DOCUMENTS

2021-02-18 46 1 5 Senate 0 1

Thursday, 18 February 2021

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 09:31): The PRESIDENT I0Q ( I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BILLS 1 BILLS Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020 1

Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020

Second Reading 1 09:31 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria I rise to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020. Labor will be supporting this bill before the Senate today. This legislation makes a number of sensible changes based on the recommendations of Professor Coaldrake's independent Review of the Higher Education Provider Category Standards. Labor welcomes efforts to simplify provider categories and make the threshold standards for universities simpler and clearer to use. We should also welcome the strengthening of research requirements for our universities. We should always be pushing to improve our world-class research efforts. I can tell the chamber that in Victoria, for example, there are actually more researchers per square metre than in Boston. Everyone always thinks that Boston is the research capital of the world, but it's actually Melbourne, around the Melbourne university precinct. Labor does, however, hold some concerns over the practical effect this bill may have on the education sector, and we call on the government to ensure that these changes will not jeopardise the reputation of our world-class university system. With this bill, the minister has also partly ignored Professor Coaldrake's expert recommendations. This bill expands the role of TEQSA, the higher education regulator, but provides no additional resources. Further, while Professor Coaldrake recommended that the term 'institute of higher education' be used for non-university providers, the government is instead proposing the term 'university college'. Labor shares concerns raised by the university sector that the use of the term 'university' could create confusion and allow private providers to present themselves as universities without being subject to the same strict standards for teaching and research and that this would represent a risk to vulnerable students. Universities Australia told the Senate committee on the matter: As we have said, we would prefer the university college category not be used to describe things that did not conduct both research and teaching. The NTEU further said that a different term should be used instead of 'university college', citing their concerns about the way that research quality is specified. There was a minority report written by Labor senators on the committee, and in that minority report we recommended that any reference to 'university college' should not be included in the regulations and should be replaced with 'institute of higher education', as was the full intention of recommendation 1 of the Coaldrake review. We encourage the government to ensure relevant regulations reflect this. Much of this bill concentrates on research standards. Excellence in Research for Australia remains the best means of judging performance against standards. It is the responsibility of the Australian Research Council to ensure that ERA is not diminished by gaming or rorting. It is the ARC's responsibility to ensure that ERA remains fit-for-purpose, and that should be the focus for the current ARC review into ERA. Given the limited research funding that is available, it is important that the national interest is pursued by ensuring excellence-in-research effort in the development of key national priorities and industries. While the government has promised short-term relief to the crisis through its $1 billion research fund for 2020-21, there is no long-term strategy to deal with our universities' funding crisis. Spreading limited research funding too thin and lowering our research standards will only endanger Australia's international reputation. Labor does support the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020. We know the Liberals, this current federal government, really have underfunded Australia's world-class university sector. At the end of last year there was a deal done in this chamber with Centre Alliance which hiked up fees for thousands of students, many of whom will be now paying more than double. I myself was the recipient of quite a classical education and I think it is incredibly important to maintain that Socratic method, to maintain critical thinking, in our universities and in the students we produce in this country. That kind of learning is very important in order to have a civil society and to ensure that our civilisation, our Western liberal democracy, is maintained. When I look at the cabinet of this government, every single member of that cabinet went to university. We want to ensure that all children can have the same opportunity to go to university. The proportion of people in this parliament who have received a tertiary education would be far higher than the average in the community, and I think we all deserve, and all children deserve, that opportunity. Under the job-ready graduates legislation, students will have their fees increased to $14,500 per year, doubling the cost for thousands of young people. That means people studying the humanities, commerce and communications will pay more for their degrees than doctors and dentists. We're in the depths of a recession, as we know. Senator Hughes, Senator Carr and Senator Ciccone, who are all here, are Victorian senators. Our state just came out of a lockdown last night. When you walk in the CBD of Melbourne, what you know is that it has been pretty badly hit and that, as a country, while there is economic recovery, there are a lot of people who are still suffering. Youth unemployment has gone through the roof, rising by 90,000 people in recent months alone. The demand for university places has surged. In New South Wales, twice as many people have applied for university this year than last year. Job prospects are weak, so the choice for many people will be between waiting in the dole queue and getting an education. Year 12 students have persevered through incredible uncertainty in the last year. In fact, in Victoria, a lot of children attended very little school at a physical school last year. So the last thing we should be doing now is making it harder and more expensive for children to get an education and get into university. We on this side have been urging the federal government to finally step in and help universities to save jobs. Since then more than 17,000 university staff have lost their jobs around the country, with thousands more to come. University Australia forecast 21,000 job losses in coming years. What we need to do and what this government need to do is step up to ensure that these job losses cease and are as minimal as they can make them. They've done nothing to stop these job losses. In our fourth-largest export industry, the Prime Minister has shown very little interest in the thousands of university staff losing their livelihoods or the communities that depend on their jobs. The federal government has actually excluded public universities from JobKeeper. The rules have been changed to ensure that those employed at universities don't qualify for JobKeeper. When I think about regional universities, the impact of the coronavirus pandemic is going to be devastating upon them, and is in fact already so. Universities support 14,000 jobs in regional Australia. We're talking about the academics, tutors, admin staff, library staff, catering staff, ground staff, cleaners, security—all of these people in regional towns depend on regional universities for their jobs. All of those people, remember, have families. They're all trying to make ends meet. We're relying on our brilliant universities and their researchers to find a vaccine for COVID-19, but this government has done very little to protect their jobs. Our record on universities is good. The last Labor government opened up additional universities, giving an additional 190,000 people a higher education. That is what we should still want. That is what this government should want. We boosted investment from $8 billion in 2007 to $14 billion in 2013. Under these policies we saw a new diversity in universities. Because of Labor's policies, the number of students from poorer backgrounds was up by 55 per cent, Indigenous student numbers had jumped by 89 per cent, enrolments by students with a disability had more than doubled and enrolments by students from country areas had grown by 48 per cent. These are the kinds of goals that should be driving any government's education policy, and they're the aspirations that will continue to define Labor's policies at the next election. We support the bill. 09:41 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020. This bill seeks to make changes to the TEQSA Act to implement recommendations of the provider category standards review undertaken by Emeritus Professor Peter Coaldrake. The bill will facilitate the overhaul of higher education provider categories and the standards to which higher education providers are held. The government claims the main goals of the bill are to raise standards and simplify the processes for universities to follow in order to meet those standards. Other proposals in the bill to are to ensure prospective First Nations students are eligible for student assistance grants, give TEQSA the ability to regulate undergraduate certificates, make changes to provider registration, take control of student records when an institution shuts down and ban the inappropriate use of the word 'university' in domain names. While the Greens will be supporting this bill, we are concerned about some of the proposals from the government about what will be included in the eventual regulations provided for by the bill and about the government's continued use of framework bills to bypass parliamentary scrutiny. There is a lack of clarity in the bill about factors TEQSA must consider when determining research quality and the extent of the powers delegated to the minister and TEQSA. We oppose the government's stated intention to use the title of 'university college' as a category for high-performing non-university higher education institutions in the forthcoming instrument. The extent of the delegation of decision-making power to TEQSA and the minister in this bill is not proportionate and neither is it appropriate. The standards by which we judge our universities and the research they produce should be scrutinised by the Senate. The Greens do not share the Education and Employment Legislation Committee's view that the extent of the delegation of decision-making power in the enabling legislation is proportionate or appropriate and agree with stakeholders who have expressed concerns about this. While we acknowledge commitments from the department and TEQSA to consult with key stakeholders in the development of the regulations, we echo the comments of the Queensland University of Technology in their submission to the committee inquiry into this bill. They said: … it is surely the Senate's prerogative to consider all sides of a complex argument and exercise its legislative authority, when a significant regulatory change is on the table that has the very real potential to be materially consequential to the management and perception of the Australian tertiary sector as a whole. At the very least, the primary legislation should set clear guidelines for the establishment of threshold standards in the regulation to ensure appropriate parliamentary oversight and legislative boundaries. The Greens share concerns expressed by the National Tertiary Education Union with respect to the lack of clarity in the primary legislation about how threshold benchmarks of research quality will be developed by TEQSA. At the moment, proposed benchmark standards appear to suggest that Excellence in Research for Australia outcomes will be used to determine quality. They don't say much else. I note that ERA is currently under review and that many academics and other stakeholders do have concerns about transparency in regard to the methodology used to assess outcomes, particularly in the humanities, arts and social sciences. At a time when the humanities are under sustained attack by this government, it is particularly important to ensure the standards used to judge the quality of HASS research are fair and can properly evaluate cross-disciplinary research. I acknowledge TEQSA's assurances that a matrix other than ERA outcomes will be used to determine quality; however, this commitment should be included in the primary legislation, rather than being left to the discretion of the minister and the government agencies. I will move an amendment in the committee stage to ensure that that can happen and to make sure that, in developing the regulations determining the quality of research, we can actually include that. TEQSA must take into account a variety of qualitative and quantitative factors and specify what they are and why they have been chosen. As the committee report identifies, many submissions and witnesses were opposed to the government's proposed use of the category title 'university college' for high-performing, non-university higher education providers. I share those widely held concerns that using the term 'university college' risks inaccurately redefining what it is to be a university. It is inconsistent to hold that the conduct of research or a certain quality and quantity of research are fundamental features of a university and yet to also enable providers which are not research active to brand themselves with the word 'university'. Recommendation 9 of the provider category standards review begins with the statement: The essential purpose of regulating the nomenclature of institutions via the Higher Education Provider Category Standards is consumer protection. It is entirely foreseeable that a university college category could cause confusion amongst prospective students about the standing of a given institution. The government has not provided a policy rationale for discarding the clear recommendation of the PCS review to title the category 'national institute of higher education'. The prior existence of an 'Australian university college' category isn't a persuasive reason to allow institutions which do not conduct research to refer to themselves using any variation of the word 'university'. Likewise, we do not consider the desire of non-university higher education providers, many of whom operate for private profit, to brand themselves as university colleges. A particularly compelling reason is that it would risk confusion among students and the public and a decline in the perception of university quality. In drafting the instrument, the government should implement the original recommendation of the Review of the Higher Education Provider Category Standards to title the non-university category of high-performing higher education institution as 'national institute of higher education'. I will move a second reading amendment to this effect. At the recent Senate inquiry into this bill, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Consortium spoke to the goal of a future First Nations university in Australia. They brought to the fore the importance of Indigenous representation in the determination of research standards. They spoke of the need to consider First Nations research and scholarship against appropriate standards which take into account Indigenous knowledge and are aligned with benchmarks of global Indigenous research. Professor Steven Larkin, CEO of the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, noted: There has been a history of telling us that research has been quality and having impacts and outcomes that haven't aligned with necessarily our world view or our priorities. He went on to say: The analytical framework— of research assessment— tends a lot of the time to be Westernised or orientated. It is almost a subtle form of assimilation in an intellectual space. Our systems of assessing research quality must ensure that the unique position of First Nations research and scholarship be included in the setting of benchmark standards and that First Nations voices are prominent in the determination of the standards used to assess Indigenous research. I'll also note the NTEU's advice that the Senate be wary of the potential impact of the increasing focus on short courses and microcredentials on the higher education landscape. We need to be vigilant about the creeping privatisation and deregulation of the university sector and continue to fight for universities as places of public good. Indeed, the Liberals' willingness to throw money at short courses through the budget and JobMaker programs without corresponding funding for meaningful, long-term qualifications tells us everything we need to know about the fragmented, profit-driven future they see for Australian post-secondary education. It is an appalling future that we must resist. The Greens value high-quality research. It is appropriate to expect high standards of our universities and the research that they produce. The conduct of high-quality research is fundamental to universities, and we should never allow that core aspect of our university system to be devalued or decoupled from teaching. The Morrison government's cuts to university funding will reverberate through the university sector for years, if not decades. This is a sector already reeling from the effects of the coronavirus pandemic and decades of austerity. The paltry amount of new funding for research in the 2020-21 budget will not go anywhere near to covering the funding shortfall caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and years of funding cuts. To guarantee the future of high-quality research in Australia, it is essential that our public universities are well resourced by the government. University staff should enjoy secure work and good conditions. Social, economic and institutional barriers to diversity and inclusion in university education and the field of academia itself should be knocked down. Our public universities must be fee-free, they must be well funded democratic places of excellence in teaching and research. I move: At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate: (a) notes that: (i) there is widespread opposition to the Government's proposed use of the category title 'University College' for non-university high-performing higher education providers, and (ii) the Government has not provided sufficient policy rationale for discarding the clear recommendation of the Provider Category Standards (PCS) Review to title the category 'National Institute of Higher Education'; and (b) calls on the Government to implement the original recommendation of the PCS Review to adopt the title 'National Institute of Higher Education' for the category of non-university high-performing higher education institutions when drafting the instrument giving effect to its changes to provider categories" 09:52 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania It is a pleasure to rise today in support of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020. The bill proposes to amend the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 and will enhance the system design, provider aspiration, research quality and regulatory flexibility within the Australian higher education sector. The bill that we're debating here today will also implement the recommendations of the review of the Higher Education Provider Category Standards, which was completed in 2017 by Emeritus Professor Peter Coaldrake AO. Professor Coaldrake recommended amending the provider category standards to clarify and streamline the regulatory framework to ensure it is fit for purpose for all stakeholders, including students, the regulator TEQSA and current and future providers. The Morrison coalition government accepted all 10 of the review's recommendations with a key recommendation proposing to simplify and enhance the categorisation of higher education providers in Australia. A key recommendation from this review has reduced the number of domestic university categories from three down to one—being an Australian university—and has reduced the number of overseas university categories from two down to one—being an overseas university. In addition, a new university college category has been created to better recognise high-quality, non-university providers. The university college category will introduce a mark of quality and better signal diversity and differentiation in the non-university sector. It will provide an opportunity for the highest quality providers to operate in regional and thinner markets without the burden imposed by the need to undertake research that other university categories might have. The new categories also clarify how the quality of research activity will be assessed in the Australian university category, giving more certainty to institutions about the expectations of research quality. The bill we are debating here today will also make provisions to protect the word 'university' from being misused in internet domain names. This is a really important provision to be included. This will limit the ability of an organisation to mislead the public by claiming to be something they are not. Use of the word 'university' in an Australian internet domain name will require ministerial consent. This measure is consistent with the existing provisions that protect the use of the word 'university' in company and business names. Where a domain name has been issued with 'university' somewhere in it and there is no record of the minister having provided consent, the purchaser will be asked to seek that consent retrospectively. If consent is not provided, use of the domain name will be suspended by the domain administrator. As I said, fundamentally, this is about ensuring that the public is not being misled as to what may or may not be considered a university. These changes align with similar provisions that protect the use of the word 'university' in company and business names. The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020 also will include reference to the Australian Qualifications Framework qualification type 'undergraduate certificate' in the definition of 'higher education award'. It will allow the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, TEQSA, to extend the period of a provider's registration or course accreditation more than once, which will help TEQSA manage its regulatory workload better and provide low-risk providers with additional flexibility, including in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and allow review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the AAT, of a decision by TEQSA not to change a provider's category, if this was requested, to ensure that there is an appropriate review and appeals mechanism in place. The Morrison coalition government understands that higher education plays such an important part in Australia's future, helping to educate and upskill the next generation of workers for life in the workforce. This bill that we're debating here today is just one part of our broader policy agenda in this space. It is so important right now that we ensure that Australians are being trained with the skills that our community and our country need now and in the future. History has shown us that the make-up of the workforce changes over the years, so we need to be continually aware of what skills the workforce requires and ensure that our higher education providers and our skills and training providers are equipping the next generations with the right skills for the workforce that they will be entering. This is something I spoke about in my first speech in this place. We need to ensure that growth occurs in the areas of greatest need and demand. Therefore, I think it's incredibly prudent that our higher education institutions deliver training in these growth areas of the economy. In September the Morrison government announced $326 million of funding for an additional 12,000 supported university places from this year. In October last year the parliament passed the government's Job-Ready Graduates legislation, which will grow the number of university places for domestic students by 100,000 in 10 years. More young Australians are going to benefit from the opportunity to get a university education. It will also make degrees more affordable in areas of expected job growth. To encourage students to tailor their studies to learn the skills that will be in demand, students will pay less to study teaching, nursing, agriculture, maths, science, health, environmental science, information technology and engineering. I was scrolling through social media yesterday—at a time when news did appear in my social media feed; apparently, it doesn't this morning—and I saw an article from the ABC talking about how more young Australians—and it was on ABC Hobart, so it was particularly focusing on young Tasmanians—are looking to study agriculture as a result of the changes passed by the coalition government last year. I think that is just fantastic. Coming from Tasmania and knowing the strong agricultural background of our state, I am so pleased to see that more young people are looking to agriculture as a potential career path. Not only is it a great industry to work in, and I know many who work in the agriculture industry; it also ensures that we are getting more young people out into the regions, where agriculture plays such an important part in the local economy. It encourages young people to live in regional areas. I was very lucky to grow up in a regional area. I know what an amazing experience that was, so I hope many young Australians, in particular many young Tasmanians, will now choose to pursue agriculture as a career path and, hopefully, live in some of the more regional spots in Tasmania. It really is a beautiful place to have a life. The Morrison coalition government has, of course, put in place other mechanisms to develop the workforce of the future, as I alluded to earlier in talking about how important it is that we equip our young people with the right skills for the jobs of the future. Not specifically in the higher education industry but more broadly, we've provided $2.8 billion for the Supporting Apprentices and Trainees wage subsidy. This is helping employers to retain their apprentices and trainees, and we know that that is more important than ever during the economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. We've created the $900 million National Priorities and Industry Linkage Fund, established to enhance engagement between higher education and industry, with a strong focus on STEM industries. We've provided $7 million to subsidise short courses in areas of national priority. As I said, the Morrison coalition government has always been committed to ensuring that our young people have the appropriate skills for the future workforce. Given what has happened in the last 12 months with the COVID-19 pandemic, we know just how important it is that those linkages are supported and young people are provided with good options for study that will link them to a job in the future. These education and training opportunities, I think, will make Australians, particularly young Australians, job ready and help our country bounce back from the global pandemic. The Morrison coalition government is continuing to work hard to deliver better education and training outcomes for Australians to ensure they have the skills they need to successfully find a job, succeed in the workforce and contribute to the future of our country, because there is no greater dignity than the dignity of work. The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020, which we are debating here this morning, will reduce red tape and simplify the regulation and administration of Australian higher education. I think anything we can do to reduce red tape in the sector will only increase the ability of our higher education and training sectors and our education sector more broadly to respond to the needs of the future. As I've said many times already in this contribution, that is now more important than ever. I commend the bill to the Senate. 10:03 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria I might just indicate to Senator Faruqi that the Labor Party will support her second reading amendment and the Greens amendments to the bill. We participated together in the inquiry into this bill, so we're familiar with the terms of engagement. As Senator Chandler indicated, many of the matters that are before us involve technical, non-controversial matters. But, more substantially, there are questions as to the government's claims about this bill, particularly those in regard to the raising of standards in universities, which do require closer examination. This is in the context of this government's approach to universities, which, I say, involves a consistent and systematic hostility, and therefore it's appropriate that we view the claims about the raising of standards with some scepticism. It's claimed that this bill applies to the findings of the Review of the Higher Education Provider Category Standards undertaken by Professor Peter Coaldrake, which reported back in 2019. It's also claimed that the bill will simplify the processes that universities need to follow. It is doubtful whether the bill as it stands will do any of these things. To understand why, it is necessary to consider how this bill, the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020, works alongside the related bill concerning university funding which passed the parliament last year. It passed in this chamber by one vote, as a result of some of the shifty arrangements entered into with the crossbenchers. Consequent to the bill becoming law, it led to a substantial cut in funding of about $1 billion a year. The link between the funding of student places and the funding of research was also severed. The government provided stopgap funding for one year to provide support for some research projects. Now we have before us a bill that purports to raise university standards, including the setting of revised research requirements, in a context where universities are being asked to do more with less. So we have a bill that appears to confuse the aims of simplification with the aims of enhancing research performance. This confusion, given the continued under-resourcing of the regulator, TEQSA, and the government's long-held goal of encouraging new private entrants to the scheme, puts the international reputation of Australian universities at risk. This is in the context of the government having a persistent war against our researchers, in the name of national security, under the auspices of a government funded company, funded by a foreign government and claiming to be in the interests of defending national sovereignty—namely, ASPI. The reputation our universities have in teaching, in research, in civic engagement, which is critical to the definition of what a university actually is, needs to be remembered at all times. The bill's changes to nomenclature do not, in fact, conform with the changes that are actually recommended in the review which is said to underpin this bill—that is, the Coaldrake review. So it does raise the question of whether the government's real motive is its declared aim of raising standards or whether the real purpose of the bill, together with the funding changes, is to increase the role of private providers in higher education. Coaldrake's review recommended the existing term of 'higher education provider' be replaced by 'institutes of higher education'. It did not support the use of the term 'university college', which this bill introduced to describe higher performing non-university providers. Is there any wonder that this term creates confusion? Is it reasonable to suggest that maybe that's deliberate? It allows new entrants to the scheme to be represented as universities but without the title of 'university' and without the implications of the terms for standards in both teaching and research. This is why, in the Senate inquiry into the bill, the peak body, Universities Australia, and the National Tertiary Education Union both opposed the use of the term 'university college'. They preferred Professor Coaldrake's term, 'institute of higher education', and Labor senators made exactly the same point in their minority report on the bill inquiry. In the bill before us, however, the government chose to ignore the arguments of the sector and Professor Coaldrake. The bill introduces the term for the new category of 'university college', which the government claims is consistent with Professor Coaldrake's findings. The government appears to be uncertain about what 'new and improved standards' actually means. There is no generally recognised methodology for determining research quality. The Excellence in Research for Australia metric, which is administered by the Australian Research Council, underlies much of what Professor Coaldrake calculated to be the best way forward. Remember: I was responsible for the introduction of ERA, so it's only natural that I would defend it. But there is a very strong reason why we should defend excellence in research in Australia. The problem is that both TEQSA and the department of education have stated that other metrics might be applied when new entrants have an insufficient quality of research output to meet ERA standards. In other words, they're prepared to reduce the criteria if the new entrants can't measure up. Professor Coaldrake recommended: … a threshold benchmark of quality and quantity of research should be included in the Higher Education Provider Category Standards. The recommendation resulted in the draft criteria being recommended by the Higher Education Standards Panel. From 1 January 2030, to be registered as an Australian university, a higher education provider must conduct research that leads to the creation of new knowledge and original creative endeavour in at least three, or at least 50 per cent, of the broad fields in which it delivers courses of study, whichever is greater, or in all broad fields of education in which it has authority to self-accredit, in the case of a university with a specialised focus. The benchmark standards for research are research that is 'world standard', measured using best practice indicators, or research of national standing in fields specific to Australia, in the case of research that is not easily captured by existing standard indicators. The adoption of such criteria, even if it is out by 2030, will have significant consequences. The Group of Eight noted in their submission to the Senate inquiry that, among the institutions currently registered as Australian universities: 3 institutions are under the 30 per cent level for the PCS standards up until 2030; A further 2 institutions are under the 50 per cent level for 2030 PCS standards; and A further 4 institutions may be considered "at risk" between 50 per cent and 60 per cent. The University of Sydney, in its submission on the legislation, made the comment that the standards would mean: … that some current universities will potentially fail to meet the new threshold due to the lack of research capacity (partly as a result of the impact of COVID-19) or reinforce the fundamental structural flaw in research funding outlined above. The department of education, in its submission, stated: Analysis of 2018 ERA data suggests that all public Australian universities would meet the proposed initial research quality benchmark … They've already got the answers. However, the department did concede that it's arguable that some of Australia's smaller, private universities may struggle to meet these standards if assessed on ERA ratings alone. It seems to me that the standards under this bill are so low that the universities will meet them because of the time lag involved, given that the government has not announced any additional resources that will be available. For me, two questions come forward as a result of proper examination of the detail of this bill: Firstly, is the government confident that the standards that are being proposed are, in fact, sufficiently rigorous? Secondly, what is the point of standards if they are so low? The government needs to be aware of the consequences of the failure to maintain quality in higher education, particularly in terms of research. The history of higher education regulation in this country offers numerous examples of the price of failure. The failure in ministerial discretion, delegated powers, inadequate assessment of new entrants to the system and the misuse of title all arose in relation to the University of Greenwich scandal in the early 2000s. Greenwich University was an institution that was established out at Norfolk Island. It had a chancellor who was a convicted embezzler and a vice-chancellor who had bought some titles to the Russian throne. It was allowed to use the term 'university' because the then minister for regional affairs, former senator Ian Macdonald, directed the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly to approve it. Greenwich University established its own degrees. It had a teaching staff who awarded their own PhDs. And, of course, then they could administer other people's qualifications. It was fundamentally a threat to Australia's international reputation as a quality higher education provider. That was only one of several examples of regulatory failure over the last 20 years, and this bill does not do enough to ensure that such scandals will not be repeated. Given the history of regulatory failure, it is a matter of profound concern that the threshold standards are not set out in the primary legislation. The minister has stated that to do so would be an impediment to innovation—an impediment to innovation! It's an extraordinary concept, isn't it? It's an impediment to crooks! This is a perplexing remark at best, since we're given no examples of what he means. Incorporating standards into primary legislation would not prevent changes being made to them, but it would allow a higher level of parliamentary scrutiny and oversight than is possible in delegated legislation. The minister has advised that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee had a long period of consultation and has undertaken a review of standards. That shows just how important the standards and their impact on the sector should be. It is a reason for including a requirement for a regular review of the standards in primary legislation. The lowering of standards will undermine Australia's ability to develop research excellence. It will weaken our international research collaborations and make this country less attractive to international students. The application of provider category standards is not an abstract or obscure policy matter; it is not just a technical question. And, in fact, if we repeat the failures of regulatory disasters like Greenwich University or repeat the previous farcical international policies we've seen—new entrants cannot be allowed to dilute the quality or the reputation of Australia's higher education system. The government's decision to remove research funding from the allocation of Commonwealth supported places has made the problem even more acute. And so, despite the government's stopgap measure providing extra money for one year, the long-term funding crisis of our research system in this country remains. The spreading of limited research funding too thinly across the system endangers our international reputation. ERA remains the best means of judging performance against those standards. The Australian Research Council should do its job properly. I am deeply disturbed that, at the moment, it is not. It should ensure that the ARC focuses on ensuring that it is able to build the research capability of this nation and protect the reputation of our researchers and their place within Australia's international research contribution. (Time expired) 10:18 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020. Before I get into the details of the bill, I do want to pick up on an issue that was raised by my colleague Senator Chandler. It's not an issue; it's actually a success story. It is a success story of this government's commitment to higher education and reform. Because of changes that this government passed last year, we are already seeing the results of those changes. The ABC reported this week that the enrolments in agriculture courses in the university sector are booming, and this is good news. This is good news not just for our agricultural sector but for our regional communities and for our young people, because they can see a career path in agriculture. They can see a future. My friend and former colleague Professor Jim Pratley said it's great because agriculture is no longer 'plough and cow'. I thought that was a great quote! Agriculture is all-encompassing. It is now high skill, high technology and a real career option for young people who don't want to spend their futures locked in an office working nine to five. They want the challenge, they want the excitement and they want the variety that agriculture provides. Agriculture, in particular, is so exciting. There are so many innovations happening in agriculture at the moment. And it is all encompassing. You can work in agriculture and IT. You can work in agriculture and climate change. You can work in agriculture and product innovation. So I am very pleased that, as a result of this government's reform, we are already seeing real outcomes on the ground, and these are practical outcomes. And I am sure that we will see further results from our reform in higher education: more job-ready graduates and more people going through the higher education system and coming out the other side actually qualified to work and ready to work. I think it is fantastic and it is proof also that our government is absolutely committed to trying to reduce the education gap between regional and urban students. Our government will be spending more than $400 million over the next four years, including for more university places for Australian students. The fastest-growing part of that will be in regional universities. We know that, if you learn in the regions, you earn in the regions. We have seen it time and time again. If people go out to the regions and experience regional living, they love it out there. So I'm very proud of our government and the National Party's commitment to regional education. We are increasing the Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding to regional university campuses by 3.5 per cent per annum. Our annual grants for regional universities to enable them to develop research partnerships with other education providers and/or industry collaboration is going to be over $48 million, and that's really important. The industry collaboration part of that is so vitally important, because that is research that will make a difference. It is research that industry knows is needed to fill the gaps. We've also got the new Regional Partnerships Project Pool to support activities aimed at young regional school students to increase their participation in university. We've allocated $21 million to establish additional Regional University Centres, and the education and employment committee heard last year from Mr Duncan Taylor, from the Country Universities Centre, just how important it is for people to be able to progress a university course from their home base. We know access to university is one of the biggest impediments for regional people seeking higher education. We're spending almost $178 million from 2021 over four years to support higher education students from outer regional and remote areas who have to relocate to undertake full-time study, and, early this year, we hope to establish a regional education commissioner to monitor the government's regional education strategy and to provide further advice to address the barriers that regional and remote students face to access higher education. All of these are critical initiatives that make a difference to the education attainment and opportunities for people who live in country Australia. To complement all of that work, we need this bill to pass. It simplifies university classifications. I always thought a university was a university. Who knew that we had multiple classifications of 'university'? It is common sense to streamline that and just have a single category of what an Australian university is, and to be able to identify the highest quality higher education institutions that don't do research so don't fall into the university category and allow them to be called 'university colleges'. This will result in very good outcomes in regional Australia. We all know that, when it comes to education, one size does not fit all. We also know that being able to undertake university-quality research and development, research in particular, is not a simple process. By allowing university colleges to exist, we are allowing people to access high-quality education without also having those increased burdens and allowing our universities to concentrate and focus and be the pre-eminent institutions of research that they are. The university college category will allow a pathway for institutions to grow and develop and, if it is their goal, then progress to becoming a university. Another change included in this amendment bill is the ability for students to access their records going forward. The bill also allows universities and higher education providers to use Indigenous student assistance grants not just for existing Indigenous students but also to promote and encourage new Indigenous students. These are all a positive for our university sector and our higher education sector more broadly. It is for that reason that I commend this bill to the chamber. 10:27 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales As with so many of these smaller pieces of legislation before the Senate, Labor comes to this debate not with a deep hostility to the bill before us, the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020, but a sense of disappointment about the coalition government's approach to higher education and the university sector in total and a deep sense of the inadequacy of the opportunity provided by this bill to do some of the things that it should have done. So many of this government's approaches to issues are driven by the bigotry and prejudice of dominant members of its backbench to particular sectors of society. We saw that last night in the passage of a bill that abolished the Family Court of Australia, which has been a mainstay of modern Australia's approach to family law, to treating men and women equally and to looking after the interests of children. More broadly in the area of higher education, because of the prejudice of some, the scepticism of others and the ignorance of the bulk of the coalition backbench, we see that hostility borne out in a legislative agenda that is hostile to the university sector. You only have to listen to the bellowing out during question time, the scepticism towards experts, the hostility to expert advice and research, and the weird muttering about cultural Marxism. I've hung around with a lot of Marxists in my life. I've never really known what a cultural Marxist is, but apparently it's a bad thing. It's part of the sneering of those opposite about the university sector as if it is some kind of privileged elite, instead of what it actually is, which is people who have worked hard all of their lives to get the qualifications that are necessary, to have done the actual research based upon the evidence, to have engaged in a battle of ideas, to deliver research that matters, whether it's in agriculture, science, business, commerce, law or, indeed, foreign relations or defence—a whole range of matters that are vital to the future of our country and the communities that we seek to represent in this place, and vital to our national interest. Of course, universities also do teaching. That matters to domestic graduates and, as my colleague Senator Davey pointed out, that matters in particular in a regional context. She is right to say that, if you learn in a regional university, you are much more likely than other school leavers to continue to work in the community that you got your higher education in. Universities are of immense economic, cultural, research and teaching and learning benefit to the communities that they are in, none more so than those universities that exist in our regional centres. Senator Davey is also correct to point to the vital role of agricultural research in our publicly funded universities. It is a shame, of course, that, under successive governments over the last 30 years, the amount of publicly funded agricultural research in Australia has declined significantly and that the uptake of the private sector of privately funded agricultural research and product development research has not filled that gap. What that means is that, in agriculture, we've got much more short-term research focused on the interests of business, rather than the long-term public research that is required to deliver a long-term benefit for Australian farmers and Australian agriculture more broadly and to anticipate the kinds of threats and the kinds of challenges that our agricultural sector faces. The government's legacy in higher education is a disgrace. It will be regional universities that will be the hardest hit. This bill does nothing to develop a stronger policy platform in universities. Regional universities support 14,000 jobs. They are critical to the future development of regional Australia, and they are already reeling from the impact of government cuts. Charles Sturt University has an $80 million revenue decline, a nearly $50 million projected budget deficit and up to 110 full-time equivalent jobs gone in June, second round in September; an estimated $73 million worth of extra debt under the fee changes that this minister has presided over, and 63 per cent of that additional debt will be paid by female students; 48 courses cut, seven revitalised and 61 modified—not modified to make them better; modified to make them worse. At the Wagga Wagga campus of Charles Sturt University, there have been cuts to psychology, business, IT and creative industries. Psychology courses have been moved to different campuses or gone online. The Wagga Wagga campus has a proud tradition of theatre. Their community has had to come together to save theatre at Charles Sturt University and, in particular, the CSU Riverina Playhouse. Dr Dominique Sweeney said: 'Creative arts have been slowly wiped out in Wagga over the last 15 years. It feels like we're getting closer to losing it altogether. But we're an integral part of the community. We're not a waste of money.' The response of the local member, Mr McCormack, who as I understand it is still the Deputy Prime Minister, said: 'I would not expect any institution or business to offer services or goods which are not financially viable. In this case, taxpayers' money should not be wasted to support a course which is not adequately patronaged.' Until today I wasn't aware that 'patronaged' was a word. He went on to say, 'Psychology degrees and others besides will still be offered online, which will mean students looking to study these degrees will stay in Wagga and look to seek employment here when they complete their degree.' What a mean-spirited, shallow response. The richness of country communities is in no small part due to a capacity—sometimes leveraging off the university system, sometimes leveraging off people in our high schools and sometimes leveraging off the endeavours of local creative arts people—to bring life to country towns. Here we have a federal government delivering cuts that have taken this away. In Dubbo, the Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood and Primary) and the Bachelor of Educational Studies have been cut. In Port Macquarie, exercise science and the Bachelor of Human Services have been axed. In Orange there have been cuts to science, and postgraduate sustainable agriculture and courses have been axed. A report on the roundtable meeting with regional universities says, 'Increasing the cost of studying social work, behavioural studies and psychology may have adverse impacts on the rural and regional mental health workforce, and the community.' Mr Gee, in response, said he would take all the issues back to the Nationals party room to get the viewpoint of other country MPs on what their position should be. What a stimulating discussion that must have been, if it ever in fact happened. Southern Cross University is in the electorate of Mr Hogan. In fact, I notice Mr Hogan was the only MP who wasn't on the list of who was for or against nuclear power. He often goes missing when the hard questions are asked, Mr Hogan. We saw Senator McGrath there—a long-term proponent of expensive nuclear power stations in coastal areas in Queensland. He's always blowing hard on these issues, particularly when there's a preselection coming up in Queensland. Southern Cross University had a $58 million shortfall. Over 25 per cent of students in 2019 were international. There has been no action from the Commonwealth government to deal with this. Job losses across the Lismore, Coffs Harbour and Gold Coast campuses are inevitable. All of these are in tourism-dependent economies, which have been hardest hit by the coronavirus. Staff have voted to forgo a pay rise to try and sustain the financial position of the university. The academic calendar has been changed to a six-period calendar, creating an intensification of work for staff. They are putting an effort into that university to try to sustain as many courses as possible and have closed the Liverpool Football Academy in Lismore. Southern Cross University has the lowest enrolment cap of any university. The University of New England, in the area where I grew up, had a $25 million shortfall. Last year, UNE announced a plan to cut costs with job cuts for 218 people, which was absolutely devastating for the country community of Armidale. Have we heard much from the member for New England? Not much. He is one of the characters who are most vocal in their hostility to science and the university sector. In response to the cuts, he said: 'You can't give as much to everyone as you'd like on every issue. If you go down that path, you'll run out of access to credit and there'll be no money to give to universities at all.' I mean, what mumbo jumbo. It makes more sense than many of the things that the member for New England says, I suppose, but indeed it is a very low bar to get over. Regional universities should be the future of regional economies. Last year, a survey by the Regional Universities Network revealed that regionally headquartered universities are a driving force in those communities. The University of New England, Charles Sturt and Southern Cross are all members of that group. A study by Nous, who we hear quite a bit about from time to time, and the Centre of Policy Studies into the economic impact on the network showed that universities contributed $2.4 billion to real GDP in regional Australia and created 11,300 jobs. Scenario modelling has demonstrated that the greater the investment in regional universities, the greater the benefits to regional Australia— said Professor Helen Bartlett, the network chair. I suppose some of these characters on the coalition's backbench would be hostile to her views as an expert as well! She said: 'The Job-ready Graduates legislation'—which made its way through this parliament—'will have a positive impact in the regions through funding for more places and regional research.' If more students are denied places in our universities because of the actions of this government, if more jobs are lost, if more courses are cut, if our approach to the university sector continues in the direction that this government has set us on, it will do irreparable damage not just to regional communities but to the national interests. Finally, I might say, nowhere more emblematic is the government's failure in this area than in its treatment of students from overseas. I will never forget the food queues that I saw of foreign students who we should have been looking after. It was a solemn contract really, between Australia and the parents of those young people who've come here for undergraduate or post-graduate study. A solemn contract is, 'We will look after your kids.' I don't know how it is possible for anyone to conceive of their own kids studying in a foreign university being forced into food queues to sustain themselves. But the enormous damage that has been done by the last minister for education, the new minister for education, the Prime Minister and this government to the reputation of Australia's higher education sector and its capacity to do its job on behalf of all Australia will be long-lasting and very difficult to reverse in what I hope is a future Albanese Labor government. 10:42 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise today to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill. I intend, unlike speakers before me, to actually speak about the particular subject of the bill and to really focus on what the Morrison government is intending through this bill, and what we'd like to see achieved to continually improve the university and education sector more generally. This government is incredibly focused. Everything that this government, the Morrison Liberal government, does has one identifiable goal—that is, to make life better for Australians. Whether that be lowering the cost of living, making it easier to find a job, keeping Australians safe or supporting the country, as we're doing right now through this once-in-a-century pandemic, the Morrison government stands with and for Australians. That is why we are introducing this bill. Working in concert with existing legislation, this amendment will future-proof Australia's higher education system, cut red tape and simplify regulation. This bill complements the other reforms to higher education undertaken by this government, including steps to ensure free speech is protected on campus and adjustments to fee structures to ensure that our universities are training Australians for jobs of the future—for jobs that actually exist and not just jobs that are in the never-never, aren't actually practical and aren't actually going to lead somewhere—jobs that exist and jobs that we're predicting will exist into the future. We are setting Australians up for the very best opportunities in their lives. The Morrison government wants to ensure that we support school leavers, international students and those looking to gain new skills or to re-skill through higher education in Australia. Our education system is of course an extremely important pillar of our national economy. Pre COVID, it was one of our largest export industries, with hundreds of thousands of international students enrolled in Australian universities and an increasing number of Australian school leavers enrolling in courses to improve their employment prospects and their horizons. Over 50 per cent of Australians now hold some form of tertiary education, with over 30 per cent gaining their qualifications at university. Nothing is more important to Australia's future than a resilient and diverse economy, and our education sector is both a part of this economy and an enabler of economic diversification. Now, I'm a product of the vocational educational system. I didn't go to university; I completed a trade once I had finished school. I went to Midland College of TAFE and did my electronics servicing training there. Not having gone to university might put me in a minority in this place— Senator Sterle interjecting— Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Thank you, Senator Sterle. I'll take that. But its benefits certainly do not escape me, because in Australia we certainly bat way above our average. I point to the success in seeing the long history of many students, many people, going through university, and you can think about the research and the developments that have occurred as a result of a highly educated nation. But we owe it to future generations to make tertiary education efficient, robust and effective. This will not only benefit future generations who enrol in courses but answer our obligations to the broader tax-paying public who fund the system. This bill will amend the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 to implement recommendations of the Review of the Higher Education Provider Category Standards. It will introduce a measure preserving the academic records of students whose higher education provider has ceased to exist. This is very important so there's portability of that record and that information. It will better recognise high-quality non-university providers. This is also an important reform in enabling specialised, boutique and unique providers to get the status so they are able to provide a quality education. Through this bill, we will formally recognise and include the new undergraduate certificate qualification type in the higher education system. We'll be making a small number of other adjustments to the legislation intended to improve the regulation of Australia's higher education sector by strengthening the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency registry role. Also, through this bill, we will give effect to an outstanding recommendation from the report of the Review of the impact of the TEQSA Act on the higher education sector, referring to the threshold standards as a single, unified framework. We'll be replacing references to 'Indigenous students' with the term 'Indigenous persons' to provide clarity around the scope of Indigenous student assistance grants. This final change really is just a simple administrative change, referring to an existing definition that is already defined in the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000. This definition is the standard legislative definition of 'Indigenous persons' used across the Commonwealth statute book, so it is a very minor change, but nonetheless important. The government is confident that our universities will have little trouble in demonstrating the quality and significance of their research against the benchmarks laid out in the threshold standards. The government has ensured that research of national standing in fields specific to Australia is also considered within this benchmark. This will encourage research to and in the national interest and not unfairly penalise smaller, regional universities. Regional universities form integral parts of our regional economies, as they are, among other things, drawcards for younger people who are vital for flourishing local economies. It is of utmost importance that these smaller campuses are considered in any changes to higher education legislation. Having sat on the Senate committee that this legislation was referred to, I'm reassured that the government has undertaken this due diligence. We heard from the regional university sector, and their support of this bill was made very clear. I had the privilege last year of visiting the Pilbara Universities Centre. In Western Australia, as Senator Sterle my colleague from Western Australia knows, our population is very much centred down in the south-west corner. Over 80 per cent of Western Australians live in the south-west corner. We have this enormous state that takes up more than a third of the continent and yet our population is centred in that bottom corner. So there is not the ability for communities, towns and cities around the state to establish a university in their own right, because we don't have the sort of scale you see in places in New South Wales and Queensland. But the Morrison government has backed the Pilbara Universities Centre, which is enabling multiple universities—not just Western Australian universities but universities from across the country—to offer courses there in a supported format, in Karratha. Karratha is quite a booming little city. It has city status now. It didn't about 15 years ago. It has grown and it has a great future, with enormous potential going forward. Almost a third of Australia's GDP comes from exports out of ports like Karratha. It's a thriving place. But the Pilbara Universities Centre, run by Susan Grylls, is just a fantastic example of where, through collaboration, through community-driven approaches, you can really see some big change. It's been running now for two years almost and it really is having a significant impact. This bill goes to supporting these kinds of initiatives, supporting regional universities, supporting regional education so that young people don't have to leave and go to their capital city or elsewhere and they can actually stay resident in their home towns, in their home regions, and, importantly, give back once they have finished their studies in that area. Universities sometimes face difficulty in adhering to new standards, but these universities are going to be supported, because there is quite a long runway before any kind of enforcement action will be undertaken. There will be support provided to universities, but there is a 10-year runway to enable those universities to put in place the necessary procedures and standards. Then there will be enforcement action if standards haven't been met by that time. This is an extremely generous runway, ensuring that no abrupt changes to our research and education system can occur. I think that ought to provide an enormous amount of comfort to providers, in the understanding that the role of TEQSA is to be supportive and to help shape and guide. With that 10-year runway, there certainly shouldn't be any reason why an organisation couldn't adjust to meet these new standards. The bill will facilitate important innovations that will enhance the design of the higher education system, fostering provider aspiration, increasing research quality and all the while increasing regulatory flexibility within the Australian higher education sector. These improvements are needed now more than ever for us to keep producing high-quality graduates and world-class research, even in times of global pandemic and economic turbulence. Perhaps now we will start to see a reduction in taxpayer funding of research of questionable benefit like, for example, the University of Sydney study to work out whether or not having colleagues chatting in an open-plan office creates a noise and affects productivity, which cost taxpayers $405,000. I'm pretty sure employers and businesses can figure this stuff out on their own. We don't need to be spending such large sums of taxpayers' money on these sorts of research projects. Hopefully we'll see, through this, some improvement in that regard. Some will attack these amendments as moving the goalposts on universities, but it's simply not the case. These amendments simply clarify already existing requirements for taxpayer funded university research—that is, universities already have a requirement to demonstrate that they undertake research that leads to the creation of new knowledge and original creative endeavour. This requirement, however, is not currently defined, so these amendments will remedy this. Stakeholders have expressed strong support for the direction of these proposed clarifying changes, no doubt. Finally, I want to assure Australians that there will be no change to their privacy with TEQSA collecting and holding their records. This change will, in fact, centralise the database for Australians to access their education records. It will mean Australians who attended now defunct institutions will still be able to access their transcripts. TEQSA will undertake a privacy impact assessment as part of its implementation of this measure, and it will ensure that this handling of personal information under the new provisions in the bill complies with the Privacy Act. I think that should provide good comfort to Australians wondering about this. You're not going to have a whole heap of different organisations holding different records. When an organisation is no longer operating, you won't be wondering whether you can still access a record. It will be stored in a central repository, which will have a big impact. This comprehensive amendment to our higher education legislation will streamline and improve the sector. It's pivotal to our future economy. It is for that reason that I commend this bill to the Senate. 10:56 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank all senators for their contributions to this debate. The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020 will amend the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011, known as the TEQSA Act, to facilitate implementation of the recommendations of Emeritus Professor Coaldrake AO's Review of the Higher Education Provider Category Standards. It will also make a number of other amendments to the TEQSA Act and the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to simplify the structure of the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards), to guarantee that higher education students will have future access to their student records, even if an institution ceases to operate, to protect the use of the word 'university' in Australian internet domain names and, finally, to confirm that higher education providers can use Indigenous student assistance grants to assist prospective as well as existing Indigenous students. The bill also demonstrates the government's commitments to the needs of students, employers, higher education providers and the wider community through the creation of higher education standards that support a diverse and high-quality education sector and underpin the reputation and quality of our world-leading universities. I would like to thank the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills for its consideration of the bill and of the minister's response to its questions. I also thank the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for its consideration and inquiry report and welcome its recommendation that the bill be passed. In response to the committee's comments, in particular at paragraph 3.93, where a student has transferred to a new higher education provider, the government considers it is reasonable to assume there is an implied consent to access academic records from a previous provider. Indeed, these records will be needed to justify graduating the student in the new provider's name. The government notes the comments and additional recommendations from both Labor and Greens senators. As requested by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and as recommended by the opposition, the explanatory memorandum has been updated to include the minister's response to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. On other matters raised, the government has accepted the view of key stakeholders that retaining a category with the title 'university college' is important to both the reputation and aspiration of high-quality, independent higher education providers. A category of this name has been part of the Australian higher education sector since at least 1935 when New England University College was established, which, of course, became the University of New England. So, while it wasn't specifically recommended by the review, it is a reasonable and appropriate response to the review. The Labor Party's call for additional resources for TEQSA to administer the new provider category standards is, in the view of the government, unwarranted. As those opposite would be aware, the need for TEQSA to assess research quality is not new. The new research quality benchmarks will, however, provide clarity to both TEQSA and institutions on the quality of research required to both achieve and maintain university status. The government considers that the appropriate place for those benchmarks to be specified is in the threshold standards legislative instrument, along with all other thresholds and baseline requirements. TEQSA's consultative process to develop guidance on how it will assess the benchmarks will provide a further opportunity for universities to contribute their ideas on factors and measures that should be considered and how different disciplines should be assessed. There's no need to specify, indeed, that TEQSA take a variety of factors into account, as the Greens suggest, as that is actually the only way that such a threshold can be assessed. Different providers will have different evidence to offer. Again, I thank all senators for their participation in this debate. I commend the bill. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:05]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

30 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A (teller) Ciccone, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Green, N Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Lines, S McAllister, J McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Rice, J Sheldon, A Siewert, R Steele-John, J Sterle, G Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE Walsh, J Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 31 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Brockman, S Canavan, MJ Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P (teller) Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Hanson, P Hughes, H Hume, J Lambie, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Payne, MA Rennick, G Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

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

In Committee 15 11:09 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1130: (1) Schedule 1, item 15, page 7 (after line 15), after subsection 59A(4), insert: (4A) A determination under subsection (4) must provide that, in having regard to the quality of the research undertaken by the entity or provider under subsection (1), TEQSA must: (a) take into account a variety of qualitative and quantitative factors; and (b) specify the factors taken into account for different discipline areas; and (c) specify the benchmarks, including weightings, given to each specified factor. (4B) Subsection (4A) does not limit subsection (4). The metrics used to determine research quality shouldn't be left up to the minister and government agencies. They should be in the primary legislation. I disagree with the minister when the minister says they shouldn't be, because the Senate should be able to scrutinise the metrics that are being used to assess research. The standards to judge the quality of research must be fit for purpose, and they must be fair. They must take into account the diversity of research across and within disciplines and account for cross-disciplinary research. So these broader overall metrics must be included in the primary legislation. This amendment really seeks to ensure that the higher education regulator, TEQSA, take a variety of qualitative and quantitative factors into account when they set the benchmarks for research quality. It is also to provide clarity on what those factors are. TEQSA would need to specify the factors taken into account for different discipline areas and specify the benchmarks. This amendment would make sure that they do that, and that should include weightings that are given to each specific factor. By including these requirements in the primary legislation, we can have greater confidence that the standards against which the research in universities is judged are appropriate, that these standards are fair and especially that these standards are transparently developed, which the Senate can make sure of today. The opposition have already indicated that they will support this amendment. I hope the crossbenches do as well. I commend the Greens amendment to the Senate. 11:12 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia The Labor Party supports this amendment. We need much greater transparency in decision-making by our regulator, TEQSA. In particular, we need to strengthen, not undermine, the research quality and the auditing of that research quality across institutions. TEQSA told the inquiry that it would be absolutely essential to take into account measures beyond the Excellence in Research for Australia methodology. Given TEQSA would be the organisation required to make judgements about that research and its national standing, they told us that it requires using approaches, metrics, indicators—both quantitative and qualitative—that sit outside the ERA processes. So this is, indeed, a grave concern when it comes to the kind of legislation that's being put forward today. We, along with the Greens and, I hope, the crossbench, are asking for transparency about the factors that TEQSA is looking at when making these decisions. It means that we need to see Australian institutions have the highest standards for Australian research, and it's difficult to see how those high standards will be maintained if the metrics that the regulator have available to them don't give the full picture. Australia will only be able to trade on its international reputation for good research that's supported by strong regulation for so long, until the metrics that we put forward are no longer trusted by institutions here in Australia, the Australian public and, indeed, internationally. This will affect the global standing of our research and, I would expect, in time, the quality of Australian research as well. The failure of the government to acknowledge and understand these issues and ensure that TEQSA has the broadest array of information available to it, I have to say, is quite telling, particularly in the context of the other parts of this legislation that indicate which institutions are allowed to call themselves a university. Because, as we know, this Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill also allows colleges and institutes of higher education—higher education colleges—to now call themselves universities. In the Australian tradition, as is the tradition in many other countries, places are only called universities if they do both research and teaching. You can't be a university unless you do both teaching and research. So this bill is not only failing to put forward the sufficient standards around the assessment of research, such as quality and depth et cetera; it is also, at the same time, confusing the field around what a university looks like. Perhaps they think that the Australian public will be able to distinguish between an institute of higher education and a university, as we've done in the past, and they'll see an institute of higher education in the same way as they see a university college. But I don't think that that is the judgement that the Australian population will make. I think we are in danger, culturally, of adopting far more American norms around this, which, as yet, have not been part of our tradition here in Australia. I have to say that it appears to me that the government, in putting this legislation forward—which, indeed, Labor has said that it supports, because there are some necessary things that need to happen—have gone in their own direction. The Coaldrake review, for example, said: Along with teaching, the undertaking of research is, and should remain, a defining feature of what it means to be a university in Australia; a threshold benchmark of quality and quantity of research should be included in the Higher Education Provider Category Standards. It should have its own distinctive provider category standards. This threshold benchmark for research quality should be augmented over time. The issue is: I don't think what this legislation provides for today gives TEQSA access to the adequate array of information to do that properly. The recommendation of Coaldrake, in fact, said that the Higher Education Standards Panel, in amending The Higher Education Standards Framework, put forward quite different benchmarks to those that are being pursued today. The department claims that no university would be adversely affected, and that some would be affected. When you look at the assessment of this by the Department of Education, Skills and Employment, they say: Analysis of 2018 ERA data suggests that all public Australian universities would meet the proposed initial research quality benchmark requiring research at or above world-class standard that leads to the creation of new knowledge and original creative endeavour in at least three, or at least 30 per cent, of the broad fields of education they deliver … I won't repeat the whole quote, but the department highlighted that it was 'arguable that some of Australia's smaller private universities' might not meet those standards 'if assessed on ERA ratings alone'. The department then goes on to say: No university has indicated any concern or risk that they would not satisfy the benchmark. This is a testament to the already high quality of research in Australia. The department is saying that no-one's got a problem meeting these thresholds, yet small institutions might struggle to meet that threshold. What does it say about the standards of quality for research that TEQSA will be prepared to support as a result of using those ERA ratings? The Labor Party and I don't believe that those ERA ratings are enough to make quality judgements about the quality of research going on in our institutions. We're concerned that the standards are so low that universities will meet them, given the time lag involved in this implementation and given the government has not spelt out any additional resources that would be available to TEQSA to put in higher quality assessments. It raises questions, for me and for the Labor Party, about the extent to which this government can, and should, be confident that the standards are sufficiently rigorous. Before we vote on this amendment, I have a few questions to ask along these themes. I ask the minister: will extra resources be made available to TEQSA as part of the implementation of the responsibilities in this legislation? 11:21 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania The resources to TEQSA will remain as they are. 11:21 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Can you please give me a detailed assessment of how TEQSA will be able to juggle the new responsibilities under this bill within its existing resources? 11:22 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania TEQSA already assesses quality of research. 11:22 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Indeed they do already assess research, but this changes the framework and it also changes the kinds of institutions that will have to apply to TEQSA to have their research quality and teaching quality judged. If you're expecting more institutions to become universities using research, they also have to regulate institutions that become self-regulating. Currently, universities are self-regulating and higher education institutes are not. The playing field here is being changed in relation to who gets to be a university and who they are assessed by and how. 11:23 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania As I indicated, this is a function that TEQSA already undertakes. There will be new guidance provided to TEQSA to assist it with undertaking those functions. 11:23 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Do you expect the number of institutions that TEQSA is responsible for to change under this legislation? I wouldn't necessarily expect so, but I'm interested in hearing about self-accrediting institutions and how their regulation with TEQSA will change. 11:23 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania It's not our expectation that the number of institutions will change, which aligns with your perceptions. 11:24 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia What was the government's response to Universities Australia when they said they would prefer the 'university college' category not to be used to describe things that don't include both teaching and research? Why is it that the government has made a decision to allow institutions that don't conduct research to use the word 'university' in their name? 11:24 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I understand the previous minister has made a response to Universities Australia, and I can't speak any further to that. 11:24 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Can you tell the Senate what the rationale is for enabling non-research institutions to have the word 'university' in their names? 11:25 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania The government has accepted the view of key stakeholders—and this is from the summing-up speech, for the information of the chamber—that retaining a category with the title 'university college' is important to both the reputation and the aspiration of high-quality independent higher education providers. A category of this name has been part of the Australian higher education sector since at least 1935, when New England University College was established, which became the University of New England. So, while it was not specifically recommended by the review, it is a reasonable and appropriate response to the review. 11:26 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia On New England University College, did it conduct research during all of that time? 11:26 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Because there was no specific requirement at the time, I can't speak to that as a specific matter. 11:26 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Okay, but you're now confirming that institutions that don't perform research will be able to use the word 'university' in their names when this legislation is implemented? 11:27 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania University colleges will be required to use both words: 'university' and 'college'. They won't be able to call themselves a 'university'. This will be an element of the threshold standards in the legislative instruments. 11:27 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I'd like to go back to the questions I was asking before about TEQSA and its assessment of quality. We heard, in the Senate inquiry, concerns about how quality will be assessed by TEQSA, and so I'm keen to ask you, Minister: how will TEQSA go through the process of assessing quality, and how will they work with the sector and other stakeholders to develop new quality assessments? 11:28 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania My advice is that TEQSA will undertake the same stakeholder consultations as they do currently. 11:28 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I asked you, Minister, how they will work through the sector and other stakeholders to develop new quality assessments. Using the phrase 'it's the same as they do it now' doesn't actually explain to the Senate how they do it. 11:28 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania My advice is that TEQSA has committed to establishing a working group with the sector, to ensure that those processes are established in conjunction with the sector. 11:29 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia What consultation took place with institutions that do call themselves 'university colleges' but are not teaching institutions but residential colleges, and other colleges that are affiliated with universities and teaching institutions? How are you dealing with the confusion between an organisation like St Catherine's College, which is a residential college affiliated to UWA—they call themselves 'university colleges' because they're residential. Have you consulted with that sector as well? 11:30 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania They won't be using the term 'university college'; that is my advice. They are a different category and, in that context, there has been no specific discussion with that type of college. 11:30 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I just want to clarify, Minister. You said that they won't be calling themselves 'university college'. Many residential halls do call themselves residential colleges, so I'm just seeking clarification. 11:30 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania That is not my advice. This is a specific category with respect to this legislation, so I suspect, in that sense, we have a difference of perspective here, or a difference of view. 11:31 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Minister, the university colleges that are residential halls et cetera are not regulated by the regulator in terms of teaching or research. So, in that sense, they fall outside. But they're very much part of the university sector and the need to regulate the university sector. For example, university colleges and universities are regulated by TEQSA for issues like how, as an institution, they deal with sexual assault complaints on campus. University colleges are very much part of the regulation and those institutional arrangements. So I'm somewhat confused. I understand that they're not a provider category, but they are very much also regulated by TEQSA. 11:32 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania They are a residential college. They fall outside of this process. If they were to change their operations and seek to move into this space, they would then have to comply with the regulatory frameworks that apply under this legislation. 11:32 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Are you telling me that any institution that currently calls itself a university college will be regulated under this framework? 11:32 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that, if they want to provide services that are regulated under this legislation, they will have to comply with the legislation. 11:32 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia That would be true of any institution that wanted to provide services under this. What if they already call themselves a university college and they provide some of those services, but they don't currently provide them to the standard required by this legislation? 11:33 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania If they want to provide these services, they will be required to meet the standard. If they're not providing services that are impacted by this legislation, then they won't be impacted. 11:33 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia There are many such institutions—for example, University College at the University of Melbourne, University of Canberra College and Canberra University College. Have you checked with them? They're affiliated with the universities. They're independent institutions. Have you consulted with them about whether they do in fact conduct any of the activities that will be regulated under this legislation? 11:34 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania My advice is that, if they're not education providers, they're not impacted by the legislation. 11:34 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I know, from my own experience in university colleges, that they can do things like tutoring and short courses—things that they will have a quality standard for. But, if they conduct teaching and they charge fees for people to come in and participate in that teaching—and it might be a whole range of different courses and support—but it's not historically part of the higher education standards, I'm unsure whether those courses will be required to meet the current standards of TEQSA. 11:35 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania If these organisations are seeking to supply services that fall within the realms of the legislation, they will have to apply to register with TEQSA. 11:35 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Nevertheless, they'll be able to call themselves university colleges while continuing to market themselves for short courses or other kinds of activities as well? 11:36 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I think I've actually quite clearly already answered that question, but I will say that residential colleges that are not subject to the TEQSA Act do not all use 'university college' in their name. For example, St Catherine's College doesn't call itself St Catherine's University College. But I think I've actually, in my previous answers, answered the questions that relate to this matter. 11:36 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales As the minister would know, Emeritus Professor Coaldrake was commissioned in October 2018 and reported in 2019 with a set of recommendations that go to some of the issues that the minister has been canvassing. Can you outline to the Senate what relationship recommendation 5 of the Coaldrake report has to the legislation? 11:37 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I don't have the Coaldrake report with me, nor specifically recommendation 5, so I'm going to have to take that on notice. 11:37 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales In order to be helpful, Minister, I do have recommendation 5 in front of me. It says: Along with teaching, the undertaking of research is, and should remain, a defining feature of what it means to be a university in Australia; a threshold benchmark of quality and quantity of research should be included in the Higher Education Provider Category Standards. This threshold benchmark for research quality should be augmented over time. Universities Australia in their response and, I assume, in discussions with the government say that 30 per cent of a university's research should be at a world standard in the areas that they provide specialty in now in order to be properly regulated under the framework that this government is administering and that, in 2030, 50 per cent of research should be assessed as being at a world standard. Australia—despite the efforts in some parts and lack of effort in others, despite hostility in some other parts and lack of care, I suppose, despite that attitude from the federal government—does 2.6 per cent of the globe's research that is assessed as being at world-standard research level, despite us having 0.3 per cent of the world's population. Indeed, it's that research, over the course of the postwar period, that has led to the greatest advances in Australian agricultural production and Australian industry, the advances that have led to the greatest growth in Australian jobs and indeed good quality jobs. That's pretty important not just for the future of the university sector but for the government having a strong approach to regulating the proportion of world-standard research that each of our universities conduct. Can the minister advise the Senate what this legislation proposes to do in that regard? 11:40 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania That's a really important question. This legislation will enable the standards that you have just discussed, which have been drafted based on consultation with the sector, to be enacted. So this legislation will enable those standards that you have just been talking about and calling for to be enacted. 11:41 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales How will the passage of the bill assist with the assessment of the performance of universities against that standard? Who will be doing that work? How will that be reported through to the parliament? And what is the evidence in front of the government now about Australian universities' performance in terms of those benchmarks? 11:41 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania That assessment process will be undertaken by TEQSA, as we have discussed earlier in the debate. The legislation states: TEQSA must have regard to the quality of the research undertaken by the entity or provider. … … … TEQSA may, in writing, determine matters relating to the quality of research for the purposes of this section— of the act. 11:42 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales You outlined to Senator Pratt, in response to her questions, that the proposal is, as I think you've agreed, absolutely critical for the future viability and reputation of Australia's universities; absolutely critical for the development of Australian research and the future prosperity of Australians; absolutely vital for the future of Australian businesses that need good quality Australian research in order to develop products and develop equipment and to lift productivity; and absolutely vital to our agriculture sector in particular, where the level of public funding for Australian agricultural research has fallen through the floor not only under this government but under successive governments at the Commonwealth and state level, leading to long-term problems, a crisis in fact, in agricultural research in Australia. Despite the importance of that regulatory assurance work, is it really the case that the government proposes no additional resources for the oversight body to perform that important work? 11:43 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I'm not sure that I completely agree with you with respect to what's been occurring within the agricultural research sector. Through its interactions with agriculture, particularly through the agricultural levy process, the government has continued to facilitate the investment of something in the order of $700 million plus in agricultural research on an annual basis. As I discussed in answer to a previous question, and this is something that we agree on, the number of institutions that are being subject to the oversight of TEQSA is not expected to change. On that basis, the government is maintaining the level of resourcing that is provided to TEQSA to undertake its work under the new regime. 11:45 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Can the minister advise, I think at a future juncture in time— Debate interrupted. NOTICES 20 NOTICES Presentation 20 11:45 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, standing in my name for the next day of sitting, proposing the disallowance of the Veterans' Affairs (Treatment Principles—Rehabilitation in the Home and Other Amendments) Determination 2020, and business of the Senate notice of motion No. 5, standing in my name for 12 sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Legislation (Deferral of Sunsetting—Telecommunications Universal Service Obligation (Standard Telephone Service—Requirements and Circumstances) Determination) Certificate 2020. Presentation 20 COMMITTEES 21 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 21 Report 21 11:46 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I present the second report of 2021 of the Selection of Bills Committee and I seek leave to have the report incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 2 OF 2021 18 February 2021 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Senator Dean Smith (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Perin Davey (The Nationals Whip) Senator Stirling Griff (Centre Alliance Whip) Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip) Senator Rachel Siewert (Australian Greens Whip) Senator Anne Urquhart (Opposition Whip) Senator Raff Ciccone Senator Katy Gallagher Senator Jacqui Lambie Senator the Hon James McGrath Senator Rex Patrick Senator the Hon Anne Ruston Secretary: Tim Bryant ph. 6277 3020 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 2 OF 2021 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 17 February 2021 at 7.35 pm. 2. The committee recommends that— (a) the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 11 May 2021 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral) (b) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Your Future, Your Super) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 April 2021. 3. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: Air Services Amendment Bill 2018 Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Penalties) Bill 2021 Constitution Alteration (Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Press) 2019 Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2019 Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2020 Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020 Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018 Education Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021 Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Early Childhood Education and Care Coronavirus Response and Other Measures) Bill 2021 Governor-General Amendment (Cessation of Allowances in the Public Interest) Bill 2019 Great Australian Bight Environment Protection Bill 2019 Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Fees) Bill 2021 Industry Research and Development Amendment (Industry Innovation and Science Australia) Bill 2021 Interactive Gambling Amendment (Prohibition on Credit Card Use) Bill 2020 Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020 Narcotic Drugs Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2021 Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017 Social Security Amendment (COVID-19 Supplement) Bill 2020 Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Student Assistance and Other Measures) Bill 2021 Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2019 Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2019. 4. The committee considered the following bill but was unable to reach agreement: Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021. (Dean Smith) Chair 18 February 2021 Appendix 1 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: The Independent Review of the EPBC Act - Final Report (October 2020) states "There are fundamental shortcomings in the interactions between Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) and the EPBC Act" and the Independent Review of the EPBC Act Interim Report (Samuels 2020) stated that "Legal ambiguities in the relationship between EPBC Act and the RFA Act should be clarified...". The RFA framework is such that the Commonwealth accredits the State Government's regulatory framework to ensure there is independent oversight of forestry operations and robust powers to conduct audits and impose sanctions if forestry operations breach regulations. The finding of Justice Mortimer (Friends of Leadbeater's Possum Inc v VicForests) has created ambiguity on the interaction of the EPBC Act and RFAs. Referring this Bill will allow consultation with a broad range of stakeholders to ensure all have opportunity to provide input to obtain the greatest understanding of issues relating to the interaction between RFAs and the EPBC Act by state, and potential legislative solutions that remove ambiguity while enabling forestry operations to continue to operate with best sustainable practice in line with state and Commonwealth environmental objectives. Time sensitive given state government decision making. Possible submissions or evidence from: Forestry industry stakeholders State governments / state government forestry and environmental agencies Environmental groups Committee to which bill is to be referred: Environment Communications Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): March, April, 2021 Possible reporting date: 11 May 2021 (signed) Bridget McKenzie SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Examine nature of the bill and its implication - employment and environmental - with regard to the context of the bill, including but not limited to the Samuel review. Possible submissions or evidence from: Industry, unions and environmental stakeholders Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): To be determined by the committee Possible reporting date: May 2021 (signed) Senator Anne Urquhart Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 I move: That the report be adopted. 11:46 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021, the provisions of the bill be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 March 2021". 11:46 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I would like to move an amendment to the government's amendment, which I understand has been circulated. I move: At the end of the proposed amendment, omit "12 March 2021", substitute "7 May 2021". It's important that colleagues realise that the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 was introduced into the House only yesterday. Among other things, it will reduce the obligation on a company to publicly report information that might affect a company's position, whether that be a good position or a bad position. On the face of it, the watering down of continuous disclosure requirements will increase the opportunity for insider trading. It's incumbent upon the Senate to properly examine what the government is proposing here and whom it will impact. There are millions of Australians who depend on the proper functioning of the stock market so that their superannuation accounts aren't eroded by people trading on inside information. This amendment would change the reporting date from 12 March to 7 May. The Australian Greens, to be frank, would prefer an even longer inquiry time and believe that this bill warrants an extremely thorough examination by the committee, but we are putting forward 7 May as a sensible compromise here. I urge senators, and particularly One Nation senators, to give the Senate enough time to understand exactly what is being proposed, who it is going to affect and whether or not, in fact, the watering down of continuous disclosure requirements will increase the opportunity for insider trading. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is the amendment moved by Senator McKim to the amendment moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:53]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

30 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Ciccone, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson-Young, SC Lambie, J Lines, S McAllister, J McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC 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 Wong, P 32 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Canavan, MJ Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Griff, S Hanson, P Hughes, H Hume, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Rennick, G Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.

BUSINESS 25 BUSINESS Rearrangement 25 11:55 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That— (a) government business orders of the day as shown on today's Order of Business be considered from 12.45 pm today; (b) government business be called on after consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) and considered till not later than 2 pm today; (c) general business notice of motion no. 1008 be considered during general business today; and (d) the following bills be considered at the time for private senators' bills on Monday, 22 February 2021: (i) Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021, and (ii) Franchising Laws Amendment (Fairness in Franchising) Bill 2020. Question agreed to. NOTICES 25 NOTICES Postponement 25 11:56 The PRESIDENT I0Q Does any senator wish for the question to be put on any of those notifications? If not, we will proceed. MOTIONS 25 MOTIONS Anniversary of the Bombing of Darwin 25 11:57 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia At the request of Senator McMahon, I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1001, relating to the 79th anniversary of the bombing of Darwin, be taken as a formal motion. The PRESIDENT I0Q Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? An honourable senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q There is an objection. JobSeeker Payment 25 11:57 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of Senator Pratt, I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1005, relating to the JobSeeker program, be taken as a formal motion. The PRESIDENT I0Q Is there any objection to the motion being taken as formal? An honourable senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q There is an objection. Cyclone Yasa 25 11:57 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1006, relating to the Cyclone Yasa humanitarian relief, be taken as a formal motion. The PRESIDENT I0Q Is there any objection to the motion being taken as formal? An honourable senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q There is an objection. JobKeeper Payment 26 11:58 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of Senators Gallagher and Farrell, I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1007, relating to the JobKeeper program, be taken as a formal motion. The PRESIDENT I0Q Is there any objection to the motion being taken as formal? An honourable senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q There is an objection. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 26 11:58 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of Senator McAllister, I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1009, relating to environment protection reform, be taken as a formal motion. The PRESIDENT I0Q Is there any objection to the motion being taken as formal? An honourable senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q There is an objection. DOCUMENTS 26 DOCUMENTS Answers to Questions on Notice 26 Order for the Production of Documents 26 11:59 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of Senator Kitching, I move: That— (a) the Senate notes at the time of lodgement of this notice of motion: (i) 631 answers to questions on notice from the 2020-2021 budget estimates in the following portfolios remain unanswered: (A) Attorney-General's, answers to 76 questions, (B) Foreign Affairs and Trade, answers to 2 questions, (C) Health, answers to 22 questions, (D) Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, answer to 1 question, (E) Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, answers to 143 questions, (F) Prime Minister and Cabinet, answers to 323 questions, (G) Social Services, answers to 60 questions, and (H) Treasury, answers to 4 questions, (ii) 7 answers to questions on notice from the 2019-2020 additional estimates remain unanswered, (iii) 20 answers to questions on notice from the 2019-2020 supplementary budget estimates remain unanswered, and (iv) the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has the worst performance in responding to questions on notice from Senate committees considering estimates of all Commonwealth Government departments, being responsible for 53 per cent of all overdue answers, which is grossly inconsistent with its self-described role as being responsible for "Fostering a high performing public sector" and is a direct reflection on the Prime Minister; and (b) there be laid on the table by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, by no later than 9.30am on Wednesday, 24 February 2021, the answers to all 658 unanswered questions on notice from the 2020-2021 budget estimates, 2019-2020 additional estimates and the 2019-2020 supplementary budget estimates. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 26 MOTIONS Members of Parliament: Staff 26 12:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I move: (1) That the Senate notes the significant questions arising from the allegations of rape made by Ms Brittany Higgins and the response of the Minister for Defence. (2) That the Minister for Defence be required to attend the Senate at 10 am on Monday, 22 February 2021 to provide an explanation, of no more than 15 minutes, of the matters outlined in paragraph (1), including: (a) when she first became aware of the alleged rape and what action she took, and (b) what contact she had with the Prime Minister or his staff in relation to the alleged rape. (3) At the conclusion of the Minister's explanation: (a) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, or failure to make the explanation, required by paragraph (2); and (b) any motion under paragraph (3) (a) shall have precedence over all business for up to one hour, and a senator shall not speak for more than ten minutes to such a motion. I seek leave to make a short statement, given the importance of the matter. Leave granted. Senator WONG 00AOU I thank the Senate. I do regret having to move this motion and I'd encourage the government to consider simply requiring the minister to attend the chamber and to make a statement. I think, in the circumstances, it is reasonable. Minister Reynolds does have a responsibility to explain her conduct both to Ms Higgins and also to the Senate. Regrettably, in question time, what we have seen is a continued refusal by the minister to respond to questions about her conduct. Leaving aside what people may think about these issues, it is reasonable for the Senate to require a minister to explain his or her conduct. I also am deeply, deeply concerned by some of what has been reported today which reflects the handling of this serious allegation, the serious crime of rape, as a political problem. We see reports of rumours being spread in the press gallery that appear to be done with the objective of undermining Ms Higgins and delegitimising her experience. I don't believe you can say, when the cameras are on, 'We need to change the culture,' but then spread rumours and background journalists. If you want to change the culture—and we all would want that—then people should stop spreading rumours. They should stop treating this allegation of rape as a political problem to manage. They should front up to this chamber and be accountable. Ms Brittany Higgins deserves nothing less. 12:02 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia by leave—The government does not support the motion, which goes further than seeking to have the minister make a statement but does seek to present provisions for further debate in this chamber about the statement as well. Ms Higgins's welfare and wishes have always been and remain the government's paramount concern. This includes not prejudicing any potential further police inquiries. Minister Reynolds has already answered a number of questions on these matters and Minister Reynolds will further update the Senate later today in relation to any matters on which she has sought advice. 12:02 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator HANSON BK6 Senator Roberts and I have the greatest sympathy for this young woman. It needs to be noted that it takes an enormous amount of courage to speak out as a victim of any sexual offence, especially in Brittany's circumstances, where politics have cruelly thrust her into the media spotlight. I'm quite disgusted by Labor's exploitative behaviour on this matter, particularly Senator Wong's, whose own chief of staff lost his job, following a claim reported in The Australian on 30 July 2020 with the headline 'Quit after sex claim'. Anthony Albanese brings shame to this place for allowing Senator Wong to bring, on his behalf, these predictable actions. If it's not already, it should be a Federal Police matter, and therefore One Nation will not support this motion. 12:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I regret having to respond to that. I'd seek leave to make a very short statement. Leave granted. Senator WONG 00AOU My view and the Labor Party's view, Senator Hanson, is that in these matters we should always act in accordance with the views of the complainant and respect the wishes of the complainant. That is the approach, in fact, we have taken in relation to Ms Higgins, which I think Senator Gallagher put, and that is the approach I took in relation to the matter you raise. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is the motion moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:09]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

31 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Ciccone, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallagher, KR Green, N Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Lambie, J Lines, S McAllister, J McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC 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 Wong, P 31 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Birmingham, SJ Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Canavan, MJ Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Hanson, P Hughes, H Hume, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Rennick, G Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

COVID-19: Vaccine 28 12:11 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I, and also on behalf of Senator Siewert, move: That the Senate calls on the Government to: (a) develop a publicly owned manufacturing facility that enables Australia to produce mRNA vaccines and drugs locally; (b) continue to diversify Australia's vaccine portfolio by securing a deal with Moderna; (c) increase Commonwealth Serum Laboratories' capacity to produce Novavax at the same time as AstraZeneca given the promising results from Phase 3 clinical trials; (d) ensure that vaccines are given to maximise their efficacy; and (e) support our neighbours in the Pacific region to have timely and adequate access to COVID-19 vaccines recognising none of us are safe until all of us are safe. Senator Gallagher ING Mr President, I wonder if you could put the sections of the motion separately or separate part (a). The PRESIDENT I0Q I'm happy to comply with that request. The question is that clause (a) of the motion be agreed to. 12:12 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 secured more than 150 million doses, enough to supply the entire Australian population several times and one of the highest rates in the world. The government has procured vaccines using a diversified portfolio strategy based on the expert advice of the Science and Industry Technical Advisory Group, led by Professor Brendan Murphy. We've also secured further vaccines through the Covax Facility, giving Australia access to additional vaccine candidates. The Australian government is also providing $500 million to support access to vaccines for our partners in the south-west Pacific and South-East Asia. CSL has advised that any attempt at simultaneous production is not possible without compromising delivery of the AstraZeneca vaccine. Producing mRNA vaccines at scale is a brand-new challenge that the entire world is grappling with. It will take time to develop properly. An audit has identified some companies in Australia with mRNA production capability, and we are currently working with them to explore if that capability could be scaled up in the future. Senator Griff 76760 Mr President, I ask that parts (b) and (c) also be put separately. The PRESIDENT I0Q I shall do so, Senator Griff. So the question is that clause (a) of the motion be agreed to. Question negatived. Senator Siewert e5z Mr President, I ask that the Greens be recorded as having voted aye. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that clauses (b) and (c) of motion No. 1014 be agreed to. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that clauses (d) and (e) of motion No. 1014 be agreed to. Question agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:18]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

27 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Ciccone, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson-Young, SC Lines, S McAllister, J McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Polley, H Pratt, LC Rice, J Sheldon, A Siewert, R Steele-John, J Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 31 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Canavan, MJ Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Griff, S Hughes, H Hume, J Lambie, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Patrick, RL Rennick, G Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Anzac Day 29 12:19 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I seek leave to amend general business No. 1010 standing in my name. Leave granted. Senator ROBERTS 266524 I want to thank Senator Wong for her interest and her support in this and her help in changing it. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator ROBERTS 266524 I move the motion as amended: That the Senate calls on the Federal Government to work with state and territory governments to ensure Anzac Day commemorations proceed with fairness and consistency, consistent with health advice, in the same way governments facilitated other major public gatherings in the last 12 months, including the Australian Open, the football finals and the Black Lives Matter march in a COVID-safe manner 12:21 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Anzac Day commemorations in states and territories are managed by the state branches of the Returned and Services League of Australia in conjunction with state and territory governments. Capacity restrictions for events held on this important day would be based on expert health and medical advice, as they've been for gatherings over recent months across Australia. Question agreed to. JobSeeker Payment, JobKeeper Payment, Environmental Legislation 30 12:21 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to move motions Nos 1005, 1007 and 1009 together, and that they be determined without amendment or debate. Leave not granted. Senator GALLAGHER ING I move: That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving these motions and that that be determined without amendment or debate. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12: 23]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

56 AYES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Ayres, T Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Brown, CL Canavan, MJ Carr, KJ Chandler, C Ciccone, R Colbeck, R Davey, P Dodson, P Duniam, J Farrell, D Faruqi, M Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallagher, KR Green, N Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Hughes, H Hume, J Lines, S McAllister, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McKim, NJ McLachlan, A Molan, AJ O'Neill, D O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Polley, H Rennick, G Rice, J Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Siewert, R Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Steele-John, J Sterle, G Stoker, AJ Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE Van, D Walsh, J Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 3 NOES Lambie, J Patrick, RL (teller) Roberts, M 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

12:26 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move general business notices of motion Nos 1005, 1007 and 1009 that have been circulated in the chamber. General Business Notice of Motion No. 1005 That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the Reserve Bank of Australia Governor Dr Philip Lowe's comments that the Government's planned reduction in JobSeeker will impact the Australian economy, namely 'It would obviously have some effect because these people getting their supplement, the bulk of them spend the income they get, so there would be some effect on spending', (ii) income support recipients spend their money on local businesses, helping to sustain local jobs, (iii) the increase to JobSeeker via the Coronavirus Supplement has been a critical economic support, and (iv) the planned reduction to JobSeeker will impact spending; local businesses and local jobs; and (b) calls on the Government to deliver a permanent increase to JobSeeker. General Business Notice of Motion No. 1007 That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) 1.5 million workers including 40,000 travel agents are still reliant on the JobKeeper wage subsidy, (ii) the COVID-19 recovery is patchy and some sectors are still hurting due to lockdowns and international border closures, (iii) JobKeeper is set to be withdrawn on 28 March 2021 but the Government has not announced further support for sectors still affected by COVID-19, (iv) the tourism sector is one of the worst affected sectors, and (v) without support beyond March, 60% of tourism-related businesses and 90% of travel agencies could collapse; (b) expresses its appreciation for travel agents, like Lisa and her team at Capital Travel Manuka, who have been working for next to nothing to help Australians change travel plans, return home after being stranded overseas and claim $4 billion in refunds; (c) condemns the Morrison Government for: (i) failing to create a plan for secure, well-paid jobs to replace JobKeeper in sectors that need ongoing support. and (ii) ignoring the pleas for help from businesses in sectors that will not fully recover until the reopening of international borders; and (d) calls on the Morrison Government to extend JobKeeper beyond March for businesses still adversely impacted by international border closures. General Business Notice of Motion No. 1009 That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) Professor Graeme Samuel is an eminent and experienced regulator, and his review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 marks a significant opportunity for reform to protect the environment and create jobs, (ii) the Morrison Government has completely bungled this opportunity for reform by: (A) pre-empting the findings of their own independent review, (B) rehashing Tony Abbott's failed 2014 environment bill, ramming the failed bill through the lower house and gagging debate, and (C) ignoring and cherry-picking the recommendations from the report, and pursuing second rate so-called standards, (iii) the Morrison Government was starting from a low base given it has: (A) slashed 40% from environment department funding, and (B) presided over an explosion of 510% in job and investment delays through environmental decision blow-outs, and (iv) Australia's bushfire ravaged natural environment, industry groups, scientists, and communities across the nation have been crying out for measured, durable and effective reform; (b) condemns the Morrison Government for being more interested in politics than solutions; and (c) calls on the Morrison Government to introduce strong national environmental standards, establish a genuinely independent 'cop on the beat' for Australia's environment and fix the explosion in job and investment delays caused by their massive funding cuts. The PRESIDENT I0Q I will put them separately, with the courtesy of the Senate, to allow people to vote separately, as they would on a single motion. 12:26 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I table government statements relating to notices of motion 1005 and 1009. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1005 be agreed to. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that motion 1007 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:31]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

29 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Ciccone, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson-Young, SC Lambie, J Lines, S McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC 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 Wong, P 28 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Canavan, MJ Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Hughes, H Hume, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Rennick, G Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

12:32 The PRESIDENT I0Q I now put general business notice of motion No. 1009, in the name of Senator McAllister: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) Professor Graeme Samuel is an eminent and experienced regulator, and his review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 marks a significant opportunity for reform to protect the environment and create jobs, (ii) the Morrison Government has completely bungled this opportunity for reform by: (A) pre-empting the findings of their own independent review, (B) rehashing Tony Abbott's failed 2014 environment bill, ramming the failed bill through the lower house and gagging debate, and (C) ignoring and cherry-picking the recommendations from the report, and pursuing second rate so-called standards, (iii) the Morrison Government was starting from a low base given it has: (A) slashed 40% from environment department funding, and (B) presided over an explosion of 510% in job and investment delays through environmental decision blow-outs, and (iv) Australia's bushfire ravaged natural environment, industry groups, scientists, and communities across the nation have been crying out for measured, durable and effective reform; (b) condemns the Morrison Government for being more interested in politics than solutions; and (c) calls on the Morrison Government to introduce strong national environmental standards, establish a genuinely independent 'cop on the beat' for Australia's environment and fix the explosion in job and investment delays caused by their massive funding cuts. 12:33 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Would we be able to separate part (b), please? The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that clauses (a) and (c) of motion 1009 be agreed to.

The Senate. [12:35]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

30 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Ciccone, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallagher, KR Green, N Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Lambie, J Lines, S McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC 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 Wong, P 29 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Canavan, MJ Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Hughes, H Hume, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Rennick, G Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

12:36 The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that clause (b) of that motion be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung— The PRESIDENT I0Q I've had a request to reput the motion. With the consent of the chamber, I will. Question negatived. Bombing of Darwin: 79th Anniversary, Fiji: Cyclone Yasa 34 12:37 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to move general business notices of motion Nos. 1001 and 1006 together and for the motions to be determined without amendment or debate. Leave not granted. Senator DUNIAM 263418 I move: That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent general business notices of motion Nos. 1001 and 1006 being moved together immediately and determined without amendment or debate. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the motion moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to

The Senate divided. [12:39]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

52 AYES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Ayres, T Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Brown, CL Canavan, MJ Carr, KJ Chandler, C Ciccone, R Colbeck, R Davey, P Dodson, P Duniam, J Faruqi, M Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallagher, KR Green, N Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Hughes, H Hume, J Lines, S McDonald, S McGrath, J McKim, NJ McLachlan, A Molan, AJ O'Neill, D O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Polley, H Pratt, LC Rennick, G Rice, J Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Siewert, R Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Steele-John, J Stoker, AJ Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE Van, D Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 2 NOES Lambie, J Patrick, RL (teller) 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

12:41 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move general business notices of motion Nos 1001 and 1006 together: General Business Notice of Motion No. 1001 That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) 19 February 2021, which marks the 79th anniversary of the Bombing of Darwin, is a time to learn about the significance of this in Australia's military history, to understand the sacrifices of those who contributed to the defence of Australia during the Second World War (WWII), and to reflect on the value of peace, (ii) the Bombing of Darwin was the largest single attack ever mounted by a foreign power on Australia and on that day more than 260 Japanese aircraft, in two separate raids, attacked the town, ships in Darwin's harbour and the town's two airfields in an attempt to prevent the Allies from using them as bases during WWII, (iii) during this attack, the American Destroyer USS. Peary was sunk, killing 88 American sailors and wounding 13, the greatest single loss of life on any ship attacked that day, and (iv) the Bombing of Darwin was a defining moment in Australia's history, marking the start of 97 raids made on Darwin and northern Australia between February 1942 and November 1943 during WWII, and highlighting the tenacity and spirit of those who bravely fought against the attacks. General Bu siness Notice of Motion No. 1006 That the Senate— (a) pays tribute to members of the Australian Fijian community and Australian service organisations who have raised money to assist Fiji to recover from Cyclone Yasa, including: (i) the Brisbane Fijian Uniting Church at Annerley who have assisted to raise funds to rebuild the Lekutu Secondary School, (ii) Fijian Senior Citizens Association of Queensland Inc and Sunnybank United Multicultural Association of Queensland who raised funds for the Rotary Club of Labasa to assist rebuilding efforts, (iii) Archerfield Rotary Club who raised funds for rebuilding in Labasa and provided a shipping container of medical supplies for Labasa Hospital, and (iv) MacGregor Lions Club who raised funds to assist in rebuilding efforts; and (b) thanks members of the Australian Defence Force, including members of the RAAF and the crew of HMAS Adelaide, for their outstanding efforts to deliver humanitarian relief on behalf of the Australian people in the best traditions of the Australian Defence Force. I wish to inform the chamber that Senator McCarthy is adding her name to general business notice of motion No. 1001. The PRESIDENT I0Q Is it the desire of the chamber to do these separately or together? I understand that the chamber wishes that they be done together. I'll put both motions jointly then. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 35 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 35 12:42 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator McMahon for today, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 35 MOTIONS International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day, Family and Domestic Violence 35 12:43 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The President has received messages from the House of Representatives agreeing to the Senate resolutions relating to International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day and violence against women. BILLS 36 BILLS Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019, Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019 36

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019

Returned from the House of Representatives 36 Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020 36

Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020

Second Reading 36 12:44 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania Labor supports this bill. It will assist the rollout of Australia's vaccine program and, as such, should be supported by the entire Senate. However, this bill will not ensure we have a well-trained workforce ready in place to administer vaccines. It will not ensure GPs will be registered to administer vaccines, and it will not ensure the online vaccine booking system will function smoothly. The Prime Minister has said all Australians who wish to be vaccinated will be by the end of October. We want the Prime Minister to keep his promise. We urge the government to address all the logistical issues around the vaccine rollout urgently. 12:45 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia This bill makes a number of practical and sensible amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. Some of these amendments respond to the challenges COVID-19 has created, including the ongoing, secure supply of certain medicines. The bill also ensures Australia is able to ratify international treaties, such as the Minamata Convention on Mercury, and, importantly it allows for the establishment of a medical device identification database to track and monitor all implanted medical devices in Australia. In 2018, the collective efforts of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists highlighted how little protection was offered to patients globally from poorly manufactured and tested medical implants. Whilst the series of stories, dubbed the 'Implant Files', showed problems globally with the industry and with regulatory environments, they also raised a number of questions about Australia's responsiveness and its approach to quality assurance. The Implant Files showed that at least 170 Australians had died in the decade to 2018 due to unsafe medical devices, though the real number of deaths was certainly higher than this, given some adverse events that actually led to deaths had, instead, been classified as injuries and malfunctions by manufacturers. Unsafe implants are not only potentially deadly; they can cause devastating harm and ongoing pain to patients. We saw this with the vaginal mesh, and we've also seen it with malfunctioning defibrillators and pumps. We've seen it with breast implants and also with joint implants. There have been many thousands of lives ruined by devices that were meant to make lives better. In late 2018 and early 2019, when various European authorities withdrew an Allergan textured breast implant from their markets, Australia, unbelievably, continued to make it available. I asked the TGA at subsequent estimates how many women have been implanted with that particular device after France and other nations had acted on it, and the TGA responded: 'The TGA does not hold information about the number of devices implanted.' I found that response most incredible. Why do we have such a glaring hole in our regulatory system? Australia has a couple of individual medical device registries, funded and run either by colleges or by the Commonwealth, such as the voluntary Australian Breast Device Registry. There is no unified and mandatory national system. So I'm glad to see this is being addressed through the planned Australian Unique Device Identification Database. The database will allow more accurate recording and analysis of adverse events, it will allow faster and more accurate identification of problems with devices and more effective management of recalls and, most importantly, it will improve the TGA's ability to trace which medical device a particular patient has been implanted with or supplied. This database is well and truly long overdue. 12:48 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I thank senators for their contributions and commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 37 12:49 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 12:49 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2020 37

Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2020

Second Reading 37 12:49 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania This bill amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to incorporate customs tariff proposals that provided concessional rates of customs duty for goods required to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. The bill will make a series of changes to the operation of the Customs Tariff Act to improve the functionality of the act and bring it back into line with international practice. Labor will be supporting this bill today. 12:50 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I thank Senator Brown and the opposition for their contribution and I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 37 12:50 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 12:50 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020 37

Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020

In Committee 37 12:51 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I'd like to ask the minister, before we conclude this debate, whether the government thinks that universities can meet the research thresholds that it has set out in these standards, given that universities were denied JobKeeper and have been impacted by the loss of international students—you've all but abandoned universities during the pandemic. What assessment has the government made and what inquiries has the government made about the impact on research thresholds and the assessment of that research under this legislation? 12:52 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I'm advised that universities are still reporting a surplus with regard to their operations, and these reforms will have minimal impact on these settings. On that basis, we're confident that things will not be impacted in any negative way. 12:52 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Minister, I note 17,000 people who worked within Australia's universities have lost their jobs and departed the sector in the last little while. Universities may have money put aside for other contingencies. They use their surpluses to enrol extra students. That doesn't mean you've actually assessed which universities have been impacted by the loss of staff that they haven't been able to maintain and how that impacts on their research outputs and the quality of those research outputs. To be fair, what you said to me just now—that universities have a surplus, so it's their problem if their research is affected—is absolute nonsense. 12:53 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I'm advised that these changes will have virtually no impact for current providers at transition. 12:53 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I don't think we're going to get anywhere with the government here. They've sent in numerous ministers who aren't across the legislation. I appreciate that they've been here so that we can scrutinise these issues. We've seen thousands of people lose their jobs from the university sector. They've been unable to account for the impact of the loss of those jobs on research and whether the assessment tools contained in this legislation will find what the impact of the loss of those jobs is on the quality of research, which TEQSA is supposed to investigate, as a result of the COVID pandemic. We know that this is an ideological war by the government against Australia's universities in terms of funding cuts and allowing the private sector to take up more of the field by allowing private players to call themselves university colleges. Sadly, given the government has been so unforthcoming, I don't see any reason to keep this debate going. The CHAIR: The question is that Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1130 be agreed to.

The committee divided. [12:59]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)

28 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson-Young, SC Lines, S McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC 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 31 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Bragg, AJ Brockman, S (teller) Canavan, MJ Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Griff, S Hanson, P Hughes, H Hume, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McLachlan, A Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Rennick, G Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading 39 13:03 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020 39

Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020

Second Reading 39 13:03 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales I rise to speak on the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020. Transport security—the security of our ports and airports—is fundamental to controlling our borders and to our national security. In this time of COVID, this fact has been made even more acutely clear, as we saw when there was a breakdown of our maritime security clearances with the Ruby Princess, which saw passengers allowed to disembark and take COVID-19 with them around the country and around the world. One might think that a competent, responsible federal government would recognise the mistakes of the Ruby Princess and prioritise any further transport security legislation appropriately to avoid any further bungles. Instead, what we have is this bill today—poorly thought out, ill defined, an inadequate tinkering with the regime covering the aviation security identification card, ASIC, and the maritime security identification card, MSIC. Both of these cards are an important part of securing the aviation, maritime and offshore oil and gas sectors from acts of terrorism and unlawful interference. Labor supports these schemes as an important tool to ensure that workers hold a valid background check and are not a threat to aviation or maritime security. We know that there are people who want to try and use air and sea transport and travel to bring contraband such as drugs and weapons into Australia or take contraband out of Australia. It's the federal government's responsibility to take sensible measures to deter and detect these crimes and to bring the perpetrators to justice. Labor would support sensible measures, but this bill, the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill, has a number of serious flaws the government has failed to address. It leaves a big hole in our border security by completely failing to address the issue of foreign crew on ships operating on Australian domestic routes and it adds an extra level of uncertainty for Australian workers, who already struggle with bureaucratic delays and inconsistencies. The government's own bureaucrats have warned that foreign crew on board vessels that use flag-of-convenience registration to operate in Australia are likely targets for organised crime syndicates and terrorists. The then Department of Immigration and Border Protection very clearly said in 2017 that the reduced transparency and secrecy surrounding the complex financial and ownership arrangements of these vessels make them and their crew attractive for use in illegal activity, including by organised crime or terrorist groups. The department went on to say that these ships may be used in a range of illegal activities, including illegal exploitation of natural resources, illegal activity in protected areas, people-smuggling and facilitating prohibited imports or exports. There is no 'may' about it. Take the case of the ship Sage Sagittarius and its master, Captain Salas. In 2012 he became a person of interest in the New South Wales coroner's investigation into three highly suspicious deaths aboard the Sage Sagittarius. Captain Salas admitted to the coroner that he was involved in gun trafficking and trading in alcohol. Despite this evidence in front of the New South Wales coroner, the Liberal government still let Captain Salas back into Australian waters, in December 2015, as master of the Kypros Sea. That ship travelled between a number of Australian ports, primarily Gladstone and Weipa, in early 2016. Other examples of rogue elements on flag-of-convenience vessels include illegal fishing and people-smuggling. In August 2017 there was the incredible story of a North Korean crew exploiting the flag-of-convenience arrangements to smuggle 30,000 rocket grenades. In fact, Tonga shut down its use of flag-of-convenience vessels because at one stage al-Qaeda was actually found to own the vessels, which were transporting weapons, ammunition and crew to Europe. Despite this proof of risks, this government has done nothing to ensure that these foreign workers are subject to robust background checking. Australian workers can be subject to a three-month wait for their MSIC, but foreign crew can currently get a maritime crew visa and come into Australia with as little as 24 hours notice and with no MSIC required. The inconsistency is brought into sharp relief when we look at the eight Rio Tinto ships trading in Queensland waters in 2020. Four of these ships had Australian seafarers and all of them required an MSIC. However, another four ships used the flag-of-convenience arrangements with foreign crew, who do not need an MSIC. This is why I have introduced a private senator's bill to close this gap. The Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020 will require the relevant minister to replace the current maritime crew visa with two new categories of maritime crew visa. The first is the international seafarers transit visa, which can only be used for crew entering Australia on a continuing international voyage. The second is the international seafarers work visa. This second visa will ensure that foreign seafarers who work off our coastline, often for years and years, on flag-of-convenience ships are subject to the same kind of background checking that Australians are subject to when applying for an MSIC. This is a commonsense piece of legislation, one to level the playing field to make sure that foreign workers are subject to the same kinds of background checks that hardworking Australians face when working in our seaports and off our shores. I'm also introducing an amendment to this bill that delays the introduction of the bill, should it pass the parliament, until my private senator's bill is passed into law. Any risks to our transport security cannot be dealt with in isolation. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs should not be turning a blind eye to the risks posed by foreign crew. This amendment will force him to take these national security risks seriously. While addressing transport security risks makes sense, what does not make sense is the way this government made a last-minute, dramatic change to its own legislation by introducing criminal intelligence assessments as part of the ASIC and MSIC schemes. I want to be clear that Labor supports well-targeted measures to address serious crime. Serious crime deserves serious responses. This government cannot be taken seriously when its response is to introduce an entirely new function to the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission without any real examination of the legislation. The Minister for Home Affairs rammed this last-minute amendment through the House of Representatives after allowing members only minutes to consider its ramifications. There has been no Senate inquiry to consider if the government's criminal intelligence assessment legislation will do the job the government says it will. There's been no consultation with industry or workers, as there is with every other change to the ASIC and MSIC schemes. In the supplementary explanatory memorandum, the government says that this change is about preventing persons who are known members of organised crime groups or known associates from obtaining an ASIC or MSIC. But the detail of this legislation goes significantly further than the government claims. The bill actually allows the ACIC to prevent any person from obtaining an ASIC or MSIC based on whether the ACIC believes the person 'may commit' a serious or organised crime or 'may assist' another person to commit a serious and organised crime. I've got a great deal of respect for the ACIC; they do good work. But this bill is asking the ACIC to predict whether someone will commit a serious and organised crime, not if they have already committed a crime, not if they are a member of an organised crime group but whether, at some point in the future, they'll commit a serious and organised crime. For all of the ACIC's fine qualities, I doubt that fortune-telling is one of them. Labor has been advised by experts that merely having a suspicion that someone may commit a crime is a very low standard for denying a person an ASIC or MSIC. Further to that: 'The complexity of the ACC Act definition of "serious and organised crime" will make it very difficult for the ACIC to make and defend an evidence based assessment of whether a person may commit a serious and organised crime.' There are already significant bureaucratic delays in the ASIC-MSIC system. All too often, Australian workers can't go to work, because the Department of Home Affairs contractors have bungled their paperwork or not finished it on time. A quarter of a million Australian workers currently hold an ASIC or MSIC. These Australians deserve a system that treats them with respect and allows them to do their job while also protecting our national security. The changes that the government proposes will not produce that system. This is a rushed change. It is poorly legislated. The government must take its drafting of criminal intelligence assessments back to the drawing board. As I said, Labor supports well-targeted measures to address serious crime, but serious crime deserves serious responses, and this bill cannot be considered a serious response. In fact, there is not even a definition of 'serious crime' in the legislation. Instead, the government simply asks us to trust that they'll get it right in the regulation. It's a very big ask for the Morrison government. Get it right like they got right the price of Leppington Triangle land or like they got right the illegal, automated robodebt scheme or like they got right the response to COVID-19 and aged care? I'm sorry, but it is impossible to trust the Morrison government to get anything right. That is why Labor will seek to amend the legislation to ensure the scope of the crimes covered under this legislation are targeted and not so unfairly broad that a range of workers are unnecessarily disqualified from the maritime and aviation industry when they do present a specific security threat, and to ensure that there is a legislated avenue of appeal for those who've been determined to have an adverse security status. People deserve to know why they cannot get a job and to have mandated processing times for ASIC and MSIC. This is a system that is plagued with bureaucratic bungling and delays, and it needs to be improved. Other amendments will prevent the bill from being enacted until the Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020 has passed into parliament; put more rigorous assessments, as I spoke to earlier, on foreign crew; introduce a statutory independent review of the act two years after it's passed the parliament and every five years after that; ensure oversight of the work of the ACIC by expanding the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security's jurisdiction to include the ACIC, as recommended in the 2017 Independent Intelligence Review; and remove schedule 2 of the bill, which introduces criminal intelligence assessments. Our national security, the security of our ports and airports, is too important to get wrong. But this legislation is just another example of a government that isn't even getting the basics right. This is a bill with no maximum time frame to ensure that bureaucrats do their job on time and that hardworking Australians don't miss out on work; no legislated right of appeal; no background checks for foreign workers, but tougher checks for Australian workers; and no definition of 'serious crime' in a bill about, supposedly, serious crime. Improving the security of our ports and airports is a great announcement—it gets a headline for the Minister for Home Affairs and the Prime Minister—but our border security is too important for laws protecting it to be based on what simply makes up a good press release. What we need here is strong protections at our borders, a robust framework: one that ensures that foreign workers are not easily able to come into the country while Australians face tougher security checks, one based on evidence and one based on the definition of 'serious crime'. There is too much that is wrong about this bill for Labor to support it in its current form. I say to members of this chamber: our border security is not just a photo op; it requires a follow-up. It requires a government attentive to the challenges at our border. We know from COVID there was the Ruby Princess bungle; the bungles with quarantine, which is a federal responsibility; and a failure to actively manage the border, abandoning that responsibility to states and territories. And here there is a bill that purports to address the risks and threats of serious crime amongst the workforce on our borders but doesn't define 'serious crime' and doesn't address that significant threat posed by foreign workers. For these reasons, Labor will be moving these amendments. I ask members of this chamber to consider them, and I ask members of this chamber to ensure that whatever comes out of this debate improves the security at our borders, at our ports and at our airports. 13:18 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria The bill that we are debating today, the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020, is very similar to an earlier bill in a previous parliament. The Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 in fact passed the Senate, and it returned to the House of Representatives with amendments for them to assent to. But it languished there for several years until it lapsed at the end of the previous parliament, because I think, at that stage, those opposite were basically too busy undermining each other to actually address some of the serious issues and the substance of those issues. I spoke several years ago to the earlier bill, and I'd reiterate some of the points that were made then. Firstly, and critically, preventing serious and organised crime at our ports and at our airports is a critical issue that needs to be done well. It needs to be done well and it needs to be done appropriately, with a framework that protects workers and protects our security. But what we need to be asking is whether expanding a framework that was legislated to address terrorism risks is an appropriate way to be addressing the issues of serious and organised crime. We've got two major concerns with this legislation and, unless these concerns are addressed, we cannot support it. The first issue is what impact this bill will have upon workers both in the maritime industry and in the aviation industry. As the Maritime Union of Australia, the MUA, have noted in their submission, the two cards that are core to this legislation, the maritime and aviation security identification cards, MSICs and ASICs, are right-to-work cards. You can't work in our ports or our airports unless you've got one of these cards. The changes that are proposed in this bill have got the potential to impact up to 260,000 workers, so you've got to get it right. There are a lot of workers whose very livelihood and very ability to work are going to be impacted by this legislation. If the process goes wrong, it can be devastating. Again as the MUA have noted, in some cases the MSIC renewal process is taking months and is rendering some workers ineligible to access their workplace while agencies fumble the checking processes. Actually having a system that works, is timely and is effective is critical to both protecting our security and protecting the rights of workers to actually work. In some cases, you've got issues where workers may have an offence from decades ago that's been long dealt with, but it can cause delays every time a card is renewed—let alone the processes that are proposed in this bill, where what has to be assessed is whether they may in the future commit offences to do with serious or organised crime. It's not about whether they have a history of that but whether they may do that in the future. You can just imagine the processes, how long it might take and the impact on workers that that assessment may have. We've got to have a framework that is better managed and actually takes seriously the need for security and takes into account the need for some certainty for workers as well. The second major issue that we've got with this bill is its focus on aiming to improve security by tightening up the conditions under which workers can get an MSIC or an ASIC, while at the same time we have got workers on foreign owned vessels, on flag-of-convenience vessels, that are able to access the country without these checks and balances. So I reckon it's really reasonable that, before you tighten up the controls on our domestic workers and make it more difficult for people here to get work, you actually have to be addressing some of the huge security holes in our framework as they apply to foreign seafarers. This is something that this legislation doesn't do. One of the issues that has been raised with us is the poor storage of ammonium nitrate. There was a tragic blast in Lebanon last year—a massive, huge blast—that involved poor storage of ammonium nitrate. One of the issues that the MUA have raised is that the government continues to issue temporary permits to ships that carry dangerous goods such as ammonium nitrate without checking whether they adhere to the safety standards of Australia and without carrying out crew safety inspections. It's really important that we ensure that we are applying frameworks fairly, systematically and without engaging in what is basically the theatre of saying, 'Yeah, we're improving security,' in one area while neglecting it in another. The Senate has done quite a lot of work over the last few years looking at the issues associated with foreign flagged ships and flag-of-convenience ships, in particular. The risks that have been highlighted from flag-of-convenience shipping are very real. They have not been addressed by this government and they are not being addressed in this legislation. We had a Senate inquiry into flag-of-convenience shipping, and basically nothing has improved since that Senate inquiry. The International Transport Workers' Federation basically said after our report came out, 'Under the legislative abuses'—of the government at the time—'Australian seafarers, properly trained, security-screened and resident taxpayers, have been sacked and their jobs in a domestic transport sector given away to whoever comes over the horizon without a word of inquiry about their background.' Basically there is so little transparency in flag-of-convenience shipping and there are so few controls on the background of those seafarers that we have this huge gaping hole in our security that's not being addressed that needs to be addressed. Our Senate report said of flag-of-convenience ships: The committee maintains that these vessels present serious security risks to the Australian coast, which need to be properly addressed. All the while, this is happening in the context of lack of support for Australian shipping and an increasing proportion of shipping being done by foreign-owned flags-of-convenience ships. I think it's important to note, if you also think about the working conditions on these ships—and I'm sure many of us here have read the media reports and know about the incredibly poor working conditions—and the incredibly low wages that these foreign exploited seafarers are under, the risk is that they are susceptible to pressure. They are susceptible to perhaps doing things that aren't necessarily aboveboard because of the pressures that they are under. They're not being paid properly and they've got families that are really struggling in their home countries. It means that they are very vulnerable to being under pressure from people to get them to perhaps do things that we don't want them to do, that are in fact a security risk to us here in Australia. These are some of the really substantial issues that need to be seriously addressed by this government that just haven't been. In the 6½ years I've been in the Senate, and I've been the Greens' transport spokesperson, issues relating to Australian shipping and the issues of foreign-owned and flags-of-convenience shipping are things that we have been hammering away on, yet nothing has been done. Nothing has changed. Those risks are all still there. In conclusion, we think it's really important that we are addressing issues of serious crime, but this current legislation is not dealing with the underlying issues and we can't support it in its current form, given the problems with how it's been implemented. I said 'in conclusion', but I just want to raise one further point, and that is the lack of consultation with the workers and with the unions in the changes that are now being proposed. Last year the ACTU said: The ACTU shares the concerns expressed by our affiliated unions that the changes proposed in this bill have been developed without the typical level of consultation with affected workers and their unions—consultation which has typically resulted in more effective and well-targeted security… So what we call upon the government to do is to actually go and talk to the unions, talk to the workers and listen to what they have to say, and actually propose some changes that are going to really work both for the workers and for increasing the security of our country. We have a series of Labor Party amendments which are being put forward today. We believe that they do go some way to addressing our concerns, so I really call upon the government and the crossbench to seriously look at the ALP amendments and to support them, because with those amendments, if they are supported, we may end up with a bit of legislation that addresses some of these issues—at least as far as it goes for our domestic workers. We hope that we can arrive, through the scrutiny and debate that's appropriate in this place, at some improved legislation that we can support, because this is an important issue and it really deserves serious, careful consideration so that you end up with legislation that is both looking after the security of Australia and looking after the security and job security of Australian workers. 13:29 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020. As an island nation, Australia is incredibly reliant on our ports and airports to keep us connected to the world and to facilitate the arrival of both people and goods into the country. A huge amount of goods and—COVID travel restrictions aside—a huge number of people pass through our ports and our airports every year. These people, services and goods are essential to our economy, our health, our livelihoods and our safety. We've seen that, more than ever through COVID-19, with workers at our ports and airports playing an incredibly important role in keeping our country going—and that's a role we thank them for—given our reliance on ports and airports for all of our imported goods, it's no secret that they are also the way in which illicit substances and weapons arrive in Australia from overseas. It's an unfortunate reality that there have always been, and sadly, always will be, criminals and criminal enterprises who seek to profit from bringing these items into Australia. That is why it is so important to ensure security at these entries to our country. Serious crime is a major threat to our way of life. It costs Australia up to $47 billion a year and causes enormous human suffering. We have fantastic police forces and security agencies who work incredibly hard and diligently each and every day to disrupt those criminal enterprises and reduce their cost and harm to the community. But, to allow them to do that, we need to keep our methods up to date and respond to the methods which have been used by criminals to breach security, and that's what this bill that we are debating today is all about. Schedule 1 to the bill will expand the purpose of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 to prevent serious criminal influence and activity from occurring at our airports, seaports and offshore facilities. Schedule 2 to the bill will provide the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, or the ACIC, the ability to conduct criminal intelligence assessments for use in background checking for aviation and maritime security identification cards—ASICs and MSICs. The ASIC and MSIC schemes are a vital part of the Australian government's approach to transport security. While they've been incredibly effective in helping to protect Australia from terrorism, our airports, our seaports and our offshore facilities are vulnerable to exploitation by serious criminals. That's because currently the scope of background checks for ASICs and MSICs is limited to only preventing unlawful interference with aviation and maritime infrastructure. This bill that we're debating today will provide for the strengthening of the ASIC and MSIC schemes by ensuring that those with serious criminal convictions or links to serious and organised crime do not exploit the schemes to access the secure areas of our ports and offshore facilities. This is a real and present threat to the nation's security. We know, as at December 2019, there were approximately 227 ASIC or MSIC holders who were listed on the ACIC's national criminal intelligence lists. We know that there are real examples of people with serious criminal offences, including offences like trafficking illicit drugs, who have been granted an ASIC or an MSIC because at present the background for ASICs and MSICs only examines whether a person may be a threat to aviation or maritime security. Those checks do not consider whether a person could use their access to airports and seaports in connection with serious and organised crime. These individuals, without the provisions in this bill, can access secure and sensitive areas of airports and seaports without supervision. Clearly, we need to give authorities the ability to prevent this and close down the access which criminal enterprises have to our ports. It's also important to note that, if there are gaps in our security regime which can be exploited by organised crime, they could also be exploited by terrorists, by foreign agents or by some other group with malicious intent towards Australia and towards our community. So it is vital we crack down on this now, and that's what the Morrison coalition government is doing with this bill. This bill is appropriately targeted to exclude those who have been convicted of relevant serious offences, including offences arising from antigang or criminal organisation legislation, illegal importation of goods, interfering with goods under customs control and foreign incursion and recruitment. What we are talking about here are very serious offences directly relevant to being involved in serious organised crime and terrorism. The new criteria will ensure that those convicted of these offences will be ineligible to hold an ASIC or a MSIC. They will not be able to access secure areas of our ports and airports. This will enhance the government's ability to disrupt and hinder serious criminal gangs or syndicates in transporting and supplying illicit drugs and goods. Strengthening the scheme to prevent individuals who are a high criminal risk from holding an ASIC or a MSIC is consistent with the findings of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Law Enforcement as well as the National Ice Taskforce. This bill will ensure that Australia's airports and ports are no longer safe havens for serious criminal activity, including the trafficking of illicit drugs, narcotics and weapons into our country. I commend the bill to the Senate. 13:35 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020. I say with interest that the government have not looked at how you actually make our ports and our airports more secure. There are some fundamental failings on the part of the government. In actual fact these changes go to some critical elements of security in this country. Of course Labor supports legislation that will keep our ports and airports safe—and, as a person who has worked in airports and around our ports, I know how important the safety of our airports and ports is to both the national economy and the tens of thousands of people working on and off our ports—but striking the right balance with protecting the human rights of essential workers in these industries is critical. This bill, however, does not strike that balance. Instead, it compounds many of the existing inefficiencies with the current regime for approval of the aviation security identification card, ASIC, or the maritime security identification card, MSIC. We have a number of concerns with this bill, many of which have been outlined in the Labor senators' contributions to the bill's review by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—namely, that the bill will see working people denied natural justice, will entrench inappropriate standards for the domestic shipping workforce and will see an unnecessary and unsettling delegation of authority to the minister on a policy area that demands parliamentary scrutiny. Firstly, the legislation's creation of a greater delegation of authority to the minister responsible for the definition of serious crime is problematic. It's a problem because it creates additional unsupervised means by which an employee would unfairly be stopped from receiving an ASIC or a MSIC—two cards that aviation or maritime workers require in order to work at our airports, ports or offshore facilities. As outlined in the committee's report and specifically in the Labor senators' dissenting report, this legislation is significantly flawed on a number of grounds. Currently ASIC and MSIC applications are checked by ASIO, the AFP and Immigration. These checks are already time-consuming, sometimes taking 90 days or more to complete. Even in instances in which a worker has been previously approved for an identification card many times over the course of their career without incident, they are repeatedly forced to suffer through this limbo. This waiting period regularly holds them up from taking part in their livelihood, depriving them of the work and the resulting income needed to support their family. Particularly now, during a period in which aviation and maritime workers are facing job losses, reduced hours and wage cuts, the unintended consequences of this legislation would be a cruel blow to these workers. This legislation could be improved by creating maximum time frames for the approval of ASIC and MSIC cards so that workers and employers are granted some certainty. Labor will move these amendments to this bill. When the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee reviewed the bill they heard stories of seafarers like Brendan McKeen. Brendan had to wait 90 days when renewing his existing identification card. He said that in that time the ship came and went and he missed an opportunity to take on work that he could ill afford to miss. The reason for the hold-up is an incident in a Queensland pub more than 30 years ago. Brendan has no other conviction, no other crime, and yet the system as it stands regularly punishes him for no legitimate reason. An unfair impediment to people working and earning an income to support their family should give senators pause, particularly during, and as we rebuild from, the COVID-19 pandemic. But the government, instead of taking responsibility for the regular delays in processing clearances for workers and the effect this has on who works in the industry, has put forward legislation which could delay processing times even further. Moreover, the government's last-minute amendment to this bill before it passed the House, to expand the role of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission to complete criminal intelligence assessments that would stop workers being granted an ASIC or MSIC, should be of concern to all senators and the general public. We have a last-minute amendment, not circulated in advance, to give the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission dramatically expanded powers that they are currently not resourced to do and to handle. It would see workers lose their clearance entirely on the basis of untested intelligence. This isn't what good governance looks like. This isn't due process. It is a cruel, low blow to workers, wrapped up in trumped-up national security concerns. If this bill passes unamended, a worker's livelihood will be subject to intelligence, which doesn't have to be intelligent—intelligence that the agency does not need to disclose and that might not even be that credible. Denying or delaying someone's right to work because of some sort of rumour of intelligence denies the natural justice we are all entitled to. Imagine if such a law were brought to your workplace or to parliament, where a simple rumour could deny you your job for 90 days or so, without end. As a unionist I'll not stand workers being regularly denied natural justice in their workplace. As a senator I'm not convinced that this legislation does not contain the power to unfairly take away a person's livelihood. Moreover, the bill does not provide an avenue for workers to appeal an unfavourable decision—if they have had their ASIC or MSIC denied to them. There is no appeal process. It's all done on the quiet. It's done without transparency and there's no appeal process. Imagine if that was in your workplace or in this parliament. The government's failure to legislate a means to appeal to allow workers to hear the allegations against them speaks to this government's lack of regard for workers at airports, at ports and at sea. It doesn't have the necessary transparency that is inherent in a well thought out piece of legislation. Another issue in this legislation is that it entrenches the lack of standards for flag-of-convenience shipping. Flag-of-convenience shipping is a contentious business practice in which a ship's owners register the ship abroad to take advantage of less stringent laws or regulations, similar to the practices of some multinationals who operate heavily in Australia or in the United Kingdom but who remain registered in overseas tax havens. During the committee's hearings, multiple witnesses confirmed that the current provision in this legislation would not apply to the crew of foreign flagged ships. These crew only need maritime crew visas, available generally within 24 to 48 hours—in contrast with domestic crews, flag-of-convenience crews are not checked by ASIO, let alone by Interpol—while domestic Australian crews can wait up to 90 days just to renew their cards and may have them arbitrarily delayed or denied. This legislation deepens the existing double standards while doing nothing to deal with the existing national security concerns inherent in Australia's growing reliance on flag-of-convenience shipping. Previous Senate inquiries into issues surrounding flag-of-convenience shipping have noted that its current registration, regulation and operation arrangements make it particularly susceptible to the influence of organised crime syndicates and terrorist groups. So let's make this very clear. The government are not serious about terrorist groups. They're not serious about organised crime. They're serious about looking like they're doing something whilst impeding the right to appeal and proper transparency. That bill says it all about this government. In evidence to a Senate Regional and Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee hearing in 2016, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection said: Reduced transparency or secrecy surrounding complex financial and ownership arrangements are factors that can make FOC ships more attractive for use in illegal activity, including by organised crime or terrorist groups. This means that FOC ships may be used in a range of illegal activities, including the illegal exploitation of natural resources, illegal activity in protected areas, people smuggling, and facilitating prohibited imports or exports. Yet the government does nothing. It might be of interest to senators that the sorts of things transported on flag-of-convenience shipping are not just cars or clothes; they are chemicals and goods used in our mining industry—chemicals like ammonium nitrate, the explosive chemical that was at the heart of the great tragedy in Beirut on 4 August last year. Australia regularly issues temporary permits to foreign ships that carry chemicals like ammonium nitrate. They'll be going past a capital city of yours, or dropping in to say hello. More than 85,000 tonnes of ammonium nitrate was moved through the port of Newcastle this year, most of it moved by flag-of-convenience ships with workers who never get checked by ASIO or the AFP for terrorist activity, criminal activity and the like. They are ships flagged in Singapore, Panama, Liberia, Russia. What does this government do? Nothing! They are ships crewed by foreign workers who are not subject to the same background checks we demand of our domestic workforce. The government likes to talk big on borders and security but not when it's in the interests of multinational corporations who shirk their tax and labour standard obligations by running flag-of-convenience shipping. They're in the pocket of big corporations rather than for Australians. Does that surprise you? It doesn't surprise me. A practice that undermines our domestic maritime workforce deprives our country of valuable tax revenue and poses significant security and safety risks. In a report by Greg Sheridan, Teresa Lloyd from MIAL, Maritime Industry Australia Ltd, the body that represents the Australian cargo industry, was reported as saying: There are now just 13 Australian-flagged or controlled cargo vessels. Thirty-odd years ago there were 100. Britain still has 470 such commercial ships. Admiral Barrett, as a board member, also spoke. He said: If you don't have the capacity to requisition ships, there's not much you can do in an emergency. The article went on: A national government has legal authority in a crisis to requisition civilian ships, which carry its flag or are controlled by its companies, but has no authority over foreign ships. This goes to broader issues about how this government operates in the shipping industry and how it operates on behalf of big corporations against our national interests, our employment interests and our national security interests. As I've just said, flag-of-convenience shipping has already undermined our domestic seafaring industry. This bill will deepen the double standard. This legislation provides additional support to flag-of-convenience shipping that will further offshore our domestic shipping industry. I'm also concerned about the unnecessary and unsettling delegation of authority to the minister in this matter. It will prevent parliamentary oversight on possible expansions of the scope of requirements to have ASIC or MSIC cards. This is further compounded by the failure of the government to provide an early draft of the regulations that should be associated with this legislation, despite the idea of this legislation having been in the works since they first promised it in the 2013 federal election. The Senate committee reviewing this bill was denied any preview of the accompanying regulations. That should give any senator who is interested in transparency cause for concern about this bill. The disturbing trend of governing by regulation denies parliament the same rights of oversight of legislation. of Giving the minister the ability by regulation, where the Senate must choose to allow or disallow the regulation, to expand the scope or definition of 'serious crime', change the definition of 'serious crime' and deny someone their security card grants the Senate very blunt powers of oversight. Instead, such things should be contained in legislation to this parliament. This delegation is unsettling because the serious crime bill doesn't include a definition of 'serious crime', which is farcical. Instead, that definition is ambiguously left to the department and the minister in question. There are several definitions of 'serious crime' across a number of Commonwealth acts and regulations that the minister might have picked. The minister hasn't done so. You didn't even have to think about it; you only had to look at the options and consider the best ones. This has been in consideration since 2013. We're surely not at the point where ministers should have the right to unilaterally change standards. (Time expired) 13:50 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania The Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020 seeks to strengthen the regulatory framework surrounding the issuance of aviation and maritime security cards. It also provides the legislative basis for undertaking security checks, including background checks, of ASIC and MSIC holders. It seeks to do this by significantly expanding the number of background checks that have to be completed for each applicant. Aviation and maritime security identification cards are required for anyone who seeks regular access to secure areas of Australia's airports and seaports, Australian flagged ships, and our offshore oil and gas facilities. Workers requiring unescorted access to secure areas of airports, seaports, offshore platforms and Australian registered ships are all required to have a valid ASIC or MSIC. These workers include aircraft crew, baggage handlers, couriers, security screening staff, security guards, waterfront workers, seafarers, custom brokers, shipping agents, maintenance workers, truck drivers, train operators and anyone who works on an offshore platform. In other words, tens of thousands of Australian workers are required to have one or other of these security cards in order to do their jobs. At the moment, applicants for an ASIC or MSIC are required to complete an identification verification, a security assessment conducted by ASIO and a migration status checked by the Department of Home Affairs. The government is now seeking to add a criminal history check, conducted by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, and a criminal intelligence assessment, which would also be conducted by the ACIC. The problem is that this bill doesn't get the basics right when it comes to securing our important aviation and maritime infrastructure industries. That's because this bill fails to contain a maximum time frame to ensure that decent, hardworking Australians don't miss out on work due to delays in processing their applications for an ASIC or MSIC, nor does it contain any legislative right of appeal if an applicant is denied an ASIC or MSIC. It doesn't require any background checks for foreign workers entering our ports or airports and, unbelievably, as Senator Sheldon said in his contribution, it doesn't contain a definition of 'serious crime'. Labor holds serious concerns with the potential impact this legislation will have on the granting of ASICs or MSICs. During its inquiry into this bill, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee heard evidence that there are already significant delays in the renewal of MSICs. Some are taking up to four months. This means that maritime workers are left without a valid MSIC for a number of months and they are not allowed to work. This simply isn't good enough, and it is likely only to get worse if this legislation is passed. The International Transport Workers Federation and the Maritime Union of Australia gave evidence to the committee hearing of a worker who put in an application to renew their MSIC 90 days before having to join a ship; however, the card was not renewed in time. They put in their application 90 days before and the card was not renewed in time. In this case, the seafarer had been convicted of a crime more than 31 years ago. That worker concerned has learnt their lesson and has led a blemish-free life ever since. For it to take the authorities over 90 days to renew his MSIC under the current regime is outrageous. Those are 90 days in which this seafarer was not able to work and provide for his family. This seafarer is forced to go through this process each time he needs to renew his MSIC. This is despite the fact that he's only ever had one conviction over 30 years ago and has led a blemish-free life since that time. Labor has serious concerns. One such concern is that, under the arrangements proposed in this bill, it would take even longer for seafarers, waterside workers and baggage handlers to have their security cards renewed. That's because the committee heard evidence from several witnesses from government agencies that they will now be taking intelligence into account when assessing whether to issue a card. Mr Phelan from the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission told the committee that suspicious intelligence and belief will now be all considered by the authorities when determining whether individuals can be issued with an ASIC or MSIC. Surely someone's belief should not determine whether a worker has a right to earn an income. These are people's livelihoods we're talking about. In stark contrast to this, workers on overseas flagged vessels will not be subject to these new requirements. Let's get this straight: workers on overseas flagged vessels will not be subject to these new requirements. Foreign crews and overseas flagged ships will still have their maritime crew visas which give them access to our ports within 24 to 48 hours of application. They will be able to come and go and associate with whomever they wish to without any of the checks that are imposed on Australian workers. Australian workers are already subject to ASIO checks, AFP checks and other checks. Most of the ships that pull alongside Australian wharves are foreign flagged with overseas crews. None of these crews are subjected to the checks and balances we place on our own workers. Workers have become accustomed to providing police record checks when applying for or commencing a job. I struggle to think of any other collection of occupations that are subjected to the legislative requirement of a criminal intelligence assessment. One must wonder why this government is so determined to make life difficult for people that work in our aviation and maritime section. A number of years ago, the Rural and Regional Affairs Committee heard evidence from the then Department of Immigration and Border Protection that certain features of flag-of-convenience registered ships with the consequent regulation and operation makes them open to exploitation from organised crime syndicates and terrorist groups. This was brought to the attention of the government in 2017, but they have not acted. Foreign crews and overseas registered vessels will continue to have a much easier path to gaining access to our ports than our own workers, Australian workers. Like the aviation and maritime workers themselves, Labor believes in a strong, effective and consistent approach to border security. However, this does not mean that Labor will support an identity card regime that seeks to rely on suspicion or belief to determine whether a worker is suitable to have access to our ports, airports and offshore oil and gas facilities. During its inquiry into this bill, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee heard evidence from both the workers and government that there is no definition whatsoever of 'serious crime' contained within the legislation. The Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 did manage to include a definition of 'serious crime'. It is a very detailed definition, as you would expect. This definition focuses on offences punishable by more than three years imprisonment, offences causing high value loss and certain money-laundering and terrorism-financing offences. Surely, if a definition could be included in a 2002 act, it should not be beyond the wit of this government and their drafters to provide a definition in this instance. In fact, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee was told that a generally understood definition of 'serious crime' does not apply in the case of this legislation. So not only do we not have a definition in this piece of legislation— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Brown. We are moving to questions without notice. STATEMENTS 47 STATEMENTS Members of Parliament: Staff 47 14:00 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I seek leave to make a statement. 14:00 The PRESIDENT I0Q Is leave granted? Senator Wong 00AOU We will give leave. I would like to seek some clarity, and we can have some discussion across the table, about the capacity of the Senate to take note of it and, therefore, the consequences for question time. But on the basis that those discussions will be had, the Labor Party will give leave, as the minister's requested. Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Mr President, I refer to the serious matters relating to my former staff member, Ms Brittany Higgins, who was employed in my ministerial office when I was the Minister for Defence Industry. I take this opportunity to provide the Senate with a further statement. On Monday evening, we heard in Brittany's own words the harrowing account of her alleged sexual assault in my ministerial office in 2019. Brittany's story has occasioned a wider reckoning of how women are treated in this building. It has prompted a national conversation about how we ensure women are safe in their workplace, wherever that is, and how we support them when they need our care. As a woman who has spent much of her working life in politics, much of it in this very building, I welcome that conversation and I welcome the reviews announced by the Prime Minister. My hope now is that we can address this very serious issue as a parliament, away from the politics. I've been asked a series of questions surrounding the circumstances of Ms Higgins's alleged sexual assault and the actions that were taken by myself and my then chief of staff as a consequence. I will do my best to answer them. I became aware incrementally, over a period of days, of Brittany's story during private conversations with her and my then chief of staff, and via reports from parliamentary authorities. On Tuesday 26 March my then chief of staff called Brittany and a male co-worker into separate meetings concerning what at that point appeared to be a security breach involving unauthorised access to my office. The following day, the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services provided a report concerning the security breach. On Monday 1 April I met with Brittany and my then former chief of staff. During this meeting I made it clear to Brittany that she would have my full support in whatever course of action she decided to take and that she would have full access to counselling services. My chief of staff and I moved quickly to ensure that Brittany was given access to the police, should she wish to make a complaint. In terms of the actions taken by my then chief of staff and by me in the days and weeks that followed Brittany's alleged assault, we at all times followed the advice of Ministerial and Parliamentary Services and the Department of Finance, as was appropriate. I have full confidence that my then chief of staff and I at all times acted in what we believed were the best interests of the Brittany. Throughout this entire time my sole desire has been to let Brittany herself determine how this matter would be dealt with. I fully appreciate—I fully appreciate—that it is the proper duty of the Senate, of all us in this chamber, to ask hard questions about how this incident was dealt with. But, at the time, this was a difficult, it was a complex, and it was a highly sensitive matter. At all times Brittany's welfare and her right to privacy were paramount to me. For my part, I am deeply sorry that Brittany felt unsupported at the time of the incident and in the months that followed and, in fact, the years that followed. I'm also deeply sorry that some of my actions and my handling of this matter added to Brittany's distress. The Prime Minister has announced an independent review into the culture of Parliament House and the processes in place to deal with serious incidents such as these. It is a move I welcome. It is a move that I think we can all agree is long overdue. It is now incumbent on all of us in this place to let the independent processes now in train consider these matters. 14:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I acknowledge the minister has given that statement. I think that is important. I would ask that we allocate a finite period of time on Monday for the Senate to take note of the statement. I think there would be a few things in that which would be useful for us to reflect on and consider, so I would invite the government to indicate so. 14:05 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Wong. The government will facilitate a time-limited discussion in relation to the statement at an appropriate time on Monday. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 48 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE JobKeeper Payment 48 14:05 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory My question is to the minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham: The RBA Governor, Dr Lowe, told the National Press Club, 'When the JobKeeper program finishes at the end of March, we expect some additional job losses.' The Secretary of the Treasury also conceded last week that there will be job losses when JobKeeper is axed. How many Australians will lose their jobs when the government axes JobKeeper in 38 days? 14:06 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The government has always been honest that, in dealing with a global pandemic, with a crisis of unprecedented proportions in terms of its economic impact right around the world, tragically not every job or every business would be able to be saved from the disruption that has occurred. The actions, however, that we've taken have delivered a remarkable outcome for Australia by saving jobs, saving businesses and, indeed, ensuring our economy is firmly back on track and progressing in a direction that we want to see for its recovery. Today we welcome the release of labour force figures that show yet again a decline in the unemployment rate in Australia. The figures show that in January the unemployment rate fell— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Birmingham. Senator Gallagher, on a point of order? Senator Gallagher ING My point of order is relevance. I'm sure that today the government will have the opportunity, through dorothies, to go through the job starters, unless they surprise me. But my question was specifically about job losses, and the minister hasn't come to that. How many will be lost when JobKeeper ends? The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gallagher, I have allowed you to restate the final part of the question. The question and the quotations did refer to jobs and the labour market. With respect, I think the minister is being directly relevant by talking about jobs. I can't instruct him how to answer a question. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I hate to break it to the shadow minister for finance, but the measure of unemployment by the Australian Bureau of Statistics is a measure of people without jobs in the Australian economy. What we saw in January was that the unemployment rate fell from 6.6 per cent to 6.4 per cent. More importantly, employment increased by 29,100 jobs in January 2021, the fourth monthly increase in a row. This is a government that has not only quite consistently supported people through the pandemic but also acted in a way consistent with principles. We said that measures we put in place would have to be temporary, targeted and proportionate to the circumstances that are there. That's what we've done with JobKeeper. We absolutely delivered an economy wide solution at the point of the pandemic's depths. We have tapered it off and we are now, thanks to the recovery that's in place, able to move to more targeted approaches. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Birmingham. Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question? 14:09 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I note the minister avoids answering the question. My supplementary question is: Save Victorian Events, a group advocating for Victoria's $10 billion a year events industry, performed a survey earlier this month that found that if JobKeeper were to end in March, 43 per cent of companies surveyed would need to let staff go and an additional 40 per cent would potentially need to close their businesses. How many of the 493,000 businesses accessing JobKeeper will fold due to this government withdrawing support prematurely? 14:09 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I reject the idea of any concept of premature withdrawal. What this government has done is put in place an intervention in the Australian economy and in private businesses, unprecedented in its scale. The investment that we have put into the Australian economy has been unprecedented in its scale, in the dollars involved and in the nature of the intervention. And, of course, as we tightened the eligibility for JobKeeper, as the rates around JobKeeper declined, those opposite came in here each time and predicted doom and gloom. They told us at the end of September that we would see catastrophe at the end of December yet what we have seen is the Australian economy has continued to grow the number of jobs. The unemployment rate has continued to go down. Now, there will be difficult times ahead, no doubt about it, but— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question? 14:10 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The National Australia Bank has joined the chorus of economists and experts warning against prematurely abandoning support, saying: 'It is critical that, while support will be loosened in better performing parts of the economy, the overall stimulus package is not withdrawn too quickly.' Why is the Prime Minister withdrawing support without any plan for businesses to stay open and for workers to keep their jobs? 14:11 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Well, Senator Gallagher clearly wasn't listening when the last budget was handed down, because there is an enormous amount of support, stimulus and activity still going into the Australian economy even past the end of March. All of the measures put in place to stimulate investment across the Australian economy—the HomeBuilder program that is providing a huge wave of activity in the construction sector, the tax cuts that we have legislated that are providing for an additional $1 billion-plus going into the pockets of Australian households each and every month going forward, and the fact that we have in place the loss carry back provisions for Australian businesses to be able to sustain themselves—are ongoing. All of these measures are ongoing past the end of March. We on this side do not shy away from the fact there are difficult times for certain businesses. We are working through consultation with them. We will look at targeted approaches. (Time expired) COVID-19: Vaccine 49 14:12 Senator ABETZ N26 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. Can the minister update the Senate on the latest developments in the plan to roll out the COVID vaccine, which has a priority focus on Australians most at risk from this crippling virus, including in our home state of Tasmania? 14:12 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Thank you, Senator Abetz, for your question. Rolling out the COVID vaccine across Australia is one of the government's highest priorities. The country is on track for the first and most vulnerable of Australians to start receiving the vaccine from Monday. Senator Abetz, I'm pleased to inform the Senate that there are 16 Pfizer vaccination hubs across Australia, including in our home state at the Royal Hobart Hospital. Thousands of aged-care residents in Australia at more than 240 facilities will receive their first COVID-19 vaccine dose next week. The facilities are located across Australia in over 190 towns and suburbs, in rural and urban areas and in every state and territory. Next week, in our home state of Tasmania, rollout of the vaccines will occur in aged-care facilities in Burnie, Lugana, Newnham, Newstead, Norwood, Penguin, Riverside, Somerset, St Leonards, Ulverstone and Wynyard. Of the 142,000 doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine which arrived into the country this week, approximately 80,000 doses will be released next week. Approximately 30,000 vaccines will be made available for the Commonwealth vaccine in-reach workforce to aged-care and disability care residents. Information has been sent out to aged-care facilities for residents, their families, carers and loved ones about what to expect in the lead-up to, and on, vaccination day. The Department of Health had sent a readiness toolkit to aged-care facilities, including clinical requirements and a checklist for vaccination day. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Abetz, a supplementary question? 14:14 Senator ABETZ N26 Tasmania Thanks for that good news. I ask further: can the minister outline the government's plan to ensure all Australians are aware of how and when to access the vaccine? 14:15 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Thank you, Senator Abetz. We are investing $31 million on a public information campaign to keep Australians up to date about the COVID-19 vaccines, as they become available, and when, how and where to get the jab. As part of our public information campaign we're investing an additional $1.3 million for peak multicultural organisations, to help reach culturally and linguistically diverse communities. The campaign will run across a number of channels, including regular website updates, social media, health professionals, local community and grassroots organisations, networks and the mainstream media. It will include advertising in 32 languages across radio, print and social media, extending to communities that are harder to reach through traditional channels. Our message— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Abetz, a final supplementary question? 14:16 Senator ABETZ N26 Tasmania Can the minister also provide an update on how the vaccine rollout will assist with the government's plan for economic recovery? 14:16 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Thank you, Senator Abetz. With our economic recovery well underway, Australians can have cause for optimism and hope as we emerge from COVID. Vaccinating Australians against this virus will go a long way to rebuilding confidence in the Australian economy. While we'll always be guided by the best in medical advice from our experts, we know that reducing the risk of COVID through vaccination will result in Australians moving more freely back to work, back to retail and back to supporting our domestic tourism and hospitality sectors. Our nation has outperformed all major advanced nations, with a larger proportion of Australians who were in the workforce before this crisis in work today. This is due to support programs we put in place, which were only possible because we entered this crisis, 12 months ago, in a position of economic strength. Members of Parliament: Staff 50 14:17 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. This morning Peter van Onselen revealed that, in response to Ms Higgins going public about her alleged rape in Minister Reynolds's office: The Prime Minister's office has been backgrounding that her … now partner has a vendetta or a gripe … against the government … Mr Peter van Onselen labelled the tactics of the Prime Minister's office 'grubby'. Does the minister agree that backgrounding against Ms Higgins to delegitimise her experience would be grubby, and does the Morrison government accept that Ms Higgins's claims of rape and her experience of feeling pressured not to report it should be believed? 14:18 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia In relation to Ms Higgins's very distressing claims of sexual assault and rape: as Minister Reynolds informed the Senate at the commencement, it has always been the intent of the government to support her and to enable her to make whatever decisions she chooses to make, and that continues to be the position of the government. It's for those reasons that Minister Reynolds and her then chief of staff facilitated meetings for Ms Higgins with the police in early 2019, and indeed why Parliamentary Services and others provided police with access to the CCTV footage within this building. In relation to the claims in the first part of the senator's question, I have no awareness of any such activity being undertaken. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McAllister, a supplementary question? 14:19 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Will the Prime Minister investigate the claims that his staff are backgrounding journalists against Ms Higgins? If the claims are proved, what consequences will there be for this conduct? 14:19 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Senator—through you, Mr President—I will take those matters up with the Prime Minister. I am certain that he has no tolerance for such activities. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question? 14:20 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I would appreciate a response to my supplementary question once you've taken it up with the Prime Minister. Yesterday, Miss Higgins said, 'The continued victim-blaming rhetoric by the Prime Minister is personally very distressing to me and countless other survivors.' When will Mr Morrison stop victim blaming and be straight about the conduct of his government? 14:20 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Mr President, the government wants nothing more in relation to Miss Higgins than for her to be able to make the decisions she chooses to make in relation to whether she takes these matters forward with police, and the government will provide absolutely full cooperation in that regard, as we would have, and have, at any point of time in the past. We will continue to provide that support. In relation to the systemic issues in place, my office, consistent with what the Prime Minister has announced, has now reached out across all party lines, groupings and Independents, to arrange for discussions that I will undertake over coming days to enable us to pursue a truly multiparty, independent approach to ensure that, across this building, regardless of the political party that they may work for, an individual can have confidence in the systems and processes that are in place to support them. QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT 51 QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT Members of Parliament: Staff 51 14:21 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Mr President, my question is to you, regarding Brittany Higgins's rape allegations. Did you or your staff tell the Prime Minister or any of his staff or any other members of the ministry that a request had been made to DPS on 18 April 2019 by the sexual assault unit of the AFP seeking access to the CCTV footage of the evening of Brittany Higgins's alleged rape? If so, when? 14:22 The PRESIDENT I0Q Can I commence, Senator Waters, by saying, for the first time this week in this place, that I struggle to find the words, be they formal or informal, to fully express my sorrow and, occasionally, frustration and anger, at what has occurred in this workplace: the alleged sexual assault. It's occurred on my watch as a senator and, indeed, as a custodian of this place. At all times I have acted to the best of my ability to assist any process that will help Brittany Higgins, whose identity I was not aware of until last Friday, find justice without further suffering and with her own ability to choose her course of action. The Speaker and I have answered a number of queries this week and issued a statement yesterday. I think senators will appreciate that the building is jointly administered by the Speaker and myself. We followed the procedures. The Federal Police requested viewing of the footage. They saw that footage. With their agreement, we have continued to store that footage since that time. When we received anonymous and serious allegations we referred those to the AFP. We then, following that, commissioned our independent inquiry into the actions of staff in this building. Now, I think it's appropriate—I should add, to clarify—that neither of the presiding officers, myself or the Speaker, has viewed the footage. The footage in question has been viewed only by members of the AFP, authorised officials from the Department of Parliamentary Services and the independent investigator. We have not provided any footage access to any parliamentarian or member of staff. Now, I don't plan to say any more at this point, because it is a courtesy to the Speaker, as a joint administrator of the building, that I should consult with him, and I will come back to the chamber and, if necessary, consult with the authorities before I add anything in this chamber that may inadvertently interfere with any investigation underway. 14:24 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Thanks very much, President. Noting your comments, I will persist with supplementary questions. I might also ask that you answer the first question about whether you told the Prime Minister or his staff or any other members of the ministry that DPS had received a request from the assault unit of the AFP. I refer to that statement yesterday. Did you or any of your staff tell the PM or any of his staff or members of the ministry when that unnamed senator referred the correspondence to you about a serious incident in March 2020? 14:25 The PRESIDENT I0Q I will come back to the chamber after consulting with the Speaker. As I said, we jointly administer the building, and it's a courtesy, and appropriate, I think, that I consult with him. 14:25 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Thank you, President. I have a final supplementary question. Brittany Higgins has said that she was repeatedly denied access to the CCTV footage showing her and her alleged rapist entering the building and Minister Reynolds's suite. Did her request to release the footage to her ever make it to you, and, if so, why was that request denied? 14:25 The PRESIDENT I0Q The footage was requested by the AFP. The process of doing that is outlined in a policy of this place. It was quarantined and then stored for the AFP to view. As far as I am aware, no request from Brittany to see the footage came to the presiding officers. But I will, again, come back to the chamber and correct that and provide further information. Senator Waters 192970 Mr President, on a point of order: my question was not so much, 'Did the request come directly from her?' as, 'Did a request on her behalf make it to you?' There is a subtle but important difference there. The PRESIDENT I0Q Again, I will confirm, but we have checked and I have received no request from Brittany Higgins. Senator Waters interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Waters? Senator Waters 192970 —is what I'm asking. The PRESIDENT I0Q I will look at the Hansard and I will come back. I think it's entirely appropriate that I be precise. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 52 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Future Frigate Program 52 14:27 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia My question is to the Minister for Defence and relates to the Future Frigate Program. In June 2018, the Type 26 was announced as the basis for what we now know as the Hunter class frigate, with claims of large-scale job creation, work for Australian industry and a schedule that was fundamental to establishing the naval shipbuilding program. Real Australian suppliers, as opposed to local shopfronts for foreign industry, remain of the view that the opportunities they expected to be able to compete for are being pushed to BAE Systems' standard suppliers in the UK and shopfronts here. What action is the government taking to ensure all Australian owned and controlled suppliers are being offered full and fair access to work packages for the project? 14:28 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I thank Senator Patrick for the question, and I also thank him for the courtesy of prior notice, particularly in the circumstances. More than 1,300 Australian companies have prequalified for inclusion in the BAE Systems Maritime Australia Hunter project supply chain. We already have contracts with BlueScope for Australian steel. Here are just some of the great Australian businesses working on the Hunter: Indigenous business TQCSI-Yaran; InfraBuild Steel Centre; APS Adelaide Profile Services; Intertek Adelaide Inspection Services; and MG Engineering. The Hunter class frigate program will achieve a minimum of 58 per cent Australian industry content, with a target Australian industry content of over 60 per cent. This means Australian jobs, skills and growing our sovereign industrial capability. There are already over a thousand Australians working on the Hunter class frigate program, which will grow to 2,200 at the program's peak in the late 2020s. As design of the Hunter progresses, even more work packages will be released to Australian industry in both the build and sustainment phases. Already companies such as Voxon Photonics have won work with BAE Systems to support naval research in Australia and in the UK. But, of course, our targets for Australian industry content are not set-and-forget. We are maximising Australian industry content across naval shipbuilding and have established a robust Australian industry assurance program to ensure that Australian businesses are afforded every possible opportunity. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Patrick, a supplementary question? 14:29 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia The government mandated the use of Australian steel in the Hunter class project—a very good decision—so mandating clearly can be done. What criteria must be met for the government to stand and intervene in respect of utilisation of non-shopfront real Australian company industry capability? 14:30 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Thank you, Senator Patrick, for the question. I'm incredibly proud to be part of a government that is unashamedly backing Australian industry. In 2013 this government took a stand to rebuild our Australian naval shipbuilding industry. In the 2020 Force structure plan we committed to build more than 70 naval vessels right here in Australia. A key part of strengthening our sovereign industrial base will involve working with trusted partners and suppliers, particularly where Australia is growing and developing capability. Our collaboration with international suppliers is helping build Australian capacity and also our sovereign capability. These companies are establishing uniquely Australian subsidiaries that are doing a number of things, including transferring skills and know-how to Australia, employing thousands and thousands of Australians, and exporting Australian-built cutting-edge capability to the world. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Patrick, a final supplementary question? 14:31 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Despite the project having an underspend, which can be an indication that things aren't progressing as quickly as possible, at budget estimates last year the minister and department officials advised that the project was proceeding according to schedule. Can the minister confirm that the Hunter project is proceeding to plan and remains on schedule, both in respect of past milestones and immediately pending milestones? Can you advise on what basis that assessment is made? 14:31 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Senator Patrick, you will be glad to know that the answer is yes. The Hunter class frigate project remains on track to meet government and Navy requirements. Design activities are well underway, and we commenced prototyping in December 2020 on time and as planned. The next design milestone—system definition review—will occur between March and November next year. We remain on track to cut steel in 2022. Employment 53 14:32 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. Could the minister please update the Senate on the state of the labour market following today's ABS labour force figures and how the Morrison government is supporting Australia's economic recovery through strong economic policy? 14:32 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator McGrath for the question. Indeed, today the labour force figures were released by the ABS for January 2021. They show that in January 2021 the Australian labour market continued to recover from the effects of COVID-19. We saw today that employment increased by 29,100 over the month. That is not just a figure; these are Australians getting into work. That is what this government is all about—putting in place the right economic policies to ensure that businesses are able to keep their employees employed or, as we move into the next phase, bring additional employees into their workplaces. We saw the unemployment rate decrease from 6.6 per cent to 6.4 per cent. Encouragingly, the increase in employment over the month of January was due entirely to a rise in full-time jobs, which surged by 59,000 in January. Over the last four consecutive months now we've seen full-time employment rise—in fact, it is a total of 277,600—to now stand at 8,820,400 in January 2021. Certainly, Minister Payne has commented to me that, encouragingly, full-time employment for women rose strongly over the month. It was up 32,100. While employment itself fell by 872,100 between March, when Australia recorded its 100th case of COVID-19, and May, it has since increased by 813,600 over the last eight months. We've now recovered more than 93 per cent of the jobs that were lost during the COVID-19 pandemic. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McGrath, a supplementary question? 14:34 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Can the minister outline how the government will continue to support our labour market to recover from the once-in-a-century economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic? 14:35 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia (—) (): The employment figures released today show underlying economic strength and that the labour market in Australia is now responding and jobs are being added. But we still know, and the Prime Minister often says, things are difficult. They are still difficult for many Australians, and they will continue to be difficult for some time. But that is why the Morrison government, in the first place, put in place a policy that enabled employers to keep their employees connected to their employment—and that was, of course, the JobKeeper policy. We also put in place the Supporting Apprentices and Trainees wage subsidy, which kept those apprentices and trainees on the job, where we needed them to be. Now we're in 2021, and we have our $74 billion JobMaker Plan. That is now going to build on the success of the programs and ensure that we allow businesses to bring additional people into their workplaces. That's what we're doing: putting in place the economic policies to support businesses and employees. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McGrath, a final supplementary question? 14:36 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to have devastating impacts around the world, why should Australians have confidence in the resilience of our labour market and the potential of our economic recovery? 14:36 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia While there is a long road ahead, as we know, Australia is well positioned. If you look at the research by Deloitte Access Economics, they noted that Australia is just one out of five nations to enter 2021 very well placed, with our economy bouncing back and even outperforming expectations. We've actually seen job ads, ATO payroll data, business confidence and consumer confidence return to pre-COVID levels. Despite the impacts of COVID-19, the latest ABS data shows us that an additional 46,000 businesses were training over the year to June 2020. We've also seen deferred loan payments resume by households and small businesses, and new dwelling approvals and new house sales are all increasing. That is because the right suite of policies were put in place by the Morrison government, and that's what we'll continue to do to keep businesses in business and people in work. NBN Co 54 14:37 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister confirm that, from July to December last year, while Australia was in recession, NBN doled out bonuses to its executives, management and staff worth $78 million? 14:38 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I believe that Senator Kitching is quoting from documents published by NBN Co. As the senator would know, NBN Co is a government business enterprise that was established under a framework put through this parliament by the former government at the time in terms of its operation and its structure and the fact that it operates according to commercial practices and principles under those arrangements rather than standard public sector practices and principles. I'm advised that a large proportion of the number quoted in the media today goes to a very large number of staff across NBN under the terms of their employment. Under those terms that those staff negotiated, there is a base rate of pay, and there is an at-risk element. That at-risk element requires certain benchmarks to be met in terms of receipt of that at-risk component. In relation to government business enterprises, I have, as the Minister for Finance, written to all GBEs to inform them of government expectations around the new wages policy that was announced on 13 November 2020 and requiring them and asking them, to the extent practicable and commensurate with their commercial and competitive circumstances and the legal frameworks within which they operate under the laws of this country, to implement a six-month wage increase deferral decision, to ensure new agreements only allow annual wage increases up to the percentage change of the annual seasonally adjusted wage price index, and to consult shareholder ministers and the APS Commissioner before commencing any future wage negotiations. It's the expectation of the government that, where agencies have access to bonus arrangements, they should exercise restraint to the furthest extent possible, in keeping with community expectations. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Kitching, a supplementary question? 14:40 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria Mr President, through you, it wasn't published by NBN; it had to be dragged out of them in response to a QON and it was 47 days overdue. I ask a supplementary question. How did Mr Morrison allow $78 million of taxpayer money to be spent on bonuses at a time when one million Australians were unemployed? Is he going to ask for the money back? 14:40 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I suspect that, if NBN Co had decided to ignore the contractual terms of employment that they have entered into with their employees, Senator Kitching and all of the other old union reps across there would have been complaining about the fact that a government instrumentality had unilaterally decided to tear up its employment contracts. We have a large number of NBN Co workers who are employed under terms where certain benchmarks have to be met for them to receive certain wage payments. We have simply met the legal contractual obligations. NBN Co has met those legal contractual arrangements. And I have no doubt that all of the union representatives over there would have been the first to complain if a government instrumentality, a government business enterprise, had actually torn up any of those contractual arrangements between the employer and the employee. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Kitching, a final supplementary question? 14:41 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria Given that Australia is ranked 61st in the world for fixed-line broadband; given that the cost of the NBN under the Liberal government has blown out from $29 billion to $41 billion and now to $57 billion; and given that up to 238,000 premises still can't access minimum guaranteed NBN speeds, as required by law, does the Morrison government consider it inappropriate for NBN executives to be handing out $78 billion in taxpayer funded bonuses— (Time expired) 14:42 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia We've made it clear that we expect government business enterprises to exercise restraint. We've made that very clear. But there is also a reality that, as I said before, those opposite would be the first to criticise if those employers decided to ignore the contractual arrangements they had entered into with their employees. I have no doubt, if NBN had decided unilaterally to not deliver any of those at-risk components of payments, that NBN staff would have gone to union representatives, those union representatives would have gone to people like you, Senator Kitching, and you would have come here or to Senate estimates and sought to criticise the fact that employees weren't receiving what they had been contracted to receive and we were in breach of those contractual obligations. So don't come in here with a hypocritical stance when we know full well you would have gone and argued the opposite, had the opposite occurred. News Media and Digital Platforms 55 14:43 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia My question is to Senator Hume, the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts. Can the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government's world-leading legislation is leading to commercial deals between news media businesses and digital platforms? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind senators that the COVID rules we put in place do allow senators to speak from any seat. We put those in place early last year. 14:43 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I thank Senator Antic for his question. The media bargaining code is a world-leading framework to address the fundamental bargaining power imbalance between Australian news businesses and the major digital platforms, Google and Facebook. The Morrison government has always maintained that the ideal outcome is for news media businesses and digital platforms to reach commercial deals. We welcome Google signing deals with Nine, with Seven West Media and with small publisher Junkee. Additionally, our legislation has led Google to sign a global deal with News Corp that will include not just Australian publications but also those in the US and the UK, a sign that our legislation is, in fact, world leading. But we know that without the threat of the code and its binding final-offer arbitration, there would be no deals at all. In stark contrast to Google, Facebook has, disappointingly, chosen to block Australian news and information services on its site. Facebook will need to think very carefully about what this means for its reputation and its standing. It seems that Facebook is taking a decision to remove credible news sources from its platform, callously booting community and public health organisations off the platform in that process. Basically, it's saying to Australians, 'If you're looking for credible news then Facebook is not the place to look for it.' The government has consistently said that we wish Facebook and Google to remain operating in Australia. But we also expect them, at all times, to comply with laws that have been passed by the democratically elected parliament of Australia and, indeed, with bipartisan support for that legislation. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Antic, a supplementary question? 14:45 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia Minister, how will these deals support the future of public interest journalism? 14:46 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The code will support a diverse and sustainable Australian news media sector by requiring those digital platforms to pay fairly for the content that they use. Australian news media businesses can re-invest in the public interest journalism that is so vital to our economy and to our democracy. This is particularly important in regional Australia, where many papers have ceased printing or have closed altogether. Regional media businesses will be able to seek remuneration through a range of options, including: standard offers, where digital platforms can make standard offers to news media businesses, and this provides a way for smaller media businesses to avoid the often time consuming and costly bargaining and arbitration processes; or through collective bargaining and collectively engaging in arbitration, where the digital platform allows cost and resource sharing between smaller regional media businesses. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Antic, a final supplementary question? 14:47 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia What other measures has the government put in place to support the future of public interest journalism in Australia? 14:47 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The news media bargaining code is not the only measure the Morrison government has put in place to support the future of public interest journalism in Australia. The government has steadfastly supported our media industry, including through the $50 million PING program to support public interest journalism delivered via commercial television, radio and newspapers in regional Australia. In addition to that, there is $5 million to the Australian Associated Press Limited Newswire under the PING program; $5 million from the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund to support 43 small metropolitan and regional publishers; and a 12-month waiver of spectrum tax for commercial television and radio broadcasters, which is worth $41 million to the sector. On top of that, there are reforms to the regulation of Australian content on free-to-air television to streamline and simplify drama, documentaries and children's content obligations. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Hume. COVID-19: Tourism 56 14:48 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator Payne. According to data from the Tourism and Transport Forum, the tourism sector continues to lose approximately $8 billion a month. It is now 38 days until JobKeeper ends. How much longer will the minister make these businesses wait to outline what support the Morrison government will provide once JobKeeper ends? 14:48 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales We have spent some time in the chamber discussing matters relating to tourism and the government's very serious interest in and commitment to the industry, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 impact on the industry. We've spoken about JobKeeper itself and the small business cash payments as well, which have sustained hundreds of thousands of tourism businesses and jobs across Australia. I think—and the feedback that I have heard in regional New South Wales is—that JobKeeper support has been extremely important for the industry during the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic. We are also, as I've said before, providing further targeted assistance to help the tourism sector rebound, to support as many jobs as possible. That is in addition to the record funding for Tourism Australia, which I've also spoken about before in the chamber. In terms of our plan to create jobs, to rebuild our economy—including the observations the Leader of the Government in the Senate made earlier in question time—that includes helping to secure the future of Australia's tourism industry. That's why we introduced the Recovery for Regional Tourism Fund, which is about boosting tourism in nine regions heavily reliant on international tourism. It's about delivering those tailored assistance measures to help tourism businesses pivot to the domestic market. Those applications are still open until 30 September. That is a current program. There is $100 million of funding earmarked for tourism infrastructure under the Building Better Regions Fund. That is about supporting the supply of new quality tourism infrastructure to drive that visitation in the regions. We are also providing, through the Regional Recovery Partnerships program, another $100 million of funding there. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Brown, a supplementary question? 14:51 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania The Tourism and Transport Forum also report that over 470,000 direct tourism jobs have already been lost, with modelling suggesting as many as 300,000 more to go when the Morrison government cuts off support. Why is the minister delaying further support when workers are losing their livelihoods right now? 14:51 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales What the government has been focused on and continues to be focused on is those initiatives that I have just described to the chamber. The Relief and Recovery Fund also has components which include a focus on tourism, whether that is conservation work in infrastructure upgrades—I've seen those in place myself, granted myself, in Western Sydney and in the Blue Mountains; fee waivers in marine and national parks; funding allocated to arts related organisations to help these important drivers and contributors to the visitor economy remain open; or funding to the export market development grants recipients, including those in the tourism sector, for the 2019-20 financial year. We are very conscious that JobKeeper has supported a large proportion of the tourism industry and we are considering, as I have said before, the best way we can support economic recovery in the tourism sector when JobKeeper ends at the end of March. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Brown, a final supplementary question? 14:52 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania What faith can the thousands of Australians employed in the tourism industry have in a government that can't outline vital support in a pandemic but can find money for sports rorts? 14:52 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales It is really unfortunate that, when the government has worked in good faith with the industry, the sector, across Australia—and we are well aware of their concerns in relation to JobKeeper, but that good faith work has driven our provision of funding for the Regional Recovery Partnerships, the Recovery for Regional Tourism Fund, the work under the Building Better Regions Fund, all of those things, absolutely because of our engagement with the sector. For Senator Brown to say in this place that the government has not done that is false and should not be allowed to stand. North Queensland: Disaster Resilience 57 14:53 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management, Senator Ruston. Can the minister please update the Senate on how the Morrison government is strengthening the disaster resilience of North Queensland? 14:53 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I thank Senator McDonald for her question. Clearly, as a Northern Queenslander, she understands the importance of disaster recovery in her home state. We all know that North Queensland cops more than its fair share of natural disasters. I'm sure everybody in this place remembers the absolutely devastating impact of the flood events in 2019, which left large areas of the state under water. There is no doubt that all governments—and that includes the federal government—have a role to play in ensuring Australia's preparedness for and response to natural disasters. That's why this government, the Morrison-McCormack government, is investing in resilience measures that will ensure that our regions, as well as our urban areas, are in a better position to respond to any future natural disasters. This includes the $260 million in joint funding with the states and territories to implement the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework. This framework sets out what we need to do to reduce disaster risk, both now and into the future. The government has also committed $88 billion for a world-class disaster resilience and research centre. The centre will provide all tiers of government with advice regarding disaster mitigation and resilience building. The government has also committed $25.9 million to the National Aerial Firefighting Centre, a centre that will coordinate our fleet of aerial firefighting specialised equipment that's able to support our states and territories, a matter in which I'll acknowledge that Senator Griff has a very strong interest. The Morrison-McCormack government is absolutely committed to supporting Queenslanders, as it is across the rest of Australia, to prepare for what will be, unfortunately, the next disaster, because we know that disasters will continue to occur. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McDonald, a supplementary question? 14:56 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland How is the Australian government supporting our state and territory counterparts to build back better and continue our economic recovery? 14:56 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Clearly, the most important thing is that we continue, as a federal government, to collaborate with the states and territories so that we have a united response when it comes to disasters and disaster-recovery arrangements. Often these arrangements are going to depend on the individual circumstances of the particular disaster, because we know that the Commonwealth will be prepared and has often paid up to 75 per cent of the total cost of the disaster. Under these arrangements, states and territories have the ability to build back more resilient buildings, services and public assets to make sure that they're in a better position to withstand future disasters. A classic example of this, Senator McDonald, was after Tropical Cyclone Debbie, when we funded a $1.85 million upgrade for the seawall at Shute Harbour so that it is able to withstand the tidal impacts of future disasters. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McDonald, a final supplementary question? 14:57 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Is the minister aware of any resilience programs that provide direct tangible benefits to consumers? 14:57 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The government is working with states and territories to protect Australian communities, and one such collaboration, which we're working with the Queensland government on, is the Queensland Household Resilience Program. This program assists eligible householders, particularly in coastal parts of Queensland, to make practical improvements to their properties so that they can withstand and reduce the impacts of cyclones on their properties. It also has the added advantage of having a downward impact on the price of insurance premiums. This $21.25 million program has helped consumers reduce their premiums, some of them up to over $300 a year. We've also worked to strengthen 1,750 houses in that region to make sure that they are better prepared to withstand the impacts of future disasters. So this Queensland Household Resilience Program addresses the very issues Senator McDonald is asking about. Donations to Political Parties 58 14:58 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Reynolds. Did Minister Dutton disclose to the Prime Minister that he received a political donation from the National Retail Association a week before he asked the Department of Home Affairs to fast-track the consideration of the association's almost $1 million grant? If not, why not? 14:59 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Could I ask, Mr President, if I could have indulgence to answer this on Monday? I think I'll be in a better position to answer this on Monday. I could take it on notice. Senator Wong 00AOU by leave—If the minister is not in a position to deal with this then perhaps, if Senator Chisholm wishes, he could address the question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. The PRESIDENT I0Q I'm happy to provide leave of the chamber to allow Senator Birmingham to address the question. 15:00 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Did Minister Dutton disclose to the Prime Minister that he received a political donation from the National Retailers Association a week before he asked the Department of Home Affairs to fast track a consideration of the association's almost $1 million grant? If not, why not? 15:00 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I know that these issues have been explored in this place with Senator Reynolds, as well as in the other place, during the course of the week. There seems to be a desperate attempt to seek to draw some connection that just does not exist in this regard. The National Retailers Association has donated to both sides of politics. The Labor member for Griffith received donations from the National Retailers Association in the same financial year as Mr Dutton's campaign. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU My point of order is on direct relevance. The issue is not a political donation in its own right; the issue is a political donation being made to somebody who then fast tracks consideration of a taxpayer grant—a taxpayer grant. I'd ask the minister to be directly relevant to the question. The PRESIDENT I0Q I've allowed you to restate the question, Senator Wong. I'll listen carefully to the minister's answer. He has a minute 20 remaining. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Thanks, Mr President. The National Retailers Association applied for funding, I'm advised, for a protecting crowded places project to assist retailers to deter, detect, delay and respond to a terrorist attack. Noting the events that had occurred— Senator Keneally interjecting— Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I do not accept the interjections from Senator Keneally in relation to the notion of a conflict. Mr Dutton processed this application from the National Retailers Association in accordance with normal practices. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Chisholm, a supplementary question? 15:02 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Has Minister Dutton received any other donations from the National Retailers Association? If so, has he disclosed these donations to the Prime Minister or his office? 15:02 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I'm confident that Mr Dutton will have met all disclosure requirements in relation to donations or in relation to any other commitments in relation to the ministerial standards and expectations set around the ministerial standard. Mr Dutton, I'm advised, in relation to the grant asked the Department of Home Affairs to consider the proposal by the National Retailers Association that had been lodged by them and I understand he asked the Department of Finance to cost it to ensure it was suitable and value for money. It was a proposal to simply make sure that Australians, in a retail environment— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Wong, on a point of order. Senator Wong 00AOU My point of order goes to direct relevance. I accept that this is a question that has been directed to the Leader of the Government in the circumstances. On both this one and on the primary question that went to disclosure to the Prime Minister, I'd ask him either to be directly relevant or, if he is not in a position to do so, to take those issues on notice because they go directly to the issue we are asking about—whether these issues were disclosed to the Prime Minister. The PRESIDENT I0Q I have allowed you to restate the point. I'll call Senator Birmingham to continue. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I'm happy to provide clarification on points of fact to the chamber and will seek to do so. But it is also a point of fact that Mr Dutton went through proper processes in receipt of the grant application from the National Retailers Association in costing it properly— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Chisholm, a final supplementary question? 15:04 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Has Minister Dutton given discretionary grants to any other organisations or individuals who have donated to his election campaign or to the Queensland Liberal National Party? 15:04 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I will take the question on notice insofar as there are any details that need to be provided to the chamber about grant process disclosures that have been made. I am quite confident that Mr Dutton has met all disclosure obligations under political fundraising guidelines, that he will have met ministerial standards around disclosures that are required to be met and most particularly that, in administering public funds as a minister of the Crown, he has sought to deliver good public policy outcomes for Australia. Those good public policy outcomes for Australia include keeping Australians safe, be they in crowded places, in retail environments or in the types of locations that are crucially important in terms of the number of Australians who congregate, the threat to Australians and the importance of ensuring that businesses are well equipped to operate in safe environments and localities. Senator Birmingham H6X Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS 59 STATEMENTS Parliament House: Counselling and Support Services 59 15:05 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia by leave—I wish to alert the chamber to some resourcing decisions being taken by the government around the Employment Assistance Program. As senators all realise, some very challenging and difficult issues have been discussed across this building this week that may cause a number of staff to feel distress or need to reach out for support services. As people are aware, we have a long-running employment assistance program in place. I want to restate the importance of people being able to access that via the usual telephone line that is available. I also want to advise the Senate that, at the beginning of next week, there will be a number of counsellors made available on site in Parliament House for individuals to be able to access and that I will make sure that all staff and officers are provided with details on these matters. I urge and encourage senators themselves to access those services as well as those provided by the parliament if need be and, of course, to make sure that their staff are aware of those services and the confidentiality provisions that exist around those services. I thank the Senate. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 59 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Question Nos 13 to 23 and 363 to 399 59 15:06 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Under standing order 74(5)(a), I seek an explanation from the Minister for Women, Senator Payne, as to why question Nos 13 to 21 and 363 to 399, which I placed on notice in the Finance and Public Administration Committee main budget estimates round in October 2020, remain unanswered. 15:07 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales In response to Senator McAllister's question, I have undertaken with Senator McAllister to seek further information on this. It is the genuine understanding of my office that questions on notice to us had been responded to. In fact, it is not my intention whatsoever not to respond to those questions. If it is a genuine misunderstanding, I undertake to provide them as fast as I possibly can. If there is an administrative issue, I undertake to also address that. 15:07 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the minister's explanation. I appreciate the undertaking that's been provided just now by the minister, but this is a misunderstanding that should not have arisen in the first place and could have been resolved yesterday. It is a normal courtesy in this place that, if one is seeking an explanation from a minister about a failure to answer questions on notice, one notifies that minister's office. My office did telephone the office of Senator Payne yesterday, and yesterday afternoon at five to three—around this time yesterday—her office rang my office to indicate that the answers to the questions had been tabled. They haven't been. Inquiries with the committee confirm that they have not been received, and I understand that the committee has undertaken further due diligence to confirm that. That is why I'm raising it this afternoon. Part of the problem is that this is, of course, quite consistent with a broader lack of transparency from this government. In the first instance, many of these questions that were taken on notice were simple, factual questions. They were capable of being answered in the room, but in this estimates round they were taken on notice again and again and again and again. The fact that there are even 40 questions that were taken on notice in a period of questioning that only went for under an hour is quite staggering, and they're just the questions taken on notice in response to me, because other senators asked questions and those questions are doubtless unanswered as well. I haven't checked. Why are so many questions being taken on notice by officials working for this government? Because it is a clear pattern over a long period of time that the willingness of officials to answer questions that they fear may be inconvenient to their bosses has completely increased. What we have is a situation where questions are not being answered in the room and normal questions of fact are unable to be explored in the estimates process. Then, when responses are provided months later, we get a response that maybe mentions in passing one or two words from the original question but in no way engages with the underlying premise and certainly doesn't rise to the level of providing an answer that would be understood by ordinary people as meeting the basic standards of accountability from a government. Now we've got this fun development, which is we simply don't answer questions at all! It is possible, almost certain I think, that the Office for Women are understaffed—there just simply aren't enough people to do the work—but we don't know that. We don't know that, because one of the questions that remains unanswered is a request for the org. chart. Seriously, why could the org. chart not have been provided in the room on the day? Another is a request for the total number of employees in the Office for Women—question 364—which was unable to be answered in the room and apparently unable to be answered now. Maybe they're plugging the gap with contractors, but we don't know that either. Question 365 asks for details of labour hire workers and contractors, and that also remains unanswered. What possible, credible reason could there be for the delay in providing these answers? Is there a delicate political response that requires finessing by the minister's office? In fact, a large number of the questions that remain unanswered are simple questions, very factual questions, and they should have been responded to with simple factual answers. Question 366: 'Has the Office for Women outsourced any of its work to external organisations? If yes, how much funding has been allocated?' It's pretty straightforward, isn't it? It's a pretty straightforward administrative question which should have been answered in the room. Question 367: 'Can the Office for Women provide a list of round tables conducted by the minister, including dates, locations and attendees?' It's pretty straightforward. Question 371: 'How much funding has been given to the six women's alliances? How many times has the minister met with them?' Question 372: 'What role did the Office for Women play in Australia's campaign for the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women?' I would have thought that was something they'd like to talk about. It was not able to be answered. Question 378: 'Please provide a list of meetings the Minister for Women has had with stakeholders such as women's groups or service providers in the last six months?' Question 387: 'Please provide a list of the stakeholders consulted about the 2020 Women's Economic Security Statement?' How about this one? This one should have been very, very easy. Question 377: 'Please list the media interviews the Minister for Women has completed regarding the 2020 Women's Economic Security Statement?' Senator Ayres interjecting— Senator McALLISTER 121628 It wouldn't have taken long, Senator Ayres. That is correct. These are questions that would have been actually very easy to answer for a minister who was doing the work of meeting with stakeholders and consulting on a policy, and the fact that the minister has delayed answering these questions suggests that maybe the answers are embarrassing. The thing is, it's not clear what the minister would have to say about any of these issues in any event, because it's really not apparent what work the Office for Women has actually been doing. Question 394 is an important one: 'Regarding the next National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, who is conducting this next consultation phase? When will it begin? What has been done so far?' The reason I say it's important is because we are hearing concerns from the sector that the government is not intending to conduct formal consultations as part of preparation of the next national plan. Instead, the government is considering relying on the submissions that were made to a House of Representatives inquiry. It was question 370, where the Office for Women said it was developing guidance material for other departments so they can identify the gender impact of their policies: 'When was this work done? Who was it being given to? Can we see it?' Unanswered. It would be nice to know though, wouldn't it? Question 373: what work is being undertaken by the Office for Women to address the gender pay gap? Core business, you'd think. Question 374: what work is being undertaken by the Office for Women to address vocational training for women? Question 375: what work is being undertaken by the Office for Women to address the super gap? Question 376: what work is being undertaken to address the rising crisis of homeless women over the age of 55? We haven't received a response to these questions. I suspect I know what the answer is, and it's 'not very much'. We'll get an answer that is carefully couched, a nice set of words referencing some policy process going on somewhere else in the government, but the real answer, and it's tragic, is that the Office for Women isn't asked to do very much by this government. There are capable people not being utilised against a problem, gender equality, that ought to be something that people are talking about. The minister presides over this organisation, the Office for Women, which has been denuded of numbers and expertise by systematic neglect and marginalisation under this government. One of the most telling manifestations of this marginalisation is the failure of other departments to consult with the Office for Women about the gender impacts of crucial policies over the last couple of years. In answer to a question from the Select Committee on COVID-19, the Office for Women confirmed that, between March and April 2020, the Office for Women did not brief on early access to superannuation, did not brief on the JobKeeper program and did not brief on the JobSeeker program in advance of government decisions on these issues. The minister demonstrated no real concern about the lack of input she and the Office for Women had when these very significant economic decisions were being made. She told me at estimates that 'where it is appropriate'—that's a quote—the Office for Women would be invited to engage. Using the example of JobSeeker payments, the minister reminded us that these payments are not made in any gendered way whatsoever and the additional payments made in the context of COVID-19 have been equally applied to women and men. They might have been equally applied to women and men, but that does not mean that the impact of these payments is the same for women as it is for men. Nobody in any part of this government has completed any analysis about policy design on this and other aspects of the coronavirus response package and the extent to which it meets or does not meet the economic needs of women. This is quite surprising, isn't it, if you think about how much public discussion there was about the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on women, women's employment and women's financial wellbeing. In question 384 at estimates I asked: How many women will benefit from the measures included in the 2020 Women's Economic Security Statement? I asked in question 386: how will the Office for Women measure progress on the statement? In question 399 I asked: 'Is WGEA undertaking any economic or financial analysis of COVID-19 and its effects and impacts on the gender pay gap? If not, why not?' Again, no response. The truth is that everyone in this chamber knows what the answer is. It is: because this is a government that is indifferent to the economic needs of women. They demonstrate it time and time again in their visible contempt for people who, here or in the estimates hearings, raise these issues. This is a government that leaves women behind. Question agreed to. Question No. 69 61 15:19 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Pursuant to standing order 74(5), 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. 69, asked of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet on 20 October during the budget estimates hearing of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee. It related to a letter from former Minister McKenzie to the Prime Minister about the community sports infrastructure program. Senator Birmingham H6X On a point of order initially, can I clarify from the senator if this is a question that was asked by Senator Rice or by another senator? Senator Rice 155410 Yes, it was asked by me. 15:19 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Rice. That didn't necessarily concur with my understanding, but it was only quite late into question time that I, at least, received information about your intent to query this matter. I don't have the details to provide to the senator at present. But I will seek to find an explanation and the answer to that question from the relevant department and provide it to the chamber at a later time. 15:20 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Thank you. I move: That the Senate take note of the minister's explanation. Essentially, this was a very simple yes/no question. There is a lack of a response to a question on notice from estimates about letters between then Minister McKenzie and the Prime Minister in relation to the Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program. I asked the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet about whether they had seen a copy of the letters that former Minister McKenzie wrote to the Prime Minister in late 2018 after they had met to seek an expansion of funding for the Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program. I asked whether the department and the secretary were aware of those letters at the time they were sent. What I was told in estimates was that they didn't believe so, but they would need to check to make sure that the answer was accurate. And, five months on from October, we don't yet know whether that answer was accurate. The response to the question is overdue; it's now February. In fact, the reason I wanted to bring this to the attention of the Senate today is that it goes to the complete lack of transparency and accountability and the unwillingness to furnish all of the information that the Senate needs for the whole process of the Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program. The issue as to when the department became aware is quite a critical one, because, if the department in fact hadn't known—and it seems that they did not know of the letters between the Minister for Sport and the Prime Minister seeking an expansion of funding—it actually goes very much to the whole point that we have been making about this sports rorts program. Our point is that this was not a standard budget process, and the decision to expand the program and to change who was receiving grants from the recipients that had been recommended by Sport Australia was a political process. The Prime Minister has claimed, during the whole 12 months that we have been focused on sports rorts, that the decision to expand the program from $30 million to $100 million was a standard budget process. If that were the case then surely the letters would actually have shown up in the Parliamentary Document Management System with dates, and the department would have known about them. They would have responded to those letters. But the fact that the department didn't appear to know about the letters, which we need to have confirmed, explains why the department only learnt about the letters more than a year later, during the Gaetjens review. That was the review into all of the pork-barrelling that occurred to help the government win the election. It appears that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet only learnt about the letters during that review. It's worth noting that the Gaetjens review was the sole examination of this issue by the government. But, from what they told us in estimates—and it appears that we don't know whether it's accurate or not, because I haven't had the response to this question on notice—it looks like they didn't have the letters when the exchange occurred, because it was a political process. The increase in funding approved by the Prime Minister was a political decision based on the number of projects in marginal and targeted seats that could be funded in the months leading up to the 2019 election. It's now more than a year since the Audit Office released their report on the Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program—more than a year that this Senate has been trying to piece together all the bits of information to find out exactly what went on. It's more than a year since we woke up to the news and were horrified to hear that the government had taken a community sports program with applications from hundreds of community sports groups and turned it into a political rort that was being run out of the Prime Minister's office. There have been umpteen questions over that whole year that have not been answered. The government and the Liberal Party have been trying to hold things up and slow things down—refusing to provide key documents to the Senate select committee. Not answering this question today is just another one of the questions that haven't been answered. We haven't had meaningful answers to my other questions about the meeting between the Prime Minister and former Minister McKenzie in November 2018, when the funding was expanded. I asked questions just last Friday of former Minister McKenzie about the relationship between her office and the Prime Minister's office and the involvement of the Prime Minister's office, and I got unbelievable answers from Minister McKenzie. The evidence that we do have—that we need to have ratified; we need to have the corroborating evidence that we know that the government is withholding from us—is clear evidence that the Prime Minister actually did know about the use of the marginal and targeted electorates before the first grants went out the door, and that in the Prime Minister's meeting with Senator McKenzie about expanding funding for the program a key part of the pitch from Senator McKenzie was how many grants could go to marginal and targeted electorates. We also know that the Prime Minister was closely involved in the decision-making for the program. We know that there were hundreds of emails and copies of spreadsheets that went backwards and forwards with changes to which community clubs were going to be funded. And we know that the Prime Minister's office was coordinating across multiple programs, because, in fact, the rorts don't stop at the Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program. Instead, there were projects that were being identified by Liberal Party campaign headquarters, and they were trying to work out which programs they could jam them into—whether it was the Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program or whether it was the Female Facilities and Water Safety Stream Program. Where could they get the money from in order to fund the projects that they thought were going to be of political benefit for them? They were coordinating between multiple offices to make sure that their election wish lists were being funded by taxpayer funds. But, despite this clear evidence that the Prime Minister knew about the use of marginal and targeted electorates, and despite the evidence we have that his office was intimately involved in decision-making, we have yet to see any accountability from the Prime Minister or his office. The Gaetjens report was basically a cover-up report, commissioned by a former Liberal chief of staff, and it didn't even cover the Prime Minister's role or the role of his office. Instead, they found a technicality to force former Minister McKenzie out as a scapegoat, without looking at the role that the Prime Minister played. We've also learnt over the last year that an independent statutory agency, the Australian Sports Commission, is being forced to clear their answers to questions from this parliament through the office of the current sports minister. Given how wide this rort goes, it seems incredible that the Liberals are trying to undermine the independence of a statutory body as part of their cover-up. But, instead of facing up to their failures, instead of coming clean, instead of giving answers to all the questions that we've asked—instead of doing that—they've doubled down on their cover-up and they've made Senator McKenzie the scapegoat for their failures. The fact that they have made Senator McKenzie suffer for a rort that was overseen by the Prime Minister's office actually goes to the sexism that is inherent in the Liberal Party, and it shows how desperate they are to avoid linking the whole sports rorts affair to the Prime Minister. Senator McKenzie is a hardworking and passionate politician. She and I disagree on a lot of things, particularly about what we should do about Australia's forests, but I think it's fundamentally unfair to her that the Prime Minister has made her take the fall for a program that has his fingerprints all over it. We have so many other scandals that this government has been embroiled in during this term of office. We had Minister Dutton embroiled in getting visas for au pairs; more recently, we've seen Minister Dutton embroiled in his own grants program rort. We had Minister Tudge delay the release of an asylum seeker. A Federal Court judge found that Minister Tudge engaged in criminal conduct that was 'disgraceful'. Minister Robert was one of several ministers who oversaw the debacle that was robodebt. Minister Sukkar was caught up in really serious questions about branch stacking. Then, of course, we had Minister Taylor—who's been in more scandals than I can even remember and certainly than I have time to mention—providing doctored documents to journalists, and the grassland scandal, to name a few. But all of these ministers have survived. There is a common theme through this. If you're a man in the Liberal Party, you can expect to experience a major scandal, and the Prime Minister will cover for you. But, if you're a woman who can be made to take the fall for the Prime Minister, he'll force you to resign and pretend it was over the membership of a shooting club. Senator McKenzie's got my sympathy. She and I disagree on a lot of things, but I think she's had a pretty rough go from the Prime Minister, and she deserves better from him than to be made the scapegoat for a program that has got his fingerprints all over it. Again, we don't have all the information; the information is being withheld from this Senate. But it's particularly concerning that the evidence suggests that it might have been the Prime Minister's office that asked McKenzie's office to get the electorate data and analyse it. We don't have the full email from the documents, but it's entirely possible, given the discomfort from McKenzie's staff, that there was pressure on them from the Prime Minister's office to source the electorate data that underpinned the whole sports rorts scandal and apply their marginal seats strategy. If so, it's especially tragic that former Minister McKenzie has been made to take the fall for a rort that was forced onto her by the Prime Minister. I look forward to getting an answer to my question today. But there are some other answers that we require as well. There are steps that the Prime Minister must take to make this right with Australians. There's a long list of documents that need to be provided to this Senate and to the Australian public, which include the full and unredacted Gaetjens report, the legal advice as to whether former Minister McKenzie actually had the authority to be the decision-maker about this sports rorts program, the talking points prepared by Minister McKenzie's office ahead of her meeting with the Prime Minister, and the multiple letters between Minister McKenzie and the Prime Minister in relation to this program. This is the transparency that we need. We need answers to all of these things and to unanswered questions on notice. More importantly, the Prime Minister should apologise to the Australian people and specifically to the sports clubs that missed out. We expect more from our leaders, and the Australian people deserve more. To add to that apology, the government should immediately fund those clubs that missed out, that put in their hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of dollars in preparing their applications. They are clubs that should be funded, but they have been rorted. We've got the level playing field bill before the Senate, which could be debated today, and the government should support it. More importantly, so that the cover-up, the lack of transparency and the rorting don't continue, what we need to have in this place and what we need to have support for from all sides of parliament is a federal independent commission against corruption, with teeth. Again, because of the work of the Greens, a Greens bill passed this Senate. It's ready to be voted on today in the other place. The Liberals could make a real difference to transparency; they could stop hiding behind unanswered questions and unreleased documents and make a real difference to accountability. We urge them to support our bill, or a bill that's equally as strong, for a federal ICAC with teeth. When you're talking about an unanswered question on notice, it's easy to forget that the whole issue of the lack of transparency and the lack of accountability has consequences; it matters. It has impacts on everyday Australians. That's why I am keeping on about this a year later. In the case of sports rorts, what this corrupted grants process resulted in was that organisations who should have received funding missed out, while other projects were funded not on their merits but because the government thought it would help their chances of winning those targeted or marginal electorates if they were able to fund those organisations and then those organisations were able to crow about the government doing so. I call on the government to come clean and stop covering up, to support ordinary Australians and to support the clubs that missed out, because the people of Australia deserve better. The people of Australia deserve better than the scapegoating of the women around you, Prime Minister, and your refusal to take responsibility. We ask the Prime Minister to answer the outstanding questions, apologise and do the right thing. 15:35 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I indicate the support of the opposition for the objectives of Senator Rice in this regard. We've worked very closely with the Greens on the so-called sports rorts grants scheme. I'd like to reiterate what Senator Rice summarised very accurately. This was an example of a government who started out by saying: 'We need to spend all of this money in sports. We need to have a set of criteria that sporting clubs around this country can look at and they can make an assessment about whether they meet the criteria. If they do, then they can put in an application.' The assumption always was, by every sporting club that I have had the pleasure to have discussed this issue with, that this system was on the level, that, if you put in an application, it would be judged on its merits and, if the merits justified it, then you would get a grant in accordance with what you were seeking. That was the whole assumption of this program. The government went to the election, and the program was very well taken up, because this government had spent very little on infrastructure in community sporting places. But the assumption was, if you had a good application, it would be assessed fairly by the relevant independent public servants, and you would then be awarded a grant based on merit. That's what happened to start with. Sport Australia assessed these programs against a set of criteria. Often the criteria related to female sporting requirements, because there has been a boom—whether you're talking about Aussie Rules, football, cricket, rugby league or rugby union—in female sport participation in this country, and sporting clubs just hadn't managed to catch up. The government latched onto this. The government saw that there was a problem and led people to believe that, if they put in a genuine application, that application would be judged on its merits. But, of course, that isn't what happened. The exact opposite of that is what happened. The government and the minister at the time took these applications, completely ignored the categories and the classifications that Sport Australia had attributed to these and replaced them, in the lead-up to the election, with grants that went to the most vulnerable government seats or seats that the government was trying to win off either Labor or an Independent. So they were specifically targeted. This was pork-barrelling on an industrial scale. We'd never, ever seen this sort of pork-barrelling in this country. A whole lot of things happened about 12 months ago as a result of this. Of course, the minister at the time, Senator McKenzie, who was, I'd say, the fall guy—I suppose she was 'the fall woman'—lost her spot in the ministry, not for the industrial-scale pork-barrelling, you might remember, Madam Deputy President, but for a minor technicality, which was that she had not declared that she was a member of a club to which she'd given a grant. Of all the breaches of integrity that took place during that time, that was the smallest, and she took the fall. Senator McKenzie had an opportunity last week to set the record straight. She had the opportunity to explain to the Australian people exactly what happened in the interactions between her office and the Prime Minister's office. Senator McKenzie had the opportunity to make it clear, I think, that the Prime Minister's office was up to its neck in the allocation of the grants under this program. I know you're surprised, Madam Deputy President, and I know it comes as a shock that this Prime Minister could be engaged in that sort of activity, but there is no other conclusion that you can reach. If Senator McKenzie, and I believe her, says, 'I didn't rort the system. It wasn't me who was making all these decisions in respect of grants,' then who was it? All the emails are gradually dribbling out, bit by bit, and, if the government responds appropriately to Senator Rice's application for the answer to that question on notice, we'll get some more information—because we're not going to give up on this. The Australian people deserve to know what went on and what went wrong. We've now seen it in a whole lot of other grant programs. It's starting to look systemic. Again, Madam Deputy President, I know you'll be shocked that this government would engage in that sort of systemic rorting of grant programs in this country, but we're now seeing it in a whole lot of other programs. But it all started with the so-called sports rorts affair, and we need to get to the bottom of it. The government has to come clean. In particular, the Prime Minister's office has to come clean and say what their role was in this process. We've heard all about the colour coding. Minister McKenzie says there were a whole lot of colour-coding documents, and I believe it's true. The head of the ANAO, Mr Brian Boyd, has done a terrific job, I might add—forensic in a way you don't often see. He has tracked down, bit by bit, inch by inch, all of the industrial-scale pork-barrelling by this government that went on. But we haven't got to the bottom of it yet. But we will. We will. We're not giving up. The government thinks that the pandemic will overshadow all of these things, but, sooner or later, the pandemic will pass, Senator Abetz. You know that. I can see you smiling because you know what I'm saying is exactly right. The pandemic will pass, and the Australian people will come back to demanding what is their right, and their right in these circumstances is to know what went on—how it is that the Prime Minister of this country was able to rort this program in such a way that the funding which should have gone to clubs that genuinely deserved to be rewarded because of the projects that they were putting forward, because of the efforts of all of their volunteers, didn't go to them. Don't forget, Madam Deputy President, that most of the people who worked in these clubs whose projects scored highly were volunteers who'd spent their nights and weekends preparing their applications for these generous grants—hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money—to make sure that they put the best possible foot forward. Imagine how cheated they felt after they discovered that they had scored highly, 90 or 95—good projects. I can give you an example of one project in my home state of South Australia: the South Adelaide Football Club. It is a fine club, one of the early SANFL clubs in South Australia and an early adopter of female sports participation in South Australia. You'll know, Deputy President, how successful the Adelaide Crows football team have been at the national level, in the AFL. They won two of their first three premierships. Of course, the South Adelaide Football Club was a feeder into the Adelaide Crows football team. They've had a long history of being a terrific SANFL club. I remember I went to the 1964 grand final, which was the last time they won a grand final. There was a very big crowd. There were 74,000 people there. They say a big crowd at Adelaide Oval, Senator Ayres, is 54, but in 1964 there were 74,000 people at that match. Neil Kerley had switched from West Adelaide to South Adelaide and took them from bottom to top. Now, this is a football team in Adelaide with a great history. It was an early adopter of women's AFL in South Australia. They put in an application. Listen to this, Deputy President: they had fewer female toilets than they'd had grand finals in their women's football. I'll say that again, Senator Ayres, because it takes a bit of listening to. They had fewer female toilets than they had premierships. Can you believe it? So they put in an application, expecting— Senator Ruston 243273 The Adelaide Crows? Senator FARRELL I0N No, no; I'm talking about South Adelaide here. They're a feeder side to the Adelaide Crows, as you should know, Senator Ruston. Senator Ruston interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N Well, I can't disagree with that, of course, my uncle having played for West Adelaide in the 1945 team. I was there in '83. An honourable senator: You were a child. Senator FARRELL I0N Alas, I wasn't, Senator. But— Senator Abetz interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N No, I'm fully here, Senator Abetz, and you know you are embarrassed to be part of a government that would rort the system. But let's get back to South Adelaide—more premierships than they had female toilets. How was their application assessed? Well of course it was assessed very highly because it met all of the criteria that the government said they were interested in following through on. But what happened? No, they didn't get the grant. They were on the original grant tick—they'd ticked all the boxes. They'd been examined by Sport Australia. They should have got—should have got!—the money that they needed to improve female sporting facilities in the south of Adelaide. And they missed out, replaced by a grant in another seat which the government was trying to win. As I say, we will get to the bottom of this. We've got a sports rorts committee. Senator Rice is obviously on it. We've got Senator Chisholm and Senator Nita Green. Bit by bit, moment by moment, they'll get to the bottom of what happened here, because what we know is that industrial-scale rorting took place— An honourable senator: Shame! Senator FARRELL I0N It is a shame. It's so disappointing to all those volunteers and all those female participants who thought they were entering an honest, aboveboard scheme to allocate much-needed sporting funds. Finally they discovered, of course, that that wasn't what happened. The Prime Minister might think that the pandemic will smother all of the interest in this topic for Australians. Well, he's wrong. Australians still want to know what happened here. The Labor Party, with the Greens, will continue to pursue this issue and, bit by bit, we'll extract the truth. We've gone a long way—we've found out a whole lot of information that we didn't know at the start of this process—and we will get to the bottom of it. We will find out exactly what the Prime Minister and his office did to override all of these recommendations from Sport Australia. I'm not saying that these other clubs didn't deserve applications, but there was a priority listing and that is what we should have followed through on. That's what the government should have followed through on. Had Labor been elected, of course, that's exactly what we would have done—we would have followed the advice of Sport Australia to give the money to those clubs that most deserved it. The great disappointment and the great sadness of Australian sporting communities is that that didn't happen. 15:50 Senator ABETZ N26 Tasmania On the same matter, the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens, in their normal coalition tactic, are seeking to pick meat off a bone that has no meat on it. The simple facts are very clear, but what is most disappointing is that the Australian Greens and the Labor Party are going through the charade of a committee having already determined the matter. Senator Rice, the deputy chair, in particular, has made extremely scathing, judgemental comments indicating she has prejudged the matter and there is no need for her to hear any more evidence, but she continues with this charade to try to score some political points. I must say, I would have expected better from Senator Farrell, but every now and then you've got to do what your party asks you to do and so I accept that Senator Farrell is doing his party's bidding on this occasion. A government senator interjecting— Senator ABETZ N26 But, in relation to these grants, let's be absolutely clear: the Auditor-General in no way has ever used the term that the senator has just interjected on to the record. The Auditor-General has never used that term, so why is it that the Greens and Labor would seek to import words into the Auditor-General's mouth which do not exist? The Auditor-General did not say that which Labor and Greens are now asserting. Let's be very clear: many a club were asked whether they had read the guidelines and they said they had. This is where the Greens and Labor always come unstuck. You know what it is? The facts; the detail. Sure, the hyperbole they spin like you would not be believed, but, when it comes to the detail and the facts, that is where they are found wanting. Allow me to quote for the record what the guidelines actually tell us: The Minister for Sport will provide final approval. In addition to the application and supporting material, other factors may be considered when deciding which projects to fund. Senator Ayres interjecting— Senator ABETZ N26 Senator Ayres foolishly interjects, because he knows—and this is another one of these facts that the Labor Party never want the public to hear—that, but for the minister's involvement, the Labor Party electorates would have received substantially less funding. So, Senator McKenzie, as minister, involving herself in the process ensured Labor seats got more funding. Talk about an ungrateful bunch! The minister involves herself to assist Labor electorates and all they can do is come in here and complain and say, 'This is a rort.' But the amazing thing is that none of the Labor people or, indeed, for that matter, mouthy Greens went around the electorate during the election campaign saying, 'Elect us and we will not fund this particular project.' They were photographed time after time, day after day, with all the various projects, all of which had been announced publicly by the minister, all on the public record, and what did they do? They lined up for the photo opportunities. After that, they're now criticising all the photo opportunities for which they themselves turned up. Talk about duplicitous! Talk about two-faced! It must be embarrassing for Senator Ayres and his colleagues to look themselves in the mirror of an evening after they've given a speech such as the one Senator Farrell has sought to deliver and Senator Rice has delivered. Let me also indicate from the Auditor-General's report something which Labor always find very difficult, and that is— A government senator: Oh, I know what this is. Senator ABETZ N26 Yes, it's page 9, paragraph 16. When I happened to ask about this during a committee hearing, certain people thought it was funny, given the reaction that I had. But allow me to quote it for the record so that people can make up their own minds. What did the Auditor-General's report say? It said: Ineligible applications were identified and no applications assessed as ineligible were awarded grant funding. There's an inconvenient fact. Senator Rice is now busily looking at some documents and Senator Farrell is drinking water, because they can no longer interject on these facts. These are the facts that need to come out in relation to this matter. If Sport Australia's recommendations were accepted, 30 electorates would not have received any funding whatsoever. Thirty electorates out of 150—that's about one-fifth, on my maths. Twenty per cent of the Australian people would have missed out completely in relation to this excellent scheme. The minister involved herself to ensure that the grants were equitably distributed—geographically and politically. Indeed, if the so-called scoring methodology of Sport Australia were adopted, I think about two-thirds of the funding would have gone to coalition seats. Can you imagine the outcry: 'The fix was in from the start; how outrageous that the coalition seats got all the money.' But when the minister seeks to make it more equitable, then that becomes a rort. For example, just the other day, we heard from a witness—I think it was the Belconnen Tennis Club—complaining bitterly that they had missed out, albeit that there were real issues about Tennis Australia having a conflict of interest and being provided some information beforehand about this scheme. That's addressed in the auditor's report. But the claim was made that, somehow, they missed out on funding because they were in a Labor electorate. Have a look at the funding for the ACT. There were 15 grants, if I recall correctly, into the ACT. So if the motivation was for the minister— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Senator Abetz, please resume your seat. Senator Farrell? Senator Farrell I0N There is a breach of protocol by Senator Abetz. He's got his foot on the seat. That is not appropriate conduct. Could you please call him to order in that respect? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Minister? Senator Ruston 243273 Senator Farrell, I was just wondering what the basis of your point of order was. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 It's a protocol question, but it's entirely up to Senator Abetz. It's probably on the camera, Senator Abetz. It's up to you how you stand, I think. I don't think there's a 'standing order'. Senator ABETZ N26 You have to ask the question: why would somebody who seeks to be the deputy leader of the Labor Party in the Senate raise such a pathetic point of order? Is this the best the Labor Party have to offer the Australian people? It seems that it is. Coming back to the Belconnen Tennis Club—you won't distract me from that one, Senator Farrell. There was the claim being made that, somehow, they may have missed out because this was deep, dark Labor territory. But then, when asked: can you explain about the other 15 grants or so made in the ACT—unable to explain. What is more, the ACT got 1.5 per cent of the funding from this grants scheme. The ACT represents 1.6 per cent of the Australian people. Talk about bang-on equitable in relation to population and distribution of funding! But no, we've got this allegation that, somehow, funding was denied to the ACT because the three seats vote Labor. The hyperbole from Labor is always pretty good, I've got to say, but it always lacks the fact and the detail. Can I indicate—and it's not, I think, any secret here—that Senator McKenzie, when she appeared before the committee some six days ago, performed exceptionally well, and that Labor, despite their pathetic and desperate attempts, were, to use a sporting analogy, unable to lay a glove on her. They missed! Do you know why? It's because there was no substance to the allegations that were being sought to be made against the former minister. She had performed exceptionally well. She had involved herself to ensure that there was an equitable and appropriate distribution. Of course, the other thing that this committee has not done is call forward those organisations who were successful—those who, but for the minister's involvement, would not have been successful. Oh, I wonder why we wouldn't have called them as witnesses! It might have destroyed the pathetic narrative of Labor and the Greens in this committee. This committee has now become quite a debacle of a show. The quicker it wraps up, the better. The determinations were made before the first witness was ever called. I'm sure that, in the minds of Labor and Greens senators on the committee, the report was already finalised. And, mark my words, despite the Auditor-General never having used derogatory terms like 'rort' et cetera, their report will be peppered with those sorts of words, denying all the facts. They won't be talking about the percentages and the effective administration by the minister to ensure equity, or the fact that more clubs got money; no, they'll be banging on about hyperbole and unfairness. They'll also ignore the fact that Sport Australia themselves said that the numerical rating of the club's project alone would not have been the sole determinant for them and that they would have taken other matters into account as well. What is also unfortunate for the Labor Party is that, even in this numerical ranking, when two individuals in Sport Australia separately, independently, analysed the same project—and this is how subjective the business is—do you know what the variation was? The variation was up to 30 points! So somebody may have marked a project at 70 per cent, while somebody else, looking at exactly the same paperwork and exactly the same project, would have marked it at 40 per cent. The chances are that, for those of us who had to do exams from time to time, we would have thought that the marking of an exam paper, or any assessment, that had a variation of some 30 per cent would not exactly have been the most robust manner in which to undertake an assessment. The reliance on the figure of 74 being a cut-off point is ridiculous. Even Sport Australia rejects that assertion. So you've got to ask the question: other than sheer rank politics, what is it that motivates Labor and the Greens? They are forcefully trying to put words into the Auditor-General's mouth, which the Auditor-General won't accept. They have sought to assert that Sport Australia would have done something different. Sport Australia has acknowledged that that is not the case. Sure, they've brought before the committee disappointed organisations that missed out. I understand that. Wouldn't it have been good if we could have funded each and every organisation? But, surprisingly, Labor and the Greens have seen no need to call before us organisations that actually did succeed in getting the funding. In the few moments left, I want to mention the lack of self-awareness by some local government organisations that came before us, who indicated that they were at a loss to understand how their project missed out. When they were simply asked, 'Do you have council officers that make recommendations to council which the elected council then takes it upon itself to reject?' the mayors and CEOs of the councils all had to agree and accept that, yes, that occurs from time to time. And then when asked, 'What's the difference at the federal level if officers make a certain recommendation and the elected official makes a determination otherwise?' they were at a loss to explain. The way our system works is very simple. We have advisers, but the elected officials are the deciders, and that's the important task here to grasp, something which I'm sure the intellectual acuity of those opposite allows them to understand but they conveniently reject so that they can keep peddling this quite nasty mantra against the former minister in a vain attempt to besmirch the government. This grants program has delivered $100 million to over 680 organisations around the country, and sport in Australia is better off for it and because of Senator McKenzie's involvement in the program. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 68 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS JobKeeper Payment, COVID-19: Tourism 68 16:06 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Birmingham) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Payne) to questions without notice asked by Senators Gallagher and Brown today relating to the JobKeeper scheme. I always learn something from listening to Senators Farrell and Abetz. I learnt a lot then about Adelaide Football Club culture. I learnt from Senator Abetz two things: firstly, he doesn't take public accountability very seriously; and, secondly, I suspect the length of his remarks had something to do with being anxious to avoid having to participate in a vote in a debate on Senator Hanson's motion, which is apparently to be dealt with later on this afternoon. Call me cynical, but I think that may have been it. I listened with some interest. It was hard to hear Senator Gallagher's question, but I could hear the interjections when Senator Gallagher asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate questions about the poor economic performance of this government. What you could hear from the backbench, when she asked questions about the poor performance of the government during this Morrison recession, was people yelling out, 'Ask Dan Andrews!' and, 'Open the borders'. The refrain that rose to a crescendo in the lead-up to the Queensland election and then went faintly quiet—they stopped—is now starting to surge back up again as the mantra on the coalition side. The truth is: it's the premiers in Australia who have kept Australians safe. It is true that around the country mistakes have been made from time to time. But the premiers and the states have actually stepped up, taken responsibility and done the hard things. There is no economic recovery without a public health program that the country can have confidence in. There is no economic recovery in the absence of dealing effectively with the COVID-19 pandemic. There is no recovery without public confidence. The Prime Minister's approach to the pandemic and the economy has been a complete contrast. Like with the bushfires, he is nowhere to be seen when the tough decisions need to be made, when other people are doing the work. He only ever turns up for good news—usually the result of the work of others. He's all announcement and no delivery. If it were left to the characters on the back bench, Australia's performance in the COVID-19 pandemic would look much more like Florida or Alabama, our cities' public health performance would look much more like Glasgow's and Sheffield's and our economy—now weak, weak to start with and weakened already—would be a catastrophe. I heard one of the other ministers saying, 'The economic recovery is well underway.' Those on the government's side have no idea of the circumstances of ordinary people. The Prime Minister talked about the Canberra bubble to try and set himself somehow as this different daggy dad. The former political director, former marketing manager and former Tourism Australia manager of no account who's spent his life in politics is somehow different from everybody else. Well, he is in a bubble within a bubble if he thinks that the economic recovery is well underway. We started in 2019 with an economy in deep trouble—30 years of growth gone. And now we've got a country that has low wage growth and anaemic levels of growth. The jobs that are coming out of the economy at the moment are low-quality jobs. We've got a government that's got no plan for the economy, is relying on the states for the public health response and doesn't hold a hose on bushfires. Apparently the Prime Minister, according to him, didn't direct anybody in the sports rorts affair and, despite evidence emerging this week, was entirely unaware of the very serious allegations that were made in this place many years ago. 16:11 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I rise to contribute to this debate to take note on COVID-19 and the economy. I will start these remarks by reminding the Senate of the economic position of the country coming into this pandemic. Senator Ayres talks about the 'Morrison recession'—what a ridiculous turn of phrase that is. This has been the most significant economic shock in a century, and we have seen Australia's economic performance in the absolute top quartile. There are few countries other than Australia that people would want to live in during this pandemic. We're top of the pops in economic performance and very strong in health performance. There's been minimal community transmission of coronavirus over the past 12 months, and people want to have a debate about the pace at which the vaccine will be rolled out. The reason that we can do it in an orderly fashion in this country is that there isn't enormous community transmission like there is in the US and UK, where in many cases the virus simply wasn't taken seriously. We have taken this virus very seriously. We've opened the nation's chequebook. We've spent a lot of money to ensure that the country could get through this huge economic shock. Coming into this recession, unemployment was closer to five per cent. When we came to office in 2013, unemployment was closer to six per cent. Over that period, we have done all we can to create more jobs. Over the course of the past year, there's been a big drop in employment, but we've now re-established about 90 per cent of the jobs that were lost in some form. In taking the virus seriously, it was our judgement that the borders should be closed and there should be innovations, as you've seen in the form of national cabinet, which has given the country a more cohesive way of managing serious challenges like this pandemic. No-one, as far as I am aware, has bemoaned the loss of COAG, and I think we now have a model of managing the Federation through the national cabinet process which will endure. Yes, there have been different ways that the virus has been managed at the state level. I don't think that the Australian people are interested in hearing about sectoral and state based wars and arguments. They're not particularly constructive. But I would say that I think that the New South Wales government has had a good plan to manage the pandemic as opposed to some other jurisdictions where their plan to manage has been to simply close the borders. But this is a federal discussion. We will spend $100 billion on JobKeeper, which is the most serious economic policy in terms of expenditure in the nation's history. That has been essential in getting us through to the other side. We've also taken a novel approach to opening up superannuation for people to use during the pandemic. That is their own money. Three million people have decided to use that. People have been able to take up to $10,000 of their own money to improve their personal balance sheets. It is true that the Labor Party, for ideological reasons, don't like people being able to get into the locked box of their own money, but that has been a successful policy. Perhaps for the first time people have thought: 'This is my money. I am going to use it to improve my personal balance sheet. I'm going to use it to pay down my mortgage or reduce my debts.' That has been very successful. What are the enduring reforms that will come from this era? Having spent so much money to help the country get through this pandemic successfully and as we look at the mass vaccination of Australians, what will be the signature economic policies? A few of them are already before this parliament. You've seen lending reforms designed to improve the flow of credit in the economy whilst maintaining consumer protections. Equally, there has been an agenda to try to attract more foreign investment and the best foreign minds to our country. We have always been a country that has competed for the finest minds and the best capital. The process that the Prime Minister has established through the Global Business and Talent Attraction Taskforce will be very important as we seek to compete with other centres, like Tokyo and Singapore, in attracting more jobs and more growth. 16:16 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland If you ever need an example of how out of touch and arrogant this government is, you only need look at the contribution from Senator Bragg just now. Think about the type of country that they are saying they want to leave behind after this pandemic. They actually highlighted robbing people of a decent retirement. Robbing people of dignity in retirement was one of the things they said they are proud of. That is what this government is responsible for. When he came to talk about the vision, what they want Australia to look like in a couple of years, he rattled off a couple of things at the end. There is actually no bold vision. The government have been in power for seven years and they have actually run out of puff. They don't have a vision for where they want to take the country. They actually don't have a plan for Australian families to look forward to to see how their life or community is going to be better when Australia emerges from this pandemic. We saw in response to a question from Senator Gallagher today the Leader of the Government in the Senate repeat some of that rhetoric. The government tries to claim that there is a recovery underway. Think about the two million Australians who are unemployed or looking for more work. How do you think they're feeling now? Think about the 1.5 million Australians on JobKeeper, which is going to end in 38 days. How do you think those Australians feel about the reaction we get from this government? The government are completely out of touch. They are completely lacking in vision for a better Australia. We absolutely deserve so much more. We know they are doing nothing. They haven't outlined what they are going to do when JobKeeper ends. We saw this week the government pursuing changes to industrial relations that are going to undermine the pay and conditions of working people. How is that going to help Australia get through a pandemic? How is that going to help those two million Australians who are either unemployed or underemployed? How is that going to help the 1.5 million Australians on JobKeeper? It obviously is not going to do that. When considering the government record we need to look at their rhetoric and how they deliver on jobs in the recovery. Over the last seven years—and this is pre the pandemic—they've overseen record low wage growth. That was until 2019. Over that time they've had no plan to lift wages. They've had no plan to help working people in this country look for a better deal. To add to that, look at the conditions that are facing Australians as we try to get through this year. As I've said repeatedly, JobKeeper will end in 38 days. Imagine those businesses, imagine those workers attached to the business; imagine what they're feeling at the moment. Imagine the uncertainty they're dealing with. Imagine the uncertainty their families are dealing with. We know that there are more than 250,000 of these people in Queensland. We know that there are 1.5 million around the country; there are 250,000 in Queensland. We also know there are two million Australians who are looking for work or want more work. And what does this government offer? What does it offer these people who are desperate, out there looking for work or worried about what is going to happen to them? It ends JobKeeper in 38 days. It pursues legislation in the Senate and in the House of Reps that is going to undermine the pay and conditions of working Australians. The government are responsible for the stagnant wages, the job insecurity and the underemployment. This is what their seven-year record has actually delivered. And what do they offer for the recovery? More of the same. That is what they have pursued in the chamber and that is what their vision has been for Australia. But it doesn't have to be that way. There is actually a better way, and that is what Anthony Albanese as Labor leader has started to outline. We believe in secure, well-paid jobs and better conditions, and confidence for the Australian people that a better future is available. We know that the pandemic has done economic damage to every part of Australia. I see it in my travels through Queensland. There's no community that has been untouched by the pandemic. But what the L-NP offer these people, what the L-NP offer these communities, is more of the same; that's seven years of failure from this government. Australians deserve so much better. So the opportunity this year for Labor is to actually offer the Australian people a better future. They're not going to get it from those opposite, who are out of puff and out of ideas. It is only an Anthony Albanese Labor government that can actually deliver that positive vision for Australia. 16:22 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland What an education the last 18 months has been for me—a fresh-faced young senator coming into this chamber and finding out what politics is really about. What politics is really about, as Labor sees it, is repeating the same tired words over and over and over. But that does not make them right. Senator Chisholm has just told us how he repeatedly talks about the same things, and he does. He does. He repeatedly talks the same tired rhetoric about how only Labor can rectify jobs plans and jobs in the future, but it's just not true. The reason why I know that it's not true is that, at the last election, Queenslanders in particular returned the coalition government because they did not feel confident that Labor were able to provide security of jobs—and they voted for us in spades. Australia has outperformed all major advanced nations. We had a large proportion of Australians in work before this crisis began—and I hear that some of the Greens senators don't understand that Australian jobs and Australians were in a better situation, in a stronger situation, thanks to the performance of this coalition government as we entered this crisis. We had a stronger economy. We were well positioned to be able to respond with economic plans such as JobKeeper and JobSeeker. I think we all remember that time, March last year, when we went into lockdowns, as uncertainty swept the nation, and how grateful we were to have the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, and the Prime Minister and the rest of the cabinet respond so quickly and so strongly with programs that meant that people knew that they still had a roof over their head, food on the table and a sense of security, as we entered the greatest pandemic since the Spanish flu. I just want to go through some of the recovery numbers, though, because, again, Labor doesn't seem to appreciate the extraordinary resilience of our economy and the jobs and the businesses around the nation. I continue to talk about the strength of small business in this country, how hard they work, how much they put on the line and, now, how they're responding out of this difficult time. These improvements have been broad. Across Australia, we have more than half a million businesses employing more than two million Australians graduating off JobKeeper, and that was just to the end of December. In New South Wales, 1.2 million employees received payments over the first phase of JobKeeper, compared to 490,000 over the second phase. That's a fall of 60 per cent. In Victoria, expectedly, it is a lower number. There is only a fall of 44 per cent, reflecting the continuation of snap closures of the state. But, in Queensland, the fall has been 64 per cent, and in my city of Townsville there has been a 72 per cent reduction—a 72 per cent reduction!—of the number of businesses and employees who were on JobKeeper from the end of September to the end of the December quarter. Cairns, expectedly, is lower than that, at 55 per cent, due to the international tourists they had previously who are not able to come. Central Queensland is down 75 per cent. These are extraordinary numbers, and they demonstrate the strength of our mining, resources and agricultural industries. The Gold Coast is down 59 per cent, and the Mackay-Whitsunday region is down 71 per cent. One of the other things that Labor continues to speak about over and over again is the lack of secure, well-paid jobs—particularly for young people. Right across Queensland, we have job vacancies, particularly in apprenticeship roles, that lead to well-paid and secure jobs, yet Labor does not seem to be aware of this. It's one more example of them living, potentially, all the time in Canberra—certainly not out in the regions of Queensland, where I'm from. I am absolutely delighted to finish on the fact that JobKeeper in retail trade has fallen by 68 per cent, and I applaud all the butchers out there who are back in the game thanks to people eating more food. 16:27 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Australian workers and businesses are facing a JobKeeper cliff in just 38 days, when the government cuts this absolutely vital support. We all know this. All of us in this place know this from the conversations that we have in our communities, and we know this from the comments of the Reserve Bank Governor, Dr Lowe. But what we don't know as a result of the government's answers in question time today is exactly how many jobs will be lost by the government's refusal to listen to workers about their fear of this JobKeeper cliff, and their refusal to listen to small business about their fear of this impending JobKeeper cliff at the end of March. This government has demonstrated an absolute refusal to listen to the workers and the businesses that are about to be thrown off the JobKeeper cliff by this government. They've refused to listen to the Victorian events industry. They've refused to listen to the tourism industry. They've refused to listen to all of the economists and the experts, including most recently the National Australia Bank, who have warned against withdrawing support too early. But what we do know is that the government is getting ready to throw hundreds of thousands of workers and hundreds of thousands of small businesses off the JobKeeper cliff at the end of March. Almost half a million direct tourism jobs have already been lost—half a million. And we know there are hundreds of thousands more jobs in tourism that are projected to be thrown off that JobKeeper cliff in March. Despite the increasingly desperate pleas of sectors like the Victorian events industry, which has been so hard hit during the crisis, the workers and businesses in that industry face the same JobKeeper cliff. In fact, I met with the Save Victorian Events team just this week. So, yes, to the senators opposite, we are talking to businesses, and we are hearing what businesses are saying to us. I've been speaking to representatives of businesses in live events, corporate events and the events supply chain. I've been talking to representatives of 500 businesses across Victoria. They've surveyed their businesses. They've spoken to hundreds of workers about the financial impact of COVID on Victoria's events industry. The results of those conversations are very clear. They have told us—and I know they are telling the government—that, if JobKeeper ends in March, 43 per cent of companies will need to let staff go, and an additional 40 per cent of companies will potentially need to close their business. That means that 83 per cent of companies in Victoria's events industry will be severely affected by the ending of JobKeeper by this government. In other words, they will be thrown off the JobKeeper cliff by this government. This government is arrogantly throwing hundreds of thousands of workers, of jobs, off the JobKeeper cliff, and this government is arrogantly throwing hundreds of thousands of small businesses off the JobKeeper cliff. But we shouldn't be surprised that the government is throwing events and tourism off the cliff, because it has form. This is the government that, not that long ago, threw manufacturing in our country off the cliff, when they goaded the car industry to leave. This is the government that has not delivered any kind of plan for good, secure jobs in its now eight years in office. The only plan from this government is the lowest wage growth on record since 2013. The only plan from this government is an explosion of insecure jobs, casual jobs and gig jobs. The only plan from this government is to cut wages and to cut super. That is the record of this government. Australian workers deserve better. They deserve a government that backs them up. They deserve jobs that they can count on and jobs that keep their heads above water. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 72 COMMITTEES Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee 72 Delegated Legislation Monitor 72 16:32 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I present Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 3 of 2021 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I would like to take this opportunity to draw attention to a number of key issues and developments arising from this monitor. In particular, I would like to provide the Senate with an update on the committee's engagement with the Treasurer in relation to five legislative instruments made by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. These instruments address a range of subject matters within ASIC's portfolio by providing for exemptions from and modifications to the operation of certain provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 and other acts of parliament. While they alter the operation of primary legislation made by this parliament, these instruments appear to be intended to remain in force for substantial periods of time, ranging from five to 10 years. As I have previously advised the chamber, this contravenes the committee's longstanding expectation that instruments which modify or exempt persons or entities from the operation of primary legislation should cease to operate no more than three years after they commence. The committee considers that a shorter sunsetting period is essential to ensure that there is a minimum degree of regular parliamentary oversight of such instruments. These instruments raise broader systemic concerns about the application of ASIC's exemption and modification powers. The committee acknowledges that there are circumstances where it may be appropriate for ASIC to use delegated legislation to quickly address anomalous or inconsistent outcomes in the application of primary legislation. However, the committee considers that a three-year time frame for such instruments is inappropriate. This allows ASIC to rapidly address such issues while providing a significant period of time, while the instrument is in force, to consider whether the notification or exemption provided by the instrument will be required for a longer period. If it is determined that a modification or exemption is required for a longer period, the committee considers that certainty for business and the market can be best provided by incorporating the modification or exemption on the face of the primary legislation. At a minimum, the committee considers that parliament should at least be given a regular opportunity to review and scrutinise modifications or exemptions to primary legislation that it has enacted. Indeed, the concerns regarding these ASIC instruments raise a much broader systemic problem across government. For this reason, the committee continues to apply its approach consistently. I take this opportunity to note that this committee has advised the Senate in relation to scrutiny concerns in executive-made law since 1932. It is one of the oldest Senate committees and has played a marked role in the Senate's history. I remind the chamber that the committee is and has always been a non-partisan committee. The committee has consistently considered the technical scrutiny aspects of delegated legislation in a bipartisan manner, to support the Senate in its role in overseeing the lawmaking actions of the government of the day. It is incumbent on the committee to bring these issues to the attention of the Senate in accordance with standing orders and long-established practice. I also remind the chamber that there have been no votes—I stress no votes—in the history of this committee. The committee, in its entire history since 1932, has never had a formal vote. This reflects the gravity and importance of the committee's work to senators from across the political spectrum. Since October last year the committee has been corresponding with both the Treasurer and the Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy to resolve its scrutiny concerns regarding these instruments. The committee has also lodged notices of motion to disallow each of the instruments in order to provide it with additional time to resolve its scrutiny concerns. Most recently the committee drew its scrutiny concerns to the attention of the Senate in Delegated Legislation Monitor 2 of 2021 and requested that the Treasurer amend each of the instruments to ensure that, in effect, they cease to operate three years after commencement. The committee is concerned that the Treasurer has yet to respond to the committee's most recent correspondence. This lack of timely engagement prevents the committee from fulfilling its vital role of advising the Senate about technical scrutiny issues arising in delegated legislation. The committee is simply asking the Treasurer to amend these five instruments so that they will cease to have effect after three years. This will not preclude the instrument being remade at the end of the three-year period and being renewed thereafter if it is determined that the modification is still required. This is a relatively minor change to each instrument, which would represent a major increase in the ability of the parliament to scrutinise these measures which affect the operation of primary legislation. As the Treasurer has not yet responded, the committee is unable to conclude its examination of these instruments and will keep the Senate informed in relation to any future developments, including whether the committee recommends that the Senate disallow these instruments. By contrast, I also take this opportunity to emphasise that other members of the executive have continued to engage productively and collaboratively with the committee in resolving its technical scrutiny concerns. In particular, I draw the chamber's attention to a significant undertaking outlined in this monitor in relation to the Veterans' Affairs (Treatment Principles—Rehabilitation in the Home and Other Amendments) Determination 2020. The committee has corresponded extensively with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and his department in relation to concerns about the lack of independent merits review of decisions made under the instrument. I am pleased to inform the chamber that as a result of this engagement this instrument has been revoked and will be remade to ensure that the committee's scrutiny concerns are addressed. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and his department, as well as the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission and the Repatriation Commission for their willingness to engage constructively with the committee to resolve this matter. The satisfactory resolution of this matter provides a model for how many ministers and agencies can engage with the committee in the future to ensure that delegated legislation is made in a manner that protects personal rights and liberties and ensures effective parliamentary oversight of executive-made laws. With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 3 of 2021 to the Senate. 16:40 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I did wish to take the opportunity to make some comments in relation to Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 3 of 2021. I will be brief; I know others wish to speak on other matters in this place. I did want to commend the wonderful leadership provided to the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation by Senator Fierravanti-Wells and by Senator Carr in his capacity as deputy chair. It is absolutely bipartisan leadership, true to the scrutiny principles which the standing committee is commissioned to consider in discharging its processes. I think under the leadership of Senator Fierravanti-Wells and Senator Carr, and I'm sure—Senator Davey, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm reasonably sure you'd associate yourself with my remarks— Senator Davey 281697 Hear, hear! Senator SCARR 282997 Well, there you are. You associate with my remarks, that a bright light has been shone on an extremely important issue in our parliamentary democracy, this issue of whether or not the laws that are made that impact all Australians go through this place and all of us sitting here in this chamber have an opportunity—a responsibility—to consider them and either vote for them or vote against them. It is an extraordinarily important principle. I want to add one final comment in relation to these ASIC notices of exemption from the Corporations Act 2001. I say to whoever is in the department who may be listening to this: surely, it cannot be good practice, and you cannot think it is good practice, to pass instruments which exempt or provide modifications to primary legislation that has gone through this place and for those exemptions or modifications to be in place from five to 10 years. For the life of me, I cannot see why that is necessary. I think it is entirely reasonable and, in fact, consistent and, as Senator Fierravanti-Wells has said, a responsibility of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation to make the recommendation it has made to this place with respect to those instruments. It is simply not good practice, and this matter needs to be addressed. So I, once again, commend Senator Fierravanti-Wells on her contribution. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 74 DOCUMENTS JobSeeker Payment 74 Consideration 74 16:43 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the document. Among the documents listed is an important item of debate that has great importance in the parliament and in the Australian community, which, of course, we've been discussing it this afternoon already. That is, the withdrawal of JobKeeper payments that's coming up in the very near future. The three-month review of the JobKeeper payment back in June 2020 has become a justification for the government to seek to withdraw JobKeeper in the near future. But the issue is that this three-month review and its findings do not match the state of play today. The JobKeeper review—and the government still likes to refer to the findings of this review when it talks about its withdrawal—talks about things like disincentives to work because of the relativities of JobKeeper to the minimum wage. We know that JobKeeper was set at $1,500, and if you're on the minimum wage for a fortnight you actually earn about that same amount of money. As a result, many businesses, including tourism businesses, said at the time, 'We can't recruit staff.' That's all very well for the period of a shutdown when, in large part, in the first quarter, businesses around Australia were indeed shut down and needed to be able to keep those staff on. But now we very much see a situation where JobKeeper has in fact tapered. There are very active tourism and small business sectors and other businesses right around the country that used JobKeeper that are back up and running again. They've withdrawn the use of JobKeeper. Why? It is because they're back at full operation. But what of the businesses that aren't? As Senator Green highlighted to the Senate this week when she spoke about the plight of businesses in Cairns and other high-tourism spots, there is no replacement for JobKeeper. The replacement for JobKeeper is in fact the very underwhelming JobSeeker payment. The government has made no indication as yet of the extent to which the rate of that payment is going to be maintained. We know that it too has fallen a great deal from where it was before. So, we had $1,500 a fortnight, which was the JobKeeper payment. We now know that JobSeeker has fallen to the same amount and we're going to see jobseekers go back to that $40-a-day rate, which the government has made no commitment to addressing. The government has made a big song and dance about keeping businesses—small businesses, big businesses—affected by COVID going, but now that they're looking to withdraw support through JobKeeper they haven't got the economic policy settings right. There are small businesses that will fall unnecessarily on their knees because they're not yet able to make it through COVID. Now, I accept the fact that there will be some permanent disruptions because of COVID and that some sectors won't look the same. We're not going to be able to protect every job and we're not going to be able to protect every business, particularly when, for example, we look at their policy of having suspended bankruptcies. There are some businesses that will face these issues. However, there are still very viable parts of our economy that can and should be supported by JobKeeper payments. They have not continued to adequately consider the relationship with things like JobSeeker, the jobactive programs and the whole integration of these policies across the business community. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250362 Senator Pratt, your time has expired. Senator Pratt I0T I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Australian Broadcasting Corporation 74 Consideration 74 16:50 Senator ABETZ N26 Tasmania I seek to take note of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's annual report for 2019-20. There's been a lot of talk in this chamber in recent times about bonuses. Australia Post has been lambasted. Today we heard in question time that the NBN was worthy of lambasting because of bonuses being paid. Yet, surprisingly, the media and the left wing in this country have great difficulty in being consistent on these matters. If they were, they would be exposing just as loudly the bonuses that are being paid to officials in the ABC, our national broadcaster, who are being paid handsomely by anybody's definition of 'payment'. Indeed, we discover that those earning between $370,000 and $395,000 a year got a bonus, on average, of $18,333. That amounts to over three Cartier watches. We know what happened to Australia Post for one Cartier watch. Why is this not happening within the ABC? Those earning between $395,000 and $420,000—it makes your eyes water; this is taxpayers' money—each received bonuses averaging $8,750. That's clearly over one Cartier watch; it's nearly two of them. Staff earning at the pathetically low rate of $320,000 to $345,000 got an average of $5,333, or a Cartier watch. This is taxpayers' money. On what basis do those opposite seek to claim that the bonuses to Australia Post and NBN are inappropriate but turn a blind eye to the ABC? I happen to believe, as someone on this side of the chamber, that any bonus has to be exceptionally well justified, and, as far as I can see, there's nothing in the ABC report which justifies these excessive and hefty bonuses. Whilst I'm on the ABC, I happen to note that the ABC has quietly removed the words 'Invasion Day' from a headline on one of its articles and, with all the normal verbiage, they seek to justify it and somehow overcome it. I simply say to the ABC and those that seek to denigrate Australia Day, allegedly because they want to champion the cause of our Indigenous brothers and sisters: take note of the actual evidence. Yet again it seems that there is a fact deficit when it comes to the left wing and the woke within our nation. Roy Morgan polling through Michele Levine, has told us that when Indigenous people have been asked about Australia Day 73 per cent of them identified with Australia Day and only 27 per cent with Invasion Day. One wonders whom those opposite are seeking to champion? They are seeking to champion a minority of the minority, whom they are seeking to put up in lights. The majority of the minority that they are seeking to champion, in fact, reject their mantra, according to Roy Morgan polling, with 73 per cent of our Indigenous community accepting Australia Day. So one wonders where the ABC and others get their information from and what actually motivates them. In the few seconds that are left, can I also express my very real disappointment at the ABC giving so much time to Dr Norman Swan, who continually contradicted the Chief Medical Officer at the very height of the pandemic, making claims that would make even Tim Flannery blush. Do you know Tim Flannery? He said the Brisbane River would never flood. It's flooded once; it's flooded twice. Yet he claims to have credibility. Dr Swan has made all sorts of claims, none of which have come true. In fact, if we were to believe him, he was predicting 70,000 to 80,000 cases by early April, and he was— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250362 Senator Abetz, your time has expired. Senator Abetz N26 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Australia Post 75 Consideration 75 16:55 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia I just want to go through a little bit of detail to start with. It was clearly an exceptional year for Australia Post. It was an exceptional year in terms of income, and profit before tax was some $53.6 million—so a very, very substantial increase in remuneration. It's worth noting that the executives and the board are also very respectably remunerated. I think you'll find that the chair gets $189,000. The deputy chair gets $105,000. Non-executive directors get $94,990. The audit and risk committee chair gets $21,000. An audit and risk committee member gets $11,000. The people and sustainability chair gets $18,000. The people and sustainability committee members get $9,000. If you've ever been on a board, you know that the subcommittees are generally occupied by the main board, so those amounts of around $20,000 are added to perhaps the deputy chair's or the chair's income. So these people are very respectably remunerated. If you look at the executive, the salaries are right up there. I don't want to talk about people's names, but, if you look at the CEO, it's a $1.4 million salary. Other executives get $690,000, $720,000, $600,000, $600,000, $700,000 or $800,000. There are about 13 senior executives, and they shared in about $8 million worth of bonuses. I don't begrudge anybody who's doing a very good job getting a very respectable salary, and if the dividends are paid to the taxpayer, well, it all looks good. But when I go to talk to people about Australia Post, they don't really care what the CEO is getting, but they do care when their letters turn up in someone else's letterbox. We've got delivery speeds for a letter in the same state up to five business days. Clearly, the challenge is to get it there as quick as you can. Metro to metro is up to five business days. Metro to country is up to six business days. Country to country is up to seven business days. Clearly, all of the performance is being driven off parcel freight. What we relied on Australia Post for—and, increasingly, many more of us don't rely on it. I do the same thing: 'Email me a bill, and I'll direct debit my account.' No-one posts me a bill anymore. But there are still large sections of the community relying on the post. There are probably very few people, apart from my wife, who actually sit down and write a letter, but there are people who are still relying on 'letter in, letter out' for their affairs, and it's taking up to five business days. I had a problem, recently, where someone said, 'You've got a final notice.' I said, 'I didn't even get the first notice.' They said: 'You've got a final notice here. It's going to cost an extra hundred bucks.' I said: 'Well, it would have been handy if you'd given me the first notice. I would have paid it!' Anyway, it's all down to Australia Post, apparently. They can't get a letter in on time. I just want to finish on one point. Senator Abetz was a tad political with the ABC. I don't begrudge people in Australia Post getting a bonus if it was a Cartier watch that was approved by the board and the CEO was well within her entitlements. I thought the behaviour by the Prime Minister was appalling. And the outcry from all of the Australia Post outlets across the country about her being pushed aside was quite significant. I thought it was just another example of the Prime Minister shooting from the lip, clearly taking a pub test rather than a commonsense test. I'm sure that the CEO is well ensconced with a competitor of Australia Post now and is probably tearing strips of Australia Post's business. In hindsight, it may not have been a very smart decision. But to punt the CEO in the way that the Prime Minister did, I thought, was quite sad and not becoming of the conduct we would expect from the Honourable Scott Morrison. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Climate Change Authority 76 Consideration 76 17:00 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the Climate Change Authority's Report for 2019-20. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. NBN Co Limited 76 Consideration 76 17:01 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of NBN Co Limited's Report for 2019-20. The reason I really want to focus on this particular report is that there's an amazing community of great business people, great community-minded people who live on the Central Coast at a place called Mangrove Mountain. Madam Acting Deputy President, you may not have ever visited, but— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250362 I have. Senator O'NEILL 140651 Indeed you have! As a great New South Welsh woman, I'm glad to see you have been there. It became an orchard area after World War II and many returned veterans were given land there. The community is a tight-knit one. Even though they are only less than 100 kilometres away from the middle of the CBD in Sydney, they have terrible difficulty with getting NBN access. I held a community meeting there towards the end of last year, and the response that they've received from NBN Co was appalling. It took a phone call to the CEO to get some action and attention on this community that really were promised by this government that they would have access to 21st century technology. There was one consultation with the community just before Christmas. But from the reports that I'm receiving, NBN Co is still not meeting the needs of that community. There are businesses that are connecting together in some sort of weird and wonderful way with mobile phones to try and get enough signal to be able to do the banking that they need. This is just a disaster for this community. It's costing jobs, it's costing mental health in that community and it's a very, very big problem. That's why today's revelation that Mr Morrison and his government have actually allowed $78 million worth of taxpayers' money to be spent on what they call, in their response to a question on notice, 'short-term incentives'—not bonuses; they don't want to call them 'bonuses'. That is $78 million going to people for doing a good job at NBN Co. It's not a good job if you can't actually access technology and you can't run your business and you can't communicate with your neighbours when there's a fire roaring up a valley. It's not doing a good job when 238,000 premises—that we know of—still can't access the minimum guaranteed NBN speeds that are required by law. We could have a long debate about how inadequate that setting is that this government have accepted. They told us—they told all Australians—that all you'd need are 25 megabits per second and that would be fine. Senator Pratt interjecting— Senator O'NEILL 140651 Senator Pratt is giving it the voice it deserves—cackling laughter! It is laughable what this government have set as the standard and they haven't even been about to meet that! I'm very, very concerned that all those people who are on what they call 'service class 0', which means you get nothing, are actually at a point where they are being served now by a board that's giving out bonuses to the tune of $78 million. Why it concerns me, why it is directly relevant to this government and why we should sheet it home to them is that every year—as reported in the annual report that's up for discussion today—the government is provided with a prepared corporate plan which they have to sight and accept. This is a government owned entity. The government has oversight over it. Very sadly, the relevant minister, Minister Fletcher, simply is out of his depth, allowing a company that's failing to that degree in terms of service delivery. That's to say nothing of the myth that was the funding allocation that the government said was going to be their pricing of the NBN. People cannot let the government get away with that. They said they'd deliver the NBN for $29 billion. Well, that went way out the window. They said it was going to cost $29 billion. The next thing we know is that no-one wants to invest in it. They brought in another $20 billion and we ended up with $41 billion. Now, after a lot of tooth-pulling, we've got to the truth of it: at the moment, it stands at $57 billion. The people of Mangrove have got nothing, but those bonuses and short-term incentives are flowing to the people at NBN Co. This is mismanagement by this government. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250362 Senator O'Neill, your time has expired. Senator O'Neill 140651 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 17:06 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I also rise to speak on the NBN Co annual report for 2019-20. I have to say that the myths perpetuated in this report do not match the reality of what NBN Co is delivering on the ground, but I'm pleased to see that they've disclosed their remuneration. I couldn't see if they had disclosed specifically the bonuses, but it does put in context the importance of the information that is provided to us in this place. We have seen in debates over the course of this week that NBN Co has been at the centre of a failure of accountability by the government. We've discussed the corporate plan, and here we have an opportunity to reflect on the annual report, which again does not demonstrate a delivery of the Australian government's commitments to the Australian community in relation to a fast and affordable broadband service. In the questions that the opposition have been asking of the government, we've been seeking information that was regularly published prior to the backflip on the previous position on copper. But today we find that the same information that NBN Co were happy to publish in documents like this annual report, their strategic plan and answers to questions on notice they are now claiming as commercial-in-confidence. This is a ridiculous position for NBN Co and the government to take. This information shouldn't be commercial-in-confidence. It's actually about this government and NBN Co refusing to be accountable for their commitments to the Australian community about how many connections they would have over time but also how much money they have spent in delivering those commitments. In this report, can we find information about matters such as peak funding, cash flow profile, debt profile, cost blowouts, costs associated with Fletcher's copper backflip and how much of Prime Minister Morrison's broadband tax is actually going to go to regional Australia? We should be looking to documentation like this annual report for transparent information about the delivery of this program, but we find day after day that when the government don't like the data, when the data and information requested by this parliament is inconvenient to the government, they are happy to hide it, but when the data does not pose an inconvenience they're happy to let it out. It doesn't tell the truth to the Australian people and the Australian users of telecommunications services and the National Broadband Network. In the annual report there should be transparent information about the nature of cost blow-outs and how they've occurred, but instead we've got a government that wants to see such information reclassified as commercial-in-confidence, so you might see the actual figures but you can't see a good explanation of the reasons. Why would this government be concealing data that has previously been published? The simple reason is it's a failure of this government, who don't want to be scrutinised, and it's a failure of Minister Fletcher, who refuses to be accountable for his ongoing cost blow-outs. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission 77 Consideration 77 17:12 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I want to draw attention to the 2019-20 report of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission because the ACNC is an absolutely critical regulatory and governance organisation within the Australian Commonwealth bureaucracy. I recall that, when Labor in government first mooted that we wanted to pursue such an institution, it was roundly opposed and criticised by the coalition government. They made one foiled attempt to abolish it—I'm sure they made more than one attempt, but I recall one—yet it appears that finally the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission is being recognised by the Australian government as a much-needed institution. It has been reported that the government is looking to the ACNC to use its powers to crack down on unlawful activity taking place within charities. Frankly, this is what the ACNC was established to do. The proposed changes would see the charities commissioner given powers, for example, to take enforcement action against charities, even if they have not been charged with an offence. Sector leaders say that the proposed changes go against 'every principle of justice, fairness and procedural transparency'. The federal government is now looking at changing the governance standards for charities to make clear that a registered organisation must not engage in offences such as trespassing, theft, vandalism and assault or use their resources to promote or support these activities. On the one hand the government finally see the worthiness of the ACNC and give it something they would like it to do. However, this government needs to be challenged on this approach—on the way that it handles dealing with the not-for-profit sector and the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission—because they may be asking the ACNC to do the government's dirty work for them. For example, with cracking down on activist organisations masquerading as charities, we all know the government's reputation in that regard. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration 78 COMMITTEES 79 COMMITTEES Consideration 79 BUDGET 79 BUDGET Proposed Additional Expenditure 79 17:16 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I table the following documents: Particulars of proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2021 [Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2020-2021]. Particulars of certain proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2021 [Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2020-2021]. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the documents. Leave granted. Senator CASH I0M I move: That— (a) the documents, together with the final budget outcome 2019-20 and the advances under the annual Appropriation Acts for 2019-20, be referred to committees for examination and report; and (b) consideration of the advances provided under the annual Appropriation Acts be made an order of the day for the day on which committees report on their examination of the additional estimates. Question agreed to. Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements 79 17:18 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I table portfolio additional estimates statements for 2020-21 for portfolios and executive departments, as listed on the Dynamic Red. Copies are available from the Senate Table Office. Estimates of proposed additional expenditure 2020-21 Portfolio additional estimates Statements Agriculture, Water and Environment portfolio. Attorney-General's portfolio. Defence portfolio. Department of Veterans' Affairs. Education, Skills and Employment portfolio. Finance portfolio. Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio. Health portfolio. Home Affairs portfolio. Industry, Science, Energy and Resources portfolio. Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications portfolio. Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. Social Services portfolio. Treasury portfolio. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 80 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Consumer Safety 80 17:18 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I table a response to a question taken on notice during question time on 16 February 2021 asked by Senator Griff relating to consumer safety and seek leave to have the document incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows— Dear Mr President I write with regard to a question I took on notice from Senator Griff during Question Time, Tuesday 16 February 2021, on the matter of consumer safety. I can advise that the Commonwealth has been working with federal, state and territory consumer regulatory bodies to understand the nature and extent of problems in Australia's product safety framework. This includes consideration of a proposal to introduce a new safety duty commonly referred to as a General Safety Provision. Treasury is continuing to consider feedback from consultations with consumers, businesses and industry regarding proposed reforms to Australia's product safety framework. I have copied this letter to Minister Sukkar and Senator Griff. Yours sincerely Simon Birmingham Minister for Finance February 2021 MOTIONS 80 MOTIONS Government Funding 80 17:18 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That the Senate agrees that there should be no discrimination based on skin colour, race, religion or ethnic background when determining the level and use of funding in all cases where: (a) government funding is made available to Australian-based community programs; and (b) grants are made to assist and empower communities to escape the cycles of poverty, unemployment, alcohol and drug abuse, and violence. I rise to bring to the attention of senators and the people of Australia, yet again, the inequality that exists in the funding of Indigenous programs, and the continuing desperate circumstances of the victims of this financial bastardry and mismanagement. I've learned of this in my many conversations over the years with Indigenous communities across Australia. Unlike many vocal urban Aboriginal elites, I have walked through the streets of remote Aboriginal communities in Queensland, the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia. I have listened and I have understood. Whether it's sitting on the beach on Thursday Island or at the base of Uluru, just being in remote communities and listening to elders and residents has been profound and very informative. There's not one Indigenous community I've met with that isn't concerned, and they want to share what's going wrong. A lot of these people can't even gain access to their own land, which has in many cases been given back to the registered native title bodies corporate, which are often more restrictive than the government was. Many of these bodies, especially in rural and remote areas, are highly restrictive, to the detriment of the Aboriginal people. Some are charged to go on their ancestral land. Worse still, some are denied access altogether. But those conversations in both the large communities and the rural and remote locations always turn to the needs that their isolation and situation bring—needs reflected in a lack of adequate housing, a deficiency of infrastructure, widespread alcoholism, out-of-control levels of domestic violence, repeated sexual abuse, including of young children, and a lack of effective pathways to escape the cycles of poverty and unemployment that are often normalised and passed on from generation to generation. Those communities live on the other side of what the highly respected Indigenous spokesperson Jacinta Price referred to in The Australian recently as 'the chasm'. She described in detail how the Aboriginal elite, the activists, the academics from the indoctrination centres posing as universities, those with their hands out for grant money and those with the loudest voices who want to change the date of Australia Day all live in the city on their side of the chasm. When was the last time you heard one of the members of the elite in this space saying anything positive or uplifting about Indigenous achievements? When was the last time you heard one of the activists who identifies as Indigenous talking up the efforts of those in remote locations working to succeed? The elites, the truth deniers—they know there are a multitude of ways to end the misery. They know there's a tonne of money being poured into programs. When they call for an Indigenous voice in the parliament they deliberately don't remind you that there are multiple Indigenous voices already here. In fact, the percentage of those identifying as Indigenous in this place is greater than the percentage in the national population. And why won't we hear stories of achievement, of encouragement, of empowerment, of Indigenous role models and success stories? Why won't you hear them remind their people of Neville Bonner, who came from a little island in the Tweed River to become the first Aboriginal to sit in the Commonwealth parliament and who, as Senator Bonner, went on to be re-elected in four subsequent elections? He was also proud to accept the Australian of the Year award in 1979. He's a stand-out role model for young Indigenous people and their parents, but his story isn't used by the Aboriginal elites because this hero of his people doesn't fit their political agenda. Mick Dodson, Aboriginal and professor of law, who also accepted the Australian of the Year award, in 2009, summed up the widespread Indigenous success the elites and their mates don't want you to hear about when he told The Sun-Herald in 2010: It's becoming unexceptional to have successful Indigenous filmmakers, artists, doctors, academics, lawyers, nurses and politicians. As a nation we love to celebrate the achievements of all Australians. We're that kind of society and we love, as a nation, to cheer the underdogs. We cheer. We celebrate. And so many of our kids try to be like their heroes—the battlers, the ones who give it a real go, as well as the ones who succeed. That's the real Aussie. And it's not based on the colour of your skin. They want to rewrite history. They have made it their mission in life to reframe Australia, both its history and its present. They spray their venom. They hiss their threats and slurs. They denigrate our great nation and all it stands for. They work hard to indoctrinate our youth with their lies and to divide our country. And their division isn't between black and white; it's between black and everyone else. Senator Thorpe interjecting— Senator HANSON BK6 So many of them seem to have made it their life's work to enjoy their substantial salary— Senator Thorpe interjecting— Senator HANSON BK6 and the profile of their city based positions while they work to ensure Indigenous communities remain trapped in permanent victimhood— Senator McGrath 217241 On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: a senator in this chamber was shouting abuse at a senator while they were on their feet. I would ask you to call that senator to order, please. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250362 I remind every senator that they should only speak from their place in the chamber. Any disorderly conduct is not appreciated. Senator Thorpe? Senator Thorpe 280304 Point of order: I'm finding it quite offensive to hear in my workplace the senator for Queensland speak the language that she is speaking. I find it offensive and divisive, and I ask the senator for Queensland to retract any more attacks on Aboriginal people in this country. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250362 Senator Thorpe, I do understand what you're saying, but what you're raising is a point of debate and not a point of procedure. You could address it when you have an opportunity to speak. Senator Hanson. Senator HANSON BK6 So many of them seem to have made it their life's work to enjoy the substantial salary and profile of their city based positions while they work to ensure Indigenous communities remain trapped in permanent victimhood, because, without victims to point to, the elites of the city side of the chasm have no relevance. As Henry Ergas said in The Australian recently, the city based mob's aim is to incite, not to inform. Ergas also pointed out: … the "sorry" culture perpetuates a sense of victimhood that gives European settlement no credit for the enormous gains it has conferred. The Aboriginal elite are creating and tolerating permanent victimhood for their Indigenous Australian brothers and sisters, and they don't care. They'll let the Indigenous population pay any price to achieve their goals. Their idea of equality is: 'We own everything, and the rest get nothing.' They want 100 per cent of the land. For them the 32 per cent of Australia already under native title isn't enough. This does not include private Indigenous landownership. They want 100 per cent of Australia to be owned by around three per cent of the population, based on the colour of their skin or their ancestry. That's called racism. It's pure and simple racism and it needs to be called out and exposed at every opportunity. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250362 Order, Senator Hanson. Senator Thorpe, is there a point of order? Senator Thorpe 280304 Yes, there is a point of order. There are a lot of untruths being said in the senator for Queensland's statement. I understand that it's coming to 5.30, so we don't have time to debate. So as long as I'm sitting here in my workplace hearing lies from the senator for Queensland, who obviously has an issue with black people in this country— Senator HANSON BK6 Madam Acting Deputy President— Senator Thorpe 280304 Aren't I able to feel safe in my workplace? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250362 Senator Thorpe, please resume your seat. As I said earlier, I completely understand what you're saying, but that is a debating point. So we will move back to Senator Hanson. Senator HANSON BK6 It's common knowledge that the billions of dollars thrown at Indigenous programs far exceed the funds put into non-Indigenous programs on a per capita basis. Non-Indigenous government spending per capita is $22,000 versus $45,000 for Indigenous Australians. Tens of billions of dollars are spent each year on programs to assist Aboriginal communities both remote and major. From Jacinta Price's policy paper 'Worlds apart', published in January this year by the Centre for Independent Studies, we learned the Productivity Commission estimates that the government spent around $33.4 billion on Indigenous peoples in 2015-16. One stand out of those figures is that around $4.1 billion of that was spent on public order and safety alone. That's $6,300 per person, which is 10 times—yes, 10—the amount spent on the typical Australian. Isn't it a coincidence that, from 1971 to 2016, the year of the last official census, the population of Aboriginal Australians increased by 459 per cent during the rollout of these programs while the general population increased by only 83.5 per cent? The people of Australia know it's way overdue for those on the Left and the Right to accept that the awful plight of so many Indigenous communities runs across party lines, and the system is being rorted. Indigenous families—any family—should never be political pawns. The hollow prize of hate speech, thrown across this chamber to deflect from the truth, is a badge of honour I and my party wear with pride. One Nation will continue to shine a light on the rorts, the injustice, the inequality and the discrimination— (Time expired) Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 82 ADJOURNMENT Domestic and Family Violence 82 17:30 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland This week marks the anniversary of something very sad. It marks the day that this world lost a family in the most tragic of circumstances. Hannah Clarke and her three children, Aayliah, Laianah, and Trey, died at the hands of the man who was supposed to love, nourish and protect them. It's easy for people at a distance to say things like 'Why didn't she just leave?' when discussing this difficult issue. But, so often, that represents a massive oversimplification of the nature of the risk faced by people a situation like that which Hannah faced. Hannah and her children died after Hannah did everything by the book, so to speak, on how a mother experiencing domestic violence should act, and none of it was enough to save her. This isn't an issue of women versus men or of picking winners or taking sides. It's an issue of the right of every person to be safe from violence from their intimate partner, whatever their sex, whatever type of relationship they're in. And it's about the right of children not to be used as weapons to hit an ex-partner where it hurts them most. There's been a lot of talk about family law in the chamber this week, and I'm pleased to say that as a government we have legislated the first step in getting the family law system into shape. Getting simpler, clearer processes so that Australians can understand and use the system as simply and inexpensively as possible is a big part of that. A single point of entry so there's no confusion about where to go to get help; improvements to wraparound services, with the Lighthouse project; $56 million for family relationship centres, for mediation; almost $50 million for family advocacy and support services; $84.8 million for specialist domestic violence and health justice partnerships—I could keep going. There's just so much money going into this space. Indeed, those numbers can be overwhelming. We've also made it so that a person accused of domestic violence can't cross-examine their alleged victim as part of family law proceedings, because, in cases of coercive control, that too can be manipulated as a form of abuse. And we've provided legal assistance to make sure that nobody's case is prejudiced as a result. We've co-located police officers and child protection officers in family law registries so that information-sharing is easier and we can do a better job of keeping people safe. But the job is still far from done. There are still too many stories of good people getting hurt by those they love. There are too many stories of good people being kept from their children as an act of manipulation, as a way to wound an ex-partner. As a government we've got a substantial piece of work to consider, from the Australian Law Reform Commission on the family law system, and we'll soon have another from the joint select committee on the future of the family law system. These will inform the next steps that we take. But family violence isn't just about what happens in the court. Prevention is key. I've been really pleased to support the work of the StandbyU Foundation, which acknowledges that domestic violence is in many ways a product of isolation, and so the steps it takes use both technology and human-to-human connections to reconnect people to a network that will protect them from moments of vulnerability. It's wonderful to see big organisations like Westfield and the Scentre Group get behind them by offering premises. I recently spoke to Sue Clarke and I have in the past spoken to Lloyd Clarke, Hannah's parents. They now advocate for laws that deal with coercive control. Sue showed me the data that demonstrates that a partner whose behaviour is not physically violent day-to-day but is instead coercively controlling actually has a higher risk of ultimately being part of a fatal situation. That's something we just can't abide. I support their work to find ways that we can, consistent with the values of freedom and personal responsibility, always do all we can to stop coercive control being used against people who are supposed to love and protect one another. Hannah, we remember you this week, we remember your beautiful children and we reaffirm in this place—in my heart, at least—a commitment to do all we can to make sure your story isn't repeated. Tertiary and Further Education 83 17:35 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I concur with the previous speaker's comments in relation to domestic violence and the impact on families, but I want to speak tonight about the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been a wicked disruption to all our lives over the past year. It has presented, and continues to present, immense challenges but it also presents some unprecedented opportunities to transition our economy and way of life. The Morrison government and our national parliament have an opportunity now to make significant public investment in the potential skills of Australians. If we do it, it will be crucial to our post-COVID economic recovery. Slogans get used too often in politics, but there's a three-word slogan that works for me and should work for everyone who wants to get Australia back to having a strong economy, build our skills and provide opportunities for future jobs. It is 'Rebuild with TAFE'. If we want to be a manufacturing nation again, we need to invest in TAFE. Because of those opposite, there are 140,000 fewer skilled apprentices in this country, which is not a good set-up for our country's future. I don't think those opposite actually understand the benefits of TAFE. If you keep cutting TAFE, as this government has done and Liberal state governments do, it is bad for jobs, bad for productivity and bad for the economy, and it is very bad for individuals and our communities. I was pleased to join the Australian Education Union on the lawns of Parliament House yesterday to call on the Morrison government to make TAFE their first priority. As I said, it's crucial that the Morrison government properly fund TAFE, because the TAFE system supports $92.5 billion in economic benefits through direct operations of the TAFE institutes, higher incomes and productivity generated by a TAFE credentialed workforce. The only way we can address the apprentice shortage in this country is by reducing youth unemployment and providing career pathways for all Australians. The federal government has cut $3 billion in funding from vocational education since 2013. It has pursued a relentless privatisation agenda, increasing the amount of low-quality, private training providers at great cost to vocational education. We see it no more clearly than in my home state of Tasmania. We have seen the direct impact of cuts and underfunding, which have resulted in less qualified teachers, fewer resources, fewer students and fewer courses available for students to study. Government talk big about jobs, but what we don't see is the infrastructure necessary to skill up Australians. Australians need to have skills to not only get their first job but retrain so that they can be part of the changing economic future of this country. With a shortage of over 200,000 apprentices, while at the same time the government is cutting funding and tearing apart the fabric of TAFE, we won't have those apprentices or a skills base. We've seen what's happened with the closing down of manufacturing, whether it's the car industry or whether it's manufacturing going overseas. If we've learnt nothing else during this pandemic, we've learnt that the government have no real plan to restore the economy from the devastation of COVID-19. They certainly have no plan to create real jobs, provide opportunities for apprentices or provide opportunities for people to go back and retrain. We know they're making it harder and more expensive for people to go to university. We on this side of the chamber believe in the TAFE system because it delivers the best training and skills in this country. We should be funding it with greater resources than we ever have before. Crown Resorts: Donations to Political Parties 84 17:40 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I rise tonight to speak on the conduct of the Crown Resorts casinos and the urgent need for the establishment of a national gambling regulator. The New South Wales inquiry report by Patricia Bergin has clearly and with no ambiguity expressed the view that Crown is not suitable to hold the gambling licence at Barangaroo. The Crown Resorts inquiry found that Crown's Melbourne and Perth casinos had clear evidence of money laundering and dodgy dealings with overseas junket operators that were likely to be linked with organised crime networks. My question is: how can the public trust state governments and state regulators to effectively control an industry that raises millions in revenue for state coffers and where, at the same time, there are obviously very dodgy things happening with money laundering and the connections with the junket operators? How can they expect that they are going to get proper regulation when there is an inherent conflict of interest? State governments don't necessarily want to bite the hand that feeds them and, therefore, to take the tough action that is required to hold the likes of Crown to account. Not only do they rely on the revenue from gambling but since 2012-13 more than half of all the money donated by Crown to political parties in Australia has come to parties in Western Australia. During this time, Crown donated nearly $800,000 to both the Labor and Liberal parties in WA. So the obvious question that everybody asks is: what sort of influence does that money buy? The conflicts of interests are rife within the gambling industry, and it is way past time something was done about this. This week the WA gambling regulator recommended that the McGowan government establish an independent inquiry into Crown's suitability to hold a casino licence in Western Australia. This is a welcome step forward. But we all know that these types of inquiries only work where there is a political will to act on the findings. So what we also need to ensure is that the government, whichever party happens to be in government at the time the inquiry reports, actually commits to implementing the recommendations and findings from that inquiry. We've all known for a long time about the public health impacts of gambling related harms. This is an industry that creates trauma, pain and economic hardship. Governments have a responsibility to implement effective harm minimisation measures to reduce problem gambling. But how can this happen when the gambling industry buys political influence and is not adequately regulated by state authorities that have come to rely on the revenue that they get from the gambling industry, so write-off people that are gambling, that have gambling addictions and then suffer the consequences of the trauma and pain that that causes? We need to be addressing this issue. We need to have a system that is not influenced by millionaire and billionaire donors and gambling interests. Any system needs to guarantee that it's not influenced by the revenue that is generated by gambling or political donations. The corruption that has been exposed within the Crown Resorts process in Melbourne and Perth also highlights the urgent need for the establishment of a national independent regulator. State governments cannot be regulating a process where they are gaining millions and millions of dollars from revenue and they're also gaining political donations. We urgently need to have a national regulator and we urgently need a national public health approach to gambling. We need that approach to gambling regulation, for harm prevention and minimisation. This industry needs to be properly regulated. It needs a national regulator—one that is independent and one that does not receive revenue from the industry it's supposed to regulate. Cyclone Yasa 84 17:45 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I'm very pleased to rise during this adjournment debate and speak to a positive news story and to advise how pleased I was that earlier today I had the opportunity to move a motion which was agreed to unanimously by all of the senators in this place. I would like to read that motion and provide some comments. The motion read: That the Senate— (a) pays tribute to members of the Australian Fijian community and Australian service organisations who have raised money to assist Fiji to recover from Cyclone Yasa, including: (i) the Brisbane Fijian Uniting Church at Annerley who have assisted to raise funds to rebuild the Lekutu Secondary School, (ii) Fijian Senior Citizens Association of Queensland Inc and Sunnybank United Multicultural Association of Queensland who raised funds for the Rotary Club of Labasa to assist rebuilding efforts, (iii) Archerfield Rotary Club who raised funds for rebuilding in Labasa and provided a shipping container of medical supplies for Labasa Hospital, and (iv) MacGregor Lions Club who raised funds to assist in rebuilding efforts; and (b) thanks members of the Australian Defence Force, including members of the RAAF and the crew of HMAS Adelaide, for their outstanding efforts to deliver humanitarian relief on behalf of the Australian people in the best traditions of the Australian Defence Force. I was so pleased to spend an afternoon with my friends, including elders of the Australian-Fijian community, at the Brisbane Fijian Uniting Church at Annerley. That church community, that congregation, raised money, almost $4,000 in the course of that afternoon, to help rebuild Lekutu Secondary School. The church has been working directly with the school to buy it four desktop computers, printers and photocopiers which, as we sit here today, are allowing teachers to continue their work at that secondary school. I should also note how pleased I was and how honoured I was when the Fijian elders invited me to participate in their kava ceremony. That meant a great deal to me and I do humbly thank them for the honour they bestowed on me. Can I say to them: I have made representations to a number of ministers with respect to the shortage of kava in the country and note the significance of kava to their traditional ceremonies. I commend the Fiji Senior Citizens Association. I've spoken about this wonderful association before and about the great work that it does to help so many people in the community, including through hosting citizenship ceremonies. They raised $4,210, which was donated to their friends at the Rotary Club of Labasa. They are now looking to fundraise to help a town called Viti Levu after floods decimated that town. As was mentioned in the motion, the MacGregor Lions Club and the Archerfield Rotary club, which does so much good work, also assisted. I must disclose that I'm an honorary member of the Rotary Club of Archerfield, and I commend them for all the great work they do. Finally, I want to reflect on the fact that Senator Carr presented a report on behalf of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee which talked about national identity. It seems to me that part of our national identity is that, in times of need, we reach out to our international neighbours and friends, including those in the Pacific. At the same time, we should reflect on the fact that members of the Fijian defence force came to assist us in Australia in our time of need during that horrendous bushfire season of 2019 and 2020. I think that is part of our national identity. We are a country that reaches out to assist those in our region. We do it as a government and we do it through our community service organisations, such as Rotary and Lions; and all of our wonderful multicultural communities, our diasporas, reach out through their communities to their places of origin, wherever they've come from, during their times of need. I think that is a crucial part of our national identity. Scarr, Senator Paul 85 17:50 Senator LINES 112096 Western Australia I rise today to refute a statement made recently in this place by Senator Scarr, who sought to impugn the integrity of a former parliamentarian without any basis. On 3 February, Senator Scarr did not name the former federal member for Fremantle, Melissa Parke, but he precisely identified her nevertheless and proceeded to accuse her of telling vile lies about events that occurred when Melissa was working as a lawyer for the UN in Gaza in 2003. One of those events involved a Palestinian refugee woman being forced by an Israeli soldier to drink a bleach-like cleaning fluid. If the senator had been concerned about facts rather than about engaging in a smear campaign, he might have ascertained that the precise— Senator Scarr 282997 I raise a point of order, Mr President. I note that this speech contains an amazing similarity to a speech given by Senator Urquhart during the adjournment debate— The PRESIDENT I0Q Your point of order, Senator Scarr? Senator Scarr 282997 I'm not sure if duplication is a point of order, but I do wonder if Senator Lines is aware of that. The PRESIDENT I0Q I imagine second reading debates could fall foul of such a standing order. Senator LINES 112096 If the senator had been concerned about facts, rather than engaging in a smear campaign, he might have ascertained that the precise incident has indeed been reported in the Haaretz newspaper in Israel and here in Australia in The Age newspaper on 23 June 2003 under the headline 'Soldier "made woman drink cleaning fluid"'. This is not the first time Melissa has been attacked for highlighting human rights abuses experienced by the Palestinian people. Indeed, Senator Scarr quoted a disgraceful column penned by Herald Sun journalist James Campbell. Facing potential defamation proceedings, rather than assert the truth of their defamatory imputations, on 26 March 2020, the Herald apologised to Melissa for that article and published a response from her titled 'Criticism not same as racism'. Melissa has stated publicly, as anyone who has spent time in the occupied Palestinian territories can attest: 'There is no need to invent atrocities. They are occurring on an almost daily basis.' This was confirmed by respected Israeli human rights NGO Yesh Din late last year, when it stated: … the crime against humanity of apartheid is being committed in the West Bank. The perpetrators are Israelis, and the victims are Palestinians. Evidently Senator Scarr has never met and does not know Melissa Parke personally. But many others in this place do, from all sides of the political spectrum. Melissa has spent— Senator Scarr interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Scarr! Senator Keneally interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q I'm calling Senator Scarr to order. I was in the process of doing so, Senator Keneally. I wasn't as successful as I'd hoped. Senator Scarr, you were heard in silence. Senator Lines. Senator LINES 112096 Melissa has spent her entire career, from her time as a sole solicitor in charge of a regional community legal centre and her work with the UN in some of the most difficult places on earth to her time as a parliamentarian, standing up for human rights and for the most vulnerable in our community. Melissa co-founded the UN Parliamentary Group with Queensland Liberal Senator Russell Trood, with whom she became good friends. Melissa was the co-recipient of the Alan Missen award for parliamentary integrity in 2013, together with Liberal MP Judy Moylan, with whom Melissa also enjoys a close friendship. Melissa is today an esteemed member of the UN group of eminent experts on Yemen, which is investigating violations of human rights by all parties to the war in Yemen. She and her colleagues recently briefed the UN Security Council about the human rights situation in Yemen. So, if you are going to accuse someone like this of not telling the truth, you had better have your facts straight. Senator Scarr interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Scarr! There's never an appropriate time for interjections like that, but you were heard in silence; I'll ask you to return the favour to Senator Lines. Senator LINES 112096 Senator Scarr has sadly not made the effort, but I'm confident he would not repeat his defamatory statements outside of the parliament. Melissa Parke has asked me to read some final words from her: 'Ultimately, resolution of the Palestine-Israel conflict will require everyone to take a step back and see the larger picture. What is the most desirable outcome here? I'm sure everyone can agree it is not a continuation of fear and hatred, of injustice and fighting, of suffering and loss. It is not a continuation of angry words and accusations of blame and smear. It is rather to agree that these two great peoples can live together in one land, as they have in centuries gone by, in peace and understanding, and in truth and equality. Equality and respect for the rights and dignity of all in one great state, including Palestinians and Israelis alike, without distinction of any kind, must be the basis upon which this longstanding conflict is resolved. That is my hope and the shared hope, I believe, of the many people of goodwill. Thank you in advance for all your efforts to bring this outcome into reality.' I conclude by calling upon Senator Scarr to retract his disgraceful words and to make an apology to the Hon. Melissa Parke. Racism 86 17:56 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I rise to speak against the motion from the senator for Queensland, as part of my adjournment speech contribution. You know how they say that a broken clock is right at least twice a day? Well, I thank the senator for Queensland for wanting to talk about racism today. Let's talk about race in this country, because we need to heal—all of us. We need to heal from our history to create a better future. The past still haunts us, and we need to heal from it. The White Australia policy was one of the first laws that this Senate passed. There are still racist clauses in our Constitution. Racism is the reason why we were blocked from voting in this country until 1965. Racism is the reason our people were blocked from being counted as being part of this country until 1967, despite having been here since time began. However, despite the very racist foundation of this country, from terra nullius to today, there is somehow not a racist to be found. Let's talk about it. Let's talk about racism. What is racism? Racism is ugly. It divides people into us and them based on things they cannot change, like who they are, where they come from or the colour of their skin. Racism happens when people feel that it is okay to treat other people badly as they are minding their own business, just getting through their life. Racism happens in a lot of different ways. It's when people make jokes or bad comments about a group of people because of where they're from or the colour of their skin; or when people abuse others by calling them racist names or by abusing them verbally or physically; or when people bully, hassle or intimidate others because of their race or the language that they speak. Racism is always about power, either enforcing a power over others or treating other people badly because you think they might get some of the power you have. Racism is always, without exception, prejudice combined with power. Minor acts of prejudice won't necessarily impact on someone's everyday life, but, when racial prejudice is combined, that is when racism happens. Racism isn't always visible. It doesn't always look like the absolutely horrific abuse that I get on social media or the physical letters that are sent to my office calling me all sorts of hurtful and racist names. Some of the worst racism is the invisible type, the kind of racism where an employer doesn't even read the resume of someone with a non-English name, or when some of our young mob are followed around by security guards in shops just because they're black and they assume they might steal something. This kind of racism is harder to address and pinpoint, because it involves prejudice. In terms of the Aboriginal money, the black money or the white money and all of that, it is all money that's been stolen from us and all wealth that's been stolen from us. But can I just quickly say Woolworths received black money out of the IAS. They received $24 million of funding that was meant to go to Aboriginal organisations. Fortescue Metals got a chunk of the money that was meant to be for Aboriginal advancement. Another company, Sodexo—they're worth almost $19 billion, and they got our money as well. The PRESIDENT I0Q The time for the debate has expired. Senate adjourned at 18:00