DOCUMENTS

2021-02-02 46 1 5 Senate 0 1

Tuesday, 2 February 2021

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 12:01 The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT 1 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT COVID-19: Senate Procedure 1 12:01 The PRESIDENT I0Q Before we move on: as I have advised whips and leaders, we will recommence locking the doors upon the calling of divisions. The doors will be kept open during the sittings of the Senate but will be closed by attendants for the purposes of the count. Secondly, I would like to offer my particular thanks to the Usher of the Black Rod and his staff and to ACT Health for their assistance, and to my colleagues from Western Australia and their staff for their understanding and cooperation, over the weekend during a difficult circumstance. BILLS 1 BILLS Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 2) Bill 2020 1

Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 2) Bill 2020

First Reading 1 12:02 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 2 12:02 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— I am pleased to introduce the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 2) Bill 2020. This bill amends the way that home care providers are paid Government subsidy such that home care providers will only be paid subsidy for care and services delivered to a home care recipient during a month, with Services Australia retaining the unspent Commonwealth subsidy for which a home care recipient is eligible to receive each month. This builds on changes made by the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020 which amends the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 such that home care providers will not receive a payment in advance but in arrears. Any unspent Commonwealth subsidy withheld as a result of this bill will be available for a provider to draw down on behalf of a home care recipient as care and services are provided in future. There is no change to a consumer's access to their full subsidy, and no change to the treatment of consumer contributions. The bill introduces more contemporary business practices into home care subsidy payment arrangements and brings these arrangements into alignment with other Government programs. 12:02 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Labor will be supporting this bill. As outlined in the explanatory memorandum, the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 2) Bill 2020 amends the administration arrangements of paying home-care subsidy to approved providers. This is the next phase of amendments to the home-care payment arrangements. The first bill changed the payment of home-care subsidy to approved providers from being paid in advance to being paid in arrears. Under this bill, home-care providers will only be paid subsidy for the care and services delivered to a home-care recipient during a month, with Services Australia retaining the unspent subsidy which a home-care recipient is eligible to receive each month. This changes the current arrangement so that the Commonwealth, rather than the approved service providers, will hold the unspent funds. The explanatory memorandum states these changes will provide for better transparency in the use of home-care funds. The bill will introduce a mechanism whereby providers who elect to return unspent funds can start doing so within six months of the bill coming into effect. Providers who elect to return unspent funds will do this through a 100 per cent subsidy reduction until the unspent funds are exhausted. Any unspent Commonwealth subsidy withheld as a result of this bill will be available for a provider to draw down on behalf of a home-care recipient as care and services are provided in the future. There is no change to the consumers' access to their full subsidy and no change to the treatment of consumer contributions. In the lead-up to the introduction of this legislation, the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians sought the advice of ACFA. I understand the government is expecting to implement these changes by September 2021. I do want to put on record Labor's concerns. Firstly, there has been a growing concern around the increasing amount of unspent home-care funds currently held by the approved provider. These unspent funds are a combination of the Commonwealth subsidy and consumer contributions. According to the Aged Care Financing Authority in its eighth report, released in July this year, unspent funds continue to increase significantly, with home-care providers holding $751 million at 30 June 2019, an increase of 39 per cent from the previous year, when $539 million was held at 30 June 2018. ACFA estimates that, based on the current rate at which unspent funds are increasing, these funds could be around $1 billion by 30 June 2020, although they may be even higher, due to some consumers putting their services on hold during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to aged-care accountants StewartBrown, the average unspent funds per client are approximately $7,000. As with the first bill, there remains an increase in financial risk for some smaller service providers and those in regional, rural and remote areas that don't have adequate cash flows to deal with the payment changes and are unable to hold unspent funds. As suggested in the ACFA report, some service providers may have to revert to finding other financing arrangements, including loans and equity injections. Some service providers are concerned that, as a result of cashflow pressures arising from changes, they may be reluctant to take on new consumers during the transition phase. With the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety to hand down its final report in February next year, more reform may be required for the home-care payment system. This leads me to the Morrison government's lack of serious reform across the home-care system. We know that the Morrison government has turned its back on older Australians who are waiting for care and support in their own homes. If the Morrison government really cared, it would have done more for older Australians. This month marks the fourth anniversary of the government's reforms of increasing choice in home care. Almost four years on, the question is: what has been achieved for older Australians who are choosing to receive aged-care services in their own homes? Well, there's not much to show for it, is there? These reforms have done nothing to address the growing waitlist for home-care packages. Consistently there have been 100,000 older Australians waiting for their approved home-care package over the past two years. More than 100,000 older Australians are on a never-ending waitlist. Sadly, more than 30,000 older Australians died over three years while still waiting for their approved home-care package. More than 32,000 older Australians over a two-year period entered residential aged care prematurely because they could not access their approved home-care package. Waitlist times have blown out. Older Australians waiting for their higher-level package are waiting almost three years to get the care they have been approved for. The government has made improvements to the transparency of home-care fees. However, we are still getting reports from people all over the country about rising costs. People are concerned about administrative fees, exit fees and other fees that they're being charged, and that is limiting the amount of care and the hours that people are able to receive. The former minister said that he would have a look at the fees and that he was going to do something about this but, again, there doesn't seem to have been any action from the government on that. We do need to hear from the government about whether or not it is going to do something about these fees and the concerns that I'm sure are being communicated to all of the people on the other side in their electorate offices as well. If we're getting them from all over the country, the government must be too. Then there is the royal commission's interim report, which was handed down in October 2019. In that report, tellingly titled Neglect, the commission put forward three recommendations that required urgent action. They recommended that the Morrison government urgently fix the home-care package waitlist, which was described as 'cruel', 'unfair' and 'discriminatory'. Has that waitlist been fixed? No, it has not. The government's response to the interim report was woefully inadequate: a meagre 10,000 packages when the waitlist at that time was 119,000 persons long. That is 119,000 older Australians without the care and support that they were approved for. And this was a mere drop in the ocean when you consider how chronic this never-ending waitlist is and the impact it has on older Australians, their families, their carers and their loved ones. But this is the hallmark of this Prime Minister. It's the hallmark of the Morrison government: drip-feeding home-care packages on an ad hoc basis, the majority of which are not the higher-level packages that tens of thousands of older Australians have been approved for, are entitled to and continue to wait for. The Morrison government has no plan to deal with the growing waitlist, no plan to deal with future demand and no plan to help the older Australians who need care right now. This government needs to do better. 12:10 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I rise to speak on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 2) Bill 2020. This bill builds on the changes that were passed at the end of 2020 around the way home-care subsidies are paid to providers. It will ensure that providers are only paid home-care subsidies for the services they actually provide to the consumer, instead of receiving the full subsidy each month regardless of services delivered. This bill also makes changes to unspent funds from September this year. The Commonwealth will now retain unspent funds on behalf of the home-care recipients instead of approved providers. Providers will also be able to return unspent funds to the Commonwealth within six months of this bill coming into effect. Unspent funds have been an ongoing issue in aged care. The current pool of unspent funds sits at around $900 million. Unspent funds provide older Australians with flexibility to pay for future care needs or budget for unforeseen events. However, there have been serious problems in allowing providers to hold onto this money. Some providers have been using these funds as part of their working capital and making money from interest earned, sometimes even allowing the money to be held by a third party. This practice doesn't encourage openness and transparency in the way consumers' funds are being used. The Australian Greens support this bill because it introduces a new level of transparency to the way home-care subsidies are paid to providers. However, I would like to raise some serious concerns we have with the implementation of the new payment arrangements and other matters. During the consultation phase of this bill, some providers raised concerns about the costs that would be incurred implementing these changes. The Australian Greens share the concerns raised by COTA that these changes must not adversely impact on the outcomes for older people and their families. I will be seeking assurances from the minister that this bill will not result in providers passing on additional fees and charges to home-care recipients and indicate that I will be seeking a short—hopefully—Committee of the Whole to address some of these issues. This bill also introduces administrative changes to software and business systems for both providers and the government. Some stakeholders raised some concerns—and I don't blame them—about the capacity of Services Australia to implement the required changes to their systems to allow for a smooth transition. I would like to take this opportunity to again urge the government to continue its discussions with providers and put in place a robust transition plan. These changes should not result in any disruptions to the delivery of home care. I don't want to see any older Australians left disadvantaged by these changes. As providers have traditionally held onto unspent funds, some are concerned about how these changes will impact their financial viability. This is especially concerning for providers who are operating in thin markets who might find it difficult to adjust to the new systems and arrangements. I understand providers will be eligible for transition support funding and business advisory supports if needed. The Australian Greens will be monitoring this process closely. We do not want to see aged-care providers failing because of poor support during this transition phase. This bill takes a small step towards improving transparency and accountability in aged care, but there is still a lot of work to do in this space. I'm convinced that a fundamental lack of transparency, especially around funding, has contributed to some of the abuse and neglect we see in aged care. There is currently no requirement for providers to publicly report on how government funding is being used. This means that we don't have access to public information on the number and skills mix of staff; staffing qualifications and training; and the amount of money spent on direct and indirect care, including medication and food. Without improved transparency and accountability across the aged-care sector, we will never see the level of reform and change we so desperately need. I have a range of questions that I want to put to the minister during the Committee of the Whole stage. Some of these questions regard the issue of protected information under division 86 of the Aged Care Act. For years stakeholders and constituents have raised concerns about the definition of protected information under the act. COTA believes that the broad definition of protected information means that very little information about complaints or decisions is published. Access to information about family members in aged-care facilities or information about complaints is often denied on the basis that it is interpreted as protected information under the relevant acts. This detracts from the community's confidence in the complaints system. One constituent who contacted my office made appeals right up to the High Court but never got to the bottom of the understaffing issues in the aged-care facility that his mum was living in. The department, the commission and the courts have all denied this constituent access to information on the basis that it is considered 'protected information' under the act. People should be able to access information easily about the experiences of their family members in aged-care facilities. This is an extraordinarily concerning matter, and I will be asking questions about it, as I articulated. Fundamentally, one of the key issues here is how we look after older Australians and how older Australians are treated in aged care, whether it be home care or residential aged care. But we also need to think about the journey before somebody is in the aged-care system and when they are applying for an aged-care package. At the moment, it is my belief that we are seeing more people having to apply for residential aged care because we are not managing the journey into home-care support properly. We have ad hoc systems across the country where information is not provided to the older person or to their family. Services are not connected, and we need to be thinking about that very, very clearly. At the moment people are having more incidents, more falls, more lack of attention, and there is a lack of understanding of people's journey into aged care. It is not being thoroughly addressed by hospital services, by GP clinics or by anybody that comes into contact with an older person. Sometimes it's the luck of the draw, depending on who an older person gets as their contact person or their support person when they have an incident. That has to stop in this country. We need to make sure that we are providing the sorts of services that support older Australians in their home, if that's where they want to stay, or in residential care. We need services that provide support to family members, information flow and transparency about how decisions are being made, what decisions are being made and how money is being spent. Finally, I would like to foreshadow a second reading amendment, which I have circulated, that notes that this bill does nothing to address the urgent need for additional home-care packages. Every year 19,000 people who are approved by government for home care are forced into residential aged care before they receive a package. We need the government to act immediately to ensure that home-care package waiting lists are cleared by 31 December 2021, that people already receiving aged-care packages are actually receiving the aged-care package that meets their needs and that people aren't forced to take a lower package because they can't get access to aged-care package levels 3 and 4. You shouldn't have people having to second-guess the system because they know that they'll have to wait a long time to get an aged-care package that actually meets their needs. What you're getting at the moment, which the government said they wanted to avoid, is people staying on CHSP rather than going onto an aged-care package level 1, 2, 3 or 4 because they are actually getting better support and less hassle from the CHSP compared to going into the aged-care system. People don't know when to actually get an ACAT assessment done because the system does not meet people's needs. I speak from personal experience here, so I have some knowledge of the troubles that people are having while trying to get joined-up services in the system. We have to do better in this country. I'll be asking the minister some questions around this bill and around the funding that's currently available for these packages, because older Australians' home-care needs are not being met. That is very clear. While people are passing away before they can get the care they need, while they are sitting on packages that don't meet their needs, while they are not getting access to accountability and transparency—and we know that because we have a royal commission on right now—we cannot claim that this system is meeting the needs of older Australians and their families, carers and support people. We need change; we need it urgently. This bill is part of that step, but there's a lot more that needs to be done in this country so we can, first, assure older Australians that they have a system that will meet their needs and provide the care that they need and, second, reassure families that their loved ones are getting the appropriate level of care when they need it and where they want it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Thank you, Senator Siewert. Do you want to formally move that second reading amendment? Senator SIEWERT e5z I move my second reading amendment as circulated in the chamber: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that this Bill does nothing to address the urgent need for additional Level 3 and 4 Home Care Packages; and (b) calls on the Government to act immediately to ensure the Home Care Package waiting list is cleared by 31 December 2021". 12:21 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 2) Bill 2020. Along with my Labor colleagues, I ask that this bill be referred to the Selection of Bills Committee for further scrutiny. Under the changes contained within this bill, home-care providers will only be paid for care and services delivered to a home-care recipient during a month, while Services Australia will retain the unspent money that a home-care recipient is eligible to receive each month. In other words, rather than service providers holding on to unspent subsidies, the Commonwealth government will. Labor understands the rationale of this change. Currently, many aged-care providers are holding on to large and growing pools of unspent subsidy money, and these measures provide a degree of probity for these balances. Aged-care accountants StewartBrown estimate that the amount of unspent subsidies could already exceed $1 billion. Yet, while the sums of money grow, the government continually fails to provide enough funded places. There are more than 100,000 older Australians waiting for care. Like most legislation that this government proposes, this bill is another wasted opportunity. The government has missed a chance to act on the tragic shortcomings in our aged-care system. According to the Report on government services 2021, in 2019-20 there were around 840,000 older Australians on the Commonwealth Home Support Program, which is the entry-level support package for those living independently in their own homes. These recipients receive basic services, like domestic assistance, personal care, social support, and allied health and respite services. There were a further 172,000 clients of home-care packages. These are more intensive packages for people who require additional care in their homes, such as help with showering or clinical care. That is over a million Australians taking advantage of home-care services, but these most advanced home-care services are not adequate for the needs of older Australians. More than a third of older people who are living in households and in need of assistance reported that their needs were not being fully met—one-third. This increases to 42 per cent for those with a profound or severe disability. With these sorts of numbers, it's clear we are failing our older Australians. The recipients of these packages are in their late 80s or maybe their 90s, with chronic or terminal illnesses, and they are waiting up to three years to receive the services that they need to function. The ABC reported just recently, in September last year, a story about Evelyn Micallef: Evelyn Micallef is 93, has dementia and can no longer walk. Her daughter Ann Innis and Ann's husband Steve use a hoist to get her out of bed and into a wheelchair every day. They feed, dress and take care of her. Despite the relentless work, they do not want to send her to a nursing home— particularly due to the threat of COVID. The article continues: Evelyn gets by on a low-level homecare package worth $15,000 a year. She was approved for the highest package available, worth $50,000 a year, in May last year, but like more than 100,000 older Australians, she's still waiting for the Federal Government to fund it. In the meantime, her home-care provider charges as much as $550 a month just for administration. A third of her $15,000 package is gone before her family have used the money on the simplest things, like a carer to help Evelyn shower. The interim report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety said this: The Australian Department of Health, which oversees this system, has no mechanism to follow up with people who are on waiting lists to give them updates, including about whether they have progressed up the waiting list or how long it will be before a Package is available. According to this interim report, the direct results of these shocking waits include 'declining function, inappropriate hospitalisation, carer burnout and premature institutionalisation because necessary services are not provided'. In the past three years, more than 30,000 have died waiting for their home-care packages to be approved on this government's watch. That is more than the number of additional places the government has recently announced. This government obviously has not prioritised older Australians, and older Australians have had to pay the ultimate price. In January 2020, the Productivity Commission released the median wait time for home-care packages. It had blown out in the last year by more than two months. Some older Australians are entering residential care or even emergency departments instead of receiving their approved home-care package. The aged-care system is broken and, as the royal commission has noted, it suffers from neglect. Of course, that's why the title of the report is Neglect—neglect by this government. This government gets complaints relating to aged care, and of course nothing happens. This is a government that has been in power now for eight years. The aged-care watchdog failed to issue a single fine or warning, despite receiving more than 2,000 complaints from April to June of 2020, of which 340 were directly related to COVID-19 infection control. From 2,000 complaints, not a single regulatory action appears to have been taken. According to expert evidence provided to the royal commission into aged care by the CEO of Presbyterian Aged Care NSW & ACT, Mr Paul Sadler, unspent money accrues for one of four reasons: a. A contingency amount negotiated between the consumer and provider. b. The consumer deliberately planning for a large expense, such as an equipment purchase or period of respite care … c. The consumer's needs have been accurately assessed, but they exercise their choice to refuse particular services … d. Because their assessed level of HCP is higher than their actual service needs. We can easily see pressure from the provider being a reason, as well as a desire among home-care clients to have their funding for a rainy day. Allowing the Commonwealth rather than the aged-care provider to maintain control of the money has support in the sector, but there are serious and unanswered questions about how the many aged-care providers on thin margins, including in rural or regional areas, can manage without the reserve of funding. The government again fails regional Australia. In the wake of the pandemic that has deeply shaken the aged-care sector, is now the best time to upturn the entire funding model of aged-care providers? The better question to ask is whether 2021, a year when COVID-19 has deeply rattled the aged-care sector, is the best time to upturn funding models that aged-care providers rely on. The best way to manage these questions is to refer this bill to the Selection of Bills Committee for further consideration. Home care is a devastatingly underfunded sector. The demographics have been clear for many, many years. Demand for aged-care services is only going to rise. Reform in the sector is a good thing, but if reform puts aged-care providers on the path to unviability, we must determine what we can do to soften this bill's impact on marginal providers. We must provide more general aged-care providers to be certain that they do not need to take shortcuts whilst providing their critical care. Today the ABC told another story about aged care. An article by Michael Atkin told the story of Christine Radke and her 95-year-old father, Herbert: Herbert has dementia and physical ailments, which means Ms Radke needs to assist him with every part of daily life from getting out of bed to going to the toilet. … … … Ms Radke is trying to keep her father out of residential aged care, but managing each day is a challenge. She said her father felt guilty about how much help he needed because he lived independently until recently. … … … They receive some help through a limited, federally funded home care package worth about $16,000 a year, which for Herbert means a support worker showers him three times a week. But in June, Herbert was assessed as needing the highest home care package available, known as Level 4, which would provide another $36,000 in funding. The Radkes don't know how long they'll have to wait before more Federal Government funding is made available to them—only to expect it will be at least another six to nine months— that is, if they're lucky. The article continues: Ms Radke is trying to cherish the time she has left with her father, but looking after him is challenging. Older Australians shouldn't have to spend their final years feeling like an imposition on their children. Older Australians deserve much better than this, and it's time for this government to do much better. 12:31 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia I'm happy to support the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 2) Bill 2020, like the No. 1 bill before it. This bill came about following questions I asked in a number of past Senate estimates about the handling of unspent home-care funds once someone passes away or goes into residential care. When I first raised this issue, it turned out the department had very little oversight of these funds. There was absolutely no auditing. The department pretty much relied on an honour system to ensure that these funds were paid back to the Commonwealth. According to the latest report from the Aged Care Financing Authority, the amount of unspent funds held by providers soared by 40 per cent to $751 million last financial year, and it was predicted to top $1 billion by June this year. This is a huge amount of money needlessly paid out and sitting in others' bank accounts. This bill changes the administrative arrangements for paying home-care subsidy to approved providers of home care. Home-care providers will only be paid for the care and services delivered to a home-care recipient during each month, with Services Australia retaining any unspent subsidy the home-care recipient is eligible to receive each month. The bill will also introduce a mechanism whereby providers who elect to return unspent funds that are held by them start to do so within six months of the bill coming into effect. The efficiencies and better transparency created by this bill and the earlier legislation already passed will mean much less waste, which must translate to more aged-care packages. At the moment there is a massive shortfall in packages, especially for the most acute level of assistance. This is despite an announcement of 23,000 additional places in the budget over the next year, on top of the 6,105 places announced last July and an additional 10,000 places that were recently announced in the MYEFO. Whilst the 39,000 places are very much welcome, there are still more than 60,000 senior Australians needing care and assistance who are on the waitlist for a home-care package—more than 60,000. The drip-feed of packages must stop and it must be replaced with a comprehensive plan to deal with the waitlist and provide places for packages that people actually are approved for. Figures released by the Department of Health in September showed that, in the last two years, 28,000 people died whilst on the waitlist. This is absolutely appalling. The consequences of the long waitlist for home care are traumatic and often come with dire outcomes. Many elderly Australians wait up to two years for their home-care package following assessment. Often, by this time, their condition has deteriorated and, in many cases, families can no longer care for them or they can no longer care for themselves. Often they're forced to go into residential care. Every year a staggering 19,000 people who were approved for home care are forced into residential aged care before they receive a package. Our senior Australians should have the right to receive care and assistance in their own homes if that is their preference. Our senior Australians deserve respectful, affordable, accessible and safe aged-care options that are offered in a timely manner. So, whilst I support this bill and the efforts by government to more efficiently allocate the limited funding available to home-care providers for our senior Australians, much more needs to be done to fix the home-care system. Prime Minister Morrison recently said, 'The health and wellbeing of older Australians is an absolute priority.' I agree, and all of us here should hold him to those words when the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety hands down its final report next month. 12:36 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise to make a short contribution on behalf of people in New South Wales, in particular those in the retirement capital of the state, in the seat that I live in, the seat of Robertson, and, adjacent to that, the seat of Dobell. So many people who have lived a great life in the city have worked and made a profound contribution to the country by their endeavours and efforts. They've run businesses and they've worked in factories. They've done everything you can imagine, and they seek retirement on the Central Coast. They believe, when they move to the Central Coast, some of the rhetoric of this government—that the government claims it will be there for them. But, sadly, all too often on the Central Coast, we are finding more and more people who fit the descriptions that have been so aptly put before the chamber by Senator McAllister, Senator Siewert, Senator Sheldon and Senator Griff. This is a horror story that we've been listening to in the chamber this afternoon—a horror story in which the government pats itself on the back when it leaks out a few more home-care packages. That's what we see constantly; that is the pattern of behaviour of this government. There is a big claim and a rhetorical flourish of the kind Senator Griff alluded to in his closing comments: 'We care about Australians in their aged-care stage. We care about the contributions. We'll be there for you.' That's what the Prime Minister says, and that's what the minister for aged care says as well. But, when they're needed and when they're wanted, they are absolutely missing in action to the extent that—and I want to restate these figures—28,000 people died on the waiting list. Imagine the scale of that: 28,000 funerals, with all the grief, all the sorrow, all the despair and all the broken-heartedness of people who believed Mr Morrison and his government and thought that they would get what they needed because that's what they were promised by a government that simply lies through its teeth to the Australian people day in and day out. Twenty-eight thousand people died waiting for a home-care package. That is a great shame and a great stain on the social compact that people believe they have with the government that they've paid taxes to for all of their working life. What do you think that's like for those families who had that degree of trust? This situation has been exacerbated—it's gotten completely out of control under the Liberal-National governance of the last eight years. In regional Australia, this situation is even worse than it is in the cities. I've spoken about the fantastic place where I live in the seat of Robertson. I have meetings regularly with the service providers in aged care. They are heartbroken. It's not just the banks of these smaller providers that are teetering on the brink in regional Australia. For the people who've invested their lives in working in aged care, who felt a calling to that profession, who in many cases give as an expression of their faith, it's not just a business to them. They have a deep sense of care for aged Australians. They are finding that they cannot provide the care that aged Australians need. They are finding that people who really wanted to stay in their community and in their own home are being forced into formal aged-care settings that they never wanted to be a part of. And it's because they are waiting and waiting and waiting, day in and day out, for the money they should receive to have home care. Senator Griff correctly quoted the figures: 19,000 people who were approved for home care couldn't get anything from this government and were forced into aged care. I don't know about everybody in this chamber or about the people who might be listening to this, but conversations about how you're going to look after your mum, dad, aunt, uncle or somebody that you care for in the community or that you're a guardian for—those conversations are carefully undertaken. Promises are made: 'Mum I'll make sure that you're looked after. I'll do my best.' In the back of their minds is a trust in the government, in this Liberal-National government, that when the time comes if they need a hand they're going to be able to get it. But this government has failed to deliver. Right now, as I'm standing here in the chamber, there are still 100,000 Australians who need and want a home-care package. This government will spin the story that they've put this legislation in the chamber and they're doing great work in aged care. It's not great work and it's not meeting the needs of Australians; it's disingenuous. What we're seeing here is just another punctuation mark in an ongoing litany of failures with regard to aged care. How bad is this government? How bad is their treatment of older Australians? It's so bad that the aged-care commissioner put out an interim report entitled Neglect. Neglect—that is the signature of this government written all over the aged-care sector. Neglect at every turn. So this piece of legislation today—another little bit of window dressing to tinker at the edges—once again reveals the cynical attitude that this government has to Australians and the abuse of trust of older Australians, particularly older Australians who believe this government is there for them. Well, 28,000 of them got buried while they were waiting. I bet they regret voting for this government many, many, many times. If you care about the people you love who are ageing, you cannot afford to vote for this government ever again because their track record is a wreck. You only have to look back over these eight years to see the steady decline of actual investment in systems and care for aged people. I will report that the minister who is so responsible for aged care, sitting over there, Minister Colbeck, dared to look up at me and mouth that he doesn't believe a word I'm saying. That is the kind of hypocrisy that we see from this government—a failure to accept the fact that thousands and thousands of older Australians are dying on your watch because you can't raise a finger— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 247512 Senator O'Neill, through the chair— Senator O'NEILL 140651 I appreciate that. The fact is that thousands and thousands of Australians are dying on the watch of this government. If you care about your family—if you have an older Australian, a mum or dad, that you care about in your family and you're banking on this government to give you a bit of help or support if they become unwell, have a stroke, develop dementia or need someone to come in and give them a bit of a hand to have a shower, I'm sorry to tell you it won't be there. If by some miracle the government should deign to give you acceptance of your request and provide you with a little bit of care, be pretty confident that if, say, your mum has a sudden health crisis and is assessed as needing a high level of care—level 4 is a high level—this government will think it's okay to give you a level 1 package. It actually thinks that that's okay. I don't want to trivialise this, but this lunacy is like if you went to a shoe shop and asked for a size 7 and they gave you a 2. It doesn't fit. That is how ill fitting this government's policy around aged care is. So I urge Australians: don't accept the ridiculous rhetoric of this self-aggrandising government that pats itself on the back day in and day out and that spent $1 billion telling you how good it is. If it had spent that on aged care, maybe some of the 28,000 people who got buried while they were waiting for a package might still be here. 12:47 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania The Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 2) Bill 2020 amends the way that home-care providers are paid subsidies to address stakeholder concerns regarding unspent funds and to align home-care arrangements with other government programs such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme, NDIS. The measures in the bill improve financial accountability and allow for better transparency over the actual use of funds for home-care service delivery. The bill will amend the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 such that home-care providers will only be paid subsidies for care and services rendered to a home-care recipient during a month, with Services Australia retaining the unspent subsidy that a home-care recipient is eligible to receive each month. This unspent subsidy will be available for providers to draw down on behalf of a home-care recipient as care and services are provided in the future. There is no change to a consumer's access to their full subsidy. This builds on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020 that amends the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 such that providers of home care will not receive a payment in advance but in arrears. I thank senators for their contribution to the debate and commend the bill to the Senate. 12:49 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales by leave—I seek to amend Greens amendment on sheet 1189, deleting the final four words 'by 31 December 2021' and replacing them with 'as a matter of urgency'. 12:50 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Of course it's up to the chamber as to whether they accept the amendment, but as mover of the amendment I will accept that. I'm hoping 'as a matter of urgency' means that's before 31 December this year, but, as the mover of the amendment, I say the Greens will accept that amendment. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 247512 I will clarify. Subsection (b) will read: (b) calls on the Government to act immediately to ensure the Home Care Package waiting list is cleared as a matter of urgency. So the question is that the second reading amendment, as amended, moved by Senator Siewert and contained on Sheet 1189, be agreed to. 12:51 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I acknowledge the amendment from Senator Siewert and the intent of the amendment from the opposition. We are in a circumstance right now where we are just some weeks from the final report of the royal commission. Clearly, the government will seriously consider the report of the royal commission, and I note that Senator Siewert's second reading amendment is based on counsel assisting's draft recommendations to the royal commissioners. We don't yet know what the royal commission's final report will say. We are expecting that there will be some expectation of further reform and urgency with respect to the management of home-care waiting lists. I want to put on the record the fact that the government continues to invest, as has been noted during the debate. There will be an additional 39,105 packages allocated within the system this financial year, reaching somewhere like 195,000— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 247512 Minister, I am aware the question hasn't been put. In effect, in terms of procedure, you're speaking to something that hasn't been put yet. I suggest that maybe this might be raised in committee. Senator COLBECK 00AOL I thought it had been put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 247512 I put the question. The question is that the second reading amendment, as amended, moved by Senator Siewert and contained on sheet 1189, be agreed to. Question agreed to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 247512 The question is that the motion for the second reading, as amended, be agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 10 12:54 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Through you, Chair, to the minister: I flagged this issue in my second reading contribution. What is the government doing to ensure that the additional costs that providers may incur due to these changes, as providers have articulated they may, aren't passed on to consumers? 12:55 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania One of the things that we have done as a part of previous reforms is the requirement for all providers to publicly list their fees and charges. I acknowledge the comments that you made in your contribution in your second reading speech with respect to costs. I think it might have also been reflected by some other colleagues. It is an issue of concern for us. We are currently considering our options with respect to those elements, particularly with respect to our policy reform off the back of the royal commission report, which, as I noted a moment ago, will be reporting on 26th of this month, so very close now. It is a concern to us. We are monitoring all of those things closely. We'll be keeping an eye on it through the public reporting process as they're required to do on the My Aged Care website. 12:56 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Through you, Chair: thanks, Minister. It's good if they do publish them, but what are you going to do if they go up? What undertaking are you giving to older Australians that, if providers do do that, you're going to do something about it to ensure those charges aren't passed on? 12:56 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania At this point in time there are no price controls with respect to the delivery of home-care services. The issue of cost, as I've indicated, is one that we're concerned about. We're watching it very closely. I'd be very disappointed if providers were to pass on costs. You would be aware, through the report that the Aged Care Financing Authority provided to us, the view is that the sector should be able to manage this process. We are concerned about some smaller providers, particularly in regional areas, that might have additional costs in relation to this. We have a limited qualification program in place to assist those providers through that. We don't want to see loss of services as a result of this review. There is discussion with respect to the technology that might be required to be taken up. To be frank, my view is that the take-up of technology would (a) be a good thing (b) provide some efficiencies for providers and (c) facilitate better reporting both to us and to consumers. We will be using this information in the interests of consumers, because, as I said, we are clearly concerned about that. 12:58 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia You've obviously foreseen one of my questions. I'll come back to some of the issues you've just touched on. Have you sought an assurance from providers that they will not pass on the costs? 12:58 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania We've had a number of conversations with providers. As I've said, there is no provision for us to prevent them from passing on costs. They can take this conversation as a clear message from me that I don't expect that there should be costs passed on to consumers, and we will be monitoring that very closely. As I said, the process that we'll go through off the back of the royal commission report, which will do a number of things that's been talked about during this debate, will increase the capacity of the system, but we're also looking to reform the delivery of home-care services. The actions and the way that the providers conduct themselves as part of this process will certainly inform what we're looking to do, including how we manage the issue of fees and charges providers charge to consumers. As I've said to you a couple of times now, this is a significant area of concern for the government. 12:59 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I have heard you say this is a significant area of concern, and, as I articulated in my second reading contribution, aged-care recipients and COTA have indicated that they are concerned about the possibility of passing on costs, so there's general concern about this issue. However, it appears to me from your answer that you haven't sought assurances from providers that they won't increase the costs. Have any providers given you an assurance that they won't increase costs? 13:00 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania There is no mechanism for us to control or manage costs within the Aged Care Act at the moment. We have sent a clear message to providers that we don't expect that this should result in an increase in costs. For those that are at risk, we have a process in place to support them through that process. I'm sending a very clear message through this debate right now. I don't expect that there should be an increase in costs. The providers can hear that message from me now. To respond specifically to your question, nobody has provided me with that assurance directly, but it is a point of discussion that's obviously been part of the debate. That's one of the reasons that we asked the Aged Care Financing Authority to get a good sense of what the potential impact of this measure might be with respect to the sector, because we wanted to understand it as well as possible. This is a very important move in the context of our reform of the delivery of care at home. 13:01 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia That's why the chamber has indicated its support, because we recognise it is an important move. We agree. Would you be prepared to name and shame providers that put up costs directly related to this particular measure? 13:01 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania That's certainly something I'm prepared to consider. 13:01 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Minister, in your answer to one of my questions, you started to touch on the issue that I want to go to briefly next, which regards providers in thin markets that may fall over in the transition phase due to these changes. What other things do you have in mind to assist those providers, particularly in the thin markets? Is it the existing measures that you have articulated, or are there other things that you will undertake to ensure that providers in those thin markets—where they are likely to be the only provider—are not going to fall over or that there's something to put in their place? 13:02 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania As I said, we have had a good look at the sector. I think we have a relatively good handle on the areas where there may be concern, and we have made provision for a limited application grants program to be directed at those providers who we think may need some assistance to manage the transition to payment in arrears. We think that we have an appropriate level of coverage to support those providers who may be at risk. We clearly don't want to see services ceased as a result of this measure. 13:03 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Given some of the issues we have seen with Services Australia in the past, are you confident that Services Australia has the capacity and the time to implement these changes in order to ensure a smooth transition? 13:03 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania All of our conversations and the timing that we have put in place to implement these changes would indicate that that capacity does exist. 13:04 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia It's obviously one that we will be watching closely through estimates. Regarding aged-care packages, the 2020-21 budget allocated 20 per cent of the new packages to level 1. Why is the government continuing to announce level 1 home-care packages, and why has recent funding been done on a basis of quarter-quarter-quarter to the various packages? Why are you continuing to do that, given that people assessed as needing level 1 packages make up about three per cent of those that are currently waiting for a package? Why is that occurring, rather than putting more resources into, particularly, level 3 and level 4? I acknowledge that some more have gone in, but it's clearly not enough to meet demand. 13:05 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania The investment that we're making in the package levels is based on the advice to support a reduction in waiting times and waiting lists. That's the objective we have. We acknowledge that there's more work to be done; I think I've done that a number of times in the chamber and also publicly. Clearly, that will be the subject of some of the recommendations of the royal commission. The work that we're doing is to provide assistance to senior Australians, to support them getting assistance as soon as possible. We're looking to facilitate a reduction in waiting times and waiting lists. 13:05 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Minister, is the government prepared to reallocate some of the funding that's been allocated to other levels in order to meet the needs for levels 3 and 4, if needed? 13:06 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania As we continue to grow the capacity of the system, some of that will create a reallocation between package levels. 13:06 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I am sure we will continue to pursue that issue in estimates as well. Can I move to the issue that I raised during my second reading contribution, of protected information. I'm sure you're aware of the issue that I raised in terms of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission's occasional finding on section 86-9 of the Aged Care Act, which is about information on aged-care services that the secretary may make publicly available—that it refers to protected information. I am sure you heard the comments I made about people having deep concerns about that provision being used in order to not provide information. What is the government doing to ensure that information listed under section 86-9 of the Aged Care Act is available to members of the public who request it? 13:07 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania We might have to have another conversation about this, but I will give you the information that I have and I'm happy to have some further discussion with you in a briefing with respect to this. I will give you some information around government funded residential aged-care homes' obligations and responsibilities around record management. Under the Aged Care Act 1997 approved providers of aged care have the ability to give personal information to a person who has the power to require the production of documents or the answering of questions, such as a person who has an enduring power of attorney over the resident's care. If a person has the appropriate legal authority, they should be able to access their relative's records. Another point that I would make in respect of this is that quite often you will have circumstances where family members other than the particular person may be seeking information. A provider may be restricted in providing information in that context. Unfortunately, sometimes complex situations within an aged-care facility then get entangled with complex family circumstances, and people get frustrated that they can't find information in relation to their direct family member's care and circumstances. It is an issue. It's an issue that came to light a couple of times during the last 12 months, where some family members weren't aware of the circumstances in relation to their direct family member but other family members were very aware of the circumstances. I understand that that becomes quite problematic from a number of perspectives. In the context of information and public information with respect to delivery of aged-care services, it is certainly an issue that we are quite cognisant of. The royal commission has talked about a rating system for the sector, both in the context of home care and residential care, and better financial reporting. They are certainly matters that we are giving very, very close consideration to, to provide more information to users of both residential aged care and home care so that they can have better information to make decisions with respect to the care that's being provided and that they might receive, should they choose one of those options. I would be very confident that that will be one of the outcomes of the reforms that will come out of the back of the royal commission. 13:10 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Thank you. I do appreciate the point that you made about potentially complex family issues as well. However, having said that, there are circumstances where, in effect, authorised people are being denied so-called protected information. I'm pleased to hear that there'll be changes coming out of the royal commission. You'll be pleased to learn that my final question—depending on the answer; I will just let you know that—is: are you then proposing that that will be part of a new Aged Care Act? 13:11 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania The possibility, or the option, of a new Aged Care Act, again, is one of the draft recommendations from counsel assisting the royal commissioners. The royal commission reports on 26 February and we will very closely and carefully consider the option of a new Aged Care Act. I think I'm on the public record as saying that previously, so I'm happy to repeat that that will be part of our consideration subsequent to the royal commission's report. 13:12 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Sorry, I appreciate the answer you just gave, but if in the circumstances that there is a new Aged Care Act, would this issue be addressed in that act? 13:12 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania In the circumstances of a new act, or even modifications to the existing act, this is clearly an issue that we're considering. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 12 13:13 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2020 13

Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2020

Second Reading 13 13:13 Senator DODSON SR5 Western Australia When the Native Title Act was passed in 1993 Paul Keating described it as an opportunity 'to do justice to the historic Mabo decision'. According to Keating, the act had twin goals: firstly, to protect the native title held by First Nations across the country and, secondly, to ensure workability and certainty for land management. Yet even in 1993 it was widely recognised that more was needed to redress the over 200 years of dispossession endured by First Nations. As Keating said at the time, the Native Title Act represented a mere modicum of justice for First Nations. It was meant to be accompanied by a land fund and social justice package, and that never eventuated. Far from building on the promise of Mabo, subsequent years have seen the progressive erosion of native title rights and interests under the act. The destruction of the Juukan rock shelters by Rio Tinto earlier this year demonstrates the extent of this erosion. It reflects what we have heard in multiple reports and in the inquiry into the bill—that the original undertaking of the Native Title Act has been brought into disrepute. This bill makes a number of reforms to the Native Title Act. Labor supports the bill, because we have no desire to delay the progress of those parts of the bill designed to improve the operation of the act. This includes changes to allow historic extinguishment over areas of national parks and state parks to be disregarded in certain circumstances. It also includes a number of changes that make modest improvements to procedural and technical elements of the act. These changes were widely supported by First Nations stakeholders. But I want to make it very clear that Labor remains concerned about several other provisions in this bill. Moreover, we recognise that the bill falls well short of the comprehensive reforms necessary to restore honour to the native title system in the wake of Juukan. Along with my colleague Senator Carr, I had the privilege of participating in the committee's inquiry into this bill. As outlined in our minority report, the inquiry highlighted several specific concerns about the bill. One of these specific concerns involves the amendments to section 24EB and 24EBA, which deal with the deregistration of Indigenous land use agreements. Concerns were raised through the inquiry process that these changes purport to validate future acts done pursuant to the ILUA, even where the ILUA has been deregistered as a consequence of fraud, duress or undue influence. The government has said that these amendments implement a recommendation from the 2016 COAG investigation into Indigenous land administration and use. Importantly, however, this recommendation was opposed by the Expert Indigenous Working Group appointed to inform the investigation. Many submitters to the inquiry also expressed concerns about the consequences of validating future acts that done under later deregistered ILUAs. The Native Title Council raised concerns about these changes, saying that the changes would mean that any future act authorised by the ILUA that had been done through fraud, undue influence or duress remains valid and will still affect native title. Similar concerns were raised by the Law Council of Australia, which continues to oppose these amendments. While it does not fully address our concerns, we welcome the additional clarification that the government will add to the explanatory memorandum, at our request, which confirms that 'these measures do not affect the court's power under section 199C of the act and remove the detail of any agreement from the register and order appropriate compensation where an ILUA is affected by fraud, undue influence or duress'. A second concern for Labor is that this bill creates a new ground enabling ORIC to place a registered native title body corporate into administration for failure to comply with its obligations under the native title legislation. While Labor supports better transparency and accountability, this new ground appears to apply not only where there is serious failure but also where there are a number of failures. A constant theme of the inquiry was the significant underfunding of registered native title body corporates and resulting struggles to discharge often overwhelming legislative and regulatory obligations. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner told the inquiry that the limited financial resources and governance capacities of registered native title body corporates hinders their capacity to effectively discharge their statutory obligations and, most importantly, to fulfil the cultural, social and economic aspirations of native title holders. Without further funding for rep bodies, Labor shares the concern raised in the inquiry process that the increase in ORIC's power risks curtailing the rights of self-determination of the native title holders. Again, we welcome the government's clarification in the explanatory memorandum: 'It is not intended that this ground would be utilised in circumstances of multiple inadvertent and trivial breaches. It is intended that this ground would be utilised where the nature or cumulative consequences of a series of failures is more than trivial.' However, we remain cautious about the potential impact of this amendment and call on the government to substantially increase the technical and financial resources available to rep bodies to enable their compliance with their obligations and to ensure their capacity for self-governance. It is clear that these amendments require careful oversight and monitoring. In our minority report to the committee inquiry, we recommended that the government include a formal evaluation mechanism to review the proposed changes in relation to their effects on the rights to culture and self-determination of First Nations peoples. This was also a recommendation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the bill. We thank the government for accepting these recommendations and agreeing to an amendment to this bill requiring an evaluation and report on its operations within five years of commencement. Our firm view is that the amendments I have outlined should be reviewed as a priority, as part of an independent evaluation of this bill in five years time. The more fundamental problem with this bill, however, is its failure to engage with the deepening fractures in the native title system. The last substantive legislative amendment to the Native Title Act occurred in 2007. In the years since, there have been significant developments in the native title sector, which the government has only selectively responded to. A number of significant inquiries into native title have made recommendations for reform that are yet to be acted upon. In 2013 my colleague from the other place the member for Isaacs, when he was the Attorney-General, directed the Australian Law Reform Commission to inquire into a number of aspects of the Native Title Act. The terms of the inquiry focused on the law governing connection and native title claims. This is an area of the law that has proved notoriously complex and ill adapted to its task, failing to acknowledge the living and adaptive nature of First Nations cultures. The Law Reform Commission carried out that inquiry and provided a comprehensive report to the coalition government in May 2015, with 30 recommendations for reform. This bill addresses only a selection of technical refinements suggested by the review. It fails to address any of the recommendations in relation to the central focus of the review, the test of connection—recommendations that would do the most to protect advancements of the rights of First Nations peoples. More than five years after the report was tabled, the government has still not formally responded to the Law Reform Commission's substantive recommendations for reform. Unfortunately, as our minority report indicated, this reflects a clear pattern from the government of being unresponsive to native title holders while being expedient to accommodate the interests of third parties. This is not protecting native title. Many submitters to the inquiry process noted the need for a comprehensive overhaul of the Native Title Act. The calls for reform have only grown since the devastation of the Juukan caves exposed the hollowness of protections afforded through the Native Title Act. It has shocked many to discover that Rio Tinto's destruction of the 46,000-year-old rock-shelters was entirely legal. The multiple legal frameworks ostensibly designed to uphold First Nations' rights failed to protect, and maybe even facilitated, the destruction of those precious pieces of human history. In this context, a thorough, detailed investigation, perhaps even a royal commission, is needed to investigate the operations of the Native Title Act and to recommend reform that will restore honour and integrity to the native title system. For over 20 years the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner produced an annual report on the state of the native title system. This was ended because the government amended the act in 2017. I welcome the government's commitment to instruct the social justice commissioner to undertake a review of the Native Title Act once the commissioner's finished all the current work on her plate. This is an important step along the path to reform. I call on the government to provide the commissioner with the time and resources she needs to make this a meaningful review. In conclusion, native title is an area of the law that goes to the very heart of the relationship between the Commonwealth and First Nations. Importantly, native title is not an act of largess of the Crown. It uniquely originates with and belongs to native title people. It predates the Australian common law. Since Mabo has been recognised by it, that recognition has been converted to statutory form by the Native Title Act. But we must take steps to ensure that this law, which is intended to recognise and protect native title, does not dishonour and destroy it. Those of us on this side of the chamber have a deep commitment to the native title system and to making the necessary changes to ensure its integrity. I call on those opposite to join us in that commitment. The passage of this bill certainly doesn't represent that the job has been well done or that the job has been done. Comprehensive reforms are still required. They must be followed up with meaningful reform—in particular, reform that will restore the honour and truth to a system that is essential as a source of pride for this nation. Thank you. 13:27 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I rise to speak against the Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2020, otherwise known as the 'naive title bill'. I wish to remind senators that article 32 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the UNDRIP, reads as follows: States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources. This bill does not affirm the rights of our people to free, prior and informed consent. This is why it must not be allowed to pass as it is. The position of the Australian Greens is very clear: free, prior and informed consent must be obtained from all traditional owners before anything happens on their land or their waters. It doesn't matter, or at least it shouldn't matter, how much the big mining companies and the politicians that they have purchased want this bill passed. If all of the traditional owners of any sovereign First Nation do not want it, then that should be the end of the discussion. It is for very good reason that certain areas of country or water should never be disrupted or desecrated. I will be moving amendments to this bill to separate schedule 3 from the rest of the bill. In my view, schedule 3 is the most beneficial for our people. It will allow for native title applications to be made over national, state or territory parks where currently this is not available. However, senators will note that my amendment goes further than just opening up national, state and territory parks for native title claims. Rather, it opens all Crown land for native title claims by negotiation and agreement between the relevant government and traditional owners—sovereign to sovereign. I'm calling on the support of my fellow senators for my amendments. This issue is too important for our people to just wave this problematic bill through as it is. I am a traditional owner and I know that the native title process is an obstacle course, and this bill mostly adds even more obstacles. It's destroyed country and destroyed families. In the main, only the lawyers, anthropologists and mining companies reap the most benefits. It's hardly surprising that companies with mining and exploration interests are the ones who are most in favour of this bill. They're going to rake in the dollars, which is all they care about. The naive title system, or the native title system, is not about returning the rights of our people to their lands and waters—lands and waters that were stolen and never ceded. The native title system is about doing everything possible to keep us from them. Native title is not land rights. Mining companies, with the permission of the politicians that they've purchased, have absolutely no problem getting access to country, which tells you everything you need to know about who this bill really is for. Rio is still making millions after desecrating country by wilfully destroying the caves at Juukan Gorge. If the native title system were about us and our rights to free, prior and informed consent over country, then this bill would never have seen the light of day. This government's problem is that it can't take no for an answer. Our people do not give you consent. That should be enough. The desecration of Juukan Gorge: traditional owners did not consent. Fracking in the Northern Territory: traditional owners do not consent. Mining at Jabiluka: traditional owners did not consent. A nuclear waste dump in South Australia: traditional owners do not consent. The destruction of sacred Djab Wurrung trees: traditional owners do not consent. And yet here we are with this bill that does not affirm our rights to free, prior and informed consent. These rights belong to all Aboriginal people, not just the ones the government likes to hear from. The naive title system is just reinforcing the aims of the colonial project—it's all take, take, take, destroy and destruct. The colonial project has taken our lands, our waters, our children, our women, our laws, our country, our totems and our lives. And what do we get? We get thrown scraps and are told to be thankful—good old ration style, as if we were still on the mission. This government would have us feast on scraps and then tell us that we should be grateful when we demand what was denied to our ancestors. Aunty Margaret Culbong, a proud Wadjuk elder, said the following at the committee inquiry into this flawed bill: I've been fighting and I've walked these streets for law and justice for my people for many years … native title— or naive title— was never a part of my future for myself and for my grandchildren and everyone else. I have not ceded my rights to my country. I honour your words, Aunty Margaret, and I speak them here today because they must be heard and they must be followed. Proud Mirnang Noongar man Mervyn Eades—brothaboy—also told the committee: Native title—where it's come from and where it is today—serves our people no purpose. Native title has turned into the interest of mining companies and the states. They've taken all rights away from us. The Warnpurru Aboriginal Corporation put it best when they said: Can you please change the rule, change the law, because my people want to live out there, want to hunt and gather, want to do our ways of life as we've lived and the way our ancestors lived. That's what we, as people in this parliament, must do: we must change the rules to allow our people to live the way they want to live—in the way of their ancestors, if that is what they want. If the government were serious about working with our people, it would genuinely involve traditional owners on all decisions over country and facilitate them getting free, prior and informed consent—in the same way it moves mountains when mining companies come knocking on these halls. This bill doesn't do that. This is why I am seeking to amend it. Let's keep the section that will benefit our people most. Let's open up areas of Crown land to native title claims—by agreement, sovereign to sovereign—because until we have a treaty, or treaties, there can be no consent. With actions that happen on country, if traditional owners do not consent then that is the end of the matter. May I remind everyone in this chamber that we are all on stolen land and that we benefit from the stolen resources—it's not the first people of this country that benefit. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Senator Thorpe, you had foreshadowed you'd be moving amendments. Do you wish to move those now? Senator THORPE 280304 Yes, I'd like to move the amendments. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU They are Committee of the Whole amendments and, in that case, we'll deal with them in the committee. 13:38 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise today to speak on the Native Title Amendment (Infrastructure and Public Facilities) Bill 2020. This bill amends the Native Title Act 1993 to extend the operation of subdivision 24JAA for another 10 years, extending a sunset clause that was last legislated in 2010. Now, for those listening at home, section 24JAA provides, through legislation, a process to assist the timely construction of public housing, staff housing and limited classes of public facilities by or on behalf of the Crown, or a local government body, or by other statutory authorities of the Crown in any of its capacities. It's for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in communities on Indigenous held land. It's important to note at this point that the operation of this amendment applies only to land, because the operation of this law applies to the construction of facilities and buildings. It is incompatible with native title areas offshore, for obvious reasons. Acts relating solely to offshore places are covered by subsection (n). Section 24JAA operates as an important mechanism between an Indigenous land use agreement and compulsory acquisition, enabling future acts to be done legally and validly, and processing critical Indigenous housing and infrastructure construction in a timely and, importantly, effective manner. This is achieved while also safeguarding native title rights. Without the provision, the alternatives are to enact an Indigenous land use agreement that, as those who have been involved in this space will know, can take a very, very long time to finalise. In fact it can take years to finalise, or it may not be able to be finalised at all. Compulsory acquisition is the other option, but that will extinguish native title. So these options really are not acceptable when Indigenous communities require housing or other essential infrastructure services now. In accordance with the established non-extinguishment principle of the Native Title Act, the bill continues to ensure that native title is not extinguished by the production of public housing and infrastructure and that the provision provides for the compensation. Extending the operation of section 24JAA for a further 10 years will support relevant authorities to continue to meet unmet public infrastructure needs, while also continuing to safeguard the rights and interests of native title holders and claimants. Limiting the period of the extension to a further 10 years provides the opportunity to reassess the need for provision of this in the future, and it will allow the government to make changes, as appropriate, at the time, as was done 10 years ago. There are many types of facilities that may be provided under section 24JAA. This includes public housing for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in or in the vicinity of native title areas. It enables public education and health facilities, police and emergency facilities, that principally are there primarily for the benefit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples living in the areas, to be included— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Order, Senator O'Sullivan. Please resume your seat. Do you rise on a point of order, Senator Ciccone? Senator Ciccone 281503 I do, Mr Acting Deputy President. Just to bring to the senator's attention, I think he's speaking on an old bill from last year. The section that the senator refers to was with respect to a bill that was debated last year. I just wanted to let you know that he could be reading from the wrong notes. Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Well that may be the case, and I do apologise to the Senate. I'll leave it there. 13:42 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to support the Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. I've visited almost all Indigenous Aboriginal communities in North Queensland. I know the complexities that they face, and it is hurting the people, our people. I also have been, and am, a member of the northern development agenda inquiry, and land tenure is something that is hurting our people—not only Aboriginal people, but all other people in the north. These are my people. We are all one nation. That is why we support this easing of complexities that are costing many people on the ground dearly. I note though that this bill touches on compensation that may be payable under paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution, as that relates to the acquisition of property, so I want to put a question to the government: when are tens of thousands of farmers across our country going to get the same compensation under section 51(xxxi)? The Howard Anderson Liberal-National government stole these farmers' property rights across the country using the states as a vehicle to get around section 51(xxxi). Yet Premiers Peter Beattie and Bob Carr, in Queensland and New South Wales respectively, say they did it—and Premier Beattie put it in writing—for the Howard government so as to enable the government to comply with the UN's Kyoto protocol at the then Prime Minister's request. In 1998 and 2004, the Queensland Labor government received hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to steal farmers' property rights. They were bribes to the Queensland government to enact this legislation. That was done through the states because the states have no commitment and no responsibility to provide compensation. So my question is: when will the federal government fulfil its responsibilities under our Constitution and provide restoration of farmers' property rights or compensate them for stolen property rights—restoration or compensation? Let me end with this: Prime Minister Morrison says it won't cost Australia to comply with the UN's Kyoto and Paris climate dictates. That's because he's still relying upon the credits from Kyoto, and that depends upon the theft of property rights from farmers right across our country. When will we see restoration of those rights? When will we see compensation—restoration or compensation? 13:45 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I table a replacement revised explanatory memorandum relating to this bill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Thank you. I notice Senator Waters has just entered the chamber. Having tabled that, do you wish to keep your concluding remarks until she's made her contribution? Senator STOKER 237920 Yes, thank you. 13:46 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Thank you all for your indulgence in the chamber. My colleague Senator Thorpe has just spoken powerfully on the concerns that the Greens have with the Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. The fact that the Minerals Council thinks it's a great idea should, frankly, be cause enough for concern over the risks that the bill presents to First Nations justice. I'd like to speak briefly in support of the Greens' amendments and offer some examples from the First Nations communities in Queensland that I've spoken with about the injustices that the native title system has emphasised. Last week I spoke with representatives of the Sovereign Native Tribes of the Kabi First Nation, whose cultural site Djaki Kundu is currently being threatened by the planned expansion of a highway near Gympie. They said that their experience of the native title system is that it 'divides nations and pits us against each other', allowing governments and developers to select who they think speaks for country. Our concern is that this bill would further entrench that. In schedule 1, the amendments would allow native title bodies to move away from consensus decision-making and to allow votes to be taken by majority. This position is strongly opposed by many First Nations groups. It's inconsistent with international law. It's inconsistent with the recognised principles of the right to self-determination and the free pursuit of social, economic and cultural development, which is, of course, article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Many First Nations groups are concerned that allowing decision making by a hard majority, rather than unanimously, will allow registered native title bodies corporate to manoeuvre around and abuse the powers that are conferred on those representative bodies. In my home state of Queensland, the Wangan and Jagalingou people have fought long and hard against the Adani Carmichael coalmine—I think they now call themselves a different name, but folks still know it by that name. The mining company insisted that it had the consent of native title holders, but traditional owner Adrian Burragubba, who speaks for that land, has been bankrupted, has been bullied and has faced trespass charges for his efforts to protect his country. Further weakening of the consent requirements would see more and not less conflict among First Nations groups over contested resources projects. In the past I've spoken at length about Mr Burragubba's struggles and the injustice that has been perpetrated upon the W&J people, so I won't go into that now with my eye on the clock. I recently also met with another group of sovereigns near Hope Vale in Far North Queensland. The Thitharr Warra and other common-law clan groups are strongly opposed to Diatreme Resources' Galalar silica mine. The proposal threatens water sources and cultural grounds as well as threatened species and significant geological features at Cape Bedford. The Thitharr Warra have accused their registered native title body of bullying, misrepresentation, accepting favours, hiding critical information, denying access to native title land and failing to undertake appropriate consultation to secure support for the Indigenous land use agreement. Again, formalising governance structures that remove consensus will remove an avenue for First Nations owners to challenge decisions that purport to be made in their name but which they strongly disagree with. Those examples have quite a lot of similarities to the challenges faced by the Noongar claimants that led to the court decision—McGlade—that provoked this very bill. Legislating to default to majority decision-making is not the right response. Indeed, it goes against the full, frank and comprehensive consultation with all affected native title holders. What is needed is greater support to allow such consultation to occur, and any perceived administrative benefits in streamlining the process are far outweighed by potential discrimination and manipulation by a few against the balance of all native title holders. Schedule 7 provides for additional dispute resolution assistance from the National Native Title Tribunal, although it is not entirely clear precisely what form that assistance would take. It's critical that the cost of accessing such assistance is not pushed unfairly onto native title groups and denied to those groups who are unable to pay. The RNTBC has a statutory role to consult and resolve disputes and should bear the costs of the resolution unless another arrangement is agreed to between the parties. Schedule 8 proposes a number of amendments to the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act regarding the governance of those registered native title body corporates. But, whilst there are many changes needed to strengthen governance, it is entirely premature to amend the C(ATSI) Act while the comprehensive review of that act by the National Indigenous Australians Agency is still ongoing. I would have thought that was a fairly basic principle. As I mentioned earlier, the Kabi Nation is currently in dispute with the Queensland government over plans for a highway that would destroy the sacred site of Djaki Kundu. The former representative body, the Yangga Buwan Aboriginal corporation, recognised the Kabi council of elders and First Nations governance structures that would have allowed the Kabi elders to speak against this destruction. But that body was dissolved without notice to the Kabi elders. They allege that the new registered corporation ignores the voices of the council of elders. It's that body that the Queensland government has consulted to get consent, despite the longstanding vocal opposition of the Kabi elders. Members of the Thitharr Warra groups have expressed to me their support for strengthening the C(ATSI) Act to enforce rules regarding transparency and to allow native title holders to deal with improper behaviour and misuse of cancellation provisions by registered native title bodies corporate; however, they are strongly opposed to provisions that would require proceedings to be brought in the Federal Court, where applicants are already experiencing severe delays. Finally, on schedule 9, as Senator Thorpe has set out, the decision in McGlade very explicitly and intentionally reversed the previous position on the retrospective validation of Indigenous land use agreements, ILUAs. Seeking now to get around that conclusion, even where an ILUA is compromised by fraud or misconduct, is unjustified. ILUAs are a critical document in the expression of and, in many cases the relinquishing of rights to country. They must only be formalised with the informed consent of all affected native title holders. The Greens want to see a fair, accessible and effective system that delivers outcomes for First Nations people consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and consistent with international human rights law. In asking whether this bill improves the recognition and rights of native title holders, we conclude that it does not. 13:53 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I thank all those who've made contributions to this debate on the Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill. The bill will amend the Native Title Act and the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act to make practical and pragmatic improvements to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of the native title system. In doing so, the bill will implement recommendations from a range of reviews of the native title system, including the Australian Law Reform Commission's report called Connection to country: review of the Native Title Act 1993. Passage of this bill will improve the native title system for all parties by supporting the capacity of native title holders through greater flexibility around internal decision-making, by streamlining claims resolution and agreement-making processes, by allowing historical extinguishment to be disregarded over areas of national, state or territory parks with the agreement of the parties, by increasing the transparency and accountability of native title corporations to native title holders and by improving pathways for dispute resolution following a determination of native title. The bill will also confirm the validity of important mining and exploration related agreements made under section 31 of the Native Title Act that are potentially affected by the full Federal Court's decision in McGlade v Native Title Registrar and others. There have been some concerns raised in the course of debate by Labor and Greens senators. I've listened to them carefully and I acknowledge them. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee undertook a comprehensive inquiry into the provisions of this bill and recommended that the Senate pass it. The committee's report included a minority report from Labor senators which, while supporting the objectives of the bill, made five recommendations. Recommendations 1, 3 and 4 of that minority report are directed to the government commissioning or undertaking further review and reform of the Native Title Act. The government has taken action to implement these recommendations by including a statutory evaluation mechanism in the bill. A new section 209A will require a formal evaluation of the amendments in the bill to be conducted within five years of the commencement of most of the bill. The government has also undertaken to request the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner to conduct a review of the operation of the Native Title Act. A further overhaul of the native title system, including so that native title holders can better leverage their land and sea assets, as recommended by recommendation 3 of the minority report, would need to be considered in light of the results of those formal evaluations of the amendments made by the bill and the outcomes of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner's review process. Recommendation 2 of the minority report called on the government to provide a comprehensive response to the 30 recommendations for reform in the Australian Law Reform Commission's 2015 report entitled, Connection to country: review of the Native Title Act 1993. This bill represents the government's response to the ALRC report and it implements those recommendations which received broad stakeholder support. The committee's report into the bill also included a dissenting report from the Australian Greens senators. The dissenting report recommended that the bill not proceed until a number of matters were addressed. The government has provided further explanatory material in the form of the addenda to the explanatory memorandum to the bill that responds to the issues that were raised in the Greens' dissenting report. That further explanatory material clarifies the intended effect of the removal of an agreement from the Register of Indigenous Land Use Agreements, the role of the Commonwealth minister as an intervenor in native title proceedings and the intended operation of the new ground of allowing the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations to place a registered native title body corporate under special administration when it has either seriously or repeatedly failed to comply with its obligations under native title legislation. The amendments will not enable the retrospective application of certain provisions of the bill in the manner that has been suggested by the dissenting report. The dissenting report also raised concerns in relation to the interaction of schedule 3 of the bill with statutory land rights under the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Rights Act. Schedule 3 will enable parties to agree to disregard the historical extinguishment of native title over an area that has been set aside or vested to preserve the natural environment. The drafting of this measure includes a number of specific safeguards to ensure the recognition and protection of existing third-party interests, including those of New South Wales Aboriginal land councils. Importantly, the measure will only operate where native title and government parties agree—it's very important that we have that on record—and will be subject to any conditions required by the government party. This measure has been designed to allow the relevant government and native title parties to work together to ensure the use of this provision complements existing rights and interests, including those of the New South Wales Aboriginal land councils. I'd like to turn to deal with some of the concerns that have been raised during senators' contributions in the course of debate. The first was to suggest that, as was raised by Senator Dodson, there were difficulties in the way that this bill deals— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Stoker! You will be in continuation when debate resumes. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 19 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:00 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I table for the information of the Senate a revised ministry list, and I seek leave to have the document incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— SECOND MORRISON MINISTRY 22 December 2020 Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there can be two departments in one portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a Minister in all cases. Ministers are sworn to administer the portfolio in which they are listed under the 'Minister' column and may also be sworn to administer other portfolios in which they are not listed. Assistant Ministers in italics are designated as Parliamentary Secretaries under the Ministers of State Act 1952. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X by leave—I advise the Senate that the updated ministry list reflects the updated ministry announced by the Prime Minister on 22 December 2020. In particular, I congratulate Senator Seselja and Senator Hume on their promotions to the ministry and Senator Stoker on her appointment as an assistant minister. I thank the Senate. SHADOW MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 22 SHADOW MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—On 28 January 2021 Mr Albanese announced changes to the allocation of portfolios held by shadow ministers and assistant ministers. I seek leave to table the revised shadow ministry list and have it incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— FEDERAL SHADOW MINISTRY 28 January 2021 Shadow Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 25 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Pensions and Benefits 25 14:01 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Why is the Prime Minister cutting JobKeeper, cutting JobSeeker and cutting wages when his government has spent almost a billion dollars in advertising? 14:01 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia It is disappointing to start the new parliamentary year with a question that is so full of misleading elements and the Labor Party trying so much to run a consistent approach to a scare campaign yet again, even on matters of advertising. It is important for Australians to understand the support that's been available to them through the COVID-19 pandemic, to have the health advice they need through the COVID-19 pandemic and to have the information they deserve through the COVID-19 pandemic. There are a range of very sound, good reasons as to why the Australian public need and deserve information through this pandemic. Further, the policy measures that our government has put in place, always set out against the principles of being proportionate, targeted and temporary, have served Australia to put it in a position to achieve economic outcomes that are the envy of much of the rest of the world. In our country we have seen 800,000 jobs come back during the course of the pandemic, from the initial collapse. In Australia we should be proud of the fact that we have seen the effective unemployment rate, which peaked around 15 per cent, come back to a position where it is on par with the overall unemployment rate of around 6.6 per cent. These are the achievements from having put in place not only policy responses that are effective but also policy responses that are true to the principles we set out—that they would be temporary and targeted to the circumstances, and that we will continue to adapt and adjust to those circumstances as we have successfully done at every stage of this global crisis. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Keneally, a supplementary question? 14:03 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales The latest figures show that there are more than eight people on unemployment payments for every job vacancy. Why won't the Prime Minister rule out cutting JobSeeker back to $40 a day? 14:03 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The support through the JobKeeper and JobSeeker supplements has been an important element of our response to date, but they're not the only elements of support to continue to create more jobs and get more Australians back into work. We now see record levels of participation in the Australian employment market. It is a remarkable situation, having faced a recession and a global pandemic, to now have a circumstance where the participation rate is at a record level, demonstrating the high levels of confidence that have been established across the Australian economy both in consumers and businesses. There is still a job to be done; we don't deny that there is still very clearly a job to be done to continue to grow employment. That is why we continue support, be it programs like JobTrainer, be it programs like HomeBuilder, be it subsidies for apprenticeships and traineeships. These are all important initiatives— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question? 14:04 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales How many of the 2.3 million small and family businesses in Australia and the 4.7 million jobs that they support are acceptable casualties of this government's decision to cut JobKeeper in March? 14:05 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Here we see the scare tactics from those opposite. I note the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Albanese, was out there today somehow suggesting that spending was too much and yet we have others who come in here suggesting there should be more spending. The inconsistency from those opposite, of course, knows few boundaries. These are incredibly trying times for many Australian businesses, as they are for businesses right around the world. In Australia last year we saw a decline in terms of business insolvencies relative to previous years. That was a function of the extraordinary levels of support and changes government had put in place. We have always acknowledged that not every job and not every business could survive through a global pandemic but the success of this country in helping them survive stands out from the rest of the world. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 26 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:06 The PRESIDENT I0Q Senators, I draw to your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Ambassador of Switzerland to Australia, His Excellency Mr Pedro Zwahlen. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to the parliament and in particular to the Senate. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 26 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 26 14:06 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Morrison government's economic recovery plan is working in 2021 to rebuild our economy, create jobs and secure Australia's future in the wake of the global pandemic? 14:06 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator McLachlan for his question. I know of his very strong advocacy on behalf of so many businesses and people across South Australia—as my coalition colleagues do universally across Australia—in terms of support for jobs growth and economic success across the country. Relative to the rest of the world, Australia starts 2021 in a very strong economic position. There is much we can be thankful for as a nation. Our economic strength relative to other countries, particularly advanced economies, is something to be incredibly thankful for. More than 90 per cent of the 1.3 million Australians who either lost their jobs or had their work hours reduced to zero during the peak of the pandemic are now back at work. Almost 800,000 jobs have been created in the past seven months, and pleasingly women have taken up the majority of these new jobs that have been created. As I referenced before, the participation rate in the Australian workforce has reached a record 66.2 per cent. My colleague Senator Cash has highlighted this strength in the employment market—such a strong show of confidence. Quarterly growth has had its biggest increase since 1976 and consumer and business confidence are back to pre-pandemic levels. In the face of the biggest global economic shock of our lifetimes Australia's economic comeback is strong. Our economic recovery plan is working. It has been supported by $251 billion in direct economic support to date. Treasury analysis has demonstrated that this support is expected to result in economic activity being five per cent higher in 2020-21 than would otherwise have been the case and 4½ per cent higher in 2021-22. This shows the ongoing effect, and that ongoing effect comes, indeed, through our tax reform changes as well as the ongoing support of the JobMaker hiring credit. These give continued support to recovery right across the Australian economy. 14:08 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia Can the minister outline to the Senate the Morrison government's priorities for the year ahead? 14:09 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The No. 1 priority remains to suppress the virus and to successfully deliver the vaccine across Australia. Our government has outlined a $1.9 billion vaccine rollout strategy, which is on top of the $4.4 billion we have spent on vaccine purchases, medical research and support for our neighbouring countries. We are working closely with the states and territories, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Australian Medical Association, large logistical companies, general practices and community pharmacies to make sure we have a highly effective and safe vaccine rollout. Vaccinations of Australians will commence in late February, pending approval from the Therapeutic Goods Administration, to ensure an orderly rollout across priority groups first and foremost and then working through the rest of the country. This is central to our ongoing support of the economic recovery, to the delivery of essential services for Australians and to continuing to make sure we protect Australia's interests here and around the world. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Birmingham! Senator McLachlan, a final supplementary question? 14:10 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia Can the minister outline how Australia's economic recovery compares to our international counterparts? 14:10 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The Australian economy is forecast to outperform all major advanced economies in 2020. Real GDP in 2020 is expected to fall by 2½ per cent, before growing by 4½ per cent in 2021. This compares to, in 2020, a fall of 7½ per cent across the Euro area, 5¼ per cent in Japan and 3¼ per cent in the United States. In the June quarter last year our GDP fell by seven per cent. This compares to falls of around 12 per cent in New Zealand, 14 per cent in France and 20 per cent in the United Kingdom. These stark figures are a reminder of the enormous challenges many other countries are facing as they deal with the health and economic crises that have been caused by the COVID-19 global pandemic. But in Australia our AAA credit rating has been reaffirmed, we are seeing people getting back to work and we are seeing a recovery that bodes well for Australia's continued strength into the future. JobKeeper Payment: Tourism 27 14:11 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator Payne. Tourism operators in Cairns have warned the Morrison government that thousands of jobs will be lost if JobKeeper isn't extended. In January Liberal MP Warren Entsch told The Cairns Post, 'I have got no doubt support will continue for as long as it needs to happen,' and extending JobKeeper was a 'no-brainer'. Is he right? 14:11 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank the senator for her question. There is no doubt, as the senator has alluded to and as any of us who live in and visit tourism-reliant areas of Australia know—that is, when we can go from state to state, of course—that tourism has taken a very significant impact from COVID-19. The former minister Minister Birmingham has worked very hard with the industry in terms of response and support from government, and we have seen a boost to domestic tourism over summer, especially in those regions within driving or other travel distance of major population centres. Those parts of the sector, though, that rely on international travel and tourism in particular do continue to face very difficult circumstances. So, from Minister Birmingham to Minister Tehan, the government has been engaging very closely with the tourism sector to understand how we are able to continue to assist while we wait for international tourism to return. We actively encourage Australians to engage in domestic tourism. We hope that there will be some opportunity, for example, out of travel bubbles, ultimately, to assist international tourism to return. So it is a very challenging time. There is no question about that. Through COVID-19, the government has provided record levels of economic support, through programs such as JobKeeper and small-business cash payments of up to $100,000, which have sustained hundreds of thousands of tourism businesses and jobs across Australia. As part of our plan to support tourism recovery, we're also providing further targeted assistance to help the tourism sector to rebound and to help save as many jobs as possible. That's in addition to our record funding for Tourism Australia of over $231 million in 2021. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Green, a supplementary question? 14:14 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Treasury data shows that 3,600 businesses in Cairns are relying on JobKeeper, more than in any other postcode in Queensland. How many jobs will be lost in Cairns when JobKeeper ends in March? 14:14 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I'll take the details of the numbers on notice, in terms of the senator's question. I was saying, though, that we have provided record funding support for Tourism Australia. That is being used to directly support the tourism industry, including ramping up domestic marketing campaigns, with phase 2 of the Holiday Here This Year campaign, which is now underway, and positioning to commence international marketing campaigns when the time is right. We have outlined a clear plan for Australia to create jobs and to rebuild our economy, including helping to secure the future of Australia's tourism industry. That includes the provision of a $50 million Recovery for Regional Tourism Fund to boost tourism in nine regions heavily reliant on international tourism. That's about delivering tailored assistance measures to help tourism businesses pivot to the domestic market. Those applications are now open, with eligible applicants able to submit requests for funding until the end of September this year. We have also earmarked $100 million of funding from the Building Better Regions Fund for tourism infrastructure under a new— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Green, a final supplementary question? 14:15 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Is the Morrison government working on any support plan for tourism businesses in Cairns? How many more jobs and livelihoods will be lost in the region while people wait for Mr Morrison to finally take action? 14:15 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Green for her further supplementary question. I have already identified the Recovery for Regional Tourism Fund. I have just referred to the Building Better Regions Fund, focused on tourism infrastructure, which is about helping the regions boost the supply of new quality tourism infrastructure to drive visitation in those regions. There is also $100 million in the Regional Recovery Partnerships program, coordinating that investment with other levels of government—state, territory and local government—to support growth and recovery, including in tourism, in 10 priority regions. A $50 million business events grants program is also open for applications, helping to instil confidence in the business events industry. That is also particularly important. And the $128 million COVID-19 Consumer Travel Support Program is providing—and this is important, particularly for regions which have a high number of travel agents—one-off grants to eligible travel agents and tour arrangement service providers. All of these are focuses of the government's plan and we— (Time expired) Climate Change 28 14:16 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, representing the Prime Minister. US President Joe Biden has made climate action a priority. He has taken dramatic action against coal, oil and gas companies and supported clean energy and is preparing for a climate summit on 22 April. He has spoken to many heads of state, both close allies and rivals, but he hasn't yet spoken to the Australian Prime Minister. Why hasn't this call happened? Is Mr Morrison way down the call list because he's a climate laggard? 14:17 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I am certain of one thing, and that is that President Biden won't be making his calls or scheduling his call list on the advice of Senator Hanson-Young or the Australian Greens. What I do know is that the new US administration—who we congratulate upon their election, and we welcome the opportunity to work with them—have already engaged deeply with building relationships across the Australian government. The Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor have each spoken with our foreign minister, Minister Payne. The Secretary of Defense has spoken with Senator Reynolds, as Minister for Defence; and Mr John Kerry, President Biden's climate envoy, has spoken with Minister Taylor, our Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. So engagement has occurred there, and I have no doubt that discussions between President Biden and the Prime Minister will occur in short order. Those discussions are occurring between our government and the new US administration, as you would expect, right across each of the portfolio levels. I also categorically reject the description of 'laggard', or whatever term it was that Senator Hanson-Young used. The statistics show very clearly that Australia's record in relation to emissions reduction stands well compared with the rest of the world. Between 2005 and 2020, Australia's emissions fell by nearly 17 per cent—by 16.6 per cent, to be precise. This compares with an OECD average emissions reduction of nine per cent, New Zealand's emissions reduction of around one per cent, or Canada's emissions reduction of less than one per cent. These are the comparisons that show Australia's track record is strong, just as our intention to continue to drive the technological change that will deliver further emissions reduction is resolute. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Hanson-Young, a supplementary question? 14:19 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I think we would all be interested to know what climate envoy John Kerry actually said to Minister Taylor, because he's made his views about gas being a transition fuel very clear. Last week, he said: The problem with gas is, if we build out a huge infrastructure for gas now to continue to use it as the bridge fuel—when we haven't really exhausted the other possibilities—we're going to be stuck with stranded assets in ten, twenty, thirty years. Will the Morrison government be trumpeting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Hanson-Young! Time for the answer— Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U their gas-fired recovery in front of the US again? The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Hanson-Young, resume your seat! The ability to complete a question can be directly related to the length of the preamble, and, if I call senators to order, I ask them to heed the chair. Senator Birmingham. 14:20 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Our government will stand by all of our energy policies that are about achieving secure, affordable, reliable energy for Australia, for Australian industry and for Australian manufacturers while also meeting our commitments to emissions reduction targets. We also stand by the investments we're making in our stretch targets, which are about the technologies necessary to achieve emissions reduction in the future: our targets investing in getting clean hydrogen to under $2 per kilo; getting electricity from storage for firming to under $100 per megawatt hour; getting low-emissions steel production under $900 per tonne and low-emissions aluminium under $2,700 per tonne; getting carbon capture and storage under $20 per tonne of CO2; getting soil carbon measurement under $3 per hectare per year. These are all about how you actually achieve emissions reduction, rather than just grandstand on it, Senator Hanson-Young, and that's where we're focusing the investment and the energy. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Hanson-Young, a final supplementary question? 14:21 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Will the Morrison government be taking a more ambitious plan to the summit in April? In fact, will you even be invited? Will you be invited and will you continue to isolate Australia on the world stage in the eyes of everybody else who wants real action on climate change? Now the US are making us look like we are laggards—left for dead. What are you going to do about it? 14:22 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia We're starting the year with lies and misleading statements in Labor questions and, of course, lots of hysteria from the Australian Greens. The facts of the matter are that our government looks forward to working with the Biden administration. We've already had outreach on a number of levels, including between the minister for emissions reduction and the climate change envoy. We particularly look forward to the fact that President Biden, during his campaign, emphasised the importance of investment in transformative technologies, because, as we have identified, you don't achieve emissions reduction outcomes without those transformative technologies—transformative technologies that have driven the remarkable take-up of renewable energy in Australia and that will achieve change elsewhere, including in other countries around the world who we need to see achieve emissions reductions as well if the world is to successfully tackle this issue together. Myanmar 29 14:23 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. Will the minister update the Senate on developments in Myanmar? 14:23 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Smith for his question and his long interest in matters concerning Myanmar. The Australian government is, as I stated in a statement yesterday, deeply concerned that the Myanmar military, the Tatmadaw, has seized control of Myanmar. Early on 1 February, the Tatmadaw detained democratically elected leaders, including State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi, the President and others. The Tatmadaw has announced a state of emergency and the establishment of a caretaker government with the military-appointed Vice-President currently appointed caretaker President. He has handed authority to the commander-in-chief for one year. The situation does remain fluid. Communications, including phones and internet in the capital, Naypyidaw, and in the city of Yangon, are severely disrupted. The Tatmadaw are demanding revision of the November 2020 election results and have announced that they intend to hold new elections. I note for the record that Australia was part of international observer participation in relation to those elections through our post in Yangon. In the statement I released yesterday, we did call on the military to respect the rule of law, to resolve disputes according to lawful mechanisms and to release immediately all civilian leaders who had been detained unlawfully. The Australian government has called for the peaceful reconvening of the national assembly of Myanmar, consistent with the results of that November 2020 general election. Our embassy in Yangon is making inquiries regarding the safety and position of Australians, to the extent that disrupted communications allow. These events are particularly concerning, because the political stability of ASEAN member states is essential to achieving a secure, peaceful region—a prosperous and open Indo-Pacific. ASEAN of course is at the centre of our vision for the Indo-Pacific region. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Smith, a supplementary question? 14:25 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Will the minister advise on Australia's engagement with other nations that share our concerns about these developments? 14:25 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales We are in close contact with other countries, including through our embassy in Yangon, to discuss these developments and our respective responses. Like-minded democracies around the world have expressed that they share our deep concern. We welcome statements by regional partners and other governments, including ASEAN chair Brunei—and I spoke with Dato Erywan, my counterpart in Brunei, today just before question time—and from Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, the United States, the UK, Japan, Canada and others. I've also spoken today, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate alluded to, with the United States National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, and raised these issues in that discussion, and I will continue to raise them with other colleagues. Last week, on 29 January, we signed a joint statement affirming our support for Myanmar's democratic transition, urging the military to adhere to democratic norms, with a number of like-minded countries represented in Yangon. We will continue to work through our overseas network to engage with other governments, particularly in our region. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Smith, a final supplementary question? 14:26 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Will the minister advise the Senate on Australia's strong commitment to supporting democracy in Myanmar? 14:26 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Australia has been a longstanding partner for Myanmar through both good times and more-difficult periods. We've consistently supported the move to democracy—that transition period—and the social and economic reform agenda. I visited Myanmar shortly after my appointment as foreign minister in December 2018, and I know Senator Smith has visited on previous occasions as well. Our development program there includes a focus on promoting peace and stability, on democratic institutions, on supporting elections, and on the peace process and women's empowerment and gender equality. Our commitment to Myanmar's development and Myanmar's people continues at this difficult time and includes support for vaccine access, for delivering humanitarian assistance and for supporting inclusive social and economic development. We sincerely hope to see Myanmar succeed, for the benefit of all of its people and for our region as a whole. And I do want to assure the people of Myanmar, and the many members in the diaspora here in Australia, that we will stand with them in this difficult time. (Time expired) COVID-19: Vaccine 30 14:27 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. On 7 September Mr Morrison promised that 'Australians will be among the first in the world to receive a COVID-19 vaccine'. With 60 countries having commenced vaccinations and more than 100 million doses of the vaccine already given, how can the Morrison government claim it has delivered on this promise? 14:28 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania What this government is doing is what we said we would do, which is to manage an orderly rollout of vaccine and manage the rollout of a fully approved vaccine, starting very soon with the arrival of the Pfizer product after the TGA approved that vaccine. And we will continue to manage that orderly rollout. I have to say, it's really disappointing that the Labor Party continues with their completely reckless commentary with respect to the vaccine. We have at all times managed an orderly process through accessing an appropriate number of vaccine candidates, going through an appropriate and full approval process to ensure that Australians can have confidence in the vaccines that we are looking to provide to Australians. The confidence that Australians have in the vaccines that we have available is going to be absolutely crucial to the take-up of vaccines across the country and to the protection of Australians, particularly those who are most vulnerable. So we will continue our orderly and structured process for the provision, approval and application of vaccines that we have started. We have continued to be honest with the Australian people with respect to the rollout and the availability of vaccines, and we've brought them on responsibly, not like the Labor Party, who've continued with this reckless commentary, which will only undermine confidence in the vaccination process. (Time expired) 14:30 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I have a supplementary. On 5 November Mr Morrison declared that Australians would be 'at the front of the queue'. Can the minister confirm approximately 60 countries are in front of Australia? Which queue was Mr Morrison referring to? 14:30 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I will repeat what I've just said with respect to the rollout of the vaccine. We will continue to roll out the vaccine in a responsible manner with a fully approved process. The TGA has undergone a comprehensive— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Colbeck! Senator Wong, on a point of order. Senator Wong 00AOU My point of order is direct relevance. The minister was asked a very short question which included the Prime Minister's assertion to the country that Australians were at the front of the queue. We would invite the minister to respond to the question, which is: which queue was the Prime Minister referring to? The PRESIDENT I0Q I was listening carefully to the minister's answer. I can't instruct the minister on either the part of the question or the terms in which he answers. However, it was a relatively narrow question. I'm going to consider the minister to be directly relevant if he strictly confines his comments to the distributional rollout, for lack of a better term, of the vaccine, but I am listening carefully to his answer. Senator Colbeck. Senator COLBECK 00AOL We will continue to roll the vaccine out in accordance with approval by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, which is the responsible thing for us to do. It's been properly certified and approved by the TGA, which is exactly what we're doing. We are one of the first countries in the world to be able to provide a fully approved vaccination process for Australians and we will continue to do that, because one of the most important things is that Australians have confidence in the vaccine we are offering to them and that take-up of the vaccine— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question? 14:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory In the UK, the US, Canada and the EU, the time between approval and the first doses being administered was between three and six days. The TGA approved the Pfizer vaccine eight days ago. How many more days will Australians have to wait? 14:33 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania The Pfizer vaccine is being provided to Australia in accordance with the contractual arrangements that we signed with Pfizer for the take-up of the vaccine. Under those arrangements, shipment of the vaccine was conditional on our approval of the vaccine, so we are receiving the vaccine in accordance with the contractual arrangements that were made with the manufacturers of the vaccine. When the vaccine arrives, it will be batch tested to ensure that it meets the requirements that it's specified to have and then it will be made available to Australians. I am not going to descend into the irresponsible and reckless commentary that the Labor Party are trying to engage in, because confidence in this vaccine is absolutely vital. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Colbeck! I have Senator Wong on a point of order. Senator Wong 00AOU My point of order is direct relevance. If he's worried about confidence in the vaccine, I assume he's going to publicly reject Mr Kelly's arguments. The PRESIDENT I0Q That's not a point of order, Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU My point of order is direct relevance. The question was about the delay between approval and administration. The PRESIDENT I0Q On the point of order, I have ruled before that, when there are strictly drafted questions—and I do consider this one to be one without pejorative phrases—political observations on the opposition are not directly relevant. Senator Colbeck, you only have two seconds remaining. I'll ask you to continue. Senator COLBECK 00AOL As I said, the vaccine is being provided strictly in terms of the— (Time expired) Superannuation 31 14:35 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania It is an honour to ask this question of the Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy, Senator Hume. Can the minister inform the Senate why the Morrison government is modernising and improving— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator Ayres interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my left! Senator Ayres, you're not being helpful. It is only our first day back. If we waste time, we're costing the opposition time. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q We are going to continue to waste time that is traditionally considered to be of value to non-government parties if I don't have silence for a colleague to ask a question. It is our first day back; can we try a little harder? Senator Chandler. Senator CHANDLER 264449 Can the minister inform the Senate why the Morrison government is modernising and improving— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I'm happy to do this until three o'clock. It is not particularly of concern to me how I spend the next 23 minutes. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Minister Birmingham, on a point of order? Senator Birmingham H6X Mr President, since you called for order, Senator Wong hasn't ceased speaking. The opposition have had their bit of fun. All interjections are disorderly, as you rightly pointed out. You grant a degree of tolerance, but I think the tolerance is being stretched now. The PRESIDENT I0Q I don't particularly want to commence the first day back by threatening to name anyone, but this is question time, not a session of Gregorian chanting. The opposition will have time to make its point at three o'clock when we take note of answers, so I would ask that we hear Senator Chandler and her question in silence. Senator CHANDLER 264449 Third time lucky. Can the minister inform the Senate why the Morrison government is modernising and improving Australia's superannuation system? 14:37 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I thank Senator Chandler for her question and her ongoing commitment to a more efficient and more cost effective superannuation system in Australia. The Australian superannuation system manages around $3 trillion in retirement savings on behalf of around 16 million Australians. While the system has grown significantly, it does need to adapt to better meet the needs of Australians. The Your Future, Your Super package, announced in the 2020-21 budget, is the Morrison government's next step in modernising and improving the Australian superannuation system to ensure that it is working harder for all Australians. This is part of the government's plan to make the Australian super system more competitive, more transparent, more efficient and better governed and ensure that Australians can reap the full benefits of compulsory superannuation. The Treasury forecasts the Your Future, Your Super package will save Australians around $17.9 billion over the next decade in reduced fees and better performance of the super system. Young Australians entering the workforce could be up to $98,000 better off at retirement because of these reforms. At present, Australian households pay around $30 billion a year in superannuation fees, and that excludes insurance premiums. That's more than the $27 billion that households spend on energy bills and the $12 billion they pay on water bills. This government's measures to date have gone a long way to combating the inefficiencies and anomalies, but more must still be done. The question must be asked: will Labor again oppose the legislation that will make Australia's system more competitive, transparent and efficient? The PRESIDENT I0Q Senate Chandler, a supplementary question? 14:39 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Can the minister advise the Senate— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I really don't want to feel like I'm in a classroom. I know there are people in here with a lot more experience than I have in that—as teachers I was referring to. We don't need chanting, quite frankly. The point has been made— Senator Keneally interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q It's not particularly amplifying, Senator Keneally, because I can't hear Senator Chandler clearly, and I would like to. Senator Chandler. Senator CHANDLER 264449 Thank you, Mr President. Can the minister advise the Senate how Australians will benefit from an improved superannuation system? 14:40 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Thank you, Senator Chandler. The reforms announced in the 2021 budget the Your Future, Your Super package will create efficiencies, reduce costs and reduce duplication through four measures. First, that's done by ensuring that superannuation follows you when you change jobs. This will stop the creation of unwanted multiple accounts that reduce retirement savings through duplicate fees and insurance premiums. Second, it's done by introducing a new and interactive online YourSuper comparison tool. This will empower members to make better decisions about who manages their retirement savings. The YourSuper tool will help members compare and select MySuper products that best meet their needs. Third, it's done by holding funds to account for underperformance by introducing an objective performance test. Funds that fail that test will be required to inform their members. If they fail in two consecutive years, they will be stopped from taking new members. And, fourth, it's done by increasing transparency and accountability, ensuring that trustees act in the best financial interests of members to maximise their retirement savings. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q I'm going to ask senators to my left to restrain themselves. Make a special effort for the first day back. Senator Chandler, a further supplementary question? 14:41 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Can the minister outline the importance of a superannuation system that holds funds to account for underperformance? 14:41 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria We in this government have steadily raised the bar on superannuation performance expectations and governance structures since we came to power. Our focus has squarely been on ensuring superannuation delivers for members, for consumers and for everyday Australians. The Your Future, Your Super package will protect members from poor outcomes and encourage funds to lower their costs. The Morrison government want, and they expect, superannuation to deliver more for Australians. The Your Future, Your Super reforms will do just that. It wasn't until we, on this side of the chamber, came to government that the superannuation system had a light shone on underperformance and inefficiencies. We know this because our changes to the super system to make it more competitive, transparent and efficient have had great effect: 800,000 Australians who were locked into a fund by their employers now have the choice to choose their own fund, $760 million was paid to 700,000 employees through our amnesty measures and $3.7 billion in unintended accounts have been consolidated. (Time expired) Donations to Political Parties 33 14:42 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Birmingham. Minister, Mr Ed Killesteyn used to be responsible for policing our donation laws when he was commissioner of the Australian Electoral Commission. He told the ABC yesterday that our political donation laws are some of the 'worst in the world'. He said the rules do very little to make sure voters know who is funding political parties and how much donors are giving. Of anyone out there, you'd think he would know how bad things are. Is he wrong? 14:43 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Lambie for her question. I don't agree with the assessments that have been made. Yesterday we saw the disclosure of donations across the Australian political landscape, and they provide a high level of transparency around major donations that are made directly to political parties and, in doing so, serve to give, and should give, the Australian people and the public confidence around that donation system. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Lambie, a supplementary question. 14:43 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Minister, it was only yesterday that Australians found out about money that could have gone into the coalition's bank accounts over 19 months ago. Do you believe that voters think that delay passes the pub test? 14:44 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I know that many things exercise the minds of many voters, and we've canvassed some of those during question time today. I think, first and foremost at this time, health and employment considerations exercise the minds of voters. But in relation to political donations, we have a system where they are reported both by the donor under certain requirements and by the recipient under certain requirements. It's an important check and balance, and yesterday was an example of how it works. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Lambie, a final supplementary question. 14:44 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania When money changes hands between political parties and political donors in Queensland, Queenslanders hear about it in seven days, and voters find out about political donations in 21 days during an election in New South Wales or Victoria. But federal political parties can drag their heels for more than a year before they have to tell voters about where their money has come from. Why are the expectations for political parties so much lower in federal parliament than they are in every state except for Tasmania? 14:45 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The arrangements that are in place and which have been reformed occasionally over the years in different ways are arrangements which do provide for the publication of details. I see across today's media that there is scrutiny given to that. All members of political parties are aware that such donations will be published and the donors who make those donations are aware that they will be published. In doing so, as I said, that gives transparency across the system and ensures our democracy, which is a free democracy in which people are free to engage—including to give money as part of that process. If there are any areas where there might be, arguably, a lack of transparency it's probably in relation to some of those non-political party entities—those like GetUp or others—whose funding sources— (Time expired) Member for Hughes 34 14:46 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. The Liberal member for Hughes, Mr Craig Kelly, has made a range of statements, including: … you don't need no vaccine. Does the minister agree that this statement is irresponsible and dangerous, and endangers Australian lives? 14:46 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I understand that Mr Kelly has equally indicated that he supports the distribution of the vaccine and intends to have a vaccine himself. My message to all Australians, and the message of our government to all Australians, is that whether you are a member of the public or a member of parliament you ought to take your health advice from the health experts. When it comes to the development of our vaccine strategy, our government works alongside Professor Paul Kelly, the Chief Medical Officer, in the development of our vaccination strategy— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order. I have Senator Wong on a point of order. Senator Wong 00AOU The point of order is direct relevance: the question is not about whether the Prime Minister is listening to the advice of medical officers. We are asking this minister, who is representing the Prime Minister, whether or not the statement by Mr Kelly that 'you don't need no vaccine' is irresponsible and dangerous. The PRESIDENT I0Q Thank you, Senator Wong. The minister, earlier in his answer, did reference statements by the member of the other place and he is specifically talking about communications and information about a vaccine. I have allowed you to restate the question; I can't instruct him how to answer it. But as long as he stays in those bounds I think he is being directly relevant. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Thanks, Mr President. Let me be very clear: all Australians are encouraged, and should be encouraged, to receive a vaccine. The vaccine is voluntary and the rollout of the vaccination process will be voluntary. However, all members across the parliament—all people across leadership positions—ought to encourage the safe receipt of the vaccines, because we are doing this based upon the best available health advice for the nation. As Senator Colbeck outlined to the chamber before, Australia is one of the few countries in the world— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong on a point of order. Senator Wong 00AOU The point of order is on direct relevance. The question is about a statement made by Mr Kelly. Will this minister say to the Senate and, through it, to the Australian people, that Mr Kelly's statement is irresponsible and dangerous? That is the question that he has been asked. He is refusing to even respond to Mr Kelly's statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, I have allowed you to restate the question. I have ruled previously, and I believe the minister is narrowly constructing his remarks. You are asking me to instruct the minister on the terms in which he should answer, which is outside my authority. There is a chance to debate answers after question time. I believe the minister is being directly relevant. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Again, as I have said very clearly, everyone should be encouraged to have the vaccine and everyone should encourage receipt of the vaccine. In this place and in the other place, everyone should encourage their constituents and others to receive the vaccine. That is a vaccine that, in this country, has gone through more scrutiny and safer processes and will be part of a coordinated vaccination strategy, and all Australians should have confidence in its safety and its efficacy. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question? 14:50 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Yesterday at the National Press Club, like you did just now, Senator Birmingham, you refused to reject Mr Kelly's irresponsible and damaging comments. Why? 14:50 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I don't think I could have been any clearer in relation to the government's position or my position about the receipt of vaccines. We encourage everyone to receive the vaccine. It is voluntary across Australia. It will be voluntary. But, we want to make sure there are high levels of confidence in the vaccine program. We have gone through a process that is thorough and rigorous to ensure those high levels of confidence. Australia, unlike other countries that have had to rush emergency approvals, has been able to go through the comprehensive processes of the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Australia, unlike other countries that have had to rush distribution processes, has been able to develop distribution arrangements that should give people confidence in the efficacy and efficiency of the rollout. Australia is taking this role not only in our country but in leading others in our region to promote the receipt of the vaccine. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Neill on a point of order. Senator O'Neill 140651 The point of order again is on relevance. The question was very clear: why do you continue to refuse to reject Mr Kelly's irresponsible comments? The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Neill, again, I can't instruct the minister on the terms in which to answer. I believe the minister is constructing his comments to be directly relevant and has addressed part of that question in his answer. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I am not going to give airtime to debates about the merits of the vaccine. I am going to stick to the merits of the vaccine and the merits of our vaccination strategy to get it to all Australians. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question? 14:52 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Will the minister today make a clear public statement that Mr Kelly's advice to the Australian people is irresponsible and dangerous and should not be relied upon? 14:52 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I don't think I could have been any clearer in the previous answers about the advice to the Australian people. Rely upon the advice of Professor Kelly. Rely upon the advice of Dr Murphy. Rely upon the advice of your medical practitioners. Rely upon the advice that we promote of the health officials across this country. Rely upon the advice of medical officers across the states and territories. Rely upon the advice of the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Do you know whose advice our government are relying upon? That of all of those experts who have kept Australia safe as we have worked hand in glove with them throughout this pandemic. We are not being distracted by other comments. We are not seeking to promote debates about the merits of the vaccine. We are focused on its efficacy and delivery. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senate Wong on a point of order. Senator Wong 00AOU My point of order is on direct relevance. I would again invite the minister to do the right thing and make a clear public statement that Mr Kelly's advice is irresponsible and dangerous and ought not be relied upon. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senate Abetz, do you wish to rise on the point of order? Senator Abetz N26 I do, Mr President. I have been listening very closely to the assertions being made by the opposition and, if I understand the assertion correctly, 'You don't need no vaccine,' is in fact a double negative and therefore Mr Kelly is, in fact, promoting the vaccine, and I don't know why the opposition has got any difficulty with the matter. The PRESIDENT I0Q You had a very good grammar teacher, Senator Abetz—congratulations! I have taken Senator Wong's point on the point of order. Senator Wong, I have allowed you to restate the question. I believe you are asking me to instruct the minister on the terms in which to answer. I believe he has been directly relevant, including just then when he was outlining a series of authorities that I believe are directly relevant to the question asked. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Unlike those opposite, I'm not going to promote debates from anybody who might undermine the vaccine strategy or its distribution. Senator Wong 00AOU That's a pathetic schoolboy debating point! The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Wong! Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X We are going to promote receipt of the vaccine. We are going to promote the efficacy and safety of the vaccine, and that will be the focus of this— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, interjections are always disorderly. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I'll call the next question when I have the opportunity to hear it. Senator Henderson. COVID-19: Pacific 36 14:55 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I am delighted to ask the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, Senator Seselja, his first question as a minister of our government. Can the minister advise the Senate on how the Morrison government is supporting— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my left! Senator HENDERSON ZN4 It is really disrespectful. No—first question! Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator HENDERSON ZN4 It is very disrespectful. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Henderson, this is not a reflection on you. I'll ask you to start the question again when there is silence. On my left: it is not only disrespectful, which it is; it's also completely contrary to the standing orders, and we are only an hour into our first question time. Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Can the minister advise the Senate on how the Morrison government is supporting our Pacific family in the face of the current global pandemic? 14:56 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Henderson for her question. Firstly, I want to recognise the honour I have been given and to reiterate that there has never been a more important time for Australia to stand shoulder to shoulder with our partners across the Pacific. The impact of the global pandemic on the economies of our Pacific neighbours has been profound, and the risk to their health systems is acute. The pivot of Australia's development program in response to COVID-19 has been unprecedented. The government's Partnerships for Recovery strategy provides the whole-of-government framework for our response. It is tightly focused on health security, stability and economic recovery in the Pacific, Timor-Leste and South-East Asia. Australia's 2020-21 ODA budget is fully aligned with this strategy, with an estimated $1.44 billion for the Pacific—a record high. The government is also providing $304.7 million for a Pacific COVID-19 economic response package. This targeted, temporary funding for two years is in addition to Australia $4 billion ODA program and delivers critical financing to mitigate fiscal crises, maintain essential health services, sustain aviation connectivity and protect the most vulnerable. We have restarted Pacific worker employment programs to boost economic activity and incomes for Pacific families and Aussie farmers. These programs not only provide work for our neighbours; they support Aussie businesses who face their own losses if we do not act. The Pacific step-up means working with our Pacific partners to build a region that is secure strategically, stable economically and sovereign politically. Together these programs show Australia's support for the Pacific not only as the leading contributor of aid in the region but also as a neighbour, a partner and a friend in these difficult times. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Henderson, a supplementary question? 14:58 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Can the minister provide an update on the progress of Australia's provision of vaccines to the Pacific and South-East Asia? 14:58 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory There is no higher priority for countries in our region than access to COVID-19 vaccines. Senator Payne and I already have reached out to our counterparts in the Pacific and South-East Asia to underline our commitment and to advance the next steps on vaccine rollouts, including $523.2 million over three years for a COVID-19 vaccine access and health security initiative for the Pacific and South-East Asia. Previously $80 million was committed to the multilateral Covax Facility's advanced market commitment to support vaccination for the populations at greatest risk in 92 developing countries. This initiative offers full vaccine coverage for the Pacific and Timor-Leste, and will enable the procurement of vaccines and provide technical support to prepare for vaccine introduction. We're working closely with New Zealand, France and the United States to ensure our Pacific family have vaccines that are safe and effective and can be accessed to support the economic recovery of the region. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Henderson, a final supplementary question? 14:59 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Can the minister also provide an update on the support provided by Australia to our Pacific neighbours after Cyclone Yasa? 15:00 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory First, I acknowledge the dreadful loss of life and devastating property damage in Fiji and the conditions they now face again, unfortunately, with Cyclone Ana. But we have stepped up with $4½ million in humanitarian relief. At Fiji's request, a RAAF aircraft conducted aerial damage assessments to aid relief planning. HMAS Adelaide was deployed to support relief efforts, including construction and engineering to repair over 30 schools. In total, we delivered over 165 tonnes of supplies and almost one million litres of water. I had the opportunity to speak to Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama, who thanked his Australian vuvale and noted again Australia's willingness to help Fiji in their hour of need. I reminded the Prime Minister that 12 months earlier it was Fiji who helped us with our bushfire recovery. It's a great example of how people and nations across the Pacific can help each other, and we will continue to support our Fijian vuvale in their recovery. Senator Birmingham H6X I ask that further questions be placed on notice. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 37 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Question No. 1905 37 15:01 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister for an explanation as to why an answer has not been provided to question on notice No. 1905, relating to community sport infrastructure grants. 15:01 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I understand a response has recently been tabled, Senator Rice, but I am happy to also lay a copy on the table for the Senate chamber, and I'll walk one over to you in a second. An honourable senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q No, once it's been tabled, that brings a close to that matter, so it can't be followed up in the chamber. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 37 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Member for Hughes 37 15:02 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Birmingham) to a question without notice asked by Senator O'Neill today relating to the member for Hughes. There is room for many different voices on different issues in a mature democracy, and we can find room to disagree about policy priorities, about facts and about values. But there are some lines that should not be crossed, and one of those lines is endangering lives. Over the past year, the member for Hughes has crossed that line again and again and again. He has made demonstrably false claims that endanger ordinary people's health. His comments are now notorious, arguing, against all available scientific evidence, that particular drugs can cure COVID, when they cannot, and claiming, as he did just this month, that mask wearing is dangerous and that forcing children to wear masks is child abuse. Peddling false medical information at any time is dangerous. Doing so during a global pandemic that has claimed 2.2 million lives worldwide is inexcusable. Yet excuses are exactly what is being offered from the top down: by the Prime Minister, by the Deputy Prime Minister and, today in this chamber, by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. These excuses don't hold up. They don't stand ordinary scrutiny. Asked if Mr Kelly's remarks would cause panic and fear in the community, Mr McCormack lamely said he did not think so, offering this excuse: I don't know how many followers Craig Kelly has on his Facebook or a social media platform, but it's probably poor compared to perhaps what the mainstream media has. Mr Kelly proudly boasts that his posts reached over 1.8 million people in January and 'ensured that more people are exposed to the facts and have been educated about ivermectin and HCQ and zinc'. The Prime Minister has refused to condemn Mr Kelly's comments, saying, glibly, 'Mr Kelly is not my doctor.' Well, an actual doctor—the vice-president of the AMA—said that misinformation like that being shared by Mr Kelly is 'torching the foundation of community health and science'. But the Prime Minister said he thought Mr Kelly was doing a good job as the member for Hughes. Well, what does that look like? What is this 'good job' the Prime Minister is talking about? Mr Kelly's Facebook page is a relentless cavalcade of misleading information. Since 30 January he has published 23 posts; 12 of them promote COVID misinformation, nine promote climate misinformation and one relates to a community event—just one. And he topped off that performance by doing a 90-minute podcast with Mr Pete Evans, a man who last year was fined by the Therapeutic Goods Administration for making false claims about supposed COVID-fighting devices and went on to tweet a meme containing Neo-Nazi imagery. It should be easy for the Prime Minister, for Mr McCormack and for Senator Birmingham to condemn a man who has peddled dangerous conspiracy theories, and it should be even easier to condemn the use of taxpayer funded platforms to spread them. Mr Kelly is afforded a privileged position. He is a preselected member of the Liberal Party. He is a member of the Australian parliament. I don't think it should be beyond Mr Morrison to say, very clearly, what is clear to everybody else in this community: that what Mr Kelly is saying is wrong, that it is dangerous and that people should not listen to him in particular. A real leader—a real leader with a spine—would find it within himself to express an opinion about the wrong and dangerous ideas espoused by Mr Kelly. The failure to do so is even more extraordinary when we consider the relationship between Mr Morrison and Mr Kelly, because it has been widely reported that Mr Kelly owes his job, owes his preselection, to Mr Morrison. In 2018 we saw the headlines 'Morrison intervenes to save maverick MP Craig Kelly from preselection defeat' and 'Scott Morrison's fixer offered Craig Kelly's challenger a $350,000 party job to drop out'. Well, Mr Kelly has his seat in this parliament, thanks to Mr Morrison, and the least Mr Morrison can do is show some courage and hold him to account. 15:07 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I too believe, as the Prime Minister believes, that Craig Kelly does a wonderful job for the people of Hughes. And I want to say to Senator McAllister and all those opposite who are seeking to attack Mr Craig Kelly—or anyone else in this country, as we go through this process of encouraging Australians to receive medical advice from their trusted source and to make their own decision to vaccinate on the basis of that expert medical advice—that the way to approach this debate is not to demonise, is not to antagonise, is not to insult; it is to have a respectful discussion and seek to persuade people. Senator O'Neill interjecting— Senator SCARR 282997 That is the way to deal with the issue, Senator O'Neill. I've actually read quite widely some of the literature that has been published over many years with respect to the best way, the most effective way, to deal with those people in our community, including those overseas, who are resistant to vaccinations. The lesson I took from reading that scientific literature in many cases was that the worse thing you can do is exactly what the opposition sought to do here today, and that is to attack and vilify people, as opposed to engaging in a mutually respectful discussion and encouraging people— Senator O'Neill interjecting— Senator SCARR 282997 You're not at ALP preselection for the Senate ticket today, Senator O'Neill, so please don't interject on me. It is not the way-- Senator O'Neill interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Order! Senator SCARR 282997 It is not the way to boost maximum participation in relation to this vaccination rollout. It is simply not the way. I'm quite happy to circulate some of the articles I've read, which consider research over many years, in relation to the best way to encourage people to vaccinate. I will be taking the best medical advice that I can find, and that includes my own local GP, Dr Ben Gordon—and I give you a shout-out, Ben; you've been a loyal servant to my medical health over many years. I'll be sitting down with my GP and having the conversation which thousands of Australians will be having—or should be having—with their medical professional. I am entirely confident that—just as is the case with the high vaccination rates that our children have with respect to many vaccines that have been absolute lifesavers for millions of people around the world—after those conversations take place between Australian individuals and families and their medical professionals, their medical advisers, the majority of Australians will make their own free, voluntary decision to be vaccinated. Senator O'Neill interjecting— Senator SCARR 282997 It does not help, Senator O'Neill, to seek to vilify and tip a bucket on people who have a different view to you. The result of it is—and there is scientific literature to this effect—that people simply seek to confirm their own prejudices and bunker down. That's the result of it. That's not my theory; that's the theory that has been written in scientific literature again and again. You must have a mutual, respectful debate and emphasise the positive aspects of people obtaining a vaccination, not just for them but also for their families and for the broader Australian community. So I say that those opposite should reflect on the carping, negative approach to this topic which they have brought into this chamber today, because I don't think it's constructive, and I think you will achieve exactly the opposite of what you're seeking to achieve. You know what? One of the big issues is that so many Australians have a lack of confidence in so many government institutions, across the board, and the best way we can encourage those Australians to be vaccinated is to encourage them to have discussions with their own medical professionals—with doctors, with nurses, with pharmacists—obtain the best advice available to them and make the decision that's in the best interests of themselves and of their families. Once they have those discussions, once they receive that comfort, I'm very confident that Australia will have an extremely successful vaccination rollout program, as we've had with respect to a number of vaccines over decades and decades. 15:12 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I cannot believe that we're actually this year still talking about Conspiracy Craig, the member for Hughes, Mr Kelly, who's a fringe crank who isn't fit to sit in the other place. He's a danger to public discourse, he's a danger to public health and he's a danger to public institutions. This is an MP who is so hated by his own Liberal branches that, in the last two elections, the Leader of the Liberal Party has intervened to save his preselection from them. Just think about that: Scott Morrison could not be moved to stop the deselection of the Father of the House and former defence minister Kevin Andrews, but the Prime Minister saw fit to intervene to stop Kelly's rightful removal by his own branches. By his selective action, Mr Morrison deems Conspiracy Craig more worthy of saving than a 30-year veteran in this place. The member for Hughes and those who excuse him, those who support him and those who lack the integrity to call out his dangerous deceptions are a constant embarrassment to this parliament. Sadly, Prime Minister Morrison is one of those who continue to excuse Mr Kelly's behaviour, and we saw the same acceptance of Mr Kelly's comments by Senator Birmingham, the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Let's look at some of the statements that Mr Kelly's put out. He went on a state-sponsored trip to Azerbaijan and declared that Australia had a lot to learn from its electoral system, despite the corrupt Azerbaijani government releasing the election results two hours before the polls closed. That's how much of a sense of democracy Mr Kelly has. Business Insider reported that Craig Kelly emailed the Therapeutic Goods Administration at the height of the pandemic last year about the efficacy and safety of experimental COVID-19 cures and, when told that they didn't work, he instead perpetuated the lie that they did. He cannot accept the facts from health professionals; he cannot accept the truth. He cannot accept the public health advice of his own Prime Minister, yet the Prime Minister gives him enough rope to go out and do whatever he's doing out there. Mr Kelly said that the Australian medical officials, who everyone seems to be hiding behind, had committed crimes against humanity. That is the man that you are supporting in your contributions today—conspiracy crackpot Craig, the member for Hughes, who ignores all credible, widely critiqued and supported evidence. He constantly denies the scientific consensus around climate change. He openly spreads lies and mistruths about the attacks on the US Capitol. He promoted baseless allegations about voter fraud in the wake of the 2020 US presidential election. He is unfit to serve in this place, but he has the Prime Minister's confidence. He has the Prime Minister's cover. He has the Prime Minister's complicity in this conspiracy against Australian people. He has the Prime Minister allowing taxpayers' funds to enable him to broadcast misinformation. He was reported as saying, 'You don't need no vaccine.' I now hear that in addition to these egregious examples of a failure of leadership by a man who sits in the Australian parliament, he went on a podcast of Pete Evans for 90 minutes—and what a great conspiracy theorist leader he is. He was kicked off Facebook for repeatedly spreading dangerous COVID-19 misinformation. He lost several commercial deals, because people in business will do what this government won't do: they're actually calling fakers out. They're calling liars out. They're calling deceivers out. This government is incapable of acknowledging the deception that lies within their own party. Mr Evans is a gleeful proponent of ludicrous conspiracy theories about QAnon, PizzaGate—both of which have inspired violent insurrections and armed attacks. That is the danger of following the path of this government. Across the globe we are facing a global pandemic that has claimed over two million lives. Every day that Mr Morrison allows the member for Hughes to tweet out and to put his messages out on Facebook it impacts 1.8 million Australians. We cannot afford this. Every single member of the parliament, especially the Prime Minister, needs to speak with a united voice on the medical evidence to ensure that Australians get appropriate treatment. The truth matters and lies promoted at the highest levels by popular influencers, which I am ashamed to say Mr Kelly is, have a real and material impact on our health. (Time expired) 15:17 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Australia has been through an incredible 12 months dealing with the COVID pandemic. We know that lives, sadly, have been lost far too soon and we know that many jobs have suffered. We're certainly on the road to recovery, and recent announcements about the surge in new jobs, particularly in full-time jobs, are really good news. In my home state of Western Australia right now we're experiencing it, and it's an occurrence that we're not that familiar with because we have had 10 months of no community transmission. Having just spent some time in the regions on holidays with my family, it's been an experience that we have cherished and all West Australians have cherished. But right now West Australians are doing the right thing. They're staying home as they've been asked to do. They're getting tested. As I stand here right now, the Premier is giving an update on where things are at. Thankfully now, after the second day after the announcement, we still have zero cases of community transmission. West Australians are going to get tested, which is also very good. This sort of scenario is with us, and may continue to be with us, where there will be the occasional outbreak, because we are seeing as many Australians return home as we possibly can so that they can get back with loved ones, so that they can maybe attend funerals—family members that are sick who are trying to return or they were unable to leave early in the pandemic but they've now freed themselves up to be able to come home. We're going to continue to see many, many new arrivals, so we continue to run the risk—as we're seeing in Western Australia right now. Really, the only way that we'll get to a point where we don't have the risk and we don't have the massive interruptions to businesses and livelihoods is of course to see the vaccine rolled out. Our Therapeutic Goods Administration is arguably one of the best in the world. Australians can have a tremendous amount of confidence in the Therapeutic Goods Administration, knowing that they have gone through a very rigorous process—a very careful process—to ensure that the vaccines that Australia has acquired and now approved are going to be rolled out in a safe way. They have approached this with real determination but they haven't been hasty either. They've been methodical and have applied themselves to ensure, through an independent process—that's independent of government—that this vaccine and the various items we will be dealing with across the country are safe and able to have the impact that we need. Like many people—about 80 per cent of our population in Western Australia—we don't want to have to go through lockdowns. I think of the small businesses that are being impacted right now. I think of those cafes that are having to throw out huge amounts of fresh produce they had purchased in advance, believing they were going to be trading over the next few days. They have to throw that stuff out. I think of the workers who right now are having to stay at home and aren't able to earn a living for their families. The Australian government is there for those people, providing all sorts of support for them. But, clearly, the vaccine is going to be the way for us to deal with this. Labor, on the other side, say that they support this, but by raising such ridiculous motions and questions, and by highlighting fringe, little issues they are not doing anything to support Australians or to build confidence in the vaccine program which can actually help us deal with it. 15:22 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales First of all, we're living in an age of misinformation in the middle of the global health pandemic, when listening to expert health advice has never been so important. We have crowds of people online spewing rumours and conspiracy theories, undermining experts and telling people to ignore health experts. It's no wonder that the government has its work cut out; when it comes to fighting this virus and getting the country back to where it was, it takes a team effort—everybody's effort—and an obligation to that team. It's even more ridiculous that members of their own party are out there spreading misinformation online, undermining their own efforts to fight the virus. What has the member for Hughes had to say? In talking about the Therapeutic Goods Administration, a regulatory agency of the Australian government as part of the Department of Health, he said, 'The day of reckoning is coming for the TGA'. He said that they committed crimes against humanity and that they're asleep at the wheel. This is what an elected member of parliament has said about the independent-expert-led body, the TGA—the body that advises and provides expert advice. How much harder is getting out of this pandemic going to be when members of the parliament are undermining the TGA and members of this government? The Prime Minister has had no problem intervening on caucus members in the past but he certainly has a problem intervening with Craig Kelly. He had no problem cutting off Minister Ruston when she was speaking at a press conference but, when it comes to cutting off the member for Hughes, what does he say? 'He's not my doctor.' You're right, Prime Minister, but he is a member of your government. This is the sort of lame, blame-shifting response we have come to expect from the Prime Minister. When half the country was on fire and he was nowhere to be seen, he told us he didn't hold a hose. When a member of his government is undermining the vaccine or telling people not to wear masks, he reminds us that the member for Hughes isn't his doctor. You can just imagine it now: in a few months, when we're in the middle of a vaccine rollout, being undermined every step of the way by the crazies of the Liberal Party backbench, and the Prime Minister's team is falling apart, what will the Prime Minister's response be? 'I don't give the shots.' Apparently the only time the Prime Minister is responsible for anything is when there is a chance for him to do a press conference or a photo shoot or a marketing pitch. What else did the Prime Minister have to say about the member for Hughes? You get it from official government websites, and that's what I encourage everybody to and that's what we're doing and that's what we're investing in. Don't go to Facebook to find out about the vaccine. Go to official government websites. Prime Minister, there are 25 million Australian Facebook users. Craig Kelly says he's reached over a million people on Facebook. It is increasingly becoming the source of news, including on how to deal with the vaccine and the COVID-19 pandemic. Australians should be encouraged to listen to experts, but the job of spreading the advice of experts both in traditional media and social media is harder when members of this very parliament are spreading misinformation online. Leadership is all about choices, often tough choices. But in this case, leadership is about the easy choice, the obvious choice. It would cost the Prime Minister nothing to tell Craig Kelly to deactivate his account. It would do the country a world of good for the Prime Minister to take on this misinformation and to shut it off completely. It would make the government's life easier, when it comes to fighting the virus or rolling out the vaccine, to stop the member for Hughes's Facebook page from spreading conspiracy theories. Instead, the Prime Minister is failing the test of leadership, by not making the tough decision, the right decision, the right choice in favour of national health and our communities. The choice to stand beside and even endorse the member for Hughes is a choice to endorse a candidate you agree with. The Prime Minister has sent a mixed message to the entire public. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Senator Sheldon, your time has expired, and I remind you to refer to members by their correct titles. Question agreed to. Donations to Political Parties 41 15:28 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Birmingham) to a question without notice asked by Senator Lambie today relating to donations to political parties. The start of the 2020 financial year was 19 months ago, in July 2019. Our country has changed a lot since then. We've had a once-in-a-century health crisis, we've struggled through brutal economic shockwaves and we've seen the government shovel incredible amounts of money out the door just to try to keep businesses afloat and industries alive. The government has made choices that have benefited some businesses more than others, and that's natural. Sometimes in a crisis you've got to make difficult choices to make sure you can get through it. What worries me, though, is that, through all of that time, the coalition has been taking donations from businesses that might have benefited from the choices it has made. But we don't hear anything about that money until after the decisions are made. Yesterday we found out that the coalition has had $69 million in donations and other receipts since July 2019. Businesses owned by Mr Anthony Pratt gave them more than $1.5 million, and a mystery organisation called the Greenfields Foundation gave at least $450,000. That's not a foundation. It is a political donation that is usually just given in a brown paper bag. That's all that is. The ANZ has donated over $100,000. This is the point: donors do not give money out of the goodness of their hearts. They're giving it because they want a chance to bend a minister's ear about what they need to get through the tough times we've had since COVID has hit our shores. They're looking for a chance to make their case, and they're getting levels of access that most small businesses can only dream of. It's no wonder that a person who used to be in charge of policing our political donation laws has come out and said that they're among the worst in the world. It's about time the major parties did the right thing and tidied this up for the good of the country. 15:30 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I too rise to take note of the answer given to Senator Lambie's questions on donations. Yesterday was the one day of the year when we find out who is paying who, and what that tells us is that democracy is still for sale. In fact, in terms of the amount of donations that were given during the 2016 election compared to the 2019 election, three times as much money is being paid to political parties. The problem is getting worse, not better, and this government is still doing absolutely nothing to fix it. Donors aren't just donating for the sake of it because they're altruistic. They're donating to get favours; they're donating to buy outcomes. That is what the Australian public think. That's why perceptions of integrity of government are at all-time lows. We had to wait 19 months to find out about those donations. It should be real-time disclosure. We don't find out about all of them because the disclosure threshold is so high. It's $14,000, and it goes up by a little bit each year. That means that, for one-third of the amount of money that is being donated to the big political parties, we will never know the source, precisely because that threshold for disclosure is so high. We think the threshold for disclosure should be much, much lower at $1,000, so that people know who's paying who, so that they can see what outcomes are being bought and, ideally, stop the rot. What we saw this morning, finally, was some hope for the broader reforms that the Greens have been pushing for for years. We think big money should not influence politics. We think it should not be buying outcomes. We'd like to see bans on donations from certain industries that have a track record of trying to buy outcomes, like the mining industry, the banking sector and the gambling sector. But, ideally, we think donations, no matter where they're coming from, should be tiny. We want to set a cap on donations of $1,000 per year. It doesn't matter who you are. It doesn't matter whether you're a big corporate, a union, a grouping or an individual. No-one should be able to buy influence. Democracy shouldn't be for sale. We were pleased to see some members of the opposition express some support for the notion of a cap on donations. We know that other folk on the crossbench have also pushed for that. In fact, there are a number of private members' bills before this parliament that would cap donations and lower the disclosure threshold. I'm hopeful that we might see some action. I'll be speaking with other members in this chamber to try to deliver donations reform, because the members of the Australian country want their democracy back. They want to know that the folk in here are representing their best interests, not the best interests of whoever just took them out for a lobster lunch or whoever just paid a massive amount of money to buy a government contract. That's the other thing that needs to be fixed. If you're applying for an environmental approval or a government tender, you should not be allowed to bribe your way to that outcome. You should not be allowed to donate while your application is on foot or for six months on either side of it. There are so many ways we could clean up our system. There are so many opportunities for reform to restore confidence in democracy and in this political system. The Greens look forward to continuing that work and, finally, delivering democracy back to the people. Question agreed to. NOTICES 42 NOTICES Presentation 42 Withdrawal 44 15:33 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 957 standing in the names of Senators Sterle and Ciccone. CONDOLENCES 44 CONDOLENCES Jeffery, Major General Hon. Philip Michael, AC, AO (Mil.), CVO, MC (Retd) 44 15:34 The PRESIDENT I0Q It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 18 December 2020 of Major General the Hon. Philip Michael Jeffery AC, AO, CVO, MC, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia from 2003 to 2008. 15:34 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia by leave—I move: That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death, on 18 December 2020, of Major General the Honourable Phillip Michael Jeffery AC, AO, CVO, MC, former Governor‑General of Australia and Governor of Western Australia, places on record its gratitude and appreciation of his long and distinguished public service, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. Major General the Hon. Michael Jeffery was a brave soldier, an intellect, a gentleman and, above all else, a great Australian who served his country with honour and distinction. He leaves behind an impressive legacy, a life of selfless service to our nation. Following a distinguished 38-year career in the Australian Defence Force, Major General Jeffery was appointed the 27th Governor of Western Australia. He then went on to become the 24th Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia. Major General Jeffery—Philip Michael Jeffery—was born in Wiluna, Western Australia, in 1937 to Edna and Phil Jeffery, and was educated in Cannington and East Victoria Park state schools and Kent Street high school. At age 16 he left Perth to attend the Royal Military College at Duntroon. Serving the Australian Defence Force in many capacities, he rose to the rank of Major General, retiring in 1993. Throughout his long and distinguished military service, Major General Jeffery undertook operations in Malaya, Borneo, Vietnam and Papua New Guinea, the latter being a country he would continue to hold a special connection with throughout his life. During a tour of Vietnam, as an infantry company commander with the 8th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, he was awarded the Military Cross for courageous action, and the South Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. In 1976 he assumed command of the SAS Regiment in Perth, and was subsequently promoted to colonel as the first director of the Army's Special Action Forces. From 1981 to 1983 Major General Jeffery headed Australia's national counterterrorist coordination authority. After being selected to attend the Royal College of Defence Studies in London he was promoted to major general, progressing to command the Army's 1st Division and later serving as Deputy Chief of the General Staff, undertaking the responsibility for the day-to-day running of a 65,000-person Army. Upon Major General Jeffery's retirement from the military he became the Governor of Western Australia in 1993, particularly lending his efforts to youth programs for which he would later be awarded a Companion of the Order of Australia for services to the Crown and to the community. Reflecting on his own time in the Army Cadets, Major General Jeffery was a strong believer in youth groups and making sure that young Australians had the best chance to succeed. With education driving his admiration for the teaching profession, he said: What I have found universally is that it is the educational experience that most influences the quality of lives, offers choice, fosters independence, and promotes potential. Teachers share the privilege of being able to influence and to inspire. I want teaching to be seen and respected as the noble profession, and there are ways in which we all can work together to make that happen. He committed himself, as Governor, to promoting those ideals. Following his retirement as Governor of Western Australia in 2000, he established in Perth a not-for-profit research institute, Future Directions International, whose object is to conduct comprehensive research of important medium- to long-term issues facing Australia. It was an embodiment of his lifelong commitment to the betterment of our nation. On 11 August 2003 Major General Jeffery was sworn in as the 24th Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia. In doing so, he became the first Australian-born Governor-General to have had a full-time military career. Known during his time as Governor of Western Australia to have visited even the tiniest of outback settlements, former Prime Minister John Howard said in the appointment of Major General Jeffery that he: … will bring to the post not only a wealth of experience but also a great ease of manner in dealing with Australians from every part of the community. Then opposition leader Simon Crean, on the appointment of Major General Jeffery, described him as: … a man who has served his country in peace and war with distinction, and has been recognised with one of this country's highest decorations for bravery in battle. Major General Jeffery saw his time as Governor-General as having three distinct functions—constitutional, ceremonial and community, each wielding importance—which he fulfilled with distinction. Rather than actively seeking the limelight during his time as our Governor-General, Major General Jeffery focused on communities and was true to his word upon his appointment: … I want to give my total commitment to the Australian people that I will endeavour to be a Governor-General of the people and for the people … As Governor-General, he gave an estimated 850 speeches, attended some 1,100 events throughout Australia, hosted over 750 official functions, was patron to around 180 not-for-profit organisations—often visiting them at least once a year—and held Christmas parties for nearly 4,000 special needs children and their carers. Major General Jeffery believed in nurturing Australia's relationships, developing personal dialogues and friendships across the globe, from visiting King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to hosting then US President George W Bush. In 2005, upon attending the 30th anniversary of Papua New Guinea's independence, he was awarded the honorary Grand Companion of the Order of Logohu for fostering close relations between Papua New Guinea and Australia. Thousands lined the streets of Wewak to greet Major General Jeffery where he had served as a battalion commander. He impressed locals by conversing in pidgin, and many of those old soldiers in PNG walked days from their villages to say hello again. In an apt end to Major General Jeffery's time as Governor-General, Papuan Sergeant Major Michael Pissa, who served under Major General Jeffery more than 40 years earlier, piped his farewell from office. In retirement, Major General Jeffery was appointed the first national Advocate for Soil Health by the Gillard government in 2012. In this role he strove to provide leadership and national strategic direction to the good work being done by soil scientists and landscape managers across Australia. He worked tirelessly, from Parliament House to the paddocks of the outback, to raise public awareness of the critical role soil plays in underpinning sustainable productivity and helping to meet global challenges, including food, water security and climate change. Highly influential in the role, his impact brought change to attitudes regarding sustainable practices to improve soil health, with farmers more willing to talk about regenerative agriculture, and ministers more mindful of implementing policies that support healthy landscapes. I personally remember the thoughtful, considered and diligent way in which Major General Jeffery approached his role as national Advocate for Soil Health, including in one-on-one meetings with me and, no doubt, with many other members, senators and ministers. His work ethic was unwavering; indeed, Major General Jeffery remained in this role until shortly before his passing. Throughout his extraordinary life, Major General Jeffery was supported by his wife of 35 years, Marlena. Extraordinary in her own right, Marlena was appointed as Dame of Grace in the Order of St John and awarded the accolade Citizen of Western Australia, for her work with so many charities. Admired for her compassion, Marlena was also patron to more than 50 charities during Major General Jeffery's time as Governor-General. Major General Jeffery often expressed his deep appreciation and affection for Marlena, declaring that he would never have been able to make the types of contributions he did without her support and contribution. A great man with a distinguished career, he remained humble, stating during in his time as Governor-General: … if people can look back at our term in office and say, 'The Jefferys did a good job', then that will be enough for me. By every measure, Major General the Hon. Michael Jeffery was truly one of Australia's finest. To Major General Jeffery's wife, Marlena, their three sons, daughter and grandchildren, on behalf of the Australian government and the Australian Senate, I offer our sincerest condolences. 15:43 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I rise on behalf of the opposition to express our condolences following the passing of former Governor-General Major General the Hon. Michael Jeffery AC, AO, CVO, MC at the age of 83 and I begin by conveying the Labor Party's sincere condolences to his wife, Marlena and to all of his family and his friends. Michael Jeffery gave a lifetime of service to Australia. Beginning in the army as a teenager, he went on to serve amongst its highest ranks and became a celebrated and respected leader. The manner in which he carried out this service saw him retained for even higher office, first as the Governor of Western Australia and then, of course, as Governor-General of Australia. He would also use his profile to advance conservation and improve soil health later in life. Michael Jeffery started life in December 1937 in Wiluna, a small town in the Mid West region of Western Australia. Situated in the middle of the state, it is on the edge of the Western Desert, at the gateway to the Canning Stock Route. From these beginnings—these very Australian beginnings—came one of the nation's most significant military leaders and public servants. After growing up in the suburbs of Perth during the period of his school education, he left school at the age of 16 to attend the Royal Military College, Duntroon. He had an extensive military career from 1958 to 1993 and included in that many notable overseas service and command postings. These included serving operationally in the theatres in Malaya, Borneo, Papua New Guinea and Vietnam. His service in Vietnam earned him the Military Cross. In Papua New Guinea, as my colleague Senator Birmingham has indicated, Major General Jeffery commanded the 1st Battalion, the Pacific Island Regiment. In 2005, the 30th anniversary of independence, he was recognised with Papua New Guinea's highest honour, being made an inaugural recipient of the honour of Grand Companion of the Order of Logohu, into which he was invested in 2007. He was also pivotal in the sustainment of the Special Air Service Regiment. Major General Jeffery received many honours. The first was in 1981, when he became a Member of the Order of Australia for service to the Army. In 1988 he was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia. He was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia in 1996 for services as governor and to the community. In 2000 he was appointed a Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, which recognises distinguished personal service to the monarch. Michael Jeffery's military career came to an end in 1993, and shortly thereafter he was appointed to the office of Governor of Western Australia. He saw as a central component of this role connecting with people across the state. As governor, with Mrs Jeffery, he was patron of 170 organisations, and they relished the opportunity to be engaged with the community through these roles. To the extent they reflected Michael Jeffery's own interests, many of them had an emphasis on developing youth. Major General Jeffery was grateful for the way in which this vice-regal role enabled him to travel around the state, observing what he called the 'totality of life', from sheep stations to mines, oil rigs, schools and remote Aboriginal communities. After retiring as governor in 2000, Michael Jeffery returned to make his home in Canberra, making the trip from the west to the east coast on the Indian Pacific. Not too long after this, he found himself moving to another and more significant address in the national capital. In August 2003 he was sworn in as the 24th Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia. He took office at a time where the then Howard government—and in fact the nation—needed the role to be filled by someone who would restore its integrity. It was a challenging time to take on the vice-regal position. He acknowledged this, stating that amidst the difficult circumstances in which the appointment took place he would give his total commitment to the Australian people that he would seek to carry out the role with dignity and dedication, and he did so. Certainly he came to the office with a sound reputation for ethical conduct—a reputation which continued undiminished. In office Michael Jeffery sought to engage directly with Australians, with those undertaking worthwhile activities in their communities, continuing very much in the manner with which he had approached his role in Western Australia. As Senator Birmingham said, he was of the people and for the people. He once said: The big thing you can do—and there's not enough of it—is looking people in the eye and saying thanks for making a contribution through being a Meals on Wheels person or a volunteer ambulance driver or a violinist in a youth orchestra, or whatever. Mindful that it would not be appropriate to stray too closely to policy matters that were more appropriately the domain of the government of the day, he nonetheless sought to use some of his many speeches a year to lend profile to important national and community issues. These ranged from mental health, the environment, volunteering and the importance of mentoring, to urban planning, local sport and community involvement. This accompanied his acquittal of more formal constitutional duties and responsibilities, such as presiding over meetings of the Federal Executive Council. He had a reputation for interrogating the business thoroughly. By the end of 2007, the Federal Executive Council had considered some 2,540 agenda items on his watch. With Mrs Jeffery, he also represented Australia overseas on multiple occasions. My first personal interaction with Michael Jeffery came on 3 December 2007, which is a day I shall never forget, because that was the day on which the Governor-General of Australia swore in the first Rudd Labor government ministry and I became the Minister for Climate Change and Water. The signed certificate hangs in my office in Adelaide and a signed bookplate is in the Bible I keep in my office here in Parliament House. In an interview on his retirement, Michael Jeffery told a story about that day, when the swearing in of the ministry coincided with a tour of the grounds of Government House by a large group of schoolchildren. He recalled that, whilst he was inside discussing major issues of state or certainly engaging in major issues of state, the kids were all waving from outside. So, naturally, led by the new Prime Minister and the Governor-General, we all got up and waved back. He thought of this as being a profoundly Australian thing to do. Originally expected to serve three to four years, Michael Jeffery completed his term after a two-year extension in August 2008. After leaving vice-regal office, Michael Jeffery continued in the role to which he was originally appointed by the Gillard government in 2012 as Australia's first national advocate for soil health. This was a natural for the boy who grew up in the red earth of the outback. He consulted in that role with thousands of farmers, Indigenous land managers, policy makers, students and interest groups across Australia to bring together the Restore the soil: prosper the nation report in 2018. He advocated for our soil, water and vegetation to be declared strategic national assets and he saw that improving soil health had the potential to have a significant positive impact on our carbon emissions. His passion for restoring Australia's soil for regenerative farming and exporting Australian knowledge about managing soils in difficult climates lasted until his final months when he relinquished the role. The legacy of his work remains. Retirement from high public office also gave Michael Jeffery the opportunity to share more time with his children and grandchildren and engage in his hobbies and recreational pursuits, including golf. Michael Jeffery passed away in December 2020. The first full-time career Australian soldier appointed to the office of Governor-General, he set a standard for diligence and integrity by which those who follow are measured. He was, of course, succeeded in office first by Quentin Bryce, then by Peter Cosgrove and David Hurley. Reflecting on his predecessor, General Hurley said: As a nation, we give thanks for Michael's extraordinary lifetime of service. He was, by every measure, a great Australian. So, too, do we in in the Senate today pay tribute to and give thanks for Michael Jeffery's service to Australia, to his nation. We express our condolences following his passing, and the opposition again express our sympathy to his family and friends. 15:53 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland On behalf of the Australian Greens, I offer my condolences to the family and friends of Major General Michael Jeffery. As others have noted, Major General Jeffery had a distinguished career in defence, before serving as Governor of Western Australia and then Governor-General of Australia. These are important roles and we thank him for the care and the dignity that he brought to them. I want to speak very briefly of his longstanding passion for environmental stewardship. He was a committed advocate for land care, for regenerative agriculture and for sustainable vegetation management. He spoke about the value of soil carbon long before it became a government buzzword. He had long discussed the need for agricultural practices to build resilience and adapt to a changing climate. I acknowledge his tenacity and the work that he did as National Soils Advocate to secure the national soils strategy. I hope that the government will respect his legacy. Major General Jeffery was also someone who understood the importance of time with family in nature and away from the cut and thrust of political life. I was pleased to discover that, when asked about his favourite holiday destination, he nominated Stradbroke Island, or Minjerribah. That is something that we shared. He said of the time spent with his wife and children on Straddie, escaping the sometimes punishing schedule of events at Government House: 'Just the sight of the white sand and the sparkling blue water lifts the spirits. It is nice, therefore, to have some time to ourselves, and that is one of the major attractions to holidaying at Stradbroke. Days just meander by and we feel part of the local community. We might end the day watching a beautiful sunset, followed by a game of Scrabble. For us that is bliss and we've kept coming back over many years.' I would encourage as many people as can to also come to enjoy Minjerribah, or Stradbroke Island, in my home state of Queensland. I'm sure that the memories of those times together are a comfort to Major General Jeffery's family. Our thanks go to Major General Jeffery for his years of dedication to governance, environmental protection and sustaining the planet for future generations. 15:55 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia As a senator for Western Australia, and also as Minister for Defence, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of an extraordinary Australian and extraordinary Western Australian, who served our nation with such great distinction and honour in all aspects of his life: former Governor-General, Major General the Hon. Michael Jeffery, AO, AC, CVO, MC. General Jeffery was born in humble beginnings in the small outback town of Wiluna in my home state of Western Australia. He described his upbringing as never luxurious but happy. Later, he would go on to say that the earliest years are the most important in framing a person's life. This is no truer than of Michael Jeffery himself. His mother, Edna, was a nurse and his father, Phil, was a stockman and a miner who served during World War II. Their shared commitment to their family, their community and their nation shaped everything young Michael would go on to do in his lifetime. At 16 he entered the Royal Military College, Duntroon, marking the start of a long and very distinguished career of military and civilian service. Early on, General Jeffery served in a number of units, including in the Special Air Services Regiment. In 1962 he posted to Malaya, serving with the 2nd and 3rd battalions of the Royal Australian Regiment, followed by a secondment in Borneo with the British SAS. From 1966 to 1969 General Jeffery served in Papua New Guinea with 1st Battalion of the Pacific Islands Regiment. While there, he married his wife, Marlena, whom he often, and very fondly, referred to as his 'teammate'. After PNG, General Jeffery deployed to Vietnam with the 8th Battalion. During this tour he was awarded the Military Cross and the South Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. In 1976 he returned home to Perth to assume command of the SASR. He was then promoted to colonel and became the first Director of Army's Special Action Forces. For his service in this role he was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia. He also headed Australia's national counterterrorism coordination authority, after which he commanded the 1st Mechanised and Airborne Brigade in Holsworthy in Sydney. In 1986 he was promoted to Major General and commanded the 1st Division. On having a look at his service record, I'm sure, back then, that if we'd had a core or Army group he would certainly have gone on to command those too. In 1988 he was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia for his services to the Army, and in 1989 he served as the Assistant Chief of the General Staff—Logistics. As a logistician myself, I know that all wise Army commanders understand the importance of logistics! In January 1990 General Jeffery became Deputy Chief of the General Staff, and only a year later he was appointed Assistant Chief of the General Staff for Materiel. He was responsible for managing 600 Army acquisition and construction projects, then worth over $3 billion. It was not long after this final Army appointment that Major General Michael Jeffery retired from full-time service and commenced the next chapter of his life of leadership and service to our nation. In 1993 he became the 28th Governor of Western Australia. In his seven years in the role his humility, his energy, his passion for causes and his dedication to his home state shone through. So it was no surprise when in 2003 Prime Minister John Howard asked him to serve his nation yet again, this time as Australia's 24th Governor-General. During his governor-generalship, Michael Jeffery continued with his own stamp of leadership. He did that with integrity, discipline, compassion and strength of character to his core. General Jeffery was a devoted father, husband and grandfather, and he cherished the support of his family throughout his life of service. I extend my deepest sympathies to Marlena and his family for their great loss to our nation. Their loss is certainly all of our loss. Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places. NOTICES 48 NOTICES Postponement 48 16:01 The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BUSINESS 49 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 49 16:01 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for personal reasons: Senators Pratt and McCarthy from 2 February to 4 February 2021; Senator Bilyk from 2 February to 25 February 2021. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 49 16:02 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senators Bragg and Canavan for today for personal reasons. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 49 MOTIONS Australian Charities 49 16:02 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of Senator Bilyk, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) charities employ over one million Australians and contribute nearly one tenth of Australia's national income, (ii) charities are the first line of support for the most vulnerable in our communities during times of economic and social upheaval, and (iii) many charities have been doing it tough through the COVID-19 pandemic; (b) recognises that: (i) for several years, the charity and not-for-profit sector has been calling for reform of Australia's fundraising laws, (ii) harmonising fundraising laws has been recommended by: (A) Treasury's 5-year review of the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission, delivered on 31 May 2018, (B) the unanimous report of the Senate Select Committee on Charity Fundraising in the 21st Century, on 14 February 2019, (C) the National COVID-19 Coordination Commission's not-for-profit working group, (D) the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements, and (E) the Charities Crisis Cabinet, and (iii) failure to deliver fundraising reform is costing charities and their donors around $15 million a year; and (c) calls on the Government to: (i) apologise to Australian charities for dragging its feet on charity fundraising reform, and (ii) confirm a timeline for the commencement of a consistent national model for regulating charitable fundraising. 16:02 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 On 14 December 2020 the government announced that it was delivering the most important and far-reaching reform of this sector for decades, cutting unnecessary red tape through harmonising laws across all states and territories. The government values the contribution of charities and has delivered unprecedented support to the sector during the COVID-19 pandemic. We were proud to work with the sector productively, and also with states and territories, on the harmonisation of fundraising regulation. Question agreed to. Coal-Fired Power Stations 49 16:04 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the Senate— (a) notes the Hunter Valley has the best thermal coal in the world; and (b) calls on the Morrison Government to build a coal fired power station in the Hunter. 16:04 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The coalition government is a strong advocate for Australia's abundant natural resources and critical mineral sectors, and the regional communities and jobs they support. That's why we established the Underwriting New Generation Investments program, to increase firm generation capacity with new coal, gas and hydro projects, and funded a feasibility study into a high-efficiency, low-emissions coal-fired power station in Collinsville. Our policy is to support a new gas-fired generator in the Hunter Valley, because it will provide the flexible generation we need now to secure our electricity grid. A new gas generator can be approved by the state government and be operational more quickly, creating jobs and putting downward pressure on prices as soon as possible. We agree with the ACCC recommendation that the federal government underwrite new energy generation projects that will help to deliver affordable, reliable power for Australian consumers. 16:05 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator FARUQI 250362 The Hunter Valley needs a new coal-fired power station like it needs a hole in the head. I have spent a lot of time in the Hunter Valley, and the people there know that coal has no future. They know how damaging coal is for the climate. They know how harmful coaldust is for them, their families and their children. They know that there is no future in coal, that it is a collapsing industry. The irrational exuberance of Pauline Hanson's One Nation and the coalition to keep pushing coal is criminal. People in the Hunter actually want a plan to build a clean, healthy, sustainable, jobs-rich future for their communities. They know that dirty coal and gas are not going to give them that future. We have an opportunity to remake society so that no-one is left behind and to transition away from coal. The Hunter needs to be free of giant fossil-fuel corporations and their interests. They don't have to be, and they shouldn't be, burdened by another coal-fired power station. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the motion moved by Senator Roberts be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:10]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

2 AYES Hanson, P Roberts, M (teller) 45 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Cash, MC Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Faruqi, M Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Kitching, K McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McKim, NJ McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Patrick, RL Reynolds, L Rice, J Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Siewert, R Small, B Smith, DA Steele-John, J Stoker, AJ Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE (teller) Van, D Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

White Rock Quarry 51 16:13 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd proposes to expand the White Rock Quarry in the Adelaide Hills, (ii) the expansion of the quarry into existing areas of native vegetation will threaten 17 species of local fauna and their habitat including koalas, the southern brown bandicoot and the short beaked echidna, (iii) land clearing is the greatest threat to koala survival and millions of native animals, including koalas, are killed each year in Australia due to land clearing, and (iv) members of the local community oppose the expansion of the White Rock Quarry; and (b) calls on the state Government of South Australia to halt the expansion of the Hanson White Rock Quarry. 16:13 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 This is a matter for the South Australian government, and the Senate should not attempt to influence decisions regarding a state matter. 16:14 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator KITCHING 247512 Labor opposes this motion, because it's not helpful for the Senate to set itself up as the arbiter of individual projects, motion by motion, under the national environmental law. We need a strong national policy framework to protect koalas, and that's why Labor moved a motion in the House calling for the Morrison government to: … prevent further habitat loss through yet-to-commence development in areas in which the koala is listed as vulnerable, pending the completion of the formal assessment for up listing, the making of a Threatened Species Recovery Plan, and the making of a new National Koala Conservation Strategy. The Morrison government has failed to deliver any meaningful protections for our national icons, like the koala, and it's a disgrace. 16:15 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator ROBERTS 266524 One Nation will not support the motion. Senator Hanson-Young's motion proposes to kill off jobs in South Australia. South Australia is a low-opportunity economy because the Greens have stopped billions of dollars of investment in ecotourism, agriculture and mining. The Greens' support for wind farms has endangered species of large birds drawn into the turbine blades, and their land management policies directly contributed to the catastrophic loss of millions of native animals in the Kangaroo Island fire—millions! The Greens are no friend to Australian animals, no friend to the poor who need jobs and no friend to mum-and-dad farmers who produce food for us to eat. It will be a matter for the government of South Australia to assess the quarry expansion proposal. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that motion No. 953 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:17]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

10 AYES Faruqi, M Hanson-Young, SC McKim, NJ Patrick, RL Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Thorpe, LA Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 38 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Cash, MC Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallagher, KR Griff, S Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Lambie, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Urquhart, AE (teller) Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program 52 16:20 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) 15 January 2021 marks a year since the release of the Australian National Audit Office's report on the award of funding under the Community Sport Infrastructure Program, (ii) evidence to the Senate Select Committee on Administration of Sports Grants shows that the Prime Minister and his office were intimately involved in and aware of decision making under the program, and (iii) many deserving clubs, including in regional Australia, missed out on new community sport facilities, because they were not in marginal or targeted electorates; and (b) calls on the Government to apologise to the clubs that missed out, and provide the funding they missed out on. 16:20 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Can I please seek leave to split the motion into (a) and (b) separately? The PRESIDENT I0Q You don't need leave. I will do that if you're voting differently on those two sections. 16:20 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The Australian government has a proud record of investing in community sport projects across Australia, including providing over $100 million for the Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program, from which 684 projects have been funded. Two-thousand and fifty applications were submitted, requesting funds of $396 million, reflecting the high demand for this program. Sport Australia and the government agreed with the four recommendations from the ANAO's review of the awarding of the program funding. Sport Australia has implemented the three recommendations directly relating to them. The Department of Finance is implementing one further recommendation. As Senator Rice is the deputy chair of this inquiry into this matter it's unacceptable to move this motion before the inquiry has even finished. It demonstrates that this motion is all about politics. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that paragraph (a) of motion No. 959 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:26]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

33 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Griff, S Hanson, P Hanson-Young, SC Lambie, J Lines, S McAllister, J McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Rice, J Roberts, M Sheldon, A Siewert, R Steele-John, J Sterle, G Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 29 NOES Abetz, E Askew, W Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Cash, MC Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

16:29 The PRESIDENT I0Q The question now is that paragraph (b) of motion No. 959 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:29]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

30 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Lines, S McAllister, J McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Rice, J Sheldon, A Siewert, R Steele-John, J Sterle, G Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 32 NOES Abetz, E Askew, W Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Cash, MC Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Lambie, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

COVID 19: Pensions and Benefits 54 16:31 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that when the Coronavirus Supplement was first introduced at the rate of $550 a fortnight it had a transformational impact on people's lives and lifted millions out of poverty; (b) acknowledges that the Government's continued cuts to the Coronavirus Supplement are driving poverty rates up in Australia to above pre-pandemic levels; (c) recognises that the withdrawal of income support measures is premature and will set back our economic recovery and further entrench poverty; (d) further acknowledges that the old rate of the Jobseeker Payment meant that people were left with as little as $7 a day after paying rent; and (e) calls on the Government to announce a permanent and ongoing increase to the Jobseeker Payment and Youth Allowance before the Coronavirus Supplement ends on 31 March 2021 to ensure all Australians can live in dignity and not in poverty. 16:31 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The government has extended payment of the coronavirus supplement for a further three months, from 1 January 2021, at a cost of $3.2 billion to provide additional temporary support to Australians impacted by the pandemic. The extension of the coronavirus supplement and a range of enhanced eligibility criteria within the social services system complements the $251 billion in direct economic support already committed by the government. The government's priority is to get Australians back to work. 16:32 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Mr President, I ask for you to split the motion into two parts: part 1 is (a), (b), (c), (d) and part 2 is (e). The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of motion No. 960 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:37]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

31 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Kitching, K Lambie, J Lines, S McAllister, J McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Rice, J Sheldon, A Siewert, R Steele-John, J Sterle, G Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 31 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Cash, MC Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

16:38 The PRESIDENT I0Q The question now is that paragraph (e) of motion No. 960 be agreed to. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF URGENCY 55 MATTERS OF URGENCY Climate Change 55 16:39 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am today 21 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was delivered by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Rice: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The urgent need for the Morrison Government to announce science-based 2030 targets given that it has completely failed Australians on climate change, using up over 40% of Australia's carbon budget since 2013." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 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. 16:40 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland At the request of Senator Rice, I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The urgent need for the Morrison Government to announce science-based 2030 targets given that it has completely failed Australians on climate change, using up over 40% of Australia's carbon budget since 2013. The Prime Minister is now vaguely talking about 2050, and Labor are talking about 2050. The science says that 2050 is too late. A report was released last week that says that actually what we do in the next 10 years is what counts. The critical decade is now. 2050 targets are very attractive for do-nothing governments, do-nothing oppositions and do-nothing businesses that don't want anything to be done in the critical decade. Having 2050 targets with no policies is just code for 'someone else's problem'. We need science based targets to be guiding our climate policies in this nation. Delay is the new denial. The Climate Targets Panel report that I referred to, which was released last week, says that, to have a chance of staying within two degrees of warming, the government's 2030 targets need to be doubled. We need to halve the pollution that we had aspired to have by 2030 if we are to have a chance at keeping within two degrees. That report also clarifies that if we want to have a chance of keeping within 1½ degrees—which might actually save what's left of global coral reefs, lessen the burden on our farmers and our agricultural sectors and lessen the severity of the natural disasters that we've all been facing, which is what we should be aspiring to as a nation—in fact we need to reduce our pollution by 75 per cent by 2030. So this report's saying the government needs to double its targets to even have a chance of two degrees, but we need far stronger action on the climate crisis if we want to have a chance of saving the planet as we know it. So the discussion about 2050 is over. The question is: what's the government going to do about its 2030 targets, and when on earth are we going to see a 2030 target from this flaccid opposition? They continue to bat away the question. It is not good enough. We need science based targets, and we need all parties to be guided by them. It should not be a question of politics; it should simply be us taking the advice from the experts. We have a small window. President Biden's climate summit is coming up in April. We might not even get invited. We didn't get much of a guernsey last time, did we? This Prime Minister has absolutely no credibility on the global stage on climate, so we might not even be invited to President Biden's April climate summit. But, if we are, what's the Prime Minister going to do? Is he actually going to comply with what the science says? Is he going to increase that 2030 target? It is untenable for the government to continue to insist that these weak, pathetic targets, which we're not even on track to meet, are adequate, and it's untenable for the opposition to continue to ignore the need for 2030 targets and promise to tell us all at some point—who knows when? That independent Climate Targets Panel did that work last week; the Climate Change Authority should be doing that work. They've updated those targets based on our global carbon budget. Net zero by 2050 isn't even what the science says anymore, so that's a bit of a problem for the Prime Minister and the Labor Party. The latest data says that in fact we need to have net zero by 2045, not 2050. In fact, for 1½ degrees, we need to be net zero by 2035. The other very troubling finding from that report was that since this mob took government in 2013 we've used 40 per cent of our two-degree budget and 55 per cent of our 1½-degree budget. We cannot muck around any longer. We may or may not get an invite to that Biden climate summit, but the world is watching what we do. The Prime Minister sees risks; the Greens see opportunities, and we see consequences for continuing to ignore this problem. The Liberals and Nationals will send Australian farmers bankrupt as the new climate dries land out along the coast and floods it in unbearable heat in the north. The only way we can avoid that future is with strong, science-based 2030 targets. We invite the Labor Party to say something about that and the government to double their ambition in that regard. 16:45 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Well, here we go again: the Greens fixated on lots of talk and no action when it comes to the provision of clean energy and the lowering of emissions. The topic of alternative energy through new technology is one that's close to my heart, having dedicated much of my time to the wonderful Hunter region, where traditional mining takes place alongside an area booming with developing new energy sources. On one recent visit I was able to break ground at the site of a new lithium-ion battery factory, where the technology team at Energy Renaissance is supported by the CSIRO. The Commonwealth government's first low-emissions technology statement has identified energy storage as a priority technology for Australia to support emission reductions and jobs growth. Affordable and reliable batteries are already becoming a critical element of renewable electricity supply and clean transport and for use in a range of defence applications. Australia is a world leader in the implementation of batteries on the grid, but we're using foreign companies to supply our batteries, making this a future energy security issue. Australian supply reduces the risks in shipping, transportation and delivery and provides the Australian government and its key agencies, such as Defence, with a domestic option. China accounts for 62 per cent of the global lithium-ion battery industry. Quite simply, if we want more electric cars and buses, and if we want to reduce our emission levels, we're going to need more batteries. Australia is ideally placed to be at the forefront of the development and manufacture of these in-demand products. The early establishment of a domestic battery-manufacturing industry will value-add to critical minerals processed in Australia. According to the Future Batteries Industry CRC, there's currently no commercial production of battery-grade materials and chemicals in Australia. However, the wonderful new Energy Renaissance site at Tomago will be the first in Australia, with plans to export many of its batteries to Asian markets. On the same day as I broke ground at the Energy Renaissance site, I visited the Bloomfield Coal Mine at East Maitland, where 600 Australian workers are employed in producing some of the highest-quality coal in the world. We won't turn our backs on any industry that supports the energy of Australians. Kudos to the Australian Hunter-based company Quarrymining, which is converting its big mining trucks to electric power. There are also other local Hunter Valley and Newcastle businesses who are getting on with the innovation and commercialisation that will drive our economic growth and provide renewable sources of power. These are the sorts of businesses that the Morrison government is backing. The Hunter region is a hotbed of energy innovation. MGA Thermal is a local company using renewable power to heat aluminium bricks during the day and generate steam from them overnight. The Morrison government has promised to build a gas plant powered specifically to ensure that Hunter businesses and consumers don't suffer the devastating consequences of energy shortages or blackouts. We remain committed to any technology that promises energy reliability and affordable comfort for all Australians. I am supporting the Hunter in its bid to win the tender to be the first hydrogen hub funded by the Commonwealth. I'm working with local industries, renewables providers and other key institutions to put forward a case to make the Hunter a home for hydrogen development. With hydrogen we can capitalise on the growing international market for green steel and green aluminium, using the abundance of intermittent renewable energy to generate hydrogen to power these industries. There is no better place than the new hotbed of innovation for such a venture. The fact that it will create more jobs and bring investment to the region is another bonus for Australia. Our government is investing $570 million in hydrogen. Hydrogen can be stored and transported and it can be 100 per cent cleaner. It's a wonderful source of energy for manufacturing and has the potential to further lower our energy emissions. We will continue to support this sector which also has the potential to see Australia export hydrogen to other countries. New energy technologies will expand production and increase productivity. We're not resting on our laurels when it comes to alternative energy sources and we will not rest until Australians and my great friends in the Hunter Valley have guaranteed cheap and secure sources of energy. It will be done with consideration for Australian businesses and consumers. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has promised that we won't tax our way to zero emissions. We won't put that burden on any Australian, especially our regional Australians. Getting to net zero is all about technology. Our emissions fell by three per cent in the year to June 2020, the lowest level since 1998. That's 17 per cent below 2005 levels. That's pretty impressive when you consider it. Our energy minister, Angus Taylor, has committed to investing $1.9 billion for the development of clean energy. When it comes to lowering emissions, we have an enviable record that's proving successful and is focused on technology, not taxes. We have a clear plan. We're on track to meet our 2030 target. Labor don't even have a 2030 target. Our 2030 target is more ambitious than that of Norway, Canada, Germany, France and New Zealand. We want to get to zero emissions as soon as possible. We're focused on the how and the breakthroughs in technology that will be needed to reach net zero emissions. Over the past two years, our position against our 2030 target has improved by 639 million tonnes. That's the equivalent of taking all of Australia's 14.7 million cars off the road for—wait for it—15 years. In 2020, a record seven gigawatts of new renewable capacity was installed in Australia. That's more renewables in one year under the Morrison government than under the whole previous Labor government term. Australia now has the highest amount of solar PV capacity installed per person in the world. We have the most wind and solar per person of any country outside of Europe. We're adopting renewables in Australia at 10 times the global average and four times higher than China and Japan, the US and Europe. We're doing it without sacrificing jobs and industries in regional Australia for no emissions benefit. Instead, the Morrison government is focused on the how and on the breakthroughs in technology that will be needed to make net zero emissions possible. Investing in and supporting renewable technologies will support 130,000 new jobs by 2030 and maintain Australia's position as a world-leading exporter of food, fibre, minerals and energy. In contrast, Labor won't talk about how they would lower emissions, because they have no plan to achieve net zero—no plan and not a single policy. They continue to be divided and confused on energy matters which impact on everyday Australians. Our government is committed to ensuring a reliable energy supply. As our Prime Minister announced yesterday, agreements are in place to accelerate major transmission projects in New South Wales and Tasmania, with Victoria and South Australia to follow this year. We're building Snowy Hydro 2. We're rolling out a $200 million program to build new diesel storage facilities. Minister Karen Andrews is investing $1.5 billion in a manufacturing strategy prioritising critical minerals processing, recycling and clean energy. This is a government committed to technology-driven sources of energy. We need practical and appropriate measures to reduce emissions in a way that supports economic growth. Labor and their Green partners have never committed so much money or support to groundbreaking technology that will enhance our energy development and secure our energy supply. But we are getting on with the job of lowering emissions and creating viable, new renewable energy industries that will support every Australian. 16:54 Senator LINES 112096 Western Australia I rise in support of this motion today. Right now, as I speak, an out-of-control bushfire is threatening the outer suburbs of the Perth metropolitan area, and it's been reported that, horrifically, 30 homes have been destroyed. Thankfully, no loss of life has been reported, but the bushfire is raging out of control. We know that at Tilden Park, in Gidgegannup, 80 per cent of homes have been lost. Of course, my absolute sympathy goes to those homeowners who have been affected so far and their families and friends. We know the bushfire right now is far from out. Indeed, having spoken to colleagues just earlier today, we know it has jumped the Great Eastern Highway. You only have to look at the BOM site: there is smoke haze right across the Perth metropolitan area. We've seen reports of leaves on fire at Wanneroo. That is a long way—for those who don't know Western Australia and the Perth metro area—from the centre of the fire. As far away as Fremantle and Rottnest we're having smoke haze reported. This is a devastating event happening right now in Perth, and it shows no sign of slowing down. What's also happened across Western Australia, and particularly Perth, over the last couple of weeks is that we've had extraordinarily high temperatures. In Perth now, when it's 35 degrees, we think it's a pretty cool day. We've become so accustomed to much higher temperatures. In addition to that, throughout the summer, we've experienced very strong easterly winds—much stronger than we would normally experience. So all of these issues are telling us that our climate is changing. The easterly winds are a direct contributor right now to those out-of-control fires in the Perth metropolitan area. Perth is a sprawling city, and the suburbs of Ellenbrook and Dayton—areas in the federal seat of Pearce—have been evacuated. This is not something that's happening out on the border; this is something that's happening in the Perth metropolitan region right now. No doubt, when this fire has been put out, people will start talking once again about its connection to climate change. Twelve months ago we had the devastating fires in the eastern states and in South Australia, where, tragically, many people lost their lives and homes and businesses were destroyed. Livestock and people are still recovering. We still have people living in tents. Leading up to that, we had Greg Mullins and 22 other former fire chiefs begging the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, to meet with them. They hadn't just suddenly started to talk about the risk of inaction on climate change, linking it to bushfires; they'd been trying to meet with him. They were mocked by the Prime Minister and they were mocked by government members. And what have we heard today? 'Oh, this is all about Liberal and Labor.' It's not, people. It's about climate change. It's real. But we know that those climate-denying backbench members of the Morrison government, who the government will not hold to account, are still the people controlling the Morrison government. You have to ask yourself why, after seven years and 22 energy policy attempts, the Morrison government have no national energy policy, they continue an anti-renewables agenda and they refuse to capitalise on the huge benefits that clean energy can bring to Australian households and businesses. We've heard, 'Oh, we don't want to lose jobs.' Never once have we heard them talk about the job creation that would happen from investing in renewables, investing in a proper clean energy policy. And yesterday we heard some weasel words from the Prime Minister at the National Press Club, because with the election of Joe Biden in the US, suddenly the right-wing cloth that he was able to hide behind, with Trump, has gone. So, now the stark reality is that we have someone in the US who's going to lead on climate change, and I think that is the only reason we saw a little bit of a shift from Mr Morrison, but no plans, not one single idea about job creation, about clean energy—just his throwaway line that he hopes to get there with a reduction by 2050, that he hopes to get there earlier. Well, it needs more than hope, Mr Morrison. It actually needs a government that is committed to the science of climate change, that holds its backbenchers to account when they put up ridiculous notions, that accepts that climate change is real, that accepts that what's happening right now in the Perth metropolitan area is real and that there's a link to climate change. How many more reports that the globe is heating up do we need to have? Australia experienced its fourth-hottest year on record last year. Perth is experiencing right now—yesterday, today and tomorrow—unprecedented high temperatures and really strong easterly winds. This is affecting people and their jobs. If the Morrison government is serious about protecting jobs, it should start action on climate change. I don't know how many jobs the loss of 30 homes in WA represents. If you look at the flow-on effect of that, men, women and children—young people—have lost their jobs. Get real. Climate change is real. Stop denying the facts. 17:02 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I need to say clearly that the climate change agenda seeks to mislead well-meaning Australians with pseudoscience to introduce and hide an economic and social agenda that Australians would otherwise reject. Senator Rice's motion does mischief. Australia does not have a carbon budget. The Senate has not voted for a carbon budget. The coalition's supposed climate action plan cap that underpins government policy does not include a carbon budget. Our international agreements do not include a carbon budget. The only place one can find a climate budget is in the Greens' own little parallel universe, where the aspiring elites in the Greens are in control of an economy that is not only green but rancid. The devastation that will be caused to our economy by the measures the Greens propose in order to limit carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will destroy our economy, destroy jobs and steal opportunity from our children. The insult to real scientists is that Senator Rice calls climate change a science based agenda. No, it's not—definitely not. The argument in favour of a looming climate disaster is based on unvalidated computer models—nothing else. These are the same models that have failed repeatedly and miserably to predict temperature movement. The largest single driver of climate is the sun, which has moved into a solar minimum that is tracking the Dalton minimum, when the Thames froze over and crops around the world failed. In fact, crops are failing now. Northern China is experiencing widespread hunger, as exceptional cold destroyed the winter cereal crop. Australia, on the other hand, has moved from a dry cycle to a wet cycle. This is not climate change; it's a natural cycle. I have challenged the Greens on many occasions to prove their position with empirical scientific evidence—data—and they have repeatedly been unable to. Indeed, today is day No. 502 of my challenge in the Senate to the Greens to simply provide the scientific evidence for their claims and for their alarm and to debate me on the science. Look at them all, looking at their phones; they won't look at me. I challenged the current Greens Senate leader 10¼ years ago, and nothing. That is more than a decade, and nothing. I notice that world-renowned scientist Tony Heller, who relies on solid data, has today challenged the Greens to a debate on social media. That's not going to happen either. And now we see the Nats. Well, that's another joke. So the Greens have no carbon budget and they have no idea. 17:05 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Once again it's clear that the Greens and the Labor Party are not interested in the facts facing Australia and our planet. As we've just heard in the contribution from Senator Lines, who did not mention one policy measure we have in place to combat climate change, it's clear that Labor is operating in an alternative reality. We only have to look at the chaos and the confusion in the Labor Party, as one spokesman is dumped and the deckchairs are rearranged on the faltering ship. We know that Mr Albanese backflipped on his support for the shadow minister Mr Butler in a desperate attempt to save his stumbling leadership, but moving Mr Butler out and putting Mr Bowen in doesn't change the fact that Labor does not have a single policy which will reduce emissions or lower energy prices. Mr Bowen bragged about being a key architect of Labor's failed climate policies that it took to the last election and to which they are still clinging. We know that independent economic modelling showed that Labor's 45 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030 and its 50 per cent renewable energy target would hurt our economy badly and cost tens of thousands of jobs. The member for Hunter has called them out on this, and of course we still see Labor hopelessly divided. The Nine newspapers reported in November that Mr Fitzgibbon pointed out: … after 14 years of trying, the Labor Party has made not one contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in this country. We see Labor fighting among themselves, and we see the member for Corio, Mr Marles. One minute he's in a coalmine and the next minute he's saying that the end of thermal coal would be a good thing. He's flip-flopping all over the place. While Labor is all at sea, the Morrison government is getting on with doing the heavy lifting required. The Morrison government has a clear and successful emissions reduction policy which has allowed us to meet and beat our 2020 target and will ensure we meet and beat our 2030 target. Wholesale electricity prices have fallen for 16 months in a row, and quarterly prices are at their lowest level in six years. We have also seen a record eight consecutive quarters of year-on-year CPI reductions in retail electricity prices, putting more money in the hip pockets of Australian families and businesses. As Prime Minister Morrison told the National Press Club yesterday, Australia's economic recovery plan is underpinned by 'delivering affordable and reliable energy in a way that positions Australia to be successful in the lower and ultimately net zero emissions global economy' that is a part of our future. The Prime Minister was quite clear yesterday: our goal is to reach net zero emissions as soon as possible and preferably by 2050. Critical to this outcome are the advances made in science and technology, and these are needed to commercially transform advanced economies and countries along with the developing world. Here in Australia, we will invest and partner in technology breakthroughs. These are needed to reduce and offset emissions so that our heavy industry in particular, and industry more broadly, can continue to grow and protect our jobs and living standards while at the same time keeping energy costs down. As the Prime Minister has made very clear, we will not tax our way to net zero emissions, which would put the cost on Australians in the cities and in our regions. He's very clear: getting to net zero should be about technology, not taxes and higher electricity prices. We are getting on with the job—just look at our record. Emissions fell by three per cent in the year to June 2020 to their lowest level since 1998, meaning we are now nearly 17 per cent below 2005 levels. This compares to reductions of approximately nine per cent on average across the OECD, one per cent in New Zealand and less than one per cent in Canada. Labor and the Greens don't like to hear the truth, but these are the facts. Under the leadership of Minister Taylor, our $18 billion technology investment road map gets underway this year. There is a $1.9 billion commitment to develop clean energy technologies, such as hydrogen, green steel and carbon capture and storage. We're pursuing global partnerships with countries including Japan, the United States, the UK, Korea and Singapore. Our multibillion dollar energy and emissions reduction agreement with New South Wales is being implemented, and we hope other states will follow. Agreements are in place to accelerate major transmission projects in New South Wales and Tasmania, with Victoria and South Australia to follow this year. The government is building Snowy 2.0 and we're rolling out our $200 million program to build new diesel storage facilities. Of course, one of the great recipients of our fuel production payment and our fuel security package is the Geelong Refinery and its 700 workers. I was absolutely delighted to join with Minister Taylor in making an announcement about the bringing forward of the fuel production payment in Geelong in December last year. The Clean Energy Regulator estimates that a record seven gigawatts of new renewable capacity was installed last year. These are the facts. This is 11 per cent higher than the previous record set in 2019 at 6.3 gigawatts. This represents more than the entire renewable capacity installed under the previous Labor government, which was 5.6 gigawatts from December 2007 to September 2013. These are the facts. A solar installation boom drove this new record, despite COVID-19 restrictions which impacted rooftop solar installation rates for part of the year. We have a great story to tell here in Australia. One in four Australian homes have solar, which is the highest uptake of household solar in the world. This all helps to reduce household energy bills and reduce emissions. Over the last quarter of 2020, the share of renewables in the National Electricity Market exceeded 30 per cent. In 2020, a record 53.6 terawatt-hours of electricity was generated from renewables, including rooftop solar, in the National Electricity Market. This is a whopping 16 per cent higher than the previous record set in 2019. The bottom line is we are on track to meet and beat our targets: the Kyoto targets by 459 million tonnes along with the 2030 Paris target, which has improved over the last two years by 639 million tonnes. This is the equivalent of removing 14.7 million cars off the road not for one year but for 15 years. The Morrison government is delivering on emissions reduction while Labor dithers as to how to do it. Labor is fighting internally and Australians have worked out that they have completely lost the plot when it comes to tackling climate action and climate change. Labor doesn't know what its 2030 target looks like. They don't know how much it will cost or how it will be achieved. Only the Morrison government will achieve the outcomes that we need and this country needs to reduce our emissions and, at the same, time protect our industries and our jobs. We are taking real and practical action. I've talked about, in this contribution, some of the very important results that we are delivering to protect our economy, to protect jobs, to drive record renewable investments and to see one in four Australian homes take up solar, but to do so in a way which takes Australia forward. I am incredibly proud of the work of this government. I am incredibly proud of the leadership of our Prime Minister to drive down emissions and to take strong action on climate change whilst protecting our jobs and our industries. 17:15 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria This government's climate policies are an absolute mess. They are an international embarrassment. They are irresponsible and, as a result, all of us are missing out on the opportunity to create good clean-energy jobs—jobs that Australians desperately need right now. Australia is being left behind. The rest of the world is moving forward while Prime Minister Scott Morrison drags his feet. There is real global consensus on climate change. I'm not just talking about the Biden administration in the US, which will take climate change action and emissions reductions seriously. It's the US and it's also Canada, Germany, France, New Zealand—all of our major allies and all of our major partners around the world. Right here at home it's the Business Council, the Australian Industry Group and the Property Council. It's our largest airline. It's our biggest mining company. It's our biggest bank and our biggest telecommunications provider. It's a long list of leading businesses, organisations and not-for-profits who have made commitments to taking action on climate. Today the only people missing are the Morrison government. Scott Morrison is absolutely isolated on this issue. In Labor, on the other hand, we are confident and positive about our future. We know that we can reach a better future together and, really, everyone else agrees. So we need the Morrison government to make a plan for climate action now. In just the past eight years, this Liberal-National government has had 22 energy policies. And what has this led to? It's led to absolute chaos. It's led to higher electricity prices and higher emissions. This isn't even the worst of their inaction. According to an independent report from Deloitte Access Economics, the Prime Minister's refusal to take action could crush trade. It could crush tourism, mining and service industries. That report suggests that the government's inaction and refusal to adopt zero emissions by 2050 will devastate our economy. That inaction could cost up to 880,000 jobs and could slash $3.4 trillion from GDP by 2070. But, if the government actually took action and delivered net zero emissions by 2050, the report predicts it would create 250,000 jobs. We have just experienced our deepest recession in almost 100 years. We know that over two million Australians are still out of work or can't get enough hours. They are screaming out for a jobs plan from this government, and action on climate change delivers jobs. It delivers lower power bills. It grows the economy. It delivers higher wages. And so right now is the time to take that action. Scott Morrison can no longer pretend that he is taking action on climate change, and Australians need real climate action or we will all be left paying the price. We have to hit net zero carbon pollution by 2050. The world is decarbonising, and we need to make sure that Australia doesn't get left behind. We need to make sure that we take full advantage of the opportunities that this presents to a country like ours. With the right plan and with the right vision, Australia can be a clean-energy superpower with a new generation of jobs and cheaper power bills. We have some of the best wind and wave resources in the world. We have the highest average solar radiation per square metre of any continent. We have some of the best engineers and scientists in the world to take advantage of this. Working towards a low-carbon future means opportunities for our manufacturing sectors. It means opportunities for energy exports. It means opportunities for rare earth minerals mining. It means opportunities for good, secure clean-energy jobs. Take, for example, our plan to rewire the nation. The current energy network takes no account of the rise of renewables. It was designed for another time. This is why a Labor government would take action to rebuild and modernise the national energy grid. Rebuilding the grid will itself create thousands of jobs, particularly in regional Australia. It will deliver up to $40 billion in benefits. This just makes sense. Labor governments get things done. For example, last year the Victorian government announced that the Southern Hemisphere's biggest battery is to be built just outside of Geelong. This project will create good jobs. It will drive down electricity prices, it will boost reliability, it will help support Victoria's transition to renewable energy and it will be good for the economy as well. Independent analysis shows that every dollar invested in this 300 megawatt battery will deliver more than $2 in benefits to Victorian households and businesses. In addition to the big projects, the Victorian government is also helping local businesses and communities access clean energy. Recently they delivered grants across the state to fund projects like community solar farms and batteries and solar electricity systems for sports clubs. Victoria is on track to hit its renewable energy targets and it's embracing new technologies and investing in renewables. It's not just Victoria. Every state and territory is on board, so the Morrison government needs to take action now. 17:22 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I want to take you back to the first day of parliament last year. When all of us members of parliament arrived in Canberra it was shrouded in smoke. The bushfires were raging from last summer's Black Summer. We know that when the fires were finally out we had 33 people who had died in those fires. An estimate is that 445 people died from smoke inhalation from those fires. We had thousands of people's livelihoods and their homes affected, homes which are still being rebuilt. They were the worst fires ever in Australia's history. Twenty per cent of our mainland forest was burnt and over three billion animals were killed. Those of us who had been seeing our hotter, dryer climate, resulting in the weather conditions that we experienced last summer, thought what devastation, but maybe seeing these fires occur finally as a country we would listen to the science, we would recognise that, yes, this is a climate crisis, that we need to take action, that we need to act on reducing our carbon pollution in accordance with what the science says. The science is very clear and it was reiterated last week by the Climate Targets Panel. It says if we are going to meet our Paris target globally, of keeping global heating to below two degrees, that we need to have at least a 50 per cent cut in carbon pollution by 2030. If we want to keep global heating below 1½ degrees we need a greater than 75 per cent cut in our carbon pollution by 2030. The science is so clear, but we have a government and we have a Labor Party that are still in absolute denial, because delay in acting on our climate crisis is denial. If you are serious about acting on our climate crisis we need that urgent action now to get those cuts of at least half of our carbon pollution, if not three-quarters, in the next decade. That means getting out of coal and gas and oil. That means transitioning completely to a clean energy economy. I've heard the contributions from both sides talking up renewables. Renewables are great and we need them, and all of this technology is terrific, but it is not going to amount to a hill of beans unless we also get out of coal, gas and oil, both domestically and in our export markets. We need to get the coal, gas and oil industries—those big industry barons who are currently determining what's in the climate and energy policies of both the government and the Labor Party—out of that role. We need to be listening to the science, listening to the people and taking action which is consistent with the science in order to keep people safe. Just as people were concerned about keeping people safe in last summer's fires, we need zero carbon. We need action urgently to keep people safe. 17:25 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I have listened to the debate carefully and read the resolution, and what a choice: either support the Greens party's resolution or hang out with the troglodytes in the government on these questions. It's not a happy choice. We are entitled, I think, in the Labor Party to approach Greens resolutions on climate change with a little bit of scepticism. This year will be the 11th or 12th—I've lost count—anniversary of the Greens political party voting with the Liberals on the CPRS. Imagine what a world we would be living in today in Australia! We would have lower emissions in the country. We would have had much less carbon emitted into the atmosphere. We would have had consistently lower, stable power prices because there would have been an energy investment framework that would have allowed the private sector and government to work together to deliver a cleaner energy mix. There would have been more jobs—better jobs—in the Australian economy, particularly in the regions. We would have continued to export coal to global markets at the same time, as Australia wouldn't have been internationally isolated, going backwards economically and bleeding jobs, particularly in our regional towns. But I don't want to spend too much time on the Greens political party today. I want to spend a little bit more time on the government. I listened to Senator Henderson's contribution very, very carefully. It reminded me that where the government's front is at the moment—what they say on climate change—is a little bit like what Saint Augustine had to say about chastity: 'We're all for it—just not yet.' There are three kinds of politician in the Liberal and National Party on these questions. There's the front, which is what we saw from Senator Henderson—the modern Liberals, the mealy-mouthed apologists in craven capitulation to the government's backbench. We saw the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Birmingham, in question time. It was a revolting display of quivering, craven capitulation to the backbench on the one hand but wanting to present to the Australian community as if there was some real action on climate change and energy policy on the other. The second group is the hard Right in the Liberal and National Party. They try and keep their views in the shadows as much as possible, apart from when the now Prime Minister bursts out on the floor of the parliament with a big lump of coal and waves it around. It was carefully varnished so none of the coal dust would dirty his beautiful white shirt, a luxury that most of the workers who Senator Canavan cosplay dresses as when he puts his high-vis on don't have. You have the hard Right, such as Senator Canavan, who will say that he supports coal workers in regional Queensland on the one hand but apparently wants to decouple the Australian economy from the Chinese economy on the other. He's for jobs on the one hand and not for jobs on the other. He's all for mining workers in the iron ore industry, but he wants to introduce an export levy on Australian iron ore exports. He says he's for manufacturing, but he released and led the maddest manufacturing plan that any political party has released, which, if ever adopted by the government, would push up power prices and drive tens of thousands of Australian jobs offshore. Then you've got the third group: the fruit loops, the climate science deniers. There's a common thread with this group. They're not big on climate science, and they're not particularly big on coronavirus and public epidemiology science either. You've got Mr Kelly hanging out with Pete Evans and all of the other fruit loops in the social media world—who want to tell Australians that they should not take the vaccine, sending a dangerous message—and hanging out with all of the QAnon conspiracy theorists. That group is such a big group on the coalition backbench, and that's the reason why the government has had more than 20 energy policies over the course of the eight unhappy years that this government has been in office. There is a strong alternative. The Labor Party represents a strong alternative on these issues. Chris Bowen said late last week that climate policy is jobs policy and energy policy is jobs policy. In government, we would have very simple objectives: driving down the price of electricity and energy; delivering more good jobs in our suburbs and our regions; delivering a cleaner environment and lower emissions; and continuing to try and drive a position where we've got good jobs, a future in our regions and our country towns, and Australia once again rejoins the international community on these questions and delivers real positive change on the question of climate. 17:31 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales This morning the people's climate rally came to the lawns of Parliament House. They came to the people's house today to make sure that politicians are confronted with the reality of the climate crisis at the start of the parliamentary year, because they know that two centuries of colonisation have undone the millennia of management and care of country by First Nations people. For us, it's the love of this planet and its people that drives our action on climate. But our rage has to match our love: rage at the harm being done by the climate crisis to communities across the global south and right here; rage at the big corporations and politicians who put profit ahead of people; and rage at the Liberals and Labor, who have taken millions of dollars in donations from coal and gas corporations. While the world is taking action to address the climate emergency, Scott Morrison and Rupert Murdoch have parked Australia in a historical cul-de-sac. They have made Australia a pariah of the world. Last summer, we saw fires savage and ravage large parts of our country. We saw drought along the Murray-Darling, and there were weeks when smoke and ash choked our cities. This summer, we saw more of the same—from major flooding and rain battering New South Wales coasts to heatwaves and fires in Perth. Burning coal, oil and gas is making extreme weather more intense and more frequent. The world's current greenhouse gas emissions reduction promises are not enough to limit global warming to below two degrees C. We must cut pollution rapidly. The window to do this is open until 2030, not 2050. That's why the Greens want to make sure that global warming is limited to 1.5 degrees and our target is a 75 per cent emissions reduction by 2030. We say no to a gas lit recovery because that's no recovery at all. We demand climate justice. We know that there is no justice in a transition to a post-carbon economy that leaves control of green industries in the hands of big corporations. The rampant planet-abusing consumption and extraction of resources by giant corporations and governments who are captured by these polluting interests have brought us to the place we're at today, a climate emergency. Frankly, we know there is no hope for true climate justice in a capitalist, profit-driven society like ours. We cannot address the climate crisis and achieve justice without changing the economic system that demands constant extraction. We will show that people matter. Together our power, the power of the people, is much greater than that of the conservative politicians that sit here, the media barons that are out there and the rabid corporations who are just full of greed. 17:35 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Just before I rolled in here, I got off the phone with a mate of mine in the eastern suburbs of Perth. He said to me, 'Jordon, there's ash fallen over the house.' None of us here can imagine what it is like to be in that situation. None of us can imagine it. We're in this place; it's air conditioned. We're all safe. It's fine. Meanwhile, right now, people are losing their homes. We don't know—they could be fighting for their lives. We know that at least 30 homes have been lost—probably more. We know that families will be bunking with each other, having packed everything in the car and gotten out of there as quickly as they could. They will now be confronting the beginnings of a truth that their lives have changed forever, that they will never quite be the same again. As they begin that understanding, that reconciliation with the truth, that realisation, the major parties in this place should be confronting truths of their own: the truth that climate is making these events worse; the truth that the burning of coal, oil and gas is the largest contributor to global heating; and the truth that the policies of Australian governments, Liberal and Labor alike, have done nothing but make the situation worse, have done nothing but burn more of these chemicals, have done nothing but block global action. They may well look to this place for that truth, but they will not find it. They will not find it among the Labor and Liberal parties here today. Why? Because both sides of parliament take money from the polluters—from the Chevrons and the Woodsides, from the Clive Palmers and the Gina Rineharts. This place, on the question of climate, is bought and paid for by the big end of town, which is making money off a climate crisis. So it is only the Greens, at moments like these, that are willing to state the truth: that climate change is putting lives at risk; that coal, oil and gas are driving it; and that it is possible to stop it with government action—rapid action which we must take now. 17:38 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Well, if you haven't got a 2030 emissions reduction target in line with the climate science, you might as well line up with the climate change deniers. I will point out that neither of the major parties—neither the coalition nor the ALP in this place—have got a 2030 target in line with the climate science. In fact, Labor doesn't even have a 2030 target at all. Why is that? Why do both the major parties fail to put in place policies in line with what the science is telling us? Because they are corrupted by the dirty donations they take from the fossil fuel industries. We know, because the donations data came out yesterday, that over $1 million combined of dirty money from the fossil fuel corporations flowed into the pockets of the major parties in this place. What do they get for it? They get to write things like 'a gas led recovery'—supported by both the major parties in this place—where they're not only backing in new gas developments and new fossil fuel developments but they want to throw public subsidies at them. It is a corruption of our democracy, and it is exposing the Australian people to massive risk and exposing some of them to a massive risk to their lives. Look reality in the eye. The feedback loops are kicking in. The tipping points are upon us. We've got to stop logging, stop land clearing and plant more trees. There must be no new fossil fuels, and we must rapidly transition out of the fossil fuel industry. We've got to invest in our communities, invest in renewables, invest in reforestation and invest in electrifying our transport networks. We've got to create jobs and prosperity and give our people safer lives. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the motion moved by Senator Waters at the request of Senator Rice be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:45]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

31 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R (teller) Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Kitching, K Lines, S McAllister, J McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Polley, H Rice, J Sheldon, A Siewert, R Steele-John, J Sterle, G Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE Walsh, J Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 33 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Brockman, S Cash, MC Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P (teller) Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Lambie, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Rennick, G Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Small, B Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

DOCUMENTS 64 DOCUMENTS Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 64 Consideration 64 17:50 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I take note of this report because this is a very, very important review. It is required under the EPBC legislation that every ten years our environment laws are reviewed, that they're looked at in great detail, that experts consider whether they are fit for purpose and report to both the government and the parliament about the effect of our laws and whether they are doing what they need to do. We know that the government had this report for some 90 days before releasing it. And of course they happened—let's put this on the record—to release it right in the middle of Mr Albanese's frontbench reshuffle last week. You'd think that this government would have been a bit more courteous to not publicly release an important document like this in the middle of when other things were going on—unless, of course, this government wanted to cover up and distract from the recommendations in this report. Let's go to those recommendations, because they are absolutely fundamental. What Professor Samuel says in this review is that our environment laws are in dire straits, that our environment is suffering, that if we don't act now we will lose our native animal species for good—gone! The biggest threats, of course, to our wildlife and to our environment are climate change and habitat destruction. This report calls on the parliament and the government to take swift action to put in place stronger laws and protections for our environment. We need to take heed of this advice. We need stronger protections and stronger standards. We shouldn't be allowing new developments and new mines and new destructions to occur without considering the very real long-term impact that these projects are having on our environment. We need laws to protect what we have, because we don't have much left. We need laws that protect our wildlife before they're gone for good. This report shows that native species, like the koala, will be extinct before 2050 unless we stop destroying their habitat. It shows that our rivers and our streams and our natural waterways will be polluted unless we stop polluting them with the developments that are just going on and on. It says we have to stop allowing the corporate greed in this country to override the environment and the needs of the community. We need to protect what we have. Australians love our natural places, they love our special spots, they love our native animals and they want us to protect them. One of the things I've noticed out of COVID is that people are reconnecting with their natural surrounds more than ever. They want to be outside enjoying the Australian bush, our beautiful beaches, our coastline. They don't want to see Australia's environment trashed any more, they want to see our animals protected and they want a government that will do what it needs to do to stop extinction in its tracks. We need strong laws, we need better protection but we also need an independent watchdog to ensure that these laws are actually upheld, to ensure that, when corporations get a green light, they're held to account for what they do and what they don't do. It's quite clear in this review that the cosy relationship between corporations in this country and the governments of the day, state and federal, has made our environment suffer. It's put it in a worse state. We can't trust that governments will simply do the right thing, certainly not when they've got their hands out for election donations. Politics needs to be taken out of this. Dirty politics needs to be taken out of this. The environment needs to be put front and centre, and we need strong laws and a watchdog to make sure our environment is protected for good. This isn't just for today or tomorrow; this is for generations to come. It's time we heeded this advice today. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted. 17:55 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I also rise to take note of this document. In his review, which is highly critical of our existing environment laws, Graeme Samuel went to the situation of our logging laws—the regional forest agreements. We've had many debates in this chamber about the complete inadequacy of the regional forest agreements in protecting our forests and the wildlife that depend on our forests—the wildlife that, so sadly in so many cases, is becoming critically endangered and hurtling towards extinction. Graeme Samuel had some pretty strong words to say about how he saw the regional forest agreements operating. He said: … the Review considers that the provisions for RFAs are the most unacceptable and require immediate reform. He also said: The Review considers that the environmental considerations under the RFA Act are weaker than those imposed elsewhere for MNES— matters of national environmental significance— and do not align with the assessment of significant impacts on MNES required by the EPBC Act. Submissions from stakeholders indicated concern around the effectiveness of the RFAs to protect threatened species that rely on the forest areas covered by RFAs. There is also great concern that the controls on logging within forests have not adequately adapted to pressures on the ecosystem such as climate change or bushfire impacts. There is insufficient Commonwealth oversight of RFAs and the assurance and reporting mechanisms are weak. Essentially, the RFAs are not protecting our forests. Graeme Samuel called for immediate action to make sure that logging operations are covered under the same environmental standards as other actions, and that they be subject to the same national environment standards he proposes in his review. This is damning. Graeme Samuel's report completely reinforces and underlines what people who are concerned about the future of our forests have been talking about for decades. If you go into our forests and see the destruction of our forests, you can see what's going on. Graeme Samuel, in his review, has said, 'Yes, this is what's occurring; our forests are not being protected by our logging laws. Species are being left to hurtle towards extinction, and immediate action is needed.' But what action have we seen from this government? They have been sitting on this report for the last three months. We've had another summer of logging operations; another summer of logging the habitat of swift parrots, which are critically endangered; another summer of logging the habitat of Leadbeater's possums, which are critically endangered, another summer of logging the habitat of greater gliders, which are rapidly reducing in numbers; and another summer of logging the habitat of koalas. This is what's currently going on in our forests, and this review has said, once and for all, that this is going on and that immediate action is needed. The Greens say that the only responsible thing that this government should do—and it should have done it years ago, if not three months ago when it got this report from Professor Samuel—is to put an immediate moratorium on logging in our native forests. We know the native forest logging industry is the rump of the timber industry in Australia. Almost 90 per cent of the wood that comes out of Australia comes from plantations. The Greens believe, and anyone concerned about the future of our forests believes, that we should be increasing that so that 100 per cent of the wood coming out of Australia comes from plantation forests. There is no role for logging of our precious native forests in Australia. There should be an immediate moratorium on the logging of all of our native forests. We should be scrapping the regional forest agreements, which have not been protecting our forests. They have not been protecting jobs. They have been destroying our critical heritage—our First Nations cultural heritage, our environmental heritage. They have been destroying habitat for animals. They have been destroying our water supplies. They have been impacting upon the potential of these forests to be wonderful resources for tourism and recreation. This report lays out clearly that our forests are not being protected and that urgent action is needed to make sure that they are. 18:00 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I rise to take note of this document as well. This is a very, very important document. It is a statutory review after 10 years of operation of the EPBC Act. It is worth reading what Mr Samuel says in the executive summary of the review: The overwhelming message received by the Review is that Australians care deeply about our iconic places and unique environment. Protecting and conserving them for the benefit of current and future generations is important for the nation. The evidence received by the Review is compelling. Australia's natural environment and iconic places are in an overall state of decline and are under increasing threat. The pressures on the environment are significant—including land-use change, habitat loss and degradation, and feral animals and invasive plant species. He goes on to talk about a number of things and then says: The current environmental trajectory is unsustainable. That's extremely important. He has basically come to the conclusion that there are significant problems with our environmental laws and, like any good reviewer, has come up with a range of very sensible suggestions. We know that this has not just been through a process of the report landing on the desk of the minister and being tabled in the parliament; there was an interim report as well. A whole range of different remedies have been laid out in the report. I will just mention some of the big-ticket items: the requirement for strong national standards; the reducing of red tape around those standards by devolving responsibilities to the states; an assurance commissioner to make sure that the environment is protected. He mentions transparency—and transparency is always a good resolution to any particular problem that involves government—and using that as a key for regaining trust, which is something the report says needs to be done. He also talks about reducing the complexity of the legislation. There are a whole bunch of remedies in here, and the government has a lot of work to do. I'm actually quite surprised that we haven't seen a response to this report from the government, noting that it has been with the minister for some time now. What is essential—and Mr Samuel spells this out—is a holistic plan to deal with this issue. There needs to be something that the government lays out saying, 'This is how we intend to approach this problem; here is our timetable of implementation in terms of legislation and then what may flow from that,' so that the Australian public has the complete picture. I will just indicate to the government that I don't intend to support any measures that are ad hoc and just cherrypicking of the legislation. There has to be a plan that has been laid out. I don't want to find myself in a situation where I'm being asked to support perhaps weaker standards or where I'm being asked to support the devolution of decision-making to the states, when the states may not have the proper expertise and capacity to conduct decision-making in respect of the environment. I don't want to pass laws that allow devolution without the assurance commissioner being dealt with at the same time so that there's balance as we change things and we have the assurance on the other side. I'm mindful that the government has for some time now promised to have an inspector-general for the Murray-Darling Basin, yet we've not seen that legislation in any form. So I won't be accepting a promise that there will be some future legislation that deals with something like an assurance commissioner. This is a really important issue. I'm prepared to take it on pragmatically, because saying no to everything will mean we leave ourselves in the same parlous state that we are in. So we have to approach this in a proper manner. I urge the government to come up with a plan that they can present to the parliament, and I caution them not to try and bring little bits of legislation that might suit one side of change without the possibility of the implementation of the whole report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 67 DOCUMENTS Consideration 67 COMMITTEES 67 COMMITTEES Corporations and Financial Services Committee 67 Report 67 18:08 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales In respect of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services report Litigation funding and the regulation of the class action industry, dated December 2020, which was received out of sitting on 21 December last year, I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I will only make a short contribution. I just want to say at the outset that this matters because this really goes to the heart of Australians' access to justice, which has been increased by the emergence of litigation-funding entities that are making it possible for people like those in the seat of Meryl Swanson, the member for Paterson—the great Labor advocate for that community, who was fighting for her community against this government for years and years and years—to try and get redress for the spill of PFAS, which Australians might be familiar with. It is the spray that was used when firefighting practice occurred, and it has a toxic impact on the environment. That community that Meryl inherited was stranded. People's lives were completely on hold. They were unable to get any resolution of the fact that they were living on properties in a declared red zone, and the government was not willing to provide any compensation or any relief from the situation in which they found themselves and give them the opportunity to move on. That was the reality. Litigation funding enabled them to bring a very complex case to court against the government—their own government that was ignoring them. It's a perfect example of how, where there is a lot of money and a lot of power—not just in governments, but in big corporations—the ordinary citizen, the hardworking Australian who has been minding their business, minding their Ps and Qs all their life, finds themselves on the wrong side of a big, big legal battle and there's no way that it can get to court unless there's litigation funding. That's really what is at the heart of this matter. But the government really botched this in what they did, and in botching it they revealed how subject they are to influence by outside entities, including the US Chamber of Commerce, who were significant lobbyists in gathering a storm of action against what I would consider would be a good outcome from this inquiry. Instead, we've ended up with the mess that is reported in this report. So, I am rising to speak, obviously, against some of the recommendations contained in the report, and I want to reiterate the glaring failures in the government's action on litigation funders that our committee inquiry uncovered. The report was particularly galling in that it unfortunately recommends actions that the government had already decided to take before they even received this report. The sequence was bizarre. It was the institution of this committee to make an inquiry. Eight days after that, Minister Frydenberg stood up and made declarations that are, incidentally, tied to the recommendations that didn't arrive in this place until the end of the year. Why set up a committee of inquiry when eight days later you're going to go out and make an announcement for changes? It goes to the heart of some of the chaotic decision-making and the capture of this government by big lobbyists that make it do things that are not in the public interest. Despite referring this inquiry into the litigation industry last May, Treasurer introduced regulations anyway, pre-empting the report of his own government, a mere eight days afterwards. That's why I supported the disallowance motion of the regulations in this chamber last year. It was in the final week of the sittings. And I'm quite sad that Senator Hanson, who did pay some attention to this matter, and Senator Roberts as well, didn't support that disallowance motion, because the government now seem to have been let off the hook, to continue on their merry way, and I expect they will continue to suppress Australians' access to litigation funding—because that's the outcome of what they've done. Everything we've seen since the disallowance not being carried in this place has shown us that the regulations introduced by Mr Frydenberg are not fit for purpose. Even the regulator ASIC, the government body charged with enforcing these regulations, was forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars in legal advice to figure out how to implement the regulations that were hastily brought in. It's a ridiculous proposition to require a litigation funder to operate as a managed investment scheme. This has been recognised by a blindsided ASIC, by opposition members of the committee, by most parties of the Senate and by the majority of the industry. Everybody figured it out, except for the government. This is an example of Minister Frydenberg's omnishambles—policy made on the run, dreamed up by foreign lobbyists and think tanks that have no application in reality. The reforms this government are putting forward and seeking to implement, or in some cases have implemented, in line with the recommendations in the report, are wrong, and they are certainly not fit for purpose. They ignore the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission, which is a report that the government asked for two years prior to calling on the Senate to do the inquiry and two years and eight days before Mr Frydenberg stood up and made up the rules, off the cuff. And it ignores the 24 recommendations that were made for 18 months before Mr Frydenberg began his current jeremiad against litigation funders. As we point out in the minority report, the new regulations are not merely difficult for the funders to comply with; they're impossible to comply with. The managed investment scheme rules require that a registered scheme be set up and require the maintenance of a register of members and the convening of member meetings, which is just an absurd prospect in a class action where potentially tens of thousands of members are affected. So it's another barrier to justice. It's another paper wall established by this government to make it harder for people to get the services they need and to get the professional assistance they need to bring legitimate and just causes to the courts for consideration and resolution. Make no mistake: these regulations that the government have locked in are a sellout to foreign corporates, and they will—and history will no doubt prove this—indeed hinder access to justice for ordinary Australians. The evidence heard by the committee from litigation funding participants, from law firms and from experts in the field all pointed out that there was no real crisis at all in class actions and that litigation funders were an important tool for many working-class Australians in getting access to justice. Those working-class Australians are now liable for lawsuits from Commonwealth agencies and other private parties, should the funder breach those member register obligations. We've seen this before, in other underhanded, sneaky ways that the government has established process impediments in the area of unions. What the government is proposing to do is wrong. It creates a giant stick to threaten litigation funders. It threatens with terrible legal consequences those who would dare to take class actions to court, unless their funder fulfils these arcane and unfit regulations of an MIS. I was very disappointed to see the disallowance motion voted down at the end of last year, because it would have forced the government back to the drawing board and encouraged them to come up with a regulation which was fit for purpose and which preserved access to justice for ordinary Australians. I know that Senator Hanson, in return for her vote and Senator Roberts's vote against the disallowance of these regulations, has a commitment from the government to support reforms to exempt funders from the MIS regulations if they commit to giving class members 70 per cent of the damages. That is what she says is the deal she got. My concern is that it has to be delivered to be real. I note that this reform is yet to reach the Notice Paper, and I strongly urge Senator Hanson to keep the government's feet to the fire, because these guys run a mile from the commitments they make. They are disingenuous. They lie to the public with daily regularity. This matter needs resolution. Australians deserve access to justice, and their government shouldn't get away with putting a wall between them and access to justice. There are some excellent recommendations in the report, and I urge the government to keep reforming the industry but in a manner that was outlined by the Australian Law Reform Commission—not made up by Minister Frydenberg as he stood up eight days after he called the inquiry. The government cannot let this issue lie. It's got to fix the broken regulatory requirements for litigation funders to save taxpayers money on extra legal advice and to protect class actions. Debate adjourned. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 68 Report 68 18:18 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia In relation to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee's report, Policy, regulatory, taxation, administrative and funding priorities for Australian shipping, which was presented out of sitting, I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Firstly, I want to thank my fellow Labor senators, and I want to thank the Greens and the crossbenchers for supporting this reference that I put up in the 45th Parliament. We were able to have a couple of hearings; we had two in Melbourne. Then, unfortunately, the parliament expired, and we went to an early election. I want to again thank the crossbenchers, the Greens and my ALP colleagues for supporting me in putting it through again for another go, so we could actually finish the fine work that we set out to do. Madam Deputy President, as you know and as every senator in this building knows, I have an absolute undying commitment to seeing a successful, viable, profitable Australian shipping industry. It comes as no surprise that I have been the biggest critic of this government—and the Turnbull government, the Abbott government and the Howard government before it—on the way successive LNP governments have done everything they can to demolish and absolutely obliterate the Australian seafaring industry, particularly our coastal trading. That's as you well know, Madam Deputy President. I don't want to get into a conversation about the First Fleet, especially after the Prime Minister's debacle the other day, but a good mate of mine said to me that we had more ships in the First Fleet than we have plying Australia's domestic trade now. I laughed and said, 'Nick, that wasn't funny; it's absolutely damn criminal.' I don't know what I have to do to try to set an alarm clock in Minister McCormack's office that goes, 'Ding-ding-ding, it's now time to get out of bed, wake up, do the job you are handsomely paid for, and actually start talking to the shipping industry in this nation.' Mr McCormack, your title is transport. This may come as a shock to you, but it's not just road and air; it's also rail and sea. In this nation we have this damn bad attitude when we talk about transport: we want to talk about road, rail and air but we don't want to talk about sea. Coming back to the inquiry: I can go for hours and hours on this stuff because I have lived and breathed it for many years. But I was fortunate enough to go through and have another two hearings that we conducted—three, I think it was. There were three in Canberra. Zoom is just the pits. Unfortunately we had to do the last two meetings over Zoom. We had some 30 submissions and we heard from stakeholders—that's a funny word—in the shipping industry. They were predominantly shipowners, those who use shipping and the maritime unions, who were absolutely magnificent. There were some 28 recommendations that came out of this inquiry. In Australia we talk up how great it is that our mining industry can pull out all these minerals and resources that are owned by the Australian people and distribute them all round the world—so long as it's not done by Australian seafarers. Okay, we know that the bluewater fleet has been under attack for many, many years. But the exploitation has come to the fore many times and it's just getting worse and worse. We don't know who's coming on these ships. I'm part of the parliament but I'm not part of the LNP government that has seen off Australian shipping. It really irks me. I'll touch on a couple of recommendations that I will come back to later—and I know that my colleague and very dear friend Senator Brown will be making a contribution on this when she gets her turn. There are some recommendations that I want to share with the Senate that need to be explored and discussed—and, for God's sake, let's set a second alarm clock in Minister McCormack's office in case he dozes back to sleep. We might be able to wake him up a second time. Foreign flagged vessels: as I said, these foreign seafarers are being exploited. This is not new to this nation. We've had many, many examples of that. We've had inquiries into flags of convenience. The House of Representatives has been doing inquiries, and my committee and the RRAT committee have done a number of inquiries. There have been gun runners and people murdered and foreign seafarers missing. They have been exploited, earning nowhere near what Aussies make. But guess what? Aren't we wonderful? We're rubbing our greedy hands together because we can put more profits into the pockets of those at the top end of the corporations. I just have to say this: God help us! What would happen to the dozy mob over on the other side if Australia's farmers were all put to sleep because we brought in foreign farmers so we could pay them a lot less? Oh, isn't that interesting? They can't even lift their heads—they wouldn't lift their heads. Anyway, maritime tax concessions are another interesting area that we have to start talking about and need action on. And, as I said, there are background checks for our maritime crew visas. There is exploitation of maritime crew visas and establishing an Australian strategic fleet. Hasn't that frightened the living daylights out of that mob over there! Why would we want to do that? Why would we want to train Australian seafarers? Why would we want to have the skills available to have our own captains, masters, deckhands and seafarers? Why would we want to give Australian businesses in shipping the opportunity to purchase their own ships and ply their trade among our coastal ports? Why would we do that? Arrgh! We could develop an Australian maritime cluster. This is another thing. Labor actually wanted to talk about this. Labor went to the last election and said, 'We would do this.' This is not new. We also said we'd have a strategic fleet—I remember Mr Shorten saying some 12 ships. It was exciting to think that someone actually does care. I also want to say this: this is not on their radar, because they're all asleep, but do you know what happens when our magnificent Navy actually gets hold of a ship? You know who does the sea trials? This mob wouldn't know. It ain't the Navy—it's not the Navy; it's our domestic fleet. They're the ones that come and do all the trials. They're the ones that get it all ready so they can hand it over to the Navy, but that mob over there are happy to see those skills disappearing. Well, they're actually not. They're happy to see those men and women put out of work and those skills gone so they can go to their mates and say, 'You can bring in more exploited foreign seafarers and, with a bit of luck, no-one will ask.' They'll get about $3 a day. Don't laugh at that. That's well known. You've only got to talk to the ITF to find out what goes on there. We need a grown-up conversation. As I said, this winds me up. What winds me up is that we can't even have the grown-up conversation. We have now got a report. A lot of hard work has gone into it. This nation now needs to sit down. Shipping is just as damn important to this nation as other freight modes—I could probably say it's even more important, but that would put my truckie mates offside. It might put off my mates working at Qantas, who have just been thrown on the scrap heap by that so-and-so Joyce, and it might put my mates in the rail industry off, because they're pretty important too. But it is our whole national supply chain. Guess what? Freight moves all around this nation, but it's got to get into the nation. It ain't coming over on pigeons or bloody balloons. Sorry about that, but I do get wound up. How do you think the freight gets here, you mob? It comes over on ships, for crying out loud. I will have a lot more to say about this. Another thing that's come up: my old mate Ian Bray from the Maritime Union of Australia has been saying to me for 10 years or longer that the exploitation of foreign seafarers and the exploitation of the temporary voyage permits, which this government throw around like confetti at a wedding, will have a flow-on effect on our transport supply chain. And now it has. I'll tell you what's come to the fore, too, and I'll be making a fair bit of noise about this: we have Australia's rail industry getting absolutely driven into the ground—Senator Rice, I'm going to have a good conversation with you about this too—because the freight that used to be on the trains from Brisbane to Perth, from Sydney to Perth, from Melbourne to Perth, from Parkes to Perth, from Adelaide to Perth is disappearing. The freight's still there, but do you know where it's going? Surprise, surprise; it's going onto foreign flagged vessels: temporary voyage permits, exploited foreign seafarers and, at the end of the day, greedy corporations rubbing their filthy hands together because they can't make enough profit as it is. This is a conversation that this nation needs to have. I won't hold my breath thinking that the current minister for transport would even have a clue of what I'm talking about. I don't think he'd know a freight mode if it ran over his foot or hit him on the head, but, if some of the backbenchers have got some way of getting the AlphaSuit off him so he can start doing his job, because transport's in his pay packet—that's what he gets paid for. Hallelujah, Madam Deputy President; I'm only just starting. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 18:28 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I also wish to take note of document 55, the report of the inquiry into Australian shipping. I wish to thank Senator Sterle, to begin with, for his passion and his commitment to making sure that the issue of shipping stays on the agenda of this Senate. In the 6½ years I've been here and I've been the transport spokesperson for the Greens, shipping has continued to be an issue that has been dealt with atrociously by this government. We have seen the decline of Australian shipping. We have seen ongoing issues of severe exploitation of overseas workers who are working on foreign owned ships. We have seen proper conditions, proper wages, proper—good—jobs in Australian shipping just go down the gurgler. And it doesn't need to be this way. There are plenty of other countries in the world that have got similar environments to Australia where they manage to maintain a profitable shipping industry that employs workers under decent conditions and manages to make the most of the benefits of shipping, of it being a really good way of shifting goods domestically and internationally. But this government have had their head in the sand about the reforms that are necessary to make that happen. When the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government came to power in 2013, we'd just had a change to shipping arrangements, which was an attempt to change things, but there were some problems with those arrangements—they needed some change. But rather than sitting down with the Maritime Union of Australia, the shipping industry and all of the various stakeholders and nutting out what needed to happen to reform Australian shipping so it would work, look after the workers and businesses, and make the most of the benefits of shipping, they've just pursued a deregulation agenda. They were happy to see Australian owned shipping go down the gurgler and all of our shipping in the hands of foreign run ships with incredibly exploited labour. We've seen the absolutely awful situation of the maritime workers who have been stuck on a coal ship outside of China for months and months and months. They've been left there as the meat in the sandwich. The conditions that they're employed under are appalling, but no-one really cares what happens to those workers; they are seen as expendable. The fact is they have been there, suffering, but the attitude is: 'Oh well, that's just what happens. We've got trade disputes between Australia and China and the workers don't really matter.' That's the state of foreign owned shipping that this government seems to say is acceptable and that this government wants to see more of. It's unacceptable. We can do it differently, and this Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee report outlines recommendations on how to do it differently. With the submissions the committee received and the hearings with of all of the players in the industry, it outlines some ways forward which are agreed upon by a whole range of stakeholders. I urge the government and Minister McCormack to actually sit down and have a really good read of this report. Think about what needs to happen if we are going to be serious about having a shipping industry that looks after workers, that thrives, that is there in fair competition with our rail and road industries rather than the current situation which is bad for everyone. It really upsets me because things could be done differently if there were a willingness to sit down, work with the various stakeholders, implement recommendations and move forward in a sensible, sustainable and ethical way. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Tobacco Harm Reduction Select Committee 71 Report 71 18:33 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the report. As deputy chair of the inquiry, I commend the report to the Senate. I will not seek leave to continue my remarks, thank you, Deputy President. The Senate inquiry into tobacco harm reduction heard repeatedly the most effective way to reduce rates of smoking prevalence in Australia is a combination of preventing people taking up smoking whilst also helping people to quit. It was in this spirit that this report calls for Australia's approach to e-cigarette regulation to not neglect one of these objectives in the pursuit of the other. As such, the inquiry's majority report provides a fair and accurate summary of the evidence presented to the committee. It was conducted to the highest standards of integrity and impartiality, and it has provided a number of commonsense recommendations to the Australian federal government. These recommendations range from the need for renewed investment in evidence based strategies to reduce tobacco use and take-up—in particular, a new anti-smoking campaign—for the Australian government and parliament to continue to listen to and accept the advice provided by the independent Therapeutic Goods Administration; the implementation of an evidence based regulatory framework for nicotine, e-liquids, flavourings and colourings for use in e-cigarette devices; and continued support for independent research into the health effects of e-cigarette use. I want to put on record that I deeply value and appreciate the personal testimony provided to the committee by smokers, ex-smokers, e-cigarette users and other individuals, whether it was through submissions, by contacting my office directly or by those who appeared at our public hearings. Your views and opinions were heard by all senators on the committee and were taken into consideration in the finalisation of this report. It is clear that a large number of e-cigarette users are people seeking to make positive improvements in their lives and health. We applaud them for taking action to quit smoking. There is no doubt that quitting smoking is difficult. In many cases it can take years and many attempts. It severely affects the health and wellbeing of thousands of Australians as well as the lives of families and friends. It remains the leading cause of preventable death and disability in Australia, killing more than 15,000 Australians every year. Those who use e-cigarettes as a method to quit should not be treated as criminals, nor forced to break the law. That is why this report supports a sensible, evidence based, precautionary approach that streamlines and clarifies the legal pathways and avenues for obtaining nicotine for e-cigarette use. Such a pathway should be informed by the evidence and expert testimony. That is why the majority report submitted to the Senate recommends that the Therapeutic Goods Administration continues to oversee the classification of nicotine and the assessment of any e-cigarette product as a therapeutic good and that the Australian government and parliament accept the Therapeutic Goods Administration's advice. It has become quite trendy amongst some politicians to reject the advice of experts in matters such as health, and we've heard a lot about that today. Some politicians think their role in this place or in the House is to peddle the latest popular internal craze or conspiracy theory, instead of listening to the people with the years of experience and knowledge to advise in these areas. When it comes to health, spreading misinformation is not only irresponsible; it is dangerous. Labor is committed to the important and independent role of the TGA in informing and setting policy in this area and across the health space. Subsequent to our report, the TGA has made its decision with regard to the classification of nicotine, which allows for a streamlined prescription pathway for its use in e-cigarettes as a form of smoking cessation. This decision presents the federal government with the challenge of ensuring that such a pathway is one that juggles the needs and wellbeing of e-cigarette users while preventing a new generation of young people becoming addicted to or dependent on nicotine or tobacco. A number of senators on this committee were also rightly concerned with ensuring the inquiry was held to the highest levels of transparency and integrity in accord with the principles set out in article 5.3 of the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. These principles call on lawmakers 'to be alert to any efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine or subvert tobacco control efforts'. To fulfil our responsibility as signatories to this convention, I took it upon myself to ask a number of witnesses who'd made submissions to the inquiry or appeared at either of our two public hearings to make declarations about any links to, or assistance they'd had from, companies involved in the sale of tobacco. The declarations are now a matter of public record. The extent to which e-cigarettes represent a disruption to the profits of the tobacco industry was a point of much debate during this inquiry. However, one need only look to the paid advertisements placed by Philip Morris on the website of The Australian newspaper in December, advocating for a deregulated e-cigarette market under the guise of science. The failure of previous governments to prevent the widespread addiction and death associated with the commercialisation of traditional combustible cigarettes is perhaps the greatest public health policy failing in the previous century. That the same companies that have profited from lifetimes of addiction, illness and death are advocating for the broad commercialisation of e-cigarettes should give policymakers pause when considering easing regulation around e-cigarettes. Taken in conjunction with the uncertainty regarding the relative harms of e-cigarettes or associated products such as colours or flavourings, the most sensible approach is clearly a precautionary one. It's one that seeks to balance the possible benefits of e-cigarettes and their usage alongside the emerging harms. It is this precautionary approach that the majority of senators on the committee chose to endorse. The committee heard on multiple occasions that visiting a medical professional greatly improved the chances of an individual quitting smoking. It stands to reason that locating access to nicotine for e-cigarette use within a medical setting can only improve any smoking cessation effect. Some have criticised the approach because no other country has yet adopted it. These people forget that Australia has been a world leader on tobacco control measures, and on the regulation of e-cigarettes we are again. Moreover, there is no international consensus with respect to how to best regulate e-cigarettes. There are substantial differences in the way these products are regulated across the United Kingdom, Europe, New Zealand, within the United States and across South America, and there have been mixed results. Across the ditch in New Zealand, where there are more liberal laws regarding e-cigarettes, there has been a spike in their use amongst young people, as well as an increase in the youth smoking rate. The relatively short period of time in which these products have been available has not yet provided the sufficient longitudinal evidence to say conclusively whether these products are less harmful that traditional cigarettes at all. This alone should be the greatest argument for the continuation of a precautionary approach. I thank my colleagues for their deliberations, for their input and for their attention in this very important matter. I also want to thank their staff, as well as my own staff, for their work on this inquiry, for responding to correspondence and to stakeholders from right across the debate, as well as helping us to get across all the important details of this issue. Finally, I also thank the committee secretariat, in particular Patrick and Caitlyn, for their patience and attention to detail. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 72 COMMITTEES Consideration 72 DOCUMENTS 73 DOCUMENTS MV Al Kuwait, Federal Circuit Court of Australia 73 Order for the Production of Documents 73 18:42 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I table documents relating to the following orders for the production of documents: the order of the Senate of 31 August 2020 for the production of documents relating to the MV Al Kuwait voyage, and the order of the Senate of 30 November 2020 for the production of documents relating to a review of new Federal Court and Federal Circuit Court Amendment (Fees) Regulations 2020. COMMITTEES 73 COMMITTEES Law Enforcement Committee, Treaties Committee 73 Membership 73 18:42 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Order! The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees. 18:43 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Law Enforcement—Joint Statutory Committee— Appointed—Senator Thorpe Treaties—Joint Standing Committee— Discharged—Senator Steele-John Appointed—Senator Rice Question agreed to. BILLS 73 BILLS Family Law Amendment (Western Australia De Facto Superannuation Splitting and Bankruptcy) Bill 2020, Native Title Amendment (Infrastructure and Public Facilities) Bill 2020, Foreign Investment Reform (Protecting Australia's National Security) Bill 2020, Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2020, Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020, Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020, Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 5) Bill 2020, Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020, Recycling and Waste Reduction (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020, Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020, Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020, Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020, Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020, Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2020, Sport Integrity Australia Amendment (World Anti-Doping Code Review) Bill 2020, Electoral Amendment (Territory Representation) Bill 2020, National Emergency Declaration Bill 2020, National Emergency Declaration (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020, Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Bill 2020, Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamations) Bill 2020, Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019, Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020, Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020, Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020, Corporations (Fees) Amendment (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020, Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 2020, Immigration (Education) Amendment (Expanding Access to English Tuition) Bill 2020, Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Extension of Coronavirus Support) Bill 2020, Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Bill 2020, Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy) Bill 2020, Civil Aviation Amendment (Unmanned Aircraft Levy Collection and Payment) Bill 2020, Customs Charges and Levies Legislation Amendment (Sheep and Lamb) Bill 2020, Excise Levies Legislation Amendment (Sheep and Lamb) Bill 2020, Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of Defence Force Response to Emergencies) Bill 2020, Aged Care Amendment (Aged Care Recipient Classification) Bill 2020, Aviation Legislation Amendment (Liability and Insurance) Bill 2020, Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2020, Health Insurance Amendment (Compliance Administration) Bill 2020, Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2020, Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020, Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020, Territories Legislation Amendment Bill 2020 74

Family Law Amendment (Western Australia De Facto Superannuation Splitting and Bankruptcy) Bill 2020

Native Title Amendment (Infrastructure and Public Facilities) Bill 2020

Foreign Investment Reform (Protecting Australia's National Security) Bill 2020

Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2020

Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020

Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020

Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 5) Bill 2020

Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020

Recycling and Waste Reduction (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020

Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020

Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020

Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020

Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020

Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2020

Sport Integrity Australia Amendment (World Anti-Doping Code Review) Bill 2020

Electoral Amendment (Territory Representation) Bill 2020

National Emergency Declaration Bill 2020

National Emergency Declaration (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020

Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Bill 2020

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamations) Bill 2020

Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020

Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020

Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020

Corporations (Fees) Amendment (Hayne Royal Commission Response) Bill 2020

Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 2020

Immigration (Education) Amendment (Expanding Access to English Tuition) Bill 2020

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Extension of Coronavirus Support) Bill 2020

Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Bill 2020

Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy) Bill 2020

Civil Aviation Amendment (Unmanned Aircraft Levy Collection and Payment) Bill 2020

Customs Charges and Levies Legislation Amendment (Sheep and Lamb) Bill 2020

Excise Levies Legislation Amendment (Sheep and Lamb) Bill 2020

Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of Defence Force Response to Emergencies) Bill 2020

Aged Care Amendment (Aged Care Recipient Classification) Bill 2020

Aviation Legislation Amendment (Liability and Insurance) Bill 2020

Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2020

Health Insurance Amendment (Compliance Administration) Bill 2020

Radiocommunications Legislation Amendment (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2020

Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020

Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Amendment Bill 2020

Territories Legislation Amendment Bill 2020

Assent 74 Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2020 74

Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2020

Second Reading 74 18:44 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland Before the debate on the Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2020 was interrupted, I was about to take on some of the matters that had been raised by those opposite in relation to their concerns about this bill. I will go through them one by one. First, let me deal with the amendment moved by Senator Thorpe on behalf of the Australian Greens. The proposed amendment seeks to do two things—to expand the scope of proposed section 47C in schedule 3 to the bill and to omit or delete the remaining eight schedules of it, effectively gutting it of most of its volume. The Australian government recognises the importance of engaging in good-faith consultations with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in relation to the decisions that affect them. So, consistent with the principles under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we have endeavoured to make sure that can be given effect. The bill has been developed through careful, extensive consultation, including with native title representative bodies, registered native title bodies corporate and other Indigenous stakeholders. It represents a balanced package of focused reforms supported by a broad range of stakeholders in the native title sector. The bill is about delivering practical solutions that will ensure the native title system continues to meet the evolving needs of all stakeholders and, in particular—always in particular—traditional owners. The bill seeks to improve outcomes for native titleholders by supporting the capacity of native titleholders to control their rights and land through greater flexibility in internal decision-making, so that native titleholders are able to make their own decisions about how they do that in a way that works for them and their cultural practices. It seeks to improve outcomes for native titleholders by improving claims resolution and agreement-making processes and also by improving pathways for resolving disputes following the determination of native title. The government considers that the form of this bill operates effectively to provide practical improvements to the native title system for all people involved in it and shouldn't be amended or delayed from being passed. I thought I might say some things about section 47C. Schedule 3 will amend the Native Title Act to enable parties to agree to disregard the historical extinguishment of native title over an area that has been set aside or vested to preserve a natural environment, such as a national, state or territory park. Many native titleholders have traditional and cultural connections to areas that are covered by national, state and territory parks, and we recognise that. We recognise its importance. This is therefore a focused and positive measure that is specifically seeking to enable native title rights to be recognised in those areas. The proposed amendment on sheet 1185, however, seeks to expand the operation of this provision to include other Crown land beyond park areas. You might say: what's wrong with that? It operates in isolation from understanding the rest of the act around it. For instance, the Native Title Act already contains provisions which allow prior extinguishment of native title to be disregarded in certain circumstances. Section 47 deals with it in relation to pastoral leases, section 47A deals with it in relation to beneficial Aboriginal reserves and 47B deals with it in relation to vacant Crown land. So, in many ways, that is a change in search of a problem. The current drafting of proposed section 47C that's contained in schedule 3 of the bill has been subject to extensive consultation with a wide range of stakeholders and it is strongly supported by native titleholders. It wouldn't be desirable to expand the operation of that provision in the way this amendment suggests it should without further consulting with all of those relevant stakeholders, without giving them their say, because it's important that that all relevant stakeholders in the native title system—including, of course, native titleholders but also state and territory governments—get their chance to contribute. That's particularly important given state and territory governments will be the primary government party to agreements required under proposed section 47C. This bill is a package of reforms responding to different interests of different stakeholders in the native title system. It wouldn't be a good idea and it wouldn't be desirable or in the interests of those who participate in the system to split it from the reform package. In the time remaining, I might deal with a concern raised by Senator Dodson about the potential for continuing validity of ILUAs affected by fraud. The bill makes it clear that the validity of a future act done in accordance with a registered Indigenous land use agreement is not affected by the subsequent removal of that ILUA from the register of ILUAs. That amendment doesn't reflect the present position at all; it only clarifies it. Additional material has been included in the replacement revised explanatory memorandum to make sure it is indeed crystal clear. These measures would implement recommendations made by the 2015 COAG Investigation into Indigenous Land Administration and Use to clarify that the removal of details of ILUAs from the ILUA register does not reflect the validity of future acts done under it. While that measure wasn't supported by the Expert Indigenous Working Group advising the COAG investigation, further consultation with states, territories and relevant stakeholders was recommended, and then that consultation occurred during the development of this bill. So, in a sense, the position moved on from the point of the 2015 report. The objective of the amendment is to ensure that there is certainty to all parties around the validity of any acts that are done pursuant to an ILUA which has been removed from the register, including, for example, in circumstances where the ILUA has come to an end. It would be perverse if an ILUA that's come to an end faced the invalidity of the acts done under it from that point onwards. To date there have been very few applications to the Federal Court to remove an ILUA from the register on the basis of fraud and duress, and none of those have been successful. There are several reasons why it wouldn't be desirable to retrospectively invalidate future acts under an ILUA that's been obtained as a result of fraud or duress. Firstly, the implications of such retrospective invalidation may be very complex and would raise difficult questions, such as, for example, whether benefits already received by the native title groups under the ILUA should be recouped. Surely that wouldn't be a good thing for native title holders. Secondly, there may be parties who enter the ILUA in good faith and have done nothing wrong but who would nevertheless suffer as a result of the retrospective invalidation of that future act. Thirdly, it may not be appropriate for all future acts covered by an ILUA removed from the register to be invalidated. It's worth saying that these measures don't affect a court's power under section 199C of the Native Title Act to remove the details of an agreement from the register. These measures do not affect the court's ability to deal with the effect of any fraud, any undue influence or any duress. I hope that assists those opposite to see the government's position on this matter. If there are any further concerns about it, I'm happy to take those during the period for questions. In the time remaining, I might conclude with this. The government considers that, despite significant progress, there is scope for improving the native title system to improve the recognition and management of native title rights and traditional lands. This bill demonstrates our commitment to the native title system. I thank all senators for their contributions to the debate and commend the bill to the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion as moved by the minister, that the bill now be read a second time, be agreed to.

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

36 AYES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Brockman, S Canavan, MJ Carr, KJ Chandler, C Colbeck, R Dodson, P Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Green, N Griff, S Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Kitching, K Lambie, J Lines, S McDonald, S McGrath, J (teller) McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Rennick, G Roberts, M Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Urquhart, AE Van, D Walsh, J 9 NOES Faruqi, M Hanson-Young, SC McKim, NJ Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Thorpe, LA Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

In Committee 77 19:01 Senator DODSON SR5 Western Australia I rise to make clear that Labor does not support the amendments put forward by the Greens, and I seek to make a few comments in relation to that. This bill was introduced on 17 October 2019, some 15 months ago. Since that time Labor has been consulting with affected communities and other stakeholders, including through a detailed Senate inquiry. It is unhelpful for significant amendments to be moved now, at the last minute on the very day the bill is debated here. While we do have concerns about certain provisions in this bill, as to how they may operate in practice, there is general agreement from Indigenous stakeholders that this bill improves many aspects of the native title system and should now become law. We in Labor respect the wishes of those Indigenous and other Australians who have made it clear to us in numerous consultations that they want this bill to now become law. However, recognising the concerns raised by some stakeholders about certain measures in the bill, and in order to address any potential unintended consequences of these measures as well as to address broader concerns about the operation of the native title system, Labor has obtained an agreement from the government that before the end of five years, following commencement of the measures in schedule 6 of this bill, an evaluation of the amendments introduced by this bill will be conducted by the government and a report of that evaluation will be provided to the parliament. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, June Oscar AO, will undertake a review of the Native Title Act, and the government has advised us that that review is expected to commence within 12 months. I appeal to the government and the parliament to respond positively to the social justice commissioner's report when her review is completed. The aim should be that that review be a comprehensive review of the operation of the act and the impact on the rights of native title holders, and to achieve amendments to the act in the future that protect the native title rights of First Nations people and ensure that the balance struck between competing interests is transparent and fair. The improvement of our native title system along these lines is an opportunity to bring justice and honour to our nation. It is an opportunity that we urge the government to seize. 19:04 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Minister, could you please explain how this bill affirms the right of First Nations people to free, prior and informed consent? 19:04 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland Thank you very much for the question. Extensive consultation has been undertaken on the development of this bill, with a focus on traditional owners, including native title representation bodies, registered native title bodies and other Indigenous stakeholders. The principles of free, prior and informed consent have been implemented in this bill by engaging in good faith consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in relation to the decisions that affect them, consistent with the principles of international law under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Native Title Act contains safeguards and rights to ensure that native title claimants and holders are notified, consulted and, in certain circumstances, have the opportunity to negotiate or enter into agreements before activities can occur on native title land. The primary source of these processes is the future acts regime in the act. That sets out requirements that must be met before development and other activities on native title land can be validly done. In most instances, the activities will trigger notification rights, but more substantive procedure rights are available in circumstances such as mining and exploration—for instance, tenure upgrades and compulsory acquisition. In the case of mining and exploration, which I'm going to assume for the moment is something you might be interested in, the relevant native title holders or claimants have the right to negotiate with the proponent, including negotiating for compensation for the impairment of native title rights. Agreements concluded in this way are, as you know, referred to as section 31 agreements. Alternatively, the native title act allows traditional owners to enter into an ILUA, which are flexible agreements that can provide native title groups with a range of economic, social and cultural benefits that they negotiate. There are a range of measures seeking to improve outcomes for traditional owners, including improving the autonomy and control that native titled holders have to make decisions around the use of their land. An example I can give you, for instance, is the measures which allow claim groups to impose conditions on the authority of their authorised representative. The measures which enable parties to disregard historical extinguishment of native title claims over certain areas like national parks are another example. The ability to impose a condition on the authority of an authorised representative is, of course, particularly important, because it allows the native title group to make rules according to their own custom about whether or not unanimous or majority or some other kind of decision-making threshold must be reached before a matter can go forward. 19:07 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Minister, the Law Council has concerns this maybe contrary to the right of First Nations people to self-determination and to the exercise of free, prior and informed consent. Why is the government proceeding with this when you have the Law Council in disagreement? Also, as a native title holder for two areas of country in Victoria, I certainly can say that there was no free, prior and informed consent there. I have another question in relation to that. Could you explain what 'good-faith consultations' means? 19:08 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I note what Senator Thorpe has to say about the submissions of the Law Council. They've been taken into account, but the government has reached a view that is different to that which has been reached by the Law Council and has determined that there are sufficient mechanisms available for ensuring that native title holders are able to consider and exercise free, prior and informed consent provided by the bill. The matter in the second part of your question is what 'good faith' means. Good faith has its ordinary meaning at law. 19:09 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria The pursuit of profit has led corporations to seek energy sources and resources, impinging on Indigenous lands and water. Why is this government seeking to impose majority decision-making structures which are not—I repeat, are not—in line with our traditional practices with regard to what happens on country? 19:09 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland This goes to the matter I raised just a moment ago, and that is that at all times there remains the opportunity for a native title group to impose whatever conditions they like upon the exercise of the process for their group. That means that if the native titleholders wish, for instance, to place a condition that says unanimous agreement is required, that is entirely within their power to do so and their right to impose that condition always remains. The majority default rule that is established by this amendment is one that is displaceable at any time upon the placement of a condition by the very same native title group. I trust that resolves your concern about that. It allows the decision-making about the threshold that needs to be reached to always remain in the hands of the group that will be affected by the decision. 19:11 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Was the majority decision-making process within the native title bill a direct response to the McGlade case in WA? 19:11 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland Yes, I think that's fair to say. The McGlade decision did put into doubt the validity of section 31 agreements and provided, in effect, that one needed unanimous agreement. That created some impracticalities because there were circumstance where, for instance, one or more of the native titleholders had passed away and it wasn't possible to get the consent of that native titleholder to a particular determination. This is an arrangement that allows for a default of majority decision-making that is displaceable at all times upon the decision of the people affected by the determination to impose a condition that some other, or higher, threshold be imposed for their particular matter. While the short answer is, yes, it's about providing certainty in light of the McGlade decision, it is certainty provided with the opportunity for native titleholders to maintain control at all times about the thresholds that apply to them. 19:12 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Can you tell me if the National Native Title Council supports this bill? 19:12 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I will take that on notice. 19:13 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Minister, can you also inform me which mining companies asked the government to fix this problem for them? 19:13 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I will take the detail of that on notice. But I can tell you that the consultation process undertaken has not been one-sided. It has involved all the different groups that have an interest in the native title system. There has been public consultation on an options paper for native title reform that went from November 2017 through to February 2018. There was a second stage of public consultation—again, open to anybody—on exposure draft legislation from October to December of 2018. Then meetings were held with key stakeholders across the country and over 80 submissions were received on both the options paper and the exposure draft legislation. Then an expert technical advisory group was convened by the government and it comprised nominees from the National Native Title Council, the National Native Title Tribunal and the Federal Court of Australia. Government and industry have also provided some technical assistance through the process of developing the bill, although, as I understand it, they weren't a part of the expert technical advisory group. In March 2018, the government also held a round table with members of the National Native Title Council and other native title corporations and representative bodies to discuss the reforms. So, to the extent that you, Senator Thorpe, are concerned about the quality of the consultation process with all of those groups that are interested in the native title system, it has been multi-staged, it has been public so that anybody can participate and it has been supplemented by the expertise of people who know the technical effect of the matters that were the subject of those submissions. As to the detail of precise names, I'll take that on notice. 19:15 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Which mines do the section 31 agreements, which this bill seeks to retrospectively validate, relate to, and how many are there? 19:15 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland Your question goes to retrospectivity, but before I go to that, if it's okay, I'll just clarify a matter I took on notice a moment ago. The National Native Title Council does support, based on the advice I've been given, the bill. I hope that's of use to you. As to the question of retrospectivity, the only measure in the bill that applies retrospectively is the validation of section 31 agreements, and that goes to the matter raised in the decision of McGlade v Native Title Registrar and others, of which, Senator Thorpe, I know you are familiar. For those listening at home, under that measure, section 31 agreements that were entered into prior to the commencement of schedule 9 will be validated provided that at least one member of each relevant native title party is a party to the agreement. Schedule 9 commences on the day after the act receives royal assent. This means that the validation of section 31 agreements extends to the day after royal assent, if that makes sense. This time frame was agreed with stakeholders during the consultation process on the basis that the effect of the McGlade decision on section 31 agreements hadn't yet been tested, so its impact and its effect was uncertain. All parties who were part of that stakeholder consultation process acknowledged that the uncertainty was not a desirable quality to continue. If you have further questions about retrospectivity, I can come back to that. Importantly, the amendments which allow the applicant to act by majority do not apply retrospectively. The bill clearly provides that the ability for the applicant to act by majority applies only after the provisions commence—that's at item 55(2) in schedule 1 of the bill, if that reference helps—being six months after other provisions in the bill commence, and that's on a date to be fixed by proclamation. 19:17 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria There was another question to that, and that was: how many are there? How many mines are there, and how do they relate to this? 19:18 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland The advice I can give you is that stakeholders across the sector indicated that there are hundreds of section 31 agreements that might require validation as a result of the McGlade decision. I don't have a precise number, but the state governments, in particular, who were providing feedback through the consultation process indicated that it was a number in the hundreds. 19:18 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Minister, can you outline how much extra resourcing will flow to registered native title bodies corporate to support them, to deal with the added burdens imposed on them because of this bill? 19:18 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland Thanks, very much, for the question. The question of funding for PBCs or RNTBCs is one that is relevant. The Australian government, of course, as you know, provides support to native title corporations to meet their statutory obligations, to be continually improving their compliance with good governance principles and to be always building their organisational capacity and their ever-increasing ability to deal with government arrangements. The National Indigenous Australians Agency provides funding to a wide-reaching number of projects to support PBCs, including native title operations and management training delivered by the National Native Title Council, and tailored governance training through a specialist training provider known as Shane Carroll & Associates. PBCs can also access training, including accredited training for a certificate IV in business governance, through the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations. Progress reported. Ordered that the committee have leave to sit again on the next day of sitting. ADJOURNMENT 80 ADJOURNMENT Gender Dysphoria 80 19:20 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania 'It is right to call the treatment of gender-dysphoric children with puberty blockers experimental or innovative in the sense that there are currently limited studies and evidence of the efficiency or the long-term effects of the treatment.' That's from a recent judgement by the English High Court. 'There is no other field of medicine where such radical interventions are offered to children with such a poor evidence base.' That was US psychiatrist Professor Stephen Levine, in evidence to the English High Court. 'Children have been very seriously damaged.' That's according to Dr David Bell, a recently retired senior psychiatrist at England's Tavistock youth gender clinic. This is the expert evidence which is only now being allowed to come to light through the British media and court system. It was in 2018 that Dr Bell wrote an internal report, warning that Tavistock's Gender Identity Development Service was not fit for purpose and that children's needs are being met in a woeful, inadequate manner and that some will live on with the damaging consequences. Instead of being listened to, Dr Bell was subject to disciplinary action for raising these concerns. One of the governors of the clinic resigned, stating, 'In my 40 years of experience in psychiatry, I've learned that dismissing serious concerns about a service or approach is often driven by a defensive wish to prevent painful examination.' He went further: 'The need to adopt an attitude which examines things from different points of view is essential. This is difficult in the current environment, as the debate and the discussion required are continually being closed down.' It was not until two years later, when one of those young people who had been let down by this system went to the High Court, that the media and the public at large started to listen. That's two years in which large numbers of children were put through a service which has been described by its own senior clinicians as not fit for purpose and as having damaged children very seriously. Only last month, England's Care Quality Commission rated the Gender Identity Development Service as inadequate, highlighting the exact same concerns which whistleblowers had been raising for years. It said that records provided insufficient evidence of staff considering the specific needs of young people, such as autistic spectrum disorders. The service did not record how many patients had a diagnosis, or a suspected diagnosis, of an autistic spectrum disorder. Records did not demonstrate consideration of the relationship between ASD and gender dysphoria. Further, the Care Quality Commission explicitly stated that staff did not always feel able to raise concerns without fear of retribution. How do Australian gender clinics rate on these measures? We simply do not know. Although the concerns brought to the fore in the English High Court last December quite clearly have major relevance in Australia, there was muted or non-existent coverage in most of our major media outlets. To suggest, as some have done, that these are British issues with no relevance to Australia defies logic. Do Australian gender clinics have access to research about the links between gender dysphoria and autism spectrum disorders that are unknown to clinics in the UK? Do they have a scientifically based explanation for the explosion in numbers of teenage girls presenting with gender dysphoria? Do they have records demonstrating proper consideration of other psychological factors before proceeding to irreversible medical interventions? Do they have records tracking the ongoing physical and mental wellbeing of patients five, 10 or 15 years after being given puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones? How do they explain the increasing number of detransitioners? How do they align the experience of detransitioners with the oft stated narrative that a distressed teenager asking for permanent physical alterations won't change their mind down the track? If Australian gender clinics and the state governments running them do have this data, it's obvious that they should release it so that concerned medical practitioners, parents and the general public can see it. State governments are supposed to have this data, having conducted an audit and review of youth gender dysphoria treatment in the last year. Why haven't the results been released? Why is the Victorian government, this week, seeking to criminalise just speaking about the concerns that are being openly discussed in the UK, concerns that are shared by Australia's National Association of Practising Psychiatrists? Australia has a choice: are we going to spend the years ahead pretending there are no legitimate concerns about teaching children that they can literally be born in the wrong body and then changing their bodies to fit that idea, or will we listen to these concerns and demand this area of medicine be scrutinised transparently and independently? Weatherill, Mr George 81 19:25 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I rise tonight to speak on the passing of a beloved union and Labor comrade, George Weatherill, who died on Sunday 23 January 2021 at the age of 84. The South Australian trade union movement and the Labor family have lost a great union leader and a friend, a man who represented our party in the Legislative Council and was the father of former premier Jay Weatherill. George was born in northern England in the late 1930s. He grew up in the shadows of the Great Depression and endured the trauma of World War II. The experiences of poverty and inequality were harsh, to an extent difficult to comprehend today, and they forged the values that guided George and many others through their lives. George was relentlessly optimistic, some might say despite the challenges he faced. I suspect it was perhaps because of them. He was from a working family, from Hartlepool, in northern England. He was one of 10. They lived through the bombing raids and he lost his father young. Perhaps that hardship generated in him, rather than pessimism, that relentless optimism accompanied by both shrewdness and pragmatism. After arriving in Australia in 1960 it did not take long for George to establish himself as a leader in the trade union movement. In fact, at one of the eulogies the story was recounted that he was elected a delegate despite not actually being there, just because he was the Pommy bloke who must know something about trade unions. As I said, he was elected a shop steward at the South Australian E&WS, Engineering and Water Supply Department, for the Australian Government Workers Association, known as the AGWA. Over the next quarter of a century he won elections to various offices within the union. In doing so he played a critical role in setting the political direction of that union and establishing a political legacy that continues to this day. When George became involved in the AGWA it was controlled by the Right. It was a union that was regarded as too passive to deliver to its own members. George became a key player supporting Left allies to take control of the union. The response from the Right at the time was brutal. George garnered extraordinary respect amongst comrades and members by staring down threats of violence and for his capacity to bring others with him. The eventual victory of the Left within that union paved the way for the development of a union that would become, and remains, one of the most important agents for progressive change within South Australian politics. The change in leadership and philosophy in the AGWA, brought about through the actions of many, including George, smoothed the way for a merger with the miscellaneous workers union, 'the Missos', the predecessor of what is known as the United Workers Union. This amalgamation cemented its place as one of the important agents of progressive change in our state, a position it has held ever since. It has provided a base of support for progressive candidates like Mark Butler, Jay Weatherill and me into parliament. Before my own generation, George also gathered support to win a fiercely contested ballot and filled a vacancy in the Legislative Council, where he served from 1986 to 2000. George Weatherill always knew who he was and always remembered where he came from in every aspect of his life, including his work in the parliament. He had a powerful sense of justice and he was moved to correct injustice wherever he found it. He was a man of great courage and seemingly boundless optimism. Perhaps he was the happy warrior poetry says we should all wish to be—an unflinching defender of the rights of working people and their families. He was also a first-class strategist whose struggles helped build a multigenerational legacy for progressive politics in South Australia. I want to place on record my sincerest sympathy to his family and friends, including his wife, Joy, his children, Jay, Dana and Lea, their partners and his grandchildren. I particularly want to place on record my acknowledgement of how hard this must be for his son, Jay Weatherill, for whom George was an important figure, and to say to Jay and to his family: we are with you in this loss, and George's legacy continues to this day. JobSeeker Payment 82 19:30 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I rise this evening to speak on the government's intention to return the JobSeeker payment to $40 a day. Despite still being in the midst of a pandemic and a recession, in just 58 days this government will end the JobSeeker COVID supplement, condemning over a million Australians to a payment of $40 a day. The COVID supplement, first introduced at the rate of $550 a fortnight in March 2020, transformed people's lives and lifted millions out of poverty. It was the first time the unemployment payment was at a rate above the poverty line in 25 years. The COVID supplement of $550 a fortnight enabled people on the JobSeeker payment, youth allowance and the parenting payment to afford nutritious food, three meals a day, children's school activities, essential medications, housing costs, new clothing and shoes, heating and cooling, amongst other things. Since March last year, my office has been contacted by many, many people who have shared with us the impact on their lives of, for once, being able to live above the poverty line because of this $550-a-fortnight COVID supplement. I want to share with the Senate the positive impacts of no longer living below the poverty line and having to choose between paying rent and buying groceries. These are the lived experiences of people who have outlined their circumstances to us. One said: 'With the increase we could afford to make necessary repairs to our only car. We didn't have to stress about going to the doctor or affording the medication we needed. We were able to pay off our credit card debt completely. Every cutback in the payment has meant an increase in our financial stress. It won't be long before our credit card debt climbs again as we try to make ends meet. Because of the increase we are able to afford better quality groceries. I was able to buy new clothes for the first time in years. I have health issues, so I could afford to get a cab or Uber to a doctor's appointment during the pandemic rather than taking the bus.' Another person said: 'I was able to get my car serviced and pay a bunch of bills. I was able to happily look for work knowing I didn't have to worry about affording petrol money or lunches. I got casual work, which was just enough for me to do, but the money was low. The supplement helped me retain a proper wage and keep a roof over my head.' Another person said: 'With the $550 COVID supplement I was able to buy food, pay my bills and pay for my medications. The JobSeeker rate without the COVID supplement would either pay the rent or buy food. So it always came down to paying the rent.' Another person said: 'The rise in the JobSeeker rate during COVID meant that I could buy my own food and cease going to the Salvos for food. I could also pay my rates, water and electricity bills. I thankfully now have a casual job, but you never know what's going to happen, especially with COVID. The old rate was inhumane. I went to see a dentist for the first time in my entire adult life. I got my car rego paid without having to take money out of my food budget. I actually had a budget that wasn't in negatives. I was able to replace some of my oldest furniture with good-quality replacements that will last longer than something cheap. Besides that, we all spent the money. We all kept the economy going. Honestly, I don't know what I'm going to do now.' These are the lived experiences of people who had been trying to exist on the previous JobSeeker payment. We are still in a pandemic. We are still in a recession. You heard what people have said about how the supplement improved their lives so they didn't have to choose between paying the rent and buying food, so they could go to the dentist and so they could actually take steps that helped improve their employment prospects. Taking this payment back to $40 a day condemns people to poverty and makes it even harder for them to find work. Permanently increase the JobSeeker payment so we no longer condemn people to this abject poverty. Tasmanian Australian of the Year Awards 82 19:35 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania Tonight I rise to acknowledge our 2021 Australian of the Year, Grace Tame, and also recognise her fellow 2021 Tasmanian Australian of the Year award winners: Brian Williams, Toby Thorpe and Edna Pennicott. The Australian of the Year awards celebrate the achievements and contributions of eminent Australians. These four Tasmanians are worthy representatives of my home state and important role models. It is an honour to be able to share their accomplishments with you tonight. In taking up her title as Australian of the Year, Grace Tame became the first Tasmanian to hold this honour. A dedicated advocate for survivors of sexual assault, Grace came to national attention via the Let Her Speak campaign when she applied to the Supreme Court for the right to identify herself as a sexual abuse survivor. She became the first Tasmanian woman to do this and has since used this platform to push for legal reform and raise public awareness about the impact of sexual violence. It takes incredible courage to tell anyone that you were groomed and raped by your 58-year-old maths teacher from the age of 15, but Grace reported that abuse to police and ensured her abuser was brought to justice. Under Tasmania's sexual assault victim gag laws, Grace was unable to legally speak about her experience publicly, even though her abuser and the media could. So she pushed for that to change. Since then, Grace has told her story over and over again in advocating for others who survived sexual abuse, particularly those abused in institutional settings. As a result of the Let Her Speak campaign and Grace Tame's legal case, the Tasmanian government last year amended section 194K of the Evidence Act 2001 to allow victims the right to speak publicly. When accepting her award in Canberra last week, Grace said: Well hear me now—using my voice against a growing chorus of voices that will not be silenced. Through one brave act after another, Grace Tame has gone from being silenced by her abuser and the law, and known by the ultimate anonymous moniker of Jane Doe during legal proceedings, to being recognised as the 2021 Australian of the Year. Congratulations, Grace. Brian Williams is the Tasmanian Senior Australian of the Year, winning this title for his more than 50 years of tireless service to Scouts. Under his leadership, Blackmans Bay Scout Group has become one of the largest and most successful groups in the state, with Brian mentoring thousands of young people in this time. Taking this a step further, Brian has trained and supported more than 100 Venturer Scout leaders since 1983. He also organised the first Australian Venture held in Launceston, with young people from around Australia and overseas spending 12 days filled with fun activities. Tasmania's Young Australian of the Year, Toby Thorpe, advocates for youth empowerment and climate action. Toby's leadership in this space helped Huonville High School win the international Zayed Sustainability Prize. He organised the first statewide Climate Leaders Conference and led the Tasmanian youth delegation to the United Nations Climate Change Conference. Young people have a better understanding of their power to positively impact the world through the example and leadership demonstrated by Toby. Following on from her recognition in last year's Queen's Birthday Honours List, Kingborough Helping Hands founder Edna Pennicott was named the Tasmanian Local Hero. Kingborough Helping Hands provide care packages of food and other essential items to people in the local area facing financial hardship. Edna collects the goods to make up the packages herself and personally delivers many of them. She also runs the after-hours mobile van service that provides hot food and support to people sleeping rough. She recently won the inaugural Aurora Energy Lifetime Achievement Award in recognition of her 40 years of dedicated service to the community. In Grace, Brian, Toby and Edna, Tasmania has outstanding ambassadors to share our community's message with a wider audience. Each of these four Tasmanians has worked for years to challenge attitudes and advocate for others, and I know Tasmanians are proud of and grateful for the services they each provide. Nominations are now open for the 2022 Australian of the Year Awards. I encourage everyone in this place or listening around the country to identify an inspiring Australian who deserves to be recognised for their efforts, and then take that next step and nominate them. Morrison Government 83 19:40 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Well, 2020 is done. It was a tough year for all Australians, and 2021 will have its own challenges. There are over two million people who don't have a job or don't have enough hours to get by. If there's one thing that I heard over the summer, it's that people desperately want 2021 to be better. They want hope from their government. They want a plan from their government. They want to rebuild jobs and they want to get our country moving. They want us to rebuild our manufacturing jobs. They want us to get on with the task of creating clean energy jobs, to fix the crisis in aged care and to bring down the price of early childhood education. They want all Australians to have the opportunity that a good, secure, job can bring, including those essential workers so critical to getting us through this pandemic but who are so often undervalued in their pay packet. Australians want a government that is on their side. But what is Prime Minister Scott Morrison serving up in 2021? Pay cuts, super cuts, JobKeeper cuts and JobSeeker cuts, all at the same time. Just as they're about to cut those crucial financial supports, they're trying to introduce laws that will cut workers' wages. This week Scott Morrison talked about a comeback, but his plans for this year are actually cutbacks—cuts that will leave entire communities struggling without JobKeeper support; cuts that will send jobseekers back to an absolutely unlivable $40 a day; cuts to wages by getting rid of protections for penalty, overtime and shift rates, allowing employers to push people back to the minimum wage, just at the time that people are doing it incredibly hard; and cuts to super savings by freezing the legislated super increase. Right now the government is telling Australians: 'If you're doing it tough, you need to do it even tougher. You need your support slashed, you need your wages slashed, you need your super savings slashed.' This is not just nasty policy; it's bad policy. It's just plain wrong policy. Ripping wages and incomes out of our struggling communities will not get them back on their feet; it will put workers and businesses on the back foot. You cannot cut to create jobs. We've just been through the biggest economic shock in a hundred years, and this government is more focused on punishing Australians than on creating jobs. They're punishing Australians instead of getting wages moving and getting money back into local businesses. They're punishing Australians instead of creating more secure jobs for our essential workers and, indeed, for all Australians. It doesn't have to be this way. Our road to recovery should support all Australians. Our road to recovery should be built around practical solutions that help people, not hurt them. It should be built on a big, bold plan for our future; a plan that has good and secure jobs at its heart; a plan that looks out for all Australians. We on the Labor side believe in making this country better. We believe in improving people's lives. This week Scott Morrison admitted he has no real reform agenda for this country. On our side, we believe in the power of government to make things better. This is why Labor is focused on improving access to early childhood education. It's why we're focused on a big, comprehensive plan to invest in social housing. It's why Labor has a plan for Australian manufacturing; for bringing down energy prices; for creating green energy jobs; for supporting working women; for fixing the aged-care crisis and delivering a dignified retirement; for training apprentices and skilling up workers for new opportunities; and for delivering the good, secure jobs that Australians need. Australians don't want to go back to January 2020, to a time before COVID-19. They want us to deliver more than that. They want us to deliver hope. They want us to deliver a better future, a 2021 that is better than 2020, and Labor wants that too. Google 84 19:45 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia In recent weeks Google made an explicit threat to deny service to Australians if this parliament passes the media bargaining code. It is an outrageous threat for a business to make against parliament. It is pathetic and desperate but hardly surprising, because what Australia proposes terrifies them and may inspire other countries to follow suit. This isn't the first time powerful monopolies have tried to intimidate parliaments and people. For example, 150 years ago, in the age of the robber barons, industries were dominated by monopolies and their ruthless owners. Their names are still familiar to some of us today—Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt. Each of these men turned a business into a cartel and a monopoly. They used their dominance to extract wealth from their customers and their communities. Each of these men became unimaginably wealthy and used their wealth to influence and to become powerful. Each of these men intimidated politicians to serve their personal interests rather than the public interest. They could forge these monopolies because there was no law to prevent it. Governments needed new laws and new tools to fight the robber barons. The US got them in the Antitrust Act 1890, which prohibited anti-competitive conduct and criminalised the formation of cartels. It took many years to apply the new law and break the great monopolies, but once the tools were available it was only a matter of time. Other countries such as Australia followed suit with their own laws. The robber barons of our time are not Standard Oil or Union Pacific; they are Google, Facebook and a number of other tech giants. They control the modern digital monopolies and exploit them ruthlessly, earning immense profits in the process. Just as with the cartels and monopolies of the past, government today lacks the right tools to fight them. Our competition policy is designed around consumers and the prices they pay. The tech giants escape this regulation because they charge individual customers nothing and extract the wealth of suppliers, particularly small business. We need to rethink our regulatory framework to ensure that digital markets are free, fair and competitive. Until that happens, we need legislation that provides transparency about how tech giants are tracking users and profiting from the data. I intend to introduce a bill later this year to give Australians a digital right to privacy. I will say more on this in due course. I expect Google and others will continue their threats to leave Australia if such legislation is passed. I don't believe them. Unlike the great monopolies of the past, digital dominance depends on network effects. Pulling out of Australia will create a place for startups to develop, scale and commercialise new products free from the interference of big tech. Google cannot afford to give other businesses a toehold to challenge their dominance. Theirs is an empty threat. They want to bully parliament into serving their interests rather than the public's interests. It will not work. Before I came to this place, I had a long career in business. I have seen the benefits that private enterprise can bring to people and to communities. But those benefits only come with competition. When there is no competition, when a business becomes absolutely dominant, it stops benefiting the community and starts exploiting the community. That's what we often see today in big tech. Their immense wealth comes through exploiting the communities they supposedly serve, and, when new laws put even a fraction of that wealth at risk, they respond with bullying and with threats. It is time for this parliament to act. It is time to pass the media bargaining code, give Australians a right to digital privacy and create a digital market that is free, fair and competitive. Operation K9 85 19:50 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia Mr Acting President: Unmoved he heard the evening hymn of hate, Unmoved would gaze into his master's eyes. For all the sorrows men for men create In search of happiness wise dogs despise, Finding ecstatic joy in every rag And every smile of friendship worth a wag. Honourable senators, I've just read a few words from the beautiful poem by Major Edward de Stein, late of the Kings Royal Rifles, titled Elegy on the Death of Bingo, Our Trench Dog. It was written in World War I, and it is estimated that over 50,000 dogs accompanied armies on both sides of that terrible conflict. I wish to bring to the attention of honourable senators the great work the Royal Society for the Blind is doing in Adelaide, which has national significance. I understand that the first archaeological evidence of the domesticated dog is in a 10,000-year-old grave in Greece, which contained human remains and those of a puppy. Humans and dogs have evolved together and became partners for their mutual benefit and sustenance. The bond has not been broken despite the passage of time. Even today, we rely on dogs to keep our soldiers safe and also to bring joy to the lives of our old soldiers. For the last seven years, the Royal Society for the Blind has expanded its internationally accredited assistance dog program to support veterans who have been clinically diagnosed with post-traumatic stress. Their program has been given the title 'Operation K9'. The society was founded in 1884 by Sir Charles Goode and Andrew Hendry, who himself was blind as a child. It was called the Institute for the Blind and became the royal society in 1974. The organisation provides services to over 11,000 South Australians who are blind or vision impaired. As of January 2021, Operation K9 has provided 42 dogs to veterans and has a near 100 per cent success rate in matching dogs to those veterans in need. These assistance dogs are individually trained to perform tasks such as interrupting destructive behaviours as well as providing comfort, support, independence and social interaction. Each dog's training is tailored to the individual veteran's needs, including even retrieving medication. Clinical research undertaken by the University of Adelaide's centre for trauma research has demonstrated that, within six to 12 months of receiving an assistance dog, veterans were reporting a 20 to 45 per cent improvement in their social and family functioning, a 20 to 40 per cent decrease in depression and anxiety and a 40 per cent increase in their mobility and exercise habits. Veterans are motivated into healthy action for the love of their dog. The average cost to train a dog is around $40,000. The program is being supported by the Department of Veterans' Affairs until April 2021 for the supply of 10 dogs. A recent recipient of a Royal Society for the Blind dog supported through the Department of Veterans' Affairs remarked: Xena has been just wonderful for me. She has made me feel calmer, more settled, and my housemates have commented already on the changes in me. She has kept me close at night, and I just feel more grounded, and less anxious with her by my side. When I go to Uni, she has made me feel more comfortable as a part of the crowd, and better able to engage with my fellow students. Late last year I had the opportunity to visit the training centre for the Royal Society for the Blind, where I met Ivan, a veteran, and his wife, Vera, who spoke to me about the incredible difference their dog, Wattle, has made to both their lives. It was a moving experience to hear their story. Wattle was the most beautiful of dogs—calm, attentive and loving. Wattle was the living embodiment of that loving and supportive trench dog that Major de Stein lionised in his poem. However, unlike Wattle, the trench dog, Bingo, lovingly described in the poem, never played with children on clean grass nor dozed beside the glowing embers, for he was born amid a world of war. Bingo gave comfort in war. Wattle gives comfort after the guns have gone silent and the wounds need healing. I encourage honourable senators to support this initiative. I congratulate the government for investing in a program that provides so much benefit to veterans who are on their own difficult journey to heal themselves of the scars of war. Defence Personnel: Suicide 85 19:55 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Australia has lost more Defence Force personnel to suicide than we have lost on the front line. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has reported that the rate of suicide among male veterans is 21 per cent higher than it is for the general male population. For ex-serving women, the rate of suicide is twice as high as it is for the general female population. Over the past two decades, there have been more than 460 suicides. In 2018 alone, there were 33 deaths by suicide amongst serving and ex-serving Defence Force personnel. For every veteran who has died, there are families left behind who are grieving. It is a national tragedy and it's a national tragedy that this government is failing to act upon. For years now, veterans and their advocates have been raising with the Australian government concerns about the level of suicides. People have shared their stories about the sons and daughters that they have lost, and they have asked for a royal commission. Instead of delivering a royal commission, the coalition government has offered a flawed and inadequate National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention, without independence, without the appropriate governance arrangements and completely failing to include the most-recognised and significant risk factors for death by suicide. The Prime Minister said that the national commissioner would be bigger and better than a royal commission, but it turned out to be nothing more than an empty promise. The government offered less than half the resources that would be allocated to a royal commission—less funding, fewer staff and less power. Now veterans and their families will be forced to wait even longer for answers, as the coalition government has withdrawn its national commissioner legislation. The Liberal and National government has shown itself time and time again completely unable to deliver real results, real change and real reform for our nation and its people, especially those who serve our nation. This is just another example of this government's failure to act. I've had so many people call my office and share their stories of losing loved ones, sadly, to suicide, especially those in the veteran community, who have served our nation with great distinction. They have come to this place here in Canberra. They have stood on the lawns of Parliament House, directly above this chamber. They have shed tears under the roof of this building. They have asked us, as representatives of the community, to prevent any further loss of life. When I talk to veterans and their families, as I did recently, on Australia Day, I hear about the contributions to our community made by so many amazing people. So often these contributions continue well after a veteran's active service ends. A wonderful example of these contributions was Operation Veteran Assist, which I've spoken about previously here in the Australian Senate. Operation Veteran Assist mobilised dozens of veterans and volunteers at very short notice to go out to Gippsland and help with the bushfire recovery efforts after last year's bushfires. I find it enormously difficult to reconcile the fact that the coalition government are handing out contracts to former government staffers to produce slick PR videos spruiking recovery efforts in Gippsland and the broader region and the fact that there are bushfire victims still waiting to receive funding so they can recover and build their livelihoods. They are living in caravans, living in sheds, and the government have spent less than half of the recovery funding that was promised. At the very same time, they are denying veterans a royal commission— (Time expired) Mangrove Mountain, New South Wales: Telecommunications 86 20:00 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise to speak about one of the Central Coast's most resilient, most beautiful yet perhaps most underserviced communities. I am of course speaking about the Mangrove Mountain community and the surrounding mountain districts, who have been neglected—dare I say abandoned—by their local member, Lucy Wicks, who is missing in action. The residents of Mangrove Mountain have been failed by a succession of federal Liberal governments. They've certainly been failed in the area of the NBN rollout and further have been failed by telecommunications providers that have left the entire community without regular or reliable connectivity for their computers or mobile phones. Residents have told me that, despite being a mere 76 kilometres away from Sydney's CBD, the telecommunications infrastructure in Mangrove Mountain has gone backwards in the past 20 years. One resident even wrote to me that his ancestors' homing pigeons would be faster and more reliable than their current internet connections. This lack of infrastructure affects the education, health care and social lives of Mountain residents. It affects payment times, EFTPOS terminals and online sales ability for these small businesses. It breaks my heart when I hear great local business leaders who are trying to grow, who are employing people, who have jobs on their books that cannot be filled because they cannot function properly as businesses because of this government's failure to provide them with basic infrastructure that is fit for the 21st century. The community has also indicated to me that the current state of affairs on the watch of this Liberal-Nationals government affects the community's ability to live lives of dignity and lives of connectedness. In an increasingly isolated world with lockdowns, AI customer support and a growing preference for Zoom over face-to-face interactions, the lack of appropriate digital and telecommunications infrastructure can only make our society more divided, more lonely and more stratified. These people cannot get in contact with their service provider. They spend hours and hours on the telephone line waiting for a response, and when they get there it drops out, or they're subject to having to answer standard questions, and failure to respond is common. This is a community that's been taken for granted by the local member, Lucy Wicks. Despite winning over 72 per cent, two-party preferred, at the Mangrove Mountain booth in 2019, she's refused all calls to visit the area since the election. She is even refusing to reply to emails or letters from desperate residents asking for her help to secure adequate, functioning communications infrastructure. The Liberals and Nationals do this. They just take regional communities for granted. They show up at the communities every three years, they take the votes and then they disappear until the next election rolls around. Well, not anymore—not at Mangrove Mountain anymore. This community is sick to death of being taken for granted. Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberal Party gutted the NBN, which would have been a great leveller of the tyranny of distance that so plagues our rural and regional communities. Instead, this government, under a different leadership but with the same temperament, rolled out a terrible copper nightmare in Australia, which has gradually slipped down the internet speed world rankings to 68th position out of 177 countries, when we were formerly up at 20th. That's a massive decline in capacity for this country. We cannot build the knowledge based economy of the future or truly unleash our regional economies until we provide them with the digital justice that they deserve. I was welcomed into the historic Mangrove Mountain community hall on 14 December, along with my rock star state colleague Liesl Tesch, to listen to over 60 mountain residents speak about neglect by this government and how the lack of digital infrastructure affects the way that they work, learn and relax every single day. I listened to them. I heard their passion for their community and their desire to make it a more livable and vibrant place. I promised them I would fight for digital justice, and I'm here tonight doing just that. We've already had some success in securing an NBN drop-in session this year for residents, and Labor will keep fighting to ensure that that community is not overlooked and that they are hosted with similar sessions. (Time expired) Euthanasia 87 20:05 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Let us never forget those among us who face challenges every minute of every day that we cannot possibly even imagine—people who have reached a stage in their lives where continuing to live day to day presents challenges beyond their capability and even makes end of life a blessing and an outcome they seek. One of those people is David Bedford, who recently wrote to me. I know you're watching this, David. Describing David's situation is best done by quoting him directly. David says: 'I would like Annastacia Palaszczuk to please consider legalising euthanasia for all Queenslanders. I am a 38-year-old incomplete quadriplegic who has been in pain for the past 18 years. In 2002 I crashed my car driving home from work as a chef at Pier Restaurant in Sydney, sustaining a closed head injury and a neck injury at C2. The ambulance drivers who were first on scene that night gave me a Glasgow Coma Scale reading of 3. This scale rates a patient's level of consciousness. It goes from 1 to 15, with 1 being dead on arrival to 2 being dead soon after arrival and 3 being if they are within 15 minutes of a hospital. They would get rushed there all the way up to 15, which is fully awake and conscious. I was rated 3 and was 14 minutes from St Vincent's Hospital. I wish I had died that night, and if I had an advance health directive in place, I would have. It, the advance health directive, would have instructed the doctors to turn off the life support machine, saving me from 18 years of pain. I would have been remembered for who I was and not who I have been turned into. Whilst in a coma on life support, I got a severe bedsore as big as a grapefruit on my tailbone and one on each of my heels that ate away all the way down to the bone. Although they've now healed, the scars cause me excruciating pain as there are lots of severed nerve endings that I have no choice but to lie on 24 hours a day. Because I only fractured my spine and bruised my spinal cord, I still have full feeling in all of my body, unlike complete quadriplegics, who can't feel anything below their level of injury. Six years ago I got so desperate to end my pain that I wrote an advance health directive and tried to starve myself, but the nurses turned me away from the hospital, stating that Australia doesn't support euthanasia. I have thought of many ways in which I could end my life, but, unfortunately, a lot of those ways involve being assisted by another person, which would burden that person with legal ramifications for their actions. This is why I think Queensland must legalise euthanasia: because desperate people do desperate things. Until recently, I wasn't concerned about Australia's euthanasia laws, because I had an option to go to Switzerland, which allows tourists to utilise their euthanasia programs. However, with the onset of COVID, it has taken away my options. I'm in no hurry to end my life as I have grown accustomed to tolerating pain. Knowing Dignitas was an option for me gave me great comfort, but, without knowing how long these lockdowns will be in place, I am much more likely to go to Switzerland as soon as flights open again. You could prevent this by legalising euthanasia, not only for the terminally ill but for anyone suffering in pain. Please don't model your euthanasia law on Victoria's law, as it has been described as the most conservative euthanasia law of all the countries that have legalised it. There's no reason to limit it to people in the last six months of their lives dying of a terminal illness unless it is just to be cruel. I know I'm not the only person suffering in pain like this, and giving people painkilling drugs does not always eliminate their pain. I am given multiple medications on a daily basis to try and alleviate my pain. Unfortunately, after 18 years of taking these medications, I have built up a tolerance and now find those painkillers ineffective. Even with those pain medications, I feel like I have a knife stabbing into my tailbone. I have extra medications that I can request when pain increases, but I can only have that every 12 hours and its effectiveness is questionable. I asked my doctor to increase the strength of my pain relief, but he said that would put me at risk of having a heart attack. I said I'm okay with that risk and would sign a letter absolving him of any responsibility, but he said that would go against his Hippocratic oath to do no harm. Shouldn't I have the right to not be living in pain? I have the full support of my mother, who said, if she ever found out she had cancer, she would help me end my life. Shouldn't the state have responsibility to legalise euthanasia and not leave it up to my mum getting cancer? We are living in the 21st century after all. 'To conclude,' said David, 'if you take just one thing away from this speech, consider completing an advanced health directive of your own so, if you're ever in a coma, it would give your doctor direct instructions of your wishes.' (Time expired) Queensland: Tourism 88 20:10 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland The last time the Prime Minister visited Cairns was to campaign for the LNP in the Queensland state election. When he was there, he told Far North Queenslanders that he would have their back, but, now that thousands of workers in Far North Queensland are about to lose their job, the Prime Minister is nowhere to be seen. This is a Prime Minister who turns up when he needs you but turns his back when you need him. We know that in Cairns 3,600 businesses are currently relying on JobKeeper. That is more than any other postcode in Queensland, and it's more than most of Australia's big capital cities. It's an extraordinary number and it indicates the level of support required to support businesses and jobs heavily reliant on tourism—and heavily reliant on international tourism, because it has been over 12 months now since this government closed international borders. We understand that there was a health imperative to do that, but it has been a long slog for businesses and workers in Far North Queensland. Two weeks ago, the former chief health officer, Brendan Murphy, told reporters that it is unlikely that international tourism will start until next year, so it could be 24 months before international tourists set foot in Cairns again. These businesses, let me be clear, are making decisions right now about whether to make workers redundant. They are not waiting until 30 March, and this government cannot wait until 30 March to tell these workers what the plan is to support their jobs. It certainly hasn't helped that they have been getting mixed messages from government MPs about what the support might look like. Only a couple of weeks ago local MP Warren Entsch, the member for Leichhardt, told people in Cairns that extending JobKeeper was a no brainer. He said that the support would be there until it was needed. But now we know that what he was doing was telling people in Cairns one thing when the Treasurer and the Prime Minister had another idea. They won't be there to support Far North Queenslanders when they need help, they will not be extending JobKeeper and they will not be supporting the thousands of jobs that are currently on the chopping block in Cairns. These mixed messages have certainly not helped, and the uncertainty about future support is not helping either. At the moment, after speaking to tourism operators, there's some vague notion about getting some sort of package together, but there is nothing on the table from this government. If you're a tourism worker in Far North Queensland right now, you do not know what this government's plan for your job is. Today the minister representing the tourism minister cited many types of funds and grants and all of the things that were announced in the budget to try to help regional tourism, but I bet, if we scratched the surface of these programs that have been announced, none of that money has been spent, because most of that money was marketing money. Marketing money to who? It's marketing money to tourists that cannot come to Australia, that cannot come to Cairns. That money has not been spent, and the grants have only just opened. So this is a government that makes big promises and fails to deliver, and it's done it again when it comes to tourism workers. They've got their list of grants and programs that they like to read off in question time, but what they do not have is a plan for these jobs and for these businesses. Workers in Far North Queensland know that this government is leaving them behind, and they absolutely will not forget. They also know that this government has had seven years to diversify the economy in Cairns and has failed to do that as well. They know that this is a government that turned its back on these workers when they needed them, and they will never forget. Extremism 89 20:14 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I rise tonight to speak about the scourge of far Right extremism and its normalisation in our politics and our culture. A couple of weeks ago we saw the end of the catastrophic Trump presidency in the United States. The litany of policy failures, corruption scandals, criminal investigations into senior officers, and a fundamentally racist political agenda was topped off by Donald Trump trying to steal an election and incite a violent far Right insurrection at the US Capitol Building. People dismissed those of us who called Trump a dangerous authoritarian and a fascist. They said we were overreacting. They said we had no idea. But Trump's legacy speaks for itself. It gives me no joy to say we were right. Every person in our political class who indulged Trump and gave him an easy run has some serious explaining to do. That means everyone from the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, down. The problem is that, while Trump has temporarily been sent off to play golf in Florida, the white supremacy and autocratic politics that he represents still remain. History tells us that failed attempts to install a fascist autocracy are often followed by successful attempts. America is by no means out of woods just yet. In Australia, Trump-style politics have infected our own. While the far Right has long been part of the Australian political landscape, what's new is that the far Right conspiracy theories, talking points and talking heads are now a norm and on channels like Sky News. Government backbenchers like George Christensen appear to have no shame in spouting Trumpian racism and extreme right-wing views—and without any sign of sanction from the Prime Minister. We saw the Deputy Prime Minister, Michael McCormack, shamefully comparing the attempted violent white supremacist insurrection at the US Capitol to the Black Lives Matter racial justice movement. It matters for us because we are so far from resolving our own problems with far Right extremism and white supremacist politics. I've said it before and I will say it again: Australia is yet to grapple with being the country that raised the Christchurch killer. Since the deadly Christchurch mosque attacks almost two years ago, the evidence of the growing far Right threat on our shores has continued to pile up. Late last year, a New South Wales teenager was arrested and is facing terrorism related charges, with police saying he had an extreme right-wing ideology focused on neo-Nazi, white supremacist and anti-Semitic material. In January, it was widely reported that a group of 40 young white men went on a camping trip in regional Victoria, making white supremacist gestures for photos to be shared on social media and terrifying locals. I welcomed the announcement of the PJCIS inquiry into extremism—critically, including far Right extremism—established late last year, and I look forward to seeing what the committee is able to uncover. I would strongly advise the committee to pay careful attention to the Aotearoa royal commission report into the Christchurch mosque attacks and the lessons it can teach us for how we approach terrorism, security, online extremism, racism and religious hatred. The committee should also engage with and solicit submissions from the Muslim and Jewish communities, and other communities targeted by far Right violence. There are careful policy and legislative responses that must be considered. But bigger and perhaps more difficult than our policy response is changing our political culture. We have to ask the basic questions and really engage in some introspection. What sort of behaviour and rhetoric do we consider acceptable from our political and media elites? Where do we draw the line? And, crucially, when somebody crosses that line, what are the consequences? Are there any consequences at all? One aspect of Trumpian politics that has seemed to filter into our own is the real lack of accountability or shame for wrongdoing. Speech matters. What we say matters. How far Right violence is reported matters. Unless there is accountability for failing to meet the high standards expected of us, it will go on. I hope that in 2021 the government will finally reject the lure of post-truth politics and populist extremism. (Time expired) Assange, Mr Julian Paul 89 20:20 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania We've just witnessed what decades of powerful people lying has led to. Truth in politics goes back a long way, I'll give you that. But the post-truth world, this concept that somehow you can create your own reality if you're powerful enough, if you have a big enough platform, if you have the media in your pocket, goes back to possibly one of the greatest lies of all—the lie that led us into the Iraq war in 2003. If powerful people lie with no consequences, with no accountability, then we are bound to repeat the mistakes in our history. In just a few weeks time it will be the 18th anniversary of the biggest protests and marches that we have seen in this nation. Half a million people around this country marched to stop Australia joining the coalition of the willing and going to an illegal, unilateral, unethical war—a war which nothing good has come from, which has created more instability in the Middle East and more global terrorism and which caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. I can't think of a more important time in history than now to be nominating Mr Julian Paul Assange and WikiLeaks for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2021, and I'm very proud that my colleague Senator Rice and I, supported by the Australian Greens, have formally nominated Julian Assange and WikiLeaks for that most distinguished prize. Granting him the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize would convey the vital link between peace and a free press. This is more urgent and relevant than ever. The achievement of genuine and lasting peace requires truthful information in the hands of movements, parliamentarians and people. Assange is being prosecuted for exposing real numbers of civilians who had been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands upon thousands of people who were the victims of bombings, maiming and torture. He has also published information about journalists killed by Western forces in Iraq. The information released by Assange in WikiLeaks has been used as evidence in court cases all around this globe, freeing prisoners and exposing scandals, torture, murder and illegal surveillance. For this work Assange is in the health ward of Belmarsh prison, facing extradition and charges attracting a virtual death sentence in the US—the country whose war crimes he exposed. Julian Assange has sacrificed everything—everything—so that we can better understand our world, the impacts of lies, and lies in politics especially, and the wars that we find ourselves seemingly eternally caught up in. Awarding Assange and WikiLeaks the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize would demonstrate that, in facing truth about war and militarism, courageous action can be taken to realise peace and justice. I remind the chamber that everything published by WikiLeaks was 100 per cent factual. That's never been denied. But it embarrassed many powerful people, including many who took us to this illegal war. Half a million Australians protested, but it made no difference at all. I have a message for you, Julian, if you're listening. I am standing in the Australian Senate and I'm saying to you that I am proud to have nominated you and WikiLeaks for this award. You have a lot of support and it is growing by the day. Have courage, as you always have, and have faith that we will get you out of Belmarsh prison and we will not let you be extradited to the US. Homelessness 90 20:25 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I sit here tonight aware that in my community right now so many people are losing their homes. Fifty-six is the latest count. I'm sadly certain that will rise. They're losing their homes to a climate driven crisis, an event which will mark, I think, a very difficult moment for our WA community. I've been given reason to reflect upon all that home is and all that homes make possible, the way that having somewhere to call your own, having a roof over your head, enables you to get through so much, to do so much—to retreat if you need to, to grow where you can, to bring people into your life, to recover, to develop as a human being, to laugh and to love. All of these things are made possible by having a safe place to call home. Many people tonight have lost their homes. Many may be losing theirs right now while I am here. Yet it is also true that 9,000 people across our state, across WA, didn't have a home regardless of the fire events that we are struggling through. They are part of WA's homeless community. Twenty-five thousand people are on the public housing waiting list in our state, 4,000 people are in crisis or are on a priority waiting list and 3,000 of those folks have a disability. The waiting list is a year long and, in 2020, the state government added only 27 houses to the public housing stock, and it plans to build only another 47 more. At the same time, it has sold off public housing, making hundreds of millions of dollars. This situation has developed because of a lack of basic empathy, I think. Anybody that has spent time with somebody that lives without a home, anyone that's heard their stories, anyone that's had friends that have stared down the barrel of eviction cannot fail to be moved to action without a basic lack of connection with the humanity of the person they're sitting across from. It is an outrage that in 2021 we have 400 people across the CBD of our city whom the state government has no plans to house even during a lockdown. Even though other premiers during their lockdowns found a place for people without homes, Mark McGowan and his Labor government are doing nothing. 'Wait—hang on,' I can hear people say, 'The response has been much better this time; we've learned from our mistakes during the first lockdown.' Yes—oh wow! How good of you! They have increased the distribution of PPE. So no house, but you can have a mask! A couple of weeks ago, many homeless folk gathered in Fremantle across from the office of the social services minister, Simone McGurk, and said: 'Look at us! Look at this problem! Address it!' What was the Premier's reaction? To pour scorn upon it, to deride it as the work of activists and to move people into accommodation for only weeks at a time and where they still have no permanent solution. This is not good enough. Everybody deserves a home to call their own. That is what I am proud to say the Greens are fighting for at this election. Pell, Cardinal George, AC 91 20:30 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales In my last speech in this place regarding Cardinal Pell, I noted that alleged facts regarding crimes for which he was convicted were implausibility heaped upon improbability, especially when considered within the broad historical context of when the crimes were alleged to have occurred. Those first crimes for which he was ultimately acquitted by the High Court, in a unanimous 7-0 judgement, however, were not the only allegations made against Pell. They were but the tipping point of a relentless campaign against him, waged over decades, which continues to this day. Today I want to address some of those other accusations that have been made against Pell. These accusations, like those which were taken to court, are implausible but did not have the opportunity to be examined at any trial—though they were trialled by media—nor have they been tested in any court except in the court of public opinion. As stated last time, Pell's Melbourne Response provided monetary compensation, counselling and a direct personal response to abuse survivors. It was lauded by the media at the time of its launch and even by Victoria Police. Two decades later, the royal commission proposed a strangely similar redress scheme to the world-leading one established by Pell in 1996. Like any system, the Melbourne Response was not perfect. Criticisms that were repeated over the years, without substantive rebuttal, were sensationalised by a misleading 60 Minutes report in 2015, aired just days prior to Cardinal Pell's scheduled third appearance before the royal commission. It produced maximum damage to his reputation and was crucial in poisoning the minds of the public against him. I want to address these criticisms without the hysteria that often accompanies assessments of his work. The first criticism was that the Melbourne Response was established to save the Catholic Church money by capping payments initially at $50,000, then $55,000, $75,000 and, since 1 January 2017, $150,000, with the opportunity for earlier claimants to obtain a top-up payment linked to the new cap. The royal commission's Redress and civil litigation report revealed that, actually, Pell's Melbourne Response was more generous than other schemes in state-run institutions. Queensland capped payments at $40,000, with the average payment at $13,000; Tasmania capped payments at $60,000, with the average payment at $30,000; South Australia capped payments at $50,000, with the average payment at $14,100; and Western Australia capped payments at $45,000, with the average payment at $23,000. The Melbourne Response, at an average $38,800 per claimant, paid out the most to individual claimants. 60 Minutes also challenged the independence of eminent psychiatrist Professor Richard Ball and independent commissioner Peter O'Callaghan QC, each appointed by Pell to assist in the Melbourne Response. Regarding Professor Ball, it was suggested that there was a conflict of interest in his role of leading the professional support components of the Melbourne Response because he occasionally treated and acted as an expert witness in cases involving paedophile priests. 60 Minutes failed to mention, however, that the conflict was addressed by the archdiocese expressly precluding Ball from having contact with victims of any priest perpetrator he was treating. Nor did 60 Minutes note that the royal commission itself stated that it had no doubts when it came to Ball's integrity. Instead, Ball was portrayed as duplicitous. In one egregious example the host, Tara Brown, misrepresented two documents produced by Ball in relation to paedophile priest Kevin O'Donnell. The first document was described as a secret report to O'Donnell's lawyers. It examined his 50-year history of abuse, which O'Donnell admitted had continued until some three or four years prior. The second letter, described by Brown as 'directly contradictory' to the first, was addressed to the sentencing judge and described O'Donnell as having no inclination or opportunity to reoffend. Holding up these two letters side by side, Brown attacked Ball and, by extension, Pell's promise of independence of the response. The report conveniently omitted that the letters were written by Ball in July 1995, some 15 months before the Melbourne Response was established. Brown's implication was that Ball provided evidence in O'Donnell's favour during the course of his appointment with the Melbourne Response—something that was patently false. Importantly, 60 Minutes omitted to cite the limited scope of engagement given to Ball by O'Donnell's lawyers in July 1995 to 'limit your inquiries and your opinion to the issue of the effect the imprisonment would have on my client, given his age and his medical condition'. O'Donnell's lawyers commissioned Ball's report for sentencing only, and provided it to the court at their discretion. Ball was not asked to provide or capable of providing anything to the court directly. 60 Minutes also attacked the independence of Commissioner O'Callaghan, because his formal retainer to act as commissioner came from the church's own solicitors. 60 Minutes omitted that O'Callaghan accepted as true 97 per cent of the complaints made to the Melbourne Response—a staggering statistic that exposed questions impugning his independence as shallow. It also aired the allegation by David Ridsdale, nephew and victim of convicted paedophile Gerald Ridsdale, that in February 1993 Pell tried to bribe him into silence. However, documents provided to the royal commission revealed that Catholic Church authorities already knew that the police were investigating Ridsdale prior to his alleged bribe. David Ridsdale's own statement to that commission said he did not want to report the matter to the police or otherwise go public. In this light, it made no sense that Pell would try to 'bribe him into silence'. There was simply no reason for him to do so under the prevailing circumstances. Brown also went as far as to accuse Pell of lying in a previous 60 Minutes interview back in 2002. In the 2002 interview Richard Carleton asked Pell if he had been shown a photograph of Emma Foster, the daughter of Anthony and Chrissie Foster, with slashed wrists after a suicide attempt. Pell had met with the Fosters in their parish after he had heard of the dreadful experiences of their daughter. It was in that meeting that the Fosters say they produced the photo of their daughter Emma. When Carleton produced the photograph, Pell said: I've never seen the photo with the slashed wrists. When Carleton mentioned that the Fosters had said that they'd given it to him some six years earlier, Pell responded: I don't believe I've seen that. I have no recollection of that. More than a decade later, at the Victorian parliamentary inquiry, Pell was asked whether, when shown a photo of Emma Foster after she had slashed her wrists, he had responded, 'Hmm, she's changed, hasn't she?' In responding to this question, Pell replied, 'Probably,' but that the production of the photo was something sudden and that he 'didn't have a chance for a considered response'. In the later 60 Minutes episode, this was sensationalised as a 'bombshell' admission that followed 'years of denial'. Pell had never denied seeing the photograph, let alone persisted in such a denial for years. He had merely said that he did not recall seeing the photograph. It does not appear that, between that interview and his 2013 testimony before the Victorian inquiry, Pell publicly mentioned the photograph at all, let alone engaged in some persistent denial that it had been produced by the Fosters. Alas, truth does not make for good television, nor does it assist in building a narrative about an unsympathetic Pell that 60 Minutes and other outlets—including Fairfax Media, the ABC and The Guardian, to name a few—were so eager to portray. Pell did not receive a fair trial and saw his unjust jailing almost universally celebrated by a public whose opinions had been shaped by a biased media so eager to delight in his conviction that they had broken a court suppression order to do so. Too few voices were raised in his defence, and those who did speak out were vilified. It is important when facts are obscured that the truth, with the benefit of hindsight and calm reflection, be placed on our parliamentary record and spoken in this place. This is simply because, as Pell said on his release from prison in April last year: The only basis for long-term healing is truth and the only basis for justice is truth, because justice means truth for all. I look forward to more truth telling on this issue. To be continued. Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, Tame, Ms Grace 92 20:40 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak on ovarian cancer, as I do every February for Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. This is an incredibly important cause, and it is a time when we recognise and support women diagnosed with ovarian cancer and their families. This year marks Ovarian Cancer Australia's 20th anniversary. From its humble beginnings, this organisation has become the leading national body taking action for Australians affected by ovarian cancer. The challenges of 2020 have placed extraordinary pressure on Australian charities, and as a result Ovarian Cancer Australia had a year like no other. Despite the challenges, Ovarian Cancer Australia shifted to a new normal by increasing their telehealth capacity and taking more of their work onto a digital platform in order to provide their essential services. Despite these efforts, since the start of the pandemic there has been a significant drop in cancer cases being diagnosed in Australia. Understandably, COVID-19 has placed a strain on all of us in some way and caused a lot of fear and anxiety around contracting the virus. This has seen a lot of Australians deferring medical attention for new symptoms or attendance at routine follow-up appointments. Cancer does not disappear as a result of reducing testing; it just goes undetected. That is why it is so important to be aware of the signs and symptoms of ovarian cancer and to talk to your GP and rebook any missed medical appointments. This year, to help raise awareness through February, we suggest hosting a Teal Tea for friends, family and colleagues. Ovarian cancer is the eighth most common cancer in Australia. Every year, around 1,580 Australian women are diagnosed, with the overall five-year survival rate for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer being just 46 per cent. That means that of the four women who are diagnosed with ovarian cancer every day, three will die from the disease. There is no effective screening program or early detection test for ovarian cancer, so the best way of detecting the disease is to know the signs and symptoms. These symptoms can be mild or very similar to those of less serious medical conditions, but it is important to listen to your body, trust your instincts and see your doctor. As well as this, it is imperative that we all take the time to become informed of this disease so that all Australians are able to identify ovarian cancer and take action so that we can change these tragic statistics for future generations. The most reported symptoms for ovarian cancer include increased abdominal size or persistent abdominal bloating. We know that a lot of the symptoms are very similar to symptoms that women regularly feel. If these symptoms persist for two weeks or more, you should go and see your GP. If you're not comfortable with your doctor's diagnosis and you're still concerned about the unexplained persistent symptoms, you should always, always seek a second opinion, because you know your body better than anyone else. So you have to listen to your body, and you must persist until you're satisfied you have been correctly diagnosed. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for these symptoms to go unnoticed and, even when presented to your doctor, to be misdiagnosed or disregarded. This was evidenced in a 2015 national study by the national support and advocacy organisation Ovarian Cancer Australia, which found that the vast majority of women experience more than three of the common symptoms of ovarian cancer before their diagnosis and that most of the diagnoses were provoked by these concerns. Despite this, 47 per cent of diagnoses require two or more visits to a GP, 21 per cent of women had to go to three or more GPs and 18 per cent were presented to the emergency room. For a disease where early diagnosis dramatically increases your chances of survival, it is so important to advocate for yourself. If something doesn't feel right, as I said, you must persist. More resources are needed to educate and to find a cure for ovarian cancer so that we can give hope to women and reduce the number of women who die from this disease. It is alarming to consider that in my home state of Tasmania wait times to see a gynaecologist are, on average, 26 days for urgent referrals, 138 days for semi-urgent referrals and 286 days for non-urgent referrals. Given that the symptoms of ovarian cancer are associated with other non-serious conditions, women could be waiting for months to receive a diagnosis and treatment. This is simply unacceptable, and we all deserve better. Unfortunately, the likelihood of survival has not increased over the last 30 years. Ovarian cancer has the sixth highest mortality rate of all cancers amongst Australian women. I'd now like to turn to another issue that I want to speak about. Being a very proud Tasmanian—and I know that our Chief Whip, Senator Urquhart, and Senator McKim, as Tasmanians, would share this with me—I want to congratulate the 2021 Australian of the Year, a proud Tasmanian, Grace Tame. As a survivor of child sexual abuse, she displayed immeasurable courage and bravery in speaking out about her trauma and advocating for others who have not been able to speak out, who have been victims of this atrocious crime. For too long, victims of sexual abuse could not speak out about their experiences even if they wanted to. In what could only have been a gruelling process, Grace was required to obtain a special exemption from the Tasmanian Supreme Court to be able to speak out. But she didn't stop there; she kept fighting to have the archaic laws changed. This law allowed her abuser to speak out and to brag about his crime but put a gag order on Ms Tame. She wanted the world to know of the harrowing details of her case, and she wanted to warn us of the disturbing and sinister process of child grooming. She was vulnerable and, in what was a clear imbalance of power, she was taken advantage of at the hands of a calculating and very manipulative perpetrator. Her courage and her advocacy for sexual assault survivors are inspiring to each and every one of us. Her encouragement of individuals to tell their stories has an immeasurable impact on them and our community. I think the hashtag #LetHerSpeak campaign will continue to lead and give courage to those marginalised girls and young men who have been abused and who deserve to be heard and supported. No-one should ever be ashamed or be shamed into being silenced and just having to tolerate what happened to them. For Grace Tame, her title provides her with an unparalleled platform to be able to continue championing her cause and the issues that she has been acknowledged for. It was a brave move from a young woman who had to tell her story, a story that unfortunately hadn't been told often enough in this country. Through her bravery, she has shone a light on the issues around the sexual abuse and grooming of children that is happening every single day in our communities. So I want to put on the record—as have so many people through the media, social media and other forums—my congratulations to her on being the Australian of the Year. As a proud Tasmanian, I wish you all the very best for the years to come. COVID-19: Overseas Travel 93 20:50 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Today I once again raise the plight of temporary visa holders who have been stranded overseas due to Australia's international border closure. In particular, I want to talk about the children who have been separated from one or both of their parents for up to a year. I'm aware of cases involving 42 children from 34 families who have had their lives ripped apart by the government's cold-hearted approach. The pain, the anguish and the trauma that is being caused to these children and their parents is incalculable, and there is no end in sight. They remain locked out of our country simply because they are on temporary visas and cannot get an exemption to return home to Australia. Today, I'm going to read out the names of these children so that colleagues can understand that we're dealing with real humans, real children and real families. Firstly, there is Gurman who is only 18 months old and who is staying with extended family in India. She is separated from both of her parents at 18 months old. I'm aware of nine children who were born in Australia and have lived their whole lives in Australia: Danny Talebbi, who is 12 months old and whose father, Hassan, is an asylum seeker and cannot leave Australia; Tavia Singh, who is 13 months old; Delisha Patel, who is 15 months old; Zerawah Daniel, who is 25 months old; Adarsh Patel, who is 21 months; Caylam, who is two years old; Namet Dhaliwal, who is three years old; Mayise, who is three years old; and Amarin Lahoria, who is four years old. Each of those children is stranded overseas with one parent while the other parent is in Australia. Then there are four mothers that I'm aware of who were forced to have their babies overseas. These four children have never met their fathers. Murisa is three months old. His mother, Afreen, was forced to have him in India. Barisa Hassan is five months old. His mother, Aman, was forced to have him in Pakistan. Noah is six months old. His mother, Melanie, was forced to have him in Mauritius. Yosef Mussaf is seven months old. His mother, Sara, was forced to have him in Egypt. Remember, they were forced to have their babies overseas, and the babies have never met their fathers. We have 28 children of skilled visa holders and international students who we invited to come to Australia: Maheen Usman is 18 months old. Mayura Guleria is 19 months old. Amelia Anas is 22 months old. Tejashwi Pradeep is two years old. Devan Silva is three years old. Navira Hashmi is four years old. Harsab Pannu is four years old. Kean Malik is four years old. Omar is four years old. Deana Saga is five years old. Ananya and Ishani Singh are seven months old and 13 months old respectively. Fahid Nafi is seven years old. Torsa Ekram is eight years old. Ali Yosef and Mohammed Jawad Patel are eight years old and five years old respectively. Kritika Karwa is nine years old. Samyukta and Soham Sensarma are 15 years old and eight years old respectively. Leander Lara, Kenny Lara and Emmanuel Giovane are 13 years old, 11 years old and 19 months old respectively. Shamanta and Nashita Islam are 13 years old and nine years old respectively. Djorko and Davor Miloshevsky are 16 years old and 14 years old respectively. There are also children from two other families, aged nine and two, who are stranded overseas. All of those children are stranded overseas with one parent and separated from their other parent, who is in Australia. They have suffered rejection after rejection after rejection by this government. And the government says these children don't meet the government's criteria for a compelling and compassionate case. Some of these families have been rejected 60 times. In what world, colleagues, does a child being separated from one or both parents for more than 12 months not count as compelling and compassionate? This pain and trauma has to be stopped. We have to look after these families and allow them to be reunited as soon as possible, and I again implore the government to grant exemptions to all families where a child is separated from one or both of their parents irrespective of their visa class. But it's not just children who've been separated from their parents; couples have also been torn apart by Australia's travel ban. I'm currently advocating for 199 couples who are separated. Some separated couples are on temporary visas. Some are Australian citizens whose partners are stranded offshore, because they are on temporary visas. And yet other couples are separated while they wait for their partner visas and prospective marriage visas to be processed. Many are experiencing such extreme stress and pain due to the 10-month-plus separation from their partners that they are experiencing mental health issues for the first time in their lives. I ask senators: how would we all feel if we couldn't see our partners or our children for 10 or more months with no end in sight? In my office, I also have on my books 358 people and families separated from their homes and lives who've come to me, desperate for help. There are entire families on temporary visas that are stranded overseas. While they aren't separated from each other, they are separated from their jobs, their incomes, their assets, their homes, their communities and their lives. These are families languishing overseas with only what they packed in their travel bags. Sleeping on couches, staying with family and friends, and waiting and pleading for the government to address their situation. Then there are the skilled visa holders that we invited into this country because we wanted their skills. They, too, are stranded overseas. Chefs, construction workers, teachers, mechanics, lawyers, IT consultants, accountants, people who work in the aged-care sector. The businesses they work for are suffering losses from the ongoing absence of key team members during what are already very difficult economic times. I'm also aware of people on student and graduate visas who've now paid thousands of dollars to come and study here and are watching their visas run down and expire through no fault of their own. People on temporary visas have a legal right to be here in Australia. They are not tourists or people hoping to come here for a holiday. They live here. Their homes are here. Their jobs are here. Their lives are here. Their families are here. They work here and pay taxes here. We have an obligation to these people to do the right thing and let them come home. I implore the government to address these issues and I implore the government to address the people in these horrendous circumstances directly. Tell them what your plan is for them. Show them the respect and courtesy they deserve. We invited them into our country. Many of them are guests in our country; others work in our country. Many have built lives in our country. Their children go to school in our country. They own businesses in our country. They pay and have paid taxes in our country. We are a better country than this. When you invite people into your homes you don't slam the door in their faces when the going gets tough, but that's exactly what we have done to countless people who are living their lives in absolute distress, because this government believes that they should not be allowed to return to their homes here in Australia. We've got to do better. Manufacturing 95 21:00 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I am a passionate believer in Australia's manufacturing industry, and, hence, I am a passionate supporter of the Scott Morrison government's advanced manufacturing strategy. If the last year has taught us anything it is that we must make more things here in Australia. As a sovereign country we need to be less dependent upon overseas supply chains. We need to add value to our vast natural resources. We need to unleash that great Australian entrepreneurial spirit, which has been at the forefront of some of the greatest inventions the world has ever seen. The government's modern manufacturing strategy has four pillars: first, getting the economic conditions right for business; second, making science and technology work for industry; third, focusing on areas of advantage; and, fourth, building national resilience for a strong economy. Recently I had the opportunity to see how the government's manufacturing strategy has translated to assisting manufacturing businesses on the ground to grow and to prosper. I visited two great Queensland businesses with Minister Karen Andrews, the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Minister Andrews is a great Queenslander and she is doing great work in overseeing the government's advanced manufacturing policy. The first business we visited was Trumps food and product processors. Trumps are wholesalers, distributors and processors of nuts, dried fruits and more to the retail food service and manufacturing industries. They are a third-generation Queensland-owned business—three generations! They were established in 1939 by Dr John Leslie Dart, who was actually an eye specialist in Brisbane. Dr Dart's son Mr John P Dart took over the business and continued to grow it. Mr John P Dart's son Declan Dart is now the managing director. Three generations in one family building a great Queensland manufacturing business. It was a privilege to visit them. Trumps food and product processors received assistance from the Morrison government to invest in an autocoding software system and automatic labelling hardware, which has increased their efficiency, increased their production and increased their employment. It's a win, win, win all round. I was so impressed with the facility and the passion of the staff. You can tell a business has a great culture the moment you step into it. There is no better example, in the case of Trumps, than when the Trumps operation at Rocklea was inundated by the Brisbane flood in January 2011. However, the company's employees, suppliers and customers rallied around them and helped the business get back in an extraordinarily short period of time. I should also note that Mr Declan Dart's father, Mr John P Dart—the second generation in this extraordinary tale; this great Queensland success story—has recently passed away. I say to the Dart family: what a legacy Mr John P Dart has left—a legacy which I'm sure will continue to go from strength to strength. The second company I was delighted to visit with Minister Andrews was a company called the Evolve Group. The managing director of that company is Mr Ty Hermans. The Evolve Group has helped develop, manufacture and bring to market inventions with a specialty in plastics and composites. They recently received funds from the federal government's Innovation Connections program, which promotes collaboration between small and medium sized Australian businesses in the research sector to develop new ideas with commercial potential. Mr Hermans has been undertaking some absolutely inspiring work in this space. During the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, he actually managed to source equipment from China, which enabled face masks to be produced, and they're being produced today—Minister Andrews and I saw them being produced—in the facility at Crestmead, south of Brisbane. I was so impressed with the vision, the Aussie know-how, the technology and, again, the culture of that organisation. I was so impressed with their industrial designers, where every single millimetre can make such a difference to the commerciality of a product. I was so impressed by their re-use of plastics. I picked up a pool filter that had been manufactured out of recycled plastic Coke bottles. It is absolutely amazing stuff. This isn't recycling; it's upcycling, and it's being done here in Australia. I say to Mr Ty Hermans and his team: government can do only so much; it is the entrepreneurial spirit of Mr Hermans and his team that is driving the success of this company, with a little bit of support from the Scott Morrison government. Finally, I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate another great Queensland company, Ellume. Today they announced that they've been awarded a $300 million contract from the US Department of Defense to provide 8.5 million at-home COVID test kits to the United States. Just think about that: a company in my home state of Queensland, in Brisbane, has just been awarded a $300 million contract to manufacture take-home COVID-19 tests and export them to the United States. And that's happening here, in Australia. It's absolutely inspiring. Ellume is at the forefront of creating digitally connected diagnostic devices, allowing individuals to self-test for diseases such as the flu. I pay tribute to Dr Sean Parsons, the company's managing director, and to that great group of original investors and shareholders who had faith in Dr Sean Parsons and his vision and who invested in that company. I also pay tribute to all the staff who've been part of that journey. When I visited the business in 2019 I immediately got a sense of the culture of teamwork. The employees really enjoy working for that company; you could see it. They were part of the journey, and that has all the hallmarks of a successful organisation. So, there we have it: three great Australian manufacturing companies at the forefront of their respective industries today. And there are some common themes there: visionary entrepreneurial leadership, a culture of great teamwork, great Aussie know-how, and support from the Scott Morrison government. With those things, absolutely nothing's going to stop the growth of the Australian manufacturing sector, and that's got to be a wonderful thing—a terrific thing—for my home state of Queensland and for our beautiful country. JobSeeker Payment, Google 96 21:08 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania One of the only good things to come out of last year was when the government upped JobSeeker payments by $550 a fortnight. I know how much that money meant to people. It gave more than a million Australians a chance to breathe. They finally had their head above water. There are people out there who had been getting by for years on hardly anything at all, and they had found that really hard. For the first time in a long time, they saw a meaningful rise in their incomes. They could pay their rego, put their aircon on without having to worry about the cost or buy their kids a cheap laptop so they could do their schoolwork online. For the whole lot of people who lost their jobs through the pandemic, those who went on JobSeeker payments kept things on track while they waited for things to pick up again. The government says they're going to take away that coronavirus money in March. When that happens, a single person will have to find a way to live and look for work on $283 a week. I can tell you we've seen all this before, and it's not much to live on. There are going to be a lot of people out there who just can't get by on such a tiny amount of money. Some of them will have to stop paying rent on their homes. They might find themselves having to move further away from where the new jobs are. They might not be able to afford their car registration anymore. I don't want the government to push people into desperation in a couple of months. Government policy shouldn't create desperation. That's a pretty basic standard, I would have thought. But I also understand where members of the coalition are coming from when they say that the supplement needs to be scaled back and that, if we kept the coronavirus supplement at $550 forever, we would start to see problems with people choosing to stay on welfare instead of getting back into work. I get that. This is the thing: if we go back to the old JobSeeker rate, people just aren't going to be able to keep their heads above water. At the same time, the government aren't going to raise the rate. They're determined to go back to the good old payment rate when the coronavirus supplement ends in March. There are some people who want to hit the government over and over again about how awful they are for not raising it. I get that. It is awful that people are going to have to go back to living on nothing. But no matter how much we stomp our feet about it there are going to be jobseekers who need help and who are not going to get it no matter how much outrage there is going on and no matter whether or not they are getting food in their bellies for every meal that they should be having. There are other people out there who say we've just got to focus on getting people into work instead of raising the rate, and they're right too. But the thing is that living on nothing makes it harder to do that when you can't afford the shoes, the suit jacket and the bag you need to show up for a job interview and look like a good candidate and compete with the rest of them. What makes it worse is that, when the government wind back the COVID-19 support, they're going to go back to the old income test that we had before. That test takes 50c out of every dollar someone on JobSeeker earns after they've worked for more than three hours a week. There's no carrot at the end of the stick. It takes 60c out of every dollar they earn from working more than seven hours a week. Once again, there's no carrot at the end of the stick. The government like to cut taxes because taxes discourage people from working. When the government clip 30c in every dollar you earn, they say that's enough to make people want to earn less. I agree. What I don't get is how losing 30c in the dollar stops you from wanting to work but losing 60c in the dollar apparently isn't a problem. We reward people going from JobSeeker into a job by taxing them at a higher rate than what Malcolm Turnbull is currently paying. We pat them on the back and say, 'We're proud of you, mate,' and then we shake them down for half their money. How is this supposed to help and encourage people to go back to work? I want to find a way through this. Using the old method is unthinkable. It is just not working. I'm not talking about money for nothing here, and I'm not talking keeping it the way it is either. We can do better than punish jobseekers for getting a job. It is just not encouraging. It's not working. There are much better ways of doing it and we could come out on top and so could the people out there who are on JobSeeker. But, right now, we need the carrot at the end of the stick, not punishment, because that's done whoop-de-doo. It's gone from seven hours to 12 hours to 18 hours. That's how that's supposed to work. That's the reality of it. That's how the cashless debit card is supposed to work. You're supposed to have a carrot at the end of the stick. That's in Twiggy Forrest's Creating parityreport. We've got to have a carrot at the end of the stick, but we are still using the old method. We have a perfect opportunity to reset how we deal with this and we're not doing that, and I have to ask why. I want to now speak about the media bargaining code, because I find this quite amusing to be honest with you. The major parties are falling over themselves to support the media bargaining code. I get that. Google and Facebook haven't got a lot of friends in this place right now. There are plenty out there. Trust me. They love them. But cool your jets, guys, because this code is not as crash-hot as you think it is or as it might appear. Google and Facebook bring eyeballs to news companies. They help people find their news these days. The cost of delivering those eyeballs isn't free. It takes hundreds of millions of dollars for Google and Facebook to make a product good enough to take over the whole market. It's paid for with advertising. Google's basically got a monopoly on the search engines. If you want to run any advertising against search results, you've got to go through Google. The code would mean that some of that advertising revenue that Google gets from companies would be required to be handed over to news companies. Google has three options here. It charges more for advertising to keep its profits at the same rate, it charges the same amount for advertising and its shareholders just take a hit or it pulls out and goes elsewhere. No media companies get a benefit and no Australian consumer gets a benefit. I get that Google is a big, bad boy right now, but, let's be honest: it's only as big as it is because it has a better product than its competitors. How about that? That's how it works in big business. It is using its money to improve the standards of its products, and that's a good thing for consumers. We get a better service and we don't have to pay for it. If you don't believe me then spend a day using Yahoo, and good luck to you with that! So Google has a monopoly, and it has three choices: if Google is made to pay more for that monopoly then they're just going to pass on that cost to their consumers, because there's nobody else who can compete with them on that price. They're a monopoly. They don't have any competition. News Corp and Nine don't care about that; they're not the ones who would have to pay the piper. The ones who pay for it are the people who rely on digital ads to promote their businesses. This is what really, really gets me: they're plumbers, they're florists, they're pizza shops, they're hairdressers and they're shoe stores. They aren't making millions, I can tell you. Their advertising budget is tiny—absolutely tiny! It is measured in three or four figures. Taxes can't turn a monopoly into a market; all you're taxing is the end user. For Google, that's the advertiser; it's the small business out there. I'm no big fan of Google or Facebook—don't get me wrong—and I think we need more good journalism in Australia. I tell you what, we could certainly do with that; I think we'd all have to agree on that. And we aren't going to get that by sitting on our butts and waiting for some decent rain. But if we want Google and Facebook to contribute to a better society, let's just tax them. Don't create a code. Common sense is to tax them—just make them pay some tax! I don't know if they should get a special set of rules but I don't think they should get a special exemption either. If we want decent journalism, let's pay for it out of the tax. Make it tax-deductible. Expand grants for quality journalism and invest in regional newsgathering. Back public broadcasters and don't keep taking bricks out of the walls, saying that they've got enough left not to notice the difference. Sooner or later, they won't have enough left. Invest in newswire services like AAP which are independent not-for-profits that exist only to deliver news, unbiased and accurate, from anywhere to everyone for no other reason than because news matters. This code deserves a bit more scrutiny than the free run it's getting right now. Not everything that hurts the big, bad company of the day automatically becomes good, not when the ones who end up paying the bill aren't the big, bad companies at all. They're smaller than News Corp and Nine; they're smaller than them. They're the ones in my backyard, trying to survive and keep their doors open and their businesses open. That's why it's so much easier to ignore it when they're being thrown under the bus, and it is just not fair. It is not fair that you pay advertising money for small business— (Time expired) Mining Industry 98 21:18 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I have a duty to raise and fix issues that are both hurting and concerning everyday Australians. As a senator, I work for the people. Tonight, I raise a matter of great concern for everyday Australians, particularly our hardworking coalminers. Australian workers are feeling afraid for their jobs, for their livelihoods and for their futures. Workers need fairness, integrity, trust and accountability. I'm concerned for the many workers and businesses, small and large, that have suffered from state and federal government COVID restrictions. Business leaders and workers are all looking for direction from this government, yet at the same time a government authority is doing the wrong thing and abusing workers. What I've witnessed since coalminer Stuart Bonds and I took up the cause of the exploited, abused and discarded Hunter Valley casual coalminers is pointing to potential systemic failures and possible corruption inside a government agency. This is an agency that Hunter Valley CFMMEU bosses and Minerals Council of New South Wales executives jointly govern and direct. We Australians cannot afford for our own government to continue shonky behaviour at a time when we should be spending our money wisely. Thanks to Stuart Bonds' voluntary help for abandoned workers, like Simon Turner and others, the Coal LSL scam was uncovered. Simon Turner and many workers wrote for help to their local MPs, including Joel Fitzgibbon, six times, and to this day Joel Fitzgibbon has ignored their letters six times. Joel Fitzgibbon has been the member for Hunter since 1996, so it's surprising that he does not know that coalminers are the key to this area's future. The agency involved is the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation, better known as Coal LSL, an Australian government corporation established to regulate and manage long service leave entitlements on behalf of eligible employees in the black coal mining industry. What I hear is that governance isn't just lacking; it's completely absent. I'm yet to hear why casuals get a different long service leave rate to permanents on the same rosters doing the same work. Why? As an example, Coal LSL's system seems incapable of checking whether an employee actually receives their correct long service leave entitlement. Coal LSL just accepts an employer's letter and pays the employer. There's no validation or checking of entitlement payments to employees. A recent analysis of information that Coal LSL themselves provided reveals evidence of duplication, even triplication, of transactions paid to employers. Their reporting, recently supplied to me, is unclear. Levy reimbursements during 2018, for example, include a category for details 'not readily available'. What does that mean? Another example are the $264,000 of refunds, not reimbursements, paid out from July 2017 to November 2018. What are these refunds? Where's the transparency? Coal LSL makes lump sum payments that again make reconciliation complex and difficult. For example, one of BHP's operational services entities in the Hunter Valley received $187,881.77 in a single transaction in May 2020. For who? It seems that Coal LSL may not be able to confirm employees are even real people as they do not collect ABN or tax file numbers; they simply get a name and a date of birth. They're operating in the Dark Ages and need a modern system to prevent fraud. In some cases, we've heard of companies in Singleton being reimbursed for coal long service leave even though they don't work in coal mining. In one case, Coal LSL paid reimbursements totalling approximately $57,000 to the wife of the owner of a Queensland company with no state office. Why? We have learnt of an employee not receiving onboarding information about the Coal LSL scheme, particularly with regard to the employee option to opt out of the scheme and save money. Recently, a coalminer reported that Coal LSL debited his entitlement for 250 hours of long service leave when he actually had not taken any leave from his employer. Where's the governance? Concerns have been expressed to me that Coal LSL's current processes might enable a bogus company to register and then to possibly launder money through Coal LSL and then reclaim the funds cleaned and available to be transferred to criminals. Where are the checks in the system? The CEO—listen to this!—whose annual remuneration is a staggering $430,187, and her governance officer have clearly been asleep at the wheel. I have personally challenged Coal LSL many times at Senate estimates, and they don't understand how entitlements are accrued, invested, reconciled and paid to individual coalminers. The CEO could not provide a satisfactory response to a simple question with regard to how Coal LSL accounts for moneys paid in and moneys paid then to employees. The question is: if bogus companies have been paid in the last seven years, how could this not be picked up? I'm informed that Coal LSL takes registered companies at their word. That has already led to Coal LSL admitting, under my questioning, serious errors in miners' accounts and entitlements. As Coal LSL has revealed in Senate estimates, it's not listened to the complaints of many coalminers who found discrepancies in their entitlements. What's more, once discrepancies have been raised with them, Coal LSL are slow or unresponsive. I encourage coalminers to check that Coal LSL has correctly stated their entitlements so they're not ripped off. Simon Turner, an exploited Hunter Valley coalminer, is a case in point. After years of requests and complaints, Coal LSL took the word of his rogue employer, Chandler Macleod, over solid evidence and Simon's legitimate request for a fair go. Coal LSL is lax at informing employees of their options, with many casual miners not told that they're entitled to choose to not contribute to the scheme and to instead take their employer's cash contributions as cash in hand. Let's face it: at the moment, Coal LSL receives the employer contributions for many casual coalminers, who it never has to pay out if employees do not stay for the eight-year qualifying period. Where does this mountain of cash go, and how is it accounted for? What I do know is that many casuals would be better off avoiding Coal LSL. There are many examples of Coal LSL failing in its obligations and failing to have appropriate checks and balances to verify that employees are getting their entitlements. For all we know, there may be systemic corruption on this government's watch. Have unaccountable union bosses and New South Wales Minerals Council executives om this Morrison government authority lined their pockets using bogus companies, at the expense of coalminers throughout Australia? We just do not know. Clearly, it is time for change. We're talking about an authority that thousands of workers rely on to protect long-service-leave entitlements—an authority with a culture of bias towards pleasing the employer, not of protecting and being accountable for employees' entitlements. This is not the Coal LSL clerical staff's fault; it's the board and management who must stand up and be held to account. Governance does not exist, and the culture of Coal LSL is not solutions or customer focused. Clearly it is time for change. For too long Coal LSL has operated as a rogue government authority. Until I brought them before Senate estimates, they were never called upon to explain their actions. It was the suffering of exploited and abandoned workers like Simon Turner that put a spotlight on Coal LSL and its culture, which ignores abandoned workers. Clearly, it is time for change, and that change must be now. Today, Stuart Bonds and I are strongly advocating for change in Coal LSL and a reconciliation of all accounts and entitlements, to ensure that workers and employers are not being ripped off. Stuart Bonds and I pledge to work for justice for workers hurting from the actions of unthinking, uncaring, unaccountable government authorities like Coal LSL, authorities under the joint control of shadowy union bosses and a Minerals Council acting for uncaring mining conglomerates—the same mining companies and union bosses that enable the exploitation of casual miners in the Hunter Valley. Clearly, it is time for a change. Coal LSL needs to be taken out of the hands of self-interested parties. Coal LSL management needs a broom put through it, a change, to build an open, honest, transparent, accountable culture to protect the entitlements of everyday Australian workers. I implore all workers and everyday Australians, rural and city, to vote with your feet. Please go and tell your local union branch, member of parliament and senator that you expect workers' rights and entitlements to be protected. Tell Joel Fitzgibbon that the time for talk is over and that it's time for action. Tell Joel Fitzgibbon, the New South Wales Minerals Council and the CFMEU Hunter Valley union bosses that Coal LSL, like all government bodies, must demonstrate the highest standards of integrity, protect workers' interests and behave with common sense and transparency. Workers in Australia deserve integrity and support. Trade Unions 99 21:28 Senator ABETZ N26 Tasmania The union movement's disgraceful 'stop the bus' campaign invites the rightful retort 'stop the BS'. The unions involved know the campaign is based on falsehoods and is cynically designed to scare people. In doing so, they distract attention from the important work of the Registered Organisations Commission, which recently recommenced its investigation into serious allegations of the unauthorised use of funds from the Australian Workers Union under its former national secretary Mr Shorten. This brings to an end three years of diversions, vilification and failed legal challenges by the AWU and the ALP in their attempts to prevent the ROC from undertaking this investigation. This follows the decision of the full bench of the Federal Court in November to comprehensively reject the desperate attempts of the AWU to shut down the investigation. For three years the AWU abused its members' money, engaging in frivolous and vexatious lawfare to try and prevent the investigation. Its desperate tactic was to attempt to destroy evidence. Fortunately, a brave whistleblower inside the AWU alerted the ROC to this activity and the ROC was compelled to procure search warrants for the AFP to seize this evidence before it could be destroyed. This was back in October 2017. Since then, the AWU has desperately tried to challenge this process in the courts, but the courts have found that the actions of the ROC and the AFP were all beyond reproach. Every single claim made by the AWU in relation to the actions and motives of the ROC, the AFP and the government in this matter have been comprehensively rejected by judges. The AWU asserted collusion between the government and the ROC in commencing the investigation. It lost. It asserted collusion between government and the AFP. It lost. It asserted that the ROC had acted at the direction of the government. It lost. It asserted the ROC's decision to investigate was made for an improper political purpose. It lost. It tried to challenge the decision of the Magistrates' Court of Victoria to grant the search warrants. It lost. It asserted that the AFP's decision to execute the search warrants was invalid. It lost. It sought a court order to prevent the ROC from ever looking into these matters at all. It lost. So now, after three years, the ROC can finally receive the documents seized by the AFP that the AWU were so desperate to hide. Whilst ultimately futile, the AWU's doomed and expensive court process did have the effect of delaying the ROC's ability to commence its investigation, it had presumably hoped to frustrate the process for enough time for Labor to win the last election, after which Labor would abolish the ROC. In this endeavour as well, thankfully, it lost. There is one element of the AWU's tactics which demands closer scrutiny, and that is what the ALP, under Mr Shorten, would have done if it had won in 2019. It's well known that Labor policy was to abolish the ROC, but this would have required legislation which may by no means be assured. It took three years to pass the legislation in the first place. It may have taken just as long to abolish the ROC. To forestall this possibility, the would-be-Shorten government had another dirty trick up its sleeve to frustrate the ROC's investigation. Mr Shorten was planning to immediately defund the ROC. This would not require legislation, but could be done at any time by an incumbent government. By starving it of funds, it would have prevented the ROC from defending itself against the AWU's costly legal challenge and it would have starved it of resources to conduct any investigation once the AWU's legal case inevitably failed. All this is there on page 26 of the ALP's election costings document. Mr Shorten's costings document reveals they would have slashed the funding for these organisations but not provided extra funding to either ASIC or the Fair Work Commission to ensure that appropriate probity might be exercised by registered organisations. Equally notably, the ALP costings did not include those much needed increases. In other words, there would be no resources anywhere for anyone to continue the work of the ROC. This would have meant all investigations and all legal proceedings underway would need to be dropped. For whose benefit? Only one person's: Mr Shorten. This plan reflects an extraordinarily devious and manipulative attempt. By shutting down an agency that had an investigation on foot in which Mr Shorten was a key person of interest, he would have used his powers to evade any possibility of being held to account. This would have represented the most significant conflict of interest ever for an Australian Prime Minister. It also would have been the most politically corrupt act ever by an Australian Prime Minister. Shutting down or hobbling law enforcement agencies that may be investigating members of the government is the stuff of Putin's Russia or tin-pot dictatorships. The idea that we would have seen such actions in Australia is truly sinister and worrying. We should all be grateful that it never came to pass. Now, thankfully, the ROC can undertake this much-needed investigation. Of course the AWU promised it would cooperate. It did not do so. Indeed, a report in The Australian newspaper on 9 March 2019 said: AWU national secretary Daniel Walton has promised to release all documents once the legal process is completed, even if the union loses the current court case. Not surprisingly, Mr Walton has not lived up to that promise. I also remind the Senate of Mr Walton's comments at a press conference on 24 October in which he said: 'The AWU has and will always cooperate with any investigation, be it with the Registered Organisations Commission or any other body set out to investigate us. We've cooperated from the beginning.' If so, why the three years of lawfare? The claims, of course, are as brazenly dishonest as Mr Walton's so-called promise to release the evidence. If Mr Shorten is found to have misappropriated funds from his union then he will be no different to other former union bosses such as Kathy Jackson, Craig Thomson and Michael Williamson, all of whom were found guilty of similar conduct at their union, the HSU, at the same time as Mr Shorten's alleged breaches over at the AWU. The difference between the HSU and the AWU is the new leadership of the HSU co-operated, cleaned up and sought to protect its members. The current leadership of the AWU is continuing to work and conspire with the old leadership of the AWU to ensure these things are not cleaned up and to ensure that these things are not exposed and brought to light. In the weeks and months to come, Mr Shorten will finally be held to account for any wrongdoing in which he may have engaged. But we should remember the old truism that it's not necessarily the crime but the cover-up that is worse. Just as Mr Shorten should be held to account for any misuse of his position at the AWU for his own benefit, so too should Daniel Walton and anyone else who has misused their position at the AWU to run an equally scandalous cover-up. More importantly, the Australian people need to be reminded that Mr Shorten put forward to the Australian people specific policies designed to ensure the nobbling of an investigation into his personal activities whilst he was secretary of the AWU. That makes him a person unfit for public office. It remains to be seen what is ultimately determined in this matter, but I look forward to the ROC's full investigation. Human Rights 101 21:38 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria As Australian Greens spokesperson on foreign affairs, it's a sad reality that too often I have to rise to speak in this place of attacks on human rights around the world. We will continue to speak out about human rights violations, wherever they occur, because we believe that universal human rights are fundamental and must be respected and protected in all countries and for all people. That's why we call out human rights violations here in Australia wherever they occur, and we will do the same in other countries wherever that happens. Like millions around the world, I'm incredibly concerned about the declaration of emergency law by the Myanmar military and the unlawful detention of Aung San Suu Kyi, President Win Myint and other individuals. The November 2020 general elections reflected the will of the people of Myanmar to keep building their democracy and must be respected. We urge the Myanmar military to release those that have been detained and to cease interference with election outcomes and democratic transition. I visited Myanmar in January 2019 as part of a mentoring program for women MPs, organised by the International Women's Development Agency, IWDA. I worked with the program over the last two years, including hosting a group of women MPs who visited us here in Australia. I'm now really worried for their safety and the safety of the other MPs who've recently been elected. Being involved in the IWDA mentoring program made us very aware of how the road to democracy is a bumpy one, but we did not foresee that the military would be so brazen as to take control and overturn a democratic election result. There are steps that the Australian government can and should take immediately. Australia must scrap all military ties with Myanmar until democratic processes have been restored and we should impose targeted sanctions on General Min Aung Hlaing and all others involved in this action by the military. We should also accept any political refugees from Myanmar seeking protection in Australia. Moving to Sri Lanka: sadly, we have seen the release of a report by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which warned that the failure of Sri Lanka to address past violations has significantly heightened the risk of human rights violations being repeated. It highlights worrying trends over the past year, such as deepening impunity, increasing militarisation of government functions, ethno-nationalist rhetoric and intimidation of civil society. There are two particular issues I want to mention tonight. We've heard from many community members and groups that they are devastated by a Sri Lankan government policy forcing the cremation of the bodies of people who have died from COVID-19, even where this goes against the wishes of family members. It's particularly concerning, given there is no advice from the World Health Organization recommending cremation. It appears to be a particular persecution of Muslim people, for whom cremation goes against their religious practices. I'm also very concerned by reports of the destruction of the Mullivaikkal Tamil genocide memorial monument inside the premises of the Jaffna university by the Sri Lankan state and a pattern of destroying Tamil monuments. So to all Sri Lankan community members who have been in touch: I hear you and we're incredibly concerned about what's been happening. We call upon the Sri Lankan government to protect the human rights of all of its citizens and we urge our Australian government, particularly Minister Payne, to raise this issue with their Sri Lankan counterparts at both ambassadorial and ministerial level. As well as speaking out for the human rights of those in countries around the world, tonight I want to particularly highlight the human rights of Australians stranded overseas—the stranded Aussies. Amnesty International has been vocal on this issue and I want to thank both Amnesty and the many individual Australians and community groups who've campaigned incredibly hard on stranded Australians. As Amnesty International said: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights say that everyone has the right to return home to their country, and shall never be deprived of the right to enter their own country. Of course we recognise the importance of complying with health advice, but the clear role here is for the Commonwealth to step up and to show genuine leadership by creating more quarantine facilities. Section 51(ix) of the Constitution explicitly provides a head of power for the Commonwealth with respect to quarantine. The Commonwealth has a real responsibility here. Instead, Prime Minister Morrison has abandoned Australians overseas and tried to pretend that quarantine is a state responsibility. Let's be very clear: we call on the Australian government to do everything it can to build and fund new quarantine facilities, or to repurpose existing facilities, that are safe and comfortable to enable Australians stranded overseas to return home. Yes, this may incur an additional cost but this is a real responsibility that we have to Australians overseas to ensure that they have a viable pathway home. We've heard some incredibly hard stories from people stranded overseas through the COVID-19 committee and expanding quarantine capacity would allow families to be reunited. It would bring people together, who haven't seen each other for years. It would mean that Australians could be brought back safe and sound to a country where they can rely on their networks and support from their and our government to respond to this pandemic, rather than being left stranded overseas. The Prime Minister must do more. If he cares about Australians, he needs to expand Commonwealth quarantine facilities. I also want to speak tonight about the situation in Western Sahara. The Australian Greens condemn the violence and the breakdown in the UN-backed ceasefire in Western Sahara. Any acts of aggression by the Moroccan government are unacceptable. We urge the UN to broker a ceasefire as soon as possible. More than that, we strongly support the right of the Saharawi people to self-determination. They've been waiting for decades for a referendum, and the United Nations should finally organise a free and fair referendum on independence in Western Sahara without further delay. The Australian government should do what it can to support those efforts. We call on it to use all diplomatic channels available to advocate for an immediate cessation of hostilities and support all efforts to organise a free and fair referendum on independence in Western Sahara. I also want to speak briefly about police brutality against pro-democracy demonstrators in Thailand. People have been protesting for months there, and we believe that the right to protest is important and must be protected. I understand that in Thailand in some instances police have set out barriers, including barbed wire, to prevent peaceful marchers from reaching the parliament. Beyond that, they've used water cannons laced with dye and chemicals, as well as tear gas grenades and pepper spray grenades. Water cannons were fired as part of an effort to disrupt and disperse protesters, some of whom were students and children. The reports indicate that protesters have been injured, including from tear gas, and some of those injured include very young children. So we call for action by the Thai government to protect human rights, and we call on the Australian government to make representations to its counterparts bilaterally and, as possible, through multilateral forums to advocate for the rights of protesters and to ensure that they are protected. I want to conclude my contribution tonight by supporting the protesting farmers in India. They have encountered an incredibly difficult situation. Even before the current protests began, farmers have long faced shrinking plot sizes and declining farm incomes, and now they are facing laws that would leave them even more at the mercy of the multinationals. Eleven rounds of negotiations have failed to resolve their concerns. They've protested for months, and it's tragic that 60 farmers have died during the protests. It's an incredibly concerning issue and one that we call on the government of India to address. The Indian government must abandon its unfair changes to its agricultural laws and do more to protect its farmers and ensure their human rights and wellbeing. Western Australia: Bushfires 102 21:47 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I rise tonight to speak on the current situation in Western Australia, where an absolutely dreadful wildfire is racing through the north and east of the city of Perth, heading down towards Ellenbrook. It's already destroyed at least 56 homes, and many others are damaged. Unfortunately, over the course of the evening, we could see that property toll increase. Thankfully, at this stage—and obviously this is still a situation very much in progress—there has been no loss of life caused by the bushfire. Everyone is accounted for according to the Department of Fire and Emergency Services in Western Australia, and that is obviously very good news. We must thank all those members of the firefighting service in Western Australia who are putting their lives on the line and protecting the property and lives of other Western Australians. Be they professional firefighters or volunteers, they are standing at the fire front and seeking to control an extraordinary blaze that is being fanned at the moment by extremely strong winds from the east. As we think about the nature of fire in our environment, we need to cast our minds back to the generations before and the way they dealt with the bush. The bush in Western Australia has been actively managed. It was actively managed by Indigenous Australians and it was actively managed by our farming communities and the forestry workers of the timber industry when it existed in significant fashion. In my home town of Pemberton, where there used to be many thousands of workers employed in the forestry industry, there was a cadre of people who understood the bush, who understood fire, who understood the heavy equipment and machinery needed. But the point is that people could be put on the ground. We had news come through this evening that a large water bomber has landed in Perth, coming from Sydney. That's great. They are an extremely useful tool, particularly in protecting property. But we must not get carried away by technology as the complete solution. This fire season we saw a significant fire on Fraser Island in Queensland. Something like 17 water bombers were used over the course of many hundreds of missions to try and control that fire, and the success was not terribly good. Water bombers, particularly in areas of heavy bush, cannot replace people on the ground. We as a society need to think about how we're going to manage those bush environments, to make sure that as our populations increase, and as we see more and more houses in peri-urban areas—in the last 10 years something like 300,000 new dwellings have entered peri-urban areas in Australia—we find ways of protecting those people, of managing the environment not only around our capital cities but also in regional areas. We must actively manage the land. Locking up and walking away is never a solution. As I've said, this land has been actively managed basically forever, since there have been humans on this continent. When my father was a young man, you could gallop through the bush around our family farm in Pemberton—in fact, we had the large coastal leases from our freehold land down to the coast. When the first members of the colony went south to take up land for agricultural purposes, they found bush that you could ride a horse through. This is not country that can be locked up and left. It needs regular cool burns in order both to be safe for human habitation and to keep the environment relatively clean and open. There are now pieces of bush, pieces of Karri forest, extensively throughout the South West where you literally cannot even physically walk through the bush. That is not how it was. That is not how it has been for thousands of years. Whilst we restrict and make it difficult for that land to be actively managed, whilst state governments fail in their responsibilities to actively manage the state forest under their jurisdiction, we are going to find a situation where these wildfires continue to grow in strength and continue to be a serious threat to both life and property. Water bombers are part of a modern arsenal of techniques that firefighters can use. But they are not going to replace those people on the ground with knowledge and skills—and not just when a fire is happening; there has got to be active management of the environment before those fires even occur. To do that, we must be much more active managers of that land right throughout the year. That needs to start as soon as possible. Auditor-General's Report No. 6 of 2018-19 103 21:54 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Before I commence my adjournment speech, I seek leave to table Auditor-General's report No. 6 of 2018-19, Army's protected mobility vehicle—light, a confidential report issued under section 37 of the Auditor-General Act that has now been released under FOI. Leave granted. For the first time the parliament is now able to see the material that was prepared for parliament by the Auditor-General but was then subsequently censored by the Attorney-General using a never-before-used power under section 37 of the Auditor-General's Act. I obtained it under freedom of information laws after the AAT found that there was nothing sensitive in it and ordered the Prime Minister to hand it to me. I want to give some context here, some background. On 11 March 2017 the Auditor-General commenced a performance audit into the procurement of the Hawkei light protected mobility vehicle from Thales Australia Ltd by the Department of Defence. By about December 2017, so some seven or eight months later, the Auditor-General held a draft report substantially in the form in which he intended to table it in the parliament. Both Thales and Defence were aware of the content of the draft report as it stood at that time. On 5 January 2018 Thales applied to the Attorney-General for a certificate under paragraph 37(1)(b) of the Auditor-General's Act in respect of certain contents in the draft report on the basis that the publication of this content would be contrary to the public interest because it would unfairly prejudice Thales's commercial interests. It took some time, so the parliament was then delayed having access to any audit. On 28 June 2018 the Attorney-General issued a certificate under section 37 of the act which stated that, in his opinion, 'inclusion of certain information contained in the public report would be contrary to the public interest for one of both of the following reasons: it would prejudice the security, defence or international relations of the Commonwealth and it would unfairly prejudice the commercial interests of any body or person'. So there was a claim being made by the Attorney-General that the information that the Auditor had prepared was in actual fact national security sensitive and commercially sensitive. On 11 September 2018 a redacted report was published by the Australian National Audit Office. On 6 September, so just prior to that point, the Auditor-General actually sent a confidential version of what I will call the public report to the Prime Minister's Office. Because of the unusual exercise of the power the JCPAA conducted an inquiry into the censoring. Report No. 478 of the JCPAA is a report entitled 'Issuing of a Certificate under Section 37 of the Auditor-General's Act 1997'. In that inquiry the Auditor-General made a submission which is highly instructive. In amongst that submission he said: Much of the information required to be omitted from the audit report to Parliament was analysis by the ANAO. Further, the required omissions reached into the Auditor‐General's audit conclusion relating to the audit objective, which was to assess the effectiveness and value for money of this acquisition. So a primary focus of the Auditor-General is: do our procurements achieve value for money? And he was being prohibited from providing his views to the parliament. He also said: The Auditor‐General remains of the view that the public interest was clearly balanced in favour of disclosure of his full audit conclusion and the ANAO analysis, on the basis that the Parliament, the Executive and the public would reasonably expect to be informed as to whether Defence conducted an effective procurement process. Further, the Auditor‐General has not received any information which would suggest the particular information the subject of the certificate could otherwise be withheld from the Parliament on the basis of a claim of public interest immunity. So there you have it: the very experienced Auditor-General making it very clear that what was in his report was not sensitive. Now, that might well have been the end of it except that I was disturbed by this censoring and I sought the report under FOI. The government fought tooth and nail to prevent me having access to this. The first claim was that the PM's office was performing an Auditor-General's function, and therefore the document couldn't be obtained under FOI. Somehow the Prime Minister thinks that the Auditor-General resides in his office. The second attempt was by the Prime Minister's barristers to claim that it involved complex constitutional issues and issues of parliamentary privilege. And then finally we got down to, 'Does it have national security or commercial issues associated with its disclosure?' It's interesting that during the proceedings, barristers for the Prime Minister submitted this. I'll read this; it's one of the most incredible things I've ever seen in an FOI argument, 'The respondent says that the publicly available information cannot be disclosed because it is inexorably interwoven with the analysis that the respondent claims is exempt from disclosure.' And, 'Disclosing the publicly available information in the context in which it appears in the report will inferentially disclose much of the substance of what the respondent seeks to protect by its exemption claims.' We have a barrister for the Commonwealth arguing that the Commonwealth shouldn't be required to disclose publicly available information. The AAT found that it was neither national security sensitive nor commercially sensitive. Let's have a look at what was considered sensitive. Just looking at some of the information on page 6 of the report that I've tabled, it says, 'Defence has not clearly demonstrated that the acquisition provides value for money as it did not undertake robust benchmarking in the context of a sole source procurement.' That's the Auditor-General saying that if you do a sole source contract—so you go only to one player—you must, as a matter of good practice, go and see if you can establish whether the price is reasonable that you are being charged by the person who is the recipient of that sole source contract. Somehow that statement was considered by the Attorney-General as national security sensitive. It wasn't national security sensitive, it was embarrassing for the Department of Defence. It wasn't commercially sensitive, it was embarrassing for the Department of Defence. Again, 'Publicly available information suggests that the non-audited per unit price difference between the Hawkeye and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle exceeds the price difference advised to the government at second pass.' The Auditor-General is saying that Defence misinformed the minister. Somehow that is national security sensitive and somehow that is commercially sensitive. We have a vehicle cost comparison that was conducted by the Auditor-General that is basically considered to be confidential, even though the analysis was done by officials in the Auditor-General's office using publicly available information. Two things come from this. Firstly, this goes to the Attorney-General's competence in respect of making judgements about national security. Clearly, he failed in his exercise of judgement in this instance and it makes me worry about things like Witness K, Richard Boyle, David McBride and media raids. It's all of those sorts of things where permission has been obtained in respect of things like prosecutions—some of them now sensitive because of national security—when we have an Attorney-General who simply doesn't understand national security. But it also goes to the general transparency, or lack thereof, of the Morrison government. So many OPDs in this place have been refused by this government and then I've obtained them under FOI. There's this fairy dust claim over every matter before the national cabinet when, in fact, the national cabinet is not a traditional cabinet, and we'll find out at some stage that it doesn't actually qualify. Democracy requires engagement and it requires informed engagement, and we're not getting that. Western Australia: Bushfires, Resources Industry 104 22:04 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I wanted to take the opportunity before we wrap up tonight to join Senator Brockman in expressing my concern on behalf of the opposition about the bushfire situation that we face in Western Australia at the moment. As Senator Brockman has outlined, it appears at this stage that at least 56 homes have been destroyed. I think that everyone across Australia has breathed a sigh of relief throughout this summer that we haven't seen the bushfire damage that we saw last Christmas, so it is obviously extremely concerning to see homes being destroyed at this point in time. I encourage everyone in Western Australia who may be in the line of these fires to listen very carefully to emergency broadcasts and follow the emergency warnings that are being issued. Again I join with Senator Brockman in thanking the firefighters and community members who are putting their lives on the line to keep their communities safe right now. This is another reminder that disaster season is far from over. We have known for months now that with the La Nina conditions we face this summer we face a higher than average risk of floods and cyclones in our country's north, but also it has been flagged for some time that we potentially face an above-average risk of fires in certain parts of Western Australia and unfortunately it does seem that that is now coming to pass. So all of us wish our Western Australian friends the best in what must be a very worrying time. While I am on my feet, I just briefly want to recognise the change in my responsibilities and thank the Labor leader for giving me the additional role of representing the Queensland resources industry and resources workers in this parliament. I think the fact that Mr Albanese has appointed me—or anyone, for that matter—to the role of shadow minister for Queensland resources demonstrates very clearly that he gets the importance of the resources industry to my home state of Queensland. Having been on the road with Albo in mining communities over the years, I know that he understands very clearly the jobs, the exports and the royalties that really matter to our state and which arise from the resources industry. There can be no doubt that Labor support workers in the resources industry. We are the party who have always stood for and will continue to stand for secure jobs, secure pay and a secure future for workers in the resources industry. That's why we have been so vocal in recent years about the rampant casualisation and abuse of labour hire that we have unfortunately seen in the resources industry by some employers. It is something that is yet to be matched by the government, who like to talk a lot about how much they like mining workers but haven't actually done anything to fix the problems of casualisation and labour hire which have been identified over and over again by mining unions and by the federal opposition. There is finally legislation now before the parliament from this government which is hopelessly deficient in terms of addressing the casualisation issues, and we hope that at some point the government backs up its rhetoric about casualisation with serious action. We on this side of the chamber know that we will continue exporting our coal, gas and other resources for years to come, and we will support the workers in those industries over that time. However, we also support strong action on climate change, and that's where there is a significant difference between the government and the opposition. Unlike the government, Labor has committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2050, and I would note that a number of the largest resources companies in this country have committed to reaching net zero by 2050. BP, BHP, Rio Tinto, Santos and many others have themselves committed to reaching net zero emissions by 2050. You would think that if some of the biggest resources companies in this country can reach net zero emissions the government of Australia would actually be able to match it as well. But, as we all know, the Queensland Liberal National Party, including Senator Stoker, are completely in climate change denial and refuse to back the resources industry in their own commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Unlike the government, we support action on climate change, because, of course, it reduces emissions and it is good for our climate, but it is also good for jobs. Unfortunately this government's refusal to deal with the reality of climate change and take serious action is actually holding back jobs in my home state of Queensland. Labor, unlike the Greens and the LNP, believes that our resources industry has a strong future and also that we should be creating and capturing the job opportunities that await in renewables and in manufacturing powered by clean renewable energy. I do not understand for the life of me why the LNP, in particular, because of their own internal divisions, want to stop Central Queenslanders and other regional Queenslanders from grabbing the jobs that are available in renewable industries and in manufacturing powered by cheap, clean energy. Of course we should support the existing industries, including our existing resources industries, but why would you want to stop new jobs from being created in regional Queensland as well, in the way that the LNP seems to want to do? On the one hand, in the political climate we have at the moment, we have the Greens, who say that we can't have the existing jobs, that we have to get rid of the existing jobs in our existing resources industries and that we should only be about the new jobs in renewables. On the other hand, we've got the LNP, who don't want to know anything about the new jobs and are actively trying to stop them from going ahead, while saying that they want to support existing industries only. Labor believes that there's actually a future for both. There is a secure future for our resources industry workers, and we're right behind them in doing that, but we should be grabbing the new jobs that are available in new industries as well. That's what sets Labor apart. It's about time both the Greens and the LNP woke up to themselves and made sure that we are about more jobs in more industries, not about abandoning jobs in old and new industries. Senate adjourned at 22 : 11