeal in a cabinet position within the coalition. Within disability, it has sent anxiety scorching and surging through the community, with the announcement of the proposed independent assessment framework for those participating in the NDIS.</para>
<para>I give this message very clearly to anybody watching at home: the Greens will continue to fight to hold this fool to account, and we will resist any and all measures to impose these assessment frameworks upon disabled people.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time for the discussion has expired.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>61</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Corporations and Financial Services Committee</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>61</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the report on the 2018-2019 annual reports of bodies established under the ASIC Act, together with the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee and the transcript of evidence, and I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the report.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>61</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present <inline font-style="italic">Inquiry into PFAS remediation in and around Defence bases: second progress report</inline> and documents presented to the committee, and the transcript of evidence, and I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the report.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to take note of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report <inline font-style="italic">Inquiry into PFAS remediation in and around Defence bases: second progress report</inline>, which evaluates the government response to the initial inquiry that we had a couple of years ago. The PFAS subcommittee, of which I am a member, was re-established after the federal election last year, when the 46th Parliament resumed. It was re-established precisely with the purpose of scrutinising progress on the recommendations of the parliamentary inquiry into PFAS and the government's response to it. I have always said that I will continue to work with the community and in parliament to keep this issue front and centre until the government prioritises the needs of the affected communities. This committee is part and parcel of the work that I am committed to.</para>
<para>We all know that the nationwide damage wrought by the toxic PFAS chemicals has been extensive, and people have suffered for too long. Despite this, people had to wait 15 months for the government response to the committee's original report. The government dragged its heels, even after the Senate ordered them to produce the response. After years of stress, they had to wait for months and months. They were anxious, they were frustrated and they were angry, and rightly so. The government's obfuscation and delay showed real contempt for the community. Finally, when the response did come, it was lukewarm, non-committal and, in some respects, completely disrespectful.</para>
<para>As the community group Coalition Against PFAS stated in their submission to this inquiry:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The committee made nine recommendations and called for immediate action.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">They are broadly sensible recommendations which avoid piecemeal or half-hearted approaches.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Those Inquiry recommendations have not simply been ignored.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The communities who fought for them have been.</para></quote>
<para>It is these communities that I am fighting for as well. They must get justice. Once again, I want to thank and acknowledge community members and community groups across the country who have been organising on PFAS issues. They include the Fullerton Cove Residents Action Group, the Williamtown and Surrounds Residents Action Group, communities against PFAS and many brave individuals and families. They are exhausted. Frankly, the onus should never have been on the victims to fight for justice when it's their lives that have been up-ended. It's the polluter and in this case the federal government that must take responsibility for the contamination and its consequences.</para>
<para>It must have been a relief for some communities to finally reach a settlement with the government over PFAS contamination. The $212.5 million settlement points to the serious loss experienced by affected communities and will go some way to alleviating the damage; however, there are many who have been affected by PFAS contamination who the government has left in the cold. In light of this settlement, it's extremely disappointing that in its long awaited inquiry response the government refused to commit to even considering compensation for all affected property holders, including through possible buybacks.</para>
<para>Polluter pays is a basic principle of environmental law and justice. While the government says it supports resolution of legal claims by agreement, not litigation, where appropriate, we are still waiting to see if they actually mean that. In evaluating the government's response, communities keep telling us that they are concerned about the lack of commitment from the government to providing compensation to property owners for losses resulting from contamination. This is unacceptable. Government must take responsibility for their actions. This should not have to play out in the courts but should be driven and co-ordinated by the government acting in good faith with communities.</para>
<para>The committee in its second progress report, which has just been tabled, has again recommended that the government prioritise assisting property owners and businesses in affected areas through compensation for financial losses associated with contamination emanating from defence bases, including the possibility of buybacks. The matter of buybacks is really important. The reality is that the effects of PFAS contamination are not fully known yet and we know that some properties will be significantly affected. There are no options but for compensation to include buyback. The government is responsible for the pollution, and I strongly encourage the Commonwealth government to urgently develop a buyback program for properties where contamination is significant.</para>
<para>Communities are still concerned about the lack of consistency and a piecemeal approach to PFAS management. They have ongoing worries regarding contamination on non-Commonwealth sites as well. There is also ongoing concern about site investigations and the timeliness, effectiveness and responsiveness of PFAS management area plans, which are the responsibility of Defence. As the committee noted, for people residing near defence bases, the protracted process of investigation and site assessment and the disjuncture between Commonwealth and state and territory responsibilities leaves people like those near Richmond RAAF base and Williamtown, which is in my home state of New South Wales, living in a PFAS half-life of restrictions without the benefits of a co-ordinated remediation plan or support services within PFAS management area plans.</para>
<para>It is not acceptable for Defence to say that they will continue to use PFAS-containing foams until certified alternatives to existing firefighting foams become available. As I understand it, alternatives are already available and being used right here, right now in Australia. In their submission to the inquiry, the United Firefighters Union of Australia noted that the Melbourne Metropolitan Fire Brigade began trialling fluorine-free foams in various firefighting situations in 2011 and by 2014 all MFB firefighting appliances were converted for carriage of only fluorine-free B-class foams in their foam tanks. This should be happening across Australia without any delay. These are people's lives and livelihoods that we're talking about and putting at risk. The risk can and should immediately be eliminated.</para>
<para>The committee recommends that the government expedite the work to ban the use of, contain and ultimately safely destroy long-chain PFAS based firefighting foams, including those containing PFOS, PFOA and PFH excess, with the objective urgently ratifying the listing of PFOS and expediting the process for PFOA and PFH excess in the event that they are listed under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Other countries did this years ago. There is no reason for this government to keep delaying this ratification into the never-never.</para>
<para>Overall, the government still needs to do a lot more. If the government cares about the community, if they care about our environment, they should urgently accept and act on all recommendations of the report in full. Communities have waited long enough. They have suffered long enough. It is time to take concrete action to support and help them. I seek leave to continue my remarks.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Community Affairs References Committee</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>63</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the second interim report of the Community Affairs References Committee on Centrelink's compliance program.</para>
<para>Ordered that the report be printed.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the report.</para></quote>
<para>Throughout the operation of robodebt as the Centrelink compliance program is commonly known, hundreds of thousands of people have been forced to participate in the distressing and difficult process of reconfirming the earned income that they had already reported to Centrelink, in some cases from up to seven years earlier. The huge scale of the program's impact cannot be ignored, and there remain many questions about how income averaging was established and about how it was allowed to operate for so long before it was found to be unlawful. The Prime Minister's qualified apology in June did nothing—or very little—to fix the hurt and harm caused by robodebt.</para>
<para>The committee is tabling this second interim report today because we are not in a position to finalise our inquiry into the Centrelink compliance program. This is partly because the evidence sought by the committee relating to the legality of the income compliance program has not been provided by the government and department because of claims of public interest immunity. I will be reporting separately on those claims. We have also had trouble because of the COVID pandemic; we have been unable to hold face-to-face hearings. Because of the nature of the evidence to this inquiry, I think it's very important that we hear from people in person, and people are sometimes reluctant to give that very confronting evidence via video. But that is not to say that we haven't been having hearings with the agencies.</para>
<para>A lot of the evidence we sought from the government, particularly from Services Australia, is based on the concerns around the ongoing court case around robodebt and, as I said, I will report on that in a separate report. We have learnt that raising debts on the basis of income averaging is unlawful and never should have occurred in the first place. Throughout this inquiry, we have heard about the devastating human cost of the Centrelink compliance program, commonly known as 'robodebt'. Themes of disempowerment, overwhelming stress and emotional upheaval continue to be common in accounts and submissions from individuals and community organisations.</para>
<para>Robodebt has had an overwhelming and devastating impact on people's emotional and financial wellbeing and on their willingness to engage with and trust government services. For many people, repaying a robodebt they were alleged to owe has resulted in considerable financial hardship and pushed them further into poverty, making it difficult to make ends meet. Individuals felt powerless to dispute letters or debts from Centrelink, which wore people down. Even after changes were made to the robodebt initiation letters and debt notices, people still reported feeling confused and distressed by the debt correspondence from Centrelink and often still called the initiation letters 'debt letters', quite often leading to confusion, particularly when corresponding with the department. Under the program, the garnishing of tax refunds for the recovery of outstanding debts was commonplace. People had no notice that this was coming and felt blindsided. In some instances, where people had already arranged to repay the debt in instalments, the tax refund was still garnished. We heard from people who were pursued by external debt collection agencies. In some cases, they are living in fear of debt collectors and law enforcement agencies because of their compliance debt. It is extremely confronting to hear that people are faced with those realities.</para>
<para>Evidence heard by the committee so far has shown that the implementation of the income compliance program continues to have a disproportionately negative impact on people in vulnerable cohorts. Robodebt, as it is commonly known, has also had ongoing negative impacts on the community sector and on Centrelink staff. Despite significant criticisms from the start of this program, it has taken nearly five years for the government to admit that income averaging as it is used under the program is not sufficient legal evidence of the existence of a debt. It is unlawful. In that time, nearly half a million debts were raised against some of the most vulnerable members of our community without a proper legal foundation, and those debts were pursued. The committee will continue to monitor the repayment process. We are pleased to see, in fact, that there has been significant progress in repaying some of those debts. Some are yet to be repaid, and some people have not responded to the outreach by the department, and we make a recommendation about that.</para>
<para>The committee makes some recommendations in this interim report. These recommendations go towards ensuring that the hurt and harm from the income compliance program doesn't happen again and is addressed. Firstly, we recommend that we immediately terminate the income compliance program. The government is leaving the door open and has not ruled out further income compliance programs, which is causing further distress to many people. Secondly, it is critical that the government ensure that its communications strategy relating to the repayment of unlawfully raised compliance debts takes into consideration the additional needs of, and provides support to, vulnerable populations. Thirdly, the committee recommends that Centrelink immediately allocate more staff to focus on contacting customers who have not engaged with the refund process. We've heard that quite a large number of people are yet to respond. Fourthly, the committee recommends that Centrelink immediately review its evidentiary responsibilities for raising overpayment debts in all of its compliance programs. Fifthly, the committee recommends that an independent review be immediately initiated into the policy, design, administration and impact of Centrelink's compliance program. This chair's report states that the independent review is necessary, and I personally believe that we should be undertaking a forensic audit of these debts. This program undoubtedly caused incalculable harm, distress and anxiety to hundreds of thousands of Australians. The refund program, while now significantly progressed, is in fact causing some people additional trauma.</para>
<para>I would like to express my sincere thanks and admiration for everyone who has given evidence to the committee so far. Sharing your accounts has been invaluable to us. The committee is inviting new submissions to the inquiry, especially around the issues of legality, and the impact, of the reverse onus of proof, the impact of changes to the income compliance program on individuals, and the future of Centrelink compliance activities and programs. We are also always interested in receiving personal accounts of, and evidence about, the experience of people who have been impacted by the income compliance program or other Centrelink compliance activities that are based on averaged income. The committee, as always, would like to thank our secretariat, who do such important and valuable work, for the support that they have given us and their support in preparing this report.</para>
<para>We look forward to completing this inquiry. It is being slowed down by the claims of public interest immunity. That is unfortunate. This is the second inquiry into Centrelink's income compliance program, and I maintain that this issue would never have come to light without the significant and overwhelmingly strong community campaign and the work of so many people and organisations. They have worked to shine a spotlight on this unlawful program.</para>
<para>I would recommend having a look at this report and I look forward to completing this inquiry in the future. I seek leave to continue my remarks.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>64</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SESELJA</name>
    <name.id>HZE</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, contingent upon Ms Lidia Thorpe being chosen to be a senator to fill the vacancy in the representation of Victoria, she be appointed as a participating member in accordance with the list circulated in the chamber.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Jabiru) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" style="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" background="" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word">
            <a type="Bill" href="r6536">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Jabiru) Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>64</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SESELJA</name>
    <name.id>HZE</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>65</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SESELJA</name>
    <name.id>HZE</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Jabiru) Bill 2020 will support the traditional owners of Jabiru, the Mirarr people, to lead the transition of Jabiru from a mining town to a tourism town and regional service centre via a new township lease.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Land security is economic security and it helps drive opportunities for Indigenous Australians to support community development and prosperity. It means generations of traditional owners can benefit from the land and help maintain the ongoing cultural connection with the land.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">With the closure of the nearby Ranger uranium mine by January 2021 and the expiry of existing Jabiru leasing arrangements in June 2021, the Mirarr traditional owners have developed a Masterplan setting out their vision for Jabiru as a world-leading ecologically sustainable, economically and socially vibrant community where traditional Aboriginal culture, the local economy, the tourist industry and the natural environment flourish.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We are introducing this bill to support the Mirarr's vision. It forms part of the Australian government's $216 million commitment to revitalising Jabiru and Kakadu National Park, which will bring business opportunities and jobs to our iconic Top End.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill supports the Memorandum of Understanding on the future of Jabiru Township, which was signed on 14 August 2019 between the Australian government, the Northern Territory government, Energy Resources of Australia Limited and the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation to guide implementation of the Jabiru Masterplan.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A key element of the Jabiru Masterplan is making the town Aboriginal land under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and providing for a long-term township lease.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Township leasing provides individual property rights that drive economic development by establishing a clear, transparent and efficient land administration system. This ensures certainty for individuals, businesses and lending institutions seeking investment opportunities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, it is essential that we foster an environment where we can enable more jobs and economic growth to ensure prosperity for all Indigenous Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This bill is economic empowerment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is entrusting Indigenous Australians to make decisions that will benefit their communities and their people.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Land security is economic security.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And from economic security comes the ability to put in place the foundations that will lead to economic growth, job opportunity and better security for Indigenous Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Land Rights Act was amended in 2013 to provide a specific handback-leaseback arrangement for Jabiru, including for a township lease to be held by the Commonwealth through the Executive Director of Township Leasing. The Land Rights Act provides for an approved entity to hold township leases. The Commonwealth entity was approved in 2007 and in 2016 the first community entity was approved to hold the Gunyangara township lease.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">New township leases can be held by either the Executive Director of Township Leasing or an approved local community entity. Many township leases held by the Executive Director of Township Leasing include transfer provisions to transition to a community entity at traditional owners' request.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This bill makes changes to the Land Rights Act to make the Jabiru township lease consistent with other township leases in the Northern Territory. It will allow the Jabiru head lease to be held by either a community entity or the Commonwealth for a term of between 40 and 99 years.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It will also make other technical amendments. These other amendments clarify that the new township lease will not automatically extend the term of existing Jabiru subleases beyond the term of the current town head lease, and remove redundant Jabiru leasing provisions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill makes a minor consequential amendment to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, to ensure people will be able to use or develop land in Jabiru that is subleased to them by the head lessee.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government acknowledges the leadership of the Mirarr traditional owners. Theirs has been a decades-long struggle to secure the recognition and opportunity to forge a future guided by their own aspirations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In February last year, the parliament passed amendments scheduling four parcels of land as Aboriginal land in the Kakadu National Park surrounding Jabiru. Negotiations are now underway with the traditional owners of Kakadu to secure a leaseback arrangement with the Director of National Parks.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These amendments complement those by giving effect to a leasing arrangement for the traditional owners of Jabiru. Traditional owners right across Kakadu National Park will be in control of the decisions that impact on them and their families for generations to come.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Prime Minister reflected in his 2020 Closing the Gap address that to rob a person of their right to take responsibility is to deny them their liberty. He made it clear that we must 'restore the right to take responsibility, the right to make decisions and the right to step up. It must be accompanied by a willingness to push decisions down to the people who are closest to them.'</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We are embracing this change and the Mirarr people will now finally be able to achieve their social, cultural and economic independence. They will be a beacon for others.</para></quote>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS</title>
        <page.no>66</page.no>
        <type>REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Industry Research and Development (Water for Fodder Program) Instrument 2019</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Disallowance</title>
            <page.no>66</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Industry Research and Development (Water for Fodder Program) Instrument 2019, made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, be disallowed [F2019L01591].</para></quote>
<para>I rise to speak on this motion of disallowance for the Industry Research and Development (Water for Fodder Program) Instrument 2019. This was a program which was a bit of a thought bubble by the Prime Minister. He didn't know what to do to deal with those who were complaining that his government and his coalition partners in the National Party had stuffed up the management of the Murray-Darling Basin.</para>
<para>As the drought drew on last year and got harsher and harsher, this government had done nothing to make sure that their New South Wales counterparts, their Queensland counterparts and, indeed, even their Victorian counterparts did what they could to ensure sustainable use of the limited amount of water in the Murray-Darling Basin. Rather than doing anything to fix the problem, they went for what they thought was an easy answer. And what was that? It was cutting South Australia's water supply—cutting the allocation that flows over the South Australian border. This program was designed to reduce South Australia's water by 100 gigalitres and to say that that water would then be packaged off and sold at a cheaper rate to farmers further upstream who needed water in the midst of the drought. Rather than accessing water from further upstream from those who had already been too greedy, the government decided to pick on South Australia—at the bottom of the system.</para>
<para>We know that this was happening at the same time as the Liberal government in South Australia was working with the federal water minister to commission a report into cutting South Australia's water supply permanently and replacing it with water from the desal plant. What would that mean? It would mean that South Australians would be saddled with some of the highest water bills in the country. It would mean that South Australians would be paying more than 40 times the market value for water—40 times!—because the government and their Nationals coalition partners in the various state governments could not be bothered putting in place the recommendations, and the reforms that have been needed for far too long, to make sure that the water in the Murray-Darling Basin is managed sustainably and that there is enough there in the dry times as well as the wet.</para>
<para>We know that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is almost halfway through now and we are still well short of the actions required to make sure the Murray-Darling is put on a sustainable footing. Billions and billions of dollars have been spent on this reform and yet we are staring down the barrel of the government having to announce very soon that they're not going to be able to make the deadlines promised and set out in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I remember back in 2010 when we were debating the draft of this plan. Those on the opposite side were spearheaded, of course, by the former minister in charge of water, Mr Barnaby Joyce, who never wanted any reference to climate change in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, who would not accept that the system was overallocated, who did not accept the science. He did everything he could with his Nationals mates and his big corporate irrigator mates to destroy that plan and to make it as difficult as possible for us to recover the water that the environment needed.</para>
<para>Fast forward to 2020, a decade later, and billions of dollars have been spent. The reason we have this program before us today is that those opposite stuffed it up. They didn't listen to the science and they spent all the money, some of which went to some of Mr Joyce's mates. Some of it went to companies like those established by Minister Angus Taylor. A lot of the money went to friends of the National Party. But where did all the water go? Well, the water continues to be siphoned off, stored in big private dams and harvested at the expense of neighbours and downstream communities. The only reason this Water for Fodder program is even on the table is that this government is crap at managing the Murray-Darling Basin—incompetent, incapable.</para>
<para>What do you do when you have stuffed up the process, spent billions of dollars and still don't have a management system for a river that is choking, thirsty and crying out for intervention, and you've got small family farmers throughout the basin? It is not their fault the government stuffed it up. It is not their fault that the government did everything they could to make sure the big corporate irrigators were okay but everybody else was left high and dry. What did the government do? They said, 'Oh well, it's the bottom end of the river; they don't need as much.' So they came to South Australia and argued that South Australia should have 100 gigalitres less and that South Australians should be paying for it through the desal plant, at 40 times the market value.</para>
<para>The government's own report into the Water for Fodder program has finally been released. Despite the fact that this place, the Senate, months earlier asked for the documentation to be tabled, the government refused—another sign that the government continue to cover up their stuff-ups time and time again. They refused to release that report. It did come out, finally. And what does it say? It says this program is a flop. They released it at the same time as the feasibility study into South Australia's desal plant. It turns out that that's a flop too.</para>
<para>So it's no wonder that we've got a disallowance motion before us today, because this government can't manage the Murray-Darling Basin. It's too busy filling the tanks and dams of its big corporate mates and friends of the National Party. Meanwhile, downstream communities and small family farms are left high and dry. It is no wonder that there are communities right through the Murray-Darling Basin who are turning their backs on the National Party. It is no wonder that the National Party are scrambling to try to work out why everybody's deserted them. It's because they have mismanaged the nation's biggest river system, year after year after year.</para>
<para>What do we know is coming next? There will be a water ministers council meeting in December, and we're going to hear New South Wales and Victoria, and probably Queensland as well, refuse again to find the remaining 450 gigalitres that is needed if we're to give this river a fighting chance of survival. We'll hear all over again that these state governments cannot get their houses in order to deliver the water. There'll be a push to blow out the time frame of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan—$13 billion down the drain.</para>
<para>The mismanagement, maladministration and stuff-ups in the Murray-Darling Basin that have been overseen by this government would be laughable if things weren't so sad. When the coalition came to power, the biggest mistake the Liberal Party made was to put the Nationals in charge of the water portfolio. We could all see it coming, we all knew it was a big mistake, yet what did Tony Abbott do? He handed the keys to the Murray-Darling Basin and the coffers of public money to Mr Barnaby Joyce. Where are we today? We're up the creek, high and dry, because Barnaby Joyce cannot be trusted, the National Party cannot be trusted and this government cannot be trusted with managing the nation's most important water supply. They certainly can't be trusted to look after the environment and environmental flows.</para>
<para>We will push through with this disallowance. For a South Australian senator it is the responsible thing to do. It shouldn't be left up to South Australia to carry the can because of the mismanagement of the federal Liberal-National party and the corruption and maladministration of the New South Wales, Queensland and Victorian state governments, who have done nothing to rectify this situation and make sure that the reforms science requires are implemented in full.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] As a servant of the people of Queensland and Australia, I will be opposing this motion. The first 40 gigalitres of the Water for Fodder program has already been distributed. Farmers have used that water to grow fodder for their cattle to keep our struggling dairy sector in business. If this disallowance is successful, it may well have the effect of preventing the second 60 gigalitres of water. It will, however, cast into doubt the legality of the first 40 gigalitres. That's not something that One Nation can support.</para>
<para>This scheme fired up the desalination plant in Adelaide to produce water that was exchanged for irrigation water in the northern Murray. The Adelaide desalination plant has been a disaster. It was built in 2007 at a cost of $1.83 billion. In the 13 years since, the plant has produced just 148 gigalitres of water, about 10 per cent of its capacity. Even worse for a state that is power poor, the plant takes $13 million a year in electricity just to keep it maintained. This is yet another example of an economy killer from climate alarmism.</para>
<para>Getting back to the water issue, I can understand that the government was looking for an excuse—any excuse—to send some love down to that money pit in South Australia. So when One Nation demanded time and time again that farmers get their allocations, the government cooked up this scheme. It would have been simpler to just give farmers another 10 per cent of their water allocation, but no: why do things the easy way, when you had a white elephant sitting down there needing a cash injection? So here we are with another 60 gigalitres due under the Water for Fodder program.</para>
<para>What to do? What to do, I ask the people of Australia. The government has produced a report into the first release. I thank the minister for providing a copy of this report in response to my motion for the production of documents. That report clearly recommends that the second 60 gigalitres of the Water for Fodder program not proceed. This is based on predictions for water inflows into the Adelaide catchment provided by the Bureau of Meteorology. Not surprisingly, these predictions were wrong. Adelaide has way more water in storage now than the report produced in July anticipated—way more. After a year of rain, there are currently 5,200 gigalitres of water in storage in the upper Murray, and that is expected to continue to increase. I believe the projection is around 6,500 gigalitres. Lake Victoria, which holds SA's water supply, is full. The Lower Lakes are full. The water in the Menindee Lakes is still there from the recent flood in southern Queensland, and that is a pleasant change, because it means no government fish kills this year. South Australian farmers have the water for 100 per cent allocations this year. Conveyance water for South Australia is 1,400 gigalitres. This is held in Dartmouth Dam, which currently holds 2,123 gigalitres. Senator Hanson-Young should be pleased to know that South Australia is taken care of—well taken care of.</para>
<para>Let us look at the irrigation areas that would have received the second 60 gigalitres under the Water for Fodder program. The Murray is banking along its entire length, the Mulwala and national channels have been pressed into service, but not to take this water to irrigators to run it around the Barmah Choke and take the pressure off the water. Most of this flow will simply go to the south Indian Ocean and go out to sea. There is nowhere left to store it; it'll just be going to the ocean. However, irrigators in the upper Murray in New South Wales and Victoria have not had their water allocations—yet again, another year when they have not had their allocations. Allocations are mostly eight per cent, with some areas moving up to 40 per cent. That's it. Yet Australia is still importing wheat and rice because farmers are not getting their water allocations. How much more water do we need to have in the dams before we let farmers have some? Inflows into the Murray-Darling Basin this year are right on long-term average. There is no reason for farmers to not get their full allocations.</para>
<para>We have an economy that has been devastated by COVID restrictions. Our GDP is going to be down billions. Jobs are being lost. Farmers could help save the economy, if they get their water—their water. The difference between starving farmers for water and giving them their legal water allocation is more than $10 billion in agricultural output—$10 billion. One thousand gigalitres of the 5,200 gigalitres in storage would have a dramatic effect on our economy. It would save jobs and save massive social security payments, while bringing in foreign export earnings. It would save communities. What a bargain. Give our families their water.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to agree with one thing Senator Hanson-Young said, and that is that this government doesn't manage the Murray-Darling Basin—because we don't manage the Murray-Darling Basin. We don't manage water allocations and we don't manage planned environmental water. The only thing that the Commonwealth does is manage held environmental water, which is also at the mercy of state water management rules and state water allocations. So I urge Senator Hanson-Young to read the report developed by Mick Keelty earlier this year which clearly outlines the different jurisdictional arrangements and the complexity of managing the Murray-Darling Basin. What the government are doing is continuing to implement the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which we inherited from the former Labor government.</para>
<para>What this disallowance motion before us today does actually has nothing to do with the Basin Plan but everything to do with what our government did to address the concerns and the struggles of irrigators in the southern connected system. We negotiated an arrangement with the South Australian government to, where possible, free up some water that we could put on the market, which is the only mechanism available to the Commonwealth government. We cannot allocate water. We don't have water to allocate. The market is the only mechanism we can use. We made, in the first tranche, 40 gigalitres available. It was a highly successful program. That 40 gigalitres was distributed to 800 farmers, who were restricted to using the water to produce food and fodder crops to support livestock in the midst of the worst drought that our country has seen in a very long time. This was at the same time that South Australia saw 900 gigalitres of water over and above their entitlement flows flow over the border into South Australia, nearly 700 of which flowed out to the Indian Ocean, as Senator Malcolm Roberts has just alluded to.</para>
<para>I have no issue with that extra water flowing to South Australia, but it is quite understandable that irrigators in Victoria and New South Wales who are on low or zero water allocations ask why. It is quite right that, when an opportunity arises at a time when temporary water prices are between $700 and $900 a megalitre and well out of the reach of fodder producers and the government offered a product at $100 a megalitre, they raced for it. There were over 4,000 applications, which shows that this was a program that was strongly desired.</para>
<para>In the review, 68 per cent of survey respondents supported the program. More than 70 per cent said they would actually participate again. Remember that this program was developed at a time when storages in the southern connected basin were only 38 per cent. Today, thankfully, storages are at 58 per cent. What the government has done is put the second tranche of this program on hold, which is right because, thankfully, we have had rain this year. We have seen water prices on the temporary market drop to between $150 and $250 a megalitre, depending on where you are in the southern connected system.</para>
<para>We have allocations this year. In my home region of the New South Wales Murray, I am pleased to say allocations have reached 12 per cent today. But, as Senator Roberts rightly said, South Australia are on 100 per cent, as they are every year. They hold an extra 300 gigalitres over and above what they normally use in storage in what's called 'deferred water'. South Australia have plenty of water. The environment now has allocations. They can use their water to deliver for the environmental needs as per their long-term environmental watering program. No-one suffered through the rollout of this program. South Australia did not lose water. They finally got the opportunity to test their desal plant. They did not lose water. The South Australian government made money. They were at no costs lost out of this program. Farmers benefited out of this program because they could access water and grow the food and fodder that they needed and they were able to put some of that fodder onto the market to help drought stricken farmers across the whole eastern seaboard, not just the southern connected basin. So I do not see any reason to disallow what was a very successful program that was fit for purpose and right for the time.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's hard to keep track of all of the programs that the government has managed to announce with a great big announcement and a lot of fanfare only to see the actual delivery fall a long way short of what's promised. We can add this one to the list, because when Minister Littleproud first went out and started talking up this program he said that up to 6,000 farmers could be supported by this program. We had a chat about this at the cross-portfolio estimates back in February.</para>
<para>Do you know how many people were actually able to be assisted by this program? At that point, 800. I asked officials how it could come about that a minister would go out and say that 6,000 farmers were all getting extra water and then, in the end, the number was 800, which is a much, much smaller number; even those on the other side I think would have to agree. The explanation given to me was:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The program design was modified after the first announcement so that a slightly larger volume of water was made available under the program guidelines.</para></quote>
<para>It sounds like a pretty big mess, doesn't it?</para>
<para>There was a decision to put out a press release. That's where all decisions start with this government—a decision to put out a lazy press release, having done none of the work and, in this case, apparently, not having even really determined in any meaningful way with officials about how this thing was going to be delivered. I asked the minister who was representing at that time, Senator Duniam, about this. I said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">What happens when a minister goes out and says, 'I've got a program for 6,000 people' but in the end it's only for 800?</para></quote>
<para>Senator Duniam said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Then, when officials do some further work and other models are adopted, it is consultation.</para></quote>
<para>That's not really how policy and program development is supposed to work. What you are actually supposed to do is identify the problem and do some consultation and then make the announcement. But, like everything else with this government, it is all about the announcement, and the follow-through is dreadful.</para>
<para>At the beginning of this year, Mr Pitt was out there saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">My very strong view is we'll deliver exactly what we said we would and that's 100GL in the Water for Fodder program.</para></quote>
<para>This was the revised version. But, on 7 August, the ABC reported:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Federal Government has walked away from plans to deliver 100 gigalitres (GL) of water to farmers to grow feed for their livestock, indefinitely deferring a decision about the future of its Water for Fodder program.</para></quote>
<para>Again, there was a lot of big talk and a lot of assurances, but the reality falls far short.</para>
<para>The disallowance before us doesn't deal with these problems. In fact, Labor's concern is that the disallowance that the Greens ask us to support would actually make the situation worse by generating risk and uncertainty in a system that is already struggling with questions of compliance. The specific thing that we would point to is the possibility that this disallowance motion, if passed, would have the effect that the Commonwealth would lose their capacity to ensure compliance and enforcement.</para>
<para>Compliance and enforcement is obviously key to the integrity of any program. It is particularly significant in the Murray-Darling Basin. Labor is not inclined to support a disallowance that jeopardises enforcement arrangements. The government does need to be able to check that the water is actually being used for fodder in the Water for Fodder program. I do note again that, when we talked about this in estimates earlier in the year, the department told me that the compliance and enforcement arrangements were not yet in place. I look forward to hearing from government about the compliance and enforcement arrangements they have put in place to make sure that this program works in a way that they say it will work.</para>
<para>More broadly, there is a problem with the government's administration of the Murray-Darling Basin. Scandal after scandal after scandal plagues their management of this critical system. Labor established the Murray-Darling Basin Plan because we want a healthy working river. We want it to work for graziers, and we want it to work to manage the environment. We want it to work for irrigators, for First Nations people and for the communities along the rivers of our basin. The reckless approach to water management taken by successive ministers, aided and abetted by the National Party, is a national shame. Like much that has happened under this government over the last seven years, it falls well short of the big promises that they like to make to their constituents. The government needs to get its act together. The Murray-Darling Basin is a precious national asset. Stakeholders all across the basin and, indeed, all across the country depend on it. We can't allow the mismanagement to continue.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SESELJA</name>
    <name.id>HZE</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government obviously won't be supporting the disallowance. The Industry Research and Development (Water for Fodder Program) Instrument 2019 is a regulation that allows the Commonwealth to ensure compliance with arrangements agreed by landholders who receive water under the Water for Fodder program. Round 1 of Water for Fodder has offered 40 gigalitres of water in 50-megalitre parcels to 800 farmers. It is a measure to help farmers to grow fodder, silage and pasture in the Murray-Darling Basin, and the water is not allowed to be traded for profit or used on non-fodder crops. A decision on round 2 will be announced soon.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>70</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australia's Family Law System Joint Select Committee</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reporting Date</title>
            <page.no>70</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>70</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of Senator Steele-John, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 November 2020:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The reassessment of the Australia-Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement (A-HKFTA), with particular reference to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the appropriateness of the A-HKFTA given the passage and imposition of China's national security law in Hong Kong;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) whether Hong Kong still enjoys the high degree of autonomy valued by Australia through the 'One Country, Two Systems' framework;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) ongoing human rights abuses and repression in Hong Kong; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) any other related matters.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] Last year the Liberal, Nationals and Labor parties voted together to pass legislation that implemented the Australia-Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement. They did this in the shadow of a most serious crackdown in Hong Kong, over strong objections from civil society and the union movement. It's worth recalling the situation at the time. China's President Xi had just said of Hong Kong protesters, 'Anyone attempting to split China in any part of the country will end in crushed bones and shattered limbs.' We had witnessed brutal months of crackdown on dissent as the people of Hong Kong called for things that we take for granted here in Australia—things as basic as universal suffrage. Protesters had faced antidemocratic emergency powers to ban face masks. They had faced tear gas and live bullets from police. Thousands had been arrested, with children as young as 12 among those convicted. At JSCOT's inquiry into the treaty, the ACTU said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Given the escalating events taking place in Hong Kong at the moment, the ACTU calls on the government to wait until the situation is resolved before proceeding with the enabling legislation of the Australia-Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement.</para></quote>
<para>They went on:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We feel it's important that we show solidarity with the protesters, and our support for human rights, civil society and the rule of law in Hong Kong, before we decide on how to proceed with a free trade agreement.</para></quote>
<para>Hong Kong activists called on MPs to do something very simple: they were asking parliament to consider human rights and not to proceed with the FTA at a time when they were being violently suppressed. Hong Kong Watch said in its submission:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In light of the erosion of freedoms and the rule of law in Hong Kong which are important pillars for Australian businesses, it is therefore imperative for the … government to take action to ensure adequate consideration of human rights issues during future trade agreement negotiations and to include human rights protection clauses in the Australia-Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement, including suspension clauses to suspend an agreement if core human rights standards are not met and backed by an effective enforcement mechanism through Parliamentary scrutiny and monitoring of human rights compliance by both parties to the trade agreement.</para></quote>
<para>The response of the major parties to these concerns and abuses occurring in Hong Kong at the time was to push the ratifying legislation through the parliament. They even refused Greens' amendments that would have delayed the implementation of the agreement by at least one year to allow us to monitor the situation as it developed. Indeed, they insisted that the implementation of the FTA would, in fact, strengthen Hong Kong's autonomous status within the one country, two systems framework. If you now navigate to the FTA section of the DFAT home page, the government still confidently tells browsers that the deal:</para>
<quote><para class="block">…reaffirms the value Australia places on the high degree of autonomy enjoyed by Hong Kong through the "One Country, Two Systems" framework.</para></quote>
<para>Since the passage of the legislation last year, however, the situation in Hong Kong has become even bleaker. A few months ago, the Chinese government endorsed and adopted the national security law for Hong Kong, the most aggressive assault on Hong Kong people's freedoms since the transfer of sovereignty in 1997. Governments around the world, including Australia, strongly criticised the law as fundamentally undermining the one country, two systems principle and in breach of legally-binding declarations such as the joint declaration signed by China and the United Kingdom.</para>
<para>The passage and implementation of the law marks the end of many of Hong Kong's unique freedoms. It prohibits activities that the Chinese government deem to be crimes of secession, subversion and terrorism and those they consider to be collusion with a foreign power or force. These so-called crimes are poorly defined and open to interpretation. The law is devastating to Hong Kong's human rights protections. It is creating specialised secret security agencies. It denies rights to a fair trial. It provides sweeping new police powers and weakens judicial oversight as it, in turn, increases restraints on civil society and the media. In practice, it means that the people of Hong Kong face long jail terms for things as simple as owning banners that authorities do not like or chanting slogans that are deemed to be inappropriate. Hong Kong's teachers, too, are on tenterhooks. They've been advised that they need to educate students about the new law so that children understand 'the importance of national security'. Books in schools and libraries are being reviewed as we speak to make sure that they do not violate these new laws.</para>
<para>Of course, the whole purpose of the national security law is to stymie dissent. Since the law came into effect, Hong Kong authorities have arrested people for wearing T-shirts and making tweets that are seen to be advocating for independence. They have asserted the right to prosecute critics abroad. They have barred pro-democracy candidates from legislative elections and postponed those elections by more than a year.</para>
<para>In response to the national security law the Morrison government suspended Australia's extradition treaty with Hong Kong. The Greens welcomed that move at the time. We were also pleased that the government finally decided to extend visas for some Hong Kongers—although we were disappointed that these actions did not go further and urged them in this regard. We need more than just extension schemes for some visa categories. What we need is protection for all those in Hong Kong who are at risk of persecution because of the new laws, on top of our existing humanitarian quotas. That has to be made very clear—that this would be on top of our existing humanitarian quotas. And we need a clear statement that so-called crimes like illegal assembly will be exempt from the character test.</para>
<para>The Greens are also calling on the Morrison government to consider further steps in relation to this serious change in Hong Kong's status. In seeking to refer the Australia-Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement to a Senate committee we are merely asking the government and the ALP to review the deal in light of the changed circumstances. At the very least, we hope you will agree that this parliament should be given the opportunity to examine whether Hong Kong's status continues to be significantly autonomous to merit this agreement. We therefore urge you to support this referral.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor is deeply dismayed about the Chinese government's imposition of national security legislation in Hong Kong which directly undermines the one country, two systems arrangement. This legislation has curtailed the city's rights and freedoms. Just this week we've seen reports of prominent democracy activists, including Andy Li, being arrested for attempting to flee to Taiwan. We expect Beijing to honour its commitments to the international community and to the people of Hong Kong. In opposing this motion, Labor strongly believes that it is in our national interest to signal our support for one country, two systems; uphold the international rules based order, including through a robust trading system and regional economic engagement; and provide certainty and transparency for all Australian businesses operating in Hong Kong.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SESELJA</name>
    <name.id>HZE</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Australia-Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement provides certainty and transparency for Australian businesses trading and investing in Hong Kong. To terminate the agreement would remove that certainty of the operating environment in doing business with and in Hong Kong. Australia supports a rules based system that provides recourse for Australian businesses and investors. The Australian government has clearly and consistently expressed our deep concern regarding Beijing's decision to impose a national security law in Hong Kong.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environment and Communications Legislation Committee</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>72</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020 be referred to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 11 November 2020.</para></quote>
<para>This motion is in relation to the government's legislation that was tabled in the House of Representatives last week that is going to weaken Australia's environmental laws. It's going to weaken the ability of the federal government and the Commonwealth to ensure that we protect Australia's most iconic places, our special species and the wildlife that Australians right around this country and indeed people around the world hold dear.</para>
<para>This legislation is a carbon copy of the Tony Abbott bill from 2014, and it's very disingenuous of the government to put forward this bill without any other process. We know that the government has been saying for the past few months that they would be insisting on a piece of legislation that would mirror or at least reflect the recommendations from the Graeme Samuel review. That, of course, is the independent review done into the EPBC Act, the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the current law that is meant to look after our environment. That review has been 10 years waiting and is still ongoing; we haven't got the final report. The interim report, which was tabled in June, made it very clear that we need stronger environment protection, not weaker, because our environment is at breaking point. Our environment is at a point where the decline is so bad that, if we don't do something, it is simply unsustainable. The rate of extinction of Australian species is unimaginable. Climate change, land clearing and pollution are pushing our environment to crisis point and our native species into extinction.</para>
<para>What we need is stronger environmental protection and an independent watchdog to make sure those rules are put into place and those standards upheld. But what this government has done is introduce a piece of legislation that simply hands over powers for approvals to the states and the territories. Why do the government want to do this? It's for the same reason they wanted to do this in 2014 under the leadership of Tony Abbott, and that's to make it easier for big miners and big developers to get approval for projects that are going to damage or be harmful to the environment. The government today are arguing that we need it because of COVID-19. They're doing it under the cover of the pandemic crisis. It is absolutely cynical and terrible that this government is prepared to sacrifice Australia's already damaged environment, suffering environment in order to do what it is these corporations have wanted for a long time—that is, an easy ride through the environmental approval process.</para>
<para>This parliament and this Senate need to stand up to this government and say that this will go to a proper inquiry. We need to make sure we scrutinise it. It is our job as legislators to do that. There should be no more progress of this legislation in this place until there has been a full-blown Senate inquiry at the very least. We should, in fact, be waiting until the final report is tabled, which won't be until 31 October. That's what we should be waiting on. We shouldn't be allowing this government to rush through legislation that is going to trash our environment even more.</para>
<para>Heaven knows what happens when there aren't strong enough environment protections, when the states make the decisions. You end up seeing Rio Tinto blowing up ancient Aboriginal artefacts. You see state governments wanting to dam the Franklin or arguing for coal seam gas extraction to be expanded in the Northern Territory and New South Wales. We can't trust this government. They want us to rush this legislation through with no inquiry, with a nod and a wink that it will all be okay. Well, we don't trust you. This must be inquired into, and this motion must send the legislation off to inquiry. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor supports this reference to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. If ever a government needed scrutiny on environmental management and its legislative agenda, it's the Morrison government. This bill appears to be a rehash of Tony Abbott's failed 2014 environment bill, which would harm Australia's natural environment and put jobs and investment at risk. There are no national environmental standards in this bill, despite those being the foundation of Professor Graeme Samuel's proposed reforms. This bill would see more major project job delays, more investment uncertainty, more conflict, less trust in decisions and worse outcomes for the environment.</para>
<para>With no proposed standards, no independent cop on the beat and no additional funding for the states, despite the extra responsibilities, this bill appears to be designed for political conflict. But it does need further scrutiny. If Mr Morrison were serious about securing broad support and durable reform he would not be rehashing Tony Abbott's failed 2014 bill, breaking his promise on national standards or cherrypicking the interim report of one of Australia's most experienced business regulators.</para>
<para>The environment minister, Sussan Ley, said in July that the government would introduce strong and rigorous environmental standards that had buy-in across the board at the same time as introducing her proposed legislative change. This government has failed the test it set for itself. In his interim report Professor Samuel warned against the exact approach the government is now taking. In 2015 the parliament did not support these amendments in response to significant community concern about the ability of states and territories to uphold the national interest in applying discretion in approval decisions.</para>
<para>Even when presented with an opportunity to provide more certainty for jobs, investment and our environment, Scott Morrison chooses conflict. Labor has engaged constructively with the Samuel review from the very start. Scott Morrison has very favourable conditions for reform: an opposition that has said it will engage constructively and a well-respected review chair who is working with leaders from agriculture, resources and business, as well as traditional owners, conservationists and academics. The Morrison government should, firstly, introduce strong national environmental standards; secondly, establish a genuinely independent cop on the beat for Australia's environment; and, thirdly, fix the explosion of unnecessary 510 per cent job and investment delays caused by their massive funding cuts.</para>
<para>The Samuel review is the most significant opportunity for environmental reform in the last 20 years, but Scott Morrison is bungling it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SESELJA</name>
    <name.id>HZE</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>These amendments are minor and technical in nature but are vital for implementing the decision by national cabinet without unnecessary delay.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Of course these amendments ought to be scrutinised by a Senate inquiry. It's really important for the Australian people to understand that this government's legislation—this amendment bill—is designed for one thing, and one thing only: it's designed to pave the way for our big, greedy and polluting corporations, many of whom pay little or no tax at all, to be able to trash our precious environment with ever-decreasing environmental protections and ever-decreasing scrutiny.</para>
<para>This is a government that will always, always go in to bat for its corporate donors—for those big corporate profiteers—and it is a government that will never stand up for nature. It will never, never stand up and take decent action to address the breakdown of our climate. When will we ever learn? How many more people need to die in floods and bushfires driven by dangerous climate change? How many more people need to lose their properties? How many more people need to have their lives destroyed because we are allowing and facilitating the destruction of nature by the big corporate profiteers? We must do better than this.</para>
<para>We already know, thanks to the interim report of the Samuel review, that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is misnamed. We already know, thanks to that review, that it does not protect the environment and that it does not conserve biodiversity. We know that because Professor Samuel has told us so. And what's this government's response? It is to come in and weaken environmental protections. It is to come in and say, 'We're going to do more to pave the way for the big corporate polluters. We're going to do more to make sure that they can continue to look after the interests of their shareholders above and beyond the need to protect our environment.'</para>
<para>We have to do better, and I ask the government: how are you going to explain yourselves to your children and your grandchildren? How are you going to look them in the eye and say that, in the middle of an extinction crisis, in the middle of a climate crisis, you came in here to weaken environmental protections in Australia? You came in here to destroy the chance of getting strong action to address the climate breakdown. How are you going to look future generations in the eye? I'll tell you what: you won't be able to.</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Seselja interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No matter what Senator Seselja is mumbling about over in the corner—</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Seselja interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And on he goes again. I don't remember pulling the chain and asking for a contribution from you, Senator Seselja. I'm here to speak up for future generations.</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Seselja interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm here to speak up for the threatened species whose habitats you are destroying.</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Seselja interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator McKim, resume your seat. Minister, I have called you to order at least three times. I expect you to respond when I call you to order. Senator McKim has the right to be heard in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm here to speak up for the threatened species who don't have a voice in this place—species like the beautiful swift parrot, which is being driven to extinction by habitat destruction facilitated by the native forest logging industry in my home state of Tasmania. That beautiful little bird is now on the IUCN Red List because its habitat is being destroyed, hundreds of hectares at a time, by the brutal, rampant industry that strip-mines our native forest in my home state of Tasmania. That's why the Greens are in this place, and we will never go quietly into the night while people like you—the environmental destroyers, the rapers of our planet—continue on this dark path that you are on today.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 4, in the name of Senator Hanson-Young, be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [18:57]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>23</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, CL</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, KR</name>
                  <name>Green, N</name>
                  <name>Griff, S</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J</name>
                  <name>Lines, S</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M</name>
                  <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                  <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                  <name>Polley, H</name>
                  <name>Pratt, LC</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                  <name>Siewert, R</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J</name>
                  <name>Watt, M</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>23</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A</name>
                  <name>Askew, W</name>
                  <name>Birmingham, SJ</name>
                  <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                  <name>Cash, MC</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                  <name>Davey, P</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                  <name>Fierravanti-Wells, C</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J (teller)</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                  <name>McMahon, S</name>
                  <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A</name>
                  <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P</name>
                  <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                  <name>Smith, DA</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names></names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>75</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Jobkeeper Payments) Amendment Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" style="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" background="" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word">
            <a type="Bill" href="r6583">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Jobkeeper Payments) Amendment Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Returned from the House of Representatives</title>
            <page.no>75</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020, Payment Times Reporting (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" style="" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" background="" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word">
            <p>
              <a type="Bill" href="r6542">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a type="Bill" href="r6544">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Payment Times Reporting (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>75</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STOKER</name>
    <name.id>237920</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before question time, I began to tell the story of a tradesman from the Gold Coast. His name's Mark. His business is one in which he has hired apprentices and trained them through to being tradesmen themselves. He has taken on subbies and held them for years. He's employed tradesmen. He's grown a business that contributes meaningfully to the community around him. His business works for head builders in residential construction. He's a contractor. But, even though his name might not be on the signs at the front of the homes that he contributes to building, he's really proud of what he does. In his career, he has seen the industry go up and he's seen it go down. He's seen it ride out the recession we had to have, so called by a former Prime Minister, and he went through the great hardship of that late eighties and early nineties period and prospered throughout the late nineties and through the early noughties.</para>
<para>He has some important feedback for the people who work in this chamber to take into account, and that is that whenever times get tough, whenever cash flow is tight, as a contractor it's always those further down the chain who bear the brunt. Too many times he has been on the receiving end of a situation where the residential builder to which he is contracted has extended out the payment period for bills that he's owed, little by little, until 30-day terms have become 60-day terms, 90-day terms or 120-day terms—without consent, of course. Never were the terms the subject of a consent to that kind of extension. Then, sadly, he can find that the builder goes under, taking with it, sometimes, hundreds of thousands of dollars. But, even when it's less than that, even when it's in the realm of tens of thousands of dollars, the hit to his business has been huge and, with it, has risked the livelihoods of every person who works for him.</para>
<para>It's put his house on the line. He tells the story of more than once being in a position where he and his wife had to be in regular contact with the bank to try and negotiate more time for payments because there just isn't any more room left to wiggle. He knows how very hand to mouth many of the people who have worked for him have lived. He has known how difficult it has been for them to bear it when cash flow gets squeezed in his business because of the manipulations of those further up the chain.</para>
<para>The Morrison government cares about people like Mark, listens to their stories and is prepared to act. The Morrison government recognises that cash flow is a key issue for small businesses like Mark's. I find, in my office, I am getting concerns constantly raised with me about the payment practices of bigger businesses, because businesses at the small end of the spectrum have staff wages, rent and other overheads that all have to go out and all have to be paid. A lot of them have a code of great honour about making sure they pay their bills on time, but it leaves them in a vulnerable position when those with greater means—those with bigger overdrafts, shall we say—don't do the right thing.</para>
<para>Ultimately, the time that small business owners have to spend chasing up bills to get paid is time that they're not investing into doing their job well, time they're not investing in training their apprentices and time they're not investing in the future growth of their enterprise. So this bill is really important. This bill means that there is a requirement for businesses with a total annual income of over $100 million—at that bigger end of the spectrum—to publish information about how and when they pay small businesses. So when the head contractor for Mark extends the time for paying his bills from the agreed term of 30 days to 60, that will be on the public record. When it's extended further, that too will be the subject of reporting.</para>
<para>Some people will say that doesn't go far enough—that reporting isn't enough to help someone like Mark; reporting alone won't solve this problem. I take on board that concern, but the idea of having transparency about how people are conducting themselves is twofold. It means a contractor like Mark knows what they're getting into when they start working for a business, and they can make an informed choice about whether that's the kind of business with whom they want to deal. Some might say that they don't always have a whole lot of choice about these things; sometimes they've got to take whatever work is on offer. I accept that too, but the way this reporting mechanism will make a big difference to people like Mark is that when that head contractor wants to tender for Commonwealth work, the fact of their good or bad reporting record will be a relevant consideration in whether or not they should be brought on board. It's a way that the Commonwealth can lead by paying its bills on time—one very important measure—and also by selecting people with whom to deal whose business practices reflect the values of the small business people in the community that we are here to fight for. I think that's significant.</para>
<para>We know that long payment times hurt small businesses. It stops them from being able to have the certainty of cashflow that means they can take a punt on a new member of staff. It stops them from being able to make significant investments. There's a flow-on effect across the economy when these kinds of practices are engaged in. If we can speed up the process of people getting paid so that it's done in a more timely way, the benefits are compounding throughout the economy.</para>
<para>There's another criticism that's potentially able to be made about this regime: if businesses at the top end of the spectrum aren't doing the right thing and aren't paying people on time, let's not just demand reporting; let's make it a requirement that they pay on time. I've heard that argument made by some in the community, but we have the benefit of observing the experience of the imposition of requirements like that in other jurisdictions. Some countries in Europe have introduced a requirement at law that a business must pay within 60 days. At first glance, again, that might sound good, but that had a perverse effect in many ways. It had the effect of making all of those businesses who were paying faster than that—say, at 30 days—change the norms by which they did business and to think that all they really had to do was 60 days. So keeping it flexible, keeping it based on reporting and staying away from imposing an inflexible hard requirement not only allows for the improvement of standards on something more of a voluntary basis but also avoids that perverse effect of providing a disincentive to those businesses who want to pay more swiftly.</para>
<para>So I commend this bill. It's a way of improving the norms by which people do business. It's a way of providing transparency for those businesses that do the right thing and a way of naming and shaming those who do the wrong thing. It's a way of giving tradesmen like Mark ever-improving cashflow, certainty about the bodies with whom they are doing business and optimism that they can expect consistency in the business practices in the market in which they deal so that they have the confidence they need to be able to take on more apprentices, train more staff and invest in the future of their industry. That's something from which we will all benefit.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PRATT</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also welcome the Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020. It is a step in the right direction to support the cashflow of small business in our nation. It's a small step in the right direction, but Labor believes it could be—and it can be with the right amendments—a much better and stronger step to support cashflow for small business.</para>
<para>We know that the bill before us puts in place a reporting scheme requiring around 3,000 large businesses and government enterprises with turnovers of $100 million and above to report biannually on their payment terms and practices for their small business suppliers. 'Small business' will be defined as businesses with less than $10 million in turnover, and a small business identification tool will be created to assist larger businesses identifying their small business suppliers.</para>
<para>We have heard the government argue, just as Senator Stoker argued in speaking before me, that the purpose of the scheme is to improve payment times for small businesses by making the payment times for practices of larger businesses more transparent. They've argued that transparency is an adequate measure to create cultural change and put pressure on payment time practices in our nation. I acknowledge the consideration that the government might have given to the flaws of overseas schemes that have regulated and mandated payment times, but I think we can and should be a little bit cleverer than that here in the way we legislate on those questions.</para>
<para>This bill puts in place a regulator appointed by the Secretary to the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. That regulator publishes the reporting entity reports or payment times on an essential public register that will be known as the Payment Times Reports Register. That register will include aggregated data on the reporting entities—larger businesses' payment terms and practices of that identifying entity.</para>
<para>Reporting is supposed to begin in January next year, and entities that fail to maintain payment records or provide false information may contravene a civil penalty provision. So that is essentially only a transparency measure, and I don't think that's going to be enough to support small business in Australia. As we've heard in the evidence before the Senate inquiry, there are many companies that simply don't mind what their public reputation is regarding these matters. They actually just leverage off their market control as large companies. They're able to dictate long payment time terms. Even if that's not what is written on the original contract or invoice, they dictate and move to those long payment times, because they can simply afford to string small businesses along because those large businesses are not as dependent on the small businesses as the small businesses are on the larger businesses.</para>
<para>We on this side of the chamber are very concerned about what is, frankly, a light touch when it comes to the nature of payment times and their importance to small business. We very much understand cashflow, the survival of small business and how critical prompt payment times are. Small businesses need healthy cashflow. Without good cashflow, we are seeing small businesses already experience much higher interest rates from banks, whereas larger businesses have more capacity to raise capital and juggle their finances around.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, despite the financial flexibility of larger businesses, in Australia we have seen some firms take advantage of smaller businesses to boost their own working capital. Indeed, the small business ombudsman gave us evidence of some international companies that simply said that it wouldn't really matter what they were forced to report through a regime like this. The overseas company has international policy settings, and they will mandate what those payment times are—and they can be up to as long as 180 days. So transparency will do diddly squat, really, to manage payment times where there is an overseas business which mandates the long payment times so they can leverage profits out of it at the expense of small business.</para>
<para>Some payment times are indeed unconscionably long: 180 days or more. When coupled with the practice of supply chain financing, or reverse factoring, these long payment times become even more obscene in the sense that small businesses who have been forced into 180-day payment times have asked why that should be legal and why anything hasn't been done to stop it, and then they end up being victims of supply chain financing or reverse factoring. They end up taking a discount on the money that they're owed by the company to which they supplied simply in order to get paid on time or to get paid in a reasonable length of time. Behaviour like this is simply unacceptable. Labor has said this for a long time, and we don't believe that this legislation goes nearly far enough in fixing the issue.</para>
<para>The member for Fenner, my colleague in the other place, said back in 2016: 'The reason these large companies are squeezing suppliers is simple: it improves their cash flow and makes them money. Even in the current low-interest-rate environment, there's money to be made from taking your time to pay up. The reason firms can get away with longer payment terms is straightforward: the reason they get away with it is they're big companies.' That was back in 2016. During the COVID crisis we've heard about even further egregious behaviour by large companies, such as Premier Retail and The Just Group. They have unilaterally extended payment terms for up to 180 days, which is six months. That's six months in an environment where small businesses might be struggling and already have their backs against the wall. The Just Group, run by Solomon Lew, is particularly offensive to smaller businesses, given that at this time Solomon Lew told landlords that they wouldn't pay rent but they've accessed JobKeeper and they've reported record profits for the financial year. These are some of the companies who extend payment times simply because it makes them extra profits. When we bring reverse factoring into that, payment times are blown out well beyond 30 days, and third-party financiers steps in—oh!—to save the day and pay the bill on time, but at a discount. In other words, small businesses must pay to be paid on time.</para>
<para>These practices are outrageous and there is nothing in this bill that actually prevents them. What's to stop someone saying, 'Oh, yes, we paid your bill on time; it's here that the bill is paid and we reported that it was paid on time'? But was it fully paid on time or was it paid with reverse factoring inside it so the small business didn't receive what they were owed? In the bill, the definition of 'supply chain financing' and the associated reporting requirements are contained in the minister's rules. The draft rules require a large entity to report on whether they use supply chain financing and to detail those arrangements and the proportion of invoices paid under such arrangements.</para>
<para>We might not know, through this so-called transparency scheme, exactly how much of a loss small businesses have faced in order to get their invoices paid on time. I think it's certainly problematic, that the only reference to supply chain finance is this passing reference to what the minister may include in the rules. We have no guarantee that a minister won't remove requirements to report on the use of such arrangements on the whim of or due to pressure from proponents of supply chain finance. Along with those that I've already outlined, Labor's primary concern is simply that transparency—</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>77</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Capital Territory Government</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SESELJA</name>
    <name.id>HZE</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't read enough fiction, so I'm always pleased when the member for Fenner puts his pen to paper, as I was recently when I read a piece that he wrote in none other than <inline font-style="italic">CityNews</inline> here in Canberra. Dr Leigh, in his piece of fiction, appeared so determined to distract from the absolute failings of the ACT Labor government that he resorted to accusing the Canberra Liberals, who have the most ethnically diverse group of candidates of any party in the history of self-government in the ACT, of being indifferent to supporting multicultural diversity. Of course, unlike ACT Labor, whose candidates are all hand-picked by militant unions like the CFMEU, the Canberra Liberals are proud of the cultural and religious diversity our team offers, which reflects the true nature of the city of Canberra and is voted on by the most democratic branch of any party in the entire country.</para>
<para>But I've got to say that I did feel for Dr Leigh, because, in this work of fiction, I could see what he was doing. He couldn't bring himself to defend the record of 19 years of this ACT Labor government. So I want to take the Senate through what Dr Leigh couldn't bring himself to defend. He couldn't bring himself to defend the fact that we've had to endure multiple education ministers who have failed our education system with overcrowded classrooms; school walls painted with lead paint; the worst rate of violence against students, teachers and principals in the nation; and the fall in academic outcomes. That is the legacy of 19 years of ACT Labor running our education system. We witnessed transport ministers oversee months of chaos as they tore apart the bus network in a revamp that saw 51 schools lose dedicated bus routes and dozens of bus stops around the city going unused. We've seen dodgy land deals with their union masters in the CFMEU, seeing Canberra taxpayers getting the raw end of the deal.</para>
<para>In the health portfolio, ACT Labor have overseen dodgy data scandals, a culture of bullying and harassment, the highest emergency department waiting times in the country, cutting of hospital funding in real terms and a promised hospital expansion that Canberrans have been waiting for since 2010. Last week, horrifying figures were revealed. Children under the age of 16 here in the ACT are waiting exorbitant periods of time for initial appointments with a specialist. Children in Canberra are waiting 606 days for ear, nose and throat specialists, 874 days for gastroenterology appointments and four years for dermatology appointments. If it wasn't already clear that ACT Labor can't manage health, it's now crystal clear. Nineteen years of ACT Labor has our children waiting years for initial appointments with healthcare specialists. It's a deplorable record—one that ACT Labor should be absolutely ashamed of—and proof that ACT Labor can't be trusted to deliver the very basic services we should be able to expect. This is a basic test of government and, over two decades, Canberrans have expected and deserved more.</para>
<para>It would be remiss of me not to mention the policy that Dr Leigh is most proud of from his local colleagues, and it would surprise no-one that it is a disgraceful, inequitable tax grab. In 2012, then Chief Minister, now Senator, Katy Gallagher declared that we were masters of spin when we unmasked Labor's tax grab, which would see the tripling of rates for Canberra families. Eight years later and rates revenue has indeed tripled, with no sign of the promised cuts to stamp duty.</para>
<para>Under the leadership of ACT Labor, something Dr Leigh refuses to defend, Canberra has become the worst place in the country to do business, and the government support for those doing it tough during the COVID pandemic has been amongst the most miserly in the country. Even the longest-serving Labor leader in the territory's history, John Stanhope, has said: 'Who could possibly vote for Labor or the Greens at the next election?' Indeed, he has pointed out that they are driving the territory broke. I am not surprised Dr Leigh refused to defend this appalling record, but after 19 years of this negligent government here in the ACT, Canberrans absolutely deserve better.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Aged Care Workers</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Over the last fortnight, we have focused very much on this government's appalling record in relation to aged care, a record that extends the entire seven years that it has been in government. We have watched with horror the tragic loss of over 450 older people in aged-care facilities across Australia as a result of COVID-19. It has been right that we have focused over the last couple of weeks on the tragic loss of life in our aged-care facilities from COVID-19. But there is another group connected to our aged-care sector that is also important that we focus on, and that is the aged-care workers who have held this system together over the last few months and indeed over the last few years.</para>
<para>One of the reasons I want to raise this tonight is that tomorrow is 'Thank you day' for aged-care workers. It's a day when all of us have an opportunity to say thank you to the aged-care workers who are holding our system together and are dedicating their lives to looking after our loved ones. I remember visiting my own grandfather not that long ago in aged care. I remember the care that he was provided by loving, caring workers in the aged-care system. I know that my family was very grateful for the support that they provided. I know that many of us can say the same things about our own loved ones.</para>
<para>Indeed, over this COVID-19 crisis, while we have seen a terrible loss of life in our aged-care sector, what we've also seen is some incredible work from our aged-care workers under extremely difficult circumstances. We've known for many years now that aged-care work is paid too little and is too insecure, with many of the positions being casual or part time and insecure. That has really come to the fore during COVID-19. The fact that people really are paid so poorly for the work that they do, and are employed on such an insecure basis, has come home to bite through COVID-19.</para>
<para>But there have been other things we have observed with the aged-care workforce that weren't apparent until COVID-19 hit. We've seen the lack of training in infection control for aged-care workers, training that people want to receive but simply have not been able to receive. We've seen the shocking failure to provide sufficient PPE—masks, gloves and other PPE—to ensure that our aged-care workers are kept safe and to ensure that the people they care for are kept safe. We've seen the shocking understaffing of aged-care facilities. Again, we've known this for a long time but it has really become apparent through the COVID-19 crisis. We've seen the government's shameful exclusion of a large proportion of the aged-care workforce from receiving the retention bonus that the government has handed out. So there has been a lot that our aged-care workers have had to put up with beyond just the entrance of COVID-19 into the aged-care facilities that they work for. There is an awful lot that we have to say thank you for to our aged-care workers.</para>
<para>But it's not enough for us to just say thank you and move on to the next day. COVID-19 has to be a turning point for how we deliver aged care, for how we fund aged care and how we care for our aged-care workers. We have known for years that there have been fundamental problems in our aged-care sector and that our aged-care workforce has been severely neglected, along with aged-care residents. The time has well and truly come for some action to be taken to address the problems that we have seen for so long.</para>
<para>We keep waiting for this government to come up with some kind of plan for what it is going to do about the aged-care workforce, to support them, nurture them and pay them what they are entitled to. But we haven't seen that plan. That's one of the reasons why last week the leader of the Labor Party, Anthony Albanese, came out with his own plan on behalf of the Labor Party of what we would do to fix the aged-care crisis in this country. It contained eight points, including, most importantly, setting minimum staffing levels for our aged-care facilities. This is something that the government has run away from year after year and it is simply unacceptable that we don't have the required number of nursing and personal-care staff to care for the aged-care residents who need that help. We need to see adequate PPE, we need to see better training and we need to see a lot more for our aged-care sector. Thank you to our aged-care workers. We're on your side.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Christchurch: Attacks</title>
          <page.no>79</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 15 March last year the lives of Muslims across the world changed forever. Our worst fears were realised as an Australian man walked into two mosques and massacred dozens of Muslims at Friday prayers. It was horrific, devastating, and it was completely and unspeakably tragic. At the sentencing hearing of the Christchurch terrorist last week, the court heard testimonies from the families of the targets. Aden Ibrahim Dirye provided a statement about his three-year-old son Ibrahim, who was killed. He said, 'I don't know you. I never hurt you, your father, mother and any of your friends. Rather, I am the type of person who would help you and your family with anything.' Sara Qasem spoke about her beloved father, Abdelfattah, who was killed. She said: 'I want to hear him tell me more about the olive trees in Palestine. I want to hear his voice, my dad's voice, my baba's voice.'</para>
<para>Listening to these statements rips your heart apart. The attack was psychopathic but it was also political and ideological. It was an act of a white supremacist terrorist, an act of white supremacist terrorism inflicted on a community that had watched the increasing fervour of a particular populist strain of right-wing Islamophobia and anti-Muslim racism that had percolated for many years and had resulted in acts of terrorism and violent deadly hate overseas. Further, it had been indulged and platformed in Australia, crossing into mainstream politics and political commentary.</para>
<para>On Thursday the Prime Minister made a statement in the House about the massacre following the sentencing of the shooter. He correctly labelled what happened in Christchurch as a terrible terrorist atrocity and said that justice had been delivered. This of course was welcome, but Mr Morrison also said that all Australians were and remain horrified and devastated by this despicable terrorist act. I wish this were the case but, sadly, it is demonstrably untrue. Eighteen months on from the massacre, we should face up to the fact that some Australians were not at all horrified or devastated by what happened in Christchurch. Let's start in this chamber. One former senator had the utter shamelessness to blame Muslim immigration for Christchurch, calling it the real cause of bloodshed—hardly horrified and devastated. Look further afield, and any cursory glance at online commentary on mainstream news sites following the massacre in March last year would reveal a similar truth—that not everyone was unhappy that the massacre happened.</para>
<para>We owe it to the targets of Christchurch and their families to acknowledge that not enough is being done to face up to this brutal reality. I am one of only a handful of Muslims in this parliament and I am the only Muslim in this chamber. My demands are simple: I ask for honesty, I ask for self-reflection and I ask for action. I fear that we have learned very little from the events of last March. Last Friday at the National Press Club, the day after the sentencing, Minister Tudge gave a wide-ranging speech about social cohesion in Australia and, aside from a reference to the danger of echo chambers, he had only this to say about political extremism: 'There are other challenges to our cohesion that remain, such as Islamic extremism and other forms of extremism and radicalisation.' Let's consider this for one moment. The day following the Christchurch sentencing, when an Australian white supremacist was sentenced to life without parole for the cold-blooded massacre of 51 Muslims, the minister could not even name far-right or white supremacist violence as a challenge we face.</para>
<para>This government must properly acknowledge the existential threat of far-right and white-supremacist extremism to Muslims and other communities of colour. We need self-reflection, we need accountability and we need to complete this task with the seriousness it deserves. Otherwise, I fear that it will not be too long before I have to get up in this chamber to reflect upon another day that the lives of Muslims were changed forever.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: State and Territory Border Closures</title>
          <page.no>80</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Protecting the health of the Australian community is our No. 1 priority as a government. There can be no doubt that COVID-19 is with us for the foreseeable future. When outbreaks occur, as they will, Australians need to have confidence that all of us, state and federal governments, have a plan to deal with isolated cases quickly. We need swift, decisive action at a local level with a local response to ensure the safety of our communities. The one-size-fits-all border closures imposed on regional communities by other states is not a localised, targeted approach. In fact, it has served to highlight the disconnect that still exists between the city and the country here in Australia. Border communities are being impacted despite the fact that there are no community transmissions and in many cases no COVID-19 cases at all in those local communities. While state leaders are engaged in a political game of one-upmanship to garner support amongst capital city voter bases, COVID-19-free border communities that are hundreds of kilometres from COVID-19 hotspots are being torn apart.</para>
<para>There's no medical evidence to support or justify the damage being inflicted on these regional communities. This needs repeating. At the Senate select committee inquiring into the government's response on COVID-19, when Senator Davey, a National Party senator for New South Wales, asked what medical advice the border closures impacting regional areas are based on, the Chief Medical Officer did not have an answer. I've written to state premiers, every single one of them, asking that exact question: provide me, as Leader of the National Party in the Senate, and our regional communities across Australia with the evidence base from a medical perspective that you're using to split these communities asunder—with significant economic, social and health impacts. I believe there is none. Decisions made in Melbourne and Sydney, and let's not forget Adelaide, Brisbane and Hobart—I'm not sparing either the red or the blue team here—are having untold impacts on border communities, rural and regional health services and education outcomes and, even more concerning, untold impacts on emotional and mental wellbeing.</para>
<para>Last week the Senate voted in support of the National Party's motion calling on states and territories to urgently adopt risk based health approaches based on a clear definition of COVID-19 hotspots. The failure by Labor to support the motion showed they are not interested in standing up for rural and regional Australians. Instead, they are continuing to side with Victorian state Premier Daniel Andrews and his botched quarantine system and failed contact tracing system that have led us to this point. We need our national leaders to set and agree on a national standard approach to inbound quarantine with stringent checks and equivalent processing systems that will give us the confidence to learn to live with the coronavirus. I call on state and territory premiers to have a heart and to act in good faith and with common sense at this week's national cabinet on Friday. Use the evidence available to you. We have to agree on criteria for determining which areas are COVID-19 hotspots. The definition must ensure that unnecessary restrictions are not placed on rural and regional areas that are COVID-free and that people are allowed to continue to work. It is easier to go to work in Melbourne, where we knew there were 12 LGAs that were hotspots in June. It is easier to get to work in Melbourne than to get to work in COVID-free regional communities on our borders.</para>
<para>We need practical approaches from our premiers. The Nationals understand the urgency. We live in these regions. We feel the frustration, mental stress and fatigue our community is feeling right now. We're on the brink and we need to get this fixed. We've been talking about this for literally months. We need to avoid the human emergencies, emotional toll and hardship that we've been seeing. We need to protect all Australians, because we actually are all in this together.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Volunteers</title>
          <page.no>81</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Anita has been a volunteer at Perth Festival since 2012. In her years as a volunteer she's helped stuff envelopes, cleared space for an aerial performance and done pretty much everything in between. As she explained in an interview with ArtsHub:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It wasn't until retirement that I really had time to give more time to the things that interest me. And I can't act and I can't really sing other than in a community choir, but I love theatre and I love being involved in some way.</para></quote>
<para>Egyptian born Mohamed volunteers to help prepare meals, cares for the elderly and helps new arrivals to Australia. Last year he told SBS:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It's something that makes me feel that I have made a difference, even though it might only be a little difference and might not have a big impact. But if I have made somebody smile, it makes me satisfied that I have achieved something in my day.</para></quote>
<para>Anita and Mohamed are just two of the estimated 7.1 million Australians who did volunteer work through an organisation or group last year. Research done years ago estimated that the time donated by people like Anita and Mohamed contributes some $290 billion to the Australian economy. Volunteers help feed older Australians. They hand out emergency relief packages to families doing it tough. They help new migrants make connections. They clean up rubbish from our waterways and patrol our beaches to keep swimmers safe.</para>
<para>But, like much of our Australian society, volunteering has been impacted by the pandemic. New research conducted by the ANU found that over 65 per cent of volunteers stopped volunteering between February and April this year. Researchers believe that this is the equivalent of 12 million fewer volunteer hours a week, and older volunteers in particular were more likely to stop volunteering. It's a problem for many organisations, because older Australians are more likely to offer their services and volunteer in the first place. Some volunteers are returning as conditions return to normal in some places around the country. But I've been hearing that many organisations are still finding themselves short of the people that they really need to do important work in the community. Volunteering rates were already in decline prior to the pandemic. The ABS asked about volunteering rates as part of the census, and there had been a decline between 2011 and2016. It's a shame, because Australia needs volunteers now more than ever.</para>
<para>Research shows that volunteering helps build community cohesion. It also helps individuals' mental health. Beyond Blue's lead clinical adviser, Grant, told the ABC:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The two main benefits of volunteering that can have a big impact on maintaining good mental health are the way it keeps people socially connected, and how it provides a real sense of purpose.</para></quote>
<para>The federal government's Head to Health program encourages people to try volunteering as a method of self-care. That's not enough, though. The pandemic has thrown up new challenges for volunteers and the community organisations that depend on them. I am calling on the government to listen to volunteers and to make sure that they have the support that they need to continue giving to the community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Smith, Ms Ann Marie</title>
          <page.no>81</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GRIFF</name>
    <name.id>76760</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The wilful neglect, suffering and tragic death of South Australian Ann Marie Smith shocked us all. Whilst her former carer has now been charged with manslaughter, so many questions remain unanswered. Ann Marie spent the last years of her life in an almost sedentary state, living in putrid conditions in a cane chair. Further details revealed by police into the circumstances of Ann Marie's death continue to shock and enrage. Many of her cherished personal belongings were missing, large loans were taken out in her name and her car racked up over $2,000 worth of traffic fines, even though she couldn't drive.</para>
<para>Ann Marie, an NDIS participant, was neglected by those paid to care for her in ways that are totally unimaginable. It is hard to comprehend that cruelty so vile could be inflicted on someone so vulnerable. Ann Marie was a person deserving of respect, yet she was mistreated in such a callous way. Ann Marie's NDIS provider, Integrity Care (SA), was recently banned from operating and had its NDIS registration revoked. That prevented the organisation from providing services through the NDIS. The NDIS Quality Safeguards Commission has not released the report that formed the basis of that action, except to say that it was because of 'a number of contraventions of the NDIS Act'. That would have to be a complete understatement.</para>
<para>It is imperative that the commission provides detailed reasons as to why Integrity Care (SA) has been banned because, incredibly, the company can still provide disability care services outside the NDIS framework as well as aged-care services. Yesterday, Alan Robertson, SC, completed the independent review into the circumstances relating to Ann Marie's death. It focused on the NDIS supports and services that were provided to her. The review was conducted in a way so as not to prejudice the current criminal proceedings. No word has been heard from government about the report, and I urge the government to release the report as a matter of urgency. South Australians deserve to know the truth about why the system failed Ann Marie. We need to know this so that we can make informed decisions about whether to engage the services of Integrity Care (SA), and to make sure this never happens again.</para>
<para>Last month I wrote to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner, Janet Anderson, and Minister Colbeck seeking clarification over whether Integrity Care (SA) was an approved provider of aged-care services and, if so, to commence the process to ban them from providing aged-care services under the Aged Care Act. Regrettably, but perhaps not surprisingly, I've not received a reply from either. I've also raised a formal complaint directly with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission about Integrity Care (SA), which happens to be a registered charity.</para>
<para>Integrity Care (SA) and its directors, Alison Virgo, Amy-June Collins and Philip Greenland, completely failed in their responsibility to provide oversight and proper care for Ann Marie. There is no way that Minister Colbeck can have any confidence that they can be entrusted with the care of senior Australians. The horrendous catalogue of failures in the care of Ann Marie leaves no doubt that Integrity Care (SA) is not fit to provide any type of care services.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Victoria: COVID-19</title>
          <page.no>82</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to raise again in the Senate my deep concerns about the extreme distress and damage which is being inflicted on Victorians during this second wave of emergency restrictions. Today, with 70 new daily cases in Victoria, there should by now have been a road map to reopen the economy. We need hope, we need a plan and we need a road out. The damage which is being caused is profound: a cost to our economy of an estimated $400 million a day—in total, some $10 billion to $12 billion during this second wave. Treasury estimates that up to 400,000 jobs will be lost. The social isolation, the travel bans, the eight o'clock curfew, the border closures and the closed workplaces are all causing profound damage, including to the mental health of countless Victorians. Our Prime Minister has vowed to tackle this again at national cabinet on Friday, with a COVID hotspot definition and, we hope, more consistent guidelines and proper exemptions to current border restrictions from the premiers and chief ministers.</para>
<para>Victorians need to get medical advice. They need to pick up their kids from school. They need to be able to travel to be with loved ones who are dying from terminal illness. As I said to the Cross Border Commissioner in a meeting yesterday, the haphazard and chaotic manner in which all of us are making representations about particular exemptions is unacceptable, and a proper exemption unit must be established in New South Wales so that these cases can be quickly and urgently dealt with.</para>
<para>There is a new 50-kilometre border zone but that is simply not good enough. A mother, Amanda, living in Birregurra needs to know that she can pick up her child from Yanco Agricultural School in New South Wales. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of children boarding in schools—in Queensland, New South Wales and other parts of the country—who are trapped, with the school holidays approaching and no certainty as to how they are going to get home or whether they will have a holiday with their family. The Victorian government's failure to deliver any sort of plan to reopen the economy is irresponsible. It is undermining business confidence and is causing growing despair. Victorians understand the need for health restrictions, including those made by using state-of-emergency powers. But restrictions must be proportionate to the public health risk, justifiable and temporary.</para>
<para>Tonight in the Victorian parliament, Premier Andrews is seeking a six-month extension to emergency powers, which is vehemently opposed by the state Liberals and Nationals, after being stymied on a 12-month extension. I have already raised deep concerns about some restrictions that have closed businesses on what appear to be arbitrary grounds, including the case of Jim's Mowing, private gardeners who cannot work in Melbourne while the same type of work is permitted by council workers. There are too many contradictions and too many inconsistencies. Large construction sites and other large businesses can function almost as normal, yet a sole trader who wrote to me—Anna—who runs a dog grooming business, and is a sole parent, who works on her own in her own home, is prohibited from working. It is almost destroying her.</para>
<para>Victoria is becoming a state of thousands of broken businesses, destroyed jobs and lost livelihoods. Of course, our government is providing unprecedented economic support, including through JobKeeper. But this must change. This situation must be fixed. We need a road map. We need to reopen the economy and Premier Daniel Andrews needs to get on and fix this urgently.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pensions and Benefits</title>
          <page.no>82</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise this evening to talk about the debacle that is the cashless debit card exemption process. Income management has been a racist, discriminatory tool that the government and the opposition have used when in government and have imposed on First Nations peoples for over a decade since the Northern Territory intervention. The first so-called trials of the cashless debit card started in areas with a high percentage of First Nations peoples—Ceduna, the East Kimberley and Goldfields—with the purported goal of tackling drug, alcohol and gambling addiction.</para>
<para>Funnily enough, when a trial was later announced for the Hinkler region, the card was meant to target intergenerational unemployment. It is amazing that one card could be such a silver bullet for addressing so many complex issues. Labor have, unfortunately, backed the cashless debit card most of the way. I was really pleased when they opposed the Hinkler trial when that was put in place by the government. 'Great,' I thought. 'They have finally listened to the overwhelming evidence that income management does not work.' Yet again I was disappointed.</para>
<para>In April 2019, when given the choice to vote against the extension of the Ceduna, East Kimberley and Goldfields so-called trial sites, they in fact opted to keep them going. The government gagged the debate on the legislation that extended the trials by another year. In doing that, the government and the ALP told the community that it was going to be okay because they had organised an amendment with opt-out provisions, where people could apply for an exemption from the card if they could demonstrate reasonable and responsible management of financial affairs. This amendment was so flawed that the government had to introduce a further amendment to fix the problem. Then it took months to put in place criteria and a form for an exemption process, and there's been no transparency on how this works since then. The exemption process is a complex process with complex forms, and many people don't even know it's an option. There's been no additional support to help people access the form and fill it in, despite the fact that most of the trial sites are in remote and regional communities where populations do not necessarily have English as their first language.</para>
<para>In order to get off the card, you have to prove that you can manage your money, but the card itself makes it harder for people to manage their money. That's the first problem right there. People on the cashless debit card can't save money by buying second-hand goods on Gumtree, for example, or shop on eBay or Facebook Marketplace or go to the local markets. Their rent is often paid late by Indue, and they cop late fees. The problems, in fact, are endless. In many cases people are being rejected from getting off the card because they've had transactions declined, but, if they request to see these declined transactions, the department will not show them, and the statements from Indue don't show the declined transactions either. There is no transparency or procedural fairness in this process, and it's just another way that the government has made life harder for people on income support. Since 1 July 2019, when this process was supposed to start, 1,234 have people applied to get off the card, just 291 have been approved, 584 have been rejected and the rest are waiting.</para>
<para>You are much less likely to be approved to get off the card if you are a First Nations person, despite the majority of those on the card being First Nations peoples. People from around the country have been hoping since 1 July 2019 to get off this punitive card. This card is causing so much hardship for those on low income. This process is a farce. The government should be ashamed of themselves for raising the expectation of people on the card that they may be able to get off it. It is simply not fair that people do not know the process properly, that it's not transparent and that people are being denied opting out of the card and not being given the evidence as to why they are being denied. This is an unfair process. Income management is unfair, and the exemption process is totally unfair.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Made Logo</title>
          <page.no>83</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ANTIC</name>
    <name.id>269375</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise tonight to speak in relation to the age-old maxim 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' and why that is still relevant today. In 2017 the Turnbull government committed to developing a stronger national brand after the release of the 2017 <inline font-style="italic">Foreign Policy White Paper</inline>. The National Brand Advisory Council was established with a brief to create a national brand which was to be 'easily understood, consistently recognisable, quintessentially Australian and adaptable for different uses and industries'. The national brand website states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A strong nation brand defines our aesthetic as a nation and provides a set of principles that governs the expression of our identity.</para></quote>
<para>They set about creating a new brand using the time honoured techniques of stakeholder engagement, deep dives, domestic industry consultation, market testing. No doubt they took several helicopter views and probably did some branding exercises only to pivot over into some vertical integration. Where would we be without corporate buzzwords!</para>
<para>For the princely sum of $10 million for the Australian taxpayer, the National Brand Advisory Council produced a report which contained inspirational words, glossy photos and even Venn diagrams. They produced the infamous wattle logo with 'AU' in the middle—a logo which was touted as an 'optimistic burst of gold positivity' and which was going to promote Australia as a brand to an international audience, but a logo which was also unfavourably compared to the coronavirus. I must say that I didn't see coronavirus in the design, but I did see a waste of money. After all, we were already utilising a logo which, as the board suggested, was 'easily understood, consistently recognisable, quintessentially Australian and adaptable for different uses'. The famous, iconic and entirely recognisable green-and-gold kangaroo logo is a logo which has been used for 34 years and was doing the requisite job quite adequately.</para>
<para>Coincidentally, today is 1 September—Wattle Day. But, sadly, only in this country do we really know what the wattle means to us. The rest of the world doesn't identify with the wattle in the same way that we do, but they do identify with the kangaroo and they do identify with the Australian Made push. I was pleased to hear that the minister for trade has identified that the kangaroo logo will be reinstated and that the wattle logo will be scrapped. The Australian Made Campaign chairman, Mr Glenn Cooper AM, has noted that the Australian Made logo will continue its pivotal role as Australia's domestic and overseas branding strategy. Mr Cooper, who is a great South Australian, says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The iconic green and gold kangaroo logo has been clearly identifying Australian goods in export markets for more than 34 years with great success.</para></quote>
<para>…   …   …</para>
<quote><para class="block">It is by far Australia's most recognised and trusted country-of-origin symbol and is central to the export strategies of Aussie exporters taking their goods abroad. There is no need to make a change in this space.</para></quote>
<para>I'm glad to hear that the kangaroo logo will be retained, but I would go a step further and say that the rebranding exercise shouldn't go ahead.</para>
<para>We already have a great logo—one which is known and which is instantly recognisable. While this experience, in my mind, has shown the divide between corporate Australia and everyday Australia, now more than ever, with a push to rebuild our manufacturing industry, we need to go back to the future and stick with what we know. Sometimes in life, one answers questions which don't need to be asked, and this is my view of what's happened here. In the case of this branding exercise, it ain't broke so let's not fix it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Australia: Media</title>
          <page.no>84</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LINES</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, go the kangaroo! During the time that parliament was supposed to be sitting and we were on the break, I took the opportunity to travel to some of the regions in Western Australia that rarely see a federal politician. My team and I were warmly welcomed in Geraldton, Esperance, Corrigin, Merredin and Northam. We had the chance to meet with a huge range of community organisations, local government and dedicated individuals who are all contributing such important services and resources to their towns and regions.</para>
<para>In Merredin, I visited the community resource centre, which is a one-stop shop—very dynamic. They provide a whole range of services for the community. The Merredin CRC, as it's known, publishes a fortnightly newspaper, <inline font-style="italic">The Phoenix</inline>. The reason they do that is that, like many local communities, they were left high and dry when their internationally-owned newspapers shut down. <inline font-style="italic">Merredin Wheatbelt Mercury</inline>, a Fairfax publication, had operated in Merredin for 103 years and was shut down. The community were left without their own local newspaper, so the CRC came to the rescue. They were not journalists, but they put together a really quality paper that picks up news, community information and regional information. More recently, they have gone to publishing classifieds so that they can try and get the newspaper on an even keel. It's available online, and they post it to you if you subscribe. So for a group of women, mainly, who are not journalists, they are doing an amazing job.</para>
<para>Similarly, Esperance, which is WA's most south-eastern town, also lost its print newspaper—the Esperance <inline font-style="italic">Examiner</inline>—earlier this year. I met a very talented young woman who has taken on the role of offering the community a new print and online option. <inline font-style="italic">Esperance Tide</inline> is a beautifully designed monthly print and online publication that showcases the area's stunning landscapes and provides an important line of information and updates for the local community in the form of long interviews, reviews and news on events that are going on around the town. They too have just moved to classifieds in an attempt to make their newspaper break even. Again, in Collie, in WA's south-west, the editor and staff of the town's previous newspaper have started their own newspaper, called the <inline font-style="italic">Collie River Valley Bulletin</inline>.</para>
<para>Obviously large newspapers with corporate and international ownership don't have a commitment to WA's regions and our small towns, and it's been fantastic to see that local organisations and individuals have stepped in. But—here's the but—although the federal government has offered small grants to local community newspapers, it shows you how out of touch the Morrison government is that they don't go to publications like <inline font-style="italic">Esperance Tide</inline> or <inline font-style="italic">The Phoenix.</inline> That is because those newspapers don't have an established record, haven't been operating long and can't show last year's financial assets, because they are start-ups. Given the way the Morrison government has handled print media in this country—it's got to take some of the responsibility for what's happening to print media in this country—I would have thought it could make these grants much more flexible. That way quality publications such as those we have seen in Collie, in Merredin and in Esperance—that involve local people and are locally owned—could get the resources they need to help them flourish even more. So I urge the Morrison government, which is out of touch with what is happening in the regions, to actually look at these publications and talk to the people involved with them—an amazing group of talented people who are very enthusiastic—and make sure that grant money actually meets the needs of these local regional community newspapers that are doing a fantastic job.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Prior, Professor Margot, AO</title>
          <page.no>85</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to pay tribute to Professor Margot Prior, who, sadly, passed away on 24 August. Professor Prior was a trailblazing teacher, researcher and clinician and is remembered for her warmth, enthusiasm, acute intelligence and generosity of spirit. Margot initially worked as a classical musician, playing piano, oboe and cor anglais. She suffered a tragic loss when she was 27 when her first husband drowned going to the aid of fellow musicians, leaving her with three children under the age of five.</para>
<para>Margot retrained as a clinical psychologist and excelled as an academic and teacher, particularly as a pioneer in the field of autism research in Australia. She published the very first Australian journal article on autism in 1973, took up an academic post at La Trobe University in 1976 and became Professor of Clinical Psychology at Latrobe in 1989—the first woman appointed to such a role in Australia. She was Director of Psychology at the Royal Children's Hospital and the University of Melbourne from 1994 until 2002.</para>
<para>Professor Prior's interests grew to encompass many other early childhood conditions, including attention and language disorders and clinical and developmental child and family psychology, and led to her research in childhood temperament. She is well recognised as the architect of the Australian Temperament Project, which began in 1983 and continues to this day. Professor Prior was honoured as an Officer of the Order of Australia in 2004 and was Victoria's Senior Australian of the Year in 2006. The Victorian Autism Specific Early Learning and Care Centre is based in the Margot Prior Wing of the La Trobe University Community Children's Centre, named after her in recognition of her work.</para>
<para>But Margot's contribution to the world didn't stop at her impressive academic work. Margot was an activist for a better world. She loved life and wanted to see everyone and all the other species that we share this planet with given a fair go for a good life. Margot was one of the founding members of Psychologists for the Prevention of War and co-established the La Trobe Institute for Peace Research.</para>
<para>Margot's leadership, scientific contributions and advocacy for child welfare and social justice were reflected in her chairing the social and human sciences network for UNESCO in the mid-2000s. Margot travelled on missions to countries including India and Vietnam to undertake development work, including training clinicians to support children with developmental challenges. She was a huge supporter of Oxfam and she supported the Alola Foundation in Timor-Leste. She was involved in Landcare activities at Strath Creek and supported the ACF, bush heritage and various other environment organisations. She had a keen interest in Indigenous affairs and volunteered in an inner-city Aboriginal health service for many years.</para>
<para>Margot mentored, encouraged and inspired so many. I got to know her when I was a Maribyrnong councillor and I was inspired by her life as a high achiever, as a mother and as an activist working for the protection of nature, for justice and for peace, and her trademark warmth and generosity. She was supportive of me and supported our Greens campaigns for many years. When I was preselected to stand for the Senate, Margot emailed me saying she was delighted with the news.</para>
<para>My heart goes out to Margot's family: her husband John and her three children, Yoni, David and Sian, her stepchildren and her grandchildren, and all our friends and colleagues whose lives she touched and changed. Her last months in lockdown in an aged-care home were not easy for her and her family. Yoni shared with me a few months back how this was really hard but that luckily her room was at the front of the building so they could shout at her over the fence and they could write daily—staff printed it all out for her. It was very hard not to be able to give her a cuddle.</para>
<para>It is so hard with the restrictions of lockdown to not be able to gather properly after her passing, to fully celebrate such an amazing person who lived such a meaningful life. I look forward to being able to attend the celebration of her life at a future time when face-to-face gatherings are once again possible. Professor Prior's passing was a tragic consequence of this pandemic, but her legacy will be felt for generations to come.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland Government</title>
          <page.no>86</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor governments have ruled Queensland for 25 of the last 30 years—that is, 25 years of failing Queensland. In the time that I have before me, I am going to go through the top 10 current failures of the Labor government in Queensland. To begin with, Labor have failed to build the infrastructure to keep pace with population growth. Whether roads or bridges or the rail duplication at Nambour, things are just not being built. Labor are not building dams. Not only are they not building dams; they are reducing the proposed Rookwood Weir and are tearing down existing dams, so that counts as an extra fail. Paradise Dam, which I have spoken about in the Senate many times, is Australia's largest and worst infrastructure fail, and it happened on Labor's watch.</para>
<para>We now get to point 3. Labor have failed business owners and jobseekers alike, with Queensland recording the lowest business confidence, the highest unemployment and the highest rate of bankruptcies, all before COVID. Labor are, shamefully, using COVID as an alibi to cover up a dodgy record. The fourth failure: Labor have increased the basic cost of living in Queensland, jacking up registration costs or skimming cash off electricity generators so power bills go up. Not only have Labor failed our farmers when it comes to water security, but they have also introduced Draconian green tape in the name of the reef regulation in a desperate attempt to gain love, cuddles, and preferences from the Greens, because Labor know they cannot win the coming state election unless they do a dodgy preference deal with the Greens.</para>
<para>The sixth failure: Labor have failed to support Queensland's coalminers. From dragging their feet on Adani to refusing to secure the jobs of miners at Acland or on the Darling Downs, this party of the worker can no longer look coalminers or their families in the eye. Don't take my word for it. Ask Jo-Ann Miller, former Labor MP and Labor minister. Labor have also failed the most basic requirements when it comes to integrity in government, from dodgy Jackie's property purchases, to Mark 'Mangocube' Bailey's emails, to the premier herself being found guilty of contempt of parliament. The Palaszczuk government has that sniff of old prawn head stuck in a wheelie bin in the middle of the Queensland summer.</para>
<para>We also have nine new or increased taxes—everything from payroll tax to land tax, gas royalties and property taxes. Labor are really, really good at increasing taxes or bringing in new taxes because they know that the only way they're going to pay for their promises is by taxing you.</para>
<para>The ninth failure is that Labor has failed to outline a vision for, or even deliver, a budget before the next state election. Instead, on the last sitting day they tried to sneak through a bill that would see journalists thrown in jail for reporting allegations of corruption. I wonder what they're trying to hide before the coming election. More worryingly, Labor have failed to protect our most vulnerable children. They failed Mason Jet Lee, the deputy state coroner said, 'in nearly every possible way'.</para>
<para>Wickedly and shamefully, they are using the politics of the border to be cruel, mean and horrible to the sick and the dying and to the families of the sick and the dying. Exemptions are granted for the rich and the famous and for the Labor mates, but not for the sick, for their families or for those who want to say goodbye to dad, who's passing away. There are no exemptions for them. Labor's record on the border is truly shameful, and it is something the Premier should hold her head in shame about when she thinks about the pain that she is causing to Queenslanders.</para>
<para>Queenslanders know they deserve better. They know that they deserve compassion and common sense at this very difficult time. They know they cannot afford four more years of failure under this Labor government.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Northern Territory: Agriculture Industry</title>
          <page.no>86</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak about the crisis facing Northern Territory mango farmers as we face a critical crunch point in securing enough workers for the imminent mango season. The mango season begins in earnest right at the end of this month—not far away—and worker shortages have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which is limiting national and international travel. The NT mango harvest is worth $125 million to the NT economy, and plant based industries combined are worth $355 million. That means melons, grapes, vegetables and other crops are also impacted by these shortages in the Northern Territory and in other jurisdictions across the country.</para>
<para>The Territory is mango proud and we're mango mad. We are the country's largest grower of mangoes, producing around 52 per cent of the national mango crop. The NT mango harvest equates to approximately 40,000 tonnes of mangoes, covering approximately 635,000 hectares. To harvest this huge lot of mangoes requires between 2,200 and 2,500 workers for the picking season. Australian agriculture has always used seasonal workers and overseas workers. Backpackers are often required to do 88 days in regional Australia. But, with around 60,000 fewer backpackers this year, we are facing a crisis that requires urgent attention and innovative solutions that bring together multiple jurisdictions and farmers associations.</para>
<para>Of course, this is not a new issue; it's just an issue exacerbated by COVID-19. The National Farmers Federation warned the Morrison government pre-COVID, saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… agriculture's workforce deficit is one of the largest constraints to our sector's productivity growth and we need solutions for agriculture to reach its potential of being a $100 billion industry by 2030.</para></quote>
<para>I acknowledge the work of Labor's federal shadow agriculture minister, the Hon. Joel Fitzgibbon MP, for his advocacy on this matter and for standing up for producers at this time. I also want to acknowledge the Northern Territory government's Minister for Primary Industry and Resources, the Hon. Paul Kirby MLA. Minister Kirby has been an active participant in cooperative efforts by Labor members across jurisdictions to advocate for the agriculture industry and, in particular, agriculture workers.</para>
<para>The Northern Territory has worked with NT Farmers and the Australian government on a deal to bring Vanuatu workers to the NT through the Seasonal Worker Program COVID-19 pilot. This has been a complex process and final details are being worked through. Workers from Vanuatu are important. They come here every year and they will help fill the gap, but more certainly needs to be done. The NT Department of Primary Industry and Resources and NT Farmers are also working hard on ongoing recruitment of Australian workers through targeted promotion.</para>
<para>In particular, I would like to especially acknowledge the CEO of NT Farmers, Paul Burke. In fact, Paul Burke has some innovative ideas. One of them is to look at year 12 students across the country having gap years. A lot of students usually go overseas, but it looks like that's not going to happen—how about getting them out onto our farms across the country? Paul has some terrific ideas there, even around the HECS program and what could be done to incentivise some of our young people to look domestically in terms of their gap year.</para>
<para>Picking mangoes in the Top End build-up is not a job that just anyone can do; it does require training and it is tough work in that heat. I call on the Prime Minister to act urgently and provide farmers and the agriculture sector with a strategy to ensure they're not left without desperately needed seasonal workers, to clarify progress on an agricultural workers code and to give assurance that an announcement will be made on Friday. If a nationally consistent agricultural workers code is not delivered this Friday, as promised, the Prime Minister must accept the blame or consider the future of his agriculture minister.</para>
<para>On 21 August the Prime Minister said that national cabinet noted discussions that had commenced on the code and agreed that further work should be undertaken by agriculture ministers to deliver a paper to be considered by national cabinet. But there seems to be confusion as to who is actually developing the agricultural workers code, and with national cabinet just three days away it's not looking good. The agriculture sector needs certainty and producers need to be confident in the development of the code. They will certainly be watching national cabinet closely on Friday, as will I.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Chronic Pain Syndrome</title>
          <page.no>87</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Tonight I rise to speak about something that affects many of us, but these effects are often felt silently. Pain is not just physical; it can also affect our emotional and mental wellbeing, especially if it continues long term.</para>
<para>As co-chair of the new Parliamentary Friends of Pain Management Group with ACT local and member for Bean, Mr David Smith MP, I want to highlight the importance of recognising the impact that chronic pain can have on ourselves, our loved ones and our community. Our parliamentary friends group aims to raise the awareness of chronic pain and managing that pain with our peers and within our communities. Advocacy organisation Painaustralia is working with us to improve the quality of life for those living with chronic pain conditions. Painaustralia's remit is to develop the National Strategic Action Plan for Pain Management, which outlines the key actions Australia should take to tackle chronic pain. This plan was launched in 2019, and its recommendations are now being considered by health ministers.</para>
<para>Chronic pain is pain that continues for more than three months after surgery, an injury, as a result of disease or from another cause. Although chronic pain can be a symptom of a disease or injury, it may occur without a clear reason and can be a disease in its own right. There are many underlying causes of chronic pain, although it is not always possible to determine the precise cause of the pain. Chronic pain is often linked to changes in the central nervous system, psychological factors and environmental changes that stay long after the tissue damage that initially triggered the pain has been resolved.</para>
<para>Common chronic pain syndrome includes back and leg pain; cancer; migraines and headaches; neck pain; pelvic pain; sciatica; and musculoskeletal conditions, like arthritis, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis and gout. Almost 3.4 million Australians live with chronic pain, and for most their pain restricts the activities they can undertake. It impacts their work, sleep and relationships. The effects of living with chronic pain go beyond the individual to their families, carers, friends, colleagues and the wider community.</para>
<para>We need to address the needs of the millions of Australians who live with chronic pain and we need to do it soon. Painaustralia estimates that more than 68 per cent of people living with chronic pain are of working age. Research indicates that there are strong links between anxiety, depression and chronic physical illness. Almost 50 per cent of those with chronic pain also live with mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression. Modelling by Deloitte Access Economics shows that if Australia's policy around pain management doesn't change then the annual cost of pain will rise from $140 billion to more than $215 billion by 2050. This figure includes costs to our health system, lost productivity, reduction in quality of life and other financial costs such as informal care, aids and modifications. It is expected that over five million Australians will be living with chronic pain within 30 years.</para>
<para>Deloitte's report titled <inline font-style="italic">The cost of pain in Australia</inline> outlines how changes in policy that extend best practice care to Australian chronic pain patients could lead to substantial savings and better health outcomes. Suggested changes include a national GP training program designed and led by pain specialists, the doubling of current levels of access to multidisciplinary care, and the prescription of atypical opioids rather than conventional opioids—although Deloitte does acknowledge that further research is needed in this area. Painaustralia considers that the best way to manage pain is through holistic methods like the multidisciplinary approach I've just mentioned.</para>
<para>Pain medicine was recognised as a medical speciality in 2005, and there are currently 316 active fellows of the Faculty of Pain Medicine in Australia. Pain specialists provide holistic care that includes prescribing medication; coordinating rehabilitative services; performing pain relieving procedures; counselling patients and families; directing a multidisciplinary team that often includes psychological and psychiatric services and other healthcare professionals; and liaising with public and private agencies. Just last month, the Parliamentary Friends of Pain Management Group launched the updated National Pain Services Directory, providing information on services offered by more than 200 facilities throughout Australia. This updated directory enables those with chronic pain to make informed decisions around pain management options and pathways available at locations close to them. Providing support like this early on allows someone with chronic pain to better manage their outcomes in the long term. It's a good start to making the changes that are needed.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Manufacturing</title>
          <page.no>88</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PRATT</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Now more than ever, Australia needs a national plan for Australian manufacturing. COVID-19 has highlighted the importance of a strong manufacturing sector. The pandemic has, sadly, demonstrated how vulnerable we are to global supply chain shocks, and it has been our local manufacturers who have answered the call when we needed medical equipment, adapting to making critical supplies, and when we needed smarter and more-sophisticated manufacturing in our economy.</para>
<para>Our nation needs a plan for Australian manufacturing—a comprehensive plan for the future and one that can be used as part of a road map to recovery for our national economy. COVID-19 has only highlighted this problem, not exposed it; it has been laid bare for some time. During the last seven years when the Liberals have been in power, we have not seen a plan for manufacturing in Australia. It's only during this crisis, as other parts of the economy have already collapsed, that the government starts to point to a manufacturing led recovery, having hollowed out manufacturing industries all the while before, leaving them much weaker in terms of their capacity to play this role. We've seen a Liberal government goad the Australian car manufacturing industry into leaving, which they duly did. They've failed to support TAFE and training, ripping $3 billion from training and seeing the biggest drop in apprenticeships and trainees. The budget update would have been a perfect time to do something about manufacturing and to talk up what plans the government has, but, sadly, there was nothing.</para>
<para>The only plan that this government has is to rip almost $2 billion out of research and development. I note that the government has deferred the reporting date for the economics committee's inquiry on the research and development bill, but I think that they're conveniently delaying the political pain of the fact that they want to continue to rip that money out of the budget, while they'll come up with some small grants program for manufacturing when we finally get to the budget in October. Their manufacturing led recovery is nothing more than spin and talk from our marketing led Prime Minister. In the meantime, Australia continues to lose its economic complexity—the knowledge intensity of our economy—which is embedded in the products we export. Currently, the knowledge intensity in our economy is, sadly, more likely to be reliant on imports than producing unique products for export in our nation.</para>
<para>In 1995, when it came to research and development, Australia ranked 57th in the world. But in 2017 we ranked only 93rd. So, without more investment in research and development, we will lose more of our economic complexity and become, again, even further reliant on commodity exports. We need to capitalise on our mineral wealth, our world-renowned produce, our universities and our skilled workforce. But, instead, we have a government that wants to rip more money out of Australia's universities. We need to invest in new industries, like battery technology, and not simply send our raw materials overseas. Advanced manufacturing and new technology should be the path for the future.</para>
<para>But, rather than looking to this, the government want to increase the tax burden on innovative firms that do research and development in our nation by some $2 billion. We need a real plan for Australian manufacturing. After seven years, we still have no plan for manufacturing from the Liberal government. We have a government that simply like to talk up manufacturing while presiding over its decline. You can see that when they talk about a so-called gas led recovery, yet they've done nothing to bring cheap gas to shore here in Australia. They have ripped millions out of our university sector, millions out of research and development and millions out of CSIRO. It's time for a real plan for manufacturing in our nation.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Healy, Mrs June Marie, OAM</title>
          <page.no>89</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MOLAN</name>
    <name.id>FAB</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today in memory of a strong advocate and a brilliant organiser for veterans and war widows, the aged and women in the Army, June Marie Healy OAM, who passed away in August this year. This accomplished ex-servicewoman was a former national secretary of the Returned and Services League and national president of the War Widows Guild, Council of the Ageing and Women's Royal Australian Army Corps Association. In 1990, June was awarded an Order of Australia Medal for service to veterans. She served in the Army in two roles, as an enlisted Army officer and later as an Army wife, a member of the camp followers, as Army families, including mine, used to refer to themselves.</para>
<para>June's family, the Davidsons, like most families, were impacted by the horrors of the world wars. While working at <inline font-style="italic">The West Australian</inline> newspaper, she enlisted in the Royal Australian Army Corp in 1954. She was accepted into the Women's Royal Australian Army Corps in 1960. Reports of June and other female officers attending, of all things, charm and deportment classes made all the papers. 'How to turn on the charm' was the news headline. What barely made the news was that June's group were the first women to take part in the quartermaster's course at the Canungra jungle training centre in Queensland. The media and the military have certainly come a long way.</para>
<para>June became engaged to fellow Army officer John Healy in 1962 just before he was posted with the first Australian Army Training Team Vietnam, known as AATTV, and, upon his return 15 months later, they married. June had to leave the Army before her first daughter was born shortly before John returned to Vietnam. Over those two combat tours he was away for 780 days. She wrote at the time: 'I would have preferred a posting where I could accompany him. Well, I can't say I didn't know what I was getting into.' Taped letters between her and her husband when he was in Vietnam are held in the Australian War Memorial collection. There were decades of yearly and even shorter postings, packing up the family, including another young daughter, to move interstate and overseas. In 1976 she was again living in the jungle training centre at Canungra, where she had done the quartermaster's course and where employment opportunities for spouses were limited. June always kept busy with Army wives' activities and founded a thrift shop in Canungra which raised money for the Girl Guides and provided a valuable service for Army families relocating from vastly different climates.</para>
<para>During her longest period in Canberra, June was appointed the first woman executive to the RSL's national headquarters, in 1981. The RSL's media release described it as a major break with tradition. She was later promoted from deputy to national secretary. During June's time with the RSL her husband, John, had postings in the Sinai and at Kapooka.</para>
<para>Most military families know the challenges of time apart. Fortunately, John returned to Canberra, to Army office at the Department of Defence. After 13 years with the RSL, June retired following the death, in 1994, of John, her husband, who had retired by then, as a colonel. She continued taking veterans and families on commemorative tours, including many to Borneo and Gallipoli, and to Bangka Island in Indonesia with Vivian Bullwinkel and several other famous World War II nurses, which is where I first met her. She remained a volunteer with many organisations, was an enthusiastic participant on boards and committees, and was a member of the Prime Minister Advisory Council on Ex-Service Matters. Chair Allan Hawke noted, 'Your personal and professional experiences in advocating for the veteran community, your quiet dignity and your wicked sense of fun added significantly to council meetings.'</para>
<para>It's fitting that I am acknowledging June's outstanding contribution to her defence community during Legacy Week in most Australian states. She was both a supporter and a beneficiary of the magnificent work of Legacy and the War Widows Guild. Vale June Marie Healy OAM, who defined for us all a life of service and whose unparalleled service will be greatly missed.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Employment</title>
          <page.no>89</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This has been a difficult year full of sacrifice for Australians, and it is critical that we get the recovery right. So we need to see a jobs plan from this government—a plan for good, secure jobs for all Australians—and we need to see it now. Right now, one million Australians are out of work, 1.5 million Australians can't find enough work, and another 400,000 Australians are predicted to lose their jobs before Christmas. That's almost two million Australians who really need a jobs plan from this government.</para>
<para>What is the plan from the Prime Minister? Let me tell you his plan: slashing JobKeeper, winding back JobSeeker, dumping the superannuation increase and freezing the pension. Scott Morrison is cutting people's incomes and support at the very time they are struggling the most: while we're right in the middle of our first recession in almost 30 years, in the middle of this pandemic, before people have even had the chance to get back on their feet. Australians need to see a jobs plan from this government. We needed a jobs plan even before this pandemic, and we need one now more than ever before—a plan to create decent and well-paid jobs.</para>
<para>Australians want to see this government stop with the announcements and start with the action; stop with the photo opportunities and start with the job opportunities; stop with the press releases and start following through. So here are three ideas for the Prime Minister. First, let's rebuild manufacturing that delivers decent and well-paid jobs in our cities and our regions. We have a really proud history of making things in this country. In the past, if we needed it we made it right here. It's time we supported manufacturing to revitalise and to produce more of what we need right here and to employ more Australians in our cities and, critically, in our regions.</para>
<para>Second, let's rebuild our nation's infrastructure. Let's invest in projects that will transform Australia into a nation that is actually ready for the future. Let's start projects that improve people's lives, improve our competitiveness and get us ready to take advantage of the future. And let's invest in projects that create jobs right now, today. A new generation of high-quality social housing is just one project that this government could get behind today.</para>
<para>Third, let's rebuild secure employment in this country. We have seen enough gig jobs. We have seen enough labour hire jobs. We've seen enough casual, contract and temporary jobs in this country. In this pandemic we've relied on some of our lowest-paid and most insecure workers to get us through. We've recognised that some of our lowest-paid workers with the least job security have been our most essential at this time. So it's time that we called time as a country on the explosion of insecure work in this country. It's time we committed to rebuilding secure jobs that people can actually count on and build a future on.</para>
<para>Indeed, it is long past time that this government delivered a jobs plan. For seven years we've seen flat wages. For seven years we've seen the growth of insecure jobs. For seven years we've seen our heartland manufacturing industries decline. For seven years we've seen our national infrastructure run down by this government. Right now, a jobs plan is urgent. It's urgent for the two million Australians expected to be out of work by this Christmas. It's urgent for the children who are leaving school this year and want to know what the future holds for them. It's urgent for all of us who know that good, secure jobs are our strongest foundation. It's time the Prime Minister delivered.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Paramedics</title>
          <page.no>90</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McLACHLAN</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Honourable senators would know of the extremely high regard in which I hold paramedics. They witness trauma and tragedy every day of their working lives. In these times, when our nation is ravished by the coronavirus, paramedics must endure the added stress of saving life while the constant risk of infection hangs over them. Still they mount duty day and night, hearing and then responding to the clarion calls of the community that rely so heavily upon them—the same community that does not always acknowledge and reflect, as it should, on the personal cost our paramedics suffer, nor the costs paid by those close to them.</para>
<para>It is important that accounts of their lives become public record. Only then can we attempt to gain a better understanding of what we are asking these brave individuals to do in our service, on our behalf and for the great collective benefit. For when we are in need, we do not hesitate to call and they do not hesitate to come to our aid. That is the starting point on a journey that the states and territories need to begin to ensure that our paramedics receive the care and support that is commensurate with the burden they so nobly carry for us. Honourable senators, there are distinct approaches across the nation. I suggest that in some jurisdictions a greater generosity of spirit might need to be found and much more might need to be done to ease the pain the men and women of our ambulance services endure as a consequence of their service.</para>
<para>I have been contacted by the daughter of a South Australian paramedic. She recounted to me the impressive record of the service of her father, Mr Paul Cottier. Paul has lived a life of service to others. He served in the Royal Australian Air Force in the 1980s as a medic, which included time in Butterworth in Malaysia. Subsequently he became an ambulance officer with St John Ambulance. These were the days when the ambulance service was run by St John Ambulance with a mixture of full-time staff and volunteers. When the SA Ambulance Service was founded he joined as one of its first cadre of paramedics. He has proudly served the South Australian community for over 30 years. I know from his loving daughter that despite the stresses and strains of serving as a paramedic he has continued to devote himself to his community's welfare, like so many. It is an example of service above self. As a volunteer with St John Ambulance myself, I thank you, Mr Paul Cottier, for your service as an ambulance officer for St John. As a senator for South Australia, I thank you, Mr Paul Cottier, for your service as a paramedic to my state.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>China</title>
          <page.no>91</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS</name>
    <name.id>e4t</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Following my prescient warnings in early 2018 regarding the Chinese communist regime's debt-trap diplomacy activities, especially in the Pacific, I was pleased that an international debate ensued. Debt-trap diplomacy refers to the strategy used by China to lure or trap developing or underdeveloped countries to borrow money to be used mainly for infrastructure projects. The terms of these loans are not transparent. They are often debt-for-equity so that, when a country cannot repay the loan, China takes the equity and ends up owning the asset. Interest imposed is generally higher than that of the international financial institutions. The international debate focused on the communist regime's Belt and Road strategy. Suddenly, the world started to understand the repercussions of BRI—BRI is debt-trap diplomacy. The CCP is using the pandemic as a cover to take advantage of economically stressed nations and companies.</para>
<para>I have continued to advocate that, as part of decoupling, it is also vital that we overhaul our critical infrastructure and foreign investment framework. This includes expanding the parameters of national interest to ensure we protect our national sovereignty. We need to look at practical ways to protect our sovereignty, starting with the Port of Darwin. Any reform of foreign investment policy will require more areas to be subject to scrutiny. More restrictions will need to be placed on foreign ownership and control. Following the acquisition of the Port of Darwin by Chinese company Landbridge, some changes were made to foreign investment rules. However, the exemption from foreign investment review still exists for acquisitions from Commonwealth, state or local governments unless the purchaser is a foreign government investor and the subject of the sale is public infrastructure. Consequently, businesses carried on by governments at any level in Australia are exempt from Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 scrutiny. For example, a government-owned insurer could be sold to an overseas insurance company without FIRB oversight. Hence, unless we remove the exemption so that all acquisitions by foreign entities are subject to scrutiny and the national interest test, we will not address the elephant in the room: namely, investment by the CCP and its entities in Australia, especially in strategic assets.</para>
<para>This brings me to the recent announcement by Scott Morrison and Marise Payne regarding arrangements that states, territories, councils and universities have with foreign governments. It will only cover state or territory entities, including departments and agencies, local governments, and only universities established under state or territory law. The Commonwealth will ask the states and territories to undertake a review—a stocktake of their current arrangements. Due diligence will apparently then be done. I ask though: is it the intention to overturn existing arrangements or merely put in place a framework for future arrangements? Already, the government has said that the Port of Darwin has been excluded because commercial arrangements are not covered. This legislation will have little or no credibility in the eyes of the Australian public unless the starting point is taking back the Port of Darwin.</para>
<para>We are told that an open-source review has identified over 135 agreements from 30 different countries over about 10 subjects. But let's be clear: the Australian public has no problems where the agreements are with democratic countries or their entities. What the Australian public will no longer tolerate is business as usual with the communist regime in China. What troubles the Australian public are the insidious practices of those loyal to Beijing in Australia. Publications by Professor Clive Hamilton and ASPI's Alex Joske have demonstrated the extent of these activities, especially by the United Front Work Department. The proposed legislation will be very limited in its application. It does not cover commercial arrangements, where the bulk of the issues exist.</para>
<para>In Australia, there are 588 sister city relationships held with 52 countries—99 relationships are with China. Indeed, Canberra itself has a sister city relationship with Beijing—not surprising given the number of fellow travelers residing here! Australia also has 76 friendship city affiliations, 32 of which are with China. Friendship relationships, being partnerships of a more limited scope, require only one exchange per year in contrast to three undertaken by sister cities.</para>
<para>I now turn to the Confucius Institutes. They are run by an agency of the Chinese Ministry of Education called Hanban, which provides teachers, textbooks and operating funds. Its website shows where they are located around the world and their Chinese partnership arrangements. The first institute in Australia was founded in 2005. There are now 14 Confucius Institutes located at 13 universities, all with a counterpart university or institute in China. In 2015 an institute was founded at the New South Wales department of education and communities with the education department of Zhengzhou province. Since 2009, we have also seen over 60 Confucius classrooms founded at schools and colleges in Australia.</para>
<para>Only agreements entered into by universities, colleges or schools established under state laws would be part of this review. Agreements entered into by private universities, colleges and schools will not be covered. On the issue of universities, I am pleased that finally there will be an inquiry into foreign interference. It is time measures were put in place so that we do not see a repeat of the disgraceful conduct of the University of Queensland in the Drew Pavlou affair and the University of New South Wales impeding free speech.</para>
<para>We need also to uncover the tentacles of the Thousand Talents Plan. Universities do incredibly important research, often with large levels of public funding. We need to protect against intellectual property theft, cyberattacks and incursions on freedom of speech. The problem for many of our universities is that they were prepared to turn a blind eye to Beijing's skulduggery so long as the rivers of gold were flowing from China. They rely primarily on Chinese students. They clearly did not follow the advice of their own business schools in practising diversification of income streams. Universities are now billions of dollars in debt and some are looking to the Australian taxpayer to bail them out. This cannot occur. My strong advice to those universities is to accept the government's higher education reform package and accept that they alone are responsible for the bad decisions that they made.</para>
<para>In my speech of 10 June to the Senate, I referred to a study entitled 'Mapping the Legal Landscape: Chinese Government-Owned Companies in Australia', by Professor Tomasic and senior lecturer Ping Xiong. Its precision would indicate that the authors had good sources. There has not, as far as I know, been any update to this listing. There is no public listing of PRC companies or PRC invested projects in Australia. The most accurate sources for PRC investment and corporate presence in Australia, both state owned enterprises and others, is held within the Treasury. These figures are not publicly available and are often simply approvals rather than records of actual investments. China obviously has the best figures, but they are not publicly available.</para>
<para>China has in fact established a chamber of commerce in Australia to oversee the activities of its state owned entities, both national and provincial. This body is highly influential, given it represents the owners of many billions of dollars. The chamber has branches across Australia and economic spear committees, including legal, aviation, energy, foreign relations and financial industry sectors. The massive financial power and thus influence of this body on Australian companies and governments has not yet been fully appreciated.</para>
<para>It is time the Australian public is made aware of the corporate reach of these PRC SOE companies, and this includes details of what government agencies know of their holdings and activities. An open source search of the entities listed in the Tomasic-Xiong paper will be slow and laborious. It would not yield a comprehensive picture, given that these companies do not necessarily provide details of their assets or all the assets on their website. A public database of Australian assets owned by Chinese entities would be an informative national resource for economic and security purposes, but to my knowledge such a database does not exist.</para>
<para>As we move to decouple from China and increase self-sufficiency, especially with vital supply chains, it is essential Australians know full-well who and what they are dealing with. They need to know who owns what.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Tasmania</title>
          <page.no>92</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The north-west of Tasmania is my home. It is a beautiful place, a place of great potential, full of good people making a go of life in regional Australia. COVID-19 hit them hard, particularly the outbreak at the Burnie hospital, which saw thousands of north-west coasters quarantined, businesses shut down, the hospital closed and the Army brought in. When restrictions were eased in early May, of Tasmania's 221 confirmed coronavirus cases, 147 had been in the north-west, including 12 of the 13 deaths.</para>
<para>At that time, I began a community survey. It told about the level of fear in the community, with many, many people saying they wanted the borders to stay closed until COVID-19 had disappeared. And there were some truly heartbreaking stories, such as that of the person who was so terrified of having anything at all to do with Centrelink that he accessed his superannuation instead of applying for JobSeeker. How is it that this country has created a system so complex and hostile than an ordinary Australian, a taxpayer, who is perfectly entitled to seek social security support, can be so traumatised at the prospect of visiting a Centrelink office that he will spend his own retirement savings instead? Then there was a family in despair at having to close their business. Their daughter had also lost her casual job and wasn't eligible for JobKeeper. Where on earth would they get the money to pay their way? There was the school swimming instructor who, after 15 years of regular casual employment with the state government, was laid off, was not eligible for JobKeeper and was genuinely distressed that the support available paid no heed to her dignity as a long-serving employee.</para>
<para>Then there were the visa holders who, unable to return home, unable to access JobKeeper and supported by charities and their communities, were living with huge anxiety. One I spoke to had his full-time hours reduced to less than 16 hours and was trying to support his family on a little over $300 a week. There was a pensioner desperate for the return of his wife, who was stuck in the Philippines. The only way to communicate with the Australian embassy and the airlines was by email, and he had never in his life sent an email before. There was the young couple who, from the virus ravaged UK, sought the relative safety of his home town in Tasmania. He secured a job there, but his partner, who had been waiting for two years for her partner visa with no prospect of it arriving, felt she had no alternative but to return to the UK. So they are living apart for the foreseeable future.</para>
<para>All of this has provided me with an insight into how, in a time of crisis, all the government stuff-ups and neglect compound. With this pandemic shaking the foundations of our country, the structural cracks are opening wider and wider, and these cracks are invariably in areas of policy that have been either neglected and put in the too-hard basket or insidiously invaded by ideology rather than common sense—the ideology that privatisation and trickle-down economics of the market will sort it out. This ideology has undermined our institutions and the very idea that a government should care about the common good and strive to advance the welfare of all its citizens and aspiring citizens. Centrelink is so badly broken. Partner visa processing is absolutely broken. Child care and early learning are broken. Aged care is broken.</para>
<para>Then, as restrictions eased in Tasmania and local travel was allowed, it was time to get out and touch base with people to see how they were faring. I visited each of the eight local government areas in north-west Tasmania: Circular Head, Waratah-Wynyard, West Coast, Burnie, Central Coast, Devonport, Latrobe and King Island. I met with chambers of commerce, mayors and general managers, tourism councils, community and neighbourhood houses, men's sheds, the CWA, individuals, and large and small businesses. I want to thank every single organisation and individual that I met with. Thank you for your welcome and your candour and for sharing your stories. I'll be back to see how you're doing and what I can do to help.</para>
<para>Overwhelmingly, I was taken by the sheer resilience of the people. There is hope and optimism if we can just get through this very tough time. I forget how many times I heard the disheartening phrase: 'We had to let our casuals go.' It is disheartening because the government had cruelly decided that casuals who had been with their employer for less than a year were not eligible for JobKeeper. I spoke to cafes and restaurants who were staying open on takeaway service largely to maintain some kind of income for their visa-holding employees. The other phrase was: 'We're surviving on JobKeeper.'</para>
<para>At the very beginning of this crisis, Labor called for wage subsidies to support jobs. When the government that initially spurned the idea eventually adopted it, we took that as a win, even if their scheme had major, major holes in it. On the west coast of Tasmania, 41 per cent of businesses applied for JobKeeper, in Burnie 39.4 per cent applied and in Devonport 40.1 per cent applied. Now I am worried—deeply worried—about Treasurer Frydenberg's plan to dramatically reduce the amount of JobKeeper payments without developing a plan for jobs. Full-time employees who have been supported at the current JobKeeper rate of $750 a week from 28 September will then have to get by on $600 a week, and on 4 January next year they'll be on $500 a week. Part-time workers will have their income halved from $750 a week to $750 a fortnight and then reduced to $650 a fortnight in January.</para>
<para>Until our borders reopen, tourism restarts and people can gather in large groups, many, many businesses, particularly in tourism, entertainment, the arts, travel and hospitality, cannot restart. An example is King Island Car Rental, a perfectly viable business run by Anna and Adam Healy, who are very much cup-half-full sorts of people. But right now, with no visitors from Victoria and no international tourists, they're in a holding pattern. Hardly anyone from outside Tasmania—not even the visiting dentist from Victoria—can get to King Island. All cutting JobKeeper will do for the employees of businesses like King Island Car Rental is make it even harder for them to pay their bills and buy food. There are many businesses in a similar situation on King Island, hundreds like it in north-west Tasmania and tens of thousands across the country. They're absolutely viable and waiting for coronavirus restrictions to ease. We must consider, too, the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the reduction in JobKeeper will strip from the economy, with people's spending power, including their capacity to holiday at home, dramatically reduced.</para>
<para>Labor was very concerned about the government's plan to rip JobKeeper support out at the end of September. It made no sense at all. We campaigned for and supported the extension of JobKeeper to March next year. But the wind-down in the payment rates of JobKeeper, as proposed, will come at the worst time for many workers and businesses. The bill passed this week to extend JobKeeper doesn't specify rates. The Treasurer alone has the power to decide what that rate is and who receives it. I urge him and the members opposite to consider this carefully, because the outrage of thousands of small businesspeople and their employees could be a mighty thing if they discover that the only plan the government has is to force them into poverty and to the wall.</para>
<para>Let's see that plan for jobs and industry from this government before the toecutters get to work on JobKeeper—a plan for jobs; a plan that protects viable businesses and their employees; and a plan that takes into account the needs of different sectors. We need a plan for tourism, a plan for hospitality, a plan for manufacturing, a plan for energy, a plan for early childhood education, a plan for aged care and a plan for workers on visas. I say to my colleagues on the other side: you've already broken Centrelink, you broke partner visa processing and you certainly broke aged care. It's well past time to show that you can now fix something.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tasmania: Environment</title>
          <page.no>94</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] Mark Twain once said, famously:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A mine is a hole in the ground with a liar on top.</para></quote>
<para>Madam Acting Deputy President Walsh, I'm about to tell you a story, and you can decide whether or not this is a hole in the ground with a liar on top. Let me set the backdrop for you.</para>
<para>We go back to August 2013, seven years ago, when a company called Venture Minerals got a permit from the then Labor government for an iron ore mine in Riley Creek in Tasmania. Riley Creek is in the southern end of the Tarkine, one of the most tranquil places you will ever find. It's a landscape so rich and wild that it's said to be of national and World Heritage value. That's not to mention that it's home to the spot-tailed quoll. And at this time, in 2013, it was one of the last strongholds of the Tasmanian devil populations which remained free from the Tasmanian devil facial tumour disease. Being such a sensitive area for our Tassie state emblem, conditions were attached to the 2013 mining permit approval—no trucks outside daylight hours to reduce the road-killed risk to the devil at night and, within two years of starting, the company must pay a chunk of money to the Save the Tasmanian Devil Program.</para>
<para>Another important condition gave Venture five years to start their mine or, in legal terms, be substantially commenced. If they didn't start in those five years, they would have to seek written agreement from the minister, which would likely involve a reassessment of the mine licence and conditions. The reason for seeking ministerial approval was that the devil facial tumour disease was expected to rapidly spread throughout this area following 2013 when the mine was approved. Remember: this was one of the last places left in Tassie that the devil was free of this awful disease—so much so that an insurance population was even released into the Tarkine wilderness not long after the mine was approved in 2013. Even with that insurance population, the devils continue to face significant stress from roadkill and a serious loss of habitat from frequent bushfires. So any significant delay to a mining project with thousands of truck movements certainly warranted a further risk assessment for the long-term survival of the Tasmanian devil.</para>
<para>Almost a year after the permit was granted, nothing had been reported to the department from Venture Minerals about the commencement of their mining. And then, for the next five years, the company publicly reported to their shareholders and to the Australian Stock Exchange that they remained in a pre-extraction stage, ready to take out iron ore when the market was right. But pre-extraction is not considered to be 'substantial commencement' under the 2013 permit conditions and approval. They had to actually extract ore for the permit to remain valid.</para>
<para>In 2018-19 the price of iron ore is on the up, and the market looks right. But wait a minute; we're out of the five-year limit. So what does Venture do? In July 2019, they write to the department and the environment minister and they say: 'Hold up. We've actually ripped out over 10,000 tonnes of iron ore way back in 2013 and 2014. Yes, that was five years ago. Sorry it took us so long to let you know, but now we're doing that.' This was totally contrary to what they disclosed to shareholders and to the Australian Stock Exchange. At this point, assuming this Riley Creek project was material to Venture's share price—and I've got to say, based on their statements, it was—they would have needed to mine the Riley Creek mine to get cash flow to ramp up other mines in the area. This slip-up in reporting, intentional or not, had to have breached ASX continuous disclosure rules. There's no doubt the ASX will investigate that. But that's not the key issue here.</para>
<para>This is where it gets really interesting. You would think the environment department must have very pretty surprised about the changed status to Venture's mining operations. After receiving all these notifications for years that no mining had commenced, they were supposed to have let the department know if they had substantially commenced and, when that happened, they were due to pay a chunk of money to the Tasmanian devil fund, which they clearly hadn't. What did the department do? They apparently investigated the permit conditions and then gave Venture a slap on the wrist—a $25,000 fine for breaching one permit for the condition related to not paying the devil fund.</para>
<para>To my knowledge, and more importantly, the department never investigated whether Venture, in fact, had actually substantially commenced mining in line with their permit commit conditions. Remember: if they hadn't, their mining licence wouldn't be valid, and they would have to apply to the minister and potentially undergo a new environmental assessment. Why wasn't this critical factor assessed? Nobody knows. What would you do if you were Venture Minerals? You'd be waiting for six years. Your iron ore price is now running hot from this extraordinary event internationally with COVID, but you find yourself in breach of licence conditions because you've never substantially commenced mining. You look for a loophole. You change your story and admit to years of misreporting. Do you pay a $25,000 fine—a veritable slap on the wrist for the costs of doing business—or do you admit you overlooked an important licence condition and seek a new agreement with a potentially lengthy approval process and run the risk you might miss the iron ore price window?</para>
<para>Interestingly, this convenient reporting mistake to the Commonwealth also gives Venture a defence against being in breach of state reporting conditions which also expired on 24 September 2019. Bob Brown and Save the Tarkine, who used satellite images to corroborate Venture's early statements that substantial mining had indeed not occurred in April 2019, last year publicly raised the issue that the minister should not substantially commence without an agreement and with representations around properly assessing the Tasmanian devil. Those formal representations were made to Minister Ley in June 2019, that she should not agree to any substantial commencement until a proper re-assessment had occurred in light of the rapid spread of the devil facial tumour disease and recent bushfires. It is worth noting that Venture didn't disclose their innocent mistake to the federal government until 17 July—a month after the Bob Brown Foundation had gone public immediately following these representations. It's highly unlikely to be a coincidence and it is almost certainly a response to the efforts of conservationists to get the risks to the devils properly assessed.</para>
<para>Following Venture's remarkable mistake with their reporting, both these organisations, the Bob Brown Foundation and Save the Tarkine, then provided substantial information to the minister about Venture's recent statements being at odds with a number of striking, publicly available facts. They also pointed out in detail exactly what the legal term for substantial commencement was in relation to the mine approval, which had clearly not occurred on site. They mounted a strong case that the activity that Venture claims was substantial was in fact simply exploration—not mining work and not substantial commencement. Save the Tarkine has put it to the minister that Venture has recast it as ore extraction in order not to be found in breach of permit conditions and, I note, to have not misled investors at this point and to avoid further assessment of its EPBC permits and the lapsing of its Tasmanian land-use, planning and approval permits.</para>
<para>So did Venture, sitting on a hole in the ground, tell a lie to capitalise on rising ore prices and risk the Tasmanian devil? Given the prima facie case made against them by the Bob Brown Foundation and Save the Tarkine, surely this should be properly investigated, given Venture, last year, in 2019, raised millions of dollars in share placement on the stock market around their reviewed activity in the Tarkine, primarily at the Riley Creek ore mine. I would expect that they disclose the risks of a potential legal challenge or investigations by authorities relating to being in breach of their permit conditions and disclose the risks of a new federal assessment process at a time the Tasmanian devil, a threatened endangered species, is under acute risk. The failure to do so surely would have been reckless, negligent or even deceptive and misleading.</para>
<para>I can't find any public record of any such disclosure. The only record I could find was a statement to investors in the second half of 2019 in which the company said their EPBC permits were valid. I intend to ask the Australian Stock Exchange and ASIC, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, to investigate this. Venture may well have disclosed these risks to shareholders; I'm not saying they didn't, just that there is no public record I can find. I also understand that the Bob Brown Foundation has lodged complaints with the Australian Stock Exchange and with the Australian Securities and Investment Commission over its concerns around existing statements by Venture also being potentially deceptive or misleading. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Suncorp-Metway</title>
          <page.no>95</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In my 10 minutes this evening, I rise with some disappointment to speak about a policy decision taken by one of Queensland's biggest companies, Suncorp-Metway. On 21 August 2020, Suncorp-Metway released its most recent annual results. At the same time, it released its <inline font-style="italic">Responsible business report</inline>. I quote from page 28:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In 2020, we strengthened our Fossil Fuels Sensitive Sector Guideline to cease underwriting, financing or directly investing in new oil and gas projects, phase out underwriting and financing oil and gas by 2025, and directly investing by 2040.</para></quote>
<para>Here we have Queensland's largest company announcing that it is going to turn its back on the oil and gas industry, a sector which has invested more than $70 billion—that's billion with a 'b'—in Queensland, including $49.7 billion between 2011 and 2018. It is a sector which employs close to 5,000 Queenslanders and provided 39,000 jobs between 2017 and 2018; a sector which provides gas to our manufacturing and metal-processing industries, which employ 225,000 Australians; a sector which is vital to our future if we are going to increase manufacturing in this country, if we are going to make more things in this country, if we are to become independent and self-reliant in every sense of those words, instead of having our supply chains totally dependent upon imports; a sector which generates billions of dollars in export income, exporting energy to the world and lifting millions of people out of poverty; a sector which the Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel, says is vital for our future because 'natural gas fired electricity can pick up where batteries and pumped hydroelectricity run short.'</para>
<para>This is a sector, Madam Acting Deputy President, which Suncorp refers to in its <inline font-style="italic">Responsible business report 2019-20</inline>, in a section entitled 'Responsible Underwriting, Lending and Investment: Sensitive Sector Guidelines'. In the same section of this so-called <inline font-style="italic">Responsible business report</inline>it deals with cluster bombs, biological warfare, chemical warfare, child slavery and forced labour. Those things are in the same section as the oil and gas industry. How out of touch has Suncorp become? How out of touch with Queenslanders has Suncorp become?</para>
<para>What are we Queenslanders meant to think of this? Go no further than 4BC talkback radio on 21 August and my friend Scott Emerson's afternoon talkback radio show. Our quiet Australians are not so quiet about this travesty. Ray, who has Suncorp insurance products, after hearing the managing director defend the policy—or try to miserably—said: 'If he's not on our side, well, I'm not going to be on his side. He's making a political statement.' Wayne, with Suncorp shares, said: 'I'm fairly disgusted. Suncorp are just shutting the door on us.' I felt exactly the same way when I heard that Suncorp were taking this policy position.</para>
<para>I reflect on what some great Queenslanders who were part of Suncorp-Metway's journey would make of this. Former Premier Borbidge and former Treasurer Joan Sheldon actually pushed for the amalgamation of Suncorp with Metway. Great Queenslanders were chairpersons of the board of directors: Martin Kriewaldt and John Story, great Queenslanders; Ken McDonald and Erin Feros, outstanding legal representatives for the Queensland government; Tony Bellas and Jon Grayson, senior government public servants. I wonder what they would all think of this. I wonder whether they envisaged this for the great financial institution they helped create. It continued the legacy of something started all the way back in 1916 or 1917, when the Queensland government set up the State Government Insurance Office of Queensland to insure state government assets but also to provide Queenslanders with life insurance, general insurance, and car and home insurance. The other institution which was part of the merger was known as the Metropolitan Permanent Building Society and was established in the 1950s. Those two great institutions were brought together in 1996. I reflect on what all those people involved in that would think of this. I reflect on whether it was a mistake when in 2010 the then Queensland Labor government watered down the requirements for Suncorp to have a majority of its directors resident in the state of Queensland. I reflect on that because I think Suncorp has lost touch with how important the oil and gas industry is to Queensland. It has lost touch with its historical roots and it has lost touch with us Queenslanders.</para>
<para>But there is perhaps a path to redemption at hand. If Suncorp-Metway really wants to earn its social licence in Queensland, one of the things it could do is help Queenslanders—especially Queenslanders in North Queensland and Far North Queensland—to secure insurance. After all, as I said previously in this speech, the State Government Insurance Office was established in 1916 to actually assist Queenslanders to procure insurance. Fast forward to 2020 and we now have a devastating situation for many Queenslanders in my home state where they simply cannot secure insurance. I saw some advice from an insurance broker to the owners of a strata title complex in Far North Queensland. They sought to obtain insurance for the owners of those strata title apartments. Not a single Australian insurer would provide insurance in relation to that strata apartment block. Not a single Australian insurer. Suncorp said no. Vero, a subsidiary of Suncorp, also said no. The only insurer the owners in that strata title apartment block could find was a UK insurer at an exorbitant cost. That was the only place they could go to obtain insurance—to the UK.</para>
<para>What a far way we have come. What a far way Suncorp-Metway has come from 1916, when the State Government Insurance Office was established by the Queensland government primarily to insure state owned assets and provide insurance to Queenslanders. If Suncorp really wants to reinstate its standing amongst Queenslanders, the best way it can do that is to make sure that every single Queensland can access affordable insurance. Every single Queenslander has a right to affordable insurance. If you can do that, Suncorp, if you can recapture the spirit of the SGIO which was set up in 1916, I will be the first to rise in this place and sing your praises.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Renewable Energy</title>
          <page.no>96</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] As a servant of the people of Queensland and Australia, I note that the Moran report cannot be sensibly refuted because it presents the government's own costs from budget programs and government agency reports. The Moran report, which was released on Sunday a week ago, titled <inline font-style="italic">The hidden cost of climate policies and renewables</inline><inline font-style="italic">,</inline> shows that the added cost on our electricity is $13 billion each year. That's $1,300 per household every year. The government says renewable solar and wind energy—or, as they should be called, intermittent energy—is 6.5 per cent of a typical household electricity bill. The reality, from the government's own costs, is 39 per cent, six times higher. Six times higher. The government says the portion is $90 each year, when it is really $536. With indirect costs added, it's a staggering $1,300 each year for each household. No wonder the government stopped providing the consolidated costs.</para>
<para>The policy of funding the parasitic intermittents that add costs to other forms of generation like hydro, coal and gas means that for every solar and wind job 2.2 jobs are lost in the productive economy. Our economy and our lifestyle are being fundamentally changed through decarbonising, and that is really deindustrialising, through a UN agenda in accordance with the UN's 1996 Kyoto protocol and the UN's 2015 Paris Agreement. It is killing our food security, killing our manufacturing, killing our economic resilience, killing our productive capacity and killing our economic and national sovereignty. It perpetuates our dependence on other nations and our loss of security, whereas before these UN agreements we were, as a nation, independent and secure.</para>
<para>That leads to another report, titled <inline font-style="italic">Restoring scientific integrity</inline>, that I released yesterday. In turn, that raises significant and fundamental questions on the basis for the massive subsidies in renewables and climate. In 2016, 2017, 2019 and 2020, I had four presentations from the CSIRO and, after each, I cross-examined CSIRO's client science team. I will share what we learned from the CSIRO's own admissions. By the way, recently I cross-examined 17 internationally respected scientists in climatology, physics, astrophysics, statistical analysis, geology, mathematics, computer modelling, meteorology, sea levels and earth sciences. These eminent, capable and authoritative scientists have confirmed the conclusions that I now share with you from our report titled <inline font-style="italic">Restoring scientific integrity</inline>.</para>
<para>These are some of the conclusions from the report. The CSIRO has never said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger—never. CSIRO has admitted today's temperatures are not unprecedented. CSIRO has cited papers that do not show the rate of temperature rise is unprecedented. CSIRO relies on unvalidated models, giving erroneous predictions. CSIRO has never quantified any specific impact from human carbon dioxide and, without that, there can be no policy. CSIRO has relied on discredited and poor-quality papers on temperature and carbon dioxide. CSIRO revealed little understanding of the papers it cited, and that was very embarrassing for it. CSIRO admits to doing no due diligence on reports and data it cites—some of those from overseas, some from within Australia. CSIRO allows politicians to misrepresent CSIRO without correction, so it participates in perpetuating this scam. CSIRO misled parliament.</para>
<para>Let's look at something in particular in one of their papers. CSIRO admitted that today's temperatures are not unprecedented after we tore apart the Marcott paper. It failed under our cross-examination. It submitted the Marcott paper as showing something unprecedented in the earth's climate in the last 10,000 years. The author of the paper on the 20th-century temperature uptick that they show in the paper admitted that it is not robust and not representative of global temperatures. It was fabricated. Initially, the author himself, in his PhD thesis, showed no temperature uptick. He was then joined by two UN authors. They produced the Marcott 2013 paper, and that's where the temperature uptick was fabricated and that's what CSIRO relied on.</para>
<para>Willie Soon, who is an astrophysicist and geoscientist, said: 'Two weeks after publication, this Marcott paper was completely destroyed, and yet someone as high up as CSIRO trying to say this paper is legitimate and can be used as supporting scientific evidence is scientific malpractice.' The paper also admits that the process it uses cannot find temperature trends shorter than 300 years, and yet here's the CSIRO citing this as proof. So they withdrew the paper.</para>
<para>I could go on and talk about the Harries paper that they submitted about carbon dioxide. That shows that carbon dioxide today is unprecedented. That is false, because the current 60-year blip of carbon dioxide levels rising in fact is just a rise of 0.009 per cent from 0.032 per cent to 0.041 per cent. I will say that again: it's a 0.009 per cent rise in just 60 years. When the gaps in the ice cores that Harries cobbled together are 1,000 years minimum and up to 6,000 years you would never see this rise. Then after they withdrew Harries, CSIRO submitted a paper to us—Feldman, 2015—and that paper confirmed that the Harries paper was poor science. It identified the same problems that we identified. The CSIRO is putting out a paper and then another paper that contradicts it, but none of the papers CSIRO cited specified the amount, if any, of human causation. CSIRO had not even read or understood the papers, nor had it done its due diligence.</para>
<para>Thirdly, when it is all stripped away, the CSIRO relies on unvalidated computer models based on a limited and incomplete understanding of climate and giving erroneous projections. These models forecast that the upper troposphere will warm and get more moist, yet it is actually the reverse. It's cooler and drier. The models cannot portray anything about clouds, and that is a significant climate variable. They cannot represent updraughts. Yet this is what a government relies upon for policy, and it's the only thing they rely on, because CSIRO has not got the empirical evidence that should be used. Models are not science, and they are not empirical evidence. They don't produce any confidence levels at all. There is no validation of these models. In fact, they are unvalidated models full stop.</para>
<para>Professor John Christy, one of the world's leading climate scientists and a climatologist in Alabama, has said that he has closely examined CSIRO's access models and found them to be below par, as the projections simply do not match what we actually see in the real world. He says, 'Climate is so complex, our ignorance of the climate system is enormous and the myriad models have not even agreed on a key variable.' They have not even agreed on carbon dioxide sensitivities. Dr David Evans, an Australian and one of the world's top modellers, says, 'CSIRO climate models should not be used for policy, as they are not right yet.' I have made a freedom of information search and a Parliamentary Library search that prove that no CSIRO or Bureau of Meteorology document has been given to ministers or MPs over the last 15 years that contains evidence that we are affecting the climate.</para>
<para>I'll go now to the CSIRO's response to my report. The CSIRO chief executive came out with a response to my report before my report was released, thus his response to my report is not even based on observation or facts. The CSIRO doesn't bother with the facts. The CSIRO chief executive's response yesterday simply recycled his letter to me dated 4 March in response to my letter of 28 February. The chief executive attempts to use nine substitutes for science which are there instead of science and which masquerade as science. He uses pseudoscience. He diverges into implying that my letter smears CSIRO's people, which it does not. This was last February, and it's false. He appeals to a name or a brand or an authority in saying that CSIRO is a prestigious organisation. That is not science. There's no data. There is, repeatedly, no data, no data, no data. His comments are unsupported and therefore unfounded. He ignores completely the facts we provided. The chief executive has already dug himself into a hole and his response is to dig deeper.</para>
<para>We can say that the onus is now on government, which is where it should be, to provide the empirical evidence—the science—to justify their policies. We can also say to them that it's futile for the government because we have the data and it will eventually break. Data always prevails. Truth eventually emerges. It will drag alarmists kicking and screaming into reality, and One Nation will be there to protect the people of Queensland and Australia. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: State and Territory Border Closures</title>
          <page.no>98</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to let the chamber know that the Isolated Children's Parents Association and the Australian Boarding Schools Association have commenced a social media campaign hashtag #nobordersforboarders. They've been driven to do so by the farcical and inconsistent approach to border restrictions and the significant impacts they are having on the mental health and wellbeing of our students from some of our most remote and regional locations. These students are being kept virtual prisoners by these border restrictions and the dogmatic refusal to show common sense and empathy for their situation. We have the ridiculous situation where one school in Victoria, because of announcements by the Victorian Premier, had to close its regional campus, and students from New South Wales were told they had to fly back to Sydney to return home to isolate.</para>
<para>My office was inundated with calls. They were saying, 'Why would we make our children go into a COVID hotspot to fly as unaccompanied minors into another COVID hotspot and drive halfway across the state to return home to a COVID-free zone?' It made no sense to me, and it made no sense to these parents. Not one of these families has a problem with the need to self-isolate. In fact, in response to a survey by the Isolated Children's Parents' Association, they all said they could guarantee their children would isolate for the full 14 days. They are willing to follow the rules when the rules make sense. But it was the requirement to fly, which in some instance meant a two- to three-day logistical exercise, when picking up their kids directly would have meant a day trip.</para>
<para>I have to thank the New South Wales education minister, Sarah Mitchell, for helping me get some of these students home on a sterile bus via a more direct route through Albury. But I couldn't help all of them. Some parents, for whom Albury was just not an option, had to go to the expense of flying their children unaccompanied to Sydney to be picked up and driven across the state to isolate at home. But one family couldn't get their children home. Their boys, Barney and Charlie, in years 11 and 12, drive themselves the 900 kilometres to school at the beginning of term in their old farm ute and normally drive themselves the 900 kilometres home again. When the campus closed, the family applied for an exemption to allow the boys to drive, and they were refused. They were told to fly their boys unaccompanied to where the family would then have to drive 1,200 kilometres one way to pick them up, leaving the ute and the dog behind in Victoria.</para>
<para>At that point the family made the very difficult decision for the boys to stay on at the closed campus and remote school from their boarding house. Credit is due to the school for facilitating this and taking care of those boys, and they are doing a damn good job. But the boys can't go out, they can't leave campus, they can't go to school because the school is closed, and they can't go home. These boys have kept their chins up. Barney and Charlie, good on you. They're tough kids. You have to be when you live 150 kays west of Bourke, when you've been through years of drought and when you've seen the sacrifices your parents have made so that you can get a good education. These boys are tough. But when they heard that they couldn't go home for school holidays, it was too much. They are being sorely tested.</para>
<para>Barney and Charlie, I want you home, just like I want to help Victorian students who are at New South Wales boarding schools and are facing the reality of going home for holidays but then having to lose two weeks of their school term isolating on the way back. I want to help the students from northern New South Wales come home to their families from their Queensland boarding schools without having to fly back into Brisbane to quarantine and lose two weeks of the term in isolation. I want to help young Angus to go back to school in Adelaide from Far West New South Wales without having to isolate yet again with his mum, who had to leave the other kids on the farm and spend two weeks in a hotel with her son before he could start school at the beginning of this term. I want to help these kids get home for their holidays and see the improved conditions because we finally had a better season. I want them to see the tired relief on their parents' faces after the years of drought and I want them to be able to spend their holidays helping with the first harvest they've had in years, which is what they want to do.</para>
<para>Anyone who lives in these regions and anyone who knows these farmers knows that these kids see the stress and the strain that their families go through in tough times such as we've seen this year. They know how tough it is for their parents to send them away. Add to that the usual teenage angst and now tell them they can't go home for the foreseeable future. I can't stress to you enough the concern I have for the mental health and wellbeing of these kids, even though I know how strong they are.</para>
<para>This is not political. We have borders being closed by both sides of politics, but neither have produced credible evidence for this. I have asked the acting Chief Medical Officer, through the COVID select committee, on what medical basis it is better to advise families to undertake such a lengthy and potentially infectious round-trip when common sense would say that taking the most direct route from a COVID-free zone to another COVID-free zone would appear to be safer. And the answer? There is none. There is no medical advice to support the requirement to funnel people through hotspots.</para>
<para>I am told that border closures are very popular in the cities, and I get that. I understand that living in an area where there is community transition would make you nervous. The idea of a lockdown seems to make sense. But we are talking about families that live hundreds of kilometres away from any COVID infection and we are talking about kids that have been in schools which have the most stringent COVID-safe practices imaginable. The steps that these schools have taken to keep their students, their staff and their communities safe is to be commended and puts other sections of our society to shame. I commend the Australian Boarding Schools Association for the work they have done.</para>
<para>I fully support the #nobordersforboarders campaign, and I call on the states to develop a nationally consistent approach as soon as possible—before school holidays—to deal with regional and remote students who are being unreasonably isolated from their families due to border restrictions that are based on no sound medical advice. Do it for our children.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tertiary Education</title>
          <page.no>99</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Tonight I'd like to give six reasons why the Liberals' uni cuts and fee hikes are absolute trash and should go straight in the bin. They're absolute trash and they will hurt unis and students, particularly in regional Australia.</para>
<para>Many students will pay more, and some much more than others. That's No. 1. On average, students will pay seven per cent more for their studies, and around 40 per cent of students will have their fees increased, some by 113 per cent. They'll pay 93 per cent of the cost of their course; more money for uni fees. Students studying law, accounting, administration, economics, commerce, communications and the humanities will pay more for their degrees than people doing medicine and dentistry degrees. There is definitely an ideology behind which courses are getting a fee hike; that we know.</para>
<para>Reason No. 2: universities will get less to do more. Universities will be given less money by this government and be required to do more work. The university sector will face a cut in its guaranteed funding of around $1 billion a year and average funding per student will drop by 5.8 per cent—5.8 per cent per student.</para>
<para>Reason No. 3: this won't even work. The policy assumptions behind this policy are flawed. Experts are convinced that student choice will not be swayed by price signals. The government trying to usher people into certain degrees by making some more expensive isn't actually going to work. The pricing model used by the government to calculate the average university teaching cost is weak and the authors of the research said that they would caution against using it for funding because of multiple methodological reasons. The government's demand for modelling is based on labour force marketing forecasting done prior to COVID; they haven't even sat down and had a look at how COVID is affecting the labour market to be able to make these policy decisions.</para>
<para>Reason No. 4: the Liberals policy will do the opposite of what it is actually claiming to do. Humanities graduates are just as in demand in the labour market as maths and science graduates, but the cost of humanities degrees is going to double. We are going to punish those students. We are going to tell students who want to go to university and study humanities that there is no place for them unless you are willing to pay a lot of money.</para>
<para>A Deloitte report called <inline font-style="italic">The path to prosperity: why the future of work is human</inline> said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Today’s jobs are increasingly likely to require the cognitive skills of the head</para></quote>
<para>Putting it another way, they also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… something new is also happening: Jobs increasingly need us to use our hearts …</para></quote>
<para>There is no reason why we should be punishing humanities students. We need humanities students. But this government is punishing them by raising the fees of their university degrees.</para>
<para>Reason No. 5: the worst impact of this new legislation that the government is introducing will impact regional universities. Under this package, nearly twice as many regional and remote students will have to pay the highest rate of student fees. So much for standing up for the regions in the middle of an economic crisis! So much for supporting students from the bush! Regional universities deliver a greater proportion of courses that will have funding cut than non-regional universities. This government doesn't care about kids from the bush. It doesn't care about giving them a go if they want to go to university. They are making it harder for kids from the bush to go to university.</para>
<para>Finally, the real clincher, the one that seals the deal on this legislation and means that it definitely should go in the bin: while the Liberals are punishing Aussie kids, students will lose access to government support if they fail more than half of the subjects they are enrolled in in the first year. This could create an incentive for universities to lower standards so that fewer students fail. The first year of university, especially if you live in regional Australia, is tough. It's a hard year. It's a transition year. It's not easy for everyone. You do your first course, and maybe that is not the course for you. But are we going to punish kids for having a go? Or are we going to give them a go, as Scott Morrison always says? This Liberal government says: 'If you can't get it right the first time, see you later! We're not even going to give you a chance to go to university if you can't get it right the first time.'</para>
<para>This policy is absolutely garbage. It belongs in the trash. Put it in the bin. Students in regional universities deserve much better.</para>
<para>That brings me to the other topic I wanted to talk about tonight. In regional areas, we are a tight-knit bunch. Tonight I want to share a story about a Cairns family man and a staunch trade unionist John Lee. John's health is not that good right now. He is having a bit of a tough time, but I wanted to share his story with the Senate tonight. John's love of tug boats was sparked when he started working between Brisbane and Gladstone. He went on to work as a delegate for the Maritime Union of Australia in Mackay, before moving to Cairns and going into semi-retirement a few years ago. On the sea, John has always felt at home. John's most remarkable claim to fame goes back to 2014 when he formed part of a specialist crew on board the ocean field vessel to find the fallen MH370 aircraft black box. John is a father, a grandfather and a beloved friend to those who know him. He is loyal to a fault, a man of principle and a talented storyteller. Those who know him say they can't speak highly enough of him. They are better off because they know John.</para>
<para>The thing about John is he always tells 10 per cent of the story to all his mates, so between us we all get the full story in the end. John is humble like that, and is never one to blow his own trumpet. John understands Labor's values and the importance of the union movement. He always listens to advice from unions in the interests of his family. John is particularly passionate about superannuation, and contributions towards his retirement savings from day one have secured the future of his family. This has brought him happiness at a time when thousands of people are losing their jobs and facing an incredibly uncertain future. John has his quirks, and his taste for VB is certainly one of them—particularly being a Queenslander! But if there is one thing that John is famous for, it is his chant of 'giddyup, comrade' at the end of every phone call. John, you have been an inspiration to your loved ones, your friends, your work colleagues, and I wish you and your family all the best.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>South Australia: Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>100</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATRICK</name>
    <name.id>144292</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise tonight to speak about a vision for South Australia, a state that is currently being inhibited by a perfunctory administration. South Australia is a great place to work and live. South Australians know it, yet we have seen a drop of population relative to the other states. The state's population has gone from 1.5 million in 2000 to 1.7 million today, an increase of 200,000. In the same period, WA's population has grown by more than 700,000, so we are not attracting people and businesses and, in many instances, we are losing some of our best.</para>
<para>Part of the reason for this, along with the broken migration framework that doesn't facilitate skilled migration, is a track record of failed infrastructure planning and execution. We have seen the closures of railway on the Eyre Peninsula. About 75 per cent of our roads are in poor condition. We have a state government that has dilly-dallied on ports, now engaging KPMG to examine the best location for a port in circumstances where the federal government, and I thank it for that, has already backed Cape Hardy to the tune of $25 million. We have insufficient power supplies to the south-east and the Eyre Peninsula and that's just to name a few themes.</para>
<para>Sadly, we don't have a vision to inspire new businesses and investment to come across our state line. This is in spite of all of the wonderful things about SA. So I want to lay out a vision and ask that Premier Marshall pay some attention. Down in the south-east, there is a green triangle freight plan. It has secured federal funding on the Victorian side of the border, but the SA government has failed to get funding for it on our side of the border. This is a project that would see upgraded roads providing the means to get wood to the mills and to market whilst improving safety for all road travellers. It is essential, yet sitting idle.</para>
<para>Further north into the Mallee and Renmark, they are holding out for a dual carriageway from Renmark to Gawler, one that bypasses Truro and is capable of handling high-productivity vehicles—trucks with lots of trailers. Such a road would transform commercial operations out that way. We also need to get power out there. While there is a will for investment, the way is blocked through lack of electrical capacity.</para>
<para>Closer to Adelaide, there is a need to establish a northern rail bypass, which will benefit both the Adelaide Hills and the Fleurieu Peninsula. It has been a topic of debate since the early 2000s but that's all—not good enough, Mr Marshall. In Adelaide, we have seen the building of the north-south corridor. This went into the infrastructure plan into February 2016 and, 4½ years later, it's still going. What's there is a great road. I have travelled it a few times, but it seems to be the only significant SA project underway, perhaps on account of successive state governments not thinking much beyond Gepps Cross, despite the prosperity that lies in our regions.</para>
<para>Missing from any serious consideration is the merging of Adelaide uni, uni SA and Flinders uni into the Australia university, something that would create Australia's premier higher education facility, yet there is only background chatter on what would be the pathway to the establishment of SA as the education state.</para>
<para>And of course there's the Osborne Naval Shipbuilding Precinct. That will support hundreds of millions of dollars of annual activity. But Premier Marshall has been silent on this front—not advocating hard enough to keep Collins full-cycle docking in Adelaide, not pushing for additional OPVs to be built in Adelaide to fill the valley of death, and not pressing for other naval ships on offer, such as the HADR vessel that the Navy is planning. Before departing Adelaide, I note that there is opportunity for electric vehicles to be built there, and that is something I have been talking to the federal government about, and—I thank them again—they've been listening to that.</para>
<para>Heading north from Port Adelaide is really good, because there is dual highway all the way to Port Wakefield and to the newly planned overpass. I welcome the newly planned overpass, but we still need to get from Port Wakefield up to Port Augusta with dual carriageway all the way. As for Port Augusta, a town sitting above Goyder's Line, with 300 days of sunshine per annum, it's Australia's future renewable energy epicentre. We don't see enough being done there, however—solar, windfarms, batteries. It's where it all belongs. If fostered properly it would see South Australia exporting energy to the eastern states via the SA-New South Wales interconnector. And of course the transmission towers will be built from wireless steel, made in Whyalla rather than China, and that will spur demand for the Whyalla steelworks. I'll come back to Whyalla shortly. If it were properly seeded by government, we'd see bricks and tiles being made from the ash dam waste from the old coal fired power station at Port Augusta, the Northern Power Station—jobs and environmental benefits all in the same package.</para>
<para>Heading outback, there's the Strzelecki Track. It will give greater access to the Moomba gas fields, assisting in cattle trade from Queensland down to Adelaide and creating tourism opportunities. Sealing the Strzelecki Track, like so many other SA projects, has been in the planning since February 2016. I'll acknowledge that it's started, but of the 476 kilometres required, they're sealing only 50—after 4½ years. The tardiness of this road project is simply not good enough. Meanwhile, $330 million of federal funding has been secured to widen and seal the Outback Way, running from Laverton in WA to Winton in Queensland via Alice—bypassing South Australia.</para>
<para>Going back down to the Eyre Peninsula and Whyalla, we need to ensure that Sanjeev Gupta's mini SA vision—and it's not that mini—gets underway. Expanding Whyalla to become one of the world's largest steel mills will transform the iron triangle, a 20 million tonne per annum facility. I've already spoken about that in this chamber. It would take Whyalla from 22,000 residents to 80,000—a town that would be serviced by Qantas and Virgin 737s flying from Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. And we need to extend the standard-gauge rail track from Whyalla to Cape Hardy, the Eyre Peninsula's new deepwater port. That would open up access to minerals in the Braemar Province, the Woomera Prohibited Area and Wudinna. It must happen, but the state government hasn't even started looking at it. Cape Hardy is going to be good for grain and graphite and will serve as a hydrogen export hub. Green hydrogen is something the state government has been talking about—but, sadly, only talking about.</para>
<para>Port Lincoln is a successful fishing and tourism town, but it should also be our space town. Whilst we've got the headquarters of the Space Agency in Adelaide, Port Lincoln and indeed Ceduna can and must be where our launch capability lies. At the moment the greatest hurdle to the whole Australian space industry appears to be the Space Agency, who need more than a year to launch permit. Rest assured, they're in my sights for estimates. It is unacceptable. If we get this wrong now, we will lose the opportunity. And of course all these things on the Eyre Peninsula and in the far west need to be properly fed by power, something we're not doing at the moment. Furthermore, we need to have appropriate transport options and accommodation. There's so much more I could say, but I'm constrained by time.</para>
<para>My message is to Premier Marshall: if you snooze, you lose. If you don't know how to drive a state forward then grab a book on Tom Playford from the State Library of South Australia and have a read. I've tried to lay out the skeletons of a vision tonight. We need change—only then will we draw back to South Australia all those who've left and others willing to contribute. We need to be focusing on a long-term SA population of three million people. If it's done right, we'll be able to create a constitutional crisis by requiring those who want to come to South Australia to have to apply—only then will we be able to congratulate ourselves.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Australia: Community Events</title>
          <page.no>102</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Tonight I rise to report on my recent travels through the Kimberley, Pilbara and parts of the Mid West region in my home state. I'm pleased that Senator Smith is here this evening, because I know that for him this is a very important part of the great state of Western Australia. I acknowledge the great work that he does across that region. It's indeed a patron area for him.</para>
<para>While parliament was cancelled, I decided that, if I couldn't head east over that two-week period, I would head north. Covering over 6,000 kilometres, and with my staff covering even more, I spent two weeks on the road. The trip took me through Meekatharra, Newman, Tom Price, Onslow, Karratha, Port Hedland, Marble Bar, Pardoo, Broome, Derby, Fitzroy Crossing, Halls Creek, Wyndham, Kununurra and numerous small communities. The primary purpose of this trip was to see how the regional communities across Western Australia had been affected by the coronavirus pandemic, and I was also pleased to visit a school and two volunteer organisations that have received grants with the support of Melissa Price MP.</para>
<para>My first meeting of the trip was with the Shire of Meekatharra. It was great to meet with them and to get an insight into what's happening in the Mid West, and we discussed topics including school attendance and how the surging gold price had increased exploration by both fossickers and exploration companies in the region. The road to Meekatharra is, of course, the Great Northern Highway, which has had significant funding put into it by this government, improving the quality and safety of the road. One thing that struck me on that trip was just how much equipment was being trucked up to the north. I must have overtaken at least one oversized load an hour, and there were just as many heading in the other direction as well as double, triple and even quad road trains carrying everything from specialist mining equipment to laundry. If anyone has ever doubted the phrase 'without trucks, Australia stops' they ought to spend a day driving on the Great Northern Highway. It really is like a freeway.</para>
<para>From Meekatharra, we travelled north, heading into the Pilbara region into Newman, where I met with the CCI and the shire. I'd like to thank Tania from the CCI; the shire president, Lynne; and shire CEO, Jeremy, for meeting with me. While in Newman—not for the last time—the effect that FIFO was having on the community was raised. At any one time, there are over 40,000 FIFO workers in the Pilbara, and I can only imagine the economic and social benefits that would result from having even 10 per cent of the FIFO workers relocating permanently into the region. I note the research that's been done by the Regional Australia Institute over a 30-year period—that, for every 100,000 Australians who choose to live in growing small cities rather than in our big five capitals, an additional $50 billion will be released into the economy.</para>
<para>From Newman, it was onto Tom Price, where I was lucky enough to get a tour of Rio Tinto's iron ore mine. Thanks to Jamie very much for hosting me and my staff on that visit. It is a pioneering mine site in the Pilbara and one of the first iron ore mines up there, and it was terrific to see the difference between there and other mine sites that I got to visit. After the mine tour, I visited the North Tom Price Primary School where principal Linda Villanova showed me around the school and showed me the new playground that will be built through the receipt of a volunteer grant with the support of the member for Durack, Melissa Price. Following this, I met with Ken Donohoe, CEO of the Shire of Ashburton. Ken outlined the shire's strategic plan and raised with me the issue of child care in the regions. This is an issue that I look forward to progressing, as I've heard it many times, certainly on this trip—and not just on this trip.</para>
<para>From Tom Price it was on to Onslow. The first stop was a meeting with the Onslow Sea Rangers who are doing a magnificent job at monitoring and managing local wildlife. I also stopped by the Onslow marine support base, which got off the ground thanks to NAIF funding by this government. Finally, I was given a tour of Chevron's Wheatstone LNG facility—a very impressive facility indeed, and another example of the Pilbara's premier economic position in this country. I'd like to thank Sean and Tiff of Chevron for their hospitality. Chevron's Shop Local voucher campaign in the town was a great model of coronavirus stimulation that was created by a company.</para>
<para>My next meeting was in Karratha with Mayor Peter Long, who gave me a tour of the town and showed me numerous sights of interest, as well as a tour of the Dampier foreshore development. I thank him for his support and Chris Adams's vision for their city—it really is to be commended. A Chamber of Minerals and Energy dinner that evening was a fortuitously timed event, and I was pleased to be able to attend and meet with representatives and executives from the resources sector who have really been carrying the nation at this time, you'd have to say, with regards to the economic activity that is occurring up there.</para>
<para>One site in the Karratha and Dampier area that I would like to make particular mention of is a company called Yara Pilbara on the Dampier peninsula. Yara is a visionary company that supplies ammonia and ammonia nitrate to the region with plans to export renewable, green hydrogen. This is an exciting project and I look forward to seeing what will come from it. There is an opportunity for Australia, and in particular this part of the world, to become a world leader in this space. So I'd like to thank Luke and Mark for organising and hosting me on this visit. I learned a tremendous amount. I got to meet Beau and his family who run Karratha Asphalt. They've got business because of federal government investment in roads and investment in infrastructure in that area. It's a local company taking advantage of local procurement and opportunities that follow.</para>
<para>On the visit, I was especially excited by the Pilbara Universities Centre and Susan Grylls. This is a fantastic facility and part of a fantastic program rolled out across Australia by this government. It will allow students to study university courses at facilities in the regions rather than leaving home to have to study in a capital city. This is brilliant for regional communities, but also for the social fabric of regional centres.</para>
<para>My final visit in Karratha was to the Dampier VFRS, another grant recipient; this was a volunteer grant. The family-friendly atmosphere that I encountered there as they gathered together to meet me was just so beautiful. It was a great way to finish off the day, to see this amazing group of volunteers. They are proud of their facility, and it was great to see their families there. These guys turn out when there's an emergency. They're volunteers and they're an amazing group of people.</para>
<para>There are so many other places that I visited right throughout the trip. I'd like to thank Fortescue for the opportunity to meet with them and to see firsthand the iron ore delivered off the trains, going over those conveyors and straight into the ships. In the month of July alone, over $12 billion in iron ore went out through the Pilbara ports.</para>
<para>I visited a few smaller communities on the trip as well. The advantage of travel by road is that you get to go to places that you'd often just fly over the top of—for example, a place like Marble Bar. It is the hottest place in Australia. It has the highest temperatures in Australia. But, I tell you, it is also one of the most picturesque and beautiful places, particularly at this time of year. I got to meet with the CRC up there, Amy, who talked to me about the local issues: the need for training, the need for employment and the need to really activate a local workforce for the jobs that exist around there. I got to spend some time with a fantastic project called Pardoo Station. This is a cattle station in the middle of the Pilbara. They have centre pivots, bores that go into the aquifer and, without any pumps, they're able to deliver fresh water on to their pasture. They are producing and growing Wagyu beef, would you believe, in the middle of the Pilbara.</para>
<para>I went to the Kimberley. I had a tremendous time with various community organisations, Indigenous community organisations, employment providers and training providers that are all active in working to improve the lives of Aboriginal people in particular up in that community. Those that know me and know my passion for that area know it's something I'm wanting to persist with to see some real benefit come into these areas. This is a great part of Australia, the north-west. It is not actually a part of Australia that people on this side of the country really think too much about, but thank God for the northern parts of Western Australia because, if it weren't for the economic activity that is occurring over there right now, how would we be able to support the coronavirus supports that are there for communities at this time? So thank you very much.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lung Cancer, JobKeeper Payment</title>
          <page.no>103</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As many in this place are aware, I've been a long-time advocate for patients with cancers with low survival rates. It frustrates me that, while cancer survival generally continues to improve, there are some cancers for which survival rates have languished, often due to insufficient attention or investment. The most common low-survival-rate cancer is lung cancer. It's the fifth highest incidence of cancer in Australia and is well ahead of other cancers as the leading cause of cancer deaths. Lung cancer is so deadly that it kills more Australians than breast, prostate and ovarian cancer combined. It is sadly a cancer whose patients are often stigmatised by the mistaken belief that all lung cancer is caused by smoking.</para>
<para>The Lung Foundation is currently campaigning for an investment which would have the potential to significantly improve outcomes for lung cancer patients—Australian government funding for 15 specialist lung cancer nurses. The call is outlined in the foundation's paper <inline font-style="italic">Making lung cancer a fair fight: a blueprint for reform</inline>. It's backed by a petition with over 4,000 signatures. The Australian government has invested in specialist nurses for breast cancer and prostate cancer and this has led to a significant improvement in patient outcomes for these diseases. Specialist cancer nurses can be an important part of a multidisciplinary oncology team and their roles can include but are not limited to clinical care, patient care, coordination, provision of information to patients and families, research and education, identifying and leading safety and quality improvements, advocacy and preventive health.</para>
<para>The Senate Select Committee into Funding for Research into Cancers with Low Survival Rates, which I chaired, recognised the benefits of specialised nurses or specialist care coordinators. Recommendation 21 of its unanimous report reads:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The committee recommends that the Australian government, in conjunction with its state and territory counterparts, works to improve access to specialist cancer care co-ordinators or nurses for low survival rate cancer patients in every state and territory.</para></quote>
<para>I was disappointed to see the government simply note this recommendation. The government said in their response:</para>
<quote><para class="block">State and territory governments have primary responsibility for the employment of nurses and care coordinators.</para></quote>
<para>Even accepting this point, I fail to see why the Morrison government couldn't at least work with the states and territories on a consistent approach to employing care coordinators in the areas of greatest need. If the Morrison government think states and territories should be entirely responsible for funding these positions then why would they announce $27 million in Commonwealth funding for specialist breast cancer nurses and $23 million for prostate cancer nurses?</para>
<para>I'm by no means arguing that the Commonwealth shouldn't invest in specialist prostrate cancer or breast cancer nurses, but I believe the Lung Foundation has put forward a very compelling argument that the case can be just as easily made for federally funded lung cancer nurse specialists. A study by the Lung Foundation shows that patients who have access to a specialist lung cancer nurse are 34 per cent more likely to receive access to treatment than those who do not. Right now, Australia has 12 full-time equivalent specialist lung cancer nurses. This equates to less than one nurse for every 1,000 lung cancer patients, which leaves Australia lagging behind many comparable nations.</para>
<para>A study in the <inline font-style="italic">Asia-</inline><inline font-style="italic">Pacific Journal of</inline><inline font-style="italic">Clinical Oncology </inline>found that people living with lung cancer had the highest unmet needs, had the highest levels of psychological stress, had the poorest quality of life and tended to underutilise hospital and community support services. The situation is likely to get worse because of COVID-19 with the challenges of travel restrictions and self-isolation, not to mention a reported 50 per cent fall in referrals for lung cancer patients between March and June this year. I wrote to the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt, to put to him the case that the Lung Foundation has made for funding specialist lung cancer nurses, and I received a reply from the minister's chief of staff reiterating what they told the inquiry—the state and territory governments are best placed to provide cancer care coordinators or nurses. But what the minister's office didn't explain—and I'd be interested to hear this explanation from the minister—is why he believes the case has been made for the Commonwealth funding of nurse specialists for Australians diagnosed with other types of cancer but not for lung cancer. I urge the government and Mr Hunt in particular to give this issue more serious consideration.</para>
<para>The other thing I want to speak about tonight is something quite different. I want to speak about the disturbing trend in Australia where increasingly you work for a company but you don't legally work for them. You might spend day in, day out working to provide services for a company, but, instead of working for them, you are in fact employed by a subcontractor which provides your labour as a service. For many people, they are now doing exactly the same job they had previously been doing for the same company, yet their employer is different. We saw the tragic effects earlier this year when dnata, which bought Qantas's in-house catering services, was unable to obtain JobKeeper for Australian workers. These workers pay taxes in Australia while providing services to an Australian airline as they had for many years before the buyout. And now Qantas is going to repeat the same dirty trick.</para>
<para>Qantas has received hundreds of millions of dollars in government subsidies, yet it's refusing to protect the jobs of its workers. They've revealed plans to outsource ground handling at major Australian airports as well as at larger regional airports, and the airports expected to be affected include Adelaide, Alice Springs, Brisbane, Cairns, Canberra, Darwin, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney and Townsville. They are planning to axe all of their 2,400 ground, baggage and cleaning jobs and outsource them, on top of the 6,000 redundancies they announced in August. It's not good enough to get rid of workers only to rehire the same workers through another provider with lower pay and worse conditions. And it's especially not good enough when the CEO received almost $24 million last year. Qantas says it will save $100 million per year by outsourcing its ground-handling work, but where will that $100 million come from? It will come from the pockets of workers who will receive lower pay and fewer entitlements, causing inconvenience to travellers as there will be fewer workers to provide the same service. We've heard reports that some employees in the air services industry have been paid below-award wages and have been asked to work in unsafe conditions. This must not become the fate of these thousands of employees that have been proud to work for the national carrier, some for decades. This outcome would simply be un-Australian. Australian workers deserve better. Australian taxpayers deserve better.</para>
<para>I was a union official that represented Ansett workers when it went into liquidation almost two decades ago. It made me angry then and it still makes me angry now that workers are the ones who are forced to have their pay and conditions cut when things go bad, that workers are retrenched but top-end management keep their jobs and higher salaries while banks and other creditors manage to take their share first. Qantas has received $267 million through the JobKeeper program so far and $248 million through other government financial assistance packages. What is the benefit of this expenditure if not to keep Australians employed? Let's be very clear: Josh Frydenberg is entirely responsible for who gets JobKeeper and how much they get. It's absolutely crucial that the JobKeeper payments are going to businesses that are looking after their workforce.</para>
<para>Qantas will be paying a dividend in September to its shareholders, so, while crying poor, accepting hundreds of millions of dollars in government subsidies and sacking thousands of employees, it is still able to shovel public money into private hands. I'd like to quote the national secretary of the Transport Workers Union, Michael Kaine, whose union represents the workers impacted in these changes and the earlier dnata decision. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We are calling on the Prime Minister to intervene and call Qantas to account over its misuse of taxpayers' money. There is no dividend for the public if a company like Qantas can sack thousands of workers after receiving such financial support.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Prime Minister has failed to date to implement a national plan on aviation. He must act now to urgently save jobs and ensure a return for the public.</para></quote>
<para>I'd quickly like to thank all the Transport Workers Union members, delegates and activists who will fight to stand up for these jobs. We saw earlier this year how the actions of these members and the broader union movement resulted in the government doing a backflip on a wage subsidy which the Prime Minister had previously said would never happen.</para>
<para>In closing, wage subsidies should be used to protect Australian jobs. They should not be used to prop up corporate dividends and high CEO salaries. The government must hold to account employers, including Qantas, that take hundreds of millions of dollars in wage subsidies and then, in the end, sack their employees and hire them through other companies on lower pay and worse conditions. That is completely unacceptable behaviour.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Royal Military College, Duntroon</title>
          <page.no>105</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the same week that the Skype scandal broke around the Australian Defence Force Academy, next door, at the Royal Military College, Duntroon, a cadet hanged himself. He had asked for help from his leadership and he was turned away. The public never heard a damn thing about it. All the cadets at the Royal Military College at the time were called together and told by the commanding officer not to discuss their mate's suicide. The commanding officer was worried it would add to the media storm on the scandal that was brewing outside. In issuing the order to go silent, the commanding officer at the time, Lieutenant Colonel Jason Hedges—and you know who you are—didn't even have the respect or the care to correctly remember the deceased cadet's name. That's how strong the culture of cover-up is that our Defence faces. It goes right to the top of our brass. It is right in the school of our officers. It's killing people, and the public don't hear a damn thing about it.</para>
<para>I'm ending the silence and I'll continue to do that. I'm speaking up today on behalf of the people who have reportedly been told to shut up about the toxic culture at the very top of the Australian Defence Force. I'm going to tell you what our cadets are going through. The cadets who've been through the Military College at Duntroon know better than anyone else what the culture is like. They have been through hell time and time again. They've seen their mates being bullied and harassed by their own superiors—those who are supposed to be at the very upper echelon. They got dodgy health care that too often left them worse off than when they first visited the doctor on base, and every time they tried to speak up they got shot down by the very people who were supposed to be looking after them: the top dogs of the officers. They were called malingerers and told to get on with it.</para>
<para>Here's an example. On 12 March 2011, most of the cadets at the Royal Military College were off site on field exercises. The only ones left on base were in rehab for service related injuries. The wounded cadets were sitting in their rooms trying to recover when they heard the voice of their regimental sergeant major yelling that there was a fire in the library. Despite their injuries, they rushed out to fight the flames. One of the cadets—we'll call him Lewis—was recovering from knee surgery. Ignoring his pain, he ran into the library to put out the flames, side by side at the time with the regimental sergeant major. Other injured cadets were grabbing fire extinguishers from around the base and running them back to Lewis and the regimental sergeant major, who were fighting the blaze. They were running on reconstructed knees, carrying equipment on reconstructed shoulders and lifting equipment with broken hands, many re-injuring themselves in the process. One cadet hurt himself so badly that, as a result, he was ultimately discharged from the Australian Defence Force.</para>
<para>After the fire, the cadets were required to write statements about what had happened. They tried to tell the truth, as they had always been taught to do, which was that Lewis, their regimental sergeant major and the other wounded cadets had bravely worked to put out the fire. But the senior officers—it gets great now—told them what they had to put in their statements. The cadets' written versions of events were returned to them for revision over and over again by their direct chain of command. They were given verbal warnings to include some details and leave others out. Their commanding officers forced them to paint a picture that falsely glorified the actions of their superiors and downplayed their own. One commanding officer had only entered the burning building to tell the regimental sergeant major and Lewis that the fire brigade had arrived. But, despite doing next to nothing, he used the biased statements to claim responsibility for the actions of his subordinates. He took credit for things that he never did. That man got a commendation for brave conduct that he did not deserve.</para>
<para>Lewis, on the other hand, was driven out of the military within weeks. I hope you're listening to this, Chief of the Defence Force, because there's more to come, and I've got the evidence. Let me tell you about Lewis. This is his story, and it's like so many others. He entered the Royal Military College at Duntroon as a bright, enthusiastic, friendly kid. He was excited to be able to join the Army and he was cut down on day one. On the first day, he was told by the senior officer of his company that he didn't belong there. His senior officer told him that he'd do everything in his power to stop him from graduating. This is what we do to our kids—our cadets. He was told directly, around others, that his senior officer didn't like him. He was injured and he needed knee surgery, but his senior officer spread rumours that he was making it up, that he was lazy, and that he was only going to rehabilitation to spend more time with his boyfriend. I don't know how the senior officer finds that amusing. This is the sort of crap that's going on. It was bullying, plain and simple, to the point of wearing T-shirts around, giving this young boy a hard time.</para>
<para>This is the truth of the matter and it came from the very top. It comes from the very top of the leadership. It comes from our military colleges, the top brass, and nothing's been done about it. Nothing was done about it then, and still nothing has been corrected. Eventually Lewis was forced out illegally and abusively. He left the Royal Military College as a shell of his former self. Lewis's story is the same as that of so many other cadets. The bullying and intimidation by senior officers is one of the reasons why one veteran a week takes their own life. It breaks people's minds and their bodies. When they try to speak out, the bullying only gets worse. So many of the cadets at RMC had the same problems as Lewis and continue to have the same problems. They all suffered from the lack of care and respect from those at the top.</para>
<para>Here's another example: the medical care that they had to put up with. The Royal Military College at the time had only one doctor, and I'm going to name you today, Barbara. Your name is Dr Barbara Thompson. Are you listening to me, AHPRA? You had better be investigating this by breakfast in the morning. She was the only doctor they were allowed to see. Any review of Dr Thompson's treating history whilst at RMC would show a slow-moving train wreck of neglect and carelessness. She did enormous damage to so many of those cadets at RMC. Their senior officers knew about it and ignored it. They still continue to ignore it. She lied, she bullied, she coerced and she covered up. In one case, Dr Thompson used a cadet's personal records to track down his parents online, find out what their jobs were and pressure him to voluntarily discharge because she thought they were well enough off to pay for him to go to uni, and therefore he wouldn't get compensation either. She repeatedly refused staff cadets access to their own medical documents which they needed to substantiate their Department of Veterans' Affairs claims. One of the cadets who helped fight the fire in 2011 entered Dr Thompson's medical care with a single broken bone in his master hand. Today, after 12 surgeries, his wrist and hand are completely fused. He has had five bones removed. He has permanent nerve damage and a degenerative condition. Another cadet presented with a badly injured hip. You've got two hips. Dr Thompson ordered an X-ray of the wrong one. She even wrote in his medical records that the specialist who recommended surgery, which she tried to deny, was doing so because he wanted a new boat for Christmas.</para>
<para>The whole command structure knew this was going on. It took multiple cadets going over the heads of their senior officers at the Royal Military College to finally provoke an investigation into Dr Thompson's conduct. Just as she was finally going to be investigated, she disappeared. How about that? Defence covering something else up! In 2011, her office was cleared out, and it appears that no investigation has ever been formally conducted. We're coming now, girlfriend, I can tell you. Some of those Army medical records of cadets under her care have completely disappeared too, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence. There are bad doctors out there. It's not remarkable that we'd have one here. What's remarkable is that, when this was raised repeatedly, nobody did anything. None of those senior officers did a damn thing, and they're supposed to be full of leadership. I have documented proof that Defence was made aware of the complaints against Dr Thompson in 2010 and 2011. They ignored it. Instructors knew; they ignored it. That is negligence. That is plain as day a breach of Defence's duty of care. This is what's going on. Defence is failing its recruits. They're losing our good kids.</para>
<para>Lewis, an injured cadet, who ran into a fire on a busted knee and fought to save his base was bullied and abused until he had to leave. He should have been decorated for his actions on the day of the fire. Instead, he was broken by his senior officers. He was told he was useless, and his supervisors stole the credit for his bravery. He is still suffering to this day. He experiences daily panic attacks, he barely leaves the house, his family life has fallen to pieces and he is in constant chronic pain. He has attempted suicide multiple times, and he's not the only one out of this group of boys; so far, I have 13 of them on my list. You know that you're under investigation and I know that you're under investigation, and I know that the Minister for Defence knows about this too. She'll be questioned tomorrow.</para>
<para>Within that same group of RMC cadets there have been three suicide attempts since Anzac Day and there have been many more before that. One of these cadets was in the emergency department this week after self-harming. That's the situation that they're in. Everything I've said tonight I've said because I can prove it: notes, records, documents—you name it. I've seen the proof and I have the proof. Tonight is just the tip of the iceberg. What's more, I know that the ADF has seen it too. More people know about this than have come forward so far, so if you are one of those boys then please come to my office. I know of 13 of you and I know that there are many more to come. Don't let them get away with this; come to my office.</para>
<para>Senate adjourned at 22 : 30</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>