
<hansard version="2.2" noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd">
  <session.header>
    <date>2020-10-07</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:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" 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" background="" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" style="" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;"></span>
            <a type="" href="Chamber">Wednesday, 7 October 2020</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Scott Ryan)</span> took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tabling</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Education and Employment References Committee, National Capital and External Territories Committee</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Meeting</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, we'll move on.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" 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" background="" 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" style="" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture">
            <a type="Bill" href="r6584">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I was saying yesterday, contrary to claims I've read, the changes proposed in this bill will not disadvantage students from lower social and economic areas. It will enable more graduates from these areas and graduates going into fields that industries support and that support jobs and support regional development, such as health and agriculture. That is why our regional universities are supporting this package. By strengthening our regional universities, by improving access to our universities for children, regional and remote students and Indigenous students, and by offering incentives for universities to target students from these areas, this package truly delivers for rural, regional and remote Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm just going to make a short contribution in this debate on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020, but I do want to put on record my position and Labor's position, especially insofar as this bill affects regional universities in my state of Queensland and students and aspiring students in our regions. For reasons that have been explained by a number of my colleagues, Labor will oppose this bill. This legislation makes it harder and more expensive for Australians to go to university.</para>
<para>It's hard to imagine a worse time in Australian history for a bill to be introduced which seeks to increase the cost of higher education for students, making it more expensive for students to attend university. This is at a time when we have seen hundreds of thousands of Australians lose their jobs and, for the first time in many years in some cases, consider undertaking university or other studies to reskill so that they can re-enter the workforce. At a time when we've got hundreds of thousands of Australians losing their jobs, making decisions about retraining so that they can get a new job, the government wants to make it more expensive for people to obtain those qualifications which will assist them to get that new job that they're looking for. It's absolutely bizarre and an incredible disincentive to people to undertake the sort of study that they may need to obtain a new job. But it's consistent with the approach that this government has taken to education and training the entire time it has been in office. We've seen their cuts to universities in the past. We've seen them increase the cost of study and put more of the burden onto students, and that's just for higher education.</para>
<para>If we look at apprenticeships and traineeships, arguably the changes have been even worse than in higher education. There are 140,000 fewer apprentices and trainees in Australia than when this government came to office in 2013. As usual, they make all the promises in the world. Only a short time ago, they were going to create 300,000 new apprenticeships and traineeships. But, if you look at the facts, there are 140,000 fewer apprentices and trainees in this country now than there were in 2013 when this government came to power.</para>
<para>So the government have cut universities, they've made it more expensive for students to go to university, they've cut apprenticeships, they've cut traineeships, and, all of a sudden, they realise that we've got a massive skills shortage. This is only going to be exacerbated by the fact that they won't be able to use the trick they've used for years to fill skills shortages, which is to bring in people from overseas. We are going to pay a significant price, as a country, in coming years for this government's failure to invest in universities and in training. We're not going to be able to resort to bringing in people from overseas to fill skills shortages. We never should have had to rely on that as the way of filling skills shortages in the first place. If this government had properly invested in the skills of Australians, by properly funding universities and training, we wouldn't have needed to rely so heavily on bringing in people from overseas; we would have had more Australians able to fill skills shortages rather than be on the dole queues. So we've already paid a price for this government's failure to invest in universities and training, and it's going to really catch up with us in the next few years, as we are not going to be able to resort to bringing in people from overseas in the way that we have done for year after year.</para>
<para>This bill just makes it worse. There has been a lot of attention given in the last 24 hours to the extremely disappointing decision of Centre Alliance to back this bill. One group who haven't had enough attention for their decision is One Nation. Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts, once again, as they have done ever since they entered this parliament, line up with the LNP to pass legislation which will hurt the battlers who they say they care about. We've have an upcoming election in Queensland. Day after day, we see One Nation candidates out there masquerading as the people who are standing up for battlers in our community. If only that were true. If only that were true, because we know that a lot of the people who vote for One Nation are battlers. They are people doing it really tough. They are people who need someone in this parliament who's standing up for them. But what we have seen day after day, month after month and year after year from Senator Hanson and her party is that they come down to Canberra and they vote with the Liberal and National parties to shaft the very battlers who they say they care about. We've seen them do it on pensions. We've seen them do it on apprenticeships. We've seen them do it on labour hire. We've seen them do it on however many examples you want to pick, and now they're doing it again on universities.</para>
<para>The reason that Senator Hanson and One Nation think that they can get away with this is that they perpetuate this idea that universities are only for rich people—that universities are only for elite people in the big cities. That is total rubbish, and if Senator Hanson and her party had bothered to actually speak to any of the regional universities in Queensland, they would know that these claims that universities are for snobs and for elitists, and not for regional people, are wrong and are insulting to regional Queenslanders. I have bothered to speak to regional universities in Queensland. I have learnt, as a result, that, for regional universities in Queensland and probably the rest of the country, one of their core missions is to offer university education to people who have never had a family member go to university. To give you one example, CQUniversity—but the same could be said of James Cook University, the University of the Sunshine Coast, the University of Southern Queensland and other regional universities in my state—has a national reputation for offering university study to those who are called 'first in family': people in families who have never had a family member go to university. They are people who have the school marks to qualify, who want to follow some sort of career that requires a university qualification but who were always shut out of pursuing their dream because university places weren't available or were too expensive. The system that was brought in by previous Labor governments, opening access to higher education, has allowed regional kids and mature-aged regional Queenslanders to go to university for the first time, to be the first person in their family to have that opportunity. As a result, they've been able to get certain jobs that they've never been able to access, sometimes on higher pay than any member of their family has been able to achieve. These are universities for battlers. They do a fantastic job in research. They do a fantastic job of educating high-achieving people from families who have had access to university before. But the thing that's special about our regional universities is that they do an incredibly good and important job for regional Queenslanders and regional Australians whose families have never had access to university before.</para>
<para>This bill, which One Nation is voting for, is going to take that opportunity away. What an incredible sellout of the battlers you say you represent! You say you want people in regional Queensland to have a better life. For some, that's going to be getting an apprenticeship; for others, that's going to be getting into a university course. You're ripping that opportunity away, by making the courses more expensive and by increasing class sizes through reducing the funding that universities are going to get, and just making life a whole lot harder for those battlers. It is yet another sellout from this government and from the One Nation Party that supports it.</para>
<para>We'll be opposing this bill because, unlike One Nation and unlike the Liberal-National coalition, Labor actually does stand up for battlers. It does stand up for the people who want to go to university and be the first person in their family to do so; who don't want to come out of it with a crippling debt, like you see in America; who want to be able to get on after they've graduated—buy a house, take out a loan and build a family. These are things that are pretty expensive and much harder to do if you have a big university debt. That debt is just going to become bigger as a result of this bill being pushed by the Liberal and National parties and their accomplices in One Nation. Labor will continue to support higher education for all Australians—rich and poor. The Liberal and National parties, aided and abetted by One Nation, want to go back to the old days when universities were just for rich kids. I can tell you: Labor will fight that tooth and nail as long as we are in this Senate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GRIFF</name>
    <name.id>76760</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak about the higher education reform package. In a perfect world, the package before us would dramatically raise funding for higher education. I want our universities and TAFEs to be the best in the world and I want them to teach our children to be talented, creative thinkers who can solve the problems that face our communities and our world. We're a long way from achieving that vision. As much as I would like to see more funding delivered into education, it is clear the government have no appetite for this. I understand their need to manage the financial impact of COVID-19, but this position is short-sighted. It helps our financial position today at the expense of tomorrow. Nonetheless, that is their position and they have made it clear that they are unwilling to shift. So the question is whether we should support this reform or stick to the status quo, whether this reform brings us closer to that vision of a world-class education system.</para>
<para>There are good things in the reform. First, it creates tens of thousands of additional places for students. Demand for these places will increase sharply in the next few years as workers left unemployed by the recession choose to upskill, and as the Costello baby boom moves through the system. Without this reform, many of those students will not secure places and will be forced into the worst job market in a generation. With the reform, there will be up to 30,000 new places. And changes to funding clusters mean some universities will be able to offer even more places in courses like commerce, humanities and law. The reform also ensures the Commonwealth places are used appropriately. Professor Andrew Norton has shown that six per cent of new students fail every course they take in the first semester and a quarter of those go on to fail every course in the second semester. Universities will be prompted to engage with students who have high fail rates and are accruing significant debts. They will have to work with students to understand their circumstances and ensure that continued study is in their interests. This is a sensible requirement, formalising a process that already exists in most universities.</para>
<para>Second, the reform restores indexations so universities can grow in the future. The Turnbull government froze university funding in 2017 in a move that was supposed to save $2 billion but actually saved a fraction of that—a lot of pain for absolutely no gain. Undoing that freeze may be the best part of this package, and we've been assured that this is a permanent change, giving universities ongoing certainty in their funding. The government is also offering faster growth in places for regional and high-growth metro campuses, and this is particularly important for regional universities. Most professionals who live and work in regional areas are the product of regional universities. More places at these universities will mean more professionals in these areas; more teachers, more nurses, more engineers, more scientists in regional Australia.</para>
<para>Third, the reform introduces a demand-driven funding system for Indigenous Australians in regional and remote areas. For some people here, demand-driven funding is the opposite of what they want for universities and there's merit to their views. But when it comes to Indigenous Australians, we should put aside our views on the broader system and agree this is very much a positive development. It means that any Indigenous Australian from a regional area would be able to attend university. There won't be any cap on places; that means an intelligent, motivated student misses out on their dream. That, very much, is a worthy call. And I hope in the future, we can expand that to all Indigenous Australians, regardless of whether they come from a regional or metropolitan area. So those aspects of the reforms are very much worthy but other aspects are less worthy.</para>
<para>Law, commerce and humanities students will have to bear almost the entire cost of their degrees. Many will graduate with $40,000 or $50,000 in debt. That's a hefty load for anyone but particularly for humanities students, whose careers tend to start a bit slower than those in other fields. Conversely, it will make life easier for those who choose to study other courses. The cost of an allied health degree will fall by 20 per cent. The cost of becoming a teacher or a nurse will fall by almost half, and the cost of studying agriculture will fall by more than half. These discounts will help to attract more of the best students into the fields that Australia needs them to study.</para>
<para>Personally, I would prefer to see an education system that doesn't saddle students with debt. But the cost of a university education has to be met by someone, and I think it is reasonable that students who enjoy the benefits of their degrees share in the costs. The government argues higher degree costs will provide an incentive for students to choose their degrees more carefully. Many people have been critical of this, arguing that school leavers tend to follow their passions. I think this criticism misses the point: mature-aged students make up more than half of all enrolments, and they attend university to improve their career prospects. They pay close attention to the financials and they will respond to price. The government is right when it says a different strategy is needed to influence the decisions of school leavers. But where is that strategy? Right now, hundreds of thousands of year 12 students are making decisions about their university applications. As far as I can tell, the government isn't doing anything to ensure those students are making careful, informed choices.</para>
<para>A final concern is that this legislation, as originally proposed, would not have provided loadings to South Australian universities. As the inquiry heard from the South Australian vice-chancellors, their universities would have received indexation but would not have qualified for high-growth metro or regional loadings. I don't believe it's appropriate for the federal government to have a policy that encourages the strongest students to potentially leave South Australia for another state because they can achieve a place. We already lose too many of our best and brightest, and I could not have supported a policy that permanently entrenched this. Centre Alliance has made these concerns very clear to the minister, and I'm glad to say he's listened to our concerns and acted on them. South Australian universities will receive an additional loading that ensures more places for South Australian students, and these places will be distributed to create greater equity. The vice-chancellors of all three South Australian universities have all welcomed these changes. The member for Mayo and I are happy to have once again secured a positive outcome for the state.</para>
<para>Like every controversial bill, this package has also had its myths. The shadow minister for education is one figure who has spread these myths, but she is not alone. The first myth is that the cost of degrees will double. This is untrue. Many degrees in areas of real need will be significantly cheaper. Some I've mentioned previously.</para>
<para>Another myth is that the package would deliver an Americanised system of higher education funding. That could not be further from the truth. Unlike the US, the package still has the Commonwealth funding more than half of costs associated with each course, and for the other half students will receive interest-free loans. Students don't have to make any repayment until their income reaches the threshold, and students with larger debts do not have to make larger payments. There are few countries in the world which support higher education students more than Australia, and this reform does not change that.</para>
<para>Another myth is that the reform cuts $1 billion from higher education. The shadow minister for education has repeatedly made this claim, and it is false. The only way the numbers support that claim is if you add up the costs and ignore the extra money put into this sector through the transition, equity and industry linkage funds. They are playing tricks with the numbers and are creating anxiety and worry to win political points. It is a dishonest way to conduct a policy debate and it undermines the public's confidence in all of us.</para>
<para>This package is far from ideal. We would prefer to vote for a package that provided universities with better long-term funding. The decision before us is whether this package is better than the status quo. Centre Alliance supports the creation of more places for students at a time when they are desperately needed. We support the measures that will help those who struggle the most—Indigenous students, students from regional areas and first-in-family students. We appreciate that the government has listened to our concerns about South Australian universities that were going to be adversely affected. They've also listened to our concerns about social work, youth work and psychology students; about students with special circumstances; and a formal review of the changes to ensure that they are working. We welcome the government's commitments and look forward to supporting the legislation when it comes to a vote.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Unlike my colleague Senator Griff, I stand here in opposition to the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020. I stand here in opposition to it because it is complete and utter rubbish for university students, for the university sector, for children who aspire to go to universities and for their families who aspire for them to go to universities. Ultimately, it's rubbish for our economy because we know the best way to increase productivity in our economy is to invest in people.</para>
<para>This bill represents a shocking attack on those who hold the aspiration to attend university. Not everyone holds this aspiration, and nor should they. University is not the be-all and end-all when it comes to opportunity and life. But we in this place should never be standing in the way of the aspiration of those young people for whom university will be the ticket to the bright future that they aspire to and for whom university will be the answer for a better paid job or the job of their dreams, and of the families who look at their children, who see that hope in their children, who can't afford to support them through university, who want those children to live their dreams and who feel locked out because of this legislation and the additional financial burden it will impose on those who seek to attend university.</para>
<para>What kind of country do we want to be in Australia: one which brings the axe down on the aspirations of young people to better themselves, better their opportunities, or one which gives every student in Australia, regardless of the postcode they're living in, the opportunity to learn, develop and fulfil their individual dreams? I know what kind of Australia I want to be part of. I want to be part of an Australia which supports aspiration, supports opportunity for young people and, when those young people choose university, doesn't add such a huge financial burden to those dreams that they don't get to realise them. How many of us in this chamber got that opportunity? I did. I think most of the frontbench on the other side did. Plenty of us in this place got the opportunity to attend university, and we took up that opportunity because we saw university as a path to the future that we wanted. So who are we to take that away from the young people who see that opportunity in their future as well?</para>
<para>My colleague from Centre Alliance stood here today and said that in an ideal world we would see more funding for the university sector here today. Well, in this place we make choices. We get to help choose the world we want to live in. We get to help choose the country we want to live in. We get a vote in this place. He gets a particularly powerful vote sometimes, as a crossbencher, in this place. If he doesn't think this is ideal, if he doesn't think this is the Australia we want to see in an ideal world, then he could change it. He could change his vote. He's voting for this. It's one thing to say, 'Oh, it's not ideal.' You actually have the power to do something about it, Centre Alliance—Senator Griff. You have the power to do something about it, and today you've chosen to sell out the aspirations of young people in Australia. You've chosen to sell out South Australian families who see that aspiration in their children and, by God, desperately want to see them achieve it. You've sold out productivity. You've sold out opportunity in our state. You can come in here and pretend to have done something different, you can come in here and lament that we don't live in an ideal world, but you actually have the power to create the Australia you want to see. That's why we've all come here. So I think that is a pathetic excuse from Centre Alliance to justify them turning their backs on aspiration, on South Australian students, on South Australian families and on our future productivity and potential prosperity in South Australia. It is outrageous, and we should never let them forget it.</para>
<para>We can make no more important choice in this place than how we help Australians achieve and realise their dreams and their aspirations for a better future for themselves and their families. That should be a key test for all of us. When you take away opportunity in education, when you snatch it out of the hands of students from particular postcodes or backgrounds, then you take an axe to opportunity. You take an axe to the potential of young people and you take an axe to our economy and our future. South Australians will suffer as a result of this legislation. Their dreams will suffer and their opportunities will suffer. The sector will suffer. You cannot pretend it is any other way. This legislation will make it harder and more expensive for young South Australians to go to university. That is at the core of this legislation. Thousands of students will pay more for the same qualification. If that qualification is part of their aspiration, well then that's shot for a lot of them. Forty per cent of students will have their fees increased to more than $14,000 a year, a debt burden that they simply cannot afford. And this is all happening at a time of record youth unemployment, when young people are doing it particularly tough. When they're looking at their future opportunities, the jobs of their dreams, the economy and the burden of debt in front of them, it is an anxious time for young South Australians out there. We are adding to that anxiety by imposing a further limitation on their ability to realise the opportunities they seek for themselves.</para>
<para>I think this is an outrageous piece of legislation. I think it's complete and utter rubbish. I think what Centre Alliance is doing here today, under the cover of budget week, is shameful. It's shameful for the people in South Australia they claim to represent. Labor will oppose this legislation. It is unsalvageable. We will continue to stand for aspiration, for opportunity and for the potential of young South Australians, the dreams they hold for themselves and what they want to achieve.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in opposition to this terrible piece of legislation, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020. Firstly, I'd like to associate myself with the comments made by my colleague Senator Faruqi, who leads this area for the Australian Greens.</para>
<para>I am gobsmacked at the dodgy deal done this week by Centre Alliance—Senator Griff and the member for Mayo, Rebekha Sharkie. After months of them telling the South Australian people that they had problems with this bill, that they knew this piece of legislation was bad—bad for students, bad for the economy and bad for education—we have seen the most significant backflip Centre Alliance has done since Nick Xenophon left this building. They have sold out South Australian students. They have sold out families. They have sold out our university sector. They are going to make our South Australian economy suffer even more.</para>
<para>In our state we have the highest youth unemployment rate in the country. Under this dodgy deal between Scott Morrison and Rebekha Sharkie, life will be made even harder for young people. If there are no jobs for them or if there's nowhere for them to go after they finish school, we want young people to go to university and study—if, indeed, that is what their aspiration is. This piece of legislation makes that nearly impossible for some of these young people.</para>
<para>We heard the platitudes from the Centre Alliance senator, Senator Griff, this morning. After he'd hidden for the previous 24 hours from the Australian media, from the Australian people, we finally had some type of explanation. I tell you what: it's rubbish. They have been sold a pup. They have been hoodwinked by the government and they are now passing a piece of legislation that is going to undermine our university sector for decades. It is going to throw young people under the bus and lock them out of future career opportunities forever.</para>
<para>Let's just be clear: the coalition government, Centre Alliance and Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party are all voting today to cut funding to universities and to make it more expensive for students who are studying things like arts and humanities. Do you know who that disproportionately affects? Women. Who has been the hardest hit in the middle of this economic crisis and this recession? Women. Who has been the most hit by the loss of jobs, loss of hours and cuts to wages in this country because of this pandemic and this recession? Young women. And who is now going to carry the burden of the changes and cuts to universities and the hikes in fees that are going to pass this parliament because of this grubby deal that's been done? Young women. Women are the sacrificial lambs of this deal being done today by Scott Morrison and Rebekha Sharkie. It's just unthinkable.</para>
<para>There is actually the ability in this place sometimes to make a real difference, to protect people from bad decisions that government try to make, to make sure that decisions don't disproportionately affect one group in the community. Centre Alliance had an opportunity to do something and they've stuffed it. This government has had it in for universities since day dot, and now they've been handed the ability to follow through. Let's remember, Tony Abbott when he was Prime Minister took an axe to the university sector. Let's remember, this government has never thought that students who choose courses like arts, humanities and the creative industries should be supported by government. They've had it in for them forever, and now they've just been given the green light by crossbenchers in this place.</para>
<para>I think South Australians will be very, very angry that their senator Stirling Griff is voting with Pauline Hanson today to make it harder for a young woman to study humanities at Adelaide university. That is what is happening today. Senator Griff will be voting with Pauline Hanson to make it harder for students to study an arts degree, a humanities degree. Stirling Griff is voting with Pauline Hanson today to make life harder for young South Australian women. It's appalling, and Centre Alliance need to be called out for this. What did they get for this grubby deal? A couple of million dollars for a road in Hahndorf. How do we know that? The member for Mayo, Rebekha Sharkie, stood in the House yesterday and asked a dorothy dixer of the government: 'Please, Deputy Prime Minister, tell me how good I am!'</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Patrick interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And just so no-one would miss it, she issued a media release saying exactly the same thing. Senator Griff had a slip of the tongue earlier when he referred to the member for Mayo as 'the minister for Mayo'. Is that what's going on here? Is this all part of some deal to get the member for Mayo into the government: throw young South Australians under the bus, throw our universities under the bus, sell out the future generation of workers and educated professionals so that the member for Mayo can get a cosy job with the government? This isn't Centre Alliance anymore, folks; this is Liberal Alliance. It is absolutely appalling that, after knowing all the facts, after tweeting about all of the problems that this legislation has, you would then turn around and expect people to believe that this is a good deal for students. It is not. It's bad for students, it's bad for universities, it's bad for our economy and overwhelmingly it is bad for women.</para>
<para>Last night we had an extraordinary budget handed down. Billions of dollars was put on the table. Who continues to miss out under this government? Women. Credit where credit's due: the Prime Minister had a paragraph in the budget about the impact on women—$250 million over five years. It's like they got to the end of the budget and went: 'Damn, there's a whole other—who did we forget here? Oh, women! We'd better write the word in there somewhere.'</para>
<para>Time and time and time again, it is women in this country who miss out under this government. This is the pink recession and yet nothing of substance has been put on the table to help them. In fact we're now going to see the situation get worse, because, while the majority of people who have lost their jobs or lost their hours or lost their income in the midst of this are women, this particular piece of legislation is going to make life even harder—harder for them and harder for the next generation of women coming through, and condemning young women across this country. Why bother studying hard at school if you can't even get into the course you want to get into because the government decides it's not good enough? The message that Scott Morrison is sending to young women today is: 'We don't value you. We don't really care. We know you're there, but we don't value you.' That's what his budget said last night, that's what this piece of legislation says and that is what Scott Morrison is doing. Seen but not heard: that's this government's response to young women in this country. It is not good enough.</para>
<para>The fact that this has been shepherded through the parliament by two so-called Independents is disgusting. I know the electorate of Mayo quite well. A lot of progressive voters in Mayo right now are shaking their heads and thinking: 'Who did we vote for? This wasn't what we were promised!' People are disappointed in the member for Mayo, Rebekha Sharkie, because she has let them down. She has let them down! She is cosying up to the Liberal government; she is flicking through the most fundamental, controversial changes to our education system we've seen in decades, locking out young women and their ability to study and get those skills and training they need to get a job. Voters in Mayo are disappointed and they're going to remain disappointed for a very long time. No wonder the member for Mayo is hiding from the media today. No wonder she refuses to take and answer those calls from journalists. It's because she knows she's done the wrong thing.</para>
<para>The new 'Liberal Alliance' in South Australia are showing their true colours—Liberal lite, now flag bearers of the coalition government—and South Australians are going to be pretty disappointed. They don't like being lied to, they don't like being tricked and they don't like being treated as mugs. And yet today, that's what Rebekha Sharkie and Stirling Griff expect can happen—that people won't ask questions, that under the cover of the budget no-one will know what's going on. Well, people are smarter than that.</para>
<para>These reforms are devastating to our university sector. They're devastating for young people, devastating for young women, devastating for families and bad for our economy. They should be voted down. I'm so thankful that the opposition, Senator Lambie, Senator Patrick and all my Greens colleagues see sense, that setting young people up to fail like this in the middle of this terrible recession is not the right way to go; it's the exact opposite. I am disappointed that those on the other side continue their ideological attack on education, on young people and on women. That's why I'm voting no to this bill later today.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too rise to speak in opposition to this garbage fire of a bill, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020, that the government's brought before the parliament. People have a right to be angry about the destructive nature of this legislation and the government's approach to what should be a key part of Australia's national capability, the university system. Senators have a right to be angry, people in the higher education sector have a right to be angry and Australian families have a right to be angry.</para>
<para>I listened to the quisling, craven contribution from Senator Griff and his capitulation to the government on this issue. I share with most Australians a profound sense of disappointment and anger, firstly, that the legislation was ever brought here and, secondly, with the decision by Senator Griff and the member for Mayo to wave this legislation through.</para>
<para>As we've gone through the coronavirus crisis, the people that we've turned to every evening on our televisions are scientists—public health experts and epidemiologists—all from our university sector, providing the advice publicly to the people, and privately to governments around the country, about how to deal with the public health crisis. But the government's response to the system that generates the expertise and the capability has been a series of savage cuts and then this legislation. The higher education sector is the biggest employer amongst our largest exporters. You would think, perhaps, that if academics wore high-vis to work the government might pay more attention. In the course of the pandemic, Universities Australia, the peak body—who, I have to say, have lacked a bit of courage themselves in their approach to this legislation—predicted that 21,000 jobs will be cut from higher education this year. Eleven thousand have already gone.</para>
<para>I want to reflect on what previous Liberal governments have done. The university sector was built following the Second World War. Previously, it was the preserve of the sons of Australian squatter families and other wealthy families to go to university, but in the postwar reconstruction there was a bipartisan consensus to build an effective university sector. There was a bloke called Robert Menzies, the former member for Kooyong. It was a bipartisan achievement. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Are the universities mere technical schools, or have they as one of their functions the preservation of pure learning, bringing in its train not merely riches for the imagination but a comparative sense for the mind, and leading to what we need so badly—the recognition of values which are other than pecuniary?</para></quote>
<para>It's from a small speech called 'The forgotten people' from 1942, which some of those opposite clutch when they're trying to remind themselves of what passes for what remains of the Liberal Party's moderate wing. I even picked up <inline font-style="italic">Quadrant</inline> magazine the other day. Robert Menzies, the former Prime Minister, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Our great function when we approach the problem of education is to equalise opportunity to see that every boy and girl has a chance to develop whatever faculties he or she may have, because this will be a tremendous contribution to the good life for the nation.</para></quote>
<para>Under the Menzies government in the postwar reconstruction, UNE, Monash, Macquarie, La Trobe, the University of Newcastle and Flinders University all developed. The Whitlam government opened up education for everybody, and the Hawke-Keating governments, with Minister Dawkins, opened up the HECS funding model, which has provided so much income security for the system. This bill is a total repudiation of the Menzies and Whitlam legacy in higher education.</para>
<para>It used to be that the Liberals were for education. It used to be that they understood the Menzies tradition. You'd have to look pretty hard to find a moderate Liberal. They used to be called the 'wets'; now they couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Senator Birmingham, nowhere to be seen, has gone along with this total craven capitulation run by a group of aspirants from the IPA, whose experience of university was probably turning up as privileged, entitled young men, probably got talked over for the first time in their lives in a tutorial by a young woman who might have done that week's reading, when they're so used to just turning up and talking over everybody else.</para>
<para>This bill is a total repudiation of the equity principles that have underpinned the bipartisan consensus since World War II. The way that it manages underperforming students absolutely discriminates against those kids who are the first in their family to go to university. Those kids do have a stop-start beginning. Life is tougher for those kids who've got no experience of going to university in their family. Some of them fail in their first year. Some of them don't make it through, but they come back and they've got the resilience to keep going. I know some of them who failed in their first year, went away, did a bit of work, came back and are now professors making a great contribution to this country. But under your legislation the message to them is: 'Don't ever darken our door again.' That is a terrible thing to do to equity in this country.</para>
<para>It misunderstands the relationship between rural and city disadvantage. It has terrible effects on the University of Western Sydney, but the senators on that side of the chamber couldn't care less. It excludes people from high-status courses. It sends a price signal to them which says: 'Don't bother if you are a working-class kid worried about debt. Don't bother becoming a lawyer. Don't bother studying political science. Those courses are the preserve of the wealthy—people who are already privileged, who know people in their family who have gone through university.' That is a disgrace. I'm absolutely disappointed.</para>
<para>I watched the crossbenchers' consideration of this bill very closely. I've watched Senator Patrick and Senator Lambie apply a dose of healthy scepticism, and both of their contributions on this bill have been absolutely fantastic—particularly Senator Lambie. Her contribution earlier this week and last week showed exactly what working-class regional families think about this legislation. It should never have come before this parliament, and for the member for Mayo and for her colleague to support this legislation is a craven capitulation. The people of Mayo would be much better off with a Labor representative, but they may as well have had Georgina Downer or Jamie Briggs for all the good that it's done them. This capitulation is not only terrible for school leavers in South Australia and their families; it is a terrible result for universities right across Australia and what should be a jewel in the crown of Australia's industrial, economic and research capability: our university system.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATRICK</name>
    <name.id>144292</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak about the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020, but I'm first going to talk about submarines and ships—asking for indulgence; I will definitely link it back to the bill.</para>
<para>In 2012 in the Defence Capability Plan there was an item listed for the Future Submarine project for 12 submarines for greater than $10 billion. That was the sum that was indicated in the Defence Capability Plan. By 2015, in response to questions at estimates, that number had gone to $50 billion. In the 2016 Integrated Investment plan, the number rose again to $60 billion. In 2019, the number was $80 billion and in a JCPAA hearing not too long ago, Defence came out with a new number: $89 billion. If I stick with the 2015 number, we can see that the submarine project has gone up from $50 billion to $89 billion. If I go to the Future Frigate program, in 2016 that program was listed to cost $30 billion in the Integrated Investment plan. In 2017, it had gone to $35 billion—that was in the Naval Shipbuilding Plan—and in September this year, in response to a question on notice through the Senate, the number had gone to $45 billion.</para>
<para>So the submarine project has gone from $50 billion to $89 billion. Most people don't even understand that number, so I will say it slightly differently. The submarine project has increased by $39,000 million, and the Future Frigate program has gone from $30 billion to $45 billion. It's increased by $15,000 million. All up, $54,000 million—and have we heard a peep? Have we heard it mentioned much in this chamber? No.</para>
<para>I come back to this bill that we're talking about. There have been motions, there have been inquiries and there has been extensive media coverage. We are now debating this bill. We're going to vote for this bill. This bill is about $1,000 million—$1 billion. It's about the government saving $1 billion. I just wanted to point out the contrast with what's going on here. We have considerable focus on a situation where the government's trying to save a billion dollars, to the great harm of our students. Yet, when we look at the defence side of the ledger, they can go up $54 billion and no-one even notices.</para>
<para>One of the problems we have is that on that side of the chamber you don't know how to deal with that. You want that to remain silent. You have no competence to be able to deal with what is a major blow-out in defence projects, yet you're quite prepared to come in here and cut $1,000 million from education. I just want the chamber to understand that contrast. Total incompetence on defence and total incompetence on project management in defence, yet you will then steer to gain some semblance of budget control—in your thinking—to save a billion dollars. And this is for ships and submarines, I might point out, that won't be delivered until late into this decade—2035, if we're lucky, for the submarines. We've got rising tensions taking place in the South China Sea, our geopolitical situation is changing dramatically, and we won't have a future submarine until 2035. It's like buying a parachute after the plane has crashed.</para>
<para>We are seeing, in this bill, a lack of investment in our future. Education is our future. Post COVID-19, the very thing we should be doing is investing in our future. And our future comes from our children, from our students. That's where we ought to be investing our money. This bill takes us in the wrong direction. While those opposite are squandering money on the defence side, not even paying any attention, completely incompetent as to what to do about it, they are destroying the future through a lack of investment in education.</para>
<para>The effects of this bill—to be very clear—were well articulated by the University of Adelaide's submission. Contrary to what Senator Griff said—that universities are purportedly happy about this—if you read the submissions from the University of Adelaide, Flinders Uni and UniSA, they all had deep concerns about this bill. Adelaide University put it very succinctly—'a nine per cent increase in HECS-HELP charges, on average, for their students; a 15 per cent reduction in federal support; and a very significant cut to core funding for university research'. I almost don't have to say anything more. The analysis there is that this bill is bad for students, it's bad for universities, it's bad for research, it's bad for South Australia and it's bad for Australia.</para>
<para>To suggest that the universities in South Australia are somehow in favour of this is ludicrous. This is a case of three steps backward and two steps forward if we look at the negotiations that have been carried out by Centre Alliance. They've attempted to put a bandaid on a broken bone and that doesn't work. At the Senate inquiry—which, I would point out, Senator Griff did not attend—the universities all agreed that the granting of regional status to their universities would be better but, overall, it would be a case of three steps backward and two steps forward. The negotiations by Centre Alliance have not addressed that issue.</para>
<para>The objectives of the bill are to increase the number of students who will go through STEM courses. But when you look at the numbers, when you add up the government contribution and the student contribution, the university now receives $28,958 for an engineering student. Under the new bill, they get $24,000. It's a reduction. It's the same with science. Engineering and science now both provide the university with less funding. It's the same with aquaculture, which is something we are trying to foster in terms of our economy. It makes no sense.</para>
<para>At hearing, the University of Adelaide vice-chancellor articulated a more perverse example of this bill's flawed approach. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Maybe I could try a hypothetical on you. Let's suppose a university is one science student below its quota, its cap. Then adding one science student takes it up to its cap. A university could instead add 15 humanities students to take it up to the cap. Now the science student is going to net you $24,000 or $25,000. Fifteen humanities students will net you around $235,000. There's the potential for universities to be driven by that factor…</para></quote>
<para>It will actually drive universities to the absolute opposite of the stated objective of the bill. People don't choose their courses based on a HECS fee; they choose them based on what it is that they think they want to do. They have looked around. At school, they have done work-experience placements. They have looked and said: 'This is what I want to do. This is what Mum and Dad did. Culturally, this is what I need to do.' No-one was suggesting the debt was a factor that would play in people's minds when they selected a course. Of course, that doesn't make the bill okay. At the end of the course, what's going to happen is they're going to be burdened with debt. Senator Griff to stood up and said that, for humanities and social studies students, the government is making a huge contribution. No, that's not the case. The government contribution for a social studies degree is $1,100 per annum, and the student has to pay $14,500. Again, if Senator Griff had turned up to the inquiry, he might have known that.</para>
<para>The real mechanism for controlling numbers into universities is, in actual fact, the ATAR. The bill should have focused on that. That's how universities control the number of students in each particular course category. It's something that they have direct control of because they can't control the other things. I can tell you I've just been through my daughter's choices for years 11 and 12. At no stage did we talk about HECS, but on the weekend she told me 'Dad, I can tell you every ATAR for every course at Sydney University.' She's memorised them. That's the lever the government could have played with if it really was concerned or driven to adjust the number of engineers coming out of universities and the number of scientists coming out. It could have funded them properly as well, but it didn't. It hasn't used the right mechanisms.</para>
<para>This bill cannot be salvaged. It is so broken, it cannot be salvaged. I want to spend the last couple of minutes just talking about the contribution of Senator Griff. He said, 'This bill is far from ideal.' We have a situation where a person could actually say, 'No, go back to the drawing board, reset the course, Minister Tehan. No resitting the exam on this one; it's so flawed, you've got to go back and redo the course.' Senator Griff could vote against this bill, which is 'far from ideal'—in his own words. This bill provides less funding for more places. Now, that can only mean one thing: that the quality of courses will go down. We are trying to be internationally competitive in Australia, yet the quality of our university degrees will fall as a result of this; there's no other choice. More courses, less money; more places, less money.</para>
<para>Senator Griff talked about better funding for regional universities through the 3.5 per cent increase, but that doesn't do anything to deal with the nine per cent cut to funding that the University of Adelaide talked about. And he says that it gives certainty. No-one in this place would ever think that the passage of a bill would give certainty, because, in two years time, when Senator Griff might not be here, the government of the day may pass another bill that changes things. The government had a particular regime in place which had more funding. To sell the idea that universities are going to less funding, but at least they're certain about the less funding, is just crazy; it doesn't make any sense.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, Centre Alliance has sold out students. Yesterday I listened to a girl named Keeleigh on David Bevan's morning show on the ABC in Adelaide, talking about how she was in year 12, had gone through all the prerequisites, had set herself up for a humanities related course and will now be lumbered with this. David Bevan said to her, 'Good luck', and I say to her, 'Good luck.' But I simply wish that Senator Griff had not put her in this position in the first place.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020. That's quite the title, isn't it! As we know with bills from this government, the title of this bill is all about marketing and spin. It doesn't even come close to reflecting the reality of what this legislation will do—or, to be more frank, what this legislation won't do. The government has said that this legislation is necessary and that it will do certain things, but once we have a look at the practical implication of this very important legislation, it is very clear that it will not achieve what it is setting out to do.</para>
<para>The bill will not make uni graduates more job ready, nor will it support most regional and remote students, because there's always an asterisk on the end of what this government says it's going to do. There's always a caveat. What this bill says to students is that you can have a go if you can pay through the nose for your degree. You can have a go if your parents can afford to help you pay for your fees upfront. You can have a go but only if you study what we want you to study. You can have a go, but absolutely do not make a mistake or get it wrong in that first year. This isn't a bill to get uni graduates into a job. This is a bill which will cut funding, jack up fees and lock students out. At a time when youth unemployment is at a record high, especially in regional Queensland, this bill won't do what it says it will do. It will just make it harder and more expensive for students to go to uni.</para>
<para>Right now we know universities are hurting. This government is no friend to universities. Universities missed out on JobKeeper because the government changed the rules twice to keep them out of that scheme. As a result, we have seen job losses around the country at universities, including in regional Queensland, where we have seen more than 300 job losses from the Central Queensland University in Rockhampton. Scott Morrison has done nothing to stop these job losses in our fourth-largest export industry. He's shown no interest in the thousands of university staff losing their livelihoods or the community that depend on these jobs. Instead, he's bringing this legislation in here, trying to tell people in regional areas that this will help. Well, we know that it won't.</para>
<para>This bill is a slap in the face to students who want to study in regional centres across the country. Regional universities will be paid less to do more. Whether you're a student studying in Cairns, Townsville or Mackay, this government is offering a raw deal for kids, who might be the first one in their family to go to university. It really doesn't matter how many times government senators come in here and read from the talking points on this legislation, because what we know is this: under the package, nearly twice as many regional and remote students will be forced to pay the highest rate of student fees. Regional universities deliver a higher proportion of courses that will have their funding cut compared to non-regional universities. We know that. No amount of spin can undo that fact. These universities will get less to do more, with cuts to guaranteed funding of about $1 billion a year. The Commonwealth's contribution towards uni funding will drop from 58 per cent to 51 per cent, forcing students to carry 49 per cent of the load of their course fee. The bill won't do what it says it is going to do. It will not help regional students. It won't make young people more job ready. It will make studying more expensive.</para>
<para>When the so-called Job-ready Graduates Package was announced by Minister Tehan, there were a number of claims made which just do not stack up to scrutiny. It has quickly become apparent that the minister's assumptions were based on ideology rather than fact. Humanities graduates are just as in demand as maths and science graduates, and experts have found that price signals will not deter students from their preferred field of study. What the government's proposal does instead is saddle students with an increasing debt burden, with the average student paying seven per cent more for their degree at a time of economic crisis—unbelievable!</para>
<para>The government would have you believe that the reason they're doing this is that we need more skills in key areas, but the government—this government—are the reason that we have a skills crisis in regional Australia. The government have defunded TAFE and failed apprentices. This is their skills crisis, but now they're blaming students for choosing the wrong degrees. And they go one step further than this: they want to punish students who struggle in their first year. I draw the Senate's attention to these comments made by CQUniversity in their submission to the Senate inquiry on this bill:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Students lead complex lives. Within CQUniversity's student profile, most are working, and many are supporting partners and parents, and as such this aspect of the proposed legislation is potentially extremely limiting and inequitable for them.</para></quote>
<para>That is what a regional university is saying about this proposal.</para>
<quote><para class="block">This is particularly prevalent—</para></quote>
<para>they said—</para>
<quote><para class="block">for those students who come from underrepresented or disadvantaged backgrounds, including low socioeconomic, regional, rural and remote and Indigenous students. Given one intent of the Job Ready Graduates package is to increase Indigenous student participation rates in Higher Education through the introduction of a demand-driven funding allocation, this amendment seems counterproductive and detrimental to their overall success.</para></quote>
<para>That is what regional universities are saying about this proposal, but what are regional students saying? We don't hear a lot of their voices in speeches from government senators. Unlike members of the government, I've taken the time to listen to students and other young people who will be directly affected by this regressive proposal. If every senator did the same thing, they would not be supporting this bill.</para>
<para>Students in regional Queensland feel anxious, unsupported and left behind by these plans and they fear what the Liberal-National coalition has in store for them. Emily studies marine biology at JCU in Townsville. She hit the nail on the head when describing how this proposal would impact poorer students. She told me that Townsville students are already struggling under this economic crisis. They're struggling so much financially that they are relying on a food pantry at the university just to afford groceries. That is the situation that these regional students are in. Emily said, 'Not only is this government attacking higher education but they're cutting student income support, plunging many students back into poverty. Most regional students come from low socioeconomic backgrounds and don't have that financial safety net. If they do have a tough semester, their parents can't support them into continuing that education.'</para>
<para>I listened to many students during this process to understand their stories and to tell their stories today, and I want to thank them for sharing their stories, but now I want to share my story. I was the first person in my family to go to university. I was lucky that I had a parent who told me that if I worked hard I could do what I wanted, achieve anything I wanted. I spoke publicly, in my first speech, about the struggles of growing up in the home that I grew up in. In that home I knew instinctively that I needed to work hard and study hard so I could secure my own future, so I could take care of my parents when I had the chance and so that if I ever had children I would be able to give them more than I had. I worked hard to get my chance but I still couldn't afford to go straight to university—that was beyond me—so I did a traineeship in the year after school and I saved my money. I applied for scholarships, anything that I could possibly get, so I could finally achieve this dream. I moved away from home so I could go to university and study what I wanted, which was arts and humanities. I didn't study the course because I didn't want to get a job—I wanted a job more than anything in the world; I wanted a career—but it was what I was good at, and I knew that the degree would actually make me job-ready for a huge range of industries. This idea that humanities and arts students aren't employable is absolute rubbish.</para>
<para>The first year of university was not easy. It was hard to adjust, but I found my feet. I studied. I worked hard. There were ups and downs. I went back at night to study during the GFC when I lost my job. Under this bill, thinking about the huge debt that I might have had to pay off, thinking about the possibility of losing access to support if I made a mistake in the first year, that would have made me think twice about studying. It wouldn't have made me think twice about studying another area; it would have made me think twice about studying altogether, and maybe I wouldn't have studied at university at all. I wouldn't have got that chance. Australia should be a country where kids are able to study—a traineeship, an apprenticeship, a university degree—no matter what they want to study or who their parents are: if their mum is a nurse, like mine, or a doctor or a teacher or a bus driver. It should not matter how much money your parents have, but under this bill it will.</para>
<para>Australia was that country under Labor. That's why I got the chance to go to university, to step out of the cycle, to build a life for myself. But under this Liberal-National government I would not have stood a chance. It wasn't my fault, and it wasn't my mum's fault that she chose safety over financial security. Kids should not be punished for coming from a family where they need to work harder to get that chance and they should not be deterred, but under this bill this is exactly what will happen: kids from single-parent families will be deterred from studying. I wouldn't have got my chance.</para>
<para>Ultimately, whether this bill passes or fails will hinge on how the crossbench votes. Sadly, we have seen One Nation sell out young people in regional centres like Rockhampton and Mackay by agreeing to support this bill. It is unsurprising but it is still incredibly disappointing. The crossbench should vote against this bill. I applaud Senator Lambie for publicly coming out against this bill. My message to Centre Alliance and any other senators who are planning on supporting this legislation is to listen to what young people are saying and oppose this bill. Grow a spine and do the right thing. Don't fall for this marketing and spin.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a kid, you're asked what you want to do when you grow up. Your answer is based on what you see around you. If your mum and dad work in an office all day, you might say you want to be a lawyer or a scientist. You might assume, even as a kid, that you'll go and get a higher education. But if none of the adults in your life went to university, you just don't know how to picture yourself there. You haven't got the living, breathing example of the sort of person that goes and gets themselves a degree, so you don't see it as something you'll probably do. For me, I never thought I'd make it to uni. I always saw university as being for someone else. The sorts of people who went to uni in my eyes were the ones on TV. They were the politicians making decisions a world away. They were the journalists asking them thorny questions and delivering every bit of daily news with a deep voice and a steady pace. They were the scientists making breakthroughs and people who wore suits in the cities.</para>
<para>It isn't like that for everyone. When you live in Sydney or Melbourne and your parents both went to uni and they're professionals who work in white-collar jobs on computers in air conditioned offices, you grow up seeing every day what's available to you. You don't question it; it just happens. But that's not what it's like on the north-west coast of Tasmania, certainly not in my day, and that's not how I saw myself. For me, I went to TAFE. I studied at the same place as my mum. My dad drove trucks. And when I was a teenager, I lived in public housing. I dropped out of year 11 and I joined the Army. Don't get me wrong: I'm proud of that. I'll always be proud of that. I'm proud of where my experiences and my community got me, and it was a good life. And I'm so proud of all the decent people on the north-west coast living in the rural and regional areas of Tasmania who quietly do so much to make our state and our country a better place to live. But I know what opportunity means to many in those rural and regional areas of Tasmania, and I know what it means to sustain it or to suffocate it. I know how hard it can be for people who live there to make their way into a place like this. It's still too hard; we aren't living in the land of opportunity yet, and it seems to get further and further away.</para>
<para>I carry the weight of what I'm up here for and the people who live where I'm from. They know I'm here, and to them I might as well be in a foreign country. They see me rubbing shoulders with you guys and they see me on TV, mixing it up with the kinds of people who are supposed to be on the TV news. I hope that when they see me they think: 'Well, if she's got there, I can get there too. I can do it better than Lambie can!' And they'd probably be right!</para>
<para class="italic">Senator McKim interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If they were! It would be better than sending McKim too! If there were more of those guys up here the country would be a lot better off, I can tell you! But I can feel them watching me now. Every decision I make in this place, I feel them watching me. I want to be a good example for the kids, for our kids of the future. Many of them I'll never meet, and those parents wonder if their children really can be whatever they want to be when they grow up—if that opportunity will exist for their children.</para>
<para>More and more, there are kids in the rural and regional areas of Tasmania who want to work in politics when they grow up. They want to be politicians—God, forbid, knows why! They want to be on TV. They know they have things to say that the country needs to hear. I know those kids and their parents see what I do—maybe not on every bill and maybe not on every vote. But they have skin in the game, even if they don't know it; they're trusting me to stand here and make the right choices.</para>
<para>That's how I come at this bill. That's what's on my mind when I look at what the government is trying to do, because I know that the members of the Morrison government have no idea what it's like to fight tooth and nail to get the opportunities you deserve—not to have everything passed to you on a silver platter by mummy and daddy. That's the reality of most Australians. Those government members have no idea what it's like to be the first one in your family to make it to uni or to find yourself moving in social circles in this place. They have no idea what it's like to make your way around people who talk with an accent that's different to yours and who use words that your parents wouldn't understand. They have no idea how scary it is to enter into that.</para>
<para>That's what I'm thinking about when it comes to this bill. And I'll be damned if I'll vote to tell those kids in those rural and regional areas of Tasmania that they deserve to have their opportunities suffocated in a way they'll never even know. I'm not doing it. I'll never do that. I don't care what those opposite offer—they can offer me a billion bucks for Tasmania, but I won't sell out our kids in Tasmania. I will never do that, nor will I ever sell out any other Australian kid when it comes to their education. I will never, ever, ever do that! I'm not going to be the one who gets here and tells them to bugger off because I'm right, I've got mine. I refuse to be the vote that tells poor kids out there, or those sitting on that fine line—no matter how gifted and no matter how determined you are—'You might as well dream a little cheaper, because you're never going to make it. Because you can't afford it.' I won't take that from them—I won't be a part of that.</para>
<para>No one vote can stop a bill; it takes 38 of us up here to do that. And no vote can pass a bill either; it takes 39 to do that. Senator Griff isn't passing this bill by himself; he is one of 39. He just happens to be the 39th—and, trust me, as a crossbencher, I've been there before. It's not fair to lay the fault of this bill at the feet of Senator Griff. His decision to support this disappoints me, sure, but he didn't decide the other 38 votes who will line up next to him. He didn't do that! Everybody who votes for this bill is responsible for it passing. Any person sitting in favour of it can change their mind and beat it. It's not Senator Griff passing this bill, it's a majority of the Senate. Senator Griff's decision is just more heartbreaking, because 36 votes on that side are being told how to vote. That's right—at least Senator Griff has the opportunity to make his own mind up! The others just do as they're told—democracy at work, huh? Yeah—it's great, isn't it?</para>
<para>They're told where to sit, they're told how high to jump and that's pretty much how it works when the bells ring. Those backbenchers get 200,000 bucks a year just to be told, 'Shut up, do as you're told and take the vote where I tell you to.' That's how it works. That's what they get paid for. God forbid! It's embarrassing, isn't it? But that's democracy, apparently.</para>
<para>I can live with the way I'm voting. I'll hold my head up high and if I lose votes for it, I'll lose them with pride. If I lose my seat, I'll lose it with pride. I didn't get into politics to hinder the futures of people or our kids—I'm here to help. If the price of staying in politics is betraying the people I'm here for, I'll leave with grace. My future isn't worth more than theirs. My goals, hopes and dreams aren't more important than those of our kids. I'm here for them. We're all supposed to be here for them. We're supposed to be here so they have a decent future, and we lay it out in front of them.</para>
<para>This will become law, and I'll go back to them and say: 'Hey guys, I really tried. I did what I could, but I fell short.' I will say to them: 'If I had a degree, maybe I may have won the day—maybe that would have made me a little bit smarter on my feet. Who knows?' I will say: 'If you're sick of people who've never known the kind of life that I've seen or you've seen deciding what's on the menu for people like you, beat them at their own game. If the tools it takes to win are only available to the well-off, they'll keep winning and we'll keep losing and the divide between the rich and poor will keep getting greater.' That's where this country is going.</para>
<para>It's worth unpacking what this bill is supposed to do. It's supposed to create more places at university. If you ask them for evidence that it will create more places then the room goes quiet. And even if it's making more places, it's giving no more money to universities to teach them. It's supposed to rely on funding with the cost of teaching. Sounds good to me, but the only bit of evidence they're relying on to set the cost of teaching is evidence nobody thinks is even close to reality. Then again, what's worth more: real life experience or an education? I guess if you had both it would make you a better person. It's supposed to be a bill that encourages people to study in areas where job prospects are the highest and discourage people from studying things where job prospects are the lowest. But it's cutting funding for engineering and science, and it's making it more expensive to study business. You don't think our economic future is going to need engineers, scientists or small businesses? It makes no sense.</para>
<para>If this were a good bill, it wouldn't have to rely on evaporating evidence to win over support. If this were a good bill, the evidence would be there for all to see. Instead, it's set to pass courtesy of a sweetheart deal for South Australia. Here is the rub: the bill is built to be budget neutral; it's about saving money. But sweetheart deals don't come for free. They just mean that more money is going to have to come from somewhere else and someone's going to have to pay the price. The question you need to ask yourself is where else is it going to come from—other states, other students? Who's going to lose so you can get this win?</para>
<para>I'm pleased to hear that Senator Griff has the support of the vice-chancellors of South Australian universities. It's important that they're supportive. I can see how that might help persuade someone to support this bill. It doesn't persuade me much though. I don't take advice on how to help poor kids from the three blokes making one million bucks a year, I can assure you of that much. I sure as hell won't listen to the vice-chancellor, having heard from the rest of the University of Tasmania, who were right up against their own vice-chancellor and who said, 'Do not take that deal.' I've seen it for what it was; I've seen what the majority wanted. That's how it works. I heard the rest of the Australian universities and the rest of the kids.</para>
<para>I come from a place in Tasmania with the lowest graduation rates in the country. If there's anybody who knows anything about what it means to be locked out of university, it's me. I live and breathe the north-west coast; it's in my bones. I'll tell you this right now: the north-west coast isn't patting you on the back for this and neither are the bloody kids down there. They're never going to thank you for taking away their dreams, their futures and making their lives even more miserable.</para>
<para>I'm thinking about them when I decide how to vote; I don't know what we're debating or what we're doing today. They will be looking at courses a few years from now, wondering how it got so expensive, how we let it get so bad and how we let them down. I didn't let them down; it was the people on the other side. They won't remember your name. They won't remember this bill. They will treat the world we're creating for them today as the world as it is—one where rich kids get the course of their dreams and the poor kids get the scraps.</para>
<para>Nothing changes. It will be one where rich kids get discounts and poor kids get debts, where, if you can't afford to study full-time, you fail, you lose, you're out, you're finished, you're gone. Get on the damn dole queue. University is not for you unless you can buy your way into it; that's where we're going now. You want to go to university? Good. Go eat noodles and get two or three jobs, while the rich kids get everything from mummy and daddy. It's a great example to set for Australia. I cannot see anything more un-Australian, to be honest. It makes me feel really sick that it's actually come to this. Is this what we want—a country with such a divide between the rich and the poor, with very few of the ones in the middle left? We haven't got to the middle of next year with COVID yet.</para>
<para>But you know what really, really annoys me about the Liberal and National parties more than anything? This will hit the most vulnerable first. If it's not our veterans, our aged or those totally permanently incapacitated soldiers out there, it's the students. You will go after those who are the most vulnerable and you sure as hell go after those who don't give you political donations. This is killing the country. This is not the way forward. It's time you put the country first and put your ideology in a suitcase, because it's enough.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KIM CARR</name>
    <name.id>AW5</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I stand proudly with the Labor Party in opposing the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020. I do so because this bill ushers in probably the most radical overhaul of higher education we've seen in the last 20 years. It does nothing of what it actually claims to do. It will not make graduates better prepared for jobs. In fact, with a six per cent reduction in government support in funding, it will make funding of universities places actually produce poorer-quality higher education. It reduces public funding for science. It reduces public funding for so many areas—engineering and other fields—that we assert are central to the future directions of the country. This bill will increase, not decrease, the obstacles faced by regional universities, because it simply does not take into account the higher-than-average teaching costs in those regions.</para>
<para>This bill is another step towards the Americanisation of our higher education system. It's been done in an unseemly rush. It's ill conceived and it's extremely poorly drafted. It probably has the highest level of ministerial discretion of any higher education bill I've had to deal with in my time in this chamber.</para>
<para>The system is inherently inequitable. It will reinforce inequality and reinforce privilege and the patterns of power and wealth this this country. Instead of opening the doors for opportunities, it will undermine the capacities of poorer and less privileged people in our country to participate. It's about extending the levels of debt, particularly at a time when people are forming families, trying to buy houses and trying to set up their lives. With many people facing debts of $45,000 for an undergraduate degree plus of course another $60,000 for the postgraduate degrees that many jobs now require, there will be debts of $100,000 being accumulated by many of our young people setting up jobs—for instance, in the Australian Public Service. We are seeing circumstances which actually reduce the capacity of people, and we are moving further and further away from the principles that underpin the way in which the Higher Education Contribution Scheme was originally established.</para>
<para>This bill changes the funding of student places, which means that we now have to have more places with less money. There can only be one consequence of that: lower quality. There will be larger class sizes, bigger lectures, more casualisation of our university staffing arrangements and less ability to provide the wherewithal for a quality education. The bill will also undermine the research capability of our public universities. It is a capability which is essential to our long-term national prosperity and our ability to build a more productive, more innovative and more complex economy. It is a capability upon which our universities' reputations depend, the basis on which they attract international students. Their international rankings depend on their research rankings, and this bill will undermine those. The bill breaks the nexus between teaching and research.</para>
<para>What have the university vice-chancellors got in return? Of course, they've been dealing with a government that treats them like a bully treats a victim. They think that by trying to be nice to the bully the bully will leave them alone. The evidence, of course, is to the contrary. This is another example of where hope exceeds experience.</para>
<para>On the question of research, the government has now come forward with a proposition: 'We'll provide you with emergency funding of $1 billion'—for one year. How many research projects last for one year? What happens in the second year? How many staff are employed beyond the one year? There's no answer to those questions, because it's emergency funding for one year. It includes a number of research infrastructure projects. It's not what it's made out to be; it's not about rebuilding the research capacity of our universities. It's in fact probably about one-seventh of what's actually needed and probably about half of what's been lost in this one year alone. This is a bill that takes a billion dollars a year out of the university system. I suppose that's what you mean by 'stability' and 'certainty': you know you're going to have reductions of that size.</para>
<para>Is it any wonder that the 'Scotty from marketing' team is able to promote this so completely with the media the way it is at the moment? It is so often presented in a totally distorted manner, and it's part of a broad pattern of hostility towards universities, which we've seen, for instance, in the longstanding assault upon the research and development capabilities of this country. How many times have we seen attempts to amend research and development laws and to cut research and development be made through this time? Of course, those have failed in this chamber. This bill, however, produces amendments to the higher education act which commit higher reductions than even the Birmingham bill and higher reductions than the Pyne bill. This minister has been able to secure, through these private arrangements he's entered into, more dramatic changes, more transformational changes to the universities than his two predecessors. It's openly speculated in the press, and the point was made in the Senate inquiry, that he's now open to any portfolio he wants in the forthcoming reshuffle. It will be an interesting point as to whether or not any of the concessions that have been made are actually in the bill, because the minister may not be there come December, and much of this bill relies upon ministerial discretion. It may well be that the promises made don't ever have to be honoured because there'll be a new minister on the scene. These are the assumptions that are being made.</para>
<para>Of course, we see in other bills that are being presented—like the sister bill, the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020—that there will be changes to the way in which research is calculated in universities. We may in fact see fewer universities in this country being classified as universities, because of those changes, and other devices will be brought to bear, including what may be interpreted as another form of intimidation. Universities are constantly told, 'You're not following our version of what freedom of speech is about.' If it's not freedom of speech, they're told, 'Well, of course, you're subject to foreign interference,' despite the fact that there have been no publicly declared breaches of any of the extraordinary regulations in the defence export control acts or any of the associated provisions. We have our academics pilloried across the front pages of our newspapers like some sort of giant 'wanted' poster. They are alleged to be some sort of collaborator with a foreign power. Our vice-chancellors are told that they're too China friendly. Various devices have been imposed to suggest that the universities should be more compliant. Universities are told they have to get a good relationship with the government and, if they don't get a good relationship with the government, their funding will be cut. Of course, if you try to get a good relationship with this government, your funding will still be cut, and we see that very much in this bill.</para>
<para>What we see is that this government has a profound, deep and abiding hostility to the university system. It has a bizarre notion that somehow or other universities are hostile to it. It's a nonsense. The university system in this country represents all the strengths and all the weaknesses of the country at large. Universities are not the great centres of radical thought that some people on the opposition benches suggest. For instance, in the current parliament, the member for Curtin is a former vice-chancellor, the member for Higgins is a former medical academic, the member for Reid is a former lecturer at Western Sydney University, our own President is a former political science academic at the University of Melbourne and Senator McKenzie was a lecturer in education at Monash University. Of course, in past times there have been many others. Former education minister Dr David Kemp was a lecturer in political science, again at the University of Melbourne, and a professor of politics at Monash. There have been other former senators who went off to be ambassadors and the like. The universities of this country have produced a whole range of people of conservative backgrounds, as they have produced people of Labor backgrounds and many other shades of opinion. It's a terrible, terrible mistake to make an assumption that the universities are hostile to conservative thinking in this country and that they have to be tamed, controlled and dominated. It's anathema to the very principles of democratic thinking, but this is the presumption that exists within this government.</para>
<para>This produces results such as this bill, which is about punishment, retribution and demonstrating an attitude towards the university system that we've got to reduce their expenditure and undermine their public support as measured by that expenditure. So much of what is in this package is not actually in this bill, because it relies upon government discretion. A point that various committees—and you, Madam Acting Deputy President Fierravanti-Wells—have made on numerous occasions is that an increasing problem with the legislation of this parliament is that the legislative principles, the policy principles, are not contained in the bills themselves but are left to delegated legislation and to ministerial discretion, and are not subject to parliamentary accountability.</para>
<para>There's a persistent theme here within this government, and throughout various governments, that has been demonstrated through the various education ministers we've seen in recent times. This bill is a culmination of that thinking; it is profound hostility, prejudice and dishonesty dressed up as support for the regions, when it in fact undermines the regions. It suggests we are going to have more student places which are in fact underfunded, a cut to our research program of catastrophic proportions and a one-year emergency relief package which gives no security, no certainty and no defence for our long-term national interests. This is a package of measures that clearly demonstrates the government doesn't understand, appreciate or value higher education. It doesn't understand the importance of the university system to the future welfare of this nation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] Yesterday my colleague Senator Faruqi had to withdraw her blunt assessment of this bill, so I'm going to translate. Rather than offending the Senate and telling it how it is, what I'll say is that this bill is something that sounds like 'ship' and rhymes with 'chit'. This bill is a pile of doo-doo. This bill smells like a toilet and it's really crappy. Shame on the government for bringing it on, and shame on Centre Alliance and One Nation for supporting it.</para>
<para>In short, this bill, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020, is going to more than double student fees in the humanities and social sciences. It's going to slash up to $900 million in funding for teaching and learning. It's going to punish struggling students. It gives the finger to young people. This is tragic. Education doesn't just benefit individuals; as a country, we are better off when our citizens and community members have easy access to education. Education is a right for everyone, at all stages of life.</para>
<para>The Greens believe education should be free, from early childhood to tertiary degrees, because it benefits society, the economy and individuals. We should be doing everything we can, particularly as we recover from this pandemic, to encourage and support people to undertake university degrees and TAFE courses and to build their skills, their knowledge and their understanding of the world. Having an educated society means we've got workers with the skills to tackle the climate emergency, to create the clean green energy revolution that we desperately need. It means we've got the social workers, the doctors, the nurses, the epidemiologists and the other specialists to help us get through this pandemic. Having an educated society means we can flourish with the creative thinkers, the problem solvers, the artists—those who can help us learn from and reflect on where we've come and where we're going. They can chart our course into the future. These are the skills that the humanities and the arts develop.</para>
<para>Higher education has enormous benefits. We need to invest in it, not slash it, as this bill does, at a time when we need to reset our economy post COVID. This Liberal Party bill is going in entirely the wrong direction. As I said, on average it's going to more than double students' fees, it's going to slash up to $900 million in funding and it's going to punish struggling students. Average course fees are expected to rise by over seven per cent over the next year alone, and some of the estimates that we've seen say it could take over 20 years to pay off a three-year arts degree. That's assuming, of course, that graduates will be able to access consistent and reasonably paid work, even though we are in the midst of a pandemic and recession.</para>
<para>The slashing of $900 million in funding for teaching and learning means that students are going to have to make up a lot of that gap through fee hikes and that the universities, which are already cutting their teaching staff to the bone, will have to make up for the rest. Consider that in the context of last night's budget, where we had the government giving $99 billion in handouts and tax cuts to businesses, with no guarantee that we'll have anything to show for it at the end of it other than businesses buying a lot of stuff—most of it probably completely imported—bigger shareholder profits and incentives for young people to be employed in short-term, insecure part-time work. That's our long-suffering young people being shafted yet again.</para>
<para>We're meant to be applauding the government for saying, 'We're going to give a billion dollars in funding to universities for teaching and research.' This only just covers what's being slashed from universities in this bill. And there's the underlying issue, too, of the number of places that the Liberal Party is willing to fund at university. Put simply, there just aren't enough. Large numbers of young people want to go to university, and that's a good thing. At the same time, people at every stage of life, having got through this pandemic, may be taking this opportunity to retrain and upskill, and this package does not account for that.</para>
<para>One of the worst aspects of this bill is that it's going to punish students who fail more than half their subjects by cutting off their access to HECS. There's already just so much inequality built into our education system. We know that people from privileged, wealthier backgrounds are able to draw upon resources and that they face far fewer challenges in being able to access education. They're less likely to need to take up a part-time job, which cuts into their time for sleep and for wellbeing. The current experiences of my two kids give me a small insight into what's currently wrong with our tertiary education sector and into how this government is failing young people. My kids are privileged, and they have a family to fall back on to support them during tough times. But the experiences of so many more of our young people are far more dire.</para>
<para>My eldest son, John, is doing a PhD in linguistics. He's pretty well placed because he has a scholarship and he has part-time work in linguistics to support himself. Sadly, he caught COVID three months ago and he's still unwell, so he's had to take leave from his PhD and, of course, not teach his classes. He had to move back home so that I could help look after him, which is why I'm here in Melbourne rather than in Canberra this week. His work is casual work, so there's no job security and no sick pay. If he didn't have me to fall back on he would be in a really desperate situation. He'd be unwell, unable to pay the rent and desperately worried about what the future holds. It's already been really tough for him to cope with having COVID and post-viral symptoms for three months now. I can only imagine what his state of mind would be if he had the extra burden of thinking about what the future was going to hold—just surviving to contend with. And there are many, many people in worse situations who do not have family to fall back on. This is the state of our tertiary system today.</para>
<para>Our younger kid, Leon, is doing an arts degree. They've worked in the hospitality and arts sectors to support themselves through their degree. Of course, there has not been much work in those fields over the last six months and no JobKeeper payments for Leon either, because all their work was casual and they hadn't been working with the same employer for over 12 months. They've been very appreciative of receiving the COVID supplement on top of their student allowance, but that's now been slashed. So they're now worrying about how they're going to be able to afford to pay the rent once the cuts kick in, because casual work in arts and hospitality doesn't look like it's about to come back in a hurry, given COVID. They know that if things really get tough, yes, I would step in with some rent assistance. They'd be able to fall back upon the bank of mum.</para>
<para>But I think of all the young people who don't have that security, who in the current economic circumstances are going to find themselves couch surfing or worse. Last night's budget gives tax cuts to millionaires and $99 billion worth of handouts to big business, and it hasn't helped those young people one jot. People who are doing an arts degree, like Leon, are now looking at a massive increase in their student debt. You could forgive them for thinking, 'What's the point?' or throwing in the towel, feeling really morose about what their future holds. We have a mental health pandemic in this country, and it is of no surprise. Actions like this bill are just making it worse. This is also, of course, in the context of the other massive cuts and the slashing and burning that the universities have had to do to keep afloat with the loss of international students. Under our corporatised, privatised university system, rather than supporting universities the government is just happy to see them wither away, to become a shell of their former selves.</para>
<para>What's more, far from supporting STEM, this government is actively presiding over a system which has seen our once great research and teaching in this area contract massively. I've got an indication of just how bad things are from a friend who is a maths lecturer at one of our leading universities. At his university there have been 355 voluntary departures. He says that so far they have saved about $50 million—$200 million is the cost saving target—by all sorts of savings, including a round of targeted redundancies. The government is promoting STEM—the usual smoke and mirrors—but maths and stats will be losing six out of about 30 academic staff, having already lost that many over the last couple of years to retirement and resignation. He says: 'The level of staff losses probably depends on how close people were to retirement. Most are pretty happy to get out. The package was pretty attractive. Stats is okay, but maths is somewhat decimated. The rest of us are wondering what the workloads are going be like going forward, and we'll need to use some of the research focused staff to do large class teaching. They won't enjoy it, and the students won't enjoy it.' This is what he means by 'large class teaching': COVID has dramatically accelerated the move to online, and he's going to be teaching a class of 900 next year—900 students online. He said, 'I did a class of 450 last semester and got a good teaching score, so I'm sure 900 will work, but it relies on recorded lectures, interactive Q&A sessions and sufficient marking support. It wasn't imposed on me—I agreed to do it—but it has become an absolute necessity with all of the departures.' I guess the main take out is the government's failure to support higher ed has led to a heap of 50-something STEM people escaping the sector, which acts directly against any support for STEM and acts directly on the quality of the university education that our young people are able to get.</para>
<para>The National Tertiary Education Union summed up this bill when they said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Should this Bill be passed, the direct result will be the under-resourcing of commonwealth supported students by public universities already under substantial financial pressures due to the COVID-19 crisis, with sector losses currently projected to be around $16b over the next 3 years and 21,000 full time equivalent (FTE) job losses.</para></quote>
<para>This is just tragic. The most galling part about this whole system is the hypocrisy. The Liberal Party is stacked with ministers who got their university education for free, including the Prime Minister. But now they're in power, they're just pulling the ladder up after them. As I said, the Greens believe that university should be free. I also benefited from free education at uni. Why should my generation and all of those government ministers benefit from it but leave the young people of the day high and dry? We could afford it then and we can afford it now. Again, there's spending of $99 billion in last night's budget. We can afford free education. It is a matter of choice. I want you to know what free education felt like. Free tertiary education meant that I felt the world was open to me. I didn't know what I wanted to know when I was 18. Who does? I did a science degree because I felt I could put off to a later stage making a decision about what my career was going to end up being. That meant I could study whatever I wanted. Free tertiary education was freedom. It was hope. It gave me a sense of launching off into a life full of potential—rather than a life full of debt.</para>
<para>Put simply, this bill is the Liberal Party's attempt to destroy the university sector under the cover of funding. It will cut university funding when they're already desperately underfunded. It will hurt Australians who need to access education. It will hurt our society. It will leave us poorer and dumber when we are facing the joint challenges of a pandemic, a climate emergency and the inequality crisis. This bill should not be passed. It will be a disaster for our future. Thank you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I support the government's changes to university funding. Firstly, we agree with the government's general thrust. Secondly, we want to go further and ensure responsibility among students and reduce the taxpayer load. Thirdly, we want to restore accountability and academic freedom in universities, to make our universities better so that our future students will emerge better.</para>
<para>So let's get to the government's thrust. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020 reduces fees for courses that meet needs for future jobs and more practical jobs like engineering, nursing and teaching. We support that. It will make these courses more affordable. It raises fees through humanities courses—and I will explain later why that is so effective. Humanities graduates are not getting jobs right now. The government's thrust focuses taxpayer funds on needed skills, and that is good for our country.</para>
<para>The second point I want to discuss is that we need to go further to ensure responsibility among students and to reduce taxpayer load. The current HECS debt is $65 billion and growing rapidly. That's the outstanding HECS debt. With Australia's national debt now pushing $1 trillion, the repaid HECS money could be used productively. We believe that we need to reinstate the 10 per cent discount for fees paid up-front. People who can afford university do not need the concessional interest rate and, as things stand, do not start repaying debt until they are earning an annual income of $46,620. Financially it is better value for the government and for taxpayers—and we do represent taxpayers—to have a loan paid up-front at a discount than paid out over 10-plus years. On average, it takes about 10 years for a student to repay a HECS debt. We need to reduce the threshold for repaying HECS debts, based on data and fairness to students and fairness to taxpayers. Remember them? They are the people who are paying our salaries, the people who run this country. We need to limit student entitlement to seven years full-time equivalent and stop people on fee-free university education with little or no chance of a job. Students cannot continue to live off the taxpayer forever. We've got to get job-ready graduates. We have a duty to protect taxpayers, our nation and our community, as well as protecting students.</para>
<para>The third area is restoring accountability and academic freedom in universities. Universities monitor students' academic progress. Students who repeatedly fail—for example, they do not pass more than half of the subjects—should stop getting FEE-HELP. This removes a fee-free career for university students who keep failing. We also need students to be aware of what they are getting from taxpayers' money, and we need job-ready graduates.</para>
<para>I can give you some examples of universities suppressing free speech. Dr Peter Ridd was sacked from his position at James Cook University for being critical of poor quality reef science. He was fulfilling his duty as a scientist to challenge his colleagues and he was sacked. The recent Senate inquiry in Queensland vindicated him when academics admitted facts and data that revealed the Queensland state Labor government does not have the facts to support its recent reef regulations. Peter Ridd was correct. The late Professor Bob Carter, well known globally as a fine scientist and paleoclimatologist, was prevented and hindered from speaking by James Cook University. Just recently, here at the ANU, Dr Howard Brady, a noted geologist who understands climate extremely well, was invited by staff at the ANU to make a presentation on why the study of climate science has gone wrong. After the notice was sent out, ANU prohibited him from delivering that seminar. But here's a welcome sign from ANU: professors and staff at ANU were so disgusted with the ANU's response that they joined together, and Dr Brady will now be conducting his seminar later this month. They've given him immense publicity internationally. He's received support from University of Sydney staff, from the ANU staff, from other universities within Australia and from overseas universities, including Princeton.</para>
<para>The former High Court Chief Justice Robert French recommended in his government commissioned review of free speech at Australian universities that academic freedoms be protected so data and research can be put forward. That's a scientist's responsibility. Justice French recommended that, as part of academic freedom, academics should be allowed to 'make lawful public comment on any issue in their personal capacities'. Universities allow, indeed encourage, far-left Marxists, anarchists, socialists and communists to speak freely on university campuses yet do nothing to stop these same fascists shutting down lecturers with whom they disagree. In not protecting free speech of all voices, universities are complicit in the suppression of free speech.</para>
<para>I went to the University of Queensland, where I was awarded a master's in business administration. I'm very proud to say that the dean of that university just recently, a few years ago, welcomed students with a note saying, 'There are no safe spaces at the University of Chicago.' Basically, he was saying: 'Suck it up. Discuss and debate freely.' That's what universities were about. That's what they need to get back to being about. Recently, I was listening to a regional university vice-chancellor, who suddenly admitted to me that the capital city unis have fouled their nests because of their craving for political correctness and their fear of upsetting people. The media reported Professor Ridd as saying he supported 'any moves to improve the disastrous situation at the moment where academic freedom of speech effectively does not exist'. He also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At present universities are applying their vague codes of conduct on top of academic freedom of speech—this means academics have to be 'respectful' and 'collegiate'.</para></quote>
<para>'Any robust debate,' he points out, 'is likely to seem disrespectful to somebody,' so that is a way of shutting down debate. That's how universities that fear, or are too gutless to ensure, academic freedom suppress academic freedom and free speech.</para>
<para>We need practical graduates. My three years underground as a coalface miner after graduation were priceless for me. I left university and then realised I had better go and learn something, so I worked underground at the coalface for three to four years. We also need to remember, in addition to practical experience, that universities are not for everyone and should not be for everyone. We need to rekindle trades, rekindle the TAFE, rekindle apprenticeships. Senator Hanson has been leading the way in Australia in rekindling apprenticeships, and the government took her policy two years ago and implemented it.</para>
<para>We also need to stop political correctness at TAFE and get it back on track. We're very pleased to see that the government is undertaking a major shake-up of university fees in a bid to steer students towards fields where there are skills shortages and jobs for the future, and it's better for students after graduation. University graduates have been slamming universities for meaningless degrees that have left students with dismal career prospects and crippling debt. While a university degree leads some students to a bright future, for others it currently leaves them with nothing but debt and disappointment.</para>
<para>I want to take a break here because I want to answer some comments from Senator Murray Watt. His comments disrespect university students and universities, and his fabrications require me to respond. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts … since they entered this parliament, line up with the LNP to pass legislation …</para></quote>
<para>Let's see who lines up with the LNP. Let's, indeed, have a good look at this. On climate policies, Liberal and Labor are similar. They believe the nonsense. On energy policies, Liberal and Labor both believe in the Renewable Energy Target. Both believe in stealing farmers' property rights—as they have both done. Liberal and Labor both believe in gold-plating the networks. Liberal and Labour both believe in the National Electricity Market that has turned into a national electricity racket. One Nation opposes all of those. On water, the Turnbull-Howard Water Act 2007 is supported by Labor. Now some Liberals are waking up and some Nats are waking up. One Nation opposes the Water Act 2007 and the destruction it's caused across the Murray-Darling Basin. With electricity prices, as I've just said, Labor and Liberal support the Renewable Energy Target. They support subsidies to the intermittent, unreliable energy sources of wind and solar. They support privatisation. They support the National Electricity Market, which is a national electricity racket. Both are anticoal in their actions. The only difference between Liberal and Labor is that Liberals are positive in their talk, but not their actions. Labor and Liberal have been killing our fishing industry. With foreign ownership, Liberal and Labor have sold out the Port of Darwin and other companies and water rights in our country. There is record debt, state and federal, and Labor and Liberal join on this. With infrastructure, there is a lack of infrastructure and neglect. With taxes, foreign multinationals are tax free. Labor and Liberal have enabled that over the last six decades. I could go on, but you can get the point that Liberal and Labor are actually closer than One Nation and Labor or One Nation and the LNP.</para>
<para>The second point Senator Watt talked about was, in his words:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… One Nation candidates out there masquerading as the people who are standing up for battlers in our community.</para></quote>
<para>Let's go through some of the candidates: Michael Blaxland at Gympie, Sharon Lohse at Maryborough and Sharon Bell. Here's a good example: Sharon Bell. She's a real fighter. She's a working class girl who's come up and is now working in the construction industry. She is fighting the member for Bundamba, who was parachuted in from a union position in Melbourne. He was parachuted into Queensland outside the Bundamba electorate, and then, two months before the recent by-election, he moved into Bundamba. And he's doing nothing. What did the Labor Party do? They got rid of Jo-Ann Millar, a first-class, true Labor member of parliament, and replaced her with this blow-in, parachuted-in person from Melbourne. Then I could talk about Deb Lawson; Christine Keys, who wants to restore solid education; Wade Rothery, a coalminer in Keppel; Torin O'Brien; and Stephen Andrew, an electrician who has such a good rapport with the people in his electorate of Mirani—he is member of parliament. These are the types of people that One Nation is very, very proud to say stand with us. And they are fed up with the tired, old parties, both Liberal and Labor, and so are an increasing number of voters. That's why these candidates are standing up—because they're sick and tired of the Liberal-Nationals and sick and tired of Labor. They have been abandoned by both the tired, old parties. Labor and the LNP actually make battlers.</para>
<para>Senator Watt talked about us standing up for battlers. That's correct. And the reason we have to do that is because the Labour Party is creating battlers. It's taking the middle class and making them poor. It's making them poor and making life tougher for the poor. Look at your energy policies. Look at your agriculture policies. People are coming to One Nation because people need someone in this parliament who stands up for them and someone in state parliament who stands up for them. Senator Watt said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Hanson and her party … come down to Canberra and they vote with the Liberal and National parties …</para></quote>
<para>It's not us who have the policies that are the same. It's not us; it's you guys. Let's have a look at what Senator Watt said. We've seen—</para>
<para>An honourable senator interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He raised pensions. Senator Hanson and I have advocated for an increase to pensions. We're advocating and have got solid policies for decreasing the cost of living. That's more important because to a pensioner the cost of energy is a highly regressive tax and burden. Then Senator Watt raised apprenticeships. Senator Hanson introduced the apprenticeship scheme into this parliament, and the government has taken it—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts, I have been listening carefully and you certainly started off talking about the higher ed bill, but I think I've given you enough time to respond to other senators in this place. I remind you that the bill before us is the higher education bill.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm simply responding clearly to everything that Senator Watt has said, because his comments misrepresent the facts.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts, the bill before us is the higher education bill. That's the bill that you need to be responding to. There are other opportunities to respond to other senators.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Certainly. In response, I want to comment that this bill with One Nation's amendments, which the government has agreed to, protects students, protects taxpayers, protects universities, protects Australians and protects Australia. Education is vital to the future of our country. Education is vital as a source of foreign income. While Labor is off with the rainbow coloured unicorns on this and many other topics, we are very, very proud to speak for the battlers and to support the battlers. Students must be equipped educationally for a career in and beyond the COVID-19 economy with a focus on digital technologies, robotics, automation, science and health services—real jobs. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:51</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 the debate on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020. This bill continues this government's war on higher education and universities. So much for the clever country! I and my father were, in fact, first in family. I know that sounds strange to people, but we actually started our higher education on the same day. My father dropped me off at university on our first morning and then he went off to his new institution. I can't tell you what a difference higher education made to my father's life. He became a teacher, something he had wanted to do for his whole life. But, growing up as he did in a very low-income family, he never had the opportunity—or even the dream—to go to higher education until he was able to access free university education, until he was able to access free higher education. And until the day he retired he absolutely loved his work. He gave so much to the schools that he taught in. In fact, not long ago I bumped into one of his former students, who said to me what a difference my father made and how much he enjoyed being in his classes. So higher education does make a real difference to people's lives.</para>
<para>Coming from a low-income family myself, I would not have gone to university if it was not for the fact that I could get—I was one of the lucky ones—a free education. I doubt I'd be standing in this place if I had not had access to that system, so I'm very passionate about free university education. I know what a difference it makes not only to individuals but to the community. I'd argue that the lives of my father's students were affected by the fact that he went and got a higher education and became a teacher.</para>
<para>I'm very, very concerned about the effect this bill will have on students, on the quality of education, on educational opportunities and on the community. This bill does not take into account the precarious situation that we are transitioning to in a post-COVID world. We must invest in students and our education system, not make it harder to access education, not make it less sustainable, and we should not be increasing student debts.</para>
<para>We already know that younger people are facing a much more precarious future. They are already carrying a heavier burden into the future given the world we are currently in. This package will more than double students' fees in the humanities and social sciences and slash up to $900 million in vital funding for teaching and learning. This includes STEM and nursing courses. This will punish struggling students.</para>
<para>The government's claims to support regional universities with this plan don't stack up. It will force regional universities to teach more students with much less money and force students to go into huge debts to get their degrees. The consequences for regional communities will be more job losses, less local investment and fewer options for students.</para>
<para>The package doesn't create anywhere near enough new places to satisfy the emerging demand for education to retrain during and following the COVID-19 recession. The bill guts research funding by rejecting the long-held notion that base funding, student fees and Commonwealth contributions should provide for teaching, scholarship and base research capability. The government will come in here and crow that last night they put $1.5 billion into research. That nowhere near covers the gap, which is estimated to be around $6 billion. Again I say: so much for the clever country!</para>
<para>Universities should be well funded, high quality and fee free for all students. I passionately, as I said, believe in the power of higher education to improve people's lives—not only the individual but our whole community. This package shifts costs of higher education much more strongly from government to students. Higher education in Australia has been hit incredibly hard, as we know, by the COVID crisis. These new laws will make things worse. The government should invest in our universities and TAFEs, not starve them of funds.</para>
<para>I want to look at some of the key aspects of this bill: changes to student fees, increasing the length of time to pay off HECS debts, and other challenges that students are currently facing. In many cases, this will make it harder and more expensive for young people to access higher education.</para>
<para>There's a reduction in fees for STEM, teaching and nursing. The Greens welcome a reduction in fees for these types of courses. Education should be affordable, and these course fees have meant that for some students higher education is out of reach. However, the bill also more than doubles the price—raising fees by 113 per cent—of humanities courses other than English and other languages and, fortunately, social work, which was previously going to increase. When the government realised what a foolish thing it was to increase course fees for social work and how much we need social workers, they took it, as I understand, off that list of the higher fees.</para>
<para>The government is making a judgement here. The government's saying: 'These courses aren't valuable. You might not get work.' Well, tell that to all those people working in those areas. How important they are to our community! How important they are to individuals! How important social work, for example, is to our community!</para>
<para>This will undoubtedly decrease the number of students who seek humanities courses, and that would be detrimental to individuals, workplaces and the community. A Deloitte report in 2018 on the value of humanities found that the value of humanities was to:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… (1) employers, through having a more productive, innovative and multidisciplinary workforce; (2) the broader community, through better informed citizens and a better understanding of our place in the world; (3) graduates, through increasing their lifetime earnings by increasing wages and job prospects; and (4) our society, through the contributions of Humanities research to improved social outcomes.</para></quote>
<para>There's a 28 per cent rise for law and business. Average course fees are expected to rise by more than seven per cent over the next year.</para>
<para>Students are already expected to live far below the poverty line. Youth Allowance is one of the lowest payments, and they are disproportionately affected by insecure, casual work.</para>
<para>It's important to note that the government is failing these students and their future. We must ensure that students are able to live above the poverty line and don't have to sacrifice study to maintain insecure work. Many students I've heard from are trying to work full time and try to maintain a full study course. The length of time to pay off the HECS debt could take up to 20 years to pay off a three-year arts degree, according to our modelling. That's conservative, as it assumes that graduates will be able to access full-time, consistent work from the moment they graduate. It doesn't account for the years taken off for parental leave and other reasons and doesn't account for further study or the fact that graduates are increasingly in part-time and insecure work for much longer, certainly, than when I came out of university. This means that a generation that is already finding it challenging to find work and obtain homeownership is getting further and further behind. Homeownership is getting further out of reach, and they face additional and long-term debt, tipping the hand against them more.</para>
<para>Affordable and accessible education is essential for a community to thrive. We need, particularly in these challenging economic times, to make educational opportunities easier to access. Government needs to invest in a skilled, adaptable and trained workforce. We don't disagree with that, but government needs to make sure that we are meeting people's needs, that it is affordable and that the community and young people want to take it up. We shouldn't saddle students with more debt.</para>
<para>Between $500 and $900 million of government contributions is being cut from teaching and learning funding. Students will be forced to make up much of the cuts through these fee hikes. Universities are already cutting jobs and courses around the country. We are losing key people. We are losing their academic contributions, their contribution to debates in this country and their contribution to student learning. The package reduces the overall government contribution to a domestic Commonwealth supported place from 58 per cent to 52 per cent, and the student contribution is rising from 42 per cent to 48 per cent to pay for additional places.</para>
<para>Government says the package will produce 39,000 additional places by 2023 and 100,000 by 2030. There is already a pre-existing issue with student places: the Costello baby boom cohort will start looking for university places over the next few years. The package does not account for the inevitable influx of people choosing to study during an economic downturn, nor are there anywhere near enough places to meet demand, and the government has provided no evidence that price signals will funnel students into the courses they claim to be prioritising. This punishes everybody. It punishes students, the future and our community.</para>
<para>The bill will punish struggling students by removing their access to HECS if they fail more than half of their subjects. As a number of other people have mentioned in this debate, this is grossly unfair. I personally know a number of students who in their first year of university did badly. They went on to be outstanding students and went on to make outstanding contributions in their choice of work. Nine hundred million dollars for an industry-linked fund for investment in science, technology, engineering and mass education is to be paid for by cuts in teaching and the learning budget. You can't rob Peter to pay Paul.</para>
<para>This package creates a perverse incentive for universities to enrol more students in higher fee degrees. This is going to lead to perverse outcomes. This is bad legislation. We should be nurturing our universities to do the job that they're there to do, which is to educate and prepare students for their contributions to our community. We know we need to increase jobs—we know that. But this is also about making sure that we are preparing our students for their contributions to our community. All young people should be given an opportunity, whether it's in TAFE, in higher education at university or in apprenticeships. We should be making sure that all our young people have an opportunity to contribute, do what they want to do and make the contributions they want to make. We should not be picking winners, which is what this government is doing. This is bad legislation. It is going to detrimentally affect young people, students and our community. This has long-term consequences for our community. Make no mistake: this is bad legislation and should not be passed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CAROL BROWN</name>
    <name.id>F49</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to be able to contribute to the debate that we're having here today on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020. I have listened to most of the contributions and, I have to say, they've been of very high calibre, making very important points for the argument to vote against this bill.</para>
<para>This bill is a bad bill, and it's very disappointing that Senator Griff has decided to vote with the government on this bill. He has decided that this will be one of the lasting legacies he leaves in this Senate. Does he really want to vote for this bill to saddle huge debt on Australian kids—South Australian kids? Does he really want that to be part of his legacy of being in the Senate? I hope not. I hope he has a change of heart, because this piece of legislation, as so many people in the debate have already said, is a despicable piece of legislation. It's designed to make it harder and more expensive to get an education. We all know that. That's what this bill is about. I do not understand how the member for Mayo and Senator Griff don't get it. This is what this bill is about.</para>
<para>You have to wonder why this government is so intent on pushing this bill through. What the bill does is to shift the burden on to students, and it will impact young people from poorer backgrounds the hardest. Why on earth would any government want to make it harder for our young people, particularly disadvantaged young people, to get an education? Why on earth would they do it right in the middle of the deepest and darkest recession in almost a century? It doesn't seem to make any sense. But, of course, when you realise this isn't about increasing levels of educational attainment but, quite deliberately, about decreasing opportunities for our young people in the pursuit of cutting costs and making savings, it starts to become clearer what the endgame is here. This is about attacking universities and quite deliberately undercutting them, because the Liberals have an ideological objection to poor kids getting a degree. For the Liberals, universities should only be accessible to those who have the right school tie.</para>
<para>If this bill passes, students will pay seven per cent more for their studies—that's an average increase in fees. Around 40 per cent of students will see the cost of their education hiked up by as much as 113 per cent. For some, this will shift the cost burden onto them so much that they will be paying 93 per cent of the total cost of their course delivery. What a regressive, backward step from the days of free higher education. The many students studying in the field of humanities will see the cost of their degrees more than double. The fees these students will pay will jump to $58,000—up from just over $27,000—for a four-year degree.</para>
<para>It really is amazing that these students will be forced to pay more than their counterparts studying medicine and dentistry degrees. It makes no sense to me. In fact, the CEO of the Australian Industry Group, Innes Willox, said of these changes:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A large financial burden is being shifted to these future workers who will fill important professional roles required by industry.</para></quote>
<para>This bill doesn't even achieve the additional student places that the government claim it will. The government somehow expect additional places to appear despite the fact they are providing no extra funding; in fact, they are reducing the average funding per student. However, those opposite claim that 39,000 places will be added over three years. Even if that were achieved, it would fall substantially short of forward demand for places.</para>
<para>The bill provides no recognition of the increased demand for university places brought about by the Morrison recession. Indeed, it doesn't even take into account that well-understood increase in demand brought about by the baby boomers of the 2000s, the children of whom are now reaching university age—one of whom is my own daughter. It should come as no surprise to anyone in this place that applications for places at our universities have more than doubled this year, because of limited opportunities to work or travel. What is abundantly obvious with this so-called reform is that our universities will be expected to do more whilst getting substantially less. It's called a funding cut, plain and simple.</para>
<para>If this bill is successful in this place, the Australian university sector will experience an overall cut in government funding of around $1 billion a year. That's what this bill does; it cuts almost $1 billion in funding to unis. And who bears the cost? Who pays the price? Australian students, our young people and our nation. We all pay a price from cuts to education. This bill will see the average funding per student paid to universities drop by 5.8 per cent. For an engineering course, the fee per student will drop by around 16 per cent. If we look at a nursing degree, course funding is facing a cut of eight per cent. In education, the funding cut amounts to six per cent. In clinical psychology, we're talking about a real funding cut from government of 15 per cent towards the cost of delivery of a degree.</para>
<para>Of course, the cuts in this bill are on top of cuts this government has already made to university budgets. The Morrison Liberal government has already cut funding from our universities, as people here well know, to the tune of $2.2 billion. Then there is the loss in revenue that universities are facing due to the loss of international students, projected to be around $16 billion. Our universities simply can't cut any more, yet that is what is being asked of them by this government. It is our students, our young people, who will bear the brunt of the costs imposed on them by this government through this bill.</para>
<para>I want to draw attention to the impact of this bill on students in my home state of Tasmania. If the Morrison Liberal government gets its way with the passage of this bill through this place, Tasmanian students will face a funding cut 33 per cent greater than mainland students. We know this because compelling evidence was provided through the inquiry by the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee into the bill. During the hearings the committee heard from Mr Mark Warburton, an expert who worked extensively on higher education funding policy for the federal government for around nine years. He pointed out that the University of Tasmania and its students would be more adversely affected by the bill than their mainland counterparts. Mr Warburton is an honorary senior fellow at the University of Melbourne's centre for the study of higher education and an analyst for Universities Australia. He described the University of Tasmania's stance on the government's cut as inexplicable during the Senate committee hearing. Mr Warburton told the committee:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the package has clearly been rushed out to achieve savings that the government has been seeking since 2014, but has been unable to secure; it's more marketing than substance—</para></quote>
<para>We're not surprised by that—</para>
<quote><para class="block">it's riddled with mistakes; and arguments enunciated for it do not withstand scrutiny.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The position of some stakeholders in the higher education sector is inexplicable. They've argued that the package should be supported to bring certainty to the sector. It will do the opposite. Regional universities will be subject to this uncertainty, and they bear a disproportionate share of it …</para></quote>
<para>He continued: 'The University of Tasmania will be more adversely affected, potentially losing eight per cent, more than the national average of six per cent. This change will be permanent.' There you go.</para>
<para>The cut to the University of Tasmania, and therefore Tasmanian students who remain in Tasmania to study, will be worse than the cuts to universities and students across Australia, on average. Of course, this will be particularly bad, particularly hard felt by students from and students studying in the north and north-west of Tasmania, whether they be students in Launceston studying nursing, social work or psychology science or even students in Burnie studying humanities or education. All of them will be worse off. All of them will be paying higher fees. All of them will be deeper in debt. All of them will be discouraged from getting an education. In the other place, the Liberal member for Braddon, Mr Gavin Pearce, and the Liberal member for Bass, Mrs Bridget Archer, support these fee hikes and uni cuts. They support disadvantaging north and north-west Tasmanian students who come from their electorates. That's a shame.</para>
<para>It is essential for the future of young Tasmanians and our university that these cuts be blocked right here in the Senate. I would hope that all Tasmanian senators would vote in the interest of our state and vote to block this bill. Once again, it's regional, remote and disadvantaged students who will bear the brunt of the Liberals' ideological attack on universities, on students and, quite frankly, as we've heard in the many contributions here, on education.</para>
<para>What we have here is a total shemozzle of a bill that is thinly veiled as reform but is, in fact, quite clearly nothing more than a cut. Let's be clear: this bill is nothing more than a funding cut and a fee hike, and it couldn't come at a worse time. It is a cut that will only saddle our young people with more debt and fewer opportunities. I urge the Senate to once again reject the government's attempts to gut our universities. I ask senators to vote down this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This legislation, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020, is an ideologically driven attack on universities. It's an ideologically driven attack on young people, who were shafted so badly in the government's budget last night. And it's legislation that looks like it will pass through this place because Centre Alliance has traded off young people's futures for some roadworks in the electorate of Mayo.</para>
<para>As I said, last night we had handed down to us a budget that continued this government's shafting of young people. It threw yet more millions into the billions that the Commonwealth government already uses in corporate welfare for the big fossil fuel polluters, stealing young people's futures from them by failing to take action in regard to the breakdown of our climate. It was a budget which did nothing to address the rigged housing market young people are facing, where far too many young people simply can't afford to rent a home and where their dreams of one day owning one—an opportunity that so many of us have been lucky enough to have—are evaporating in front of their very eyes. So young people are being completely shafted by this government, both in last night's budget and by this legislation today—this ideologically driven attack on universities, education and young people.</para>
<para>This package will more than double student fees in the humanities and social sciences. It will slash up to $900 million in vital funding for teaching and learning, including STEM and nursing courses, and punish struggling students. The government's claims that this package will support regional universities don't stack up. It will force regional universities, including the University of Tasmania, in my home state, to teach more students using less money. It will force their students to go into huge debt to get a degree. The consequences for regional communities will be more jobs lost, less local investment and fewer options for students.</para>
<para>Mark my words: young people today who are being forced to pay through the nose to gain a university degree are not blind to the fact that the overwhelming majority of decision-makers in this place, who are going to make the decision today to shaft young people and shaft universities, got the opportunity to get a university degree for free—a free degree. That's where this country should be. We should be offering free TAFE to upskill Australians and give them opportunities to get better jobs, and we should be offering free tertiary education, the way it used to be when most of us had the opportunity to go to university. But, no, now that we're across the moat we've pulled up the drawbridge behind us. And the bill is going to pass all because the government is splashing a bit of cash for roadworks in the electorate of the member for Mayo.</para>
<para>This package doesn't create nearly enough new university places to satisfy what is an obvious and emerging demand for education during a pandemic and a recession. Seriously, anybody can see that in a recession during a pandemic, when job opportunities have dried up, of course more people are going to take the opportunity to upskill themselves; of course more people will want to enrol in a university to get a degree. We're seeing that happen as we stand here and debate this bill. But this legislation does not create the new places needed to satisfy that emerging demand.</para>
<para>It's worth pointing out that universities have been absolutely smashed during this pandemic. There have been massive job losses in our universities. The government rewrote the JobKeeper rules on multiple occasions just to make sure universities didn't qualify to access that essential lifeline for so many of their staff working in higher education. Why did the government do that? It's because they have an ideological hatred for our universities. They don't want a highly skilled community and they don't want highly educated Australians. That is the neoliberal ideology.</para>
<para>Another thing this package does is shift costs of higher education from governments directly to students. Again, this is the user-pays model, a central plank of the neoliberal ideology which not only underpins this legislation but also underpinned last night's budget, delivered by Treasurer Frydenberg. Cost-shifting from the government to the student is absolutely blatant neoliberal ideology. Universities in this country should be well funded, they should be high quality and they should be fee-free for all students. That should be our national vision for tertiary education in Australia, not cost-shifting from the government to students, not requiring a user-pays system, as this legislation does. We should collectively aspire to free universities and free TAFE so that Australians can upskill themselves and have the opportunities to become better educated.</para>
<para>We've seen, as I said, higher education in Australia be hit incredibly hard by the COVID crisis, and these new laws will only make things worse. We shouldn't be starving funds to our TAFEs. We shouldn't be starving funds to our universities. We should be increasing the funding. Don't think that we'll be letting the Labor Party off the hook here. I recall very well that when I was Minister for Education and Skills in Tasmania the then Labor government took the axe to university funding. I recall that very well. I recall senior figures in the University of Tasmania asking me, when I was the minister, 'Why do both major parties see tertiary education funding as an easy budget saving?' I said to them: 'It's because you're not well enough organised politically at a national level. If you want to see your funding retained into the future, you need to organise better at a national level and mount your arguments better not only directly to government but in the public conversation.'</para>
<para>Education is the pathway out of poverty. The Liberal-National Party, through its primary policy delivery mechanism of this year, last night's budget, has condemned millions of Australians to live in poverty with no pathway out. I acknowledge the Labor party would not support much of that, but the fact remains that millions of Australians are either unemployed or underemployed in casual, insecure, poorly paid and, in some cases, dangerous work in this country. This government, in last night's budget, has basically drawn a target of six per cent for the unemployment rate. I want to be clear: not having full employment in this country is a policy choice. It is a policy choice, and the government is choosing to allow millions of Australians to live in poverty with no realistic aspirations to one day have a job. Instead they are prioritising the $99 billion of corporate welfare that is in every single year of the budget delivered last night.</para>
<para>This legislation will more than double the price of humanities courses other than English, languages and social work. For those humanities courses other than English, languages and social work, fees will be raised by 113 per cent. There will be a 28 per cent price rise for law and business degrees. On average, course fees are expected to rise by more than seven per cent over the next year. And, of course, students are going to pay the overwhelming majority of this. They're going to be loaded up with HECS debts as a result. Our modelling shows that it could take up to 20 years to pay off a three-year arts degree, should this package pass, and that is a conservative estimate as it assumes graduates will be able to access full-time, consistent work from the moment they graduate. It doesn't account for the years taken off full-time for parental leave and other reasons, and doesn't account for further study. So this is a highly conservative estimate, that, on average, it could take 20 years to pay off a three-year arts degree.</para>
<para>This legislation cuts government contributions to teaching and learning by between $500 million and $900 million. And remember: as I said, last night's budget has $99 billion of corporate welfare embedded into every single one of the four out years that are covered by the budget papers. This package reduces the overall government contribution to a domestic Commonwealth supported place from 58 to 52 per cent, and the student contribution will rise from 42 per cent to 48 per cent.</para>
<para>The government says the package will produce 39,000 additional places by 2023, and 100,000 by 2030. Leaving aside this government's penchant for the absolutely heroic assumptions that underpin its budgets and its projections in regard to legislation like this, we need to understand that there was already a pre-existing issue with student places, because the Costello baby-boom cohort is going to start looking for university places over the next few years. So these kinds of demographic realities, these obvious increases in future demand, need to be factored in and need to be understood. As I said, the package does not account for the inevitable influx of people who choose to study during an economic downturn such as we are currently experiencing as we enter what will be a lengthy time in recession in this country. This package will not fund anywhere near enough places to meet demand, and the government has provided no evidence whatsoever that price signals will funnel students into the courses they claim to be prioritising.</para>
<para>This is terrible legislation. This is ideologically-driven legislation. It's legislation that none of us should be surprised has been put forward by a Liberal-National government. But what we can be—and, in my case, what I am—surprised about is that Centre Alliance and Senator Griff have indicated that they will be supporting this legislation. Clearly, they've done a deal to support this bill in exchange for some roadworks in the electorate of the member for Mayo. Well, our young people deserve better than that and our universities deserve better than that. I absolutely condemn this bill and I urge the Senate to vote against it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] I welcome the opportunity to talk to the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020. I want to start by acknowledging my colleague Senator Faruqi, who has done a fantastic job working with stakeholders right around the country to stop this legislation going through today, to stop these cuts to university funding and to stop this culture war that the government's trying to drive by picking winners in the courses being offered at Australian universities. I'd also like to acknowledge all the stakeholders around the country, many of whom got in touch with me and my colleagues months ago saying they were very concerned about what they were hearing in relation to negotiations on this bill.</para>
<para>Why would the government be doubling fees for students in humanities and social sciences and cutting fees for students in other courses? Clearly, the fees that students pay are price signals, and by using price signals the government is actually trying to pick winners. It's trying to direct which students study which courses. There's no doubt that these are changes to incentives, and what's behind that is purely and simply a culture war. I started my university higher education with an arts degree. My father started his higher education with an arts degree and so did my brother, who is now a professor at Murdoch University in Western Australia. My daughter is currently studying an arts degree.</para>
<para>What reason would the government have to try to double fees for humanities and social sciences—fee rises of nearly 113 per cent across humanities courses—unless it didn't want more students to study humanities? I can only begin to speculate as to why the government wouldn't want more students to study the humanities. Why is it trying to direct students into courses like engineering and science? Surely these are the decision that should be made by students, based on a whole range of other important decision-making criteria, rather than the cost of their degree. Let's put this on the table and be completely clear about it. These perverse changes to fees will more than double the cost of a degree in the humanities and social sciences for a young person in this country. They will slash up to $900 million from vital funding for teaching and learning across the country, including from STEM and nursing courses, and they'll continue to punish young Australians who choose to study humanities.</para>
<para>The government claims to support regional universities with this plan and it doesn't stack up. We've heard evidence in the Senate inquiry that, indeed, it will also punish regional universities like the University of Tasmania, which I proudly worked at for nearly a decade before I went into the Senate. It will force regional universities to teach more students with less funding and will force their students to go into more debt to get their degrees. The consequences for regional communities will be more jobs lost, less local investment and fewer options for students. The package doesn't create anywhere near enough new places to satisfy emerging demands for education to reskill and retrain, especially during this pandemic, this COVID crisis. The bill guts research funding by rejecting the long-held notion that base funding, which is student fees plus government contribution, should provide for teaching, scholarship and base research capability. The package shifts costs of higher education from governments to students, more of a trend that we've seen from this government in the last seven years.</para>
<para>The Greens have always said—and we've been out and proud—that universities should be well funded, high quality and fee free for all students. We went to the last election with a policy to make higher education free, a policy that was fully funded, including by making large corporations pay their fair share of tax. We should be doing everything we can, especially during a pandemic, to get young people into universities, higher education or TAFEs. It's not a time for governments to be picking winners and trying to decide what kind of society Australia should be in 10, 15 or 20 years time based on the courses that students—young Australians, including young Tasmanians—should be choosing now.</para>
<para>We know that higher education has been hit incredibly hard by this COVID crisis. We know how many of those working at the University of Tasmania have lost their jobs, and this is something we've seen day in and day out at other universities around the country as fee income has dried up, especially from overseas students. The government's provided no assistance to these workers. They haven't been able to qualify for JobKeeper as so many other Australians have. The Greens have continually tried to get JobKeeper extended to university workers, just as we have to other sectors who have missed out on these stimulus payments. These laws will only make things worse. We want to see proper investment in our education—our universities and our TAFEs. We don't want to see them starved of funds.</para>
<para>In the last four minutes that I've got left, I just want to say that, in relation to the budget that the government brought down last night, there have been a lot of references to the most important budget since the Second World War, but that's where the similarities stop. The budget following the Second World War reformed this nation for more than a decade. It transformed our society and our country at a time of crisis. The Chifley government brought in significant reform. What we saw last night from this government was a cash splash designed to shore up their electoral prospects, probably at the end of next year. Where was the reform? Where was the vision, apart from the vision for Mr Scott Morrison's own re-election? This is a time when we need to be investing in our communities, for better education and better health care, and in actually tackling the great crises of our time: inequality and the climate crisis.</para>
<para>What we saw last night was just more funding for fossil fuel companies and tax cuts for the wealthy. These are two key economic programs that most economists—in fact, most first-year economics students—will tell you won't work in a recession and in a time of significant uncertainty. Receiving tax cuts in a recession means most people have a higher marginal propensity to save than to spend and get that money circulated through the economy. They'll pay off their mortgage. The Greens have always argued that 'debt' is not a dirty word, as long as it is spent wisely. But investing a significant proportion of more than $200 billion in new debt into tax cuts won't set this nation up for the next decade.</para>
<para>The nearly $213 billion in investment incentives for corporations won't work in a time of recession either. One thing I know about companies, having worked for many of them over the years, is that they always look at maximising the present value of future cash flows. They don't like uncertainty and they don't like risk, and that's exactly the environment they find themselves in now. Why would they go into significant expansion of their capital expenditure in a recession with such an uncertain economic outlook? Some companies may bring forward some future capital expenditure plans, but most companies won't be going out there and suddenly spending just because they're getting a government incentive to do so.</para>
<para>So the bulk of the money that was spent in this budget is going to two economic policy paradigms that most economists, and most first-year economics students, will tell you will fail Australia. This was a time for significant reform, and the bill that we have before us now is cutting funding to universities and cutting investment in our young people and in retraining middle-aged and older Australians. Education is critical for the—</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</title>
        <page.no>28</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Northern Territory</title>
          <page.no>28</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McMAHON</name>
    <name.id>282728</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>From my first day in this place, I have always come into this chamber with one thing in mind: how can I best advance the interests of the Northern Territory? That is one of my No.1 goals. Yesterday's federal budget was a big win for the Territory, a big win I have worked tirelessly to deliver with Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann. In fact, I was in both of their offices this morning humbugging about Territory issues. I thank them because, on what is one of the biggest days of the year for them, they took the time to listen to what is important for the Northern Territory. They know the contribution the Territory makes to our national economy. When the Territory is strong, so is our nation. They know the vital strategic role the NT plays in our nation's defence.</para>
<para>Last night's budget has delivered hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure to the NT. It has delivered continued support to maintain vital aviation networks, including within the NT and from Darwin to interstate. It has delivered more funding for the Building Better Regions Fund, with many areas in the NT set to benefit from this. There is $2 billion for water infrastructure, which I informed the Deputy Prime Minister last night that I intend to grab a slice of.</para>
<para>We can only achieve these outcomes when the Northern Territory has strong representation in the parliament. We can only achieve these outcomes by maintaining—and, in fact, growing—the Territory's voice in Canberra. As the Deputy Prime Minister wrote in an op-ed in the <inline font-style="italic">NT News</inline> in August, such a large area as the Northern Territory, with residents spread everywhere, needs and deserves more than one Reps MP to ensure democracy is well served, best served. I will continue to work constructively within the government to achieve that end, including through the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I've already been working very closely with the joint standing committee chair, Senator James McGrath, to ensure the Northern Territory's voice is heard loud and clear.</para>
<para>I am not surprised, when reading through the submissions to the committee's inquiry, at the vocal opposition to the Australian Electoral Commission's recommendation to reduce the Territory' two lower house seats of Lingiari and Solomon to just one. Given the strong opposition from community groups, Indigenous land councils, political analysts such as Antony Green, various professors, the Territory government, the Territory opposition, federal members and senators in this place, I have to wonder why we would allow a blunt mathematical equation based on population to get it so wrong. The AEC's formula, I might add, doesn't include unenrolled voters. As at 31 March, the Northern Territory government believed there were 24,000 unenrolled voters in the Territory. Many of the Territory's unenrolled voters are Aboriginal. Having recently been through some of the gruelling remote area polling, I have seen firsthand how many people in remote communities are not enrolled.</para>
<para>If it were to lose one seat, the Territory would then become the largest seat in the country and would see an extra 30,000 people spread over an area more than 35,000 times larger than the electorate of Melbourne—35,000 times larger! On the other hand, we have Tasmania. I do love my Tasmanian colleagues, but Tasmania is guaranteed five seats regardless of its population—a population of about 535,000—five members in the House of Representatives and 12 senators. So, with Tasmania being approximately double the Northern Territory's population, it has over four times our representation. If we were to lose one, Tassie would have over five times the Territory's representation. That doesn't sound very fair, and it's not. Territorians are seeking assurance that they will retain a minimum of two seats for the Northern Territory in the lower house. Let's not forget that we only have, as a territory, two senators. That's four federal representatives in total. And that's all we're seeking: to maintain what we have currently.</para>
<para>The Country Liberal Party and the Nationals have been pursuing this matter since the AEC's recommendations became known. We have provided a submission to the process. While others come into this place and talk about their intentions, we have been working on this behind the scenes to ensure delivery. This is what the CLP and the Nationals in government achieve. I would like to thank my opposite number, Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, for her strong advocacy on behalf of all Territorians for the retention of two seats. However, we must also remember that if the Top End weren't so badly mismanaged for so long by Territory Labor we wouldn't even be in this position. The best way to keep two seats is to increase population growth, providing the economic growth the NT needs so that the numbers stack up on their own and we keep those seats. But, due to Labor's ineptitude, we now find ourselves in this position of having to legislate to maintain our representation.</para>
<para>I will keep working as part of the Morrison-McCormack government to deliver the services and infrastructure Territorians want, need and, most importantly, deserve. And I will hold this government to account, to act on the joint standing committee's report and to ensure that the Territory retains a minimum of two lower house seats.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Ginsburg, Justice Joan Ruth Bader</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I proceed to my statement, can I thank Senator McMahon for that contribution. We make it clear to her that Labor will continue to press for two seats for the Northern Territory. We look forward to her and the other Nationals' continued support for that position.</para>
<para>Honouring those who come before us is a vital principle of feminism; those who had the courage and audacity to push history forward. In the past month, we've lost three greats: Helen Reddy, who insisted her voice—a woman's roar—be heard; our Labor sister, Susan Ryan, who made equality of the sexes in Australia the law of the land, a woman to whom all of us owe so much and to whom I will pay tribute to in tomorrow's condolence motion; and the world also lost Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose life and contribution I celebrate today. We should celebrate Justice Ginsburg not just because of the venerated role she held—hard earned though it was—but because of her commitment and her courage, from which so many have benefited.</para>
<para>Her story may have ended only last month, but it began in a different time altogether. When she first graduated from Cornell in the early 1950s, she took the civil service exam. Despite high marks, the only work for which she was deemed suitable was typing and, like many working women in those days, when she became pregnant she got the sack. Two years later, she returned to study at Harvard Law School. Her class had nine women and about 500 men. Even so, she was pressed by the dean as to why she was taking up a place that 'should go to a man'. This is a variation on the message given to countless millions of women: 'This is not for you. Know your place. This is not it.' But, as Ginsburg would come to say later, 'Women belong wherever decisions are being made.' And she was steadfast.</para>
<para>This is not to say she didn't ever doubt herself. She wrote to her cousin, saying she feared she didn't have sufficient aptitude for the law. She was often told to set her sights on something more appropriate for women, like teaching. It's a reminder that courage isn't the absence of self-doubt; it's pressing on regardless. So she completed her studies at Columbia University at the top of her class—top of the class at the best law school in New York—and Columbia recommended her for a clerkship at the US Supreme Court, but she didn't even get an interview. Law firms likewise offered nothing but rejection. Finally, a mentor from Columbia threatened a judge that his future supply of promising clerks would dry up unless he took Ginsburg on, and she was on her way. She so impressed the judge he insisted she stay for a second year. She made her way to a teaching role at Rutgers Law School, where she was told she would be paid less than her male colleagues because, 'Your husband has a very good job.'</para>
<para>In time, she began to focus on the legal rights of women. While working as the first female tenured professor at Columbia Law School and as the founder of the women's rights project at the American Civil Liberties Union, she brought a series of cases to upend statutes that discriminated against women. She figured out that when bringing cases to judicial benches filled entirely with male judges she was usually better off arguing a case of gender discrimination by showing how it could also harm men. As a result of her landmark Moritz v Commissioner, the government petitioned the US Supreme Court stating that the decision cast a cloud of unconstitutionality over hundreds of federal statutes, which it compiled. She then set about litigating those statutes under the constitution's Equal Protection Clause, organising client cases, finding plaintiffs and delivering the arguments. She demonstrated again and again that laws that might have been intended to help women did so by rendering women as dependant and effectively branding women as inferior.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">The New York Times</inline> has observed that between 1973 and 1976 she argued six women's rights cases before the Supreme Court and won five, profoundly changing the law as it affects women. Legal commentator Jeffrey Toobin has described Ginsburg as being to feminism what Thurgood Marshall was to civil rights, both leaving indelible marks on society and the law well before their respective appointments to the US Supreme Court.</para>
<para>In commenting on her Supreme Court nomination in 1993 Marcia Greenberger, then co-president of the National Women's Law Centre, said that Ginsburg 'was as responsible as was as responsible as any one person for legal advances that women'. She said: 'Doors of opportunity have been opened.' Despite being known as an agent of change, Ginsburg herself was not an advocate for judicial activism. She believed elected representatives should write laws, but she did believe in justice. And justice can only be delivered where there is equal treatment before the law. If laws do not treat people equally, they cannot be just and they must be overturned.</para>
<para>A potential illustration of this world view was the gender payment case of Ledbetter heard by the US Supreme Court in 2007. Her dissent in that case has been described as the most effective of this generation, prompting the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, introduced in 2009. In the other case, the owners of Hobby Lobby argued they had a right to deny contraception coverage in their employees' health plans. In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg vividly argued, 'Your right to swing your arms ends just below where the other man's nose begins.' The rights and freedoms of one person come with a responsibility not to impinge on the rights and freedoms of another.</para>
<para>Justice Elena Kagan is one of the two women to have followed Ginsburg onto the court. She had an easier time in the legal profession as dean of the Harvard Law School and as US Solicitor-General. Considering the question of why her experience was so much more favourable, Justice Kagan said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the answer is simply Justice Ginsburg. As a litigator and then as a judge she changed the face of American antidiscrimination law.</para></quote>
<para>She and millions more who benefited from Justice Ginsburg's efforts are living proof that what each of us does matters for those who follow. That isn't only the case if we serve on the highest court in the land; it's not just up to a venerated few to make our world a better place. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was not born an icon, and she didn't start on her path so she could be on the Supreme Court. In fact, much of her contribution happened before she was even on the court—a series of steps, one foot in front of the other, each step an act of grit, humbly defying everything we assume about what is possible.</para>
<para>Of course, every new generation comes to assume what it knows life to be is what life has always been—especially when some of that seems so obvious, like the equal legal treatment of the sexes. But this assumption creates inertia against new progress, and, even worse, imperils the progress that has been won as old cultural movements seek new footholds. That, senators, is why history matters. We must understand how we got here in order to understand how to keep going. But we cannot afford to look at the great achievements of human progress and be overwhelmed by their magnitude. We can't treat that progress as the work only of great figures of history, because we are not just their beneficiaries; we are the custodians of a constant project. We must, all of us, use what we know, where we are, to do what we can. This is what Ruth Bader Ginsburg did. This is how change happens.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Assange, Mr Julian Paul</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] Last week an Australian Walkley Award-winning journalist sat in a UK court in a glass cage, crawling on his knees in order to speak to his lawyers. He'd lost a lot of weight since he was last seen. Watching on, journalist and documentary filmmaker John Pilger recounted that man telling him, 'I think I'm losing my mind.' That man was Julian Assange. Last week saw the conclusion of Julian Assange's extradition hearing in London. Over four weeks, many of the world's most celebrated journalists, publishers, lawyers and doctors presented evidence, finally setting the historic record straight on many issues.</para>
<para>I would like to pay my respects to Senator Wong for her contribution on Ruth Bader Ginsburg. While she was speaking, I couldn't help thinking, 'What would Justice Ginsburg think of this trial of Julian Assange for extradition to her country, the United States?' The judge in the UK will make a decision on 4 January next year. Until then Julian Assange remains in Belmarsh prison, a prison built for murderers and terrorists, which is no place for this softly spoken Australian publisher who, to many people, is a revolutionary and a hero of our age.</para>
<para>What did the court hear? First, the court heard that the prosecution of Assange and WikiLeaks is, quite simply, political. The Obama administration had ruled out prosecution, but, as Australian lawyer Jennifer Robinson testified, the Trump administration—and this is the guy who has just had a Facebook post deleted for containing false information about COVID—offered Assange a pardon if he revealed his sources for the DNC leak. When Assange refused—because, no matter what, journalists and publishers don't reveal their sources—the prosecution came down on Assange like a tonne of bricks. The judge agreed to bring her decision down after the US election. How much more political can this possibly be?</para>
<para>Second, the court heard of the spying operation conducted against Assange by UC Global on behalf of US intelligence agencies, which was especially focused on his meetings with his lawyers—clearly a breach of protocol around client-lawyer privilege. The court also heard about the seizure by the FBI of legally privileged information from the Embassy of Ecuador. The court heard of plans to poison and kidnap this Australian citizen. This is totally outrageous! Basically it means he cannot get a fair trial. This is a show trial, a farce. Any statements from our government giving assurance about due process are simply empty in the face of this outrageous and shameful breach of process by US authorities—our ally and friend the United States.</para>
<para>Third, the court heard about the devastating health consequences Assange is suffering, which would finish him if he were extradited to the extreme isolation and deprivation of special administrative measures in the horrific US prison system.</para>
<para>Fourth, the court heard three days of evidence by senior and award-winning journalists that Assange and WikiLeaks engaged in journalistic activity, including meticulous redaction processes. One-third of the Afghan war logs were withheld to protect individuals named. A nine-month curation process occurred with respect to the diplomatic cables, which were only fully revealed because two <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline> journalists inadvertently published the password in a book. So no, WikiLeaks doesn't dump materials online, and yes, Assange took great care to protect the names of sources. Three days of evidence provided great detail to that effect to the UK court.</para>
<para>I'd also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge my fellow Tasmanian Dean Yates, who was the head of the Reuters Baghdad bureau at the time of <inline font-style="italic">Collateral Murder</inline>, that now infamous video of an Apache helicopter gunning down Iraqi civilians and Reuters journalists. It was a potential war crime that has never been followed up. Mr Yates provided evidence of what this meant to him and the process he went through with the US military to get justice for his colleagues.</para>
<para>Fifth, harm was not done by WikiLeaks, but enormous harm was revealed by WikiLeaks. The court heard evidence of war crimes, crimes against humanity and corruption and that the US still cannot provide any evidence of the harm brought about by WikiLeaks.</para>
<para>Finally, technical computer forensic evidence demolished the central accusations in the indictment that Julian Assange was aiding Chelsea Manning or conspiring to procure documents. Patrick Eller, a digital forensic expert employed for two decades by the US army, reminded the court that the prosecution had failed entirely to tender any proof of Assange's involvement in chat logs with Manning. There simply isn't any forensic evidence.</para>
<para>We know these details of the trial thanks to Australian journalists like Mary Kostakidis and Andrew Fowler, who are part of a small group of journalists given access to video feed. Mary tweeted late into the night for four weeks, reporting in intricate detail so that we would know what was going on in this process—this sham of a process—that has not demonstrated the principles of open justice at all. In fact, on the first day, the judge revoked permission that had been granted for nearly 40 NGOs and parliamentarians to monitor the trial.</para>
<para>I am proud to be a founding member of the Parliamentary Friends of the Bring Julian Assange Home Group, a group that now has members from the crossbench and the Labor Party in both the House and the Senate, but still has failed to get a single LNP member of parliament to join, whereas I know from my private discussions there are a number of LNP members who are very concerned about this issue. I take that back: I should say the group has failed to get a single Liberal Party member of parliament to join; there are indeed two National Party members of that group, who are doing a great job advocating for the release of Julian Assange and bringing Julian Assange home. I'm proud to be part of that group.</para>
<para>During the hearing our co-chairs met with the UK High Commissioner, who gave them a good hearing and assured them that she would report their exchange and information and our serious concerns to London. During the four weeks of the hearing, hundreds of protests and vigils happened all over the world, with the presence of large protests outside the court every day. A dozen councils across Australia have passed resolutions calling on our government to act. During the trial over 160 world leaders, current and former presidents, prime ministers and officials called for Julian Assange's release. Thousands of journalists, hundreds of doctors, the third-biggest petition ever tabled in this parliament and a growing chorus from the margins to the centre of media, from the right and left of politics in Australia, all agree that Assange must not be extradited.</para>
<para>What was on trial in London was the fate of press freedom and national security journalism. If a precedent is set that allows the US to assert its laws outside the US, the world will never be the same again. While our press freedom is on trial, so, too, is an Australian. We must bring Julian Assange home.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>China</title>
          <page.no>31</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ABETZ</name>
    <name.id>N26</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The time has more than arrived for the freedom-loving countries of the world to unite in the name of freedom, in the name of their national sovereignty and in the name of world peace to counter the corrosive and growing pervasive influence of the Chinese communist dictatorship. At the outset, let it be understood that the Chinese people are as peace and freedom loving as all other peoples of the world. The issue is not the Chinese people; the issue is the Communist dictatorship under which the Chinese people have suffered for far too long.</para>
<para>Next year, the Chinese Communist Party will be 100 years old. The party has the sordid record of cruel repression, ruthless extrajudicial killings and labour camps in the naked pursuit of influence on the world stage for all the wrong reasons. Ten minutes is insufficient to set out the legacy of cruel, inhumane and illegal activities in which the communist dictatorship of China has engaged. Be it Tibet, Christians, students in Tiananmen Square, the Falong Gong, the barbaric forced organ harvesting of prisoners of conscience, the Uighurs, the slave labour camps, the ripping up of the UN-sanctioned Sino-UK agreement guaranteeing the freedom of the Hong Kongers or the expropriation and illegal claiming of the South China Sea islands for aggressive military purposes, the list goes on. The ugly, repressive social credit system which seeks to control the Chinese people, Australian journalists leaving China because of the regime's repression, the cyberattacks and the stealing of intellectual property are not the behavioural standard expected of a global player deserving of respect.</para>
<para>Nor is it deserving of respect to quietly remove the word 'peaceful' from the unification of China resolution at the recent National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party. Indeed, this change on the cusp of the centenary of the formation of the party is very worrisome and perturbing. One assumes the removal of that vital qualifying word 'peaceful' was not a typographical error. The removal of the word 'peaceful', deliberate as it must have been, should send alarm bells ringing. It begs the question: why was the word 'peaceful' removed?</para>
<para>The people of Taiwan deserve and need the unqualified support of all freedom-loving nations. Taiwan is a nation geographically smaller than my home state of Tasmania, but with a population equivalent to the Commonwealth of Australia. It is a fully fledged democracy. We need to stand in solidarity with the people of Taiwan. With the benefit of hindsight, the recognition of Beijing at the expense of Taipei, a demand of the communist dictatorship, was just the beginning of an ugly list of demands and concessions for which the freedom-loving countries of the world fell all those years ago. It is with regret that I recall my own government, albeit under different leadership, promoting an extradition treaty with the Chinese communist dictatorship, and mine being a lone voice of opposition but one which helped derail the proposal, much to the chagrin of some. That said, I confess that at the time I was still labouring under the misguided hope that with the opening of the Chinese economy there would follow the opening up personal freedoms and liberties. For me, an extradition treaty with a regime which was a dictatorship, which didn't believe in the rule of law and which had a 99.9 per cent conviction rate in trials and the death penalty was going way too far.</para>
<para>Concessions to encourage the expansion of liberties was a tactic worth trying, but with eyes wide open. It is a matter of regret that the freedom-loving nations of the world pursued economic gain and favouritism from the dictatorship whilst turning a blind eye to the well-known human rights abuses. Australia itself had an arrangement with the Chinese regime to have an annual human rights dialogue—a great initiative. But when it was unilaterally suspended by the communists, we didn't push back when we should have pushed back hard. When China expropriated the South China Sea islands for military purposes, the freedom-loving countries simply added millions of words to international dialogue but not a single practical act to halt or reverse the building of facilities on the illegally seized islands.</para>
<para>Despite the litany of egregious abuses, the world community allowed the communist dictatorship of China to have inappropriate influence over the World Health Organization. Let's not start on COVID-19 and the devastation it has wreaked on the rest of the world, for which it does need to be brought to account, or the consequences to nations seeking an international inquiry into COVID, like Australia being called 'the dog of America' or having unconscionable tariffs imposed as a not-so-subtle punishment and a warning to other nations should they pursue decent requests for answers to a devastating pandemic.</para>
<para>Then there is the undue influence on all bodies on the UN's human rights body. On 31 July 2015 the president of the International Olympic Committee announced that Beijing would be the host city of the 2022 Olympic Games. It was mistake to award China as the host five years ago, and it is a mistake if the International Olympic Committee proceed with them as the host in 2022. The 2022 Winter Olympics will be the last Olympics exempt from human rights principles being incorporated in host city contracts by the IOC, which will bind hosts to UN conventions from Paris 2024 onwards. China's hosting in 2022 is a glaring choice before the conventions become part of the contract. Recently 160 human rights advocacy groups delivered a joint letter to the chief of the International Olympic Committee, calling for Beijing to be removed as host of the games over its actions in Hong Kong and the detention of Uighurs in Xinjiang. British MP Sir Iain Duncan Smith, a co-chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, of which I'm pleased to be a member, rightfully asked that the IOC think again about hosting the Winter Olympics in China.</para>
<para>The time has come to draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough. The International Olympic Committee could provide much-needed leadership by reconsidering the holding of the Winter Olympics in China in 2022. Countries vie against each other to host the Olympics because of the economic and tourism benefits, along with the international credibility and prestige it brings. Why should the Olympic community bestow such undeserved prestige and credibility on this discredited dictatorship, with its legacy of human rights abuses and flouting of accepted civilised international standards of behaviour?</para>
<para>The similarities of human rights abuses, expropriation of territory and manipulation of international bodies to gain undeserved credibility are spookily reminiscent of events of some 80-plus years ago.</para>
<para>The insidious Belt and Road Initiative, which is a debt trap inflicted on less well-off nations to exert undue influence, needs to be called out. Thus far, 138 countries have become engaged in this debt trap. My colleague Senator Fierravanti-Wells was ahead of the game and called it out, and she was foolishly repudiated for her comments. History will affirm Senator Fierravanti-Wells for her courage and insight. When a sovereign state of our Commonwealth willingly signs up to the insidious Belt and Road Initiative it encourages the communist dictatorship peddling its debt trap to countries around the world. Having the imprimatur of Victoria is a great public relations coup for the regime and a great disservice to the nations and peoples that become entwined and entrapped in the initiative. The Labor Premier of Victoria should repudiate it, as he should reconsider whether the Chinese contractor shortlisted for the North East Link should even be allowed to tender. Similarly, the purchase by the Labor Premier of new trains built by exploited Uighur labour is reprehensible and should be stopped. To continue gives funding and credibility to the ugliness of slave labour camps and the communist regime which runs them. This is a company blacklisted by the US.</para>
<para>The time has come for the freedom-loving countries of the world to combine and stand in solidarity with each other to let the communist dictatorship of China know their activities of abuse and aggression will not be tolerated. The freedom-loving countries of the world need to act now, before it's too late. It's always worth standing up for freedom.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>33</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last night the government handed down its budget, a budget which rains down money on Australia like a summer monsoon. Where did the money come from? It is going to be printed in Australia on the Reserve Bank printing presses. Many people will welcome the short-term financial assistance, but it will be a short-term benefit unless Australia becomes more productive. If we flood the country with billions in cash, printed here in Australia, without at the same time improving productivity, the Australian dollar will depreciate against other currencies. A less valuable Australian dollar means overseas goods will be more expensive, including medicines made overseas.</para>
<para>The government has talked about making essential goods in Australia, but there was little in the budget about how it would achieve this goal. I was disappointed there were no nation-building projects on the scale of the Snowy Hydro scheme, because the lack of water is limiting the growth of our primary industries and good jobs for Australians, particularly in regional Queensland and regional Australia. There was no money for a coal-fired power station in Queensland to lower electricity prices. In short, the budget was silent on how Australia will deliver globally competitive water and electricity prices, which are essential for a revival of manufacturing in Australia. Manufacturing jobs are important because they are better paid, tend to be full time and have a productivity factor of 1.6, which means that every job generates 0.6 of another job.</para>
<para>With money flowing like champagne from a shaken bottle, the government hopes that somehow Australian business will lead us to an economic recovery. Australian businesses need relief from unfair competition—from foreign companies that pay little or no tax in Australia. Many Australians would be unaware that rail freight companies are competing directly with foreign owned ships, and they are losing the fight. Time-sensitive freight is carried by road and rail, but the non-time-sensitive freight is now being carried by foreign ships. These foreign ships take jobs from Australians and pay a pitiful amount of tax. They do pay port charges—which end up as profits for the foreign owners of ports. This is called cabotage.</para>
<para>The Australian company SCT Logistics provides 1,500 Australians with jobs driving trains, loading containers and managing the arrival and pick-up of the freight. These jobs are now endangered because the government is deaf to the impact of cabotage—moving goods from port to port in Australia, employing foreign crew and paying little or no tax. Some members of the government may be aware of the impact of the go-slow at Australian ports, with containers not moving anywhere and businesses being badly affected. Many of these ports are foreign owned, including the Brisbane and Melbourne ports. How is the government going to stop price gouging by these foreign owned ports once freight increases on the taxpayer funded inland rail line proposed between Melbourne and Brisbane ports? If the government allows foreign shipping to drive rail companies out of business then that freight will be driven to foreign owned Australian ports.</para>
<para>The National Party has in the past two weeks circulated a discussion paper to encourage foreign shipping, to the horror of the rail industry. During the height of the COVID pandemic foreign ships stopped coming to Australia, and rail freight increased dramatically. What is the government's plan if there are no rail businesses to move the freight in and out of the ports?</para>
<para>I will now turn to the government's heavily marketed, gas led economic strategy. In the budget just $52.9 million is set aside to help unlock Australia's vast onshore gas reserves. We don't need any more gas. We have enough gas off the west coast of Australia for a thousand years, and we are currently exporting it to competitors in China, Japan and South Korea. The problem is that this gas is in the hands of foreign gas giants, who export the gas on long-term contracts. The Australian owned and listed Woodside offered to provide chilled gas to the east coast a while ago. It would have required the building of a $250 million regassing plant in each state, but the government did not take up that offer, because it wants to buy jobs at huge expense through fracking in Queensland. So here we are getting none of our gas from the west coast, where it's cheap. Instead, our west coast gas is earning a handful of foreign owned companies $50 billion a year through exports to our competitors. Exporting Australian gas is highly profitable for these foreign companies because they do not pay for the gas, nor do they pay income tax on the profits made from selling the gas. Government policy means we do not benefit from our west coast gas reserves but reward the foreign owned gas companies with $325 billion in tax credits. It is a stupid policy. The government needs to explain why Australia is the only large gas exporter in the world where the domestic price is higher than the international price.</para>
<para>Foreign investment in our oil and gas has made economic indicators like exports and GDP look good, but foreign ownership of our west coast gas reserves has done next to nothing for jobs, wages or corporate income tax collection. The Reserve Bank told me that if Australians want to benefit from trillions of dollars of natural gas off the coast of Western Australia they need to get a job in the sector or buy shares in oil and gas giants with names like Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and ConocoPhillips.</para>
<para>What stops the government changing the law so that Australians benefit from the vast reserves of natural gas in Commonwealth waters off the coast of Western Australia? It is the fear of arbitration in foreign tribunals under provisions in free trade agreements, known as investor state dispute settlement provisions, or ISDS provisions. These fears are justified, because in 2011 Philip Morris took the government to a foreign tribunal claiming compensation in connection with the tobacco plain-packaging laws. The Productivity Commission told the government to avoid ISDS provisions because they give foreign investors greater rights than those enjoyed by Australian investors, but the government rejected the advice, accepting ISDS provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP-11. New Zealand is a signatory to TPP-11, but it avoided ISDS provisions through side letters. Australia could have done the same—again, stupid.</para>
<para>In 2018, One Nation voted against the enabling legislation for TPP-11, but our votes made no difference because Labor voted with the government. Instead of fixing weak laws, the government finds itself pinned to the ground by multinationals whose knees are pressed on the government's neck. In this position of weakness, the government has decided not to take on the west coast gas cartel but has instead proposed a gas led strategy based on new gas production in Queensland. This strategy involves the government encouraging fracking of the gas on prime agricultural land; guaranteeing new production through 'take or pay' multiyear contracts; and lumping east coast gas users with high prices.</para>
<para>The government must stop picking winners and subsidising electricity generation—first solar, then wind and now gas. Government should get out of the way and let these market players compete against each other so we get the lowest electricity prices. Government interference in the markets always ends badly. In this case, it has left Australia with globally uncompetitive energy prices which will kill off the manufacturing strategy and jobs throughout the economy. If the government persists with guaranteeing the gas industry in Queensland then we are doomed to high gas prices and lower living standards. With gas demand falling since 2014, it is inevitable under multiyear 'take or pay' contracts that the taxpayers of the future will pay for gas which is not needed, just as the Northern Territory pays for gas it does not need from the Blacktip project.</para>
<para>Essential services like water, gas, electricity and telecommunications should be in the government's hands, because it is clear that the government is a hopeless regulator. The government must provide a level playing field if Australian businesses are to have a chance of growing the economy and providing prosperity to Australia. Being timid will not get us there.</para>
<para>We must reform the foreign investment regime if Australia is to remain free to determine its own future. As I've said, there was nothing in the budget to actually encourage Australian industries and manufacturing. We are competing on a world stage, and our free trade agreements are destroying, and have destroyed, our industries and manufacturing. It's a shame that the government, with COVID-19, got out there and said we need to change our industries and manufacturing productivity here in Australia but they showed nothing of it in the budget.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Northern Territory: Parliamentary Representation</title>
          <page.no>34</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I hear it's raining around central Australia at the moment and it's pretty cool around Yulara. Up in the Top End, the wet season is certainly on its way, with a bit of rain and certainly the humidity. People are even catching $10,000 barramundi with the $1 million fish competition that's happening. We're growing in the Northern Territory. We've had around 100,000 people who've crossed our borders since July. Of course, not all of them will stay, but I'd say we're going to have a lot more people staying in the Northern Territory. In August, our retail sector was one of the highest in spending across the country. We are growing in the Northern Territory.</para>
<para>But where we're not growing is in our representation. There is a push to remove a voice in the lower house, reducing the seats of the Northern Territory from two to one. That's not what this parliament should be about. It should be about encouraging, growing and incentivising our remote and regional Australia, especially when we see the budget. The forgotten north doesn't receive nearly enough of what it should if we are to finish the unfinished business of our country in infrastructure, in investment, in growth and in fairness in representation in the Australian parliament.</para>
<para>We saw in the House yesterday that a significant vote took place. An amendment was passed to a government motion—not an opposition motion, a Greens motion or an Independent motion but a government motion—that will, in a nutshell, allow a private member's bill before this place, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020, to be debated and voted on in the other place if it passes here in the Senate. The government supported that amendment. Yes, the coalition government supported that amendment before the House for the suspension of standing orders to allow this to happen. We have a window in time, here in the Senate, as the only opportunity, from an opposition's perspective, to be able to bring on a suspension of standing orders in that other place. They have opened the door to enable us in here to send a private senator's bill to them. I say to the government: the government supported the suspension of standing orders in the House; the government can support the suspension of standing orders in the Senate.</para>
<para>The Northern Territory is poised to become the comeback capital of Australia. Territorians have worked hard to make sure we have been the safest place to be during this dreadful pandemic. We are on track for economic recovery as we position the Territory for future investment, leading to more jobs and economic growth. That hard work is seeing people flock to the Northern Territory. The NT government's most recent data indicates a trend of around 4,500 people permanently relocating since the border opened. Keep that figure in mind: 4,500 people have permanently relocated since we opened the border. But the Northern Territory is going to lose a seat—has lost a seat, as far as the Australian Electoral Commission is concerned—because we are short of 4,478 residents in the Northern Territory. That decision was made back in March. So we stand to lose our representation at the very time our population is increasing.</para>
<para>We have always argued that the formula on which the Australian Electoral Commission based its decision to cut one of our seats does not reflect the true nature of the Territory's population. The Australian Electoral Commission made a determination on 3 July for the NT to revert to one seat in the House of Representatives. Under their formula, we just miss out on making the quota for two seats. But there is an even stronger kick in the guts here: Territorians don't even have the chance to put their views to the Australian Electoral Commission about the reduction.</para>
<para>Other seats across other states have an opportunity, as part of a redistribution, to put their views. We don't even get that. All we have is a brief inquiry into the private senator's bill by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. What has been clear through that committee's hearings, and in the many times I have stood in the Senate to alert senators to this growing political concern in terms of the voices of the people of the Northern Territory—along with my CLP colleague Senator Sam McMahon; we are absolutely united on this front—is that the parliament must not and cannot reduce and diminish our voices.</para>
<para>Indigenous organisations, land councils, chambers of commerce, trade unions, religious bodies, political parties and concerned private citizens have all said they want the Territory to have a fair go in Canberra. This afternoon, I will table a petition reflecting exactly that—a petition of nearly 4,000 signatures of residents from right across the Northern Territory and, indeed, from right across Australia. And that petition is going to keep running, because this is a battle that the people of the Northern Territory are not going to give up on. We deserve a minimum of two seats in the lower house; naturally we want more than that, but we certainly don't want to lose what we already have. There have been a lot of words said here, and in support outside this chamber, about the need to maintain the representation of our regions of the Northern Territory in this parliament. I urge all senators to 'take the Territory bull by the horns' and fix the question of our representation. Fix it this week, as the motion in the other house has invited us to do.</para>
<para>The motion moved in the other house invites us to have the courage to debate it in here, to support it in here and do the right thing in here for the people of the Northern Territory because we have a window that has now been opened to us. This is a unique situation, a historical moment, and we can do this. How important are the people of the Northern Territory to the Senate? How important are the people of the Northern Territory to the lower house? Well, members showed how important the people of the Northern Territory are by moving this motion, by challenging us in the Senate to have the courage to pursue this inequality in the voices of our First-Nations people, of our cattle stations, of our mining organisations, of our Aboriginal communities, of the ranger programs, of the fishing industry. Make sure their voices are reflected adequately by ensuring that we do maintain the two seats of the Northern Territory in the lower house and, hopefully, one day to come, even more seats and senators.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Olga Tennison Autism Research Centre</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Over the years, I have come across many admirable contributors to the autism sector, but few meet the amazing standards set by 92-year-old Olga Tennison. Her profound impact on the lives of autistic people and their families has been achieved through a close partnership with Professor Cheryl Dissanayake—I apologise; I'm sure my pronunciation is incorrect there—of La Trobe University where, through her generous support, they established Australia's first research centre dedicated to autism, the Olga Tennison Autism Research Centre—OTARC. This world-leading research centre at La Trobe University would not have been possible without the significant private donations that now exceed a staggering $6 million. There are few people in this country with the energy, drive and determination of this impressive and inspirational woman.</para>
<para>She was born Olga Hayward in Rockhampton Queensland and attended primary school in Brisbane and St Ursula's, a Catholic boarding school in Toowoomba, for her secondary studies. While she was there, one of the nuns recognised her talent for clear speaking and acting and encouraged her to train as a stage and radio actress. She trained with Jean Trundle, the then well-known speech teacher in Brisbane, who also had a small theatre company where Olga performed. While training, she sat for and passed competitive examinations in speech for prestigious qualifications from Trinity College in London.</para>
<para>After completing her schooling and actor's training she worked at a bank while pursuing her acting career as a stage and radio actress with the ABC. She was married in Brisbane to Patrick Tennison, a well-known journalist and author working for the <inline font-style="italic">Melbourne Herald.</inline> They first lived in Sydney and then moved to Melbourne following a period in London, where her husband Patrick co-founded the Melbourne Press Club in 1971 and was its first president. Olga gave up working as an actress after her second child was born. Her interest in autism was triggered when her grandson was diagnosed with Asperger's disorder at 12, despite her recognition that he had a developmental delay from a few months of age. Mrs Tennison does not seek public recognition for her generosity. She is entirely modest about her significant contribution to OTARC and La Trobe University; although she greatly appreciates that her gifts may inspire others to support autism research and services. It was for this reason alone that she reluctantly agreed to have the centre named after her. Indeed, her initial support in 2007 that led to establishing the centre provided a critical visibility into autism that had not been realised prior to this simple act of generosity. Moreover, her voice as someone with a close experience of autism gives her authenticity to speak on behalf of the centre and promote the work that's being undertaken, of which she is incredibly proud—and rightly so, may I say.</para>
<para>Through its research outcomes and services, OTARC provides enormous value to the community at large. There is the training of students and professionals, including GPs, maternal and child health nurses and other educational and allied health specialists, as well as dissemination of information in the general community. Most importantly to those families living with autism, it means that evidence based information can inform best practice now and into the future. Beginning with a focus on infancy and early childhood, research within the centre over a period of 12 years now spans well into adulthood. There are programs supporting autism employment, suicide prevention and a core understanding of growth and development throughout the lifespan. Mrs Tennison's visible public support for the work of OTARC inspires its staff and provides comfort for individuals and families for whom and with the centre is working.</para>
<para>We've come a long way in autism research in Australia, including establishing the Australasian Society for Autism Research in 2009, a member based organisation to advance autism research and scholarship. This would also not have been possible but for Olga's support. This has been an outcome of the initial and ongoing unwavering generosity of a single individual in our community. It's important to note that Olga has never requested any recognition. If one were to calculate her donations as a percentage of her wealth she would rank in the highest echelons of philanthropic activity. Unlike many major donors and philanthropists in Australia, she is not from intergenerational wealth nor from a family with a long history of philanthropic giving. Nor is she from a successful corporate background. She lives a life without extravagance so that the money she and her husband accrued over a lifetime can be put to use in a significant and lasting, meaningful way.</para>
<para>I have an autistic son. When my child was diagnosed, the grief and challenges that I faced as a parent were in trying to discover what therapies were the best options to undertake, where to turn, where to get assistance and where to get support. That's incredibly challenging and incredibly difficult; it was nine years ago and it still is today. It's the work of organisations such as OTARC that has provided so much comfort to families like mine—especially in Melbourne, where they've worked on studies. That includes an incredible study I learnt about a number of years ago, where they're now able to look at and assess autism—recognise autism—in children under 12 months. This is a huge step forward, because, with autism, the earlier the intervention the more successful the outcome. Whatever interventions you provide a child with autism they will always leap forward. You don't know how they're going to leap forward and you don't know how they're going to develop, what success is going to come or where they are going to end up falling on the spectrum—that will move throughout a child's life—but we do know that the earlier the intervention and the more intense and better the quality of the intervention then the more successful the outcomes are going to be.</para>
<para>The work of OTARC in looking at the study of a number of children from when they were under 12 months and the success rate they had in identifying autism at that period to when the children were five was absolutely extraordinary. To be able to put these diagnoses criteria in place to have a better understanding throughout the medical profession about what it is they need to look for when looking at children with autism or potential developmental delays at that young age is going to ensure that we have the best possible outcomes for those children and their families.</para>
<para>It's also looking at best practice intervention. We have a challenging environment throughout Australia. There is an in-built resistance, in some respects, to best practice therapy. On the Raising Children Network website we have an acknowledgement that therapies such as applied behaviour analysis are well supported by evidence and research to be best practice early intervention therapies, and yet we have a blockage within much of the funding resources and government, which has traditionally been opposed to such significant behavioural therapy. It's also opposed considerably by some adults who have been diagnosed with autism, who have usually never experienced the therapy for themselves and who are certainly relying on evidence from perhaps 50 or 60 years ago as opposed to how these programs are being delivered today. It is through the work of organisations such as OTARC that we see the recognition of best practice and we see what research and evidence can produce and how best to help Australian families.</para>
<para>I know that my experience has been mirrored by so many Australian families. Most people in this room would know someone whose family has been affected by autism—someone who has a child on the autism spectrum or who is on the autism spectrum themselves. So many Australians are affected both directly or indirectly, but, thanks to people like Olga Tennison, there's comfort and hope. It's through the groundbreaking, significant research at La Trobe University and the understandings surrounding those on the spectrum that so much has been improved. I know that with our work in the Senate Select Committee on Autism we are hoping to build upon that, and we look forward, when Melbourne opens up again, to being able to meet with those from La Trobe University, including those at the OTARC.</para>
<para>So we have much to be grateful for. Many Australian families, I know, would like me to say on their behalf that it is with great gratitude that we acknowledge the amazing philanthropic donations that enabled the Olga Tennison Autism Research Centre to be developed in the first place and that enable the work that it continues to undertake. So it's my great honour to highly commend Olga Tennison for her sincere charitable efforts and to record our deep and sincere gratitude for posterity.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Australia: Budget</title>
          <page.no>37</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LINES</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I want to look at and talk about the impact of the Morrison budget on Western Australians, and I feel that I'm in a privileged position to do that because over the last couple of months I've probably travelled more in Western Australia than any other federal WA Senator in the room—perhaps not Senator Smith; we'll give him a bit of leeway. I've been as far as Port Hedland, I've been down to Esperance, I've been out to the central Wheatbelt and I've been as far east as Narembeen—and, Senator Smith, I haven't finished yet. During that visit, I've talked with and had the privilege of listening to Men's Shed participants, First Nations people, farmers, farming groups, shopkeepers and a whole range of people in those regions—people providing services, whether it's not-for-profit drug services or whether it's Bloodwood Tree in Port Hedland, which provides a whole range of services and during the pandemic has opened a shop where people can come and shop after giving a gold coin donation. It's just been a privilege to hear firsthand from those West Australians.</para>
<para>Earlier this year—actually, it's last year now—I had the privilege of attending a women's listening forum in Roebourne, which was also attended by Senator McCarthy and Ms Linda Burney, the member for Barton. We had over 100 First Nations women in the room, and they came to tell us in no uncertain terms what they expected from government and, indeed, from a Labor opposition. I'd particularly like to thank Jolleen Hicks, an amazing woman from Roebourne who really went out of her way to welcome us, to pull people together and to facilitate that big meeting that we had in Roebourne. The women in Roebourne and Port Hedland, and indeed the other women who came from across the Pilbara, are a force to be reckoned with. They demanded that we come back with a draft, which we did in December. Then there was a final presentation meeting that I attended the week before last, which sadly Senator McCarthy and Ms Burney couldn't attend because at that point they were still locked out of our state. But we're hoping they can come again next year. I met with a group of women in Roebourne, and in Port Hedland I had the absolutely privilege of meeting with elders—and I tell you what: those elders say it like it is, and they were very clear about what they expected.</para>
<para>Last week I met with the South West Aboriginal Medical Service, a highly regarded service in Western Australia which does amazing work and delivers way beyond its regional boundaries. It's got a fantastic plan for a one-stop centre. At the moment, it's based in Bunbury, Busselton and all over the place, and it wants to have a one-stop centre. It has lobbied the Morrison government. It wants $15 million. It's got a shovel-ready project. I'm glad that we've got some Western Australians here. It's got a DA-approved, shovel-ready project. It's got land. It's got support. It's got a great group of people behind it. All it wanted from the federal government was $15 million. Sadly, it missed out. Despite making representations to Minister Wyatt, that centre got nothing. Now, I would have thought $15 million was a pretty good ask. Certainly during the election campaign Mr Porter, the member for Pearce, was able to give the City of Swan $20 million towards a pool; but, hey, that came out of the sports rorts area. SWAMS, who have a well-deserving, shovel-ready project, missed out.</para>
<para>They weren't the only ones to miss out. I urge people to listen to the interview this morning with Chris and Jo from Rockingham if they have not already. Chris is a truck driver, and Jo works three jobs, one as a cleaner and two as a swimming teacher. They talked about how the budget impacts on them. They were better than any of the economic analysis that I've heard. They were passionate. They are typical Australians—indeed, very typical Western Australians living in Rockingham. They thought it delivered nothing for them. Jo is an architectural draftsperson by trade and she hasn't been able to get a job in that field but works three jobs, which we know many women do. She lost her job as a swimming teacher when pools were closed during the lockdown period and, of course, because the federal government were not kind enough or generous enough to extend JobKeeper to local government, Jo lost income. So they are very cautious. They're worried. They said any tax cut they might get is going into the bank because they're worried about their future and for them the budget hasn't delivered confidence.</para>
<para>For the patients who use the South West Aboriginal Medical Service it's delivered nothing. For the elders up in Port Hedland who are concerned about their children's aspirations—we've got 12 kids graduating from Port Hedland through the Clontarf program up there. That's a record. But what are their chances of getting to university with the outrageous university bill that Centre Alliance has agreed to in this place? It will stop them. Do you know that in Western Australia we have fewer than 2,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids at university? Most are mature age and most of them take degrees in the humanities areas. And who have we just disadvantaged?</para>
<para>Senator Griff and member for Mayo have sold out for 40 pieces of silver—for a few roads in Mayo. When those Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids in Western Australia ask me why university fees for them have doubled and why it's much harder for them to get to university, I'll know where to point. I'll be pointing directly at the Morrison government and I'll be pointing directly at those senators, including One Nation, who are supporting an outrageous bill that will make it much harder for kids, particularly Indigenous kids, to go to university. We should all hang our heads in shame that in Western Australia we don't even have 2,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids at university. We have not even reached that milestone. And guess what? That statistic has not changed very much over the last 10 years.</para>
<para>For the farmers that I met with out in Corrigin and Merredin, who really do want to see action on climate change, yes, they are very happy with the battery project, as we all are. That's a McGowan project that, yes, you funded. Tick—they're happy with that. But they've seen nothing else from you on climate change—nothing. We're seeing the effects of climate change. In Esperance we get frosts now where we never used to. That impacts on the crops. In WA most farmers are growing barley, and they absolutely lay the blame for the downturn in barley to China at Mr Morrison's feet. These are not necessarily Labor supporters. That is what they told me.</para>
<para>So it is time that you lifted your game and started to represent Australians like Chris and like Jo, like the elders in Port Hedland, like the farmers in Esperance, like the farmers in Merredin. That's who you should represent.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The time for senators' statements has expired.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>38</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>38</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Cormann. Can the minister confirm there are 928,000 Australians over 35 years old who will snap back to living on $40 a day after December and who will be ineligible for the Morrison government's hiring credit scheme?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Wong for that question. No.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister explain that, despite unveiling a budget with a debt well in excess of $1 trillion, the Morrison government has left behind nearly one million Australians over 35 years old without work?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No, I cannot confirm this. What the Morrison government delivered last night was its plan to get Australia out of the COVID recession and to get Australians back into work. We are not accepting that people will remain on income support forever and a day; we are working to get people back to work. We understand that there is a difference between people who have a track record in the workforce, who have been employed before, in terms of their employability, and the challenges faced by a more vulnerable segment of the population in the context of the COVID recession. Based on experiences in previous recessions, we understand young Australians who have either not yet been in the workforce and are about to get into the workforce or only just recently been engaged in the workforce are in a comparatively more challenged position. It is very important that we ensure that they do not become entrenched in terms of having to rely on welfare support. That is why we've put in place the particular hiring credit, in order to provide particular support to young Australians. But, of course, we want all Australians to get back into work. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>How many of the 928,000 Australians aged over 35 years will be still without work when JobKeeper ends in March and be left to live on $40 a day when JobSeeker snaps back in December?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We are working to ensure every single Australian has the best possible opportunity to get back into work. That is what we are doing. We are working to ensure that we get Australia out of the COVID recession and get Australians back into work. Of course, the Australian people, unlike the Labor Party, understand why we are in the position we're in. They also understand that, while it's been tough and while we will continue to go through a tough period, we are in a comparatively stronger and better position than most other comparatively advanced economies around the world. We will let the Labor Party continue with the sniping, and we will continue to work to give every Australian the best possible opportunity to get back into a job.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>39</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to Australia's absolutely outstanding Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. Can the minister inform the Senate how the Morrison government's 2020-21 budget sets out a comprehensive plan to get Australia out of the COVID recession and Australians back into jobs?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Scarr for that very important question. The budget we delivered last night was indeed our plan to get Australia out of the COVID recession and to get Australians back into jobs—jobs, jobs, jobs and more jobs. We are focused on saving the jobs that need to be saved. We are there to restore the jobs that were lost. We are there to create more new jobs, but it will be a private sector led recovery.</para>
<para>On this side of the chamber, we understand that jobs don't grow on trees. On this side of the chamber we understand that jobs are created by viable, successful, profitable, growing businesses. That is why in our budget we have taken a whole series of very important measures to ensure that businesses have the best possible opportunity to be successful into the future and to grow, because we know that a growing business will hire more Australians. If you look at the measures that we've taken since the start of the COVID pandemic, there's been $507 billion worth of fiscal support, 25.6 per cent of GDP in support of the Australian people and our economy. This budget alone provides $74 billion worth of support measures as part of our JobMaker plan to drive the strongest possible private-sector led economic recovery and to drive the unemployment rate down, which will be good for the economy, which will be good for the opportunity of working families around Australia to get ahead and which will be good for our budget and for budget repair into the future, because, of course, more people in work means more revenue for government from income tax. It means lower payments on welfare support for jobseekers, which, of course, is what we are focused on. That's what we've achieved in the past, and that's what we'll work for in the future.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Cormann. Senator Scarr, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, can you outline some of the major job-creating measures in the 2020-21 budget?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Our JobMaker plan aims to support about one million jobs over the next four years. Our JobMaker hiring credit will boost jobs growth by offering an incentive for businesses to hire younger jobseekers. Treasury estimates that measure alone will support about 450,000 jobs for young Australians at a cost of about $4 billion. Other job-creating measures which will help all Australians who are looking for work include our record investment in upskilling and reskilling Australians, starting with the establishment of the $1 billion JobTrainer Fund to create more than 340,000 free or low-cost training places, $1.2 billion to create 100,000 new apprenticeships and traineeships with a 50 per cent wage subsidy for businesses who employ them, $1.4 billion— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Scarr, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, how will tax cuts play a crucial role in the Morrison government's economic recovery plan?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Bringing forward income tax relief for hardworking families, focusing on low- and middle-income earners across Australia puts more money into their pockets, boosts their take-home pay, but it also helps to stimulate the economy because, of course, it will lead to a strengthening of aggregate demand in the economy, it will help ensure that businesses across Australia are able to benefit from a strengthening in demand. The budget also delivers, of course, significant other tax cuts. These tax cuts which we are proposing now, about $17.8 billion worth, build on the $8.1 billion worth of tax relief which is being delivered for the 2020-21 income year under our previously legislated personal income tax plan. In 2020-21 low- and middle-income earners will receive tax relief of up to $2,745 for singles and up to— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women, Senator Ruston. Why in a budget racking up in excess of $1 trillion in debt did the Morrison government allocate just 0.024 per cent to spending promises in the women's economic statement? Why is the Morrison government leaving Australian women behind?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Smith for the question. The federal government is absolutely delighted to be able to have presented the second Women's Economic Security Statement as part of this budget, and a number of new measures have been able to be added to the ongoing measures that are embedded in every part of the budget to support Australia's women as part of our plan for the economic recovery that was announced, which was our budget last night. We believe that women play a very important role. First and foremost, we also understand that the most important thing we can do for women is to make sure that they have access to work when and if they want it.</para>
<para>But there are a number of measures that were listed last night in the Women's Economic Security Statement, including a couple that are particularly in my area. There was the announcement of the paid parental leave changes for women who have missed out on being able to get paid parental leave because the circumstances surrounding them becoming unemployed meant that they couldn't meet the work test. We have allocated $130 million over this 12-month period alone to make sure that women who found themselves out of work due to the COVID pandemic are still able to access their paid parental leave. We understand that many of those women had probably made decisions in relation to their families before the pandemic hit.</para>
<para>We have also made sure that we have a very strong focus on getting women into work in the areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. We understand that the jobs of the future are going to be around that science base, because so many of the exciting opportunities for Australian employment going forward are going to be in these areas. So there are a number of areas in the budget that are focused on making sure that women have the opportunity to take the jobs of the future, supporting them in their education, their skills and their training to make sure that they can take those opportunities.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Smith, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister confirm that for the more than 754,000 women accessing JobSeeker and youth allowance the Morrison government's budget is simply offering a reduction in their support payments and a training course?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to your question, Senator Smith, is absolutely no. The federal government has put an absolutely unprecedented support package in place for all Australians, including Australian women. In March we put in place the coronavirus supplement, which was available for all Australians. But, equally, we understand that Australian women have been impacted equally by job losses. In the July economic and fiscal update we made an announcement in relation to the continuation of that supplement.</para>
<para>But the most important thing that we can do as a government is to make sure that we work with businesses, because it will be businesses that create the jobs to enable Australian women who have found themselves without work during this pandemic to go back into work—to give them the opportunity. It will not be government that creates jobs. Governments don't create jobs. It will not be the government that spends us out of this recession; it will be business.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Smith, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Why, despite slugging Australians with a debt in excess of $1 trillion for generations to come, is there nothing in the Morrison government's budget to make it easier to access child care and increase women's workforce participation?</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators to remain silent. While interjections are always disorderly they are particularly unhelpful during a question being asked. Senator Ruston.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr President. I would absolutely refute the accusation and allegation in the question that I've just received. This government has gone out of its way to make sure that we've supported all Australians. That includes women, and particularly women who have children, to make sure that they have the same opportunities as all Australians. As I said in my answer to the previous question, it will not be without the support of a strong and profitable economy and strong and profitable businesses which provide the employment opportunities for women—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Ruston. I have Senator Wong on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr President. The question did relate to there being nothing in the budget in relation to child care. I just wonder if the Minister representing the Minister for Women might want to return at some point to that question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That was part of the question. I will be honest: that was one question which I missed being able to transcribe all of because of the noise in the chamber. That was part of the question that I heard. I will call Senator Ruston to continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Mr President. I would draw the attention of those on the other side to the amount of support that this government has provided to child care during the last six months, to support Australian women and families and to make sure that they have access to the support they needed when businesses were shut down and they had nowhere to put their children to be able to get to work. They were provided with additional support. We have supported the childcare sector through this pandemic and we will continue to support the childcare sector.</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Watt interjecting—</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Rennick interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Rennick and Senator Watt: save it for State of Origin!</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. Can the minister update the Senate on the Morrison government's plan to get Australians back into jobs as outlined in last night's budget?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Bragg for the question. As Senator Ruston has articulated, it is employers that create jobs. Governments put in place policy frameworks that employers lever off. Certainly, the Morrison government is focused on putting in place those policies that will ensure Australian businesses are able to prosper, grow and create more jobs for Australians. In fact, from when the coalition was elected to office in 2013 to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the economy has now created in excess of 1.5 million new jobs. Last night's budget further demonstrated the Morrison government's commitment to getting Australians back in the workforce.</para>
<para>The Australian economy is now fighting back from COVID-19. In fact, in the last three months we've seen around 458,000 jobs created. As Senator Cormann has stated, the government is particularly focused on ensuring that young Australians, who've been disproportionately affected by COVID-19, are able to get back into the workforce.</para>
<para>Last night the Treasurer announced our $4 billion hiring credit. This will give employers who take on an eligible jobseeker aged between 16 and 35 an incentive of between $200 and $100 per week for 12 months. We anticipate that this hiring credit will help around 450,000 young Australians—young Australians who we want to get back into work. That is, of course, on top of the announcement we recently made of $1.2 billion to create an additional 100,000 new apprenticeships. Again, this announcement is all about doing what we can do as a government to ensure that we have the best policy framework in place to get Australians and, in particular, young Australians, back into work.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Bragg, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>How does the government's JobMaker hiring credit enhance existing incentives to help Australians back into work?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I've said, we know that young Australians have been disproportionately affected by the impact of COVID-19. The Morrison government's $4 billion hiring credit will support around 450,000 positions by giving employers an incentive for each new job they create over the next 12 months that employs someone who's been on income support in at least one of the three previous months at the time of hiring.</para>
<para>The hiring credit itself complements other existing government wage subsidies that are already in place. We already have in place a number of wage subsidies for existing cohorts of people such as parents returning to the workforce, Indigenous Australians and the long-term unemployed. We also have a $10,000 Restart wage subsidy that actually helps jobseekers aged over 50 to get back into the work. In the last few years, that has assisted 50,000 Australians to get a job.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Bragg, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>How has the coalition's record of strong economic management built the foundation for our JobMaker plan for economic recovery?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>While the impacts of COVID-19 have been absolutely devastating on the Australian economy, it must be remembered that Australia entered this crisis from a position of economic strength. That is why last night we were able to hand down the budget and make that further level of investment that we did.</para>
<para>When we entered COVID-19 the economy was growing and, in fact, we had record employment participation, labour force participation, in Australia. The unemployment rate had fallen to 5.2 per cent and the budget was back in balance for the first time in 11 years.</para>
<para>As the Prime Minister has said to Australians: 'We have done this before—we've got your back. We will put in place the right policies to ensure that we can emerge stronger on the other side of COVID-19.' That is why, as we emerge from the health crisis, the JobMaker plan that we have outlined to the Australian people will get Australians back into work.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</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 for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck, and it relates to the budget measures for home-care packages. According to the latest quarterly report from the Department of Health, there are still 103,599 Australians waiting for home-care packages, and 7,400 are waiting for a level 4 package. While the government's media release talks about the number of places it has funded since 2013, it appears the budget allocation of only 23,000 extra places still leaves a shortfall of at least 70,000 places. Can the minister explain why the budget only promises 23,000 additional home-care packages over four years, across all package levels, despite current waiting lists of 100,000 people who are waiting up to 18 months for a package for which they have been approved?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the senator for his question. Since the 2018-19 budget, this government has invested $4.6 billion in 73,105 new packages. Last night's budget allocation of 23,000 new packages, which is not over four years but over the next 12 months, will make a significant change to those who are waiting for a home-care package. What we're doing is exactly what we said we would do when the royal commission handed down its interim report in November last year. We will continue to invest in new packages, as we've done on three occasions now: 10,000 in November in our response to the interim report, 6,105 in July and then 23,000 last night. This financial year there will be an additional 30,000 home-care packages injected into the system.</para>
<para>We have to grow the workforce. These 30,000 packages will create about 6,000 jobs. To assist with that we've also allocated funding of over $10 million to the workforce industry council and, as we announced last week in conjunction with Minister Cash, over $10 million to support training of nurses to go into aged-care support. And there are a number of other packages through other portfolios—for example, the JobTrainer program—which will provide incentives to employ other people in the residential aged-care sector.</para>
<para>The waiting list now has been reduced by over 20 per cent since I came to this portfolio, and the 30,000 new packages that are being allocated will make a significant contribution to reducing that further.</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>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GRIFF</name>
    <name.id>76760</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, percentages aren't people. When you look at real numbers, 30,000 is a long way away from meeting 100,000. Out of the packages that have been announced, only 2,000 will reportedly be offered at level 4, which, as you know, is the highest level of care. Around 30,000 older people have died while waiting for their approved package in the past three years. Why hasn't government allocated more packages to the areas of highest need?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the senator for the question. The government has allocated the packages to the areas where they will most quickly reduce waiting lists—where the demand is and where they will most quickly reduce waiting lists. That's the whole point. The allocation of the packages, the 30,000 packages, over this financial year has been to reduce waiting lists so that people don't have to wait as long as they have been for the care that they want through a home-care package.</para>
<para>Can I also make the point that the inference that people are left without care is an incorrect one. All of these people have access to Australia's excellent health system to support them. All of them have access to Australia's excellent health system, and 98 per cent of them have an interim package, have access to an interim—</para>
<para>Opposition 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>Have access to an interim package or support through CHSP. They are not left without support or care.</para>
</continue>
<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>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GRIFF</name>
    <name.id>76760</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The budget paper allocates $21 million over four years to 'delay the implementation of payment in arrears' for home-care services, yet the government introduced a bill that allocates home-care funding in arrears in an attempt to address the millions in unspent funds that are being held or, often, not returned by providers when aged-care clients pass away or enter residential care. Does this mean the government plans to delay the reforms by four years, which will cost $21 million in unaccounted for funds?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to the question is 'absolutely not'. We delayed the implementation of the payment-in-arrears cycle because we didn't want to have a negative impact on home-care providers during COVID-19. It was having a significant impact. We will follow through with the legislation. I'll be presenting the second phase of that legislation into the parliament before Christmas and we will be implementing the payment-in-arrears process during the early phases of 2021.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ABETZ</name>
    <name.id>N26</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the</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>I thank Senator Abetz for his question and acknowledge his ongoing interest in this area, particularly in support of Australia's families, and his very thoughtful op-ed in <inline font-style="italic">The Examiner</inline> yesterday, which I'm sure everybody here has read.</para>
<para>Sadly, like so many Australian families, women, expectant mothers, have faced significant job losses as a result of the coronavirus pandemic through no fault of their own. That's why we announced yesterday a package of $130 million over 12 months to support those parents who were previously employed but found themselves unemployed and, as a result, did not meet the work test for paid parental leave within the allocated time limit. Under normal circumstances, the work test requires a parent to be in work for 10 of the 13 months prior to the birth of a child in order for them to qualify for paid parental leave. As of the announcement last night, women who give birth between 22 March this year and 31 March next year will be able to have a change in terms of the arrangements—that is, instead of 10 months in 13 months it will be 10 months in 20 months, recognising the difficulty of the pandemic. That will affect around 12,800 families and maintain their connection to the workforce.</para>
<para>But we also understand that many couples had probably made decisions in relation to starting a family before the devastating impact of theCOVID pandemic and therefore had made their arrangements in relation to their finances and structured their lives believing they would be eligible for paid parental leave. This temporary change recognises that we understand that those 12,800 families would otherwise have qualified for paid parental leave, and now they will be able to get access to it.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Abetz, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ABETZ</name>
    <name.id>N26</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the minister for that answer. How do the measures for new parents build on the flexibility changes the government already made to paid parental leave earlier this year to benefit dads and partners?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Earlier this year, we passed legislation to provide increased flexibility around how new families use their paid parental leave entitlement. Previously, mothers were required to take the full 18-week entitlement block in the year after their baby's birth. Under the changes that were passed earlier this year, the first 12 weeks of leave is taken in the first year but, in order to provide flexibility for the other partner, the remaining six weeks can be taken at any time in the two years succeeding the birth or adoption of a child. As I said, importantly, mothers can now transfer their entitlement to the other parent or the other partner in order for them to be able to have access to this leave as well. These new arrangements mean dads are able to share in the support of the newborn. We also understand that not all families are the same, so we want to make sure we've got greater flexibility.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Abetz, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ABETZ</name>
    <name.id>N26</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr President. How is the government supporting grieving families, for whom Mrs Purnell has so ably advocated, who suffer from the loss of a child?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am pleased to be able to inform the Senate that, as part of the budget process, we've improved access to bereavement payments for parents who suffer the tragedy of a stillborn or whose child passes away before the first birthday. When I came into this place—and I acknowledge Senator Keneally for her work in this area—it became obvious to me that, in some instances, there were lesser payments for bereaved parents, depending on the circumstances of their family, for their child's death. So we have said the new stillborn payment will be up to $3,600 for parents on low incomes to support them with the personal and financial impacts of this tragedy. This will support about 900 families every year. We clearly understand that no amount of funding can make up for the grief of losing a child, but we hope in some way this will support parents through that grieving period.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the finance minister, Senator Cormann, regarding the budget. Tax relief for most Australians who earn less than $90,000 a year will disappear after one year, but millionaires and people like Clive Palmer and Gina Rinehart will get tax cuts of $2½ thousand a year permanently, increasing further to $11,000 a year in 2024. Tax cuts mean nothing if you don't have a job, and yet unemployment support is on the chopping block. Why has the government chosen the millionaires over the million unemployed Australians?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I completely reject the premise of the question. Senator Waters is false. We have baked tax relief for low- and middle-income earners into our tax system through legislation passed by this parliament. They say it's just for one year—no, no, no. What they're referring to here is the fact we have extended by another year the low- and middle-income tax offset. We are in fact doubling the income tax relief available for low- and middle-income earners. You have completely misread the announcement.</para>
<para>What we have done here is bring forward income tax relief that was due to come into effect from 2022 and instead is going to come into effect from 1 July 2020. For those who have already benefited from this income tax relief because they were first cab off the rank when it came to providing income tax relief in our previous legislation, we have effectively doubled their income tax relief for this year.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Waters, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With a gas-led recovery that goes against recommendations from scientists and economists, and taxpayer handouts to the Vales Point coal-fired power station, which just happens to be a generous Liberal Party donor, why has this government chosen to prop up climate-destroying industries rather than support a jobs-rich transition to a renewable energy future?</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order on my right during the question!</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Colleagues won't be surprised to hear me say I completely reject the premise of the question. Yes, we are committed to maximising the strength of the recovery, but we are also committed to do so in an environmentally efficient fashion and we are committed to supporting renewables. In fact, our investment in renewables across Australia is higher than that of countries like Germany, France and across the European Union as a whole.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I see them shake their heads. If you look at what we're investing in renewable energy in Australia on a per capita basis, it's about triple what is invested by Germany, for example. But of course gas is going to be an important part of our economic recovery. If we want to ensure that our manufacturing sector can be internationally competitive, and we do, gas is going to be an important transition fuel as part of that journey. Of course it is. And any reasonable—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Cormann. Senator Waters, a final supplementary question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Given that women have been hardest hit by the COVID crisis, compounding existing gender inequality, and domestic family violence is at epidemic levels, why has the government chosen to invest only 0.035 per cent of the budget in measures to address women's economic security and provided no new money for frontline domestic violence services? None.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Under a succession of outstanding Ministers for Women in the coalition—from Senator Cash all the way through to Senator Payne now—we have made very substantial investments in terms of measures to prevent and address domestic violence, including in this budget. There's another $150 million worth of support specifically—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Waters, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Waters</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Point of order: he is misleading the Senate. There is no new money in this budget—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Waters! That's a matter for debate. You know better than that, Senator Waters. There's an opportunity after question time to debate the merits of answers.</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Waters interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Waters, I ask you to please respect the ruling. That's not the appropriate way to raise a matter of substance in an answer. Senator Cormann.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As a result of the contributions of successive outstanding coalition ministers for women's interests, from Senator Cash through to Senator Payne, we have made a substantial commitment to the prevention and addressing of domestic violence—including through additional investments in the wake of the COVID pandemic, given some of the concerning consequences that that brought with it in this space. There is $150 million worth of additional support— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>China: Human Rights</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATRICK</name>
    <name.id>144292</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Youth and Sport, Senator Colbeck. Minister, what is the total taxpayer funding committed to support Australia's participation in the 2022 Winter Olympics to be held in Beijing, the capital of the People's Republic of China? Given the gross human rights abuses committed by the Chinese government—including what amounts to genocide against the Uighur people—the suppression of democratic freedoms in Hong Kong and the imprisonment of Australian citizens on trumped-up national security charges, how can the government morally support Australian participation in the 2022 Winter Games in Beijing? Would you agree that Australia should step away from what will be a massive Chinese communist propaganda spectacle? Will you, as the sports minister, confer with the Australian Olympic Committee and the Olympic Winter Institute of Australia to bring about an Australian boycott of the Beijing Winter Olympic Games?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the outset, can I say Australia remains deeply concerned by reports of enforced disappearances, mass detention, forced labour and pervasive surveillance of Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang, and by restriction of freedom of religion and belief in China. These concerns are reflected across the parliament and the Australian community; I note Senator Abetz's contribution to the parliament during senators' statements earlier today.</para>
<para>Minister Payne has clearly conveyed the Australian government's concerns about the situation in Xinjiang to China, including during her last three meetings with State Councillor Wang Yi and during her address to the UN Human Rights Council on 14 September this year. Australia will continue to raise its concerns during sessions of the UN Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly, as we have done consistently during recent sessions.</para>
<para>I have some figures on support for winter sports. I will note that all of the funding allocations made to winter sports are available publicly on the Sport Australia website. The last financial year figures that I have for high-performance allocations are for the Olympic Winter Institute, of $5.25 million. Skiing and snowboarding received $1.61 million for able-body sport, and there was $1.23 million for parasports. Those numbers go beyond the Winter Olympics—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Colbeck! Senator Patrick, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATRICK</name>
    <name.id>144292</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, is it not the case that the International Olympic Committee's 2017 adoption of human rights principles in its host city contracts does not apply to its agreement with China for the 2022 Winter Games in Beijing? Will you, as sports minister, contact your counterparts in other Western democracies to urge that their countries boycott the Beijing Games?</para>
</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>In relation to that particular matter I note the comments of Foreign Secretary Raab in recent days, where he indicated that it was his instinct to separate sport from diplomacy. I share those instincts, but I do not step back from the comments that I made in response to the senator's primary question and neither, I think, does anybody in the parliament. We have a range of avenues to advocate strongly for human rights in China, including directly with China and in multilateral forums. We will continue to raise our concerns, as we've done consistently through the joint statement with 38 other countries to raise concerns about human rights in Hong Kong and in Xinjiang.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Patrick, a final supplementary question?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATRICK</name>
    <name.id>144292</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, would you agree that, if Australia is to boycott the Beijing games, that decision should be taken now without delay so that Australia's Winter Olympic athletes will know where they stand and that appropriate financial support can be provided to the AOC and the Olympic Winter Institute? Will you commit to full support for our athletes, who should not be asked to compete at an event that will promote a communist government engaged in genocide?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I say that it is not the government but the independent Australian Olympic Committee that is responsible for sending teams to Winter and Summer Olympic Games. The committee is independent from government. I share Senator McKenzie's view and I don't believe the Australian Olympic Committee requires financial assistance from the government—in fact, it's quite proud of the fact it doesn't receive any. It is clearly outlined in the AOC's objectives that the AOC has exclusive authority for the representation of and participation by Australia at the Olympic Games, Winter Olympic Games, Youth Olympic Games, Winter Youth Olympic Games and regional games, including the selection and discipline of all members of the team who represent Australia at those games.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</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 Minister for Finance. At what dollar value and in what year will gross debt peak?</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Are you interested in the answer?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Gallagher</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. Gross debt is projected to keep growing until it stabilises at about 55 per cent as a share of GDP towards the end of the—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Can we please hear the minister, who is being directly relevant.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They are assuming, but I'm trying to get to the answer—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He's been speaking for 21 seconds.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>but they're clearly not interested in the answer. They're more interested in playing politics than actually listening to the answer. As I was saying, gross debt is projected to keep growing until it stabilises at about 55 per cent as a share of GDP towards the end of the decade, which equates to about $1.7 trillion.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In 2013, the minister described $280.3 billion in gross debt as a disaster. How then do you describe the $1.7 trillion of debt racked up on your watch?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Unlike the Labor Party, the Australian people understand why we're here. They understand the impact of the COVID recession on our budget because they understand that, as a result of one million Australians losing their job in one month, this has had a severe impact on our government revenue and will have a severe impact on government revenue for some time to come. Tax receipts over the forward estimates are projected to be $227 billion lower than anticipated in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, without having made any decision but just as a result of parameter variation.</para>
<para>You seek to make the comparison with your period in government. Let me tell you: the GFC was nothing compared to what we're dealing with at the moment. The contraction in global growth was 0.1 per cent. We are dealing with a contraction in global growth 45 times as high as you were dealing with.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</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 even before the pandemic he had overseen a doubling of gross debt and now leaves the role as finance minister with Australia's highest-ever debt level, peaking at a staggering $1.7 trillion?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What I can confirm for Senator Gallagher is what I've confirmed on a number of occasions before—that is, before the pandemic the gross debt and the net debt position under our government was much better than it would have been under Labor because we corrected the forward trajectory that we inherited from those opposite.</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Gallagher interjecting—</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Keneally interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senators Gallagher and Keneally.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We inherited an unsustainable spending and debt growth trajectory from the Labor Party and we brought that trajectory down.</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Wong interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will forever be proud about the fact I played my small role in helping to repair the budget during our first six years in government, to the point where we returned the budget to balance and to the point where Australia was able to enter this pandemic from a position of comparative fiscal and economic strength. I know the Labor Party is not interested in this, but Australia went into this pandemic in a stronger position than just about any other advanced economy around the world and in a stronger position than we would have if we had stayed with the policy settings of those opposite. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I will call the next question when there's silence. Senators Hume, Watt and Wong, please pause when I call your name.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STOKER</name>
    <name.id>237920</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator Birmingham, and it's about something that is very, very close to my heart. Can the minister outline how the Morrison government's economic recovery plan will rebuild and create jobs in Australia's tourism industry?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Stoker for her question, especially as a senator from the great state of Queensland with its very strong interest in our tourism industry and with the number of tourism businesses across Queensland.</para>
<para>Our unprecedented scale of economic support for Australian businesses during the COVID recession, through programs such as JobKeeper and small business payments of up to $100,000, has sustained hundreds of thousands of jobs and tourism businesses across Australia. As part of our plan to ensure and secure the future of our tourism industry, the government has outlined an extensive range of supports to keep the industry going through these incredibly tough times. Importantly, last night's budget outlined a cash flow boost for companies with a turnover of up to $5 billion by allowing them temporarily, up to June 2022, to offset tax losses against previous profits and tax paid in or after 2018-19 through a temporary loss carry-back. This is an exceptionally important decision for many Australian tourism and travel businesses. It will help them in further cash flow support and is a crucial addition to other targeted measures that our government has undertaken.</para>
<para>On World Tourism Day, we announced a $51 million regional tourism recovery initiative to support some of Australia's most internationally reliant tourism regions, including in Senator Stoker's home state of Queensland. We have also announced a $50 million Business Events Grants program to get events, conferences, trade shows and exhibitions up and running again across the country. Our $100 million investment, at a minimum, in specific tourism infrastructure across our tourism regions will help regions to get through the tough times and to build back better. And our $231 million record funding for Tourism Australia will help to motivate the domestic tourism market and, crucially, position us well when we can safely welcome back international visitors.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Stoker, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STOKER</name>
    <name.id>237920</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister advise how employers across the tourism industry have responded to the government's plan that was outlined in last night's budget?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The tourism industry has warmly welcomed a number of the measures across the budget. The Australian Tourism Export Council specifically welcomed the tax loss carry-back initiative, which it said will help to stem some of the flow of loss to businesses and support them through to the other side. The Australian Hotels Association said it will help hospitality businesses to expand and grow in the months ahead, and described it as a considered budget that will deliver comprehensive support. The Restaurant & Catering Industry Association acknowledged the work the government is doing to stimulate demand will help thousands of hospitality businesses to bring back young employees, and they describe the budget as a real recipe for recovery.</para>
<para>Equally, many individual businesses across the country have welcomed this, such as Matt Waller, the owner of Adventure Bay Charters in Port Lincoln, who, on ABC Radio, thanked the government for what we're doing and described the budget as an amazing opportunity for tourism businesses like his.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Stoker, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STOKER</name>
    <name.id>237920</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister advise how the government's plan for recovery and jobs in tourism interacts with the decisions of state governments, including in my home state of Queensland?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Our government has provided an unprecedented scale of support through JobKeeper, through small business payments and through the various other measures announced in last night's budget to support tourism businesses across the country.</para>
<para>It's crucial, though, that we see state governments step up as well. Indeed, I see the $51 million regional support package we announced, $20 million of which is headed to support internationally-dependent tourism regions in Senator Stoker's home state of Queensland. The Palaszczuk government announced a very similar initiative last Saturday, only it was worth just $5 million. We need to see governments do more across the states and territories in terms of their support for tourism industries. Equally, I saw Western Australia's tourism minister say the other day that there wouldn't be any rooms for visitors in Western Australia. Well, certainly, Tourism Accommodation Australia say that they have rooms ready to be occupied, and states and territories need to help to fill them. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</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 representing the Minister for Women, Senator Ruston. Frontline domestic violence workers have been clear that the additional money provided for domestic violence services in March does not go far enough. Can the minister confirm that all the Morrison government's budget has offered to women fleeing domestic violence is a re-announcement of what they already offered in March?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator McAllister, for your question. The answer is no.</para>
<para>This government has made an extraordinary commitment—an extraordinary commitment—to making sure that we support women who make the extraordinarily brave decision to escape domestic violence. As you would be well aware, Senator McAllister—or, you should be well aware—this government has a number of programs that are ongoing to support women who find themselves in the unfortunate position of requiring frontline family and domestic violence services. They include the $340 million that has been put towards the fourth action plan. Currently, we're in the process of consulting in relation to a further action plan, not only to make sure that we're dealing with the response which we have to undertake in response to women who find themselves in the situation where they're facing domestic violence but also to make sure that we're putting in place the things to make sure that we're preventing it into the future.</para>
<para>As you rightly pointed out—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order—Senator McAllister on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McAllister</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is a question of relevance, Mr President. I asked whether the minister would confirm whether all that was offered in the budget was a re-announcement. She has stepped through the re-announcements and done it again in this chamber, but I am really looking for a confirmation of whether there is anything new in the budget papers at all.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McAllister, you've restated that part of the question but I can't ask the minister to answer it in certain terms as long as the minister is directly relevant. You mentioned yourself that the minister had been stepping through various announcements, my point being that that's a matter for debate. The minister is being directly relevant. Senator Ruston.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Mr President. If the senator reads the budget papers she will see that there was actually a new announcement, which hadn't been announced before, in relation to the ongoing funding for Australia's national domestic violence hotline: 1800RESPECT. We believe that this is one of the most important resources for women who are escaping domestic violence, so that they can make sure that they have it on demand—</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Watt interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take that interjection from Senator Watt—I think it was Senator Watt who interjected. It is not a re-announcement; it is a new announcement in relation to ongoing funding for the 1800RESPECT hotline.</para>
<para>But, as I said, this is in addition to the $150 million that was made available just to address the issue of domestic violence during the COVID pandemic, as well as the $340 million of ongoing funding in relation to— <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 McAllister, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As early as March this year, domestic violence services and refuges across the country warned the government of an expected increase in domestic violence during the pandemic. Why then has the government failed to deliver support to these women in last night's budget?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As Senator McAllister should know, the responsibility for the delivery of frontline services rests with the states and territories. We as the federal government provide the funding to the states and territories and, in addition to the ongoing funding, we've provided $130 million to the states and territories to support them in their support of women who are escaping domestic violence. In addition to that, we ran the Help is Here campaign, which very successfully provided advice to women who found themselves in need of support to find out where services were available to them and providing counselling and other support to women who found themselves victims of domestic violence during the COVID pandemic.</para>
<para>Only last week, Senator McAllister, we made the announcements in relation to the allocation of the funding for 40 new facilities to provide safe places for women who are escaping domestic violence.</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>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Women over 55 are the fastest-growing group of homeless Australians, and yet last night's budget delivered nothing to address women's homelessness. What advice does the minister have for women over 55 who are facing homelessness and have been left behind by this budget?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This government takes homelessness very seriously. Equally, homelessness of older women is of particular concern. The federal government provides, in a normal year, $6 billion to support the states and territories in the delivery of homelessness and community housing projects to make sure that we are carrying our weight when it comes to supporting people who find themselves in need of housing. But this year, just for your information, because this is a demand-driven scheme, we will be providing $7.5 billion in support of social housing and homelessness initiatives to support the states and territories with the delivery of these frontline services to help all Australians but particularly to make sure that we are helping older women who find themselves in this particularly difficult situation as a result of the pandemic.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, is this a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm seeking leave to table budget paper No. 2, which demonstrates the 1800RESPECT number to which the minister referred was announced in February, and ask her if she would like to correct the record now or later.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cormann</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As Senator Wong knows, the budget was tabled yesterday by me. If she would like to table the budget again, I'm happy to give her leave.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Wong, you've asked for leave. There's a time for debate. You've sought leave to table something and make a point. I've allowed you to make the point. You've asked for leave, and the minister has granted leave.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm seeking leave to move a motion to require the minister to correct the record.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is a different matter.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If she wishes to do it after question time, we'll give her leave then.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is a different matter to the one you just raised. Is leave granted for that? Is leave granted to move a motion—if I'm correct, Senator Wong—to call the minister to make a statement to the chamber? Is that a correct characterisation? Senator Ruston.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In order to assist: Senator Wong, I don't believe that I did mislead the Senate. However, I will return to the Senate today and make any clarification or qualification should I have been incorrect.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck. With record funding for aged care outlined in last night's budget, can the minister outline the Morrison government's plan to provide more home-care packages to support senior Australians since the 2018-19 budget, including since the interim report of the royal commission?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Henderson for her question. Supporting senior Australians to live in their own homes has always been one of this government's key priorities. At every opportunity, we have provided additional home-care packages to help senior Australians with their household tasks, to get the equipment that they may need, and to access personal and clinical care as they age in their own homes.</para>
<para>Last night, the Morrison government announced $1.6 billion for an additional 23,000 packages, building on the $235.7 million for the 6,105 packages announced in July. This means that, over this financial year, around 30,000 new home-care packages will be available to senior Australians. This brings our overall investment to an additional $4.6 billion, for 73,105 packages, since the 2018-19 budget. And I recall that the opposition went to the last election with $387 billion worth of new taxes and not a single home-care package. So their crocodile tears fall on very, very deaf ears over here. By the end of this financial year, we will have tripled the number of home-care packages that were in place under Labor when we came to government in 2013. We will not stop until senior Australians have access to the package and care that they need.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Henderson, a supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Mr President. Senior Australians need a skilled and responsive aged-care workforce. How is the government developing and supporting the aged-care workforce now and into the future?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>More home-care places means more jobs, and our latest announcement of home-care places will generate almost 6,000 new jobs over the next 12 months. Last night, we announced an investment of $10.3 million to support the Aged Care Workforce Industry Council to lead the implementation of the workforce industry strategy. And last week, as part of our response to the royal commission's report, the government announced $10.8 million to expand the Australian College of Nursing scholarship program to establish an aged-care Transition to Practice Program and establish a skills development program for nurses and personal care workers in aged care. The funding will provide opportunities for the aged-care workforce to increase their skills and capabilities, support them to be well-equipped and ensure the care and protection of people in care.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Henderson, a final supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank you, Mr President. The royal commission recommended action to reduce the number of younger people with a disability going into aged care. What has the government done to date to address this important issue?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for the question, Senator Henderson. It is important that young people with complex needs get the right care and in the right setting. The government is proactively working to address the aged-care royal commission's finding that residential aged care is not the appropriate place for younger people except in exceptional circumstances. We are already making progress in this space. The number of people aged under 65 years in residential aged care has reduced from over 6,000 in 2017-18 to 4,860 as at 30 June this year. The government is providing another $10.6 million to continue to reduce the number of people aged under 65 in aged care or at risk of going into residential care, in conjunction with the plan to reduce the number of people in aged care— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></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>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>51</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Bushfires</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday, in answer to a question from Senator Watt, I said I would provide additional information to the chamber in relation to the Emergency Response Fund. The fund provides an additional and sustainable source of funding for emergency response and recovery from natural disasters in Australia that have significant or catastrophic impact. The Director-General Emergency Management Australia is responsible for providing the minister with advice on accessing the fund and the design of programs to be funded. When that advice is received, the responsible minister will consider the most appropriate use of the fund, taking into consideration the other significant amounts being spent on resilience-building activities, which include the $261 million joint state-Commonwealth funding over five years for risk reduction activities in line with the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework; $88.1 million for a new world-class disaster resilience research centre; $25.9 million, annually indexed and ongoing, for the National Aerial Firefighting Centre; and $8 million towards the development of a public safety mobile broadband capability. For recovery, funding of up to $150 million per year may be accessed if existing recovery programs are insufficient. For resilience and preparedness or to reduce the risk of future disasters, funding of up to $50 million per year is also available.</para>
<para>The government committed an initial $2 billion for the National Bushfire Recovery Fund to coordinate the national response to rebuild communities and livelihoods after the devastating 2019-20 'black summer' bushfires. That amount far exceeds what was available from the Emergency Response Fund in any given year, and for that reason the fund has not been accessed for recovery. A formal decision of the government is required to access the Emergency Response Fund. Access to these funds is subject to arrangements detailed in the ERF guidelines tabled in the Senate earlier this year.</para>
<para>Public infrastructure such as toilets is covered under the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements. Privately owned toilets are not covered under the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements, but support may be offered through grants to small business and primary producers and through other mechanisms. I cannot provide any more specific advice without the details of the toilets you were referring to. The government is always willing to work with members of the opposition to support those recovering from natural disasters. I'm sure victims would prefer the opposition to work collaboratively with the government as well.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the statement.</para></quote>
<para>I thank the minister for returning to the chamber and answering this question that I asked yesterday. I must admit I was disappointed with her answer yesterday (a) because she didn't know the answer and (b) because she dismissed this Emergency Response Fund as 'some fund'. That 'some fund' actually matters very deeply to bushfire victims and to people who are threatened by natural disasters right across our country. It appears from all the weather forecasts that we are currently receiving that the greatest threat we face from natural disasters this summer is in the form of cyclones and floods, particularly in the northern part of our country, rather than bushfires. But, whatever funds the minister wants to refer to now as being available for disaster purposes, the fact remains that the government is sitting on a $4 billion Emergency Response Fund which was set up to allocate $200 million per year for disaster recovery and mitigation work, and not a single cent has been spent to date from that Emergency Response Fund.</para>
<para>We voted with the government last October to establish the Emergency Response Fund. This was something that the government announced in last year's budget, last April, which was 18 months ago. Eighteen months ago the government announced an Emergency Response Fund, a $4 billion fund which would provide $200 million a year for disaster recovery and mitigation efforts. Here we are here, 18 months on, and not a single cent has been spent.</para>
<para>It's not as if there aren't projects that this money could be used for. We referred to one yesterday in question time. In Bega, one of the towns badly affected by the bushfires last year, there is a community group that is currently crowdfunding to obtain funds to build new toilet facilities at their evacuation centre. You have to go upstairs to access the toilet facilities that they have in place at the moment and that they had to use in the last bushfire season, which means that elderly people and disabled people can't actually use these toilets when they're in an evacuation centre. It's completely unacceptable. These people are, of course, always threatened by the risk of bushfire. They live in an area which is at high risk. What is to say that we won't get more bushfires there this year and that elderly or disabled people will not be able to access toilets when they go to an evacuation centre?</para>
<para>What is to say, in North Queensland or the Northern Territory or anywhere else in northern Australia this summer, when we get hit by a cyclone, as appears inevitable, that there are no cyclone shelters that could have been built using these funds, or there aren't flood levees that could have been built using these funds? Here we are, 18 months on from this Emergency Response Fund being announced by the government in last year's budget, without a single cent having been spent. I really hope we don't get to this summer witnessing cyclones, witnessing floods and witnessing bushfires and wish that we had used the opportunity to use these funds, but that opportunity had been blown. We saw what happened last year when this government failed to prepare for the bushfires. They were warned repeatedly by climatologists, by ex fire chiefs, by the opposition and by all sorts of people that we faced intense bushfire risk. Yet, they didn't prepare. They didn't get the aerial firefighting in place that was required, they didn't take all sorts of other steps that were required and could have been taken, which would have avoided the tragic losses that we saw in last year's bushfires.</para>
<para>Now, here we are 18 months on from this fund being announced with not a single cent having been spent from that fund. We are now in bushfire season in northern parts of the country. There are bushfires happening right now in my home state of Queensland, as far north as Cooktown. So we are in bushfire season already, and we're probably a couple of months away from cyclones and floods. We've got this $4 billion fund that is sitting there completely unused, and there are projects that communities are using crowdfunding to build. This government have got to do better. They have got to be better prepared than they were last year for the disaster season that lies ahead. They have funds at their disposal. They should use them and they should stop community groups having to turn to crowdfunding to provide basic infrastructure to keep them safe.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>52</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CAROL BROWN</name>
    <name.id>F49</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) and the Minister for Families and Social Services (Senator Ruston) to questions without notice asked today.</para></quote>
<para>In question time today the responses that we received from these ministers confirmed what we already have come to know about this budget: it's a budget that leaves millions of Australians behind—Australians who, through no fault of their own, have lost their job or are out of work during the deepest and darkest recession we've faced in a lifetime.</para>
<para>In particular, this budget leaves behind Australian women. Women workers have been hit particularly hard by this recession, yet where are the measures put forward to get women back into work? Where is the plan for jobs in industries dominated by women—industries that we know have been hit the hardest by the Morrison recession? The government has put forward nothing—no new initiatives and no policies to deal with the gender pay gap or to tackle the retirement income gap. There is nothing in this budget to rectify the imbalance in women's super and nothing for domestic or family violence services—not one extra dollar for frontline services.</para>
<para>This is the government's eighth budget and their eighth budget deficit. Despite their endless rhetoric of the past decade, that mob over there have never been able to balance the budget. They haven't paid down any debt. In fact, they're clocking up a trillion dollars of debt—a complete repudiation of the decade of nonsense they have pursued as they bleated about debt and deficit. They are the masters of debt and deficit; they own every cent of it. Despite all of the spending, the budget still doesn't do anything near enough to creating jobs. It fails to build this nation, it fails to build our future and it fails to strengthen our nation by spreading equality and opportunity.</para>
<para>Despite what those opposite want the Australian people to believe, this budget quite clearly leaves far too many Australians left out and left behind. We know the government expects a further 160,000 Australians to lose their jobs before Christmas. We know that unemployment is forecast to be far too high for too long. This includes 928,000 Australians over the age of 35 currently on JobSeeker. These people are actively searching for work, and yet this government has chosen to exclude them from being able to access hiring subsidies. The government has chosen quite deliberately to sentence many of these Australians to long-term unemployment and all the terrible consequences we know that brings. To rub salt into the wound, they want to return JobSeeker to just $40 a day. How cruel, how heartless, how economically reckless. Australians need and deserve much better. Over a trillion dollars of debt, a track record of no delivery and no plan for the future—that's what this budget is. That's what this budget is.</para>
<para>This budget has quite clearly overlooked my state of Tasmania, and in particular the north and north-west of Tasmania. In fact, it looks like northern Tasmania has been left off the map. There is nothing in this budget to bust traffic congestion in Launceston, no progress on the Launceston eastern bypass, no progress on the Sideling and a pitiful underfunding of much-needed works on the long-neglected West Tamar Highway. There's nothing for the east coast, nothing for the Tasman Highway from Launceston to Sorell and nothing for the Arthur Highway. Once again, there's nothing in the budget for traffic congestion in Hobart. There is nothing to gear-up Hobart Airport to receive international flights despite the rhetoric from the assistant minister— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CANAVAN</name>
    <name.id>245212</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I feel a little bit sorry for the Labor Party at the moment. It may be my Catholic guilt coming in here, but I feel a little sorry for them, because they are struggling here. They're struggling to mount a logical and coherent rebuttal or opposition, if you like, to last night's budget. I know it's the job of the opposition to oppose, so I know they naturally feel this morning that, whatever was announced last night, they are duty-bound to take an opposition viewpoint. But it's pretty hard, as I think we've just seen. It's pretty difficult. This is a moment when I think Australians want to see us come together and support the country and the nation in its recovery from what has been probably a once-in-a-century upheaval to the global economy. It would be, I think, a little more productive and constructive if the Labor Party came into this place and put forward some productive and constructive ideas about how we can recover from what has been the worst recession in our nation's history rather than simply oppose everything that has been put forward.</para>
<para>As I said, there are errors right through the Labor Party's response to the budget today. The very starting point of their response is clearly incorrect. We've seen the Labor Party try to get some kind of traction out of this term 'the Morrison recession'. For a political slogan to work, it has to have some kernel of truth, some basis in fact. Does anyone think that the recession that we are experiencing right now is a result, directly, of the actions of this government? That is absolutely absurd. When every country in the world effectively—certainly in the Western world—has faced record-breaking reductions in economic output, it is not something that is alone to the Australian government. In fact, if you were to put up us against each other, the economic impact here has been much, much lower. We have the fortunate status of being an island and being able to lock up our borders—we accept that—but the economic reduction in output here has been about seven per cent, whereas that of our friends across the ditch has been well over 10 per cent, that of the UK has been 20 per cent and that of most countries in Europe has been well into double digits. So it's not something that's been directly caused by this government.</para>
<para>There are errors in the Labor Party response. I heard Senator Brown say that there's no new money for women or domestic violence. That's absolutely incorrect. I don't have time now to go through all of the initiatives for women in this budget, but, to home in on the point about domestic violence, there is money put forward in this budget to protect against domestic violence. There is more funding for the Help is Here advertising campaign, especially over Christmas this year, when we know people will face challenges; $4.8 million to give continued effect to the ban on direct cross-examinations; and $1.8 million towards criminalising breaches of Family Court orders. There's also $10.2 million for the Family and Federal Circuit courts to ensure the safety of vulnerable litigants and to manage the sharp increase in urgent applications we've seen through COVID. Those measures build on the $150 million the government has already put aside across the past two years to support Australians experiencing domestic, family and sexual violence from the fallout from COVID-19. Millions of dollars has been put aside by the government during this pandemic to help those experiencing domestic violence, and more funding was provided last night as well.</para>
<para>There's a logical incoherence to the Labor Party's response. They are on the one hand criticising the government for increasing debt, which has been the necessary consequence of the economic fallout, and, on the other hand, saying JobKeeper and JobSeeker—JobSeeker particularly, as we just heard from Senator Brown—have to stay higher for longer than they are. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to spend more, you're going to increase debt. The desperate thing now is to get Australians back to work. That's why we're offering hiring incentives for apprentices and other workers. We have to get people back to work. We cannot keep paying people to sit on the couch right now, especially when many businesses I go to are desperate for workers. I was at a citrus farm in Emerald last week. They are ripping up trees right now because they cannot find workers. We've got to get people back to work so we can stop the economic destruction of our country.</para>
<para>Finally, I don't want to provide advice to the Labor Party, but, as I said earlier, it would be much better and more constructive if we worked together now to recover this nation, just as last night's budget is doing.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is pretty remarkable to get a lesson in scare campaigns from Senator Canavan. He is the master of those, so for him to come into this chamber and deliver a lesson to us on scare campaigns is completely unbelievable. I certainly know that the Productivity Commission must hang their heads in shame when they think about his former tenure there.</para>
<para>It is pretty remarkable to hear these conservative senators on the other side come in here and defend the trillion-dollar debt that this government has got itself into. It is pretty remarkable that they could plunge us into this trillion-dollar debt and leave so many people suffering as a result of the long-term damage of the Morrison recession that we are dealing with. It is important to remember that the economy was already pretty weak before we found ourselves dealing with the COVID recession that the Morrison government has overseen.</para>
<para>I'll get to the specifics of what we went through in question time today, because the questions we put to the government and the issues we highlighted are really important. I want to highlight also the lack of imagination and vision in the budget that was delivered last night. This is a government so small in vision that, as we confront this challenge with an economy that was already weak, it offers little hope about what a better future looks like. For those Australians who are doing it tough and have suffered as a consequence of COVID, the government last night offered nothing to look forward to over the next 18 months to two years as, hopefully, Australia and the world recover. There's no expectation from Australians that we can get through this stronger. It's almost as if the government said to those people: 'We're going to continue to bottom along here. We'll hit the bottom of the ocean, and then one day, hopefully, we'll emerge from this.' But it isn't going to be so that people can look forward to something better or that people are going to have the opportunity to retrain or get into different forms of work. It is going to be a very bleak future for those people who have been impacted.</para>
<para>That is where we directed our questions in question time today. We focused on the trillion-dollar debt that leaves many Australians behind. All the announcements, all the spending and they're still expecting to add 160,000 people to the jobless queue by Christmas. If you listen to the rhetoric from those opposite and what they've been announcing in recent times, it is still going to get harder for a lot of people between now and Christmas, which is only a few months away. They're racking up a trillion dollars in debt, but unemployment is going to be too high for too long, and many Australian families will suffer as a result.</para>
<para>We put a question by Senator Wong to the government on those people over 35 who are looking for work—all 928,000 of them. I know that there are so many of them in regional Queensland. I think of places like Hervey Bay and Maryborough, which have already had high unemployment over the last couple of years. A number of people in those areas will be impacted by this. They are going to be excluded by the hiring incentives. That will have a very significant impact in regional Queensland and make it much harder for these regional economies to recover, because of decisions by the government. They offer no delivery. We know that. They offer no plan for the future for these people to have something to look forward to, and the decisions taken by this government in the budget mean that the recession will last longer, will be deeper and more people will be impacted than is necessary.</para>
<para>They offer no plan to lift the permanent rate of JobSeeker from $40 a day. Imagine the anxiety from those people out there who are on this rate now trying to plan for what their future looks like. The government offered them nothing last night. We know about the plague of insecure work and the damage that it has done, let alone the role it's played in the outbreaks in Victoria, and the government offered nothing to tackle insecure work. The government did nothing to improve access to child care, which will be so important for so many families and parents who want to get back into the workforce; and nothing to tackle something that the Labor Party has been campaigning on strongly now for months, which is social housing. It was such a great opportunity to provide some long-term vision and some long-term good out of this challenge. They could have provided employment for people and given them something to look forward to—an opportunity to get into a secure house—and the government, again, provided nothing for them. They give nothing to Australians that will give them any confidence that their future is going to be better once Australia emerges from this crisis. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SESELJA</name>
    <name.id>HZE</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I, like Senator Canavan, am Catholic, but I don't share any of his Catholic guilt when I look across at the squirming of some of our Labor senators, whether it's Senator Chisholm or Senator Brown, as they seek to defend the absurd and ludicrous and delusional lines that are being fed to them by the Leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese, and the Shadow Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, who had quite the cracking performance on <inline font-style="italic">Insiders</inline>, it must be said, which I'll come to. They've been fed these lines, and the lines are effectively this—and we heard both of them from the two Labor senators' contributions. The first line is that we're in a recession and it's all the government's fault and there isn't this global crisis that's occurring that's seen an economic hit that is 45 times the size of the global financial crisis. The first part of their delusional message which they're being asked to trot out is: 'Nothing to see here. There's no crisis. This is the Morrison recession.' This is what Jim Chalmers was saying on <inline font-style="italic">Insiders</inline>on the weekend,but I'll come back to that.</para>
<para>They also talk about debt. They want to talk about debt because (1) they want people to pretend there's nothing going on here and there's no reason why the government has been forced into this position, and (2) they also have this absurd double standard where they come in here and they tell us we're not spending enough on JobSeeker, we're not spending enough on JobKeeper, on all of these programs they want us to spend more on, yet they then complain about the debt. You can't have it both ways. David Speers, to his credit, put this to the Shadow Treasurer on Sunday. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… here, I mean you have been critical about too much debt being racked up and yet at the same time you want the government to spend more on JobKeeper as you've pointed out, JobSeeker - aged care, social housing, universities, child care. Can you just clear up, do you want the government to spend more or less?</para></quote>
<para>That's a very good question for the Labor Party as they flail around looking for a rationale for their being, as they flail around looking for a critique of this budget.</para>
<para>Those opposite can't pretend we don't have this global crisis, which is 45 times the economic hit of the global financial crisis. They can't pretend we haven't seen this downturn right around the world. The fact is that, relatively speaking, as difficult as it has been, Australia has done much better than most. That's something we can be proud of, whilst all the while saying these are tough times and they take extraordinary measures to respond to them. Those opposite can't come in here and say 'spend more, spend more, spend more' and then complain about the fact there is more debt. That's going to happen, unless Labor's plan is to rapidly ramp up taxes, as they've done in the past and as they took to the last election. That was the plan. Jim Chalmers was on <inline font-style="italic">Insiders</inline> and again failed to distance himself from the negative gearing policy and the franking credits policy, and that still remains Labor's policy. Is that the way those opposite are going to lower debt? Will it be by taxing retirees? Will it be by taxing homeowners and renters, as they took to the last election, or are they going to get real and realise we're dealing with a significant crisis?</para>
<para>In this budget, the government has sought to respond to the circumstances that we find ourselves in, with a focus on getting Australians back into jobs. I, for one, am very proud and I know my constituents are very happy about the tax cuts coming their way: for average-income earners, around $2,500 per person and around $5,000 per household. Five thousand dollars per household is $100 per week. Some people said it won't all be spent. It may not all be spent, but a significant amount of it will be spent. Some of it will be saved, and that will support households as well, as they make their decisions going forward—as they make the decision to pay off their mortgage.</para>
<para>I'm really proud the government has been able to deliver local infrastructure projects, and I point here in the ACT to our massive injection to expand the Tuggeranong Parkway, the Molonglo River bridge and the Monaro Highway. These are important projects, and we're seeing them right around the country delivered by this government. When it comes to this budget, we are absolutely, with a laser-like focus, focused on getting young people back into work. That's why giving credit to employers who hire young people is so critical. We don't want to see a generation lost, as we saw under Labor's recession in the early nineties. We're going to continue to do this job. This is a budget that is very, very important— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It must be so deflating to come in here one day after the budget, having to give a five-minute speech about what your government is delivering and actually only being able to deliver 60 seconds of things that the government is doing to get us out of the worst economic recession in a century. I know Jim Chalmers, the shadow Treasurer, came to Cairns last week and heard firsthand about how this economic crisis is impacting Cairns and the Far North Queensland region. That was a really important visit, because we know this government has left Far North Queensland behind. This budget, delivered yesterday, includes no new projects for Cairns and no extra funding for social housing in Far North Queensland. It is one of the areas hit first and worst by this economic recession, and yet not a single project in Cairns was announced. There were just more re-announcements and more press releases—re-announced and redrafted—but not a single project for Cairns. That is at the same time that the government is ripping $29 million per fortnight out of the local economy in Far North Queensland by cutting JobKeeper.</para>
<para>What the budget failed to do yesterday is replace that funding and replace those jobs. We know jobs will be lost in Cairns and in other places in Far North Queensland because of this economic recession. The task for the government last night was to explain to people living in regional Queensland how they were going to replace JobKeeper funding with jobs, and they failed to do that—not a single project for Cairns. Mackay and the Whitsundays missed out as well. They missed out on the $62.8 million local jobs task force which covers Cairns and Townsville. The Whitsundays is one of the areas hardest hit by the economic crisis, yet it's been completely left out of the local jobs task force. The federal government, the Morrison government, is leaving regional Queensland behind during this economic recession.</para>
<para>But they're not the only people the government decided to leave behind last night. When it comes to the Women's Economic Security Package, there's very little new funding for women and no funding certainty for the things that we really need to see in the future to secure women's economic certainty. There's no new funding for child care, to bring down the cost of living, and no plan or strategy for how we're going to improve childcare costs over the short term and the long term as well. There was a reannouncement of an announcement on domestic and family violence—funding that had already been announced was announced again. Do they think women won't notice, that we don't know how to read the budget papers and won't figure out that this is something they announced in March? There are zero dollars of new funding under that package. Women over 35 will miss out on the wage subsidy scheme, so older women will also miss out through this budget. And on paid parental leave changes that will make sure women who lose their job will still be eligible for PPL—which the government actually did include in the budget last night—they want a pat on the back for that measure. It is the least that they could do for women who have lost their job. I say to those opposite: we know that more women have lost their jobs during this economic crisis, and yet you want a pat on the back because women who are pregnant now are eligible for PPL? That is the least that you could do.</para>
<para>Of the top three things you've listed under the economic recovery plan for women—I've got it here—the first is the JobKeeper payment. Well, you've cut that and you're going to cut it again, so there goes that idea. Then you've got the JobMaker hiring credit. Well, that doesn't include women over 35, so we'll just forget about them. The next thing is tax relief. Okay, but everyone's getting that. That's not really just for women, is it? The economic response to women losing their jobs is for you— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the response given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Waters today relating to the budget.</para></quote>
<para>I asked the Minister for Finance about facets of the budget. I asked why millionaires are going to do better out of this government's budget than the million unemployed. I asked about their cooked gas-led recovery and the fact that some of their donors are now getting taxpayer handouts in this budget, yet there is a pittance for renewable energy. And then I asked why there is not a single cent for frontline domestic violence services in this, of all years, when we have seen what were already epidemic rates of domestic violence further increase. Unfortunately, Minister Cormann, true to form, rejected the premise of the question. I don't know why the government think that line is a really good one for them, because frankly it's just a national eye-roll every time they trot it out.</para>
<para>They rejected the premise that millionaires will do better out of these tax cuts than ordinary Australians. Most ordinary Australians, who earn less than $90,000 a year, got a one-off injection through the low- and middle-income tax offset, which expires after one year. Those tax cuts that will disproportionately benefit the already well-off—and twice as many men as women, I might add—and will last forever, but the low- and middle-income tax offset lasts just one year. It's a temporary boost. They want to try and claim some kind of equity here. Well, they're not fooling anybody.</para>
<para>Now to the gas-led recovery. This flies in the face of climate science and it flies in the face of economics. I think the minister trotted out that he thought more gas would somehow stimulate manufacturing, when we know that the sky-high gas prices, thanks to all the gas we've been exporting as we cook the climate, have made it harder for onshore manufacturing. So I genuinely don't understand how he can possibly have a different interpretation.</para>
<para>What was announced last night is public money to open up five new gas basins, two of which are in Queensland: the Galilee Basin and the North Bowen. There's some pretty good-quality farmland in those areas, and this government wants to use your money to give big multinational gas corporations a hand, a tax break, to rip out that fossil fuel in a way that will endanger the groundwater, wreck the on-surface operations of anyone actually using that land—they probably don't care whether they have traditional owner consent or not—and leak tonnes and tonnes of methane to the atmosphere. This is the so-called gas-led recovery.</para>
<para>Instead, we could have seen genuine investment in clean renewable energy that creates more jobs. This government has gone into the biggest debt ever, but it's giving this money to millionaires, big corporates and big polluters. You had a chance to fix the future and bring us back with a green-job-led recovery where we invest in climate action and services—hospitals, schools and other things that people rely on and, frankly, deserve. But no. It's just yet more money for big corporates and for millionaires—$99 billion in tax cuts and corporate subsidies. What an absolute joke! I guess that's why this cosy relationship between the donors and the politicians continues to astound and aggravate every single ordinary Australian I speak to about it.</para>
<para>The last aspect I asked about was why women are such an afterthought for this government. We know they don't have many women on their cabinet. We know they don't have a women's budget impact statement. They don't have a gender lens. Tony Abbott got rid of that in 2014, and they've consistently refused to bring it back. Last night they released a two-page women's economic statement with the budget, and then a few hours later they hastily released a slightly longer and very glossy paper that, frankly, didn't say much more and that constituted 0.035 per cent of the budget spend. I'm afraid we are more than 50 per cent of the population, folks. We deserve more than 0.035 per cent of the budget. As I said before, not a single cent of that pitifully small amount of money was for frontline domestic violence services. They're trying to rely on some earlier announcements which were welcome but very, very small. The women's safety sector asked for $12 billion over 12 years. They want $1 billion a year to keep women and children safe. What did they get? A big fat zero. I don't know what more we have to do to get this government to keep women and children safe and to do the right thing. How many more women are going to have to die for us to get proper funding?</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>57</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS</name>
    <name.id>e4t</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I give notice of my intention at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting to withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1 and 2 standing in my name for nine sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the ASIC Corporations (Foreign Financial Services Providers—Foreign AFS Licensees) Instrument 2020/198 and the ASIC Corporations (Foreign Financial Services Providers—Funds Management Financial Services) Instrument 2020/199.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONDOLENCES</title>
        <page.no>60</page.no>
        <type>CONDOLENCES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fahey, Hon. John Joseph, AC</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 12 September of the Hon. John Joseph Fahey AC, a former minister and member of the House of Representatives for the division of Macarthur, New South Wales, from 1996 to 2001, and a former Premier of the state of New South Wales.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CORMANN</name>
    <name.id>HDA</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate records its deep sorrow at the death, on 12 September 2020, of the Honourable John Joseph Fahey AC, former Minister for Finance and Administration and former Member for Macarthur, places on record its gratitude for his service to the Parliament and the nation, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.</para></quote>
<para>Humble, courageous, principled, honourable, selfless, a good bloke, an optimist, a man of integrity—those are just some of the words that have been used to describe John Fahey since his sad passing earlier, in September. He was all of that and more: a man whose common decency shone through, making him someone admired and liked on both sides of politics. John leaves behind a profound legacy. He gave almost two decades of dedicated public service to the people of Australia, first as a member of the New South Wales state parliament, where he was a minister and then Premier of New South Wales. He then came to Canberra, where he served as Australia's Minister for Finance. As Premier, he helped to deliver major reforms for New South Wales and he helped to secure the 2000 Sydney Olympics. Then, in the federal parliament, as Minister for Finance, he helped to repair Australia's finances in the mid to late 1990s.</para>
<para>John was born on 10 January 1945 in Wellington, New Zealand, to Irish immigrants, Stephen and Annie Fahey, who left Ireland in the late 1930s to create a better life for themselves and their children—or the children that they hoped to have at that point. At age 10, John's family emigrated to Australia and settled in Picton, New South Wales. He completed his high school education at Chevalier College in Bowral and then went on to complete a Diploma of Law at The University of Sydney. At 23, John married Colleen McGurren and they had three children: Melanie, Matthew and Tiffany.</para>
<para>John was an avid lover of sport and was very passionate about rugby league. He was a Canterbury-Bankstown man through and through, who played reserve grade for the Bulldogs and held a number of administrative positions at the grassroots level. Upon graduating from university, John practised as a solicitor and eventually as a senior partner in his own firm. His first exposure to politics was during the 1972 federal election, where John found himself a supporter of the member for Macarthur, Jeff Bates, who was running as an Independent.</para>
<para>John came from a family of strong Labor supporters. His father and sister even handed out Labor how-to-vote cards at that 1972 federal election. But it was what he referred to as the 'extravagances' of the Whitlam government, because of those, that he decided to jump off the fence and join the Liberal Party. In his first speech to the federal parliament, John attributed his parents' teachings and his upbringing as to why he chose to join the Liberal Party. I'm quoting from his first speech now:</para>
<quote><para class="block">They also taught me to think for myself and that is why I am a member of the Liberal Party. I have never voted Labor, as some scribes have written. The Liberal Party stands for all Australians, not any vested interest group such as the unions, and it supports reward for effort. Nothing is more Australian.</para></quote>
<para>Almost a decade later, John decided to run in the 1984 New South Wales state election, contesting and winning the seat of Camden. Four years later he ran as the Liberal candidate for the newly created seat of Southern Highlands, winning it in the same year that Nick Greiner led the New South Wales Liberals back into power. Under Nick Greiner as Premier, John served as Minister for Industrial Relations and later as Minister for Further Education, Training and Employment. However, four years later Greiner would step down as Premier and John was elected as the new New South Wales party leader. John was loyal to Greiner until the end, and it is a measure of his character that he would go on to describe the day Greiner resigned and he became Premier as the saddest day of his life.</para>
<para>Although his time as Premier was short lived, he led a major overhaul of the industrial relations system, introduced the Disability Services Act, the New South Wales Seniors Card and appointed the state's first Minister for the Status of Women. I should pause here to say that Senator Marise Payne, who had a very close and warm relationship with John Fahey, and who is overseas on official ministerial business, has asked me to mention her deep regard and association with the remarks that I'm making on behalf of the government.</para>
<para>John played a key role in Sydney's successful bid to host the 2000 Olympic Games, a huge victory for the state and our nation. John had the privilege of being in Monaco in September 1993, when Sydney was announced as the winning bid by the International Olympic Committee president at the time, Juan Antonio Samaranch. The vision of him leaping to his feet and joyously embracing the bid boss Rod McGeoch is one of the famous moments in our nation's history and one John will always be remembered for.</para>
<para>John will also be remembered for his brave actions on Australia Day 1994, when he helped tackle a student who fired two rounds from a starting pistol in the direction of Prince Charles, who was about to deliver a speech. Vision of the then Premier jumping to the defence of the visiting Prince of Wales was shown all around the world. He, like others there that day, had no idea if a real gun was involved when he made the instant decision to act. It was pointed out at the time that some of his old rugby league skills had been on display. I believe the biggest thing on display that day was his character and his courage. A year later, the Fahey government would lose the 1995 state election despite winning 51.2 per cent of the two-party preferred statewide vote.</para>
<para>While this was a hard time for the party, John was looking ahead, and in 1996 he resigned from the New South Wales parliament to contest the federal election as the Liberal candidate for Macarthur. John was successful, winning the seat from Labor, as were the Liberals, with John Howard leading the party to victory. He was appointed as Minister for Finance in the first Howard ministry, a position he would hold until his retirement in 2001. At John's state funeral last month, Mr Howard said he had no hesitation in appointing John Minister for Finance. As Mr Howard said, 'How could you pass over somebody who had been the premier of the largest state in the Commonwealth for a senior portfolio?' And John relished the task. Mr Howard said that, as finance minister, John fixed a steady gaze on any minister that had big spending pretensions.</para>
<para>John is Australia's third-longest-serving finance minister and in that role accomplished a number of significant reforms and achievements in that portfolio. He initiated and pursued a number of asset sales, big and small, including the initial partial sale of Telstra and the sale of Sydney and Canberra airports. Considered the greatest sale in Australian history, the sale of the first third of Telstra raised $14 billion. John also presided over the sale of the second third of Telstra, which raised over $6 billion. Australians benefited tremendously from the improved services those sales facilitated and from the proceeds of those sales, which were reinvested for future generations.</para>
<para>In 2000, John played an important role in the federal government's acquisition of the remaining 51.55 per cent equity in the Australian Submarine Corporation. Today the ASC plays a crucial role as part of our naval shipbuilding, repair and maintenance industry. ASC's turnaround in performance in relation to submarine sustainment demonstrates the significant progress this business has made in both experience and capability. In partnership with Peter Costello as Treasurer, they introduced the Charter of Budget Honesty, a key recommendation that arose from the 1996 National Commission of Audit. The charter introduced a number of innovations to fiscal reporting and strategy, creating more transparency in the Commonwealth budget process.</para>
<para>They also delivered the first accrual based budget in May 1999, which represented a major development in public sector financial management and reporting. The adoption of accrual reporting facilitated better planning and decision-making as well as providing a means with which to assess financial resilience.</para>
<para>One of the things John was most proud of during his time as Minister for Finance was the fiscal discipline of the Howard government. Fahey and Costello, a formidable team, set out to reset and rebuild the federal budget, setting the foundations for what would be a run of four consecutive budget surpluses. The forward trajectory of the budget settings secured under his stewardship as Minister for Finance ultimately led to paying off all government net debt and building a positive net asset position for the Commonwealth within five years. Budget repair is never easy, and John was central to returning sound, disciplined economic and fiscal management to Australia for the benefit of all Australians.</para>
<para>In announcing his retirement, John said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The simple fact of the matter is that the fiscal responsibility of recent times has without the slightest doubt given Australia a far better future than it could ever have hoped to have had.</para></quote>
<para>He was correct. When the Howard government left office in 2007, the strong fiscal management undertaken by John and his successor in the portfolio, our good friend and valued former colleague Nick Minchin, stood Australia in very good stead when it faced the global economic headwinds in the context of the global financial crisis.</para>
<para>In 2001, after battling ill health, John made the decision to retire from politics. His battle with lung cancer and near miss with death didn't halt his work ethic and his commitment to the people of Australia. During his valedictory speech he acknowledged that there were still many things that he wanted to do. He wanted to continue giving to the community and he intended to continue working. He reflected that few have the opportunity to choose when they leave parliament. More often than not, it is decided by the public or our own parties. He was lucky to have that choice. Upon his retirement from political life, he served as chairman of the Bradman Foundation, director of the Royal Flying Doctor Service, chairman of the Rugby League Development Board, chancellor of the Australian Catholic University and, fittingly, given his history, chairman of the Sydney Olympic Park Authority and chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency.</para>
<para>John was a devout Catholic and a man of strong faith. He originally wanted to be a bishop, but a year at a seminary in Springwood in his youth was enough to persuade him that priesthood was perhaps not his future—a decision that many of us are grateful he made. In late 2019 John was awarded the Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Gregory the Great for his contribution to the Catholic Church.</para>
<para>Since the news of his passing, tributes have flooded in for John and his family. Many have reflected on his life and on his achievements. He was a mentor to many, including many of my colleagues. On assuming responsibilities for the Finance portfolio back in 2013 I was very grateful to John for his generous and wise counsel. He was a kind and generous individual. He gave more than he received. He was authentic and someone you could always rely on. In his final speech to parliament, he made sure to thank everyone in this place from his personal staff and colleagues to the House attendants, caterers and gardeners, who he thanked for creating a place of joy and comfort. That summed up the kind of man John was.</para>
<para>As the Prime Minister has stated, John was not your typical Liberal: a Catholic, a rugby league player and a smoker from south-west Sydney. But the Liberal Party is a broad church—something we pride ourselves on. And John broadened our outlook and made our party all the better for it. To John's wife, Colleen; his surviving children, Melanie and Matthew; and his grandchildren, Amber and Campbell: on behalf of the Australian government and the Senate, I offer our deepest condolences.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KENEALLY</name>
    <name.id>LNW</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise on behalf of the opposition to acknowledge the passing of former New South Wales Premier and federal finance minister John Joseph Fahey. He passed away on 12 September at the age of 75. John Fahey served his state and his country. He served this parliament and the Parliament of New South Wales. Like many good people who have graced this place, John's life started across the ditch. He was born in Wellington, New Zealand, on 10 January 1945, before migrating to Picton, New South Wales, in 1956. He married his wife, Colleen Maree McGurren, in 1968. They had two daughters and one son. Importantly, John became an Australian citizen in 1973.</para>
<para>If public life hadn't ended up calling John's name, he had the beginnings of another career: in rugby league. It was an Irish Catholic nun, of all people, who introduced John to rugby league. Don't worry; John himself described that situation as bizarre. When he was 11, John was coached by Sister Kevin at St Anthony's convent in Picton. She was in charge of selecting the team to play against St Paul's convent, Camden. In 2010, John reflected: 'Here was an Irish nun in full religious habit, trying to teach a group of boys the fundamentals of league, such as playing the ball and six-man scrums, on the concrete playground between the church and the school. It was a blessed relief when one of the team's fathers agreed to take over as coach.'</para>
<para>He reverted to rugby union—the national religion of his native New Zealand— at the age of 13, during his five years boarding at Chevalier College at Bowral. Despite this dalliance with rugby union, he said he learned more about league than union at this time thanks to his portable radio. The winter months at home from boarding school were spent with 'nothing but football talk in the house and drying football gear hanging on the verandas.' I think John knew in his early years the toll that football would take on his body. He said: 'Football grounds were not watered as they are today. Most grounds had a concrete cricket pitch with a shallow covering of soil that became rock hard. To keep the skin on our knees we coated them with petroleum jelly. We would slip foam pads into the sides of our shorts to protect our hips. Is it any wonder my generation turned orthopaedic surgeons into wealthy men?'</para>
<para>After years of playing junior league, in 1964 John played senior rugby league as a centre with the Camden Rams in the New South Wales country rugby league Group 6, first grade competition. He had just begun work as a law clerk in Bankstown for the wage of six pounds a week, but winning a game of footy paid five pounds. The next year he was graded for Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs and played 37 lower-grade matches.</para>
<para>It took a failed law exam in 1966 for John to realise he was likely to be a lawyer for longer than a footballer. Although he might have stopped playing league, it didn't stop his love or passion for the game. He still coached, and became the joint patron of the Bulldogs from 1993 until his passing.</para>
<para>As Premier, John cancelled the Newcastle Knights's $3 million debt over the development of their stadium. As he pointed out, Parramatta and the eastern suburbs got their stadiums for nothing; why did Newcastle have to pay for theirs? I might add John wasn't the last premier of New South Wales to provide funding for a New South Wales rugby league team. As Premier, and much to the dismay of his Liberal colleagues at the time, he helped develop WIN Stadium in the Labor stronghold of Wollongong before helping to fund Gosford stadium once he became federal Minister for Finance. John's justification was simple. He said, 'Communities revolve around common interests and pride in their achievements. They need to believe they are as good as any other part of our country. Communities, not governments of any particular persuasion, make Australia the great nation that it is.'</para>
<para>John was first elected in 1984. He became the New South Wales Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment in 1988 and Premier in 1992, taking over from Nick Greiner. His achievements include: the introduction of the Disability Services Act, the New South Wales Seniors Card and appointing the first New South Wales Minister for the Status of Women. John managed the devastating 1993-94 bushfire season, which saw Sydney surrounded and over 70,000 hectares burnt. He might have lost the 1995 election to Bob Carr, but Bob admits that John was a formidable opponent and that public service more than political combat motivated him.</para>
<para>John was a small-l liberal, a true liberal, some might say. After his state election defeat he went on to win the federal seat of Macarthur in 1996 and became Minister for Finance under John Howard until 2001.</para>
<para>John Fahey was a larger-than-life personality with equally large achievements. There were also successes that Australians got to share. Monumental in securing the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, it's bittersweet that John passed away just before its 20th anniversary. After Sydney won the bid on 24 September 1993, he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We deserve this one. We got it and now we're going to put on a fantastic games. I remember jumping probably higher than I've ever jumped in my life before.</para></quote>
<para>The TV cameras and Australians don't forget John's jumping, either.</para>
<para>At his funeral service last week, which I was fortunate enough to attend on behalf of the federal Australian Labor Party, Prince Charles, via letter, recounted John's efforts to save him from an armed protester on Australia Day in 1994. Prince Charles shared: 'Coming to my assistance as he so valiantly did on that Darling Harbour stage on Australia Day 1994, John demonstrated not only characteristic selflessness and valour but also the hallmark athleticism of a former rugby league player. I was as fortunate to have him on my side that day as the people of New South Wales were to have him on theirs.' Those are lovely words from Prince Charles.</para>
<para>However, in fact, this particular event and the Holy Cross College, Ryde link John Fahey and me in an odd way that most would not know; that is, through two individuals who were enrolled in Holy Cross College, Ryde in the class of 1988. One of those is Ben Keneally, my husband, and the very next person to him on the official college enrolment book is the person famously tackled by John Fahey that day, in January 1994. Of course, it's not just John and me who are former New South Wales premiers with ties to Holy Cross College, Ryde. The school also helped produce another New South Wales Premier, Labor's Jack Renshaw, who was Premier from 1964 to 1965.</para>
<para>But back to John Fahey. He was one of the first senior Liberals to support an Australian republic, a cause that has now united so many across this chamber, as well as in the other place. After having a lung removed due to cancer in 2001, John announced he was retiring from politics, but that didn't stop his life of service. He went on to be the second president of the World Anti-Doping Agency, from 2007 to 2013. He was Chancellor of the Australian Catholic University from 2014 until his death last month. John's Catholic faith sustained him. He carried his soldier's rosary beads with him, reaching into his right pocket during difficult conversations or trying situations. I'm sure his faith gave him solace following the tragic loss of his daughter, Tiffany, on Boxing Day 2006, when she was killed in a road accident. He and Colleen took on the unimaginably sad but nonetheless, I'm sure, rewarding duty to raise his daughter's children as their own.</para>
<para>Last year, Pope Francis made John a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Saint Gregory the Great, not a bad title for a smoking, drinking, rugby league-playing politician, a title which John accepted humbly, saying it made him feel terribly unworthy. While John might have felt unworthy, he was worthy of the title and the fitting tributes that he has received in here and in the other place, in the media and from the public. No-one can say how John might have reacted to such tributes, but we know how he felt about his life of service. Last year he said: 'To have been given the opportunities that I have been given, I count myself extraordinarily blessed.' I will say that New South Wales, our parliament and our country have been blessed to have been served by John Fahey.</para>
<para>My heartfelt condolences go to John's wife, Colleen, to his son, Matthew, and to his grandchildren. In expressing these words of condolence, I add the condolences of the former New South Wales premiers Bob Carr and Barry Unsworth who both spoke fondly and respectfully of John's service to New South Wales and our country. On behalf of the federal Labor opposition, I say, John Fahey, may he rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I pay my respects to the Hon. John Fahey AC. He was a good man and a great authentic Australian. John was a selfless servant to the people of New South Wales and to Australia over his two decades in the New South Wales and the federal parliaments. Rightfully, there has been much focus on John Fahey's many achievements, both as Premier and as federal finance minister but also as the man he was. John reluctantly took the reins of the Liberal leadership in New South Wales, describing the moment as one of his saddest days because of the circumstances under which he took over the leadership. Despite this, true to form and true to his nature, he rolled up his sleeves and he got on with the job of leading and reforming not only his party but his beloved state.</para>
<para>He delivered major policy initiatives, such as the introduction of the Disability Services Act, the introduction of the New South Wales seniors card, the appointment of the first New South Wales Minister for the Status of Women, and the overhaul of the New South Wales industrial relations system. And, as has been said by previous speakers, he famously leapt for joy when it was announced that his tireless advocacy, and that of his team, for Sydney to host the 2000 Summer Olympics was successful. For those of us old enough to remember, we will never forget his spontaneous and unbridled joy.</para>
<para>John Fahey courageously and selflessly put himself in harm's way to protect Prince Charles from an attack on Australia Day in 1994. He helped the people of New South Wales rebuild after the devastating 1994 bushfires that went straight into the heart of Sydney. After the closest of electoral defeats in New South Wales in 1995, he rolled up his sleeves, shook himself up and entered the federal parliament as the member for Macarthur at the 1996 federal election, which was when I first met him. As the federal Minister for Finance, John was instrumental in rebuilding the federal budget to a position of strength, for which all of us in this nation still owe him a great debt of gratitude.</para>
<para>I would also like to mention one of John's many unsung achievements: his advocacy and mentorship of young men and women—in particular, women—in the Liberal Party. My friend and very good colleague Senator Marise Payne, who unfortunately is not able to be here today because of official overseas business, has very fondly recounted to me the support John so generously extended to her throughout her career in the party. John supported Marise throughout her political career, all the way back to when she was a young staffer in the Greiner-Fahey government of the late 1980s and the early 1990s in New South Wales. In her poignant and heartfelt eulogy at John's funeral, Marise remarked that, as part of John's team, you worked with him not for him. She described John as always available and always supportive.</para>
<para>This says so much about his leadership style and his contributions. He valued individuals and also their contributions, and he didn't harbour prejudices. That is what made him such a wonderful role model for several generations of Liberals. And I know that he played a role in mentoring many other Liberal women, including Senator Fierravanti-Wells and the New South Wales Premier, Gladys Berejiklian. While I didn't personally have the opportunity to get to know him well, I am thankful for all that he did to chart the path for strong female representation in this party at all levels. He did this not in the pursuit of tokenism but in recognition of the need for our parliamentary chambers right across our nation to be more representative of all Australians and in recognition of the need for the best representatives, be they male or female. In the words of the Prime Minister today, he was a tremendous Liberal.</para>
<para>We honour John Fahey's leadership, his service and, indeed, his entire life. To John's wife, Colleen, and his two children and grandchildren, I offer my heartfelt condolences. We give our thanks to John for a life well lived and authentically lived.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ABETZ</name>
    <name.id>N26</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Others have rightly spoken fondly of the Hon. John Fahey AC and his service to our nation, which is on the public record. I want to add a few brief comments and observe that it was my privilege to be John Fahey's junior minister for about 10 months when he was finance minister and I first became a junior minister as the then Special Minister of State. John's politics were motivated by a genuine desire to serve his community, which he did exceptionally well. He was willing to mentor, advise and share his expertise and wealth of anecdotes; and that was indicative of his generosity of spirit, which he kindly extended towards me as a minister seeking to find his feet. Minister Fahey was personable, genuine and humble. You couldn't help but like him. I did.</para>
<para>I also recall the day he gave me the shocking news that he was taking leave for 'exploratory surgery' and gave me that meaningful look indicating that things were pretty tough. On his return, he was very matter of fact about the statistical challenge that he was up against, having such extensive lung cancer. Suffice it to say that, in his typical spirit, he overcame it beyond his own belief and his own predictions to me, and he continued to serve the Australian people, and indeed the world community in the sporting arena, in a manner that was indicative of the way he served the people of New South Wales in the state parliament and the people of Australia in the federal parliament.</para>
<para>Can I simply say that I was the beneficiary of John Fahey's mentorship and his generosity of spirit. Whilst it was for only 10 months that I served as his junior minister, I was greatly benefited by that. I'm indebted to him and I extend my condolences to his widow, Colleen, and his family and thank them for lending him to the service of our nation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS</name>
    <name.id>e4t</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the condolence motion for John Fahey. I had the honour and privilege of working for John as his senior private secretary from 1993 to 1994. Prior to the 1993 federal election, I had been working for Jim Carlton. When we lost the election, I received a phone call from Robert Maher, who was the chief of staff to John Fahey. He asked me if I would consider taking on the position of senior private secretary. I knew John Fahey's former senior private secretary, David Pigott, who had worked for John Howard in the past. It was a wonderful opportunity, and I certainly accepted the job.</para>
<para>My role as senior private secretary was to look after the administration of the office, including the extensive paper flow as well as the diaries of both John Fahey and his wife, Colleen. Working with me, I had a team of people which included Barb Williams, who had formerly been John Howard's private secretary, and two New South Wales party stalwarts, Liz Storey and Robyn Kerr. John loved to talk to people. He liked to have a drink. He liked to smoke. Of course, that meant that often the diary, notwithstanding best intentions, ended up being somewhat chaotic because appointments inevitably ran over and things had to be changed and rescheduled. Nevertheless, people who needed to see him always got the opportunity to have a chat with him.</para>
<para>John can be well described as a consistent smoker. Health wise, ultimately, he paid a heavy price for that, although he did very well after his lung operation. At that time, the Premier's office was located on level 8 of the old State Office Block on the corner of Macquarie and Bent Streets. Now, of course, it doesn't exist anymore, but at that time we had old-fashioned air conditioners which ran along the walls between the rooms. The heavy smoking from the Premier's office meant that everyone shared in the effects! Given my office was directly next to the Premier's office, I inevitably had more than my share of the smoking experience, such that I had to often resort to opening my window to Macquarie Street. Yes, those were the days when you could actually open the windows in offices!</para>
<para>Much has been said of John's actions at Darling Harbour on Australia Day in 1994, when he leapt to disarm a protester who threatened Prince Charles. My husband, John, and I were sitting in one of the front rows when this incident happened. It came as no surprise that John Fahey just didn't think twice. He reacted quickly and, in true rugby style, tackled the fellow to the floor of the stage. It all happened so quickly, but it was so typical of John to put the safety of others above his own safety and to take the actions that he did on that day. It was really good to see Prince Charles sending his message at the funeral service.</para>
<para>John was not a man to indulge in spin. He was quietly spoken, measured and honest in his responses. John's natural exuberance when Sydney was named to host the Olympic Games for 2000 was just typical of him. I know that at the time he worked very closely with others on the bid. It was tough going up against Beijing. On merit we knew we should win, but Beijing's aggressive campaign exerted heavy pressure in many different ways. I remember the morning of the announcement: about three or four of us were sitting in the office at 4.15 am, watching the television and fully expecting that we weren't going to win. Then, of course, we did win and the rest is history.</para>
<para>As his senior private secretary, my job was to control the paper flow—and, believe me, there was a lot of paper! When I started the job, the thing I found most frustrating was when John would go out and people would speak to him and say, 'Look, I wrote to you X months ago and I haven't received a reply.' This called for drastic action. I instigated the establishment of a document-tracing system, much to the chagrin of the bureaucrats in the Premier's Department!</para>
<para>John and I were very similar in a number of ways—both from poor, working-class backgrounds; both having started as articled clerks; and both having worked very hard to become lawyers. John's attention to detail was something that he and I very much shared. Part of my job was to read all the files and the correspondence before they went in to the Premier for consideration. I made sure that prominent details were flagged and omissions or problems highlighted, knowing that John would also read the entire file, sharing those concerns and taking the appropriate action. Clearly, this didn't endear me to the public servants, but then that wasn't something that I was worried about too much.</para>
<para>John had a strong work ethic which I saw and experienced firsthand. John and Colleen had an apartment on level 9 of the State Office Block. John would regularly go upstairs at the end of the day, have something to eat and then come back to the office and work late into the night to ensure that the paperwork and the briefs were done. I sometimes worked alongside him in the evenings. Let's not forget that this was a difficult time in New South Wales politics. It was a minority government, relying on three Independents to support or reject the government's plans. John kept on top of so many issues. He needed to, given the complexities of minority existence. Yes, there were always cigarettes and, yes, there was always a cup of coffee. Occasionally, there was a whiskey! But he certainly ploughed through the paperwork.</para>
<para>Being of the Catholic faith, I was disappointed that I was not afforded the opportunity to farewell John in person. Nevertheless, I would like to place on record my farewells and my admiration for John as a decent, hardworking man of family and faith. I was grateful to John for having afforded me the opportunity to work in his office. It was a very good experience. I valued both his friendship and his guidance.</para>
<para>Can I conclude by once again offering my condolences to his wife, Colleen, his children, Matthew and Melanie, and his grandchildren, Amber and Campbell, who, along with many people—ordinary Australians—will remember John Fahey as an honest and decent man who so admirably served his state and his country. John was a decent, hardworking human being. He lived his life true to his faith, true to his family and true to his values. Vale, John Fahey.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STOKER</name>
    <name.id>237920</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to say a few words as a mark of respect for the life and contribution of John Fahey. I don't think it can be done much better than Senator Fierravanti-Wells or my other colleagues have just done it. As a premier, as a finance minister, as a courageous man prepared to rescue the Prince of Wales from apparent assassination attempts, as a football player, as a community man, as a husband and as a father, he was a special character.</para>
<para>John and I didn't know each other well, other than to say that I was a teenager when he was my local member. So, in many ways, as I was coming to understand politics he was the local example I had of how to do it. He set that example pretty well, I thought. To begin with, I didn't know much about him other than that he was elected to federal parliament as a part of the Howard government in 1996, a government that I was observing with interest despite being aged just 14 at the time. He'd moved into federal politics, of course, after his substantial contribution to the state parliament.</para>
<para>My most memorable brush with John was when, as a senior high school student, I was one of the kids selected to attend the school's constitutional convention, an opportunity that sparked an interest in our Constitution that, no doubt, has played a part in me being a rather embarrassing law nerd to this day. We all travelled to Canberra and there was a reception function where every attendee was matched up with their local member. As best as I can recall, there were relatively few people—about 20 kids from across the state and certainly no more than one per electorate. So every student had their local member attend to chat about what we were learning about our country and its institutions and our Constitution. It was a lovely opportunity. Everyone's local MP showed up except mine. I didn't understand why. Was there something urgent that had come up? He had a pretty big responsibility, so that would be understandable. Had I done something wrong? It was odd being the only kid on her own. I left a little bewildered about that, but was nevertheless thrilled to have been part of this experience. I left with a passion for constitutional law that, I confess, still hasn't gone away.</para>
<para>The mystery of my local member's nonattendance wasn't solved until many, many years later. My dad spilled the beans to me about a decade ago. With his usual courtesy and beautiful manners, John had called my home, presumably to give me a pat on the back for being selected and to let me know that we would see one another at the reception in Canberra. My dad, who ran his plumbing business from home and was under a lot of stress between managing apprentices and tradesmen and builders, wasn't coping that well at the time. He answered the phone with what I will say was a colourful bunch of expletives. It was rough as guts. On reflection, though, as an accomplished footy player perhaps John was well placed to handle that! It wasn't uncommon in the construction industry at the time. When John introduced himself with, again, his usual politeness, my father's reaction didn't improve. Shortly after, with another mouthful of swearwords, my dad hung up on poor John. When I found out this story, I learned why my dad hadn't told me about it at the time. I would have been absolutely mortified. When I think about it now, though, given the constituency he served, the jobs they did, the interests they had and, let's face it, the shared love of footy and a drink that both my dad and John had, I suspect that, had they met in different circumstances, they might have got along rather well.</para>
<para>No-one has sympathy for politicians, of course, but it should be said that no pollie deserves to be treated that way. It's little wonder he didn't show up to say hello. You can only imagine what he thought he was going to meet when he arrived. At times, when an irate constituent doesn't answer the phone with the courtesy that I extend to others, my mind flicks back to that story. It's a reminder we never know the challenges that the person on the other end of the line is dealing with—how hard they are or how much the person is struggling to cope. It's a reminder that some people—dare I say it, particularly some of the toughest-looking blokes—still struggle to ask for help, and the bad behaviour, as unacceptable as it is, can be a cry for help. But I've digressed somewhat.</para>
<para>John will be remembered for his love of sport and the sheer joy he radiated as he jumped at the news that Sydney had been selected to host the 2000 Olympic Games. I think that's the image that will always be publicly associated with him, burned into our national memory. He'll be remembered for his love of his country and for the important work he did to put this country on a stable financial footing. But I hope he will be remembered for even more than that. He was a devout Christian and, in contrast to so many politicians whose convictions wilt in roles like this, he remained firmly but respectfully pro life. The measure of the man is how he rose to life's difficulties. After the loss of his daughter Tiffany when she was just 27, he and his wife, Colleen, became guardians to and raised her children, Campbell and Amber. He battled cancer more than once, but he continued to serve his community well after his parliamentary service was over. He made the community in which I grew up better—a place where a plumber like my dad could prosper despite his occasional potty-mouth and where a girl like me could aspire to make a contribution beyond herself, and for that I'm grateful. I hope he'll be remembered as a faithful servant, a good husband and a caring father. May God rest his soul and comfort his family.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to add my remarks and my high regard for John Fahey to those sentiments already echoed by so many colleagues. John Fahey was indeed a great Australian, a great contributor and a man who left an enormous imprint on the public life and on the public psyche. It is a testament to his style, character and authenticity that Australians, particularly New South Welshmen, remembered him so fondly, so nicely and so thoughtfully following his passing recently. It's also the case that Liberals across the country remembered him as a man of conviction and of values but also very much of a common touch. I acknowledge his many accomplishments, many of which have been reflected in this chamber today.</para>
<para>I wish only to say a few words, but I also want to add some remarks of others. I reached out to some of John's former parliamentary colleagues in this place to seek their reflections on the man they served alongside in the parliament and in the cabinet. Former Leader of the Government in this place Robert Hill, who served in the cabinet with John Fahey, reflected on John as the finance minister, noting that he had the nicest way of saying no when Robert was looking for money. He described him as always the gentleman and, as many have, very much the values-driven politician.</para>
<para>Christopher Pyne, unsurprisingly, went to John's charm and capability but described him as being unaffected by that charm and capability that had led him to hold great power in his hands at both the state and the national level. Even more unsurprising, Christopher reflected on John's Irish Catholic background, noting that he maintained that earthiness that comes from so many Irish Australians, as well as humility and insight that endeared him to colleagues. He also acknowledged that John was someone who you could rely on in a political contest and that he didn't run from a fight but nor was he someone who initiated them. He never abandoned his friends.</para>
<para>Amanda Vanstone, who also served in the cabinet and the ministry alongside John Fahey, recalled, as many have, his health battles. She recorded, in true Amanda Vanstone style, the story after John's first lung surgery, where the doctors told him that they hadn't taken much out because it looked so grim. He asked, according to Amanda, if they were 'effing joking'. He said that he hadn't come to surgery to not take every chance possible to give him the best chance of success and that he wanted to go back into surgery as soon as possible and for them to take as much as was necessary for him to be able to live a long life ahead. Indeed, that is what happened—he had further surgery. They went back in and took the rest of that lung, but that gave him the chance to go on and serve many good years to make an enormous contribution, as we've heard, as chair of WADA. But, most importantly, John was able to spend valuable time with his family, his many loved ones and his friends. Amanda described him as a 'great guy' of 'great courage'.</para>
<para>One of those many great friends and loved ones is our own colleague, Senator Payne, who is unable to be here. Senator Reynolds has reflected on Marise's close friendship with John, Colleen and their family. Marise is deeply disappointed to not be able to contribute to this debate due to her overseas responsibilities at this time. She did have the chance to speak at John's funeral, and the Prime Minister has reflected on just how beautifully Marise Payne spoke of John's memory, of his life and his love and, indeed, very much of the fact he was a mentor to so many—to young people like Senator Payne and former Treasurer Joe Hockey, kickstarting their careers, not just through the early stages but right throughout their lives, with wise counsel, advice and, above all, the loyalty and friendship that John was so renowned for. Marise wanted me to remind the chamber that John Fahey was, like Marise, a great republican.</para>
<para>John Fahey leaves a remarkable imprint on this country, particularly on the state of New South Wales. His contribution to our life and to events like the Sydney Olympics will endure. I too convey my sympathies to his family and our thanks for all his family did and gave in sharing him with a grateful nation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make some brief remarks in addition to the very generous words that have already been offered this afternoon about John Fahey. Like many people who have come to New South Wales and to Sydney, John Fahey did not come from Sydney or from New South Wales, which again shows that this is a fantastic part of the world where anyone can make it. Ultimately, John Fahey went on to lead the state and serve with distinction here in Canberra. I spoke to close personal friends like John Brogden and Peta Seaton in preparation for these remarks. The summary really was that John Fahey was a believer in hard work but that he had a very big heart and a very soft heart. Everyone has remarked very eloquently about his contribution to the state of New South Wales. Certainly securing the Olympics was a great thing for our country, and anyone who attended the Sydney Olympics would recall that. I attended as a young man from Shepparton, and that was like going to Hollywood. The Sydney Olympics were a great and enduring contribution to the state of New South Wales.</para>
<para>People who knew John Fahey well, like John Brogden, would often say that he had a photographic memory. He would remember exactly what was in every page of every brief and he would pull people up for not actually knowing all the detail of the brief that they had had some role in pulling together, which is a remarkable thing to be able to do. But it was necessary in the role that John Fahey performed with Peter Costello and John Howard in delivering a very important passage of fiscal consolidation in the 1990s, where every single line item in every single budget needed to be known. As Senator Cormann has said in our own time, the detail is where you win these arguments and the detail is where you can make some really important fiscal improvements.</para>
<para>I want to briefly read this great quote from John Brogden and some other New South Wales colleagues that was published recently in <inline font-style="italic">The Sydney Morning Herald</inline>. I thought that this was the nicest thing I had ever read about anyone in politics. This is about Mr Fahey:</para>
<quote><para class="block">He inspired loyalty and his patience, kindness and above all, his willingness to chat with everyone created an army of people willing to go the extra mile. More than one staff member despaired of his schedule as he genially derailed meetings with questions about rugby, family and life in general. It was a mark of the man that his interest was as deep and genuine in the humblest worker as the most senior person in the room.</para></quote>
<para>That is a very generous quote.</para>
<para>Post politics, John Fahey went on not only to play a very important role in his own family but also to lead the Australian Catholic University. I can see that, as a man of deep faith, he was also very committed to pluralism. The ACU's work, especially in Indigenous affairs, has gone well beyond its direct mandate. He was a great contributor and a very good and warm man. May he rest in peace.</para>
<para>Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PETITIONS</title>
        <page.no>69</page.no>
        <type>PETITIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Federal Electorates</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>69</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Postponement</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>69</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Leave of Absence</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That leave of absence be granted to Senator Pratt for Wednesday 7 October 2020, for personal reasons.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>70</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Reference</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:44</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">(1) To ensure appropriate consideration of time critical bills by Senate committees, the provisions of all bills introduced into the House of Representatives after 8 October 2020 and up to and including 29 October 2020 that contain substantive provisions commencing on or before 1 January 2021 (together with the provisions of any related bill) are referred to committees for inquiry and report by 26 November 2020.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The committee to which each bill is referred shall be determined in accordance with the order of 13 February 2020, as amended, allocating departments and agencies to standing committees.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A committee to which a bill has been referred may determine, by unanimous decision, that there are no substantive matters that require examination and report that fact to the Senate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) This order does not apply in relation to bills which contain:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) no provisions other than provisions appropriating revenue or moneys (appropriation bills); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) commencement clauses providing only for the legislation to commence on Royal Assent.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Works Committee</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>70</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:44</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">Services Australia—Proposed fit-out of new leased premises at 52-62 King William Street, Adelaide.</para></quote>
<para>I table the statement in relation to work together with accompanying documentation.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>70</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Merchant Navy Day</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before moving the motion, I wish to inform the chamber that Senator O'Neill will also sponsor the motion. At the request of Senators Brown and 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) 3 September is Merchant Navy Day, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the Merchant Navy was comprised of mostly civilian crews and was responsible for ensuring that valuable cargo reached the personnel who needed it most; the merchant navy ships and their crew – merchant mariners – often served in very challenging and dangerous circumstances – many did so without defences as they were often unarmed, and merchant vessels were attacked in distant waters and within sight of the Australian coastline, while crossing common trade routes;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) acknowledges the invaluable role the Merchant Navy has played in the more than 100 years since it first served our nation, especially in both world wars; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) pays tribute to the bravery and sacrifices of our merchant mariners, who have served our nation with distinction.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rotary Australia</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before moving the motion, I wish to inform the chamber that the names of Senators Abetz, Askew, Hughes, O'Neill, McLachlan and Urquhart have been added. I, and also on behalf of Senators Duniam, Abetz, Askew, Hughes, O'Neill, McLachlan and Urquhart, move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) acknowledges that Rotary Australia will celebrate its centenary anniversary and first 100 years of service in 2021; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the first Australian Rotary Clubs were founded in Melbourne and Sydney back in 1921,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) there are approximately 30,000 members who belong to one of the 1,100 charter Rotary Clubs established throughout Australia, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) Australian Rotary Clubs are part of a larger international network of business, professional and community leaders who seek to make the world a better place through practical efforts at the local level.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Myanmar: Human Rights</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 805.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I note that Senator Keneally's name will be added to the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senator Keneally, move the motion as amended:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 25 August 2020 marked three years since over 700,000 Rohingya, including more than 400,000 children, fled from targeted violence in Myanmar's Rakhine State, to Bangladesh;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the camps in Bangladesh now host over 850,000 refugees in crowded conditions; which is also impacting the lives of over 400,000 local Bangladeshis;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) an estimated 600,000 Rohingya remain in Rakhine State;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) since 2017, the Australian Government has provided over $260 million in lifesaving humanitarian assistance for displaced and conflict-affected communities in Bangladesh and Myanmar, working through UN agencies; international and national NGOs such as BRAC, Save the Children, CARE, World Vision, Plan and Oxfam and their local partners to deliver food, shelter; water and sanitation, health and education services; and targeted support for women and girls to help combat risks including gender-based violence and trafficking;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) annual monsoons and cyclones have brought additional risks and the COVID-19 virus has now arrived with 270 confirmed cases to date in the Cox's Bazar camps and over 1800 active cases in Rakhine; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) Australia remains committed to supporting Myanmar to create conditions on the ground conducive to voluntary, safe, dignified and sustainable returns for all displaced people.</para></quote>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:46</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>The Greens will be supporting this motion, but I note that if the Greens had moved a motion on Myanmar we would not have been given leave for it as it would have been ruled to be an issue of complex foreign policy. It's rather hypocritical. However, the Rohingya people in both Myanmar and Bangladesh face extraordinary challenges in these difficult times. Their own government has attacked them and they face additional challenges in this pandemic, as are outlined in the motion. At the 2019 election the Greens called for an extra 50,000 humanitarian places a year. Instead, as shown in last night's budget, the Liberal government is planning to cut the humanitarian intake by $5,000. We need to do a lot more in our region, not less. We should be reaching 0.7 per cent of gross national product by 2030, but our aid is at its lowest level ever.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>e-Cigarette Products</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:47</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) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) recent research by the Australian National University which confirms that non-smokers who vape are three times more likely, on average, to take up tobacco smoking, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) that researchers observed that, for people trying to quit tobacco smoking, e-cigarettes tend to result in prolonged use of nicotine, rather than cessation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) further notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Therapeutic Goods Administration has not approved e-cigarettes as smoking cessation aids,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) nicotine e-liquid is not commercially available within Australia and is meant to be imported with a prescription for personal use, though there is currently little stopping people buying these liquids online and importing them without prescription, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Government is consulting on proposed new rules that will, from next year, close this loophole by making a prescription a legal requirement for personal purchase of nicotine e-liquid, through domestic pharmacies or online sellers;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) acknowledges the concern of the Royal Australian College of Physicians that the proposed Senate select committee inquiry on 'tobacco harm reduction' is unnecessary, and that the safest option for the community is to not use tobacco or e-cigarettes; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) calls on the Government to resist any attempts to weaken the laws surrounding vaping and nicotine e-liquids.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:47</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>A select committee was established yesterday with the support of this place to inquire into tobacco reduction strategies, including the use of e-cigarettes and vaping products. That committee will report back before year's end, and it's important that we don't pre-empt that work.</para>
<para>The TGA has recently announced an interim decision that, if made final, would clarify the regulation of e-cigarettes containing nicotine and nicotine fluids for vaping. The proposed changes would mean that certain nicotine-containing products could only be supplied with a doctor's prescription. TGA decisions are made independently based on expert medical advice, so we do not accept the premise of the motion that the government has the power to weaken laws surrounding vaping and nicotine e-liquids.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Koalas</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) prior to 2012, the koala was not protected under Commonwealth law,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) on 22 September 2011, the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee tabled the report of its inquiry into the status, health and sustainability of Australia's koala population which, among other things, unanimously recommended that the Minister for the Environment consider listing the koala as a vulnerable species under the <inline font-style="italic">Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act</inline> 1999 (the EPBC Act),</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) on 2 May 2012 the Minister for the Environment listed koala populations in New South Wales, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory as a vulnerable species under the EPBC Act, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) one-third of New South Wales' koala population is estimated to have been killed in the 2019-20 bushfires; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) welcomes and supports the New South Wales Government's State Environmental Planning Policy (Koala Habitat Protection) 2019 instrument as being consistent with the koala's status under the EPBC Act and as a significant measure aimed at further protection of vulnerable and threatened New South Wales koala populations.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</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 DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The federal government supports the state environmental planning policy as revised by the New South Wales state government. The revisions that were negotiated in coalition cabinet provide for the protection of vulnerable and threatened New South Wales koala populations while ensuring there is not onerous green tape for our farmers.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What a debacle we've seen in New South Wales over the last few weeks in relation to this issue. I understand that Senator Ayres is pointing out just what an absolute mess the New South Wales government has been in over this. Let's be very clear: the National Party have no intention of protecting the environment, saving the koala or doing anything to protect wildlife. They almost split the New South Wales government apart because they wanted the right to kill koalas. This is the legacy and the attitude of the National Party, whether it's John Barilaro, Barnaby Joyce or those here in this place.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before moving general business notice of motion No. 815, I ask that Senators Rice, Molan, Waters, Lambie and Askew will also sponsor the motion. At the request of Senators Keneally, Bilyk, McCarthy, Polley, Hughes, Rice, Molan, Waters, Lambie and Askew, 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) 15 October 2020 marks International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) on 15 October 2020, parents, families and friends will memorialise babies lost through miscarriage, stillbirth and infant death, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) this day is an opportunity to officially acknowledge the loss experienced by parents and families across Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) acknowledges that in Australia:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) approximately one in four pregnancies result in miscarriage – 103,000 every year,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) in 2018, 2,419 lives were lost due to stillbirth or newborn death,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) despite medical advancements, stillbirth rates have not changed in two decades,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) the rate of stillbirth and newborn death is higher in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Stillbirth Research and Education tabled its report with 16 recommendations on 4 December 2018;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) extends condolences and sympathies to the families who have suffered a miscarriage, a stillbirth or infant death;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) acknowledges that social distancing restrictions – necessary during COVID-19 – have compounded the grief and sorrow for families mourning their stillborn babies; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) commends every person who has supported parents and families through their journey from the loss of a baby.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS</title>
        <page.no>73</page.no>
        <type>REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Security (Coronavirus Economic Response—2020 Measures No. 14) Determination 2020</title>
          <page.no>73</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Disallowance</title>
            <page.no>73</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That items 1 to 3 of Schedule 1 and item 4 of Schedule 2 of the Social Security (Coronavirus Economic Response—2020 Measures No. 14) Determination 2020, made under the <inline font-style="italic">Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Act 2020</inline> and the <inline font-style="italic">Social Security Act 1991</inline>, be disallowed [F2020L01093].</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</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 McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor will not be supporting this motion. Our priority is to see the government permanently increase the base rate for JobSeeker and to see the liquid assets waiting period remain suspended, because those changes are targeted at the people who need help the most at this time. When the government decided to stop the asset test, not just temporarily increase it, they allowed over 3,000 people with assets of $1 million or more in addition to their home to receive unemployment payments. Support should go to those who need it the most.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</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 RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The government does not support the disallowance motion. Means testing is a longstanding fundamental component of the income support system, and the reintroduction of the assets test is an appropriate step in providing targeted support.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>73</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>73</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:53</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 opposes bringing forward the start date of the already legislated personal income tax cuts.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that motion No. 800, in the name of Senator McKim, be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:57]<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>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                <name>Siewert, R (teller)</name>
                <name>Thorpe, LA</name>
                <name>Waters, LJ</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>26</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Askew, W</name>
                <name>Ayres, T</name>
                <name>Birmingham, SJ</name>
                <name>Bragg, AJ</name>
                <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                <name>Chandler, C</name>
                <name>Davey, P</name>
                <name>Duniam, J</name>
                <name>Fierravanti-Wells, C</name>
                <name>Griff, S</name>
                <name>Hughes, H</name>
                <name>Hume, J</name>
                <name>Lambie, J</name>
                <name>McAllister, J</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                <name>Rennick, G</name>
                <name>Roberts, M</name>
                <name>Ruston, A</name>
                <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                <name>Scarr, P</name>
                <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                <name>Smith, DA</name>
                <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                <name>Urquhart, AE (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 negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:59</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 Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Government's climate-wrecking 'gas-led recovery' plan includes coal seam gas drilling in Narrabri and a gas-fired power plant in the Hunter region of New South Wales (NSW),</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) on 30 September 2020, the NSW planning commission approved the Santos Narrabri coal seam gas project despite more than 20,000 submissions opposing it,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) greenhouse gas emissions from the Narrabri gas project are estimated to be 128 million tonnes over the life of the project,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the gas industry creates just 0.3 jobs for every million dollars spent, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (v) coal seam gas drilling in Narrabri will increase carbon emissions, worsen the climate crisis, endanger farmers' livelihoods and jeopardise precious natural habitats, Aboriginal heritage sites, farmland and food and water security; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Federal Government to abandon their so-called 'gas-led recovery' plan, and commit to phasing out coal and gas and making Australia a 100% renewable energy superpower by 2030.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia's competitive advantage has always been based on cheap energy, and our comprehensive plan places gas at the centre of our recovery. Gas is a critical enabler and it supports our manufacturing sector, which employs over 850,000 Australians. It's an essential input in the production of plastics for PPE and fertiliser for food production. Gas provides the firmed electricity generation we need to balance the record levels of solar and wind. It provides flexible, reliable and affordable generation. Far from competing with renewables, it complements them. Through our 2020 budget, we will ensure Australian gas is working for all Australians.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We will not be supporting this. It is now 398 days since I first invited the Greens to tell me about the empirical scientific evidence that justifies their claims that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut, and they have still failed to do so; they won't debate me. Until they give me the evidence, I won't be supporting anything like this.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [17:02]<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>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                <name>Siewert, R (teller)</name>
                <name>Thorpe, LA</name>
                <name>Waters, LJ</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>33</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Abetz, E</name>
                <name>Antic, A</name>
                <name>Askew, W</name>
                <name>Ayres, T</name>
                <name>Birmingham, SJ</name>
                <name>Bragg, AJ</name>
                <name>Brown, CL</name>
                <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                <name>Chandler, C</name>
                <name>Davey, P</name>
                <name>Duniam, J</name>
                <name>Fierravanti-Wells, C</name>
                <name>Griff, S</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>McLachlan, A</name>
                <name>McMahon, S</name>
                <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                <name>Rennick, G</name>
                <name>Roberts, M</name>
                <name>Ruston, A</name>
                <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                <name>Scarr, P</name>
                <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                <name>Smith, DA</name>
                <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                <name>Urquhart, AE (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 negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS</title>
        <page.no>75</page.no>
        <type>REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Security (Coronavirus Economic Response—2020 Measures No. 14) Determination 2020</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Disallowance</title>
            <page.no>75</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Social Security (Coronavirus Economic Response—2020 Measures No. 14) Determination 2020, made under the <inline font-style="italic">Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Act 2020</inline> and the <inline font-style="italic">Social Security Act 1991</inline>, be disallowed [F2020L01093].</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</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 RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The government does not support this disallowance motion. Means testing is a longstanding fundamental component of the income support system. The reintroduction of a liquid asset waiting period is consistent with the targeted support the government is providing to the extension of the coronavirus supplement and the six-month extension to the JobKeeper program.</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 matter No. 2, in the name of Senator Siewert, be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [17:09]<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>Brown, CL</name>
                  <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A</name>
                  <name>Dodson, P</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                  <name>Green, N</name>
                  <name>Griff, S</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                  <name>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>Sheldon, A</name>
                  <name>Siewert, R</name>
                  <name>Smith, M</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, LA</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                  <name>Watt, M</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>Canavan, MJ</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                  <name>Davey, P</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H</name>
                  <name>Hume, J</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                  <name>McMahon, S</name>
                  <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A</name>
                  <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P</name>
                  <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                  <name>Smith, DA (teller)</name>
                  <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                </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>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>76</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee</title>
          <page.no>76</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reporting Date</title>
            <page.no>76</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KIM CARR</name>
    <name.id>AW5</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Senate notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) when the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019 and a related bill were referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee in December 2019, it was done so on the basis that the Legislation Committee would report after the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System had reported on 7 October 2020,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) on 31 August 2020 both Houses of Parliament agreed to extend the reporting date for the Joint Select Committee to the last sitting day in February 2021 due to COVID-19, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) a new date of 31 March 2021 for the Legislation Committee to report would allow the committee one month to consider the final report of the Joint Select Committee and finalise its own report; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019 and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019 be extended to 31 March 2021.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a brief 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 does not support a further delay in the committee's reporting date for this necessary reform to the family law courts. This reform has already been the subject of a previous Senate committee inquiry that reported in February 2019 and now has again already been under inquiry by that same committee since December. These bills give effect to a targeted and meaningful reform to what are known structural failings of the current split family law system. These bills will increase the number of matters resolved each year and reduce the cost and time expended by families. Delaying the committee's report further only harms Australian families, simply because Labor members of the committee either won't or aren't able to do their job.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that motion 809 in the name of Senator Carr be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [17:17]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>25</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T</name>
                  <name>Brown, CL</name>
                  <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A</name>
                  <name>Dodson, P</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                  <name>Green, N</name>
                  <name>Griff, S</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                  <name>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>Sheldon, A</name>
                  <name>Siewert, R</name>
                  <name>Smith, M</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, LA</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                  <name>Watt, M</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>25</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A</name>
                  <name>Askew, W</name>
                  <name>Birmingham, SJ</name>
                  <name>Bragg, AJ</name>
                  <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                  <name>Davey, P</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                  <name>Fierravanti-Wells, C</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H</name>
                  <name>Hume, J</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A</name>
                  <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P</name>
                  <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                  <name>Smith, DA (teller)</name>
                  <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                </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>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>77</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Security</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>77</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Watt, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than 3.30 pm on 8 October 2020, the unclassified version of the report by Dennis Richardson AC titled <inline font-style="italic">Comprehensive review of the legal framework governing the national intelligence community</inline>.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The review by Mr Dennis Richardson AC is the most significant review of the intelligence legislative framework in four decades. Consequently it requires careful consideration by government. Obviously, this process has been disrupted somewhat by the COVID-19 pandemic and the requirement for all governments to focus all efforts on protecting lives and livelihoods.</para>
<para>The government's consideration of this important substantial review is being finalised, and I expect an unclassified report will be publicly released along with a government's response in coming months. As is appropriate, Mr Richardson has briefed the chair and deputy chair of the PJCIS along with the shadow Attorney-General throughout the course of the review. Attempts by the opposition to rush this process are irresponsible, further demonstrating they don't possess the temperament needed to govern and keep Australians safe.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>78</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mining</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to amend motion No. 816 in the terms circulated.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the motion as amended:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) mining giant Rio Tinto has been lobbying the Morrison Government to transfer environmental approval powers to the Western Australian Government since at least August 2019, freedom of information documents reveal,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) Rio Tinto is responsible for the devastating destruction of 46,000-year-old sacred site Juukan Gorge.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the Government has proposed amendments to Australia's environment laws before the completion of a 10-year review into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity (EPBC) Act, that will devolve environmental approval powers to the states as Rio Tinto has urged, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) the Government's EPBC amendment bill will make it easier for Rio Tinto to blow up cultural heritage sites and for mining companies to get approval for projects that damage the environment under weaker state laws; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) stop doing the bidding of fossil fuel companies like Rio Tinto; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) put environmental and cultural heritage protection ahead of corporate profits of mining companies.</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that motion No. 816 be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [17:25]<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>Brown, CL</name>
                <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A</name>
                <name>Dodson, P</name>
                <name>Farrell, D</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                <name>Green, N</name>
                <name>Griff, S</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                <name>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>Sheldon, A</name>
                <name>Siewert, R</name>
                <name>Smith, M</name>
                <name>Sterle, G</name>
                <name>Thorpe, LA</name>
                <name>Urquhart, AE (teller)</name>
                <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                <name>Watt, M</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>26</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Abetz, E</name>
                <name>Askew, W</name>
                <name>Birmingham, SJ</name>
                <name>Bragg, AJ</name>
                <name>Canavan, MJ</name>
                <name>Chandler, C</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                <name>Davey, P</name>
                <name>Duniam, J</name>
                <name>Hanson, P</name>
                <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                <name>Hughes, H</name>
                <name>Hume, J</name>
                <name>Lambie, J</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                <name>McMahon, S</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, MA</name>
                <name>Rennick, G</name>
                <name>Roberts, M</name>
                <name>Ruston, A</name>
                <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                <name>Scarr, P</name>
                <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                <name>Smith, DA (teller)</name>
                <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
              </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></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>79</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>79</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I inform the Senate that at 8.30 today 17 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Thorpe, on her first day:</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 Morrison Government's budget for millionaires is a disaster for our climate and for economic equality, driving the expansion of dirty gas and giving billions in corporate handouts</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 PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</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 shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[by video link] I'm really pleased to be kicking off the debate on this matter of public importance: that the Morrison government's budget is a budget for millionaires and a disaster for climate and for economic equality, and it's driving the expansion of dirty gas and giving billions in corporate handouts. This is a budget for millionaires, not for the million unemployed. Budgets are about choices. This budget chooses to prolong the recession and fuel the climate crisis, and it gives young people the finger. This budget is brown and trickle-down. There is an eye-watering $99 billion in handouts to business that, rather than resulting in an economic resurgence, is likely to result in an orgy of spending on imported goods straight from overseas, in bigger corporate profits and in increased returns to shareholders.</para>
<para>As for jobs, what we're being offered is wage subsidies for young people for jobs that, sadly, will probably be par for the course for what young people can expect in the current circumstances: poorly paid, temporary and part-time. And they'll probably be time limited, because those subsidies only last for a year. Once that subsidy finishes in a year, the likelihood is that they'll be shown the door. JobSeeker and JobKeeper are still being slashed, so it's going to be back to living below the breadline for over a million Australians. They'll be struggling to survive, reduced to missing meals and couch surfing in this, one of the richest countries of the world.</para>
<para>Last night's budget was such a missed opportunity. Just think of the hope that would be in the air, the sense of optimism about the future, if last night the government had announced that, yes, it was spending $99 billion in sectors like renewable energy, green hydrogen, public housing, public transport, bike and walking infrastructure, aged care, child care and environmental restoration, or on a jobs and an education guarantee for young people. Not only would we be well on the way to implementing a green new deal; we would be creating tens of thousands of jobs and tackling our climate crisis. We are in a critical decade for climate action, but this budget gives money to Liberal donors in the coal and gas industry, fast tracks climate collapse and turbocharges inequality. Scott Morrison envisages a gas-powered future, where 99 per cent of companies get tax breaks but two million people don't have enough work.</para>
<para>They're doubling down on transport infrastructure that locks in pollution, props up fossil fuel corporations and makes the climate crisis even worse. There is zero funding for public transport projects in my home city of Melbourne. There is zero funding for projects like high-speed rail, and an absolute pittance for electric vehicles. There's no investment in active transport. In Victoria, cycling has tripled since the pandemic, but people are going to be forced back into their cars once they return to onsite work, because the safe bike paths to get them to work just don't exist. Imagine the difference we could make if walking and cycling were a national priority and we invested at least a billion dollars to build zero-carbon walking and cycling infrastructure that would make our neighbourhoods more livable and our transport networks less polluting.</para>
<para>This budget makes one thing clear: the government are not up for changing. They've backed right off the measures we applauded during the COVID crisis: free child care and the doubling of JobSeeker. This budget makes it really clear that they are wedded to their neoliberal ideology, small-government agenda. So it's now just as clear what needs to happen. Australia, we need to turf this government out of office.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STOKER</name>
    <name.id>237920</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Ah, the Australian Greens party! It's hard to know sometimes whether they're for real, isn't it? You can always count on them, though, to demand that more money be applied to the least productive members of our society, day in, day out, of course to be taken by force from those people who do produce until there remains no incentive whatsoever for anybody to produce anything. Why would you, when not producing is rewarded but producing is to be penalised harshly? That's some economic strategy!</para>
<para>None of this should be taken as a judgement on those people who, because of circumstances beyond their control, can't work. We on the coalition side believe in giving a hand to those people who are doing it tough, but in a way that is sustainable, in a way that doesn't undermine the important ethic that says all of us must take responsibility for our lives and that working is not optional for people of working age and capacity. So, while this government has provided help to those people whose work has been affected and disrupted by the pandemic—either to keep them connected to their work, with JobKeeper, or to provide temporary relief for unemployment by using JobSeeker—we make no apology for being focused on helping people back into work rather than providing or generating a lifestyle or a culture where a life on welfare is a comfortable choice. But that's the Greens' approach! That's what the Australian Greens party advocates for in this place, day in and day out. Do you know what, Madam Acting Deputy President O'Neill? The idea that we should all live comfortably on welfare while contributing nothing is corrosive to our pride, it is corrosive to our self-respect and it is corrosive to our prosperity as a nation.</para>
<para>I want to come back to the words of this matter of public importance. It would be laughable if they weren't serious. They call this the Morrison government's 'budget for millionaires'. Are they for real? The Greens could not be more out of touch. There are tax cuts for everyone, and an effective doubling up of the tax assistance that's provided to low- and middle-income earners. They get both the tax cut and the extension of the low-income tax offset. We're effectively doubling up on the help that we are providing to give incentives to people on low and middle incomes to do as much work as they can get their hands on. I acknowledge that's difficult at this point in time. What we need is more jobs, and that's what this budget is all about. This budget is about jobs, jobs, jobs—jobs for young people, jobs for older people and jobs so that the dignity of work can be restored after the disruption of COVID.</para>
<para>But here's what the Australian Greens party just do not get. Where do they think jobs come from? They don't come from a magical job tree and they don't come out of a magical job hat or a magical job pudding. The Greens complain incessantly about anything that might provide any assistance to any business to do what they do. But, hang on: where do jobs come from? Jobs come from viable businesses. And so they get up here and bleat about assistance to anything in a corporate structure. I think the words they used here were 'corporate handouts'. Well, for the small businesses in my home state of Queensland who are given incentives in this budget to take on more staff—be it an apprentice or a young worker—that's not a corporate handout. That's real, practical assistance to get a person started in work.</para>
<para>For the small business that's trying to find out whether or not it's viable to do a fit-out of its premises so that it can take on more clients, or for the farmer who is trying to work out whether or not he can afford a new harvester—trying to work out whether he can invest—the assistance we're providing by way of making it possible to deduct immediately the cost of those assets from their tax bill is not a corporate handout. That's facilitating investment in the jobs of Australians. I cannot believe that there would be people who come in here, day after day, with their economic gobbledegook which says you cannot provide support to businesses but jobs magically appear. The thing is that we need strong, viable, profitable and sustainable businesses for the long term if we're going to get Australians back into work.</para>
<para>Australians don't want to be on JobKeeper and Australians don't want to be on JobSeeker. Australians want a job that allows them to achieve freedom of choice and the freedom to be able to support their families on their terms, rather than being confined by a welfare life.</para>
<para>To those members of the Greens with their magical job tree I say, no, that's not how it works. It's okay to support the businesses of Australia—overwhelmingly small businesses, I might add—because it is those businesses that underpin the prosperity of every Australian. The word 'corporate' is not a dirty word. Did you get the memo, Australian Greens? A corporation is just a group of people who've got together to build something great for this country, to produce something great for this country. What do they produce? They might be manufacturers producing items that we sell overseas. They might produce the services that we sell to Australians or around the world. They might produce the resources that those opposite find so very, very offensive but that power all of the things that we enjoy in our modern lifestyle and wouldn't want to give up. They are the resources that produce the energy that we need to run this country and to sustain jobs. We don't apologise for it; we're proud of it.</para>
<para>When I hear that 890,000 Queensland businesses will be eligible for business tax incentives, including temporarily deducting all of their eligible expenses with no asset limits, I think that's a wonderful thing, because that's an investment in Queenslanders' jobs. The budget increases total payments to Queensland by $8.1 billion over the forward estimates, and every single dollar is an investment in the infrastructure that produces jobs. It's an investment in the infrastructure that improves our productivity, which also produces jobs. It's an investment in the futures of Queenslanders. They will not have a life on welfare, a life of hopelessness, a life of working out whether or not one can get by on whatever the government decides is the welfare rate for the time being, until it runs out of money because it has no plan to make this country prosperous and productive. That's what the Australian Greens argue for every day of the week.</para>
<para>No, this is a path to economic recovery, a path for all Australians to choose their own adventure of aspiration, to decide what they want out of life, to decide for themselves what careers they want, to have real choice in the jobs that they take on, to be able to choose to travel—once our borders open again, of course—to be able to choose to invest in a home, to educate their children the way they wish. This path offers real choice, the kind of choice that no life confined to welfare, in the way that the Australian Greens seem so determined to inflict upon Australians, could ever deliver.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm glad that this motion gives me the opportunity to share a few observations about last night's federal budget and what it contains for the country as a whole and, in particular, for my state of Queensland. I have to say my overwhelming reaction to last night's budget was one of disappointment. I really did think that, at a time when Australia is facing its worst recession since the Great Depression, there would be some more vision from this federal government about the kind of country that we want to have as we emerge from this crisis and the budgetary support that would be provided to make sure that we get there. Instead, what we saw last night from the government was a budget that was about spinning wheels. Sure, there are some significant announcements in the budget—there are some significant funding injections—but it doesn't really take us anywhere.</para>
<para>The budget is about getting things happening, rather than actually setting us up for the sort of future that we need as a country, so I think that that is a lost opportunity. When we face these kinds of conditions, it really should force us to think about the kind of country that we want to have in the future and the types of problems that we saw in our country heading into this crisis. This budget would have been an opportunity to actually fix some of those problems and make Australia stronger, more prosperous and more inclusive than it was prior to the crisis.</para>
<para>When we look at the key initiatives of this budget, some of them are things that Labor have been calling on this government to do for a very long time. We have been calling on this government to bring forward the stage 2 tax cuts for many, many months. We have been calling on the government to increase its investment in infrastructure for many, many months. Now that the government are finally doing these things, they want to sit back and wait for all this glory and acclamation for having done things that Labor have been calling on them to do for months. You can't help but wonder where the country would be now if the government had acted on Labor's suggestions months ago, when we first started making them. Where would the country be now if the government had brought forward those stage 2 tax cuts months ago, as we had called on the government to do? How many jobs would have been created in the infrastructure projects that the government is finally agreeing to now if it had done that months ago, as Labor had called on the government to do? I think that, all in all, the budget is a pretty underwhelming document in terms of what it will do in the short term and the longer term for the country.</para>
<para>Today we saw the awkwardness that emanated from every government senator on the government benches when they were reminded that they will be the government remembered for presiding over $1 trillion worth of debt in our country. I've only been here a short time, but I know how many speeches I've heard from government senators telling us that the way to prosperity and success is to have a government that's about low taxes and low debt. I remember the insults that have been thrown at Labor for so long about the debt and deficit disaster that we apparently ushered in after the GFC—at a fraction of the debt that this government is now racking up.</para>
<para>But what's worse than that is the very little we will have to show for the debt that is being racked up by this government. They are racking up $1 trillion in debt. As he leaves this parliament, Senator Cormann will always be remembered as the $1 trillion man—probably something he didn't aspire to, but that will be his record.</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Dean Smith interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll come to that, Senator Smith. Senator Cormann will be remembered as the $1 trillion man, much as he might not want that description applied to him—</para>
<para>An honourable senator: If he's remembered at all!</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If he's remembered at all! For all of that spending, it's hard to see what we're going to get from it. It's not as if we're going to get some massive new investment in child care or finally get a fix for the aged-care crisis that this government has presided over. There is no more social housing being provided to address the housing crisis this government has presided over and no jobs coming for tradies building that social housing. For all that debt that's being racked up by the government, we're still going to see an increase in unemployment and we're still going to see wages in this country not rise for four years. In fact, the budget papers say the government is forecasting that there's going to be a real wage cut over the next 12 months; people's wages are going to go backwards over the next 12 months, once you take inflation into account.</para>
<para>I would have thought if the government was going to rack up $1 trillion in debt it might at least be able to get unemployment down and ensure Australians are going to get a wage rise and, therefore, have more money to put through local businesses and create jobs. I would have thought we might see a fix for the childcare system, particularly to encourage women back into work. I would have thought we might see a fix to the aged-care crisis. But what we now know is that, after this debt is being racked up, all of those problems will still remain for a future government to deal with. That is a really lost opportunity for this government and for the country as a whole.</para>
<para>The other really disappointing aspect of the budget last night is that the government didn't take up Labor's suggestion to reverse the cuts the government has imposed on JobKeeper and JobSeeker. Again, in my state of Queensland alone, those cuts which have taken effect over the last few days are impacting on hundreds of thousands of people. I will give you a few examples. In Brisbane, it's estimated that there are about 273,000 people who have had JobKeeper or JobSeeker cut over the last few days. On the Gold Coast, it is about 165,000 people.</para>
<para class="italic">Senator Hume interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm happy to take that absurd interjection from Senator Hume, which we've been hearing all week. They are so terrified of the reality that they have cut the JobSeeker payment and JobKeeper payment that they want to turn it into some extension. Let me give you a tip. When someone's receiving $1,500 a fortnight on JobKeeper, and it's reduced by hundreds of dollars a fortnight, it's not an increase, it's a cut. 'Cut' might not be a word that you like; it might not be a word that you want to use. But reducing a payment by hundreds of dollars a fortnight is not an increase; it can only be labelled as a cut—a cut imposed as part of the Morrison recession. And this is going to make things worse.</para>
<para>At a time when the economy is so precarious, cutting the JobKeeper and JobSeeker payments to hundreds of thousands of people in Brisbane, Logan, the Scenic Rim, the Gold Coast, the Sunshine Coast, Central Queensland, the Fraser Coast, North Queensland and outback Queensland is taking millions of dollars out of those local economies every single week. That's money that people had in their pockets and were able to spend in local businesses; it is money they will no longer have. That is going to have a devastating impact on those local economies, and we saw nothing last night to address that and change that.</para>
<para>The other thing we didn't see in the budget last night was the funding that the Queensland opposition leader, Deb Frecklington, claims to have to upgrade the Bruce Highway in Queensland. Ms Frecklington has spent the last week driving from Brisbane to Cairns telling people all along the way that, if she's elected as the Premier of Queensland, she's going to make the Bruce Highway a four-lane road from Brisbane to Cairns. That would cost $33 billion. She's saying she'll put in 20 per cent, which means she needs about $26 billion from the federal government to meet her commitment to make the Bruce Highway four lanes. And what did we see last night? We saw $200 million committed by the federal government to the Bruce Highway. So she's about $26.2 billion short. She will only make it up by cutting, just like the federal government is cutting right now. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I will discuss the real economic inequalities that this government has created and the disastrous effect they're having on hardworking Australians.</para>
<para>As we've heard in the last half-hour, the Greens and Labor play as a tag team to attack the government on the budget's inequalities. Yet both are complicit in supporting the most destructive and regressive attack on the working class ever seen in our country—that is, the United Nations-led war on cheap energy. This war is hurting humanity, destroying the environment and curtailing the freedoms and sovereignty of our nation. Let's not forget that, while Labor and Greens policies will cause a swift and evil end to affordable energy in our country, the Liberal and National parties' approach is death by a thousand climate regulations. In the end, whether Labor-Greens or Liberal-Nationals climate policies prevail, the destruction of our economy will be the same; only the length of time it will take to deindustrialise and destroy our way of life will differ.</para>
<para>The Greens and Labor talk about inequality, yet they ignore the inequalities their own policies have on Australians. Where is the equality for Australians, who are now paying 39 per cent of their electricity bills for climate policies and renewable subsidies? Although the government tell us it's only six per cent, it's own data says 39 per cent and cannot be sensibly refuted. Where is the equality for Australians, who are paying $526,000 for every wind turbine erected in Australia with taxpayer subsidies going directly to, mostly, foreign companies? They're paid even when the turbine generates no power. Where is the equality for working-class Australians, who are paying $13 billion extra a year in higher electricity bills due to climate policies championed by wealthy elites, who can afford the higher cost of electricity? Where is the equality for Australians, whose economy is being destroyed through trying to limit our 1.3 per cent of global human CO2 when countries like China, who produce 30 per cent of global human carbon dioxide, build hundreds of new coal-fired power plants? This is not democracy; this is hypocrisy. I would like everyone in this chamber to take a moment to think about the most vulnerable people in our society—the poor, the elderly, students, the unemployed—and the effect your climate policies are having on them. This is a highly regressive tax on these people. The proportion of our electricity bills created by climate policies is now 39 per cent. Again, this figure is from state and federal governments' own figures.</para>
<para>Paying for an essential service like electricity is becoming a luxury for some. For the majority it means less disposable income for families to spend on food, birthday presents or a family holiday. When are you, my colleagues in this chamber, going to start focusing on what is good for the people of Australia rather than on enriching your corporate mates in the green energy business and virtue signalling to the elites and the United Nations? You were elected as servants to the people of Australia. It's time you started acting like it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in this MPI debate in the context of, having read the MPI, wanting to add my welcome to the welcome of other senators to Senator Thorpe and saying to her that it's very fortunate. Some of us have been here for more than 12 months and not got an MPI up. She's got an MPI up in her first week, and that's a very good thing.</para>
<para>This MPI goes to the centrality of economic equality to any sense of social justice and the deep disappointment that most Australians will have in the failure of the budget to deal in any meaningful way with the context of the deepest recession since the Great Depression. The Morrison recession is deeper and will go on for longer because of the policy failure of this government to deal with the challenges that the coronavirus pandemic has presented for our economy. The test for this budget must be what it does for jobs, and for good jobs, for Australians in our cities and our regions. It fails that test completely. The myth created by those on the other side of some coalition capacity to manage the economy is surely now gone forever. There was the silliness of the Back in Black mugs they put around last year, which, strangely, you can't find. I tried to buy one late last year; they are just gone. Claiming a budget surplus before you deliver it is surely one of the silliest things that a Treasurer and a Prime Minister have done in Australian political history.</para>
<para>Up close, I've got to say that, over the last 12 months, I've realised how fragile is this myth of coalition economic capacity. Senator Cormann isn't going to be here for much longer, and his side rely upon him to continue that myth of economic credibility. But it's really only maintained by bluster and slogans. If you follow the bouncing ball of the logic of the of the coalition's claim to some economic credibility, it's all about debt. Well, if they had a debt truck in 2013 because there was $160 billion worth of Commonwealth debt following the global financial crisis, they would have needed a B-double at the end of last year and a road train wouldn't hold the slogan.</para>
<para>The point about debt is not how big it is; it's: what did you do with it? What did you achieve? We're in a position where much more than a trillion dollars of net debt, at its peak, will be in the economy, and what has been achieved? Today we have the highest number of Australians unemployed in our history. If you believe the government's own modelling, there are 160,000 more Australians to go who will lose their jobs between now and Christmas—if you believe that; we'll see what happens. The budget package is an utter failure. What is it going to deliver? How many people are going to go into good jobs because of this government's package?</para>
<para>The average Australian taxpayer is a 38-year-old woman with two kids. What's in the budget for her? If she's part of the million who are now unemployed, in December she can look forward to the JobSeeker package going back to $40 a day. If she isn't in the million people who have lost their jobs, is she going to be in the next 160,000—or, if you believe the Treasury estimates, 400,000—people who will lose their jobs between now and Christmas? If she has lost her job, some of the people who have lost their jobs because of the Morrison government's mismanagement of this recession face the prospect—according to the government's own estimates—of four long years of unemployment before they get a job.</para>
<para>If that 38-year-old woman with two kids wants to get back into work and if she was looking to this budget to deliver anything for her in terms of improvements to the childcare framework for Australian women and families, this budget has a big fat zero in it for her on childcare. If, like hundreds of thousands of other Australian women, she works in aged care, child care, retail or any of those other occupations that are highly feminised, there is nothing in the budget for her, just a legacy of wage stagnation and neglect in those sectors. Because she's 38 and the government's delivering precious little in terms of new job creation, what she faces is an incentive system that incentivises employers to employ anybody but her. She's got to face up to that additional challenge in the labour market.</para>
<para>We know what's worked. When Labor came here to the Senate and the House of Representatives demanding a wage subsidy program, those on the other side of this chamber, including the leader in the Senate, laughed the idea out of the place. Two weeks later, they launched JobKeeper and JobSeeker. We know those programs have worked to maintain a relationship between some workers and their businesses, more than three million of them, and they've kept hundreds of thousands of businesses afloat. But both the programs are going to be cut. Despite what Senator Hume says, they will go on for a bit longer but the rate is going to be reduced and it's going to have a catastrophic effect. The only recovery that's going to happen over this year is a liquidator led recovery, because of your cuts to the JobKeeper program that will send many businesses to the wall.</para>
<para>This recession is a pure product of absolute mismanagement. It is the Morrison recession. Your cuts mean hundred of thousands more Australians will lose their jobs. Tens of thousands of Australian businesses will close because you don't understand your responsibility, as a government, to manage the economy. Australians have got precious little for their $1 trillion worth of extra debt. Mr Frydenberg and the Prime Minister would have us believe that the economy is in good shape, that we were in a good financial position as we approached the end of 2019. But what have we had? We have had flatlining growth. For most Australians, wages have been falling. We have had a long period of wage stagnation. In the record books, ordinary Australians could not get ahead. Unemployment and underemployment are steadily working their way up. There are 1.8 million Australians unemployed or underemployed. You are proud of that legacy. There are 1.8 million Australians without a job or without enough work. The RBA is doing all of the heavy lifting in the economy. Interest rates are at historic lows because this lot couldn't do their job and productivity is declining. They're just not very good at economic management. The verdict on their economic management will be the same as the royal commission's verdict on their management of the aged-care system: neglect and failure.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to contribute to this debate today. Last night's budget was a sheer disappointment for those who have been the hardest hit by this pandemic and the recession that has followed. The moment restrictions had to be brought in to manage the health crisis, we knew that hundreds of thousands of Australians working within the hospitality industry, the tourism industry and the arts and entertainment industry would be out of work. Yet last night the Treasurer could not even bring himself to utter the words 'art', 'artists', 'creatives', 'entertainers'—nothing. The hardest-hit sector that binds our hospitality and tourism industry together has been left out in the cold once again. We are talking about 600,000 Australian workers, who bring $112 billion to the economy. They have been left on the scrap heap. Many of them have never been able to access JobKeeper. They are still left out in the cold. Many of them are casual workers who have had hours cut, jobs cut and wages lost; and their savings, if they had any, are now running dry. We are talking about artists, musicians, authors, photographers, graphic designers, florists and the thousands and thousands of dance teachers across this country who run the dance schools that Australians send their kids to every weekend—or used to be able to.</para>
<para>Hundreds of thousands of Australian artists and those who work in the creative industries have been left on the scrap heap today after receiving nothing in this budget despite being hit the hardest by this economic crisis. Of course, the arts and entertainment industry, like retail, hospitality and tourism, is predominantly female oriented. Women are at the heart of this crisis, carrying the economic burden, and they have received nothing out of this budget. It beggars belief that, after six months, the Treasurer last night gave a speech and did not utter a word about supporting Australia's arts and cultural sector and industry. It's as if art doesn't matter. It's as if culture doesn't exist. It's as if, for the last six months of lockdown, Australians have not turned on the television or their streaming service and watched shows that have entertained them, or have not turned on the radio or stereo and listened to music or have not got themselves into a good book. It's as if art and culture in this country mean nothing.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister spends quite a bit of time going to the football. Wouldn't it be wonderful if every now and then he went to a community arts centre? Wouldn't it be wonderful if he swapped the footy scarf every now and again for a book that was written by an Australian author? Or supported some kids at their local community art show? That is the kind of Prime Minister who would be acting in the interests of every single Australian.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It gives me great pleasure to stand to contribute tonight on behalf of the Nationals and on behalf of every single senator, I think, on the coalition government benches to back this budget in. This is not just a budget for blokes, as the other side wants to make it out to be; this actually is a budget for everyone.</para>
<para>As I was reading the motion here before us, it's the trite structure of the sentence; it's reverting to type—pull out your Marxist doctrine, flip to page 6—the righties are only in it for the millionaires! I'll tell you what the righties are actually in it for: we're in it for every single Australian—working men and women, young people and people from rural and regional Australia, who I've been sent here to represent. Senator Thorpe, I welcome you to the Senate from our home state of—well, the 'Republic of Dan-estan' at the moment—a beautiful place called Victoria. But it is disappointing that you have so quickly picked up the baton of rhetoric from the Greens and want to attack every single thing that rural and regional Australians stand for.</para>
<para>What we do in terms of supporting our families is that we are the miners, the foresters, the manufacturers and the farmers. We care for our environment, we care for our communities and we care for our families. It is COVID-19 that has wrought absolute havoc on regional and rural communities right across the country, not just in Victoria. We've had the ravages of drought, we've had the horrors of bushfire, we've had the lockdown of COVID-19 and, for those rural and regional communities that have been in border towns, it's been absolutely horrific to see the resultant economic and social impact of the city-centric decision-making by our state premiers.</para>
<para>We need a strong vision of recovery, one that provides confidence to families right across our nation. That resilience that drives regional Australians is indeed felt right throughout our community. I believe that the budget handed down by Josh Frydenberg last night absolutely delivers in spades on that account. Instead of terming it as expanding 'dirty' gas and giving billions in corporate handouts, I think the Treasurer made it very, very clear, that our No. 1 sole outcome we're seeking from this budget and our recovery from the pandemic is about jobs. That's local jobs—local jobs for our young people, getting them in as apprentices; assisting women back into the workforce; and supporting the millions of small business men and women right across this country who are the very heart of our local communities. Whether you're in a regional city, such as Bendigo, or whether you're in a country town, such as Benalla, or, indeed, the suburbs of our great cities, it is the small business community that has really borne the brunt of the COVID-19 pandemic, and they are the ones that will drive our economic recovery; they are the ones who will employ. No matter how big you want to make the Public Service or the charitable organisations that drive certain areas of your political campaigns, at the end of the day you have to accept the fact that the vast majority of Australians earn their living working for a small to medium enterprise. We need to support these enterprises and that's what our budget does. When you say we're giving corporate handouts to the big end of town, you haven't actually listened to a word our government has said or read the budget papers.</para>
<para>The reality is that, with regard to the instant asset write-off announced by the Treasurer, I've had call after call after call, email after email after email to my office from farmers and small businesses right throughout Australia saying what a boon this will be to them. Do you know what that will mean? It'll mean they will be able to keep their employees on the books. It'll mean that small business will be able to pay their bills and local economies will be supported. That is how we're going to recover from the horrors that this global pandemic has wrought on our national economy. You say 'dirty gas'. Gosh, dirty gas, hey? What is it? Dirty coal, dirty gas—</para>
<para>An honourable senator interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There we go. Thank you, Senator, I'll take that interjection. What we want to see is advanced manufacturing grow and prosper in this country. Right now, 32 per cent of our manufacturing workforce is located in rural and regional areas. We want to see that workforce expanded. Industrial relations are sometimes an issue, as is the cost of electricity, which is one of the main input costs for manufacturing. Any break in the reliability of electricity supply can cost tens of thousands of dollars, even if electricity is off for only few seconds. That is the reality of running a manufacturing plant, whether it be in food or fibre, in mineral production or in defence manufacturing. That is a fact. I'm not making it up because of my ideology. It's science, and you can't selectively pick pieces of scientific knowledge to suit your ideological purposes.</para>
<para>If we want to grow manufacturing in this country, if we want people to be employed in regional Australia, we need to back sourcing cheap, reliable energy. That means doing things that we have promised to do, like assessing the cost-benefit analysis of a coal fired power station at Collinsville. It also means backing in expanding our gas market to ensure that our manufacturing industries have access to affordable and reliable power. It's that simple. We believe that this is the way forward, and it will have the additional benefit of lowering emissions. Right now, we import a lot of stuff from overseas that is not produced using renewable energy or gas. It's not produced using the beautiful high-calorific black coal of Central Queensland, but its production comes with very, very high emissions. If you were honest with yourselves and accepted the science, you would choose to support local manufacturing and not imports.</para>
<para>Out in the regions, we have a nearly $280 billion mining industry and a $60 billion agriculture industry. We want to be not just exporting raw product to the markets of the world but adding value at home to create highly sustainable, rewarding careers in the advanced manufacturing sector going forward. It's a big push in our budget, and I'm very, very proud to be part of a government that is backing in that part of our economy, because we've seen a significant decrease in manufacturing, from being nearly 30 per cent of our economy down to around five per cent. That's not a good thing. I want to see more manufacturing, as does everybody in the National Party.</para>
<para>Our emissions reduction strategy is focused on technology, not on taxes. We think we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can support our community and our country to recover from COVID-19 through this budget, we can get people employed and we can also reduce emissions to fulfil our international targets. This is central to our ongoing economic recovery. A gas fired recovery is a key component of our JobMaker plan, while we are building a robust and competitive gas industry with lower prices and lower emissions, because gas will be a critical enabler of Australia's economy.</para>
<para>Our technology investment road map will guide the deployment of $18 billion of government investment between now and 2030, including through the CEC, ARENA, the Climate Solutions Fund and the Clean Energy Regulator. The road map will drive at least $50 billion worth of investment through the private sector, state governments, research institutions and publicly funded bodies, supporting 130,000 jobs. That is great news. As you can see, our side of the chamber is focused on supporting hardworking Australians, particularly those in our regions. We're focused on new technologies to create jobs and, at the same time, cutting emissions and power bills. You can do it all. It will be okay. You don't need to ruin people's lives and livelihoods to pursue your emissions reduction targets. The Nationals in government will continue to support mature technologies where there is clear market failure, like the shortage in dispatchable generation we are seeing at the moment.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to begin by informing the chamber this is not my first speech. I feel a strong need to rise to speak on this matter today. I have only been in this chamber for one day and I'm immediately reminded of how out of touch this government is with everyday people in this country. It didn't take long for the Morrison government to show its true priorities—the millionaires—instead of the millions of people unemployed and struggling in this country. This government is trying to con us into believing that this terrible budget is good for people and for our planet. It is not.</para>
<para>Budgets are about what we value and the kind of country we want to live in. Let me tell you what the Morrison government values: dirty coal, dirty gas, dirty deals, and fracking the Galilee and Beetaloo basins. The Galilee Basin alone is the home of at least 12 distinct First Nations groups who have had an unbroken connection to caring for country for millennia—protection and preserving, not desecrating for profit and power. The Morrison government values giving public money to the Vales Point coal-fired power station, which is owned by a Liberal Party donor. The government values speeding us further into the climate emergency by prioritising fracking and dirty fossil fuels.</para>
<para>The Treasurer finally brought himself to say the words 'climate change' in his speech last night. But in his next breath he announced the government's plans for fracking. It's shameful the Morrison government are telling us all with this budget that they value millionaires more than the rest of us and more than our climate.</para>
<para>Australians yesterday wanted to know how this government would rise to the challenge of looking after people and the planet in the middle of a global crisis. Well, they didn't. This budget could have prioritised full employment, building public homes, growing our renewable energy sector, building high-speed rail and providing free child care and better aged care. We could have given Aboriginal community-controlled organisations the public money they need to continue looking after their communities. But in the worst recession in generations, we're borrowing money to pay for tax cuts for the rich, while people on income support or anyone earning less than $18,000 a year will get nothing. Shame. If we had taken this approach during the Great Depression, we'd still be in it.</para>
<para>The Greens are calling on our fellow senators from Labor and the crossbench to block the worst elements of this terrible trickle-down con job that spends big but spends badly. I'm here to fight for a smart, green recovery that addresses both the COVID crisis and the climate crisis we are in. People who are used to privilege and power in this country are making bad decisions for everyone else.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:25</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 MPI:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Morrison government's budget for millionaires is a disaster for our climate and for economic equality, driving the expansion of dirty gas and giving billions in corporate handouts.</para></quote>
<para>Last night's budget, touted by the Treasurer as a budget all about jobs, does nothing for those who will remain unemployed. That's because even the government says and knows that there will still be around six per cent unemployment, even if their wildest dreams come true. Those people deserve support from our social security system, so that they are not living in poverty and so that their wellbeing is ensured. The Treasurer mentioned JobSeeker three times in his speech last night, that I counted, but did not mention and did not commit to any permanent increase to JobSeeker nor give security to those who do not know whether, at the end of December, they will be condemned to $40 a day. In fact, at the moment that's what is going to happen. People on the JobSeeker payment or on youth allowance basically at the moment know that they will end up in deep poverty. With the cut of $300 a fortnight, we know that they've been put below the poverty line, but by the end of December they will be in the deep poverty of $40 a day. We saw nothing for people on JobSeeker and youth allowance, who are becoming increasingly anxious about the future and whether they will be able to pay their bills or not.</para>
<para>This trickle-down budget is rooted in choices that will prolong our recession and fuel the climate crisis. The tragedy here is that we could move to a much more equal community and society and address the climate crisis, but the government has prioritised $99 billion a year in handouts to big corporations while unemployed Australians get nothing. Millions of Australians on high incomes will get tax cuts, but there's no guarantee that they'll spend the money. Whereas, if you commit to certainty for people on low incomes, and in particular those on the JobSeeker payment, if you guarantee certainty and make sure that they are given an income and supported above the poverty line, they will actually spend the money. They know that they have to put food on the table, pay their rent, pay their mortgages, go to the dentist, buy medications. They contribute to the community. In fact, by not making sure that people will continue to get paid the original coronavirus supplement, the government has taken out $31.3 billion from our economy. It means that 145,000 jobs are not available that would be available if the government were paying the coronavirus supplement at the original level of $1,100 a fortnight. That money would not only benefit the economy but, much more importantly, would make sure that people weren't living in poverty and that people's wellbeing was looked after. This budget condemns people to poverty. It also expands inequality and will help drive our climate crisis.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time for the discussion has expired.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>87</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Forestry Industry</title>
          <page.no>87</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration</title>
            <page.no>87</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:29</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 take note of the document.</para></quote>
<para>On 1 September the Senate passed a resolution moved by Senator Duniam and other LNP senators which made baseless and scandalous claims against the Bob Brown Foundation and some eminent scientists regarding a paper they wrote in relation to bushfires and forestry operations. The motion was passed with only Australian Greens senators opposing. The motion was a disgraceful and cowardly use of parliamentary privilege to smear scientists for doing their jobs and activists who are bravely defending Tasmania's magnificent carbon-rich forests from ongoing destruction by the logging industry.</para>
<para>A response from Mr Steven Chaffer, CEO of the Bob Brown Foundation, to this motion has been tabled in the Senate today. I will now read the substance of Mr Chaffer's response into the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>: 'The resolution says the paper was withdrawn after insistence from the academic community. The paper was in fact withdrawn by its honourable authors before anyone else asked for such action. The claim that the withdrawal of this paper was required is manifestly wrong. Indeed, the editor of the journal <inline font-style="italic">Fire</inline>, Professor Alistair Smith, said of the authors: "The retraction was made at the request of the authors of the original paper after they were alerted to an error. This is an excellent example of research integrity by the authors." The resolution condemned the Bob Brown Foundation for the use of bodgie science and falsehoods about forestry. On the honour of the Senate, I ask you to forward to the foundation the evidence, the science, for this otherwise egregious slander. The <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> contains no such science or evidence. The Senate then called on this foundation to apologise for using misinformation to demonise hardworking Australians. This foundation did no such thing. The foundation does, however, employ hardworking Australians and is supported by thousands more hardworking Australians. It is appalled by the misinformation used in the Australian Senate to demonise these hardworking Australians.'</para>
<para>I want to say this: unlike many in the chamber, the Australian Greens believe in and accept the climate science. We support climate scientists. We support the scientists who wrote the paper that Senator Duniam's motion referred to, and we support the great work that the Bob Brown Foundation is doing. There is abundant existing evidence, apart from the paper that Senator Duniam's motion referred to, which links logging with increased bushfire risk. My colleague Senator Whish-Wilson has written to Tasmanian forests minister Guy Barnett, on behalf of the scientists, requesting that the relevant maps held by Forestry Tasmania be made publicly available to assist with scientific research. He has also urged the Liberals not to politicise the work of scientists and instead let the scientific process, whereby scientists are the ones who debate and critique each other's research, take its course.</para>
<para>The Australian Greens will continue to fight for the many Australian communities and the many ecosystems in this beautiful country of ours that are affected by and threatened by increased bushfire risk due to industrial forestry operations and the breakdown of our climate. I say this to Senator Duniam: if he's got evidence to support the contentions in his motion, then he should provide it to the Senate. If he doesn't—and I suspect that that's the case—then he should come into this place and apologise and withdraw. Finally, I urge Senator Duniam to get his head out of the sand, accept the climate science and work to end his political party's war on nature and this planet's climate. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>88</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Scrutiny of Bills Committee</title>
          <page.no>88</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Scrutiny Digest</title>
            <page.no>88</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Chair of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Senator Polley, I present <inline font-style="italic">Scrutiny Digest</inline> No. 13 of 2020.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation</title>
          <page.no>88</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Delegated Legislation Monitor</title>
            <page.no>88</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:34</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 Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, Senator Fierravanti-Wells, I present Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 11 of 2020.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Legislation Committees</title>
          <page.no>88</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>88</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective committees, I present reports on the examination of annual reports tabled by 30 April 2020.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Finance and Public Administration References Committee</title>
          <page.no>88</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>88</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the interim report of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee <inline font-style="italic">Lessons to be learned in relation to the Australian bushfire season 2019-20</inline>, together with the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the report.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the interim report of the inquiry of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee into the Australian bushfires. It seems like a lifetime ago that the bushfires had such a devastating impact, but it wasn't even a full year ago. We had people wearing masks not because of COVID-19 but because the smoke was so bad. We saw heartbreaking pictures of people evacuated off beaches as the flames roared, and it's been such a hard year for so many since then. Over 30 people lost their lives and more than 3,000 homes were destroyed in the six months of the 'black summer' fires. In addition, it's estimated that there were 417 excess deaths because of bushfire smoke exposure, and over 4,000 hospitalisations and emergency department presentations for cardiovascular problems, respiratory problems and asthma because of bushfire smoke. I extend my sympathies to the families and friends of those who tragically passed away, those who were injured or traumatised or lost their homes or livelihoods and those whose health was affected by the fires. I also note that there were over three billion animals killed in these fires. The Worldwide Fund for Nature described it as one of the worst wildlife disasters in modern history.</para>
<para>These fires were supercharged by our climate crisis. Despite the devastation we saw in the fires, the Liberal Party is refusing to address the climate emergency. In the midst of a pandemic, a devastating economic downturn and a climate emergency, the Liberal Party is still trying the same old tired ideological approaches. So this interim report into the bushfires is very timely. It presents the evidence that we've heard to date. It presents 13 recommendations, drawing on evidence that the committee has heard. It's important that the government act urgently, before the coming summer, because there are things that the government can do right away that will make a difference for future bushfire summers.</para>
<para>The Greens support the recommendations outlined in this report, but in my comments I want to focus on what wasn't in the recommendations but has been included in our additional comments—that is, the need for urgent action on our climate crisis. The committee received ample overwhelming evidence, very clear and sobering evidence, about how our climate emergency is having a terrible impact on fire conditions. The Climate Council of Australia wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Climate change was the driver of the record-breaking extreme weather conditions that led to the catastrophic bushfires. Any remaining doubt on the clear causal linkages between climate change and worsening bushfire seasons driven by extreme weather needs to be comprehensively refuted in the Inquiry Report.</para></quote>
<para>Just to state the obvious, we know that Australia's actions contribute massively to the climate emergency. The Liberal-National government have done the bidding of their fossil fuel donors and consistently blocked, repealed and undermined action on the climate crisis. If future generations look back they'll ask, 'Why didn't we act earlier?' The answer will be the fossil fuel lobby and their shills sitting in the Liberal party room.</para>
<para>Because of the undermining of meaningful action, Australia is still worsening the climate emergency. We are the fifth-biggest miner of fossil fuels, behind China, the USA, Russia and Saudi Arabia. For every Australian, this country mines 57 tonnes of fossil fuel carbon every year, 10 times greater than the world average. So it's disappointing, given the overwhelming evidence that was presented to the inquiry, that the Labor-majority committee didn't see its way clear to make a recommendation about the urgent need to reduce our carbon pollution to zero as soon as possible. We are completely out of time for half-measures. This is an emergency. We do not have time to wait. It's not a matter of waiting for evidence. The moment is here and the time is now. We need to act urgently to reduce our carbon pollution and meet our commitments under the Paris Agreement. If we act now, we'll still be facing the impacts of the warming that's already baked in, but we can prevent the future warming that is going to make fire seasons much, much worse.</para>
<para>To address the climate emergency, there are two things that we have to do. We must declare a climate emergency. We, the Greens, have introduced the Climate Emergency Declaration Bill 2020, and the parliament should pass that bill. That is one of our additional recommendations in this interim report. More than that, we should enact a green new deal, a government-led plan of massive investment and action to build a clean economy and a caring society. Under a green new deal, the government would take the lead in creating new jobs and industries, getting to zero emissions as quickly as possible and delivering universal services to make sure that no-one's left behind—exactly what the government did not do in last night's budget. Last night's budget was such a missed opportunity. The Liberal Party like to pretend that the reason they're not acting on our climate crisis is some imagined cost, and the Labor Party say that they can't act at the speed and scale needed because they're worried about jobs in mining and burning coal and gas. But, of course, we know that upsetting the big fossil fuel companies that donate to both parties is the main reason that they're not acting.</para>
<para>So it's very clear. If we are to avoid increased, more extreme fire conditions in future years, if we are to avoid a future where last summer's desperate fires are just a taste of what is to come, we need to act on our climate crisis and we need to act now.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to take note of the bushfire interim report. It's been a privilege to chair the committee that has dealt with this and to work with the secretariat and the other senators who have participated in the work of the inquiry.</para>
<para>Of course, the committee conducting the bushfires inquiry is doing its work in the shadow of the 'black summer', the 2019-20 bushfire season. The Prime Minister and this government failed to prepare for the 2019-20 bushfire season. We knew it at the time. The warnings weren't just private warnings to the government; they were public warnings to the government from public institutions that understood the magnitude of the bushfire risk that was posed right across the Australian continent. Of course, at this very moment in the Northern Hemisphere, bushfires are raging across the United States, and the continuing escalation of bushfire threat around the globe intensifies the challenge for Australia. We knew it at the time. The Commonwealth government, the Morrison government, should have known it at the time and should have taken steps to prepare bushfire communities. Ultimately, we saw the tragic consequences, and the evidence submitted to the inquiry has confirmed that all over again.</para>
<para>I want to thank those organisations and individuals that have made submissions to the inquiry, many of whom we've heard oral evidence from. Despite what some senators in this place say about the role of the CSIRO and the other key credible scientific institutions in Australia, the scientific experts have said conclusively once again—just in case people needed reminding—that rising emissions have contributed to a changing climate, which has meant increasing drought conditions, longer fire seasons, drier fuel, less opportunity for hazard reduction and more intense risks of more dangerous and bigger bushfires right across the Australian continent. Australia is uniquely vulnerable to this kind of climate risk.</para>
<para>That's why there's no shirking the responsibility here. The idea that the Commonwealth government doesn't hold a hose should be completely dispelled, not just by this inquiry but by the other inquiries, including the royal commission, that are doing their work. The recommendations handed down in the interim report are especially focused on ensuring, firstly, that the government recognises its responsibility—doesn't shirk it and doesn't point at the states—in terms of bushfire mitigation, adaptation and doing the work to secure the safety of Australians in bushfire communities.</para>
<para>We must urgently invest in resilience and mitigation works to keep bushfire communities safe. We must raise the rate of the Australian government's disaster recovery payment to assist survivors to recover. We must build a sovereign aerial firefighting fleet so that we can cope with longer and more intense fire seasons but also eliminate bushfires in remote parts of the country that are inaccessible for our professional and volunteer firefighters—eliminating those fires before they become the giant conflagrations that have threatened communities, particularly on the east coast of Australia. We should reverse the cuts to the ABC and particularly safeguard their emergency broadcasting funding. And we must invest in hardening the transmission sites that have been so crucial to keeping bushfire communities safe.</para>
<para>There is disagreement, I think, amongst the senators on the committee about some elements of the issues that confront us. But I do have to say that there has been agreement across all members of the committee that the work of the bushfire Senate committee is important work. It's important that we continue to engage in that careful work of sifting through the evidence and the material that is supplied to us so that there isn't this sloganeering about hazard reduction on the one hand and climate change on the other, as if they are two things that we cannot deal with at the same time.</para>
<para>Many of the recommendations in the interim report are intended to be enacted immediately. We can't leave these communities behind like they were last year. We're seeing the same failure to prepare that we saw last year, when the Prime Minister and his government ignored warning after warning from the Bushfire & Natural Hazards CRC, the opposition, their own departments and dozens of former fire chiefs. It can't be allowed to happen again. Key recommendations include recommendation 3 and following:</para>
<quote><para class="block">…that, as a matter of priority, the Commonwealth Government release funding for mitigation projects through the Emergency Response Fund.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 4</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2.141 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government review, with a view to increase, the rate of the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment and the Disaster Recovery Allowance as a matter of priority.</para></quote>
<para>…   …   …</para>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 7</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4.95 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government make the Better Access Bushfire Recovery initiative and the Better Access Bushfire Recovery Telehealth initiative permanent mental health support services, with both initiatives properly funded over the forward estimates.</para></quote>
<para>I can't tell you, from visiting bushfire communities, just how crucial extending those initiatives is. And, finally:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 8</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6.59 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government develop a business case to progress the establishment of a permanent, sovereign aerial firefighting fleet, …</para></quote>
<para>We just can't have any uncertainty in the context of overlapping Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere bushfire seasons—that uncertainty of being unable to deliver sovereign aeroplane bushfire fighting capability.</para>
<para>The committee notes in this report that this is just the interim report. It's by no means exhaustive, and it's intended to catalogue the evidence and make recommendations that deal with bushfire preparedness and the lessons learned from last summer. There is much more work to be done.</para>
<para>When travel restrictions are relaxed the committee will visit bushfire affected regions to examine the progress and effectiveness of the recovery that we know will be long and arduous for many communities. I'm deeply sorry that, because of the public health restrictions, we weren't able to conduct that work over the course of the last six months. It would have been of immense benefit to the committee's work but I think also of some benefit to those communities to have the parliament out there in their communities, listening carefully to them about their experiences.</para>
<para>We will examine the ongoing impacts of the fires on the physical and mental health of people directly impacted by the fires and those exposed to hazardous levels of bushfire smoke. There is a lot of emerging evidence of the impact on people and communities and, recently, of the impact on pregnant women and their unborn children from exposure to hazardous levels of bushfire smoke.</para>
<para>In a rapidly changing climate appropriate hazard reduction regimes are becoming increasingly problematic. Evidence presented to the inquiry so far indicates that historical methods of hazard reduction are increasingly problematic. For example, there are just fewer days in the year when hazard reduction work can occur safely. It is true that state governments have cut the capacity of National Parks and Wildlife and State Forests to do some of that work. There is much more work and investment required and further research. In the meantime, the committee will continue to engage in a thoughtful way with experts in the field.</para>
<para>We're very concerned about evidence that insurance in fire prone areas is becoming increasingly expensive and could become unavailable unless strong mitigation is undertaken. We're concerned by the effect of the increasing frequency and severity of climate-change-driven natural disasters on the financial stability of the insurance industry and the apparent preparedness to make policyholders carry the burden through increased premiums. For that reason, we've made recommendations relating to APRA's supervision of the industry and monitoring of the natural perils component of insurance premiums by the ACCC.</para>
<para>Finally, I thank the committee secretariat for their assistance and their hard work in the conduct of the inquiry so far, particularly in the challenging circumstances presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environment and Communications References Committee</title>
          <page.no>91</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Government Response to Report</title>
            <page.no>91</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the government's updated response to the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee on its inquiry into Australia's faunal extinction crisis. I seek leave to have the document incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The document read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Updated Australian Government Response</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Environment and Communications References Committee Inquiry Interim Report:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia's Faunal Extinction Crisis</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">October 2020</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Introduction</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">On 27 June 2018, the Senate referred the following matter to Environment and Communications References Committee (the committee) for inquiry and report by 4 December 2018.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia's faunal extinction crisis, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">a. the ongoing decline in the population and conservation status of Australia's nearly 500 threatened fauna species;</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">b. the wider ecological impact of fauna/ extinction;</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">c. the international and domestic obligations of the Commonwealth Government in conserving threatened fauna;</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">d. the adequacy of Commonwealth environment laws, including but not limited to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, in providing sufficient protections for threatened fauna and against key threatening processes;</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">e. the adequacy and effectiveness of protections for critical habitat for threatened fauna under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999;</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">f the adequacy of the management and extent of the National Reserve System, stewardship arrangements, covenants and connectivity through wildlife corridors in conserving threatened fauna;</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">g. the use of traditional knowledge and management for threatened species recovery and other outcomes as well as opportunities to expand the use of traditional knowledge and management for conservation;</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">h. the adequacy of existing funding streams for implementing threatened species recovery plans and preventing threatened fauna loss in general;</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">i. the adequacy of existing monitoring practices in relation to the threatened fauna assessment and adaptive management responses;</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">j. the adequacy of existing assessment processes for identifying threatened fauna conservation status;</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">k. the adequacy of existing compliance mechanisms for enforcing Commonwealth environment law; and</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">l</inline> <inline font-style="italic">. any related matters.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The reporting date for the inquiry was subsequently extended to the second sitting Wednesday of 2021.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government has considered the recommendations of the Committee's Interim Report and has provided the response below.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 1</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee recommends that to limit the drivers of faunal extinction, the Commonwealth develop new environmental legislation to replace the <inline font-style="italic">Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Response to Recommendation 1</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Noted.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government welcomes the opportunity to improve the effectiveness of environment protections under the <inline font-style="italic">Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 </inline>(the Act). An independent review of the Act is currently underway, and the interim report of the review has been published.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the interim report, Professor Graeme Samuel AC proposes a number of key reform directions to improve the effectiveness of the Act. Professor Samuel will now consult on the interim report before submitting a final report to Government in October 2020.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In response to Professor Samuel's interim report, the Australian Government has announced that it will commit to a number of priority areas for reform, including:</para></quote>
<list>developing Commonwealth led national environmental standards which will underpin new bilateral agreements with State Governments;</list>
<list>commencing discussions with willing states to enter agreements for single touch approvals (removing duplication by accrediting states to carry out environmental assessments and approvals on the Commonwealth's behalf); and</list>
<list>exploring market based solutions for better habitat restoration that will significantly improve environmental outcomes while providing greater certainty for business, and establishing an environmental markets expert advisory group.</list>
<quote><para class="block">Work is already underway on a national digital transformation program commencing with an initial partnership with the West Australian Government. This will mean access to one online portal to submit an application through both tiers of Government and access to a single database of biodiversity studies that can, in turn, be rolled out nationally.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The biodiversity database will provide better access to information such as wildlife surveys, allow faster and more comprehensive data for project assessments, and provide a baseline that can be used by Government to better measure conservation outcomes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government has in place several important measures to safeguard Australia's fauna. This includes protection under the Act, policies such as the Strategy for Nature and the Threatened Species Strategy (lead by the Threatened Species Commissioner), investment in research through the National Environmental Science Program, and programs to support</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">on-ground activities including through the $1 billion National Landcare Program, the Environment Restoration Fund, the Communities Environment Program, and more recently through the Wildlife and Habitat Bushfire Recovery package.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government looks forward to the Final Report from the committee.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 2</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee recommends that the Commonwealth establish an independent Environment Protection Agency (EPA), with sufficient powers and funding to oversee compliance with Australia's environmental laws.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Response to Recommendati on 2</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Not agreed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In response to the interim report of the independent review of the Act, the Australian Government has announced that it will take steps to strengthen compliance functions and ensure that all bilateral agreements with States and Territories are subject to rigorous assurance monitoring.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SIEWERT</name>
    <name.id>e5z</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the document.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>92</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, Tobacco Harm Reduction Select Committee</title>
          <page.no>92</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>92</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees. There are two nominations for one position on the Select Committee on Tobacco Harm Reduction allocated to a minority group or Independent senators. In accordance with the standing orders, a ballot will be held to determine which one of the two senators who have nominated is to be appointed. I understand it is the wish of the Senate that the ballot be held tomorrow morning at a time to be determined.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Substitute member: Senator Waters to replace Senator Whish-Wilson for the committee's inquiry into the identification of leading practices in ensuring evidence-based regulation of farm practices that impact water quality outcomes in the Great Barrier Reef</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Participating member: Senator Whish-Wilson</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Tobacco Harm Reduction—Select Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senators Canavan, Henderson and Hughes</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Participating members: Senators Abetz, Antic, Askew, Bragg, Brockman, Chandler, Davey, Fawcett, Fierravanti-Wells, Hanson, McDonald, McGrath, McKenzie, McLachlan, McMahon, Molan, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Rennick, Scarr, Siewert, Dean Smith, Stoker and Van.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>93</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Biosecurity Amendment (Traveller Declarations and Other Measures) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>93</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" 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" background="" 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" style="" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture">
            <a type="Bill" href="r6568">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Biosecurity Amendment (Traveller Declarations and Other Measures) Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>93</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and 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>93</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill is about protecting Australian agriculture. Australia is a marvellous country—we produce the best agricultural products in the world. We have some of the most diverse and pristine natural wonders in the world. And we love visitors from all over the world coming to see what a great place Australia is.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But we need to be vigilant to protect Australia from an ever-increasing number of pests and diseases that threaten our industries, our country, and our way of life. Biosecurity is critical to Australia. Pests such as the brown marmorated stink bug, which has the potential to decimate our crops and do untold damage to our natural environment, pose a continual threat. Diseases such as African swine fever—some strains kill almost every pig infected—would cripple our $1.2 billion pork industry, as well as threaten our trade, environment and economy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We are investing millions of dollars into preventing these pests and diseases entering Australia but we need everyone to do their bit when they come to Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Despite our information campaigns, our videos shown on incoming flights and our information at the airport, not everyone is doing their bit. We ask people entering Australia to accurately and carefully declare what they have in their bags. It's not much to ask, and it's really not very hard. JUST DECLARE IT.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We have biosecurity officers at the airport to inspect what travellers have in their luggage and assess any biosecurity risk.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These same biosecurity officers continually see serious risk products not being declared on the incoming passenger card. We have seen a passenger arrive at Brisbane Airport with one kilogram of limes and another brought dried citrus peel with them. All of the products tested positive for the citrus canker pathogen. This pathogen would have a devastating impact on our multi-million-dollar citrus industry.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Yula, one of the biosecurity detector dogs at Sydney Airport, detected the equivalent of a small shopping trolley's worth of undeclared goods in a passenger's baggage: 3.5 kg of pork, 4 .5 kg of millet, nearly a kilogram of dried fruit, almost 10kg of rice and an assortment of fruit, vegetables and spices weighing about 2kg. None of these goods were declared by the passenger. Pork can transmit African swine fever and foot and mouth disease, and rice can introduce khapra beetle—all of which would be devastating to Australian agriculture.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill will enable infringement notices with a higher value to be issued for goods that have not been declared on an incoming passenger card and that pose a high biosecurity risk. This is a response to travellers—whether they be Australian citizens, residents or international visitors—continuing to enter Australia with high biosecurity risk items, such those detected by Yula, and not declaring them.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We've made it as simple as possible: if in doubt just declare it. Having a biosecurity officer check your declared goods takes just a few minutes, and this doesn't necessarily mean you won't be able to bring your goods into Australia. Declaring doesn't always mean having the goods confiscated. It just enables the biosecurity officers to have a look and assess whether there is a biosecurity risk that needs to be managed. And it doesn't cost you to declare something.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Director of Biosecurity will determine, using scientific evidence and risk analysis, what goods pose a high biosecurity risk and can therefore be subject to a higher infringement notice amount than currently applies. The goods will be listed in a legislative instrument. Before listing goods that have a high biosecurity risk, the Director of Biosecurity must be reasonably satisfied that there is a high level of biosecurity risk associated with the goods or the class of goods.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This tiered approach will highlight to incoming travellers how serious biosecurity is to Australia. This Bill introduces sensible changes to help us protect Australia from biosecurity pests and diseases—all we ask of travellers coming to our country is that they take a few minutes to just declare it.</para></quote>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS</title>
        <page.no>94</page.no>
        <type>REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Amendment Rules (No. 8) 2020</title>
          <page.no>94</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Disallowance</title>
            <page.no>94</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:55</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 Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Amendment Rules (No. 8) 2020, made under the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020, be disallowed [F2020L01165].</para></quote>
<para>On 28 September, the JobKeeper wage subsidy which supports about 3½ million workers was reduced from $1,500 to $1,200 a fortnight for employees who work more than 20 hours a week, and to $750 a fortnight for employees who work fewer than 20 hours a week. This motion would reverse these cuts. JobKeeper and the coronavirus supplement should never have been cut. If anything, JobKeeper should be expanded to workers left out of the scheme. Any worker who needs it must have access to this vital support. The risk of the pandemic to people's health and livelihoods has not abated. People are struggling now and they will suffer more as a result of these cuts. Borders are still closed and workplaces are still being radically impacted by COVID-19. The cost of living hasn't suddenly reduced by $300 a fortnight. People will again be forced to skip meals and take on extra debt to pay their rent or to just survive. They'll have to forgo essential health care, like dental appointments and medicines. Modelling by the ANU released last month showed that, as a result of these cuts, the national poverty rate will rise to over 15 per cent. The government should really be ashamed of itself.</para>
<para>A few days before the JobKeeper cut, the $550-a-fortnight coronavirus supplement for those on JobSeeker and other social security payments was also cut by $300. The Greens are fiercely opposed to the cut to the coronavirus supplement for people on social security payments like JobSeeker and youth allowance, but unfortunately the Senate won't even have the opportunity to seek to disallow those cruel cuts, as the only way to strike down the cut would be to strike down the supplement itself.</para>
<para>The Greens were the first to call for a wage subsidy for workers during this crisis. While we have had serious issues with the JobKeeper scheme, there is no doubt that it has helped millions of people. We strongly oppose the government's repeated changing of the rules to keep university workers out. When the government withdrew access to JobKeeper from early childhood educators, we spoke up and spoke out against it. And shamefully, from the very beginning, the government cruelly refused to extend JobKeeper to many casuals and all temporary visa holders.</para>
<para>We are in a pandemic and we are in a recession. This is not the time to be cutting the critical JobKeeper payments, which are only just a living wage to begin with. One survey in June found 50 per cent of people on JobKeeper were being paid less than their pre-pandemic income. Around a million people lost their jobs in the early stages of the pandemic. Unemployment could reach 10 per cent by the end of the year, regardless of the Treasurer's optimistic projections. JobKeeper and the coronavirus supplement were the only things keeping millions out of crushing poverty and serious risk of homelessness when eviction bans are lifted. These cuts are indefensible.</para>
<para>Over two million people are expected to be kicked off JobKeeper over the next few months as the government winds back support. At the very least, hundreds of thousands of people currently on JobKeeper will be pushed onto the even lower poverty-level JobSeeker payment. The Treasurer has admitted this but is still hell-bent on making this happen. What's worse is that the budget last night confirmed that this government doesn't mind spending money. It's not that they are cheap; it's just that, rather than supporting ordinary people, they'd rather splash cash for their mates—the fossil fuel barons, the property developers and speculators, the big banks and the cashed-up private schools.</para>
<para>Cutting back JobKeeper is also an attack on women. Women have borne the brunt of this pandemic, and the cuts to the JobKeeper payments are yet another harsh blow. Women lost their jobs twice as fast as men in the early stages of the pandemic and had their hours reduced at a higher rate than men. Women are now overrepresented in the ranks of casual workers and in industries most affected by shutdowns, like in retail and hospitality. And twice as many women as men will have their JobKeeper payments cut to $750 a fortnight due to their overrepresentation as part-time workers.</para>
<para>The removal of free child care and the withdrawal of JobKeeper from early childcare staff was a double whammy for women. Two-hundred and forty thousand women over 55 are at risk of homelessness and we are staring down the barrel of a homelessness crisis for them when the eviction ban ends. This government needs to commit to closing the gender pay gap and to addressing the financial insecurity so many women find themselves in—not consciously or deliberately making women's lives harder and their futures even more uncertain.</para>
<para>The government thinks that we live in a society where we aren't responsible for one another; where governments don't have the primary obligation to facilitate our care for each other. This pandemic has shown that, in a crisis, ordinary people's instinct is for solidarity—to protect each other by making sacrifices, to check in on each other and to make sure that we each have what we need to get by. This disallowance is about fairness. It is about the kind of society that we want to live in. But, obviously, the idea of fairness for the Liberals is the exact polar opposite of ours. The choices the government has made in the budget in cutting support to people who need it most have intergenerational implications. Children will grow up in poverty and the effects will reverberate throughout their lives. Young people will continue to be locked out of our broken housing system. Those same children and young people face a climate crisis which this government is fast tracking as they give away money to their coal and gas donors.</para>
<para>And yet, in the budget handed down last night, this government is giving out massive tax cuts of $99 billion a year to big corporations and the wealthy. Tax cuts now mean service cuts later. I don't need a tax cut. The Prime Minister doesn't need a tax cut. The Treasurer doesn't need a tax cut. Their corporate mates don't need tax cuts—if they even pay tax in the first place. What the community needs is support for people so that they can come out of the pandemic with a brighter future. This Senate has the power to undo these cruel cuts to the JobKeeper wage subsidy and insist that this government support workers who need help, not be kicked while they're down. I implore everyone in this chamber to make the right choice today and support this motion.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STERLE</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor supports this disallowance. We do not think this is the right time to withdraw support from the Australian economy. We do not think that this is the right time to withdraw support from Australian businesses. We do not think that this is the right time to withdraw support from people whose jobs and livelihoods are on the line. And on this basis we can't support a $300 reduction in this payment at this time.</para>
<para>Last night's budget was extraordinarily and deeply disappointing. We're in the grip of the most serious recession in almost 100 years. Businesses are closing, hours are being cut and, sadly, people are losing their jobs. The government, we believe, had the opportunity to significantly improve the lives of those doing it tough. Instead, their budget persists with ill-timed cuts to payments like JobSeeker and JobKeeper. And the Liberals' proposed cuts to JobKeeper are coming at the worst possible time for many, many workers, businesses and communities. A small-business owner in Penshurst in the south of Sydney said: 'If JobKeeper is cut, I think our business would close within a few months. We are a travel company and have been without income since February, when people stopped travelling. We have given up our office, sold or even given away office furniture and cancelled most contractors to save money. If people don't start buying from travel agents, I fear many of us will be closing before the end of the year.'</para>
<para>As the opposition in this chamber, we don't choose the structure of the legislation and regulations we're asked to respond to. Labor is supportive of better targeting the JobKeeper payment through tiered arrangements. However, we do not support lowering the rate of JobKeeper from $1,500 to $1,200. It is on this basis that we will be supporting Senator Faruqi's disallowance motion. Labor has always said that the arrangements needed to be tailored to the economic conditions, and we know they won't continue forever. But we know what the economy looks like today and how tough Australians are doing it right now.</para>
<para>This government loves to talk about how good they are for the economy, for businesses, for regional Australia, but they continue to leave them in the lurch. Their budget completely ignored the disproportionate impact of this recession on women. They failed to acknowledge the massive job losses in female dominated industries and proposed no new measures to end the gender pay gap, improve women's super balances or address family and domestic violence. Now they want to cut JobKeeper and push more people into economic limbo, unsure about where their next pay cheque will come from. Australians deserve much better from this government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The JobKeeper payment has been instrumental in supporting job retention and maintaining employment links and business cash flow as well as providing income support to eligible employees. This extension will provide further support to significantly impacted businesses so more Australians can retain their jobs and continue to earn an income. As the economy reopens, the payment will be tapered in the December and March quarters to encourage businesses to adjust to the new environment, supporting a gradual transition to economic recovery while ensuring that those businesses who most need support continue to receive it.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that business of the Senate matter No. 1 be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [19:12]<br />(The President—Senator Ryan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>22</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T</name>
                  <name>Brown, CL</name>
                  <name>Carr, KJ</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A</name>
                  <name>Dodson, P</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M</name>
                  <name>Green, N</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, SC</name>
                  <name>Lines, S</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M (teller)</name>
                  <name>McKim, NJ</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D</name>
                  <name>Polley, H</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A</name>
                  <name>Siewert, R</name>
                  <name>Smith, M</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, LA</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, AE</name>
                  <name>Waters, LJ</name>
                  <name>Watt, M</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>27</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Abetz, E</name>
                  <name>Antic, A</name>
                  <name>Askew, W</name>
                  <name>Bragg, AJ</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R</name>
                  <name>Davey, P (teller)</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, DJ</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H</name>
                  <name>Hume, J</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A</name>
                  <name>McMahon, S</name>
                  <name>Molan, AJ</name>
                  <name>Patrick, RL</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A</name>
                  <name>Ryan, SM</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P</name>
                  <name>Seselja, Z</name>
                  <name>Smith, DA</name>
                  <name>Stoker, AJ</name>
                </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>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>96</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>96</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand there was an agreement to allow the late submission of a motion from Senator Patrick or Senator Lambie? Senator Patrick.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATRICK</name>
    <name.id>144292</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to amend the motion that I lodged today to be dealt with tomorrow rather than on 11 October.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>97</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020</title>
          <page.no>97</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" 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" background="" 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" style="" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture">
            <a type="Bill" href="r6584">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>97</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LINES</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in opposition to the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020. Quite frankly, when we first saw this legislation we could not believe how the government could put forward a bill which so obviously disadvantages a group of students who are largely studying in the humanities area. When we looked further at the bill, we thought: 'We can't even improve on this bill, because it is so bad. We will stand in opposition to the bill.' I'm really proud to stand here tonight in opposition to the bill.</para>
<para>I think the other point the government has completely misunderstood, or is simply ignoring along with One Nation and Senator Griff, who are supporting the bill, is that students currently in years 11 and 12 aren't suddenly going to be able to change their course to do a STEM degree. They have committed themselves to two years of study—the ATAR is really for a course of two years study. So we are not only disadvantaging university students. University students in good faith signed up to do a course knowing that they would incur a HECS debt at a particular price, only to suddenly find—whether they were halfway through first year or in second year or in third year—that the cost of their degree, because of the course they've chosen, has absolutely doubled. And now we are disadvantaging those students in years 11 and 12. As if they have not been disadvantaged enough this year with their schooling, the government seeks to punish them even more. They simply are not in a position to change their course of study right now, even if they wanted to. And what has the government got against a humanities degree?</para>
<para>As I said earlier today, the other group of students who are absolutely disadvantaged in this bill are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. As I said earlier today in another contribution to the Senate, in Western Australia we have fewer than 2,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students enrolled at our universities. That's shameful. What are we doing to those students? We are absolutely disadvantaging them, because the stats say that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are more likely than non-Aboriginal students to enrol later in life. They take longer to finish their degree, and they pretty much enrol in humanities. So look at what we're doing to First Nations people right across this country. We are simply going to say, 'Sorry, we're not interested in you.'</para>
<para>The government senators—I've listened to some of their contributions—have made a big deal about how it will advantage regional and rural students. I'm not seeking to single out anyone, but significant numbers of students from regional and rural areas already attend university— many times the number of students from First Nations backgrounds who attend university. Yet it's those students that we're seeking to advantage over First Nations students. Quite frankly, to sell them out as we've seen Centre Alliance do for 30 pieces of silver—a few roads in Mayo—is a disgrace. How those senators can come in here and disadvantage the nation's students is beyond me.</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>98</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland</title>
          <page.no>98</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When I first moved to Brisbane in 1988, Queensland was the powerhouse economy of Australia. At that time we boasted Expo 88, which was one of the great events of that year, and Queensland itself was one of the world's great tourist attractions. It also had one of the world's lowest power prices.</para>
<para>The thing I loved best about Queensland was the fact that there was very little difference in opportunity between those in the regions and those in the cities, including the city of Brisbane. What I loved the most about our capital city, Brisbane, was that it was a big country town. It didn't matter where you were from; someone always knew someone in the country. That was what was great about Brisbane. Often people would say, 'It's a big country town,' but that's the charm of Brisbane—or that was the charm of Brisbane.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, in the 30 years since, we've seen Brisbane turn its back on regional Queensland. We've seen the state Labor government that got into power in 1988 forget about the regions, and today our regions in Queensland have been left behind. That is a tragedy, because our cousins in the Queensland regions give Queensland its wealth, whether it's farming, mining, fishing or forestry—even our beekeepers. The state Labor government turned its back on the beekeepers. They intend to throw beekeepers out of national parks in the next term of government if they get back in. That is quite incredible when you think that, at the same time they're allowing foreign renewable wind farms into national parks, our beekeepers are being thrown out.</para>
<para>I want to walk through the history of what the state Labor government has done to our great state of Queensland. One of the first things they ever did was to allow poker machines into the state—into our pubs and clubs. That has basically destroyed families. It's been another form of wealth transfer from the regions back into the head offices in Brisbane. Now, since the old TAB has been taken over by Tabcorp, the money even goes out of the state. I think they're based in Melbourne; I'll be corrected on that. That was the first thing. It's amazing that we'll often hear Labor knock Sir Joh and all the rest of it, but I can tell you what: he could balance a budget and build infrastructure, and he never needed poker machines to do it. I'll criticise Wayne Goss for putting poker machines in, but he himself admitted later in his life that that was the biggest mistake he'd ever made. He admitted that the reason why he did it was that he was pandering to the unions. That really is the same old, same old with Labor. They will just pander to the unions on anything at all if it means that they're going to employ more people, get more members into their union and collect more union funds.</para>
<para>The other bad thing that's happened—and this is very close to my heart—is that they have shut down over 30 maternity wards in the regions. We always hear from Labor and the Greens about the treatment of women and that somehow the LNP are leaving women behind. There is no greater way to leave women behind than to shut down maternity wards in the regions. The biggest premature cause of death for women in Third World countries is childbirth, yet Queensland is heading that same way because Labor has shut down so many maternity wards. That is a legacy and a blight on the Labor Party that they really should do something about—although it's a bit late now. But I'm pleased to say that the state LNP has committed to bringing back birthing services to my home town of Chinchilla and to Theodore, and, hopefully, there'll be many more. Just to give you an idea, Bowen, a town of 10,000 people, doesn't have a maternity ward.</para>
<para>It doesn't end there. It's the tree clearing laws that crack down on farmers, the reef regulations that crack down on farmers and the closure of agricultural colleges—another crackdown on farmers. It's the collapse in infrastructure spending. Not only can state Labor not even build infrastructure; they are pulling the infrastructure down. They are lowering the wall at Paradise Dam, which is going to have a devastating impact on Bundaberg, one of North Queensland's fastest-growing regions. So it doesn't matter which way you turn: Labor does not help the regions. When you vote on 31 October make sure you vote for the LNP, because we will back the regions and get Queensland working again.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>99</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make a contribution regarding the 2020-21 federal budget and its lack of a coherent economic stimulus plan for my home state of Tasmania. This year's federal budget was the most important budget since the end of World War II and has left Australians across the land wanting. Prime Minister Morrison promises a lot but delivers nothing—and this is what this budget is all about. The Morrison government has had the opportunity to invest in Tasmania with a plan to boost economic activity in jobs but has left my home state off the map. This crisis, above all else, demands the prioritisation of job creation initiatives, which means direct investment in small business and the industries which keep our state moving. But the government has missed that opportunity.</para>
<para>The government has also missed an opportunity to provide assistance to unemployed Tasmanians and those suffering under our housing crisis. There is nothing in this budget that builds confidence in the Tasmanian community, nor does it futureproof us against a future outbreak. There is no plan for jobs. There is no plan for Tasmanian hospitals. Tasmanians need more than the $360 million road infrastructure package that will supposedly be delivered over the next four years. This federal budget required a bold plan for our tourism, agriculture and emerging industries, yet the Morrison government did not take the opportunity that was provided to them. Tasmanian industries have not been adequately supported to recover from this crisis. The $13.5 million for Tasmanian tourism projects just doesn't cut it. Local interstate and international travellers spent a total of $4.5 billion on tourism in Tasmania in 2018-19. Tasmania needs a federal government that will actually build Tasmania's tourism infrastructure on a larger scale.</para>
<para>Over successive years, this government has been consistently guilty of reannouncing previously committed funds that are yet to be delivered. They do that across the country, not just in Tasmania. The funds committed to the Sorell Causeway duplication are welcome, but these funds were announced at the last election. Those opposite move around the communities and promise but don't deliver. For example, in last year's budget, the government promised much for my home town of Launceston but delivered very little. There are three commitments worth noting that not only haven't been delivered but may not be delivered until 2023-24—if ever. There is $10 million, under built cultural initiatives, for the Albert Hall renewal project; $47.5 million, under the Launceston City Deal, to improve the health of the Tamar River estuary; and $15 million for the northern suburbs recreation hub.</para>
<para>To ensure that we get out of the immediate danger of the crisis and overcome the recession that we as a nation find ourselves in, we must be bold with our policy advocates and we must deliver. The government has had one shot at this, but there are no second chances. Direct investment to get our state moving again and to help that momentum is crucial if we are to emerge from this Morrison recession. Tasmania can't afford funding commitments which will not be delivered until 2023-24. The people of Tasmania deserve better than this, and the people of Australia deserve better than this. A tax cut of less than $50 a fortnight just does not cut it. People will have $300 prematurely taken away from them through the reduction in JobKeeper. Australians need the full support of the federal government, not the termination of assistance that is keeping them afloat. Where is the plan to keep people in work and to keep older workers in work? Once they lose their jobs we know that they're unlikely to be rehired.</para>
<para>Instead of better targeting taxpayer funds, those opposite are condemning future generations to record levels of debt, with gross national debt expected to reach $1.13 trillion by 2024. Sadly, last night's budget is built on a wing and a prayer, with no plan for Tasmania and a wish for a vaccine by the end of the year. Building roads will not get us out of the Morrison government's recession. It won't work; their budget is not going to cut it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation</title>
          <page.no>99</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I see and note that Australian politics has been seduced and sometimes conned into endorsing policies aimed at decarbonising and consequently deindustrialising our whole economy by 2050. Climate claims now push policies to cut the human use of vital hydrocarbon fuels like natural gas, coal and oil. At the core is the claim that carbon dioxide from burning those fuels is warming our planet and that warming is a danger to humans and to our planet.</para>
<para>Politicians have the highest duty of care to base all policies on rigorous scientific evidence—especially policies that bring about radical change with severe consequences for people's livelihoods and lifestyles. Expensive policies need justification, with impacts specified and quantified before implementation. This can only be achieved when based on solid data as scientific evidence and which proves causation. Climate policies are decimating our nation's productive capacity, economic sovereignty and economic resilience, and we are on the slide from independence to dependence on other nations. Climate policies and renewables subsidies are already costing households an extra $13 billion per year in excess of electricity charges. That's an extra $1,300 per Australian household. Higher electricity prices are dismantling our productive economy and are exporting jobs overseas. Ridiculous electricity prices are suffocating manufacturing, agriculture and small and large businesses. Energy-intensive industries and value-adding processing of food and minerals are moving to countries with cheap energy.</para>
<para>The CSIRO is Australia's national research institution and, as the people's representatives, we need to have unequivocal confidence in the quality of its research, scientific processes and scientific evidence. I cross-examined the CSIRO and held them accountable. We need to know that the CSIRO is deeply committed to due diligence, knowing that its work forms the basis of wideranging policy decisions. With more than a decade of research and analysis, and of questioning experts worldwide, I questioned the CSIRO. I found that, in terms of climate research, the CSIRO did not meet the high standards we expect of what was our premier research institution. I shared the CSIRO's presentations, my conclusions and my observations with 17 international climate scientists. They concluded that the CSIRO lacked the evidence necessary to justify any government policy.</para>
<para>During our examination of CSIRO on its so-called evidence, used politically to justify current climate policies, the following key climate themes emerged. The CSIRO admitted that it has never stated that carbon dioxide from human activity is dangerous. 'Who did?' we asked them. 'Well, you'll have to ask the politicians.' 'So why do we have the policies that we have?' 'There is no basis—no danger.'</para>
<para>Secondly, the CSIRO admitted that temperatures today are not unprecedented. That means that we didn't cause them. Thirdly, the CSIRO relies upon invalidated models that give unverified and erroneous projections as evidence, confirming that it lacks empirical scientific evidence. They have no evidence for this. The CSIRO has never quantified any specific impact of carbon dioxide from human activity, so there is no basis for policy. The CSIRO admits to not doing due diligence on reports and data from external agencies. They just swallow it. The CSIRO relied on discredited and poor-quality papers on temperature and carbon dioxide. The CSIRO withdrew discredited papers that it gave to us which it had cited as evidence of an unprecedented rate of temperature change and then failed to provide supporting empirical evidence. The CSIRO revealed little understanding of the papers it cited as evidence. It even cited papers that contradict each other. The CSIRO allows politicians and journalists to misrepresent CSIRO science without correction. The CSIRO misled parliament. Therefore, the onus is now on the federal parliament to scrap climate policies unless and until the CSIRO can provide accurate, repeatable and verifiable empirical scientific evidence within a logical scientific framework that proves carbon dioxide from human activity detrimentally affects climate variability and needs to be cut.</para>
<para>Further, the proposed cuts need to be specified in the amount, the impact and the effects, together with the costs of making and of not making those cuts. How else can we justify these severe costly cuts that people in this chamber are inflicting upon everyday Australians right around the country and on their futures? How else can we measure progress? How else can we ensure effectiveness?</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Labor Party</title>
          <page.no>100</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor wants to talk about the 'Morrison recession'. I received an email this morning from Jim Chalmers saying there was a Morrison recession. But of course, that means Mr Chalmers hasn't heard about the coronavirus pandemic which is sweeping the globe. If he had read the budget papers last night, Mr Chalmers would have seen that our economy shrunk by seven per cent in the June quarter. But that compares to a 20 per cent reduction in the UK and a 12 per cent reduction in New Zealand.</para>
<para>So who is Labor's economic team? Let's go through a couple of these very interesting characters. The first is Mr Chalmers. Let's call him 'Tweedle Dee'. He is interested in the leadership. He's breathing down the neck of Mr Albanese. There's a puff piece in <inline font-style="italic">The Australian</inline>.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCarthy</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr President, I rise on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I anticipate your point of order, Senator McCarthy. I'm going to ask Senator Bragg to withdraw that. We shouldn't refer to people by nicknames like that.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0Q</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I appreciate that. Thank you.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This puff piece in <inline font-style="italic">The</inline><inline font-style="italic">Weekend</inline><inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> of 6 June says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In his first speech as an MP he waxed lyrical about his deep local roots, quoting Tennyson that he was 'part of all I have met' growing up in Logan City.</para></quote>
<para>But the schtick does wear thin with others in caucus, who note wryly that the well-trodden path from university to a job in a political office, parliament and the frontbench hardly imbues him with life experience. He works hard at trying to hide that, says one Labor MP—very interesting. Dr Chalmers is the architect of the housing and the retiree taxes from the last election which were voted against by the Australian people. When he worked for Mr Swan, he was the architect of the mining tax.</para>
<para>Dr Chalmers loves the class war. He refers to 'the top end of town' all the time. During the last election, he said it 100 times—and 20 times in one day! One of his icons, Mr Keating, one of my friends, said, 'Labor lost the ability to speak aspirationally to people and to fashion policies to meet these aspirations.' That's very good advice. So where is Dr Chalmers taking his inspiration from? It looks like it's Mr Swan, the chief president of the Labor Party. Chalmers said, 'I was proud to work for him and am one of a few people to know him best.' That's in <inline font-style="italic">Glory </inline><inline font-style="italic">Daze</inline>, which has sold about 713 copies over the last seven years, which is about 100 copies a year. Swan says, 'Labor should stick with new taxes'—so more taxes during a pandemic. It is very concerning that the guy who has never heard of COVID thinks we should take advice from the guy who wants to increase taxes.</para>
<para>We can go on to Mr Jones—is he Dr Jones as well, perhaps? He worked for the ACTU and the CPSU. This man has no idea who he represents. He's not sure whether he's there for the ACTU, the CPSU or industry super. Maybe he is there for the people who elected him, the people of Whitlam. Mr Jones hates the idea that people have been able to access their own money during this pandemic through early access. Jones is good. He runs an outsourced policy model. He rings up his mates at the industry super funds and they write all his policies for him. It's a very efficient way of doing business. The trouble is that he's come a cropper because he's become the boy who cried wolf. Back on 25 March, Jones said, 'We have genuine liquidity concerns in the <inline font-style="italic">AFR</inline> about the $3 trillion super industry losing $30 billion or $40 billion.' He then went on to use these dodgy numbers from the Industry Super Network, which, according to the corporate regulator, have been massively overstated. Jones is keen on Twitter. He said on Twitter in September that I'm a hypocrite. Apparently I've taken more money from the super industry than anyone else. He said in August that I have literally taken more money from the super industry than anyone else in parliament.</para>
<para>The difference between Mr Jones and I is that, having been elected to this place, I actually take my responsibility very seriously. I'm here to work for the people that have put me in this place, not the people I used to work for. That's the difference between me and him. He wants to run all the lines for the ACTU, which funds his campaigns. By 2030 the super funds will be sending $30 million a year to the ACTU and its constituents. Jones is working hard for these people. He gets very offended when I point this out, but these are the facts. At the end of the day, Mr Jones and Mr Chalmers are not a very strong economic team.</para>
<para>Jones has also said recently that there are 113 members of the coalition party room and it appears most of them aren't interested in Andrew Bragg's plan to destroy superannuation. The good news for him is that the publishers inform me that we've sold 779 copies of <inline font-style="italic">Bad Egg: How To Fix Super</inline>, and Chalmers has only sold 713 copies of his book, <inline font-style="italic">Glory Daze</inline>. There we go.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland State Election</title>
          <page.no>101</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is worrying to hear government senators come in here and use time to talk about their book sales, but I understand they don't have much to talk about from the budget that was delivered last night, so I can understand them wanting to spend some time attacking Labor and defending themselves. I am here to talk about regional Queensland and about jobs in regional Queensland.</para>
<para>The LNP in Queensland will put jobs at risk in regional Queensland. We know that. The LNP will put jobs at risk in regional Queensland because they have said that they don't care about having the majority government. When did they say that? They have decided to go ahead and preference every single minor party and have had the gall to go out there and say they want to win majority government. If you go ahead and preference every single minor party in Queensland, that's a sure-fire way to make sure that our Queensland government ends up in chaos in a time when actually Queensland needs certainty more than anything else. The LNP will preference Clive Palmer. They're going to go ahead and give him some votes. He's spending quite a lot of money on Facebook ads, so I can understand he would want something in return. They're going to go ahead and preference One Nation. We know One Nation votes with the LNP most of the time anyway, so that makes sense.</para>
<para>But this is the real clincher for me: they also are going to go ahead and preference the Greens in every single seat in Queensland. Every single one. In Townsville, they're going to preference the Greens. In Burdekin, they're going to go ahead and preference the Greens Party. In Keppel, Rockhampton and all across regional Queensland, where the LNP has stood up and said, 'We will protect jobs and we will represent regional Queenslanders,' they're going to go ahead and preference the Greens Party and do more damage to jobs in regional Queensland. It will possibly lead to more Greens getting elected into Queensland parliament, a smaller majority government and chaos and uncertainty for Queensland. But they're not going to tell you that when they head up to Townsville, put on their shiny new hi-vis and talk about how they're there for people and jobs in regional Queensland. What they are going to do on election day is preference the Greens Party. At the last federal election they said they'd put the Greens last. Now it's all about political opportunism for the LNP in Queensland, because we know they have incredibly bad judgement for risky behaviour and do not put Queenslanders first.</para>
<para>There's no better example of this than the position of the leader of the opposition, Deb Frecklington, on border closures in Queensland. What's very interesting is she's out there trying to say, 'I didn't want to open up the borders in July when there was an outbreak about to happen in Victoria.' She's been caught out. She's been caught out because over and over again, time and time again, she called for the borders to be opened. Even LNP senators in this place passed a motion to try to get Queensland to open its borders. That was 10 days before the Victorian outbreak started. If we had listened to the LNP, if Deb Frecklington had been allowed to make decisions on behalf of Queenslanders, there is no telling what would have happened.</para>
<para>Queensland needs strong and certain leadership. We need a Queensland Labor government that will back jobs, bring manufacturing back to the regions and build trains in regional Queensland, as opposed to sending the orders overseas. We need a Queensland Labor government that is prepared to go out there and say, 'We back you first above everyone else, we are here for regional jobs and we are here for Queenslanders,' not the LNP, who are out there making preference deals with the Greens to try to get themselves over the line and damaging Queensland at the same time. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Racism</title>
          <page.no>102</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am so delighted to have Senator Lidia Thorpe join us in parliament. Senator Thorpe and I will be leading the Greens to put antiracist work at the core of everything that we do. We will leave no stone unturned to tackle head-on the rising tide of racism and demand justice for First Nations people and people of colour. Side by side, and alongside communities of colour, we will fight the growing tide of far-right nationalism and tackle systemic racism. In the words of Angela Davis:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In a racist society, it is not enough to be non-racist, we must be anti-racist.</para></quote>
<para>I'm proud to have the responsibility of the new antiracism portfolio for the Greens.</para>
<para>Over the last few years, we have seen the far right emboldened. We have seen again and again the cheerleaders of the far right and the merchants of hate in here and in the media legitimise, normalise and even incite the hate that foments right wing extremism and toxic anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim hysteria. The institutions that are meant to protect us haven't just failed; they've become captive to the hate they're meant to fight. Any nation where police officers feel comfortable flashing white supremacist hand gestures is not one where people of colour can feel safe. It has led us to become a nation where far-right violent extremism constitutes up to 40 per cent of ASIO's counterterrorism case load. That's up fourfold, from as little as 10 per cent just four years ago.</para>
<para>Yet politicians trivialise racism and far-right extremism. Just as they've been denying 200 years of systemic racism against First Nations people, resulting in ongoing oppression, incarceration and deaths in custody, they now also deny the far right and the harm they cause. They draw their inspiration from President Trump in the US. During that awful first presidential debate last week, when Trump was pressed by the moderator to denounce violent white nationalism, he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. But I'll tell you what … somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left because this is not a right-wing problem. This is a left-wing problem.</para></quote>
<para>Many people looked at this in horror, but I'd heard similar things before. I heard this when the home affairs minister, in the days after Christchurch, drew an equivalence between my advocacy and my antiracist activism and the far right and their apologists.</para>
<para>Make no mistake: there's no doubt that what is happening in the US is very bad. But let's also have some introspection. Trump is a President who has time after time shown his racism, white nationalism and white supremacy. Even moderate US commentators who shied away from labelling the President this way now admit that he's a racist and a fascist. He has encouraged violence against Black Lives Matter protesters while openly bolstering the far right. He has described Haiti, El Salvador and some parts of Africa as s-hole countries. He has gone out of his way time and again to target and attack Democratic congresswomen of colour, telling them to go back to the 'broken and crime-infested' places that they came from. Yet there is little reflection in this chamber on what this means for us. There is a Liberal-Labor consensus of unquestioning and uncritical alliance with the United States. They are too cowardly to call a spade a spade. They are too complicit to call out Trump's blatant racism. Australia should be distancing itself from Trump, not cosying up to him. But we've also got to get our own house in order and we are far from doing so.</para>
<para>We must become an antiracist country. We must proactively dismantle the racist system we live in, a system that oppresses and silences people of colour and a system where there is a dismal lack of diversity in politics, in the media and at the top of Australian companies, institutions and government departments. It is a system that refuses to accept that far-right violence is a serious and growing threat and a system that has allowed increasing hate to be piled on communities of colour, using them as scapegoats when the going gets tough. Well, no more. I look forward to working with communities as we continue to fight for racial justice and focus even more on antiracism, and I call on you to join us in this fight.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget, Queensland State Election</title>
          <page.no>103</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As we all know, Australia right now is in the grip of the Morrison recession, the worst recession our country has seen since the Great Depression. We know that this recession is worse than it needed to be because of the decisions of the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, and his government. These include their decision to exclude over a million casuals and other workers from receiving the JobKeeper payment and their decision to cut the JobKeeper and JobSeeker payments when the country is in such a parlous economic state. The Morrison recession is going to harm our country for a long time to come and, unfortunately, so many Australians are paying the price.</para>
<para>You really would think that, when our country is experiencing the worst recession we have experienced since the Great Depression, the government would be doing everything it could to keep people in work and to keep money flowing through the economy and flowing into people's pockets so that they can spend that money in local shops and businesses. But of course what does it do? It does the opposite. The Morrison government has consciously decided to cut the JobKeeper payments and the JobSeeker payments while the economy is still weak and while unemployment is still growing.</para>
<para>Just in my own state of Queensland, there are hundreds of thousands of Queenslanders whose JobKeeper payments and JobSeeker payments and coronavirus supplement payments have been cut over the last few days. That is going to be terrible for those individuals and their families. But it's also going to be terrible for the local economies and local communities that those people live in, because they'll have less money to spend in local shops and businesses, which will send those businesses into further trouble and inevitably lead to further job cuts. Yet again we see that the LNP's answer to a crisis is cuts, cuts and cuts. In Queensland we know a lot about LNP cuts. It wasn't that long ago that we had an LNP government in Queensland headed by Campbell Newman, whose only solution to every problem was to cut and cut and cut.</para>
<para>They cut 14,000 jobs in the public sector, including frontline positions in our hospitals, in our schools and in our police services. They tried to sell anything that wasn't glued down and they cut funding to all sorts of other programs. Of course, standing right beside then Premier Campbell Newman was his Assistant Treasurer, Deb Frecklington, now the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland. She was there right by Mr Newman's side for every cut that he made, every asset he tried to sell, every program he tried to wind up, and she's at it again.</para>
<para>Just last night, on ABC TV in Queensland, Ms Frecklington faced one of her first interviews of the election campaign. She was asked repeatedly to rule out Public Service cuts and to answer a question about whether cuts to the public sector would only occur via natural attrition. She ducked and she dodged and she weaved time after time after time. She was asked a question about whether the numbers of Public Service frontline workers would be cut through natural attrition, and she would not give an answer. She wouldn't give an answer because she knows in her heart that she's going to do exactly what she did last time, when she was Assistant Treasurer, and that was to cut and sack and sell.</para>
<para>Ms Frecklington and the LNP are so desperate to win this election that they have made the unprecedented decision to preference every other party in Queensland ahead of the Labor Party. Their position when it comes to preferences is so unprincipled that they will preference anyone as long as it's not the Labor candidate, because that's how they've decided they are going to get elected to government. Of course, this is going to cause immense chaos at a time when Queensland needs immense stability to recover from the COVID crisis and the Morrison recession, because the result of this decision is that we face a ragtag coalition of LNP, Palmer, One Nation, Katter and Greens MPs running Queensland. Can you imagine trying to get any sensible decision about Queensland's future out of such a coalition?</para>
<para>If there is any sign of how diminished a figure one of the LNP's leading lights in Canberra, Senator Matt Canavan, has become, it is the decision of the LNP to preference the Greens ahead of Labor. Senator Canavan has made his career out of hating on the Greens. He says they're job destroyers. He says they're all sorts of things. And now his own party is deciding to preference the Greens ahead of the Labor Party. Just today, Senator Canavan criticised BHP for its decision to disaffiliate from the Resources Council over the Greens. He can't even make his own party listen. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Senate adjourned at 19:56</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>