DOCUMENTS

2021-02-22 46 1 5 Senate 0 1

Monday, 22 February 2021

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 10:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Rearrangement 1 10:01 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia by leave—I move: That— (a) a motion to take note of a statement made by the Minister for Defence (Senator Reynolds) on 18 February 2021 may be moved immediately; (b) senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each and the time limit for debate be 30 minutes; and (c) following consideration of the motion, the routine of business till not later than 12.50 pm be general business orders of the day for the consideration of bills only, after which the Senate return to its routine of business. Question agreed to. STATEMENTS 1 STATEMENTS Members of Parliament: Staff 1 10:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the statement made by the Minister for Defence, Senator Reynolds, on 18 February 2021. This has been a distressing time for Ms Higgins, for many staff in this place, for survivors of sexual violence and for those who have supported them. I start by honouring the courage of Ms Brittany Higgins, whose resolve to tell the truth, no matter how risky for her or how confronting, is an example to those in power. I also acknowledge other women who have come forward to tell their story—three women who have told their story of being violated by a man and failed by a hierarchy. Much has been written, reported and said since Ms Higgins's account was made public, but we should be clear about the key questions which must be answered. The first is why Ms Higgins was failed by those within power and those with power. Those who failed her must be held accountable. The second is how we change the culture of politics in this place and beyond to ensure not only the safety of women but our full participation in political life. Both of these questions must be answered. Since these distressing allegations have been made public, the Prime Minister and others in his government have sought to focus on questions of culture, and there is no question that there is a problem with the treatment of women in Parliament House and in politics. We saw that when concerns were publicly raised by Liberal women about bullying and intimidation following the leadership spill which saw Mr Morrison depose Mr Turnbull. We saw that in the revelations made by two former Liberal staffers in 2019. And then there was Four Corners last year, where the response from the Morrison government was to launch a full-throttle attack on the ABC. When the culture of the bullying of Liberal women was raised, Mr Morrison said, 'I'm not going to be distracted by it. I'm not going to get distracted by it'—not going to get distracted by concerns that women were being bullied in his own government. Ultimately, where did his process end up—that process he described as rigorous and confidential? Well, Ms Chelsey Potter, one of the women who raised concerns about bullying, described aspects of the resultant policy as 'protecting alleged perpetrators rather than empowering women in the party to speak up'. Mr Morrison has talked a lot lately about processes, reviews and changing culture, but he's spoken very little about the accountability of those who put Ms Higgins in a position where she felt her career with the Liberal Party would be compromised if she went to the police. And he avoids this central truth: the first thing you can do to change culture is to act appropriately when serious allegations are made. As part of his political response, Mr Morrison has threatened those seeking to hold his government to account that no party is immune from these issues. Of course, no party, no organisation, is immune from these horrific acts. What matters is how we respond to complaints when they arise, and what matters is how we seek to change the culture by implementing systemic change that supports complainants and seeks to break down power imbalances. You see, Mr Morrison's sympathetic words ring hollow whilst there is no culture of accountability. We know from Ms Brittany Higgins that this is how it was handled. She said this and we believe her. Ms Higgins said she was given a choice between justice or her job. She was told by her superiors she could go to the police, but they also added: 'We need to know ahead of time. We need to know now.' Ms Higgins was told she could take time away at home on the Gold Coast, but there would be no way back. She said she realised her job was on the line. She said she realised the rape she reported in the minister's office was being seen as 'a political issue'. She wasn't being treated as a human being; she wasn't being treated as a rape survivor or as a victim of a grave crime. She was being treated as a political problem. And there remain big questions over what was spoken about inside the Morrison government and, indeed, inside Mr Morrison's office—questions about who knew what and when, and whether their response was appropriate. We've been told the alleged rapist was terminated over a security breach. We are told the two most senior staff in the Prime Minister's office—the chief of staff and the principal private secretary—were notified of that termination. The alleged perpetrator was terminated for a security breach—Ms Higgins was not—and the obvious inference is that the sexual assault was known at the time these decisions were made. The difference in handling by the minister's office and the Prime Minister's office can only be explained by knowledge of the alleged sexual assault. Is this the reason a senior representative of the Australian Federal Police met with Senator Reynolds on 5 April, or was there another reason? The minister has claimed repeatedly she was not made aware of the details of the alleged rape until Monday 1 April 2019. But her office received written advice from the Department of Finance days earlier, on Friday 29 March. Senator Reynolds is expecting people to believe she was unaware, despite this written advice to her office. And it isn't just Minister Reynolds's account that doesn't add up. The Prime Minister claims he first heard on Monday 15 February 2021, and he's asking Australians to believe his press office didn't tell him for three whole days after questions were put to them on Friday 12 February. We now know from a message sent to Ms Higgins that one of the Prime Minister's staff was 'mortified' when they were told two years earlier and had resolved to tell the Prime Minister's chief of staff. We know that his principal private secretary, the man described as Mr Morrison's fixer, was broadly in the vicinity and checking up on Ms Higgins; and we know that Minister Reynolds's then chief of staff, to whom Ms Higgins then disclosed the allegations of rape, had previously worked for Mr Morrison and has since returned to the Prime Minister's office. What this comes down to is who knew and whether they handled that appropriately—whether they handled what they knew about the alleged assault appropriately. The Prime Minister's insistence that neither he nor his office knew, despite all the evidence to the contrary, demonstrates he knows this is the test—and he knows he's failed. That is why he has put Mr Gaetjens in charge—Mr Gaetjens, who has a proven record of whitewashing the wrongdoings of the Morrison government. We know Minister Reynolds was aware and made it feel like a political problem to fix, made Ms Higgins feel like she had to choose between justice or her job. We know that, at best, Mr Morrison runs a government where the culture is 'don't ask, don't tell' when it comes to serious criminal allegations. At worst, Mr Morrison himself is part of the cover-up. Of course, there are human consequences to all of this: for Ms Higgins, two years of compounded trauma and denied justice; for all women in this building and beyond, two more years of ignoring concerns about culture; and for the woman who spoke of her trauma in The Weekend Australian on Saturday. Mr Morrison is arguably the most powerful person in the land. He sets standards that form cultural expectations. His actions, and inactions, shape the culture. But, when Four Corners raised serious concerns about the culture of mistreatment of women in his government, he tried to silence the ABC. When women complained of bullying in his government, he said, 'I'm not going to be distracted by that.' When rape was alleged in an office of one of his own ministers, he set up whitewash investigations that can be controlled. Mr Morrison's media advisers started rumours about Ms Higgins and her partner, and Mr Morrison blamed the victim. He said he was angry about being left in the dark, but there have been no consequences for those he claims left him in the dark. Mr Morrison talks about culture, but what he is not talking about is the culture he leads in his own government, where, no matter what happens, he is never responsible, where nobody is accountable for anything and where a serious crime was covered up. 10:10 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I too rise to take note of Minister Reynolds's statement concerning the serious allegations raised by her former staff member Ms Brittany Higgins. As everyone in this place is aware, last Monday evening Ms Higgins courageously and publicly gave her account of her alleged sexual assault in Minister Reynolds's office in March 2019. Ms Higgins demonstrated courage that many other women have demonstrated in recent days and over many, many years in relation to this workplace and many others. Minister Reynolds has expressed to the Senate how deeply sorry she is that, despite her genuine efforts and intentions of support, Ms Higgins felt unsupported at the time of her alleged sexual assault and in the time following. In telling her story, Ms Higgins has prompted a national conversation about how we ensure women are safe in this workplace that we are all part of here at Parliament House. It needs to be more than a conversation; it needs to ensure action such that all of us know how to do better in relation to how we prevent such incidents in the future, to do better in relation to how we handle them and support those affected by them in the future. I am confident every single one of us has something to learn through improved practices and processes that can make this workplace a safer one and a better example for all. The Prime Minister has initiated a number of processes in response to Ms Higgins's allegations. These seek to deal with the specifics of the incident that was raised. We acknowledge and welcome the fact that Ms Higgins has indicated her intention to pursue these matters with the Australian Federal Police. The government will provide absolute cooperation with those processes. The Prime Minister has equally initiated other processes, which relate to party operations and to culture, and he has asked me, as the minister responsible for the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act, to work across the parliament to initiate a review of a wider range of issues that shape our working environment. I give confirmation that this review will be at arm's length from government. It will consult widely and will provide constructive feedback on measures that can be implemented. Every step should be taken to prevent any instance of assault or workplace harassment or bullying. We should all be working in an environment of respect. This place is robust, but I respect my political opponents—each and every one of them, despite our differences. I respect those who work alongside us. We ought all make efforts to make sure that respect carries through the culture of every aspect of our operations. In seeking to prevent, we must acknowledge that incidents may still occur and that any individual should feel supported and empowered in their decision-making when such matters arise. It is of enormous regret that Ms Higgins, or others, have felt that they could not make such decisions. We must make sure in future the systems support them and that they feel that respect to make those decisions. Indeed, those they work alongside of in this workplace, including members and senators, need proper training, processes and practices to support them when matters are raised to understand how best to handle them, how best to support those individuals and what responsibilities lie upon them if individuals do not wish to proceed with other actions. I have scheduled meetings throughout this week with colleagues across all political parties in this place to make sure that we consult on both the terms and the processes around this multiparty independent review. I have initiated processes to do so with staff as well, and I will welcome the input of Ms Higgins and any former staff who wish to help to shape that review process and to participate in it. Over the weekend I also reached out to and had discussions with the Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins to ensure I have her advice as I work alongside parliamentary counterparts to do this. It is a privilege to work in this place. That is a statement often said of those of us who stand up in the parliament, but it should be a privilege for all of those who work here too. We must all live up to the high standard that people should expect of this workplace which, of all workplaces, ought to be an exemplar. My commitment, and the government's commitment, is to work with all of us to make sure that we all do better in future. 10:15 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to take note of Minister Reynolds's statement last week on these matters. Minister Reynolds maintained that when she met with Brittany Higgins, just metres from the couch on which Ms Higgins was allegedly raped, she didn't know about the allegations, yet several days earlier her chief of staff had received advice from the department about what to do when staff make a complaint of sexual assault. The Prime Minister has maintained that, despite countless people, many of whom work in his office, being aware of the rape allegations, as we now know, his office didn't know until 12 February. He says he personally didn't know until the story broke last Monday. Many questions remain, yet three of the four reviews that have been announced, in a flurry of response, are internal reviews. That is not good enough when the culture of keeping things in-house is what has led to this culture of silencing. It's taken very brave women, so wronged by the system, to speak out. Over the weekend two more women came forward alleging they had been raped by the same perpetrator. This should weigh heavily on those who failed to act decisively in response to Brittany Higgins's allegations. That's why the particular details of how this place, this government, failed Brittany Higgins are important. It's essential to identify who knew what when and what has been done to ensure that no-one else goes through what Brittany Higgins went through. An internal investigation into how Brittany Higgins's case went so wrong is not enough, and I will be moving a motion later today calling for an independent inquiry. I hope that that motion gets the support of all people in this chamber. This place, this government, this parliament and those that have preceded them have failed many others who have worked here. We know the names of Brittany Higgins, Rachelle Miller and Chelsey Potter, but they're not alone. Countless staff members, predominantly young women, have felt forced from this place by harassment, predatory behaviour, bullying and assault. We need to dismantle the culture that has allowed so many to get away with so much for so long. This is a culture that blames victims, as the Prime Minister did last week, for getting themselves into vulnerable situations. This is a culture that sees women's worth only in relation to men: as daughters or as wives, not as individuals worthy of value irrespective of their relationship with a man. This is a culture that closes its eyes when powerful men use, abuse and discard women and rarely suffer consequences—they even retain their ministries. This is a culture that adds a bonk ban to the ministerial standards yet washes its hands of further responsibility. This is a culture that allows Mr Craig Kelly's adviser to remain on staff despite multiple allegations of highly inappropriate conduct. Yes, we need a comprehensive review of the complaints process and an independent body so that no-one feels, as Brittany Higgins did, that making a complaint will end their career. We also need an enforceable code of conduct binding senators, members and senior staff to the highest standards of behaviour, and for there to be genuine consequences when we fail to meet those standards. More than that, we need to systematically unpick the misogyny, the inequality and the privilege that create a culture in which what happened to Brittany Higgins, Rachelle Miller, Chelsey Potter, Dhanya Mani and so many others is downplayed as just what happens in parliament. This is not a problem unique to any particular party, to this parliament or to politics. Nearly 12 months ago the Sex Discrimination Commissioner released the damming report Respect@Work: national inquiryinto sexual harassment in Australian workplaces, which found that workplace sexual harassment is prevalent and pervasive and that most people who experience sexual harassment never report it. Overwhelmingly, the commission heard that gender inequality was a key driver of harassment. In her powerful piece in The Saturday Paper, Dhanya Mani, who went public in 2017 about her assault by a fellow staffer, said: The reason for Brittany's assault, and mine—and the ongoing disclosures I receive from other women—is the same reason there have been sexual abuse scandals in every self-regulating, autonomous or unpoliced fiefdom of power and privilege. What Australia seems wilfully blind to is that each of its enclaves of power—from religious institutions such as the Catholic Church, to the judiciary, corporations and financial institutions, to our parliaments—has a misogynistic, patriarchal power structure that enables the oppression, vilification and sexual abuse of women. She goes on: Our parliaments house the most powerful people in the country, many of them white men. They have used their power to create one of the most exploitative and damaging workplaces imaginable. I note that over the weekend a petition was signed by more than 2,000 Sydney private school students calling for more to be done to teach respectful relationships and what consent means. The petition calls out rape culture and outlines over 500 experiences of assault. We shouldn't be surprised that this culture persists in politics, but this is not a problem that's unique to politics; this is a problem, however, that we have an obligation to fix. The Respect@Work report sets out a comprehensive reform framework, including positive duties of care and primary prevention. The government needs to urgently act on these recommendations. A comprehensive, transparent, independent review of the parliamentary culture is long overdue, and I look forward to working across the chamber to make it happen. Current and former staff must be involved in setting the scope of any independent review. The experiences of those most vulnerable to the power imbalance in this place must inform how we move forward. When asked whether she has hope that the discussions over the past week signal a change, Dhanya Mani said absolutely not. It's devastating to hear that someone who is working tirelessly to turn her trauma into advocacy has no faith in us to fix it. But we owe it to Dhanya Mani to prove her wrong. We owe it to Brittany Higgins, to the countless young women that the current system has failed, to Australians who despair at the example set by this place and to the young women to whom we want to show that politics is a safe place for them to be. We owe it to all women to provide safe workplaces everywhere. The Prime Minister leads this culture, and he needs to finally show some leadership. 10:22 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The opposition has repeatedly asked over the past week: when and what did the minister know about the alleged rape, and what did she do? The minister clearly knew by 27 March that something serious had occurred in her office between her staff, but then waited until Monday 1 April, some six days after the first disclosure by Ms Higgins, to speak directly to the young woman involved. The minister says she didn't know the full details of what was alleged to have happened, but she doesn't explain why that was the case. The statement says: 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. What did the minister do? Did the minister arrange for counselling and support? Did she check in with Ms Higgins to see if she needed any help to access services? The statement goes on to say: 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. Ms Higgins had already independently spoken with police days before this, and, according to Ms Higgins, the access to police in the 1 April meeting was couched in terms of: 'If you go to the police, you must let us know when you do.' There was no offer of going with her, of supporting her, of sitting with her. Why is it, throughout this traumatic time for Ms Higgins, the minister only ever spoke to Ms Higgins about it once, on 1 April, and then never again? The minister tells this place that she has: … full confidence that my then chief of staff and I at all times acted in what we believed were in the best interests of Brittany. If this were true, why didn't the minister ever check in to see if Ms Higgins was okay? Why didn't the minister ever check to see if she had accessed counselling support? Why, after saying she'd prefer to be near her family for the election campaign, was Ms Higgins dispatched across the country to Western Australia for the entire duration of the campaign, isolated and alone, with nobody to talk to? How was any of this in Ms Higgins's best interest? It might've been in the Liberal Party's interest, but you can't argue it was in Ms Higgin's interest. Ms Higgins was the minister's employee. There was a duty of care. How did the minister act in her best interests if the alleged rape was never discussed again after the 1 April meeting? A dedicated employee of this government is allegedly raped in the minister's office, and the minister never follows up. This terrible incident happened in Senator Reynolds's office. She could have done more, she should have done more, and I think she actually knows that. In her statement, the minister said: Throughout this entire time my sole desire has been to let Brittany herself determine how this matter would be dealt with. But, minister, you were the boss. It happened in your office. Why should it have been left to a young, traumatised and stricken woman to navigate her way through this? Why is everything her responsibility? The minister's statement says: At all times Brittany's welfare and her right to privacy were paramount to me. Why, then, if her privacy was so important, did you speak with Minister Cash's chief of staff in October 2019 and tell them everything about what you knew? Was that protecting Ms Higgins's privacy? She didn't know it was being done. Was that in her best interests then? The minister says that she understands it's the duty of the Senate to ask hard questions about how this incident was dealt with. Yes, we will ask those questions, because it goes right to the heart of the minister's capability, suitability and conduct. The minister is a senior member of this government, and, in the treatment of Ms Higgins, the minister has been found seriously wanting. The minister says she is sorry Ms Higgins felt unsupported and that some of the minister's actions added to Ms Higgins's distress. This statement alone is some acknowledgement that, as an employer, the minister and the Liberal Party failed this young woman. The minister failed to take appropriate action. The minister placed her back at the scene of the alleged crime. The minister failed to stand up and support this young woman. The minister failed to offer or arrange the help that she clearly needed after allegations of sexual assault were raised. The minister sent her across the country, where she was isolated. The minister failed to check in with her. And, after the election was over, the minister washed her hands of all of it. This is an egregious failure by Senator Reynolds as an employer and as a minister. The minister's statement has left many questions about her conduct unanswered. But then she lectures us that, due to the various inquiries underway: It is now incumbent on all of us in this place to let the independent processes now in train consider these matters. The independent process has nothing to do with what Senator Reynolds did or didn't do during her conduct as a minister, nor does the police investigation have anything to do with the minister's conduct following the alleged rape, and the minister should stop trying to hide behind it. The minister has failed to answer the questions asked of her. But we will not stop asking them. The minister has failed to take responsibility for what happened in the aftermath of an awful, traumatising event. The minister's statement finishes with: My hope now is that we can address this very serious issue as a parliament, away from the politics. All I can say to that is: I bet you do. I note the government is trying to broaden and spread the blame and make it about everyone's office and every person in this building. But there are two separate issues here. What happened to this young woman in a senior minister's office two years ago—and what happened after that event? And then there's the broader issue of the cultural change that is required in this building. We cannot allow this government to conflate the two. That's what they're trying to do. The PM and his marketing team are trying to make what happened to this young woman everybody's responsibility—and it's not. If I had known about what happened to this young woman, if many people in this place had known about what happened to this young woman two years ago, there would have been a very different response than the one she got from this government. Ms Higgins should have been treated very differently two years ago when she came to the minister, a young woman clearly in need of help and support, and she deserves better from this minister now. 10:29 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I rise to take note of Minister Reynolds's statement. We have already said that this needs to be investigated by the police. I would have expected someone in the Prime Minister's position, both within his party and within the parliament, to have acted swiftly, immediately, unequivocally and clearly. We have not seen that. I go back to August 2019, when I was on the inquiry into the appointments of former Minister Bishop and former minister Christopher Pyne immediately after they retired from parliament. I can remember that Senator McAllister and I, and others, were in the inquiry asking questions, and I persisted and persisted with Mr Parkinson about the investigation he'd been given responsibility to lead. Eventually, Mr Parkinson started getting nervous and unsteady, and he admitted that he had no power to investigate the issue. I'm only a junior senator—I've only been here five minutes—but he was the Prime Minister's chief man. The Prime Minister knows that Mr Gaetjens does not have the power to investigate this issue. So, while we are in favour of a police investigation, we also are not pleased that the Prime Minister has been sloppy and slow and seems to be avoiding the issue. What we want is a proper investigation as to what happens in this building and in the corridors of power, because we just cannot accept what happened to Ms Higgins and, as we found out over the weekend, two other people. This building is becoming a blight on the country. We need to have a Prime Minister who is honest, objective, clear, quick and unequivocal in his response to this. Question agreed to. NOTICES 6 NOTICES Presentation 6 10:31 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I give notice of my intention at the giving of notices later today to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, standing in my name for today, proposing the disallowance of part 3 of the ASIC Corporations, Credit and Superannuation (Internal Dispute Resolution) Instrument 2020/98. I also 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 ASIC Corporations (Litigation Funding Schemes) Instrument 2020/787. Finally, I note for the information of senators that any senator may take over the disallowance notices for these instruments prior to the time that they are withdrawn by advising the chamber accordingly. BILLS 6 BILLS Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021 6

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021

Second Reading 6 10:32 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise this morning to speak in favour of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021. This is an important piece of legislation which this chamber needs to consider, because for far too long the plight of Australia's iconic furry friend the koala has been ignored. Last summer's bushfires ripped through parts of the Australian bushland in a way that we'd never seen before. Sixty-one thousand koalas were killed and much of their habitat was destroyed. This piece of legislation seeks to stop the further destruction of the limited amount of koala habitat that is left. For far too long, precious koala habitat has been allowed to be destroyed due to mining, big property development, logging and other types destruction. Couple that with the destruction of last summer's bushfires, fuelled by the climate crisis, and Australian koalas now face extinction. It is just unthinkable that, on the east coast of New South Wales, Australia's koala could be extinct within the next 30 years. It is just unthinkable that this iconic creature, which right around the world is considered so emblematic of Australia's wildlife, bushland and environment, could be gone, to exist only in zoos as a reminder of what used to be. We need to act now and we need to act fast. The biggest threat to Australia's koalas is the destruction of their homes, their habitat. As less and less habitat is available we see the koalas moving closer and closer into urban areas. This puts them at further risk of harm and injury. When the bushfires ripped through the Australian forest, bushland and scrub this time last year, the images of burnt koalas, dead koalas and injured wildlife went around the world and shocked people right across the globe, because it was just such a fundamental destruction of what Australia is known for. Under the 22-year-old environment laws currently in place in this country, under the EPBC Act, koalas have lost almost one million hectares of critical habitat. Overall at least 7.7 million hectares of critical habitat have been destroyed, specifically for mining and development, over the last two decades—enough is enough. There is not much home left for the koala. We need to protect that which exists. Of course, this is an important issue not just for the koala; this is important for the rest of Australia's wildlife and native species too, because if we are to protect koala habitat it protects the homes of many other animals as well. For far too long we have simply let rip, let log, let dig, let destroy Australia's precious places and our environment. If you destroy the bushland, if you log forests, you're taking away the very homes of these animals. At present, despite how at risk these animals are, the government refuses to guarantee that not one more hectare of critical koala habitat will be lost, and that is shocking. When everybody knows—in the government, in the minister's office, in the department, amongst the experts and those who work carefully and considerably and hard every day to protect our wildlife—that koalas are facing extinction, how can the government continue to allow the destruction of habitat? This will fast-track the extinction of this iconic species. Indeed, the government has done the exact opposite. Despite 61,000 koalas being killed last year, the environment minister has continued to sign off on, give approval to and give a green light to the destruction of even more koala habitat going forward—doing the exact opposite to what needs to be done. It is not good enough to want to stand and have a photo with the cute koala at Australia Zoo or at Taronga or a number of the other wildlife sanctuaries and then to turn around and to sign the death warrant of these creatures by allowing the destruction of their homes from big mining companies and developers. The environment minister's job is to protect the environment, to make sure there is a check and a balance on those who just wish to just cut, dig and destroy senselessly. These koalas need the protection of this environment minister, and currently the environment minister has failed. The Threatened Species Commissioner, the expert and the key adviser to the minister herself, told this Senate in November last year that the biggest threat to koalas was habitat loss and the degradation and fragmentation of their homes. The environment minister knows what she needs to do. The environment minister knows what needs to be done to save these koalas from extinction. The environment minister needs to stop approving the destruction of their habitat through mining, development and logging projects. The ongoing destruction of koala habitat through land clearing for agriculture, development, mining and forestry is currently unchecked and has been going on like this for decades and decades. And now we have a situation where, unless we act today, there will be no koalas in 30 years time. Perhaps there will be a few in zoos, perhaps there will still be an opportunity for a politician to have their photo shoot with a cute and cuddly koala, but there won't be any living in the wild and there won't be any in our Australian bushland. The New South Wales parliament last year was so exercised by this issue that they conducted their own inquiry. They found evidence, time and time again, that, unless koala habitat was protected, these animals will become extinct. It just beggars belief that no-one in this place, no-one in the government, is seizing the opportunity to do the right thing. Saving Australia's koalas is not just important for protecting our wildlife. It is important in our further challenge in tackling climate change—because, as more and more koala habitat is destroyed, less and less forest and bushland is protected, thus making climate change even worse. Last summer's 'climate fires' were a wake-up call to the Australian community. They were a wake-up call for all of us. We were pretending climate change is something out there in the distant future, but it was right here on our doorstep. Canberra itself was engulfed in hazardous smoke for weeks and weeks on end. Sydney, Australia's biggest city, was engulfed in toxic smoke for weeks and weeks on end. Towns and communities throughout the eastern seaboard, southern Victoria, the Gippsland region and my home state of South Australia were devastated by the fury of the flames. And while we might be able to rebuild, reconstruct our homes and put our communities back together—although that takes time—our native animals are gone forever. The three billion native animals destroyed in this fury of fire destruction are gone forever. There is very little Australian koala habitat left. All this bill is seeking to do is put in place a moratorium to stop the minister from being able to approve any more destruction of it. There should be no more bulldozing of the trees that koalas live in, no more logging of the trees and the bushland that koalas and their fellow species rely on, no more destruction of koala habitat for the sake of a quick buck for the mining industry and big property developers. For far too long, these big corporations have brushed away the long-term impact of destroying these important pockets of bushland. 'Oh, koalas can go and live somewhere else,' they say. As the minister signs on the dotted line, she says: 'Yes, you beauty, you can log there; you can mine there; you can bulldoze there,' expecting that the koalas will simply be able to pack up their bags and move next door. We need this country to get serious about protecting our environment and what is left of it. We lead the world, shamefully, when it comes to our list of threatened species and those that are already on the extinct list. That's not a league table I want Australia on and neither do most Australians. The Australian people ask us to debate a lot of complex issues in this place. This isn't one of them; this is not a complex issue. This makes perfect sense. There's very little habitat left. If we want to save Australia's koalas from extinction, we need to protect their homes. We need to stop the chainsaws and stop the bulldozers. We need to protect our iconic species not just for their sake but for the sake of every other species that relies on native bushland, native scrub and protection from destruction. I commend the bill to the Senate. 10:47 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I too rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021, introduced by Senator Hanson-Young. I wish to acknowledge up-front her passion and deep interest in these issues. Having travelled as part of the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee to Kangaroo Island in the aftermath of the bushfires, I have seen her deep interest in this and her passion for addressing these issues. When it comes to the legislation, though, I come back to the maiden speech I made in this place—that good intentions and passion alone don't necessarily make for good legislation. I do have some concerns with the amendments that have been proposed in this bill, which I will speak to now. As Senator Hanson-Young has said, the bill aims to introduce a moratorium on the clearing of koala habitat, and, if you go back to the EPBC Act and look at what critical habitat for vulnerable species, the koala in particular, is defined as, it's defined as any habitation that contains a food tree or a food source for koalas, so it's a fairly broad definition of what koala habitat is. The bill would prevent the minister from approving an action under the EPBC Act where that action consists of or involves the clearing of koala habitat. It also goes on to remove an exemption for regional forest agreements, which I'll come to a little later on. Specifically, section 18B refers to the concept of a significant impact on koalas as set out in the new section 527G and it applies this concept to section 18A of the EPBC Act. The effect then of section 18B in conjunction with 18A and 527G is that taking an action that has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on koalas is prohibited. At the end of section 139 the bill goes on to insert a new subsection that has the effect of preventing the minister from approving an action consisting of or involving the clearing of koala habitat. As you'll recall, the definition of 'habitat' for vulnerable species, the koala in particular, is essentially any forest or other growth that has either emergent trees or trees that constitute a food source for koalas. The concern in part for me comes back to my own state of South Australia. An exemplar is Kangaroo Island, to which, in the 1920s, a number of koalas, given that they are not native to Kangaroo Island, were introduced from Victoria. I think fewer than 20 were released on the island. They have bred extensively on Kangaroo Island. Before the fires of last year there were an estimated 50,000 koalas on Kangaroo Island, roughly half in native vegetation and roughly half in blue gum plantations. This immediately raises an issue with the prohibition in that, if the koalas have chosen to live in blue gum plantations because they provide a food source, then here we have a situation where what is essentially an introduced species to this island has chosen to live in and use as a food source a plantation timber, for which the natural expectation of somebody who's planted trees as a plantation is that they will be able to harvest those trees. But this prohibition would actually prevent a normal commercial activity of planting timbers for the purpose of harvesting because koalas have chosen to live in that area. So, fundamentally, there is a problem with the nature of the bill because it will interrupt not the logging of native forests or clearing of native areas but actually commercial operations that have seen a massive increase, through the presence of those trees, of a koala population. Kangaroo Island was an interesting case even before the fires that went through last year and that were devastating to many landholders, property owners and wildlife because the koala population does not respond to environmental stress like kangaroos do. Scientists have studied them and made it clear that kangaroos, in the face of environmental stress, can actually regulate their population growth to adapt to those changing circumstances. What they've found with koalas is that koalas are not capable of that self-regulation, which means that over time they have created unsustainable pressures on the food sources on the island. This means they are literally eating themselves to starvation. There has been a long program, a long debate and discussion, in South Australia about how you deal with this burgeoning population. Culling is not an option. There has been some attempt at translocation back to the area where these koalas originally came from. Given that they are disease free—and certainly the only ones in South Australia and potentially nationwide that are disease free—it's a very good breeding stock to try to translocate. There have also been attempts at sterilisation. But importantly, as Senator Hanson-Young has indicated, the habitat that koalas use is also the habitat for other species. One of the great environmental concerns on Kangaroo Island is the overpopulation of koalas, which eat trees not just to the point where there is no more food for them to eat. If the trees are devoid of all leaves, they die, which means that the habitat for other native animals is actually being reduced. That has been a significant environmental concern in South Australia. Kangaroo Island is an exemplar of a case where there are reasons why this prohibition on the clearing of habitat has a commercial imperative. But there are also reasons why various controls may be required. You can also go to other parts of South Australia. In the Adelaide Hills, for example, in the Mount Lofty Ranges, there is a population that is measured to be around 150,000 which is thriving. There are large contiguous forested areas and natural bushland, even down into the suburbs. In fact, the creek out the back of my own house has koalas that populate that and keep us awake at night with various territorial growling. But it indicates that there is a healthy population there, and this prohibition could prevent quite reasonable development of properties across a large swathe of area or pockets within that area that would have no material impact on koalas. So there are some fundamental concerns about the black-and-white nature of the prohibition which is placed in this bill. The extant provisions recognise that there are areas which are complex. The guidelines published by the Department of the Environment, in relation to the EPBC Act, say: The koala has one of the largest distributions of any terrestrial threatened species listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). It occupies a variety of vegetation types … is capable of moving long distances and is variably affected by a range of threats. Determining significant impacts on the koala is therefore complex and varies between cases. This shows that we do need to take account of the habitat of koalas and their population but a blanket ban is not the best way to manage that. There needs to be a scientific approach that understands the impact on the koala as well as other species, balancing that with developments—whether that be in industry or for housing or transport— and the authorities and minister need to be able to look at these case-by-case rather than being hamstrung by a blanket ban. As the chamber would be aware, the EPBC Act is due for a reform and there are reforms underway. The Environment and Communications Committee reviewed late last year some of the first tranche of reforms to make it more effective, in terms of how we care for the environment and balance the needs of other parts of our society. It's worth pointing out that, in terms of the extant provisions, habitat protections and matters of land clearing are predominantly the responsibility of state governments. But, when it comes to threatened species, the EPBC Act does provide protection for threatened species and the koala is listed as one of those, particularly the combined populations of Queensland, New South Wales and the ACT, which are regarded as matters of national environmental significance. So under that federal act, any action that's likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environment significance, such as the koala, must receive approval from the government before it can proceed. In order to obtain approval, proposed developments are subject to an rigorous and transparent environmental assessment process under the EPBC Act. We heard a lot of evidence last year about the processes in that act and the fact that there are opportunities for improvement, and I would welcome those as we go forward. But at the heart of that act and those processes is the assumption and the principle that you treat the koala population, particularly on that east coast area, as a population of concern but you deal with each case according to its merits. I will come to the issue of the forestry agreements now, just in that context. Between 2015 and 2017 the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries undertook a large-scale study on koala occupancy in north-east forests of New South Wales, including their response to timber harvesting. What they found was that koala occupancy was not influenced by timber harvesting intensity, time since harvesting, land tenure or landscape of harvesting or old growth forest extent. There were other factors sometimes associated with the forestry industry, but often not, that had a greater impact. So to have a blanket ban on exemptions for RFAs ignores what the science has collected, in terms of data. So I am not denying that, particularly on the east coast, there is cause for concern, there is action that is required, but the substance of this bill and the operative measures which actually prevent—they have a hard prohibition—that don't allow the science for any particular business case to be considered when somebody comes for approval or, worse, in the case of something like Kangaroo Island, where there has been a commercial planting of trees that, by definition, have now become a habitat for koalas because they are a food source for koalas, would be that somebody who's made an investment to plant a plantation couldn't even harvest those trees because of the operation of this bill. So for those reasons, while I respect the good intentions and the depth of passion of Senator Hanson-Young, I cannot support this bill in the Senate. 11:00 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales One of the iconic images of Australia's bushfires is a firefighter sharing a water bottle with a scared and singed koala. That picture was shared around the world and, in part, that's because the koala is so intrinsically and recognisably Australian. The koala might not be on our crest but it is a national symbol. It has featured in countless tourist ads and has been taken back home on countless kitsch souvenirs. It is not only an essential component of the concept that the world has of us but also of the conception we hold about ourselves. In 1933 Dorothy Wall published Blinky Bill, the quaint little Australian. A year later in 1934, the Sydney Morning Herald called the koala Australia's 'national pet'. But right from the beginning, being Australia's national pet hasn't been enough to guarantee the koala's safety. In 1936 the Evening News in Rockhampton wrote: It seems extraordinary that this animal which is so greatly admired, not only by overseas visitors, but by Australians, is being allowed to suffer extinction. In the early part of the 20th century, the koala was ruthlessly hunted for its fur. The threats to its safety today are different but no less grave. The koala is facing habitat loss and mounting ecological pressure in a warming world. Being an iconic Australian animal will not be enough to save the koala without our help. Even before last summer's bushfires, koalas were in trouble. Koala populations in my home state of New South Wales have been in decline for decades. One study suggests that koala numbers may have dropped by as much as two-thirds over the last 20 years, just 20 years. Although estimates vary, there is no dispute that koalas are in real trouble in New South Wales. A few years back, on a pleasant afternoon, I met volunteers from an organisation called Bangalow Koalas. They have planted over a thousand trees to generate koala corridors to compensate for key koala habitat lost to highways on the North Coast of New South Wales. These corridors act as both travel pathways for koalas and areas for them to live. The trees were planted on private land with support of local landowners and they want to see koalas protected. Those volunteers are stepping up to fill the void that has been left by the Commonwealth and the New South Wales government and their destructive actions. New South Wales now has fewer than 10 per cent of the nation's koalas and it is harrowing to know that koalas in the Pilliga have declined by 80 per cent by the 1980s. The New South Wales coalition government's policy agenda of increased land clearing, building highways through key koala habitat, has been a contributor to their decline, and the bushfires have only made things worse. The government's own estimate suggests that at least a quarter of koala habitat in eastern New South Wales has been affected by fire; 5,000 koalas may have died in the fires. A New South Wales parliamentary inquiry found that without urgent action koalas may be extinct—completely extinct—in New South Wales by 2055. Well, what was the response? What was the response from the Berejiklian government? Predictably enough, it was a self-interested internecine fight between the National Party and the Liberals. In September last year, the Nationals threatened to leave the coalition over a very modest plan to protect koala habitat, which the New South Wales Deputy Premier branded a 'land lock-up' policy. It is staggering that the issue that the New South Wales Nationals sought to weaponise to blow up the government was the protection of koalas. It's actually hard to think of a more tone-deaf political position than that advocated by the Deputy Premier, but it's typical of the approach from a coalition that persistently makes policy decisions that threaten the New South Wales natural environment. The state government's recklessness is visible from space, literally. The North Coast has one of the highest land-clearing rates in the world. It has been identified as a deforestation hotspot on par with Brazil and the palm oil plantations of Indonesia. Early in my career I had the great privilege of working for Bob Debus, former New South Wales Labor Minister for the Environment, when he and Premier Carr passed legislation to protect hectares of woodland across New South Wales for conservation—350 new parks created in that government; between 1995 and 2011 more than three million hectares protected in the conservation system. It is so disappointing to watch the New South Wales government fail to implement anything remotely similar. In fact, their approach has been to hasten at every step the destruction of irreplaceable wildlife and their habitat. Unfortunately, here in the Australian Senate, a private senator's bill is unlikely to be the solution. This bill has no chance of becoming law. Even if it were to pass the Senate, the government would never bring it on for a vote in the House of Representatives over in the other place. It is why being in government matters and it's why, as a conservationist, I am a member of and participate in a party of government. Labor would take a different approach to the approach outlined in this bill. This bill is a blunt instrument. It introduces an indefinite moratorium on clearing koala habitat. It removes the exemptions from the EPBC Act for forestry agreements where there is a significant impact on koalas. What this means, in effect, is that large parts of the eastern seaboard would be affected by this bill because koala habitat is extensive throughout the region. Now, it's possible that this is the right solution. Maybe this is the workable solution for the communities of New South Wales, but we wouldn't have any idea about this because there is no evidence of any discussion at all in the development of this bill with the communities that it would affect. Indeed, what's lacking in this bill is any consideration whatsoever of local communities. This bill would have an impact on people and their livelihoods. Every natural resource decision does, but this bill doesn't establish, contemplate or reference any mechanism for a conversation with community about how to approach this problem. It doesn't reference or contemplate any mechanism to balance competing demands for land use, and this should matter to conservationists as well as communities that are dependent on forestry. This approach runs the risk of undermining support for conservation in the rural and regional communities where koalas need that support most. We know from experience in government that the best approach to conservation lies in creating lasting compacts that recognise the legitimate needs of local communities to sustain themselves through a local economy that will support them and their families. That kind of compact matters and the stakes are too high for the koalas for us to take any other approach. If there is anything that we've learnt from the last few years of politics here and abroad—years which have seen simply frightening developments in some examples—it's that politics requires an inclusive approach that brings people together, that brings local communities along with change. Politics does not work when solutions are dictated from afar. And, when that happens, there are reactions which are sometimes uncontrollable, sometimes unpredictable and not helpful for democratic systems. Our democracy works best when we have honest and open conversations with communities—conversations that acknowledge, recognise and respond to the genuinely divergent and diverse interests in those communities, because people who haven't been listened to will find a way of making their voices heard. This is the approach that Labor takes in relation to nature conservation. It's the approach we took to protect so many assets in our periods in government, here in the federal sphere and in state parliaments. Labor protected the Daintree and Kakadu, stopped drilling on the Great Barrier Reef and protected the Franklin and Antarctica. We created Landcare. We created the largest network of marine parks in the world. Labor reduced Australians' emissions. Every major achievement in environmental protection in this nation's history has been delivered by a Labor government. Only Labor has the will and the capacity to protect Australia's environment. At every stage, the coalition has failed to fulfil that role. The Commonwealth government is years overdue in making a threatened species recovery plan for the koala. It was initially due in 2015, five years ago. Labor's National Koala Conservation Strategy ran until 2014. It's yet to be replaced. We are still waiting for the government to make a decision on increasing the threatened listing status of the koala, and that is why Labor has called on the Morrison government to cease development in areas where the koala is listed as vulnerable until the formal assessment for up-listing the koala has been determined, a recovery plan for the koala is produced and a new National Koala Conservation Strategy is in place. Labor has a real plan for protecting the koala. We need stronger protections. The koala, as a national icon, does need federal protections. We need tougher penalties. The federal environment laws should impose strict penalties for acts of deliberate animal death and a national approach. The government has to work with the states on a consistent approach to protecting the koala and it should undertake a comprehensive ecological audit to assess the damage to populations from bushfires. But it's not just the koala that needs protection. Fewer than 40 per cent of threatened species have a recovery plan. The Morrison government doesn't know—it has no idea—which recovery plans are actually being implemented. Under the coalition, 170 out of 171 outstanding threatened species recovery plans are overdue, and the Morrison government has no plan to get them done. Bushfires didn't threaten just koalas in New South Wales. Native wildlife from Fraser Island to Kangaroo Island was affected, and that is why Labor called for the national ecological audit at the height of the fires, in January 2020. It took a whole year for government to respond. Meanwhile, after spending millions of dollars and countless hours on the review, the government is pursuing second-rate so-called standards that are fundamentally inconsistent with the Samuel review's final report. This government appointed a highly respected Australian regulator and businessman, and then it encouraged environmental science, business, industry and legal stakeholders to devote a vast amount of time to a review that it seems it always intended to ignore. Delay and neglect are the hallmarks of the Morrison government's approach to environment protection. It is simply not something that the government cares about one jot. All the Senate motions and private senators' bills in the world aren't enough to undo the harm that can be done by a Liberal government that sees our wilderness as unimportant, that sees wildlife as an impediment to development and that sees proper process as mere 'green tape'. We need real change, and the only way to protect koalas is the election of a federal Labor government. 11:13 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I rise to speak to the bill introduced by Senator Hanson-Young to save the koala and to put a moratorium on clearing of koala habitat. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021 is an urgently needed bill. Our koalas face extinction by 2050. Make no mistake; it is the Liberals and Nationals sitting opposite us here, and the ones that sat opposite me in New South Wales, who are killing our koalas. It is your hands that have the blood of koalas on them. I remember the joy of seeing my first koala in natural habitat. We used to frequently see these amazing and unique animals in our front yard in Port Macquarie during the day and hear them loudly grunting at night. But those days, sadly, are long gone. And this is a town which used to be the koala capital of New South Wales, if not Australia. If governments continue to make reckless, irresponsible and greedy decisions that keep pushing koalas to the brink of wipe-out, our future generations will only see them in museums, and that is an absolute tragedy. Koalas across the state are being driven to extinction not by some natural phenomenon or some evolutionary phenomenon; they are being driven to extinction by rampant land clearing. They are being driven to extinction by human-made global warming. They are being driven to extinction by ecocide. The terrible reality is that where I see magnificent trees and beautiful bush with glossy black cockatoos, powerful owls, eastern water dragons and koalas, all the Liberals and Nationals and their political donors—big mining, big development and big agriculture—see are dollar signs and a commodity to be ruthlessly used and abused. You are all environmental vandals. The climate-induced bushfires of 2019 and 2020 destroyed more than 12 million hectares and killed more than a billion animals and devastated communities. The loss of koalas during and after New South Wales bushfires is one of the most significant biodiversity disasters in our history. Now, even when we have lost so much habitat and wildlife, even when swathes of our bushland and millions of animals have been destroyed, forests are being opened up for logging. This loss is made much worse, because of the disastrous New South Wales land clearing laws pushed by the Liberals to appease the Nationals that I and many others fought hard against. It's under these laws that 99 per cent of koala habitat can be chopped down. They have already resulted in a massive 13-fold increase in approvals and land clearing. We already know that koala habitat is badly fragmented, making it even harder for the species to migrate and survive. New South Wales is leaving no stone unturned in making this even worse. They recently fast tracked the approval of the Brandy Hill quarry expansion, knowing full well that it will affect koalas and other endangered species such as the grey-headed flying fox. We know the Port Stephens koalas are at high risk of local extinction, yet they gave a green light for their destruction. If you come further south, the Campbelltown local government area in south-western Sydney is unique as it supports a growing and chlamydia-free koala population in the Sydney Basin. But does the Liberal-National government give a damn? Of course they don't. Communities in south-west Sydney who care about these koalas are fighting the Lendlease Mount Gilead development in the Campbelltown LGA, which will destroy the current transit points of koalas between the Georges River and the Nepean River, and make it near impossible for koalas to travel between these river corridors. The federal government has not lifted a finger to stop the destruction of koala habitat. In fact, you facilitated it. We know that only 10 per cent of the koala habitat cleared in New South Wales and Queensland between 2012 and 2017 was assessed by the federal government, despite national environmental laws requiring the protection of threatened species. Habitat clearing was again and again approved by states, and developers were not referred for assessment to any level of government. Surely these facts point to better and stronger oversight by the federal government, but, in the parallel universe that the Liberals and Nationals live in, they are doing the exact opposite. You want to hand over even more power to states. Your solution to this reckless destruction of the environment is the streamlining environmental approvals bill, which is much better described as the let's-kill-the-koalas-quickly bill. You want a one-stop-shop. You just want to fast track land clearing. You just want to fast track extinctions. I hope that the opposition and the crossbenchers care about these national treasures enough to support Senator Hanson-Young's bill to stop this major threat of land clearing and fragmentation facing koalas by putting a moratorium on clearing koala habitat. We will not be giving up our fight to save the planet or for all creatures, big and small, that call it home. I commend the bill to the Senate. 11:19 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia I rise to speak to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021. The effect of the bill, if passed, is to introduce a moratorium on the clearing of koala habitat. The bill, in essence, prevents the minister from approving any action under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conversation Act that consists of or involves clearing of koala habitat. The bill also removes the exemption for regional forest agreements from the requirements of the act where they will have or are likely to have a significant impact on koalas. The bill seeks to do this technically, by adding, at the end of section 139, the words: … the Minister must not approve an action consisting of or involving the clearing of koala habitat. The bill further seeks to insert additional definitions, for 'koala', 'koala habitat' and 'koala habitat tree', and also expands on the definition or sheds some light on the application of the words 'significant impact'. 'Koala habitat'—and here I'm paraphrasing—means 'an area of vegetation in which koalas live and includes a koala habitat tree, an area of vegetation that consists primarily of koala habitat trees and which is reasonably suitable for sustaining koalas, and partially and completely cleared areas used by koalas to cross from an area mentioned in the previous sections of this definition'. 'Significant impact' includes: … any substantial loss of genetic diversity, or any loss of connectivity or available koala habitat, of any population of koalas such that the population is placed at greater risk of extinction. The effect of the amendments, if passed, create in me some reservations about efficacy. Whilst I acknowledge the strong passion of the mover and the mover's party, and in many ways I myself share many of those passions for saving and also increasing and renewing these habitats, I think the bill in its current form allows for the exercise of sufficient discretion by the minister; therefore, the moratorium does not really add anything to the application of the current act. When I was reviewing the amendments I was reminded of an American writer whose political persuasions I don't actually follow. He said: 'The value of our forests and their spirits must never be forgotten, because under the layers of law and memory it is effectively the spirit of ourselves. We can't deny it and it must lead us into action.' As I said, I share many of the passions of the mover. But the government has done much for koalas in its funding, both pre the bushfires and post the bushfires. It has also initiated the Samuel review, which is still formulating its response to those recommendations. That government response must be based on proper consultation, so I think it's a little unfair of some honourable senators to describe us as vandals. I know many on the coalition benches who are as passionate as I am for the natural environment. This weekend, in fact, I was in the Adelaide Hills, many parts of which have been devastated by bushfires, volunteering for a veterans not-for-profit, Disaster Relief Australia, which was clearing dead wood to allow for regeneration and also for the planting by farmers of the natural environment. As I said, it is unfair to describe modern farmers as environmental vandals. In fact, most of the custodians of the land and all of the farmers that I've worked with in this organisation are totally committed to regeneration. They need to have volunteers on their properties so that they can get that process underway as soon as possible, as well as reduce the fire risk of the dead wood. I want to turn to the operating provisions of the existing act. As I've indicated, it's my view that the act already affords extremely strong protections for threatened species, particularly koalas, as they are listed in Queensland, New South Wales and the ACT, for particular protections, as being environmentally significant. Senator Fawcett has already set out, for the benefit of honourable senators, the circumstances in South Australia, my own state, and the fact that the inability of koalas to regulate their breeding has caused environmental issues, particularly on Kangaroo Island. There are a number of processes under the existing act where applications need to be made for development. There are a number of provisions that restrict what the minister can and cannot do, but, in essence, the minister has discretion, based on scientific advice, either to protect or to approve economically sustainable development. In essence, this bill removes any discretion, which, I think, has been described by my Labor friends as a blunt instrument, and I would share that view. Pre the bushfires, the government committed considerable funds to a variety of projects to support the habitat of koalas. More particularly, in early 2020, after the bushfires, the government took urgent action by providing an initial $50 million recovery package to support emergency interventions and recovery actions for the immediate survival of affected native animals and plants. That included up to $3 million for Taronga Zoo and other zoos for the treatment of injured wildlife and the establishment of insurance populations. In relation to koalas, funding was also provided for radio-tracking in burnt and unburnt landscapes to assess the impacts of rescue and rehabilitation on reintroduced koalas. More than $1 million in Commonwealth and New South Wales government combined funding was provided to assess the genetic value of koala populations. Further funds have been provided to directly support koala conservation and recovery efforts. It's my view that the government, in an administrative sense, has a substantial commitment to the koala in its habitat. No-one on this side is arguing that it's not an iconic animal and one we wish to preserve—we wish to grow its habitat—but communities need to make decisions for themselves in relation to their development, and that development needs to be sensibly checked. That is why the Morrison government initiated an independent review of the act. Professor Samuel has made a variety of recommendations. The government has said, on record, that it's committed to a sensible, staged pathway for change in the reform process. Therefore, I reject the criticism that the Morrison government is not committed to the environment. Indeed, what government could be criticised if it has a full review of the act? Whilst the review of the act has occurred—and the response is coming—it underpins my reservations for the technical provisions of the amendment bill that is currently before us. I've personally never been one who believes in the unnecessary restriction of a minister's discretion. Whilst the crossbenchers can be particularly critical of the actual decisions, ministerial discretion is just that—a discretion. I think it is unwise to remove a large chunk of the minister's discretion when, in essence, it can only be exercised within a very limited framework under the existing act. Therefore, honourable members, can I ask you to reflect on this bill and also reflect on its shortcomings. Can I say that many on this side of the benches have a deep and abiding commitment to the environment and that we reject the description of 'vandals'. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e4t Senator McGrath, did you wish to speak? 11:30 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I wish to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e4t I've just been provided with a revised list where Senator Ayres is first. Senator McGRATH 217241 I was first on my feet. Senator Ciccone 281503 On a point of order: I understand that the list of speakers is arranged between the whips. I'm not aware of any alterations to that list. I would certainly ask that you stick to the list that's been provided to the chamber. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e4t Senator McGrath, I'm hampered by the fact that I've got a revised list which does put Senator Ayres before you. (Quorum formed). 11:33 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I will give way. 11:33 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I'm not sure whether Senator McGrath desperately wants to stop me saying something in this place. I'll have to review my speech and try and work out whether there's something outrageous that I can say. There is something about the politics of koalas that drives the National Party and the Liberal Party wild. I'm not sure what the hostility is to one of our favourite national creatures, but there's odd behaviour around koalas in this parliament and in the state legislatures. In fact it was just last year that the bloke who careers around New South Wales in a very untidy sort of way, the Deputy Premier and the leader of the Nationals party in New South Wales, threatened to split the coalition government in New South Wales over this very issue. In truth, he overstated the impact of what was a very bland set of changes, performed in regional communities, telling them something terrible was going to happen to their capacity to manage their own land—which was absolutely untrue, in true National Party form—and then, of course, faded from the scene. Another Barilaro effort, where all the noise is made in regional communities—a lion in Gunnedah, Armidale, Coffs Harbour and Lismore but a mouse in Macquarie Street—folded. It does make you ask the question, rhetorically: what has the koala ever done to the Liberal and National parties? How much, indeed, can a koala bear? The bill proposes an indefinite moratorium on clearing koala habitats. It is a not the approach the Labor Party would take in government. Our approach would be a more targeted and more temporary moratorium in places where the koala is listed as vulnerable only until the relevant policy instruments that are required are in place—a threatened species recovery plan and a national koala strategy. The Samuel review commenced in October 2019 and reported to parliament in 2020. It made 38 recommendations, including the immediate reduction of legally binding national environmental standards and filling the gaps between state and federal legislation. While this bill would widen the gap between Commonwealth and state regulation and increase uncertainty, it is I think true that what is proposed here is unlikely to make its way into legislation. It's like some of the notices of motion that we see from time to time. It's an opportunity to put a bill with the word 'koala' in its title to a vote. There will be some social media presentations about this bill going through the parliament, but it won't in fact deal with the crisis that we're seeing in koala populations around Australia. Just like Bob Brown's convoy to Central Queensland this won't actually change the material facts on the ground for koalas. It's a big show for attention and donations, and in my view it undermines the actual effort to protect the environment. There is a crisis in koala populations. It is estimated that in 1788 there were 10 million koalas on this continent. Since the bushfires, we have estimates that the koala population in New South Wales is down to about 36,000. It has been in dramatic decline since the bushfires. The Pilliga region once had a thriving population of koalas living on public land. The population began to decline in dry conditions, deteriorating foliage quality and a lack of water. By 2014 the population in that region had decreased by 80 per cent. In 2019 no koalas could be found. Across New England the population has declined 75 per cent in a decade. In 2019 there are fewer than 2,000 koalas in the Culgoa, Moree and Gunnedah areas combined—and that was before the bushfires. In evidence given to the Senate inquiry into the bushfires, which I had the privilege of chairing, we heard that more than a billion animals were killed in the bushfires, including 143 million mammals. The inquiry heard about the destruction on Kangaroo Island in South Australia. Right across the country there's a crisis in koala protection and in the koala population. It's almost a year after the bushfires. The Morrison government, during the election, offered a grab bag of policies. They were announced at a press conference—true to form—about saving koalas. They shared a Liberal branded Facebook ad saying they were protecting the koalas and restoring their habitat. Of course, since then, the koala population has gone down, not up. Since then, the crisis has deepened. There have been no solutions, just a press conference, an announcement and an ad from this government—no action at all. I propose to conclude my remarks there and seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Franchising Laws Amendment (Fairness in Franchising) Bill 2020 15

Franchising Laws Amendment (Fairness in Franchising) Bill 2020

Second Reading 15 11:40 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I am pleased today, as a Labor senator, to rise and speak on the Franchising Laws Amendment (Fairness in Franchising) Bill 2020. The bill is a practical, albeit limited, response to the work that was started by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. They delivered a unanimous report with the support of than none other John 'Wacka' Williams, the very effective Nationals senator who delivered the fairness in franchising bill inquiry. This is a bill for fairness for small businesses. It proposes urgently needed and necessary reforms to add appropriate and meaningful balance to a multibillion dollar industry that was shown to be inappropriately regulated, with an ineffective code of conduct and rife with unjust practices. The franchising sector produces almost seven per cent of our GDP and is ubiquitous across the country. I think Australians would struggle to name a town or suburb that doesn't feature one franchise business or another, whether it be a petrol station, a cafe or a fast-food restaurant. This sector has been the subject of 17 inquiries over the last 30 years due to the chronic and endemic issues that are continually played out in the media and through the trials and traumas of hundreds of small businesses across the country. We cannot delay reform any longer. We don't need another inquiry. We don't need another task force or another roundtable. This bill takes long overdue action. As the inquiry report—and I remind senators that it was a unanimous report—noted: … the evidence to this inquiry indicates that the problems, including exploitation in certain franchise systems, are systemic. … … … … the franchise agreement embeds the power disparity between franchisor and franchisee for the duration of the contract, including the exit arrangements. The joint parliamentary committee received a raft of evidence about how the abuse of contractual power can manifest in a franchise agreement. Further, the committee received evidence that pointed to shortcomings in the current regulatory responses, such as the duty to act in good faith and the unfair contract terms provisions. We found disgusting practices such as churning and burning. For those who don't know, 'churning' refers to the repeated sale by the franchisor at a single site of a failed franchise to a new franchisee. 'Burning' refers to continually opening new outlets, some of which are unlikely to be viable, to profit from the upfront fees that the franchisor acquires while leaving existing outlets to struggle and to close. Both churning and burning, while making money for the franchisor, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars a turn, leave franchisees emotionally and financially battered and their dreams of owning their own business in tatters. The extent and breadth of misconduct and exploitation by franchisors within the franchisee sector demonstrate that disclosure and transparency alone, while vitally important, are an insufficient response to power and information asymmetry. That is part of what this bill seeks to do. It will empower the small business ombudsman to recommend arbitration in the same way it can for the dairy code. The inability of franchisees to effectively pursue disputes or breaches of contract through the current framework was one of the key findings of the inquiry. My colleagues from all parties delivered this unanimous report, noting many cases of intimidation and bullying. Justice in the courts was not available because the powerful and those loaded up with dollars had access but a franchisee who had been ruined had no recourse. The bill will provide an optional binding alternative dispute resolution that is determined by an expert in the field. It will also furnish the ombudsman with the power to name and shame those who don't take the recommendation for arbitration. The reforms proposed in this bill are interdependent and form a holistic framework to reshape the landscape for the current franchising sector. The bill will increase the quantum of penalties for breaches of an industry code in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 from $66,000 up to a potential $10 million or 10 per cent of the annual turnover of the corporation, or three times the benefit that the corporation directly or indirectly obtained from the breach, whichever is higher. In 2019 the ACCC recommended to a parliamentary inquiry into franchising to increase the penalties of the breaches from $66,000 to $10 million to deter bad behaviour from franchisors. The imbalance of power that this inquiry found was unfortunately accompanied by an imbalance in education. The upgrade of engagement capacity with the ombudsman will allow the ombudsman to address this by providing trusted and unbiased help. Small businesses are being driven into economic peril by a sector that has shown it is incapable of self-policing or renewal. As was reported in the inquiry, there are deeply rooted cultural problems that will not be resolved by franchisors replacing a few senior executives. Australian businesses have waited long enough; I have waited long enough. Labor is standing up for franchisees here today. We are sick and tired of waiting for the government to get its act together and implement the recommendations in the committee's report. We cannot rebuild our economy when such a large sector that engages seven per cent of the GDP remains institutionally broken and unjust. I believe in small businesses. I come from a family that came to this country to build a future and they did that by building a small business. So many hardworking immigrants have seen franchising as a way to learn safely about the Australian business sector only to be totally ripped off by people exploiting the current structures. They need this legislation to provide protection. There is much, much more that the government could do but, from opposition, this is our significant effort to support small businesses at a critical point of need. I urge the government and the crossbenchers to stand with Australian franchisees and pass this bill. 11:47 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I will start by, just as Senator O'Neill did, acknowledging the work in this space of members on this side, particularly the long and enduring interest of Senator 'Wacka' Williams into this particular topic. That is a tradition that has been carried on by a number of others in this place. We have been joined recently by Senator Ben Small, who has a very strong background in the small business sector. We have Senator David Van sitting in the chamber at the moment, who has a keen and abiding interest in this topic as well. So former Senator Williams's concerns expressed over a great number of years in this place are being continued and acted upon by those on this side. For the small business community, there is nothing better than a strong and durable economy. We have faced an extraordinary shock to the global economy, an extraordinary shock to the Australian economy over the past 12 months but, in a piece of very good news today, I will just inform the chamber that Fitch has reaffirmed Australia's AAA credit rating. They said: The Australian economy has weathered the pandemic well compared with peers. … This performance reflects successful virus containment and an effective fiscal and monetary response consistent with a policy framework that has underpinned the economy's resilience to shocks over the medium term. One of the drivers of this is our small business sector and one of the key drivers of the small business sector is our franchise sector and, in particular, the many, many small business franchisees. So with respect, Senator O'Neill, I understand where you're coming from with this bill but what you are doing is misguided and it fails completely to acknowledge the commitment of this government to the small business sector, to the franchise sector, and what this government has done and what this government is doing to assist this sector. It completely fails to acknowledge those facts. I think that comes down to a very simple proposition of why that's the case—because those on the other side do not understand small business and have never understood small business. The franchising sector of our economy is predominantly made up of small businesses, so those on the other side will always struggle to understand it. Franchising is a very significant part of the Australian economy. It's a $154 billion sector in the 2020-21 financial year. There are around 91,000 franchisees across Australia and 1,200 franchise systems, with half a million people employed within the franchise sector. And, as I have said, almost all of the franchise sector is made up of small businesses. When we think of the franchise sector, all too often it's too easy to think of just your retail fast food chains, be it a McDonald's or a Coffee Club, or perhaps a chain of hotels that operates under a franchise model. That's the obvious part of the franchising sector. But when you think about it a little more deeply, you see that the franchising sector operates right throughout the economy, whether it's in sign-making, whether it's in graphics and printing businesses, whether it's in the construction sector. It also operates in the wholesale trade sector, including the food sector. The retail trade sector is obviously the predominant sector, but we also see it significantly in the transport sector. We see it in the financial services sector, in rental, hiring and real state services. We see it in things like administrative support services such as mowing services, in trampoline parks, swim schools, pet care services, auto repair shops, auto servicing, IT, hairdressing and beauty salons. The franchising sector spreads across the entire economy, and that means we have a diverse range of small businesses, a diverse range of franchising models and a diverse range of Australians who are working and living in these businesses. We, as a government, have to support them in a responsible manner, to acknowledge that what we do is a very valuable part of the economy and to put in place a regulatory structure that actually delivers for those small businesses right across the Australian economy. Support for small and medium sized family businesses and the franchising sector is something the Australian government does have as a very important priority, and we absolutely acknowledge the issues that came out of the Fairness in franchising report. The report identified a range of misconduct by franchisors. Egregious conduct was not widespread but it was present and did significantly and devastatingly impact on a number of franchisees. In August 2020 the Morrison government announced its commitment to introduce stronger protections and greater transparency for the franchising sector. In fact, the government has already outlined a suite of reforms to restore confidence in this sector. I must say, I think a large part of the sector demonstrated its confidence through its continuing and successful operation throughout the pandemic year. But to add to that, we want to lift franchisor standards of conduct and improve the information available to all franchisees. Draft amendments to the franchising code have been released. These include such things as improving disclosure on significant capital expenditure, supplier rebates and, most importantly, marketing funds. Draft amendments also include preventing franchisors from passing on legal costs to franchisees and retrospective variations to franchise agreements to improve end-of-franchise relationships including cooling-off periods, early exits, terminations and any restraint-of-trade arrangements. They also include strengthening the dispute resolution options and doubling penalties to deter poor conduct in this sector. The government will provide franchisees greater protection by ensuring they have the information they need before they enter a franchise agreement. Senator O'Neill's bill does not address these much-needed protections. The government will implement a stronger framework to lift franchisor standards of conduct. We're committed to timely implementation of reform, to restore confidence in the franchising sector and to getting these reforms right. This will mean working with the sector to make sure that the implementations of the reforms are done properly. In particular, that means working with that great diversity in the franchising sector I spoke about earlier. This is not a one-size-fits-all sector. This is an extraordinarily complex sector. It has an extraordinary number of participants in it and a large number of different business models. The idea that one size will fit all in such an environment just shows how little understanding of the small-business sector those on the other side have. The government's response will comprehensively address a much larger range of issues identified in the Fairness in franchising report than the few limited measures that appear in Senator O'Neill's private senator's bill. That would amount to a piecemeal approach, an approach which doesn't address many of the systemic problems identified in that report, and fails to take into account that great diversity and variation in franchising that we see in the Australian economy. I know my colleagues have contributions to make as well, so I will curtail my remarks there. But let me just say that those on this side of the chamber are the strongest supporters of our franchise sector, the strongest supporters of franchisees, small-business people who are out there trying to do the best for themselves, their families and their employees. We certainly have their backs. 11:56 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania It would be very surprising, if you were the strongest supporter of franchisees and small business, Senator Brockman, if you didn't support this bill here today. The Franchising Laws Amendment (Fairness in Franchising) Bill 2020, and the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, which are reflected in this bill, has the support of the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, COSBOA, the Australian Automotive Dealer Association and the Australian Association of Franchisees. There's pretty comprehensive across-the-board representation there. Mr Peter Strong—who many in this place know very well and, I would dare to say, are very fond of—the CEO of COSBOA, made the argument that, when a franchisor exploits their small-business franchisees, they're not just exploiting a business; they're ruining the lives of the people who own the business, and their families too. These people might lose their house and everything they have, and often go through extreme emotional stress and turmoil. They don't have the resources to go to court, which is why making inexpensive arbitration available through the ombudsman is so important. Having participated on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services myself, that committee and those Senate hearings, in a sense, became part of the work to get some justice for these franchisees, because they didn't have the resources to go to court. The parliament, this place, ended up stepping in, calling witnesses. If I remember rightly—and Senator O'Neill, who was also on that inquiry, if she were here would agree with this—in my time in this place, over nine years, it was the first time we ever had to compel a witness to appear before a Senate inquiry. Indeed, the witness, a very wealthy franchisor from Queensland, took it to the High Court, and the Senate won. The parliament won in the High Court and we had to compel this guy and his team, and his band of lawyers, to come to this parliament and answer questions. That's how important this inquiry was to help represent the small businesses and the people behind those small businesses, the franchisees, in this country. There are nearly 76 recommendations, many if which are reflected in this bill today. I understand there are currently around 2.4 million small businesses operating in Australia, which is around 90 per cent of all businesses, employing roughly 4.7 million people, which is around 41 per cent of Australia's workforce. I've run a small business myself, though I'm not sure whether you'd say successfully or not. I wound my company up recently because I became a senator and could no longer be a winemaker, but my wife is still very successfully running a small business, which employs 25 people in my local town of Launceston. We understand what it's like to run a small business and employ people and how difficult it can be to be the only one getting up in the morning to make sure that the wheels are turning—that employees are getting paid and clients are getting serviced. Franchisees are an important part of this small business community. There are nearly 100,000 franchise businesses in Australia, employing over half a million people. Franchisees provide everything from food to entertainment to personal household services, often with globally or nationally recognised names but always with local flavour and connection. Although it's never been easy for small businesses, it's probably never been tougher than it is right now. I'm very glad the government listened to many of us in here and brought in JobKeeper at the beginning of this global pandemic. I, myself, was one of the first people calling for a living wage. I know there were other people in this place that were also looking at what was happening in New Zealand and the UK. I spoke to COSBOA, a number of small business associations around the country and the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce, my home state, and asked them to lobby really hard to get a living wage for workers, because we didn't want to shut our businesses down. We were told we couldn't open. We were told we couldn't operate. People couldn't come and see us, yet we didn't want to shut those businesses down. We didn't want to send workers to join the Centrelink queue. We wanted an alternative, and the government, to their credit, after a couple of weeks, listened to the trade unions and the chambers of commerce. It was a really interesting alliance between business and the union movement to help deliver this living wage. It wasn't perfect; it needed lots of tweaking and it probably was not the way we would have designed it if we'd had a chance, but, nevertheless, I think we in this place all agree that paying workers a living wage during tough times like this has worked really well. It really is one of the few things that have kept us literally—pardon the pun!—in business in the last 12 months. On top of that, we have technological disruptions and a flatlining economy, and, of course, we're not through this pandemic yet, not by a long shot. With an exit rate of around 13 per cent, small business failure is on the increase and it's only going to get worse before it gets better. If the government was serious about supporting its economic engine room, it would accept the 71 recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services and their report The operation and effectiveness of the Franchising Code of Conduct, instead of just fiddling at the margins. A good start to that commitment would be supporting this bill here today, and I am genuinely surprised that the government isn't supporting it. The Greens stand with the Ombudsman, with the unions, with the peak bodies and with Australian small businesses and franchisees in supporting this bill. Lastly, may I congratulate Senator O'Neill for bringing this bill forward. I know the amount of hard work she put into that inquiry and into getting this bill here today. May I also acknowledge former senator John 'Wacka' Williams, who Senator O'Neill and I and others worked with very closely over many years. I participated in this inquiry but I certainly wasn't a driver like these two were. I know over the years Wacka contributed to much good that's been done in this place. I urge the government to support this bill. 12:04 Senator SMALL 291406 Western Australia The government do not support Senator O'Neill's bill, the Franchising Laws Amendment (Fairness in Franchising) Bill 2020, not because we are deaf to the plight of small businesses in Australia, not because we haven't heard the very clear message from listening to franchisees across Australia, but because this bill seeks to make a political pre-selection stunt out of what the government consider very real issues. I look forward to explaining in detail why the Morrison government's proposed legislation will go much further to meaningfully addressing franchises in Australia and the very real impact that it has on small business in this country. The government has already taken strong action to introduce additional protections and greater transparency in the franchising sector in Australia. Our reforms will cover a much broader range of issues, in a more fundamental and carefully considered way, than those put forward by Senator O'Neill. I look forward to the support of Senator Whish-Wilson and the crossbench when we actually address the concerns of those Australians. The broad range of problems identified in the Fairness in franchising report are real. Seeking to implement the very limited number of Senator O'Neill's proposals now would be a piecemeal approach and detract from the timely consideration and the carefully considered implementation of a full range of reforms that are clearly required in this sector. Replicating the multiparty mediation provisions in the government's response to the Fairness in franchising report is not where we need to be. The Morrison government has already proposed these reforms on multiparty dispute resolution, and they go significantly further than the reforms contemplated in Senator O'Neill's bill. Where appropriate, multiparty dispute resolution will be compulsory for franchisors. Under Senator O'Neill's proposed bill, franchisors would still need to agree to engage in multiparty dispute resolution. The government's approach instead will allow franchisees to share the costs of dispute resolution, promoting access to justice for those who need it and addressing the clear power imbalance in some cases between franchisors and franchisees. The Morrison government is clearly on the side of small-business people in this case. Senator O'Neill's bill calls for optional binding alternative dispute resolution. However, we have already committed to introducing voluntary binding arbitration into the franchising code. That has simply been cut and pasted into Senator O'Neill's bill. The Morrison government will go further than that bill, by recognising that conciliation is an important form of dispute resolution that should be available to franchisors and franchisees. The government is committed to this franchising dispute resolution assistance also via the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman's office, recognising the importance of the role that the ombudsman has to play in the franchising sector. The Morrison government's reforms will also see franchisors subject to increased civil penalties of up to $10 million for engaging in misleading, deceptive or unconscionable conduct under the Australian Consumer Law and up to 600 penalty units, which would currently equate to $133,200, per offence for all other offences under the strengthened franchise code. The government is committed to this significant, 100 per cent increase—that is, a doubling—of the penalties for breaches of the franchise code. As the enforcement agency for the franchising code, the ACCC has the power to seek penalties for breaches of Australian Consumer Law. That again equates to $10 million, three times the value of the benefit received or 10 per cent of the enterprise's annual turnover in the preceding 12 months where the court cannot clearly determine the benefit from the offence. So it is the Morrison government that is on the side of franchisees in Australia, implementing a stronger framework that adequately addresses the root causes of issues that franchisees face. On 20 August, as my colleague Senator Brockman has clearly outlined, we announced that the Morrison government was committed to introducing stronger protections and greater transparency for the franchising sector in order to restore confidence and enable this important part of the Australian economy to go from strength to strength. Our reforms, as I've clearly stated, go much further, covering a broader range of issues and addressing the systemic problems that the Fairness in franchising report has articulated. It is the Morrison government that can be trusted to implement a stronger framework to deliver improved franchisor standards of conduct and stay on the side of Australian small business. The government is committed to a timely implementation of these measures, thereby restoring confidence in the franchising sector. This comprehensively addresses a broad range of problems identified in the Fairness in franchising report and doesn't seek simply to make a political point out of the limited number of points that Senator O'Neill's bill has raised. I guess we can point to this because we haven't seen a spread on the back of the Fin Review today and we haven't been in here articulating promises that don't adequately address the issues that are faced every day by Australians out in the economy in this important sector. By increasing the penalties, by addressing systemic concerns and by furthering the Morrison government's clear commitment to Australian small business, we are on the side of Australian franchisees and have listened to their concerns carefully. Our track record clearly speaks to this, with the coalition government delivering a series of very important policy reforms since 2013 that saw more than 1.5 million jobs created before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. We're in a better, stronger and more resilient position than many countries around the world because we listen to business. We get business and we respond to the concerns of business in Australia. The assistance that we provided through the COVID-19 pandemic has built upon this substantial track record of putting in place actual policies that mean something to Australian small business. So, far from grandstanding on this important issue and far from turning our backs on the needs of Australian small businesses, we are here with a meaningful, carefully considered and comprehensive range of reforms that are far-reaching, that will be meaningful and that actually deliver benefit to those Australians who we clearly heard, through the Fairness in franchising report, needed our assistance. It was Labor that voted against tax relief for small and medium business 15 times in the last parliament. It was the Labor Party that went to the last election with $387 billion in additional taxes. An honourable senator: How much? Senator SMALL 291406 It was $387 billion in additional taxes, and now, to make a political point out of this, Senator O'Neill would seek to disrupt, undermine and dissuade people from supporting this very important process. The Morrison government will address this. We've been clear about the way in which it will benefit Australians, and we look forward to support from the crossbench when we seek to do so. 12:12 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I note that Senator O'Neill has taken on a real David and Goliath battle, and she's taken it on well. I point to one corner, in which we have General Motors, one of the world's largest corporations, which ruthlessly abandoned its franchisees in this country. It did it without any consideration, and the government stood by and watched. Families had put their businesses together over decades. There had been blood, sweat and tears, and lots of hard work. Small to medium businesses had ploughed so much work into their businesses as well. And what did we see? General Motors just divested themselves of them. They were tossed aside on the scrap heap, and the government delayed. It promised to address this issue, but still it failed to do so. No wonder people are feeling concerned, afraid, vulnerable and very worried at the hands of large multinational companies with huge imbalances of power. General Motors is treating their franchisees, the Holden dealers right across this country—small businesses, often with decades of history—like dirt. Now we have Mercedes lining up to do the same, as are Honda and Renault. Honda, a company that has worked with its dealers so admirably around the world, is now looking to quit its dealer network as well. These companies are stealing databases that have been built up over decades. I turn to the Queensland rural dealerships. Look at our state. It's the most decentralised of any. It's the only state with more people in the rural areas than in the capital city. Those dealer networks need support. But it's not just car dealers; it's also boat dealers, marine dealers, water sport dealers and motorbike dealers. And it's not just wheeled dealers; it's people with small business franchises right across this country. What they need is support. They need fairness and they need support for locals. They need some security and some certainty. There are 60,000 workers in the auto sector alone, according to Senator O'Neill, and that includes many, many tradesmen and many apprentices. There are good people and local community businesses. I want to commend Senator O'Neill, because Senator O'Neill came to us to explain her bill. She asked for our support. She did her research. She was willing to be on call at any time to answer questions and to put her staff on call. I acknowledge that—through you, Deputy President—to Senator O'Neill. I appreciate it and I endorse her work. She works. If other Labor senators had the same enthusiasm in general as Senator O'Neill then we'd be able to work much, much better with them. We commend Senator O'Neill for the way in which she came to us freely to offer her bill. Senator O'Neill, sadly, is one of the very few real Labor senators in this parliament. I know that at least 20 per cent of Labor senators are upset with the way Labor has turned against workers, abandoned workers, in favour of woke policies supporting the globalists' agenda. Look at things like taxation policy. Look at things like energy policy destroying manufacturing. The Liberals and Nationals are similar; they're just a matter of grades apart. The Labor Party's policies and the Liberal-National coalition's policies are abandoning manufacturing. They're swallowing the UN dictates: the UN Kyoto protocol, the UN Paris Agreement—which is not really an agreement—and, going back to 1975, the UN's Lima Declaration. They all sell out manufacturing. They sell out, to some extent, all industry, including agriculture. What about the so-called free trade agreements? We want, instead, fair trade agreements. Labor's support for free trade agreements means that they're selling out workers and Australian employers, small and large. There are the tax policies, as I said, that let foreign multinationals off the hook. The Labor Party in the era of Prime Minister Bob Hawke let them off the hook with the petroleum resource rent tax. A few Labor senators stand up for workers, but, sadly, they're in a very small minority. Look at pay rates, which are stagnant because of the rising immigration we had until COVID. Rising costs and stagnant pay mean living standards are falling. Look at the oversupply of workers. We have an oversupply of workers, which is driving wage rates down. Look at the pressure on housing, driving housing prices up. Look at the pressure on infrastructure in this country because the labour is tied to this large-country policy of letting in many, many immigrants, far more than we need. Look at the gender bending, the indoctrination in schools and the trendy virtue signalling that is taking over the Labor Party. We have good senators, like Senators Sterle, Farrell, Gallacher, Sheldon and others, who are great to work with. They support workers. They're honest people. They are saddened that their Labor Party has abandoned them, that the Labor Party has swamped them in woke policies. While Senator O'Neill supports real Australian businesses, her party has largely abandoned workers. Look at the energy sector. Coal has been tossed on the scrapheap by Labor's virtue signallers. Look at industrial relations, where Mr Joel Fitzgibbon has abandoned and neglected the abused and exploited workers in the Hunter Valley—workers that I had to come in from Queensland to support, with Stuart Bonds, our candidate in the Hunter. They are selling out our sovereignty to the UN globalists. These are the things that Labor now stand for. As Senator O'Neill has shown leadership in working with all the parties on the crossbench and the Greens—Senator Whish-Wilson has complimented her, and rightly so—we would expect that Labor would have a reasonable accommodation in play. We would reasonably expect that the Labor Party would have a more favourable attitude to Senator Hanson's bill to get foreign companies to pay tax on petroleum resources. Yet Labor denied support to our bill. When we asked them why, there was just a blank stare, no reason or justification. I will finish talking about this bill by emphasising the two major benefits. It brings compulsory arbitration to rectify the imbalance between those who have enormous power, like General Motors, and the franchisees, who have limited power. And there is the massive increase in penalties, all justified to restore some balance in power. However, TheAustralian Financial Review rightly said today that this is just plugging a hole in the dike. Labor has lost its way in policy. Labor has lost its way in our Senate. One Nation reiterate again that we would support all parties, yet we expect parties to work with us and to give us a fair go. I support this bill. I thank Senator O'Neill again for her leadership in reaching out to me and my office. We will work happily with Senator O'Neill. I remind the Labor Party that if they ever get back into power they will need to work with us. We will be happy to work with people like Senator O'Neill, Senator Farrell, Senator Sterle, Senator Gallacher and Senator Sheldon. These people, sadly, are in a minority. We will happily work with Senator O'Neill and her like. 12:21 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria While I will not be supporting this bill, I rise to thank Senator O'Neill for all her efforts on this bill, the Franchising Laws Amendment (Fairness in Franchising) Bill 2020, and for her tireless efforts around franchising. This is a speech I've long wanted to give in this place. For a bit of background, prior to being elected to the Senate I worked very closely with the franchising sector. I was a voluntary director on the Australian Association of Franchisees, which Senator Whish-Wilson mentioned earlier. I have worked with most of the organisations that he named. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services—Senator O'Neill and all the members of that committee, particularly Michael Sukkar, as the chair, and, before him, Steve Irons—did an incredibly thorough investigation of franchising. I sat in on almost all of those inquiries. I'm probably one of the few senators—probably one of the few people on the planet—who read all of the submissions to that inquiry. Those submissions were harrowing, absolutely harrowing. They were about the effects that the power imbalance in franchising has on small businesses. Senator Farrell interjecting— Senator VAN 283601 Senator Farrell, I'll come to that. I'll take your interjections any time, because you're just going to help me reinforce my points. Those stories were harrowing. They were about the complete and utter devastation caused to people's lives by the power imbalance which is written into the code. The code is not the right instrument for this. While I've said I'm not going to support Senator O'Neill's bill, it's not because it's not a step in the right direction—it truly is. The government's legislation is pending. As everyone in this place knows, extraordinary consultation has been going on about that. The pending legislation which will come before this place goes an awful lot further, so why take one small step when we can take a giant leap? On that, the inquiry heard about the power imbalance that I talked about before. The inquiry gave franchisees the ability to have their voices heard. The report and the recommendations that came forward were incredibly important. There's no doubt that the franchising code is effectively broken. There have been numerous attempts to reform the franchising code since it was introduced in 1998, including a complete rebuild of the code in 2015. As Senator O'Neill mentioned, there have been 17 inquiries into this code, yet we still run into these systemic problems and the ongoing issues that occur within the sector. The submissions and testimonies of franchisees, coupled with the near criminal responses from the leadership of some notable franchisors, show the drastic need for reform to help protect the investments of franchisees. That's not to say that franchising cannot work or doesn't work. There are an incredible number of wonderful franchise systems out there. I'd probably say that the split is something like 90 per cent good versus 10 per cent bad. There are strong examples of franchising working. They're powerful businesses that do a lot to grow the economy. They employ hundreds of thousands of people and contribute billions to the Australian economy. The problem with Senator O'Neill's bill is that it just doesn't go far enough. I think it's a valid attempt and I do congratulate her for taking on that role and standing up in her caucus to do so; however, we need to look at what further we can do. The draft amendments to the franchising code that this government is suggesting will improve disclosure on significant capital expenditure, supplier rebates and marketing funds. It will prevent franchisors passing on legal costs to franchisees in respect of the variation of franchise agreements. It will improve end-of-franchise relationships, including cooling-off, early-exit, termination and restraint-of-trade arrangements. It will strengthen dispute resolution options and double penalties to deter poor conduct in the sector. No-one in this place should be under any illusion: there is a lot of poor conduct in this sector. Given how important franchising is to our economy, that needs to be stamped out. I strongly believe in the way that the Morrison government is tackling this issue. I believe it is going to bring a lot of change in the sector, far more than Senator O'Neill's bill would. That doesn't mean that we can't go further. Some of the reforms that I've suggested include looking at the base legislation of franchising. Is an industry code the right way to do it? Is having it sit in consumer law the best protection that we can provide to these small businesses? My argument would be that it's not and I'll explain why I think that. If you look at franchising at its simplest, it is quite literally one business saying to another, 'We want to grow our business, so if you contribute some capital and some sweat equity we'll all be able to grow.' Any way you look at it, that is a form of capitalisation of another business. As a form of capitalisation it should be treated as an investment. It's not the same as an equity investment or a debt investment, but it's an investment nonetheless. Therefore, long term, because these changes won't come about simply or easily, we should commit to looking at changing the franchising sector from being covered by the Australian Consumer Law to being covered by the Corporations Act. I think it would sit in there much more solidly than it does under the Consumer Law. That would address some of the franchisor behaviour that goes on. I can point my fellow senators to any number of franchise agreements that lock in ways whereby only the franchisor is ever going to be the winner out of the agreement, whether it be through the churning and burning that was mentioned before or by putting all the onus for capital leases and leases for premises et cetera on the small business franchisee. It locks in disadvantage, locks in a power imbalance. That is something we do need to resolve. What I've proposed to my colleagues and leadership is that the franchising sector be put before the Australian Law Reform Commission for review. It should be looked at from the grassroots up as to how we can better structure legislation around franchising to give maximum protection to small business while enabling franchising to succeed and truly be the generator of wealth for our economy that we've seen it can be. We want to see the best franchising systems—and we all know there are some very successful ones out there—succeed even more than they do now. We must stamp out this power imbalance such that it's gone forever and we no longer hear the stories of people losing their houses. I think the best example I can provide is of the Pizza Hut franchisees who were told overnight that they were going to have to sell pizzas for under $5. That didn't come with a subsidy from the franchisor. That didn't come with any rebate for selling those pizzas below cost. They were forced to do it, and the franchising code and their franchising agreement which was covered by that code allowed the franchisor to do that. That put an incredible number of small businesses to the wall and that cannot be allowed to happen again. So, while I sadly won't be supporting Senator O'Neill's bill, I thank her for her tireless efforts in this and thank every member of the parliamentary joint committee, including Senator Whish-Wilson for his work on that committee. I think we have further to go. I'd to like to see both sides of parliament work on this. Senator O'Neill and I have discussed this quite regularly, and I hope to keep that line of communication open on how we can improve the franchising sector. 12:30 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I would like to sum up the debate on the second reading of the Franchising Laws Amendment (Fairness in Franchising) Bill 2020. Can I thank all the senators for participating in the debate. I acknowledge the contributions of the government members. Senator Van, thank you for your kind words about the efforts that have been made by the committee which delivered that unanimous report. I also want to acknowledge the contributions of new Senator Small from Western Australia and not-so-new Senator Brockman from Western Australia. At least they made the effort to come in here and speak on it. However, it's got to a point where the Australian people are pretty well over hearing the government come in here, bleating and moaning, with statements that begin with: 'We care. We care about what's happening to you. We understand what's happening to you.' They're the government. Caring and understanding are the beginning of action, but what's missing from this government is action. And the sector that they're abandoning by not supporting this bill today is the small-business sector right across this country—the small-business sector that is continually told by the Liberal Party that they are the party for small business. Well, they're not the party for small business today—and they haven't been the party for small business for a very, very long time—if they do not support this piece of legislation, which I described this morning, and it was reported by Adele Ferguson in a very good piece in the Financial Review, as a finger in a dyke. There's so much work to be done in terms of franchising in this country. The government's making a very, very light-touch response on a promise. This bill actually does some grunt work and gets protection in place for small businesses that need it right now. I want to thank Senator Whish-Wilson for his contribution not only on the committee—and I know you're no longer a member of that committee, but for the work that you did and your very kind words here. I also acknowledge the Nationals senator, Senator 'Wacka' Williams. The Nationals had a heart, a voice and a man of action when they had him in the chamber. If they really cared about what was going on in small businesses right across this country, particularly in rural and regional Australia, they would be supporting this Labor bill today. They know that this matters, because recently a very good example emerged, when General Motors just walked all over Australian businesses. We're not talking about little businesses here with regard to car dealers. These are very, very important parts of our local community. These are multigenerational small businesses that have grown, that are part of the care economy that happens in our regions across this country, that are part of a dealership network across the country so that when grey nomads, having worked a long life and paid their taxes, have enough money to get around Australia know that when they're in Townsville, Cloncurry, the Pilbara, in far western New South Wales or even down in Tasmania they will be able to get proper service and be looked after by a network of high-quality tradespeople who are operating out of these dealership networks across Australia. Well, they got totally done over. Holden dealers got done over by General Motors, an overseas company. Minister Karen Andrews, Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Michaelia Cash, in concert with them, did nothing to prevent General Motors doing over an entire sector. There was no capacity for them to have proper arbitration about General Motors deciding to leave the country. And because they left that sector hanging, there have been changes to business models for Honda, Renault and Mercedes Benz that have walked right through the door because this government hasn't got the guts to do the hard work and stand up for franchisees instead of the very wealthy franchisors and overseas companies. That's who they chose over hardworking Australian businesses. That's where we are today. I want to thank Senator Roberts from One Nation. I want to be very clear: there are many, many things that Labor will disagree with, with all of the different political parties that are in here. But one thing I and my colleagues are committed to is the practice of democracy. When the Australian people elect people to this House, it is incumbent on all of us to work to get good outcomes for the Australian people. This bill, in my name today, a Labor bill, is a bill to protect small businesses in the absence of a Liberal government, a Liberal-National party government, that is leaving them hanging. I want to thank Senator Roberts for his kind words about the hard work of the committee. I hope that we will get support for this bill today and that it ends up in the House of Representatives and enough people will have the common sense not only to do the work that the government has proposed that they will do but to do the work now in supporting this bill, to give necessary protections urgently needed to make sure no more small businesses that are engaged in franchise structure are able to be exploited, because that cannot help us in our recovery. I want to reiterate from my original remarks the scale of why this matters. The franchising sector accounts for seven per cent of the GDP. This is no small thing. We won't have a car dealership network standing in two years after the government watched and waited. What Australians know as a network that they rely on and support will be gone. So I urge you, senators, particularly senators on the crossbench, join with Labor in supporting small business today. I urge The Nationals: have a heart, have the guts to stand up for your local small businesses. Come in and support this bill and let's get this done as a first important step towards further reforms that the government has heralded. The PRESIDENT 10000 The question is that the bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. [12:41]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

32 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Kitching, K Lambie, J Lines, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Rice, J Roberts, M Siewert, R Steele-John, J Sterle, G Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 29 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Canavan, MJ Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Henderson, SM Hughes, H McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A Molan, AJ Paterson, J Payne, MA Rennick, G Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

Third Reading 24 12:43 The PRESIDENT I0Q As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the mover of the bill to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 12:44 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the bill be read a third time.

The Senate divided. [12:49]
(The President—Senator Scott Ryan)

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020 25

Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020

Second Reading 25 12:51 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania When considering this legislation and Labor's amendments, can I urge members of the crossbench to also consider the private senator's bill recently introduced by Senator Keneally. It is Labor's strong view that risks to our transport security must be dealt with as a complete set of reforms to address often complex issues. If this legislation is passed in isolation, foreign workers will still be able to freely access our ports and other transport infrastructure on very short notice, while hardworking Australians will face even more checks and delays before they can carry out their vital work. Senator Keneally's bill would replace the current maritime crew visa, which is usually issued to applicants on 24 to 48 hours notice, with two new categories. There would be a new international seafarers transit visa, which would only be issued to crew entering Australia on a continuing international voyage. The second new category would apply to foreign seafarers who work off our coastline, often for years, on flag-of-convenience ships. This proposed category would mandate that these seafarers are subject to the same kind of background checking that Australian workers are subject to when applying for an MSIC. These vital reforms will truly address some of the loopholes in our transport security regime. But as good as Senator Keneally's private senator's bill is, it is not likely to come into effect—because of this government's opposition—unless the crossbench support Labor's amendments. That is why Labor has put forward an amendment to this bill that would delay the commencement of the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020 until the passage of Senator Keneally's Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020 is through both the Senate and the House of Representatives. If colleagues are serious about closing some of the loopholes in the transport sector, I urge them to not only support Senator Keneally's bill but also support Labor's amendments that would ensure its passage. We are also seeking to amend this legislation to ensure that the scope of crimes covered under this bill are appropriately targeted and that hardworking Australians won't be denied the right to work based on rumour, innuendo, belief or suspicion. Of course, those who pose a credible threat should be denied access to the operations of our aviation and maritime infrastructure but, as is the view of fair-minded Australians, when government agencies seek to deny a worker an ASIC or MSIC, that decision should be able to be appealed. But there is no such right to appeal in this legislation. During its inquiry into this bill, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee was told that the generally understood definition of 'serious crime' does not apply in the case of this legislation. As the bill currently stands, we are left in a position where we know what definition of serious crime doesn't apply but we are yet to be told by the government what definition of serious crime does apply. This is truly staggering when you consider the fact that the government has been seeking to pass this legislation in one form or another since 2013. That is why Labor will also be moving an amendment to insert a new definition. The workers in Australia applying for these cards have a right to know the definition of serious crime that will be applied to their application that has been duly considered and voted on by parliament. To leave important features of this legislation which will directly impact on the ability of tens of thousands of Australian workers to maintain their employment to the whim of delegated legislation is truly appalling. Too often these days the government come in here with incomplete legislation and then seek to tidy up their mess through the promulgation of regulations. Surely, simple matters like the definition of serious crime should have been well and truly dealt with in the intervening seven to eight years. In every terrorist related act that impacts on the transport sector, you will always find transport workers included on the list of dead and injured. That is why transport workers and their unions understand better than most the need to uphold the integrity of the laws and the application of those laws to protect our important national infrastructure and the workforce. For years now, these workers and their unions have been seeking to get the government to act on the real threats to our national security by foreign maritime workers, who are issued visas without any of the background or other checks that Australian workers are subject to. I ask senators to vote for the Labor amendments and I commend the Labor amendments to the Senate. 12:56 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I rise to make my contribution to the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020. I have chaired the Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport inquiry into this since 2017 and I know there have been other Senate inquiries going on with another committee. The bill aims to change the aviation and maritime security requirements that need to be met by aviation and maritime workers in order to receive either the ASIC, the aviation security identity card, or the MSIC, the maritime security identification card. At the outset, Labor fully supports tightening up whatever we have to do to make our nation safer that will address international drug running, weapons and drugs. There's no argument about that, but there is far more evidence we need to seek, far more questions that need to be answered that haven't been answered; therefore we have amendments to put up. Labor will be supporting our amendments and putting forward our argument. The bill will also see MSIC and ASIC cardholders subject to five different elements of a background check: first, is an identity verification to confirm the individual's identity, with a name, date of birth et cetera—not a problem; second, a history check conducted by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, which I will refer to going forward as the ACIC, to determine whether the individual has been convicted of certain offences identified in the eligibility criteria; third, a security assessment completed by ASIO; fourth, a migration status check conducted by the Department of Home Affairs; and fifth, a criminal intelligence assessment conducted by ACIC which relates to potential involvement in organised crime—remember the word 'potential'. Serious crimes do deserve serious consideration by the Senate; there is no argument about that. Here it remains, what we have are several components of the bill. The bill will only apply to Australian workers and will do nothing to ensure foreign workers on ships working in Australia's domestic shipping network are subject to similar background checks—similar. What happens currently, we know, is that 24 to 48 hours—500 nautical miles offshore—the company will fax a list of names of seafarers, who will have their relevant passports, and who will be sent to Australia. By the time they land, they're free to go. My concern about this bill is there is no way of knowing. I'm still waiting. I'm speaking now as the Chair of the Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. I put a series of questions to the department officials and—I am not moving here—when a lot of questions were asked, answers were not given. As everyone in this place knows—and I've done that many inquiries I can't remember but I can remember six shipping inquiries I've done—at the beginning of every single one of those inquiries we give the witnesses an opportunity to be heard in camera. We go on for about three or four minutes talking about it and they only have to choose to go in camera. If they. were matters of national security that were not there for the world to see, the senators are grown up enough and mature enough to accept that there is certain information that is not for public knowledge. We get that, for crying out loud. Over the weekend I pondered even more about the thought that our agencies could treat the Senate with such disrespect that they wouldn't answer our questions. It's up to them; if they're doing anything different, come and tell me. But they couldn't give us answers to numbers of question like: what constitutes a serious crime? What's the world's secret about telling us what constitutes a serious crime, for crying out loud? We've heard what the Crimes Act determines as a serious crime. One would think that the officers in charge, whether they be ASIO or border protection or whoever they may be, could just answer simple questions of the Senate. It's like: how long's a piece of string? I'm absolutely disgusted, as chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, when they can't even give us the opportunity by saying, 'It's a national secret and guess what, senators: we know you won't go out and do talkback radio or television.' I know I wouldn't, anyway, but I'd also say that all my colleagues in this building treat national security with the respect it needs. It's just a shame that, whether it's the government under the direction of the minister—I don't know, I've got no idea—or just the government boffins who are over it and think they can snub Senate inquiries, they do not give us the courtesy of providing answers. I have no proof of who it is. But as a long-term senator in this building, what I do know is that you could not insult us more because, when we ask questions of the departments, the least you can do is give the appropriate response. So you will see from my frustration that if we—and prove me wrong—could apply the same diligent background checks to foreign seafarers as we do to our own, I'll be the first one to stand up here. I'll wear a clown suit and I'll apologise profusely that I got it wrong. Guess what? That ain't going to happen. I think we do know that there were known criminals on flags-of-convenience ships coming here and exploiting foreign workers. Let me just go further with that: in all the six inquiries I've done in shipping, every single inquiry has ended up talking about flags of convenience, the lack of security and the exploitation of foreign seafarers. While I'm on this, there are a couple of examples that I do need to raise. It's important that the Senate hears about these as well as everyone else. One of the hearings here in Canberra was to do with this inquiry. We raised with border protection whether we know who's coming in and who's on these ships. What we do know is what we're being told; we don't know if they've done anything else. One of the examples was given by Border Protection, and I want to get the wording correct. These are not words made up by me, but actual evidence given by the department. It virtually says that the concern that they have—this is Border Protection—is that 'foreign flags of convenience are an opportunity for bad people to utilise flags of convenience to do bad things like drugs and guns and all sorts of stuff like that and people smuggling'. No argument; I thank Border Protection for being so open and honest with us. If the department's got a concern, and we haven't had answers given to us, where is that right? I want to take my hat off and tilt my hat to the people at Border Protection, all those diligent and hardworking men and women in uniform. But one would think that those in suits and ties could back it up and at least answer the senators' questions. God help us if the ministers could answer the questions. Here is another example that gives me grave concern. We've heard senators talking about Captain Salas. I want to tell you what I know about Captain Salas because I was the chair of the committee when Captain Salas was running rampant on our shores. Captain Salas was on the Sage Sagittarius. This is not made up. This is reported all the way through. They called it the Sage Sagittarius. When they did the inquest they called it the 'death ship' because somehow when Captain Salas—I think it was back in about 2015 or 2016—sailed into Newcastle, on the way in, in international waters, someone went missing, one of the crew. One could assume that the poor devil fell overboard. There is absolutely no way the inquest has shown otherwise. He was tossed overboard. The coroner even went as far as to say that he could've been killed before he went overboard. Damn it, on the way into Newcastle one of the other poor fellas fell into the hull and died—two deaths on Captain Salas' ship. Then all of a sudden the owners of the ship, a Japanese coal vessel I think it was, put on an undercover—no secret; it has all been reported—Japanese superintendent. He was put on that ship to sail back to Japan. Do you know what happened, Senator Ciccone? Senator Ciccone 281503 What happened? Senator STERLE e68 He died. They found him in the conveyor belt when unloading—three deaths. Then they tried to get Captain Salas, but no-one could find Captain Salas. They were trying to charge him in Australian waters. They couldn't charge him over the Japanese death. Alerts were going out all round the world—where is Captain Salas? I spoke to Owen Jacques, a reporter from the Sunshine Coast in Queensland, who was reporting on Captain Salas, who told me when the inquiry was going on down in Sydney, I think it was. He flew down to it, because he was reporting on it. They were talking there, the prosecutor, and no-one could find where captain Salas was—border protection didn't know, immigration didn't know, ASIO didn't know, AFP didn't know. No-one could find him so they were going to abandon the trial. I am not making this stuff up. I can't make this stuff up. I am not that damn fanatical about pretending things happened. At the smoko break Owen Jacques walked up to the prosecutor and said, 'Dear prosecutor, I know where Captain Salas is.' You think I am making this up, don't you? It's hard to believe isn't it? They said, 'No-one else can find him'. He said: 'I know where he is. He is in Gladstone.' I have the name of the ship here—I can't remember. He was going out the next day. This is our intelligence network at work here. You wonder why I'm cranky. It's because I can't get answers. All of a sudden there was a flurry of activity and off they went. I think it was AFP that went up there, chucked him in a headlock, put handcuffs on him—whatever they did—and brought him down to trial. At the trial he confessed to gun running—a confessed gun runner and money launderer. We know that there were two deaths on the ship coming into Australia and one on the way out. No-one knows nothing. Some reporters said he was selling guns to the crew. Are we to believe he was selling guns to the crew, the same ones he was killing and throwing overboard? It is getting worse all the time. Here is a classic example of when our intelligence agencies or our government say: 'It's all right, bucko. It's all in hand. We've got full control. We know who's coming into this nation.' No, you don't. What you do know is you have a list of names provided by the company. What you will find out is there will be a passport and there will be a photograph—fine, great, not a bad start—but you don't know what they've done or what they're planning to do or what they've been tied up in unless they've been caught on the system you've got now. Someone tell me I've got it wrong. There's no way I've got it wrong. You haven't proved it to me yet. I'll tell you what I'm dying to hear—and I would love the opportunity for this Senate to back me in giving the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, and all participating members, the opportunity to say, 'We're going to hold onto this bill for a month while the committee goes back to do its work that it set out to do in 2017.' And the minister responsible should pull in the jug heads from the bureaucracy and say, 'You will treat the Senate with the respect that it demands, you will treat the senators with the respect that they have earned and you will answer questions.' And if those questions go to national security the senators are grown up enough and mature enough to back the words that I will give them once again—as I do every damn time I have a hearing and as does every senator—the right to be heard in camera. Senator Stoker 237920 I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. It's an adverse reflection on— Senator STERLE e68 Too right it is! Senator Stoker 237920 the loyal public servants of this country to call them 'jug heads', and I ask that it be withdrawn. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 It would assist the chair, Senator Sterle, if you could— Senator STERLE e68 Chair, with the greatest respect, if I had named someone and denigrated them, yes. I am telling the truth. I am being absolutely honest when I tell you the Senate has been disrespected, the committee has been disrespected. If I had mentioned someone and said that they were stealing or something, I wouldn't even do that; I'd pull it. But, if they're that precious on that side and you need me to blow bubbles at you or something, do whatever you want to do. Now I want to get back to what I was actually talking about. Senator Brockman interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Thank you, Senator Brockman. Senator STERLE e68 Reset the clock. I'm happy to go back to 15! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator Sterle, it was on the point of order, actually. Senator STERLE e68 I sit in that chair too, Acting Deputy President, and, if it appears to you that somehow I've upset someone, please explain it to me and I'll pull it. You just may have to remind me. I don't know where I've actually done the wrong thing. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The minister has raised a point of order that you made an adverse reflection on a protected category, so you're free to go. Sorry, Minister. Senator STERLE e68 Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I do appreciate the opportunity to put forward my case, because I too sit there and I know that these speeches can be far-ranging. I'm going to go back to where I was before I was interrupted in my train of thought—and I'm happy to go back to 15 minutes! There is the challenge. Bring it forth. Tell me I've got it wrong. You can't have three deaths on one ship and a confessed and convicted gun-runner and money-launderer and say that we are absolutely on top of this. I'll tell you what we're on top of. We're on top of making it as hard as possible, for the right reasons, to get an MSIC or an ASIC—absolutely no problem. But now I'm only just getting started. So why is it different for our Aussie seafarers? Why can Rio Tinto up there in the Top End have eight ships and four of the ships have Aussie crew and four of the ships have foreign crew? The Aussies have to jump through hoops and do backflips and all sorts of stuff. That's fine, but the foreign seafarers don't. Where is it in the Australian psyche that we'll make it as hard as possible for Australians to work but as easy as possible for poor, exploited foreign workers? Now I want to come back to a few of my other concerns. When can someone start assisting me on the issue of guilt by association? Think about this. If your best mate is a bikie and you're hanging out with the bikie every week, we've got a right to be seriously concerned. But what happens to a 55-year-old wharfie whose 23-year-old son joins an outlaw motorcycle gang? The father can't stop him. The son is of mature age. He can do whatever he likes. Where do those guys sit with their MSIC? (Time expired) 13:13 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I don't think I can top the contribution by Senator Sterle, who has for many, many years, whether here in the Senate or in his previous life in the movement, been very passionate about standing up for workers and workers' safety. It's good to see the contribution by my good friend Senator Sterle here, and I certainly echo the comments by him about trying to refer such matters off to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, because I think they do warrant greater scrutiny by this place. As my colleagues have already articulated, Labor has some serious concerns about the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020 and the flaws that are contained within it. But, before I address those, it is important to make clear that, despite some of the measures that we'd like to see toughened up, there are some meaningful measures to combat serious crime in our community. Such conduct really is a scourge and ought to be subject to considered, strong and well-targeted laws. As Senator Sterle articulated so well, there are a lot of gaps in this legislation that we seriously need to consider, and I would hope that the minister and others opposite take on board the contributions by a number of Labor senators who have been well across the issues for some time now. However, Labor will never shirk away from the task of keeping Australians safe, and that's why we've proposed a number of amendments to the bill to ensure it meets the highest of standards that ought to be upheld for a law relating to matters as serious as national security. Nonetheless, it is clear that the bill before us, in its current form, does not meet that standard and, as was noted by many Labor senators as part of the committee inquiry into the bill, very little consideration has been given by the government to ensuring that it is fit for purpose and fair. My colleague Senator Keneally rightly pointed out last week that, despite seeking to address the scourge of serious crime in our community, the bill before us lacks a simple definition as to the exact meaning of 'serious crime'. One is left to ask: how can this bill be serious about serious crime when it does not even define what serious crime is? Seriously, it's a bit of a joke and it reflects the government's attitude towards this bill. One of the key elements of this debate relates to the issuance of aviation security identification cards and maritime security identification cards. ASIC and MSIC cards serve an important role in securing Australian transportation facilities from unlawful activity, and Labor supports the schemes behind them. But many of those seeking to engage in our work at our airports and on our docks are required to acquire these cards. In assessing these applications, background checks are undertaken to ensure that applicants possess an appropriately sound record to fulfil such an important role in our economy, and currently over a quarter of a million Australians hold either one of these two cards. Despite the importance of these cards to such workers, we know that the current system for the issuance is beset with problems, with delays, sloppy paperwork and decision-making being commonplace. Workers report waiting times in excess of three months for assessment of their applications and say they experience great anxiety each time their renewal is due. This is because, when errors occur, being without an ASIC or MSIC card means being without a job. Part of this bill would seek to add more extensive background checks to the schemes, including intelligence assessments, and I'm concerned that the bill does not outline a pathway for appeal for those who are given an adverse security status judgement in relation to their cards. Of greatest concern with this bill, however, is its lack of arrangements regarding foreign crew on foreign vessels carrying flags of convenience. These crews are spared the levels of scrutiny that Australian workers seeking ASIC and MSIC cards undergo. These workers, who are often from developing countries and paid far less than what is permissible under our laws, are most commonly the holders merely of maritime crew visas and thus are not required to meet any standard or background inspection. This arrangement, which has been described as facilitating a poorer system of security at our transportation facilities, is deeply troubling. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection articulated its concerns about the use of foreign vessels carrying flags of convenience for serious crime. A submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport in 2017 stated—and this was the section that Senator Sterle was trying to find earlier: 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 illegal exploitation of natural resources, illegal activity in protected areas, people smuggling, and facilitating prohibited imports or exports. With concerns such as these at hand, one is left to wonder why this bill does nothing to address them. Why, instead, does it specifically target Australian workers merely going about their work and seeking to provide a living for themselves? It appears to many that what we really have here is one law for Australians on our docks and one law for foreigners. With this bill we have a set of measures from the government that would make it harder for Australian workers to get appropriate checks to do their job but would do nothing to protect Australia from foreign threats. Make no mistake: Australian transport workers understand the importance of robust security arrangements. Let us not forget that, should the worst occur, they are the ones onsite most likely to suffer injury as a result. It shouldn't come as a surprise that this government seeks to make life difficult for Australian maritime workers. After all, this is the government that has presided over the systemic undermining of our domestic shipping industry and the workers who rely on it to support their families. Whilst there are certainly real concerns that this bill should address, in its current form it falls well short of doing so. I urge those opposite to seriously consider the amendments proposed by Labor. Only with those amendments in place can this bill achieve what it is supposed to do: keep us all safe. 13:22 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia In this debate today we can hear that, as a nation, we're in need of well-targeted measures to address serious crime and maintain our national security. Unfortunately, as Labor senators have been outlining to this place, the bill before us, the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020, does not do that. It is far from doing that. It is not well targeted; it does not address the issue of serious crime at our ports and airports. The fact that we've got a quarter of a million workers who have the qualifications required to do this work, ASIC or MSIC cards, really highlights that these kinds of measures do need to be well targeted. We don't want to see legislation before this place that, as this bill does, makes it harder for Australian workers in our ports and airports to get the checks they need to do their job. Yet again we have from this government an announcement, a headline: 'Let's improve security at our ports and airports.' But this is far from the truth. In fact, this bill weakens our border security by not addressing the issue of foreign crew on ships operating on Australian domestic routes. Indeed, as my colleagues have outlined, it means bureaucratic delays and inconsistencies for Australian workers. The government should acknowledge that these kinds of bureaucratic delays and inconsistencies are actually where security risks can manifest, but in this legislation we have an avoidance of those truthful facts. For us to be able to control our borders and maintain national security, foreign aviation and maritime workers have got to be subject to robust background checking. It's the responsibility of the federal government to take sensible measures to deter and detect perpetrators who want to exploit loopholes in air and sea transport and travel to bring contraband, including drugs and weapons, into Australia or to take such contraband out. But the fact of the matter is that this government has little appreciation for the reality of this. While they let exploited workers and flags of convenience come in and out of our shores, they show little appreciation of the fact that exploited labour on those ships can be far more vulnerable to demands to smuggle contraband in and out of Australia. If you are not being paid fair wages, if you are of uncertain immigration status in Australia or in the other routes that you are travelling, you can be very vulnerable to such manipulation. Indeed, organisations like the ITF, which represent transport workers right around the world, are very familiar with the vulnerabilities that workers face in being exploited. For example, there are instances right around the world where national governments and corporations, in nations that I won't name now, are so anti-union that they leave their workers on these ships open to manifest exploitation. In Australia the aviation security identification card and the maritime security identification are an important part of keeping our aviation, maritime and offshore oil and gas sectors free from interference and terrorism. They are important benchmarks in safety and security standards in all of these sites and they are of critical importance. We also want to see foreign workers being held to a standard of background checks to ensure they are not a threat to aviation or maritime security. So I ask the government: why, today in this place and in this bill, do you want to make it easier for foreign workers than Australian workers to be accredited to work in these Australian conditions? It is quite telling the number of times that flag-of-convenience ships around the world have been found to be engaging in criminal and terrorist activity. Why is this the case? A great deal of the world's shipping, including shipping that takes place here in Australia, where foreign goods are imported or exported from our ports, takes place under flags of convenience. This is where everything from safety to emissions standards, to environmental standards and labour standards, aren't regulated by a sovereign nation with attention to this detail but, rather, are conveniently flagged in the equivalent of a tax haven that just does it for the convenience of the operator. And the evidence shows that these flag-of-convenience ships, which are much less regulated, have been found to be active in criminal and terrorist activity. Yet this government seeks to continue to make it easier for these ships to operate in Australia, not harder, as this legislation shows. Globally the consequences of having flag-of-convenience ships are well known. They do things like undercut the labour standards of sovereign shipping capabilities. That's very much the case here in Australia. For example, we've seen flag-of-convenience ships operating off our shores, even from one domestic Australian port through to another, displacing Australian shipping. Also, in that race to the bottom, they're displacing Australian on-land transport routes such as rail and road. It's globally well known that that's the kind of stuff that occurs in this race to the bottom that you see here, perpetuated by legislation like this. Australian workers have been subject to a three-month wait; it could be up to a three-month wait for their MSIC, but do you know what? People as part of a foreign crew can get a maritime crew visa and come into Australia with as little as 24 hours notice, and that is with no MSIC required at all. Why should there be such a difference? Well, I don't think that there should be. Why is this government making it harder for Australians to do their jobs? They put in their forms to get these clearances, and yet it can take months for them to get their clearances to do this work. I can't help but think sometimes that this government hates Australian workers, or, at least, it knows no bounds in its race to the bottom in labour standards, in immigration standards, in wages and conditions, which allow Australians to be undercut over and over again. What are the consequences of this? Think about it in the context of having a sovereign shipping capacity where we can move goods from one port to another under a sovereign shipping supply chain. What are the consequences of our capacity to ship goods from one port to another totally reliant on flag-of-convenience and foreign ships? What does that mean for our sovereign capability in a time of international crisis or disruption or war? It's not good news. So, when you make it harder for Australian workers to do their jobs, be that by allowing flag-of-convenience ships in our waters and offering an unlevel playing field in terms of regulation, this is the source of losing our sovereign capability as a nation, sovereign capability that we need to make sure is protected in times of trouble. When the government says that this bill is about serious crime and not about making it harder for Australian workers to earn money for their families, I would have thought that the government would have defined serious crime as those looking to bring contraband into or out of Australia. But, sadly, this bill does not even define what serious crime is. Under this bill, we would see Australian workers with minor criminal convictions exposed to bureaucratic nightmares that make it harder for them to make money for their families, harder for them to take that money home to their families. As I said at the outset, when you're going to expose a quarter of a million workers to these kinds of questions, it goes to show how inept this government is at actually targeting organised and serious crime. I'll give you the example, as I'm sure others have, of Brendan McKeen's conviction for getting into a pub fight some 31 years ago. When someone like Brendan needs to renew his card, he faces a 90-day wait and he's left in the position of not being sure whether that card will arrive in time for his next shift. Is it any wonder that flag-of-convenience shipping finds it easy to compete against Australian regulated standards when this is the case? I ask the government: why is this costing Australian workers more than it's costing foreign workers? We know flag-of-convenience vessels are rife with exploitation. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection said, in 2017, that the ownership and financial arrangements of these vessels is complex. They also admitted that it makes them attractive for use in illegal activity, including by organised crime or terrorist groups. And I have to say, I've seen many cases of visa exploitation taking place as well. If they've got bosses who make it difficult for them to get home to see their family or if they've got bosses who underpay them, it absolutely leaves many maritime crew members open to needing to answer their master's call to do whatever illegal activity they're asked to undertake, rather than being able to stick to the rules here in Australia, with which they might be unfamiliar. The department admitted that these ships are targets for exploitation of natural resources, illegal activity, people smuggling and facilitating prohibited imports or exports. Labor seeks to amend this legislation. I'm sure you've heard from others about what our intentions are in terms of looking at the scope of the offences, review and other issues. We recognise that national security is important, but we also want this government to recognise that workers being able to do their jobs is of critical importance. That is what will keep our nation safe. And this bill does nothing to address any of these important issues. Labor proposes an alternative bill that will. (Time expired) 13:37 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania The government says that the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020 will tighten up security checking on people who work in maritime ports and airports. What it's actually going to do is give public servants free reign to hire and fire workers at will. It gives bureaucrats the power to kick someone out of a 10-year or 20-year career based on nothing more than a hunch that they might do something wrong in the future. Don't get me wrong, I don't really have a problem with bureaucrats. But when I know they've come in from school or the parties have picked them up when they're young and they have no life experience and they come through this house, it scares the hell out of me; I'll be honest about that. I'll tell you what: that's a pattern of behaviour that's been going on for years. By the time they've made it to the stage where they're high up in the Public Service and they're making decisions about other people's lives, I have a problem with it when they've lived in this bubble. I have a significant problem with it. Do you wonder why, in this house, we're not making the best decisions we probably could for the nation? If you're comfortable with thinking that the government makes the right call 100 per cent of the time, you'd be happy with this bill. If you have no worries about the government's ability to figure out what the right thing to do is, you tell me to go ahead and vote this legislation through. But I know, and you know, that the government gets things wrong, and so do the bureaucrats. If we pass this bill and they get things wrong, they could destroy someone's entire livelihood—not just their livelihood but their family's too. And for what? For nothing. The mistakes of a public servant sitting in a government department could force airport workers and maritime workers onto the dole queue. That is what this bill has the ability to do. It changes the security assessments done on the workers who need access to secure areas in our maritime ports and airports. At the moment, to be allowed into secure areas in our ports or our airports, those workers need a maritime security identification card, an MSIC, or an aviation security identification card, an ASIC. Every person who has access to those secure areas has to get one of those cards. This is great. It's wonderful. So they should. This bill would mean that someone who has a criminal conviction from years ago could lose their job because of that. I don't know about you people but I've spoken about this many times in here. Just because somebody buggered up when they were a bit younger, if they've already paid the price, they should not have to pay the price twice. That is very un-Australian. Do not dip at them twice, especially if they've got themselves back on their feet and they've become a great citizen in this country. Why should they get punished for something that they've already done their time for? For what? How is that fair? They should not be punished twice. Once is enough. That's the way it works here in this nation. You don't penalise them twice. The second part of the bill scares me even more. That's the part that means the government could reject someone's application for an ASIC or MSIC because a public servant thinks that they may commit a crime in the future. These are the guys, with no policing or court experience, making decisions over a crystal ball, saying, 'Oh, you know what, mate? I reckon they'll do that again.' Come on! This is not how it works. Last time I checked, you guys didn't have a crystal ball, and these public servants don't have access to one either. You're playing with fire here. This is not the way it should work. And, if you do have this crystal ball, then please bring it out on the floor so we can finally get some things right, because we'd all like to have a shot at it. You can't see into the future, and you can't determine or dictate somebody's life by some sort of second-guessing. That is not fair. I want to be really clear here: I don't want ice getting into the suburbs. I don't want ice running rampant. I know the effect this can have, and has, on families and I don't want it getting the chance to do the harm I know it's capable of doing. But the way to stop it is to go after people who are spreading it. That's who we should be targeting. If you really want to put your foot down on this stuff, when it comes to ice, you're going to need to double your border force, you are going to need a lot more state police and you are going to need a lot more feds out there on our streets. That's what needs to be done. If you want to deter it, put the boys in blue out there, and make them loud and proud so they can be seen. That's your deterrent. If you really want to tackle this stuff, stop twiddling around the edges. That's all you're doing, twiddling—you're not even tweaking, you're twiddling. If you want to fight ice, fight it with fire, not an MSIC card. Don't throw that in my face because of my past. I won't tolerate it. While you're out there, put some more quarantine officers on the job. Wonderful! Great! There's a good start. Get into those courts, and put some legislation bills up here that make harsher penalties. You want to get the kingpins? I'll tell you what: put them in jail for life, once they get there. They're called deterrents. That's what works. That's how it works. A bill that makes it easier for an anonymous bureaucrat to end the career of a person who's done nothing wrong gives that person no chance to defend themselves against that wrong decision. That's not how we keep our communities safe. It's how we'll ruin another family's life, and their life—because they made mistakes earlier on in their life—but it does not keep the community safe. If we say that honest, hardworking people should lose their jobs and lose the ability to work in any other job in the same industry, based on evidence they never get to see, considered by a bureaucrat they'll never get to meet, we open up the chance that some nong at a desk will get it wrong and cause them harm. That's what we're doing here. We're allowing a public bureaucrat to come in here, without any investigative skills, policing skills or law skills, to make decisions on somebody else's life. That's what we're seeing here. I won't have somebody else judged or determined on whether or not they should hold a security working permit by some sort of public bureaucrat who has spent a lifetime living in a bubble in Canberra. I won't do that, because over the years I've seen those bureaucrats make too many wrong decisions and ruin people's lives. They have no life experience because everything has been given to them on a silver platter. They've made their way to the top without any security checks and without any questions being asked about why they got in here in the first place, let alone policing checks. It seems that what's good for the goose is not good for the gander. I have no confidence. Bureaucrats get things wrong. The way you normally check those things is by taking them to court. That's what we should be doing here. That's how it works in this system. That's how it works in this country. If you have evidence that someone's bringing in drugs, then throw the book at them. Make your case. Stick hard evidence to get a conviction. Do what you're supposed to do. If you want more power to make that happen, then, as I just said, I'm ready to talk. Come on, bring it to the table. Don't be lazy. Do it the harder way. Bring in the bills. Make it happen. But don't put some bureaucrat in control of this. It's just lazy, lazy, lazy. I'm not going to hand over the power to go around the courts and just let public servants decide who's innocent and who's guilty based on evidence that would be torn apart if it ever went to court. And—here we go—guess who's going to pay for this? Guess who'd pay for it? The taxpayer. That's right; the taxpayer. You go and pay for this. You go and pay for the poor decisions that are made up here. You go and pay for it, because nothing will happen to the public servant. Eventually they'll just be promoted and moved on to another department. That's how it works; it's just like how the military works. The higher ranking you have and the more you bugger up, the more you get posted and the more you get promoted. It's standard procedure. It is shameful. Maybe giving that kind of power would keep people on their toes, but honest people shouldn't have to fear the overreach of their government, let alone that of a public servant. That's what this bill will do. It will make it too easy for a bloke to tick the wrong box and put you at the end of the dole queue. Your kids won't get fed and your mortgage won't get paid, and there'll be absolutely nothing you can do about it, unless, of course, you've got hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight it in the courts. And I wish you the very best of luck with that, because that's where we're heading here! Anybody who wants to go through the court system had better have some dimes behind them because they are going to need them. And if you're not working because some public servant said so, then you've got a problem. Anyone who has ever seen a public servant tick the wrong box or make you fill out the wrong form has seen what happens when you get it wrong. It's annoying and it can be soul destroying and it can destroy your family. Imagine that you didn't get that chance, and then you'll see what kind of stupidity this bill represents. Who in their right mind would think that the same people who dreamed up robodebt should get to decide, without any trial, whether you're too dodgy to keep working in your chosen career? I see we've learnt nothing from the past—and the recent past at that. I get why they want the power to make these choices without the chance to have them reviewed properly, because who wants to give someone the right to show how wrong you are? Who wants to give a normal person out there the right to show up the government and call them out and say, 'Hey, you were wrong'? Wouldn't that be embarrassing going towards an election? But why would I vote for something that gives one side all the power and the other side none of the power, in the hope that the power isn't abused? I hold very little hope, let alone faith, in that power not being abused. If you want me to vote on something based on trust that you'll only use it for good, show me an example of a policy where that has ever happened in this place. Find me one government program where nobody has ever made a mistake and caused detriment to somebody else's life. Mistakes should be found and fixed. They shouldn't be swept under the rug, which, once again, is common practice here. If the government want the power to put you out of business, you should demand that they have extraordinary evidence to be able to do so. Not only will this bill not require them to have that kind of extraordinary evidence, as is common practice in our legal system; it won't even require them to share with you what the evidence is when they make a decision to end your career. Very scary, isn't it! Let's shut down drug importation by hitting people who are importing drugs. Don't ask me to support any enormous new power to punish anyone you see fit for punishment based on nothing more than a hunch, which is all you're doing. It's so untidy and it is so un-Australian. It's a pattern with this government—every two weeks, there's another scandal. They argue they've done nothing wrong, that there's nothing to see here. What's new? A bit of self-reflection might explain why they're not getting my support today. If you want to go in hard against ice importers, by all means do so. I'll help you at the table, no worries. I'll do it in five minutes—just call me in. Just prove they're importing ice before you throw the book at them. As far as I'm concerned, those people who are smuggling drugs into Australia deserve everything that's coming their way. If you want to lock them up for life, I'm with you. But, because the penalties for drug importation should be so high, the threshold you've got to meet before you're punished for doing it should be high, too. On indulgence, I'd compare this to the current investigation into alleged war crimes by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. The accusation has been made and it's got to be investigated, but, until accusations are proven, they're just allegations, and that's all they are. An allegation isn't a conviction, and we shouldn't ever treat it as such. You've got to prove that someone is doing the wrong thing before you punish them for doing the wrong thing. That is the Australian way. I get that sometimes proving it is hard. However, tough! Suck it up. Show your resilience and get out there and prove it. Do it the right way. Show some leadership. I can tell you that all it takes for an innocent person to become a guilty person is for someone to accuse them of something, and you lose what it means to be guilty at all. What matters is what is proven. Evidence does matter, and evidence needs to be on the table. An accusation isn't a conviction, and the power should not be given to a public servant to say so. Put the evidence on the table and do it properly through the courts, through the law, and follow it correctly. 13:52 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I thank senators for their contributions to the debate on the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020. This bill is evidence of the government's commitment to ensuring our airports and seaports are not safe havens for criminal activity. Serious and organised crime causes enormous and real human suffering. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission has estimated it to cost the Australian economy more than $47 billion a year. This cost will continue to rise, and it is imperative for the safety and for the security of all Australians that the government puts measures in place to prevent serious crime. A number of inquiries and reports have noted that individuals and organised crime groups are exploiting weaknesses in the aviation and maritime security identification card schemes, also known as ASICs and MSICs. That's enabling them to conduct serious criminal activity at our airports and at our seaports, such as the importation of illegal weapons and drugs. This bill will provide greater security outcomes for Australians by ensuring that people with serious criminal convictions or links to serious and organised crime are not able to access secure areas of our airports and seaports. I'd like to thank the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for its work on this bill through its inquiry and its recommendations. It's a committee that I very much enjoyed working with. The secretariat and all of the support staff who helped us along the way did an amazing job. The committee recommended that the bill, as introduced in the House, be amended to incorporate a criminal intelligence assessment in the background check process for ASIC and MSIC schemes, and, subject to this recommendation being implemented, that the bill be passed. The committee recognised that prominent organised crime figures with a history of engaging in serious and organised crime and influencing others to do the same can have unmonitored access to aviation and maritime secure zones. Some of these individuals have no or minor criminal convictions and could only be identified through the introduction of a criminal intelligence assessment by the ACIC. The government supports the committee's recommendation to include criminal intelligence assessments as part of the background check process for ASICs and MSICs. The bill establishes the regulatory framework to ensure that people with known links to serious and organised crime groups will be ineligible to hold an ASIC or an MSIC. The bill provides the ACIC with the ability to conduct their assessments as well as providing for merits review of adverse criminal intelligent assessments, making sure that we have due process for those who are affected. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that ASICs and MSICs are not issued to individuals who pose a serious security or a serious criminal risk. We know that serious and organised criminals use our airports and seaports as transit points for the importation of firearms, weapons, illicit drugs and other harmful goods into Australia. ASIC and MSIC holders have trusted positions within our airports and our seaports. People convicted of serious offences or with known links to serious and organised crime groups shouldn't hold these trusted positions. The Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill will strengthen the government's efforts to reduce the influence of serious organised crime groups in the aviation and maritime environments, and ultimately ensure that Australians are kept safe and secure. This bill gives effect to the government's election commitment to strengthen background checking regimes to ensure that individuals with links to serious crime can't gain access to our airports or our seaports. I thank senators for their contributions in debate. I call on all senators in this chamber to support this vital bill. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the bill be read a second time.

The Senate divided. [14:00]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

37 AYES Abetz, E Antic, A Birmingham, SJ Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Griff, S Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A Molan, AJ Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Rennick, G Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 33 NOES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R (teller) Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Kitching, K Lambie, J Lines, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D 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 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT 35 QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT Members of Parliament: Staff 35 14:03 The PRESIDENT I0Q I table further information with respect to questions asked by Senator Waters last week. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 35 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE JobKeeper Payment 35 14:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. When JobKeeper ends at the end of March, how many people will lose their jobs? 14:03 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The advice that the Secretary of the Treasury has given to parliamentary committees is that he expects the jobs recovery and the economic recovery in Australia to continue. What we have seen during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic is very clearly that the measures our government took saved jobs. JobKeeper, by various estimates, has saved some 700,000 jobs. What we have seen in relation to the 1.3 million Australians who lost their jobs or went to zero hours at the height of the pandemic is that 93 per cent of those jobs have come back. And what we anticipate—and, indeed, this is the advice from the Treasury and from the Reserve Bank—is that we should continue to expect to see that jobs recovery. That doesn't mean that, as we have said consistently from the start of the pandemic, every job and every business will be able to be saved—not every one will be able to be saved. Senator Watt interjecting— Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X These are quite infantile comments coming from some, such as Senator Watt opposite, to be quite frank. These are difficult, challenging issues, but what we have sought to do is put in place measures to protect the Australian economy, to protect the capacity in the Australian economy. It has saved hundreds of thousands of jobs along the way, and in net terms we are seeing new jobs being created so far each and every month. However, yes, there are some jobs that are being lost, but more are being created as a result of the measures that the government is putting in place. Post March there will continue to be enormous stimulus and activity across the Australian economy as a result of the different policy measures that our government continues to put in place. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question? 14:05 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The Reserve Bank governor expects additional job losses to occur when JobKeeper ends at the end of March. Youth unemployment is more than double the national unemployment rate, sitting at 13.9 per cent. How many more young people will lose their jobs when JobKeeper ends? 14:05 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia We absolutely acknowledge that there is a particular challenge with youth unemployment. That's why in the budget last year we put in place the JobMaker Hiring Credit as a policy proposal specific to younger Australians, and those opposite decided to come in and vote against, filibuster and make difficult the implementation of the JobMaker hiring credit. We put that measure in place because we looked back at the advice around previous recessions and we knew that younger people in a recession were more likely to find it harder to come back into the workforce than older people. The evidence is actually proving that to be the case, justifying the policy decisions that our government took. As we've always said through this pandemic, the responses we want to put in place will be targeted and they'll be proportionate. That's precisely what we've done in relation to youth unemployment. The JobMaker hiring credit is there to help target additional support for young Australians, because we knew that that's where it would be needed. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question? 14:06 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The Treasury secretary expects to see job losses and 'a pause in the labour market after JobKeeper ends at the end of March'. In South Australia unemployment went up to 7.1 per cent in the last month. How many more South Australians will lose their jobs when JobKeeper ends? 14:07 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia What we expect to see, and indeed what the Treasury secretary, whom you just quoted, has told parliamentary inquiries is that he expects to see continued recovery in relation to the employment market and that he expects to see that continuing post the end of March. I know those opposite seem to think that somehow there is a bottomless pit of taxpayer money and that forever and a day we might be able to run the types of subsidies, supports or otherwise across the Australian economy. However, that is just not feasible. The Australian economy and private sector businesses cannot be run on borrowed dollars and taxpayer dollars forever. The measures we've put in place have got us through the depths of the pandemic. We've taken different transitional steps and, in those different transitional steps at the end of September and the end of December, those opposite said the sky would fall in and it didn't. Employment continued to grow and unemployment continued to go down, and that is what we're going to continue to work towards. COVID-19: Vaccination 36 14:08 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. Can the minister please update the Senate on the start of the plan to roll out the COVID vaccine across the nation? 14:08 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I thank Senator Chandler for the question. Rolling out the COVID vaccine across the country is one of the government's highest priorities. We encourage all Australians: when your turn comes, take the opportunity to line up and receive a vaccine that will protect you, protect your family and protect the broader community and the country. Yesterday we saw 84-year-old Sydney aged-care resident Jane Malysiak become the first person in Australia to be vaccinated against the virus. The Prime Minister also received his COVID-19 shot, as did our Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly and Chief Nursing and Midwifery Officer Alison McMillan. Vaccinating the Prime Minister, our CMO and chief nurse is a demonstration to show all Australians our faith in the safety and efficacy of the vaccines we're providing. This is a historic week for Australia and all Australians. Tens of thousands will begin to receive their vaccinations, starting with the most vulnerable first—part of the phased rollout strategy. We have prioritised the most vulnerable people in our society to receive the COVID-19 vaccine first. A team of healthcare professionals will deliver 30,000 vaccines to aged-care residents across 240 facilities in 190 communities across the country. In Tasmania, Senator Chandler, the vaccine rollout has begun today in aged-care homes and at the Royal Hobart Hospital. A further 50,000 vaccines nationally for border, quarantine and frontline health workers will be delivered through 16 hospital hubs, including the one in Hobart. I would like to reinforce what the chief medical officer said yesterday. I trust that most Australians will take this vaccine once it becomes available. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Chandler, a supplementary question? 14:10 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I thank the minister for his response. Can the minister outline how the national vaccine program will reach our population through a phased rollout? 14:11 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Today we have begun phase 1a of our national rollout strategy looking after the most vulnerable in our community, including aged-care residents and staff. Phase 1b will include adults aged over 70 years, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people over 55 and high-risk workers including defence, police, fire, emergency services and meat processing workers. Phase 2a includes adults aged 50 to 69 years, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 18-54 years and other critical high-risk workers. Phase 2b expands to the remainder of the population within Australia over the age of 16. This is the biggest national vaccination program we have ever seen. I pay tribute to all the dedicated health professionals who are making this happen. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Chandler, a final supplementary question? 14:12 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Will the minister also update the Senate on how Australians are being kept informed of the vaccine rollout? 14:12 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Our comprehensive information campaign will keep Australians fully informed and up to date about how and where to get the jab. As part of our public information campaign, we've invested in a program for peak multicultural organisations to help reach culturally and linguistically diverse communities. This includes advertising in 32 languages. Our message will target specific multicultural groups to ensure everyone in Australia has a full understanding of the vaccination program. The overall national campaign includes regular website updates, social media, local community and grassroots organisations, networks and of course the media. There are three steps that Australians can take now to get ready: create a myGov account and link it to Medicare; check your contact details for Medicare and ensure they are up to date; and view your immunisation history record. (Time expired) Members of Parliament: Staff 37 14:13 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Reynolds. On Thursday the Prime Minister disclosed in House question time that the minister met with the Assistant Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police on 4 April. What was the purpose of this meeting? 14:13 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I thank the senator for the question. As I made very clear in my statement on Thursday, during my meeting with Brittany that she would have my full support in whatever course of action she chose to take, that she would have full access to counselling services and that, if she wished, I would assist her to get access to the Australian Federal Police. Without betraying any confidences, as I have consistently not done here, I did, through my staff, reach out to the Australian Federal Police for an appropriately qualified person to talk to Brittany, and that is my understanding of what occurred. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Polley, a supplementary question? 14:14 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Was Ms Higgins aware that the minister was meeting with the Assistant Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police? 14:14 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Again, that goes into the matter of private conversations, which I have consistently said remains— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Reynolds. Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU The point of order is relevance. I think we showed some courtesy for how the minister was last week. That does not obviate her obligation to be accountable to this chamber for her conduct. She is being asked a question about whether or not this meeting occurred with the permission or with the knowledge of the complainant. There is no prejudice associated with that. It is a matter on which the Prime Minister has spoken in the House, and I'd ask the minister to respond to the question. The PRESIDENT I0Q I've allowed to you to make the point, Senator Wong. I don't believe that the minister is not being directly relevant, because I think she is addressing the question. There is an opportunity to debate questions after question time. I call Senator Reynolds. Senator REYNOLDS 250216 I will continue, because I had only spoken for seven seconds. As I've consistently said, on that Monday we made available and advised that we would provide and make available the appropriate counselling services, which was done, and also that, if she wanted to talk to the Australian Federal Police, we would facilitate that. At all times and at all times through that process, as I've said in this chamber a number of times, everything that was done was with her knowledge and with her concurrence. From that day right through, it has always been my first and only consideration was her privacy, her agency, and to take my steps— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Reynolds. Senator Polley, a final supplementary question? 14:16 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Why was this meeting not disclosed in the minister's previous answers or statement to the Senate last week? Was the minister aware that the Prime Minister was going to disclose this detail in the House? 14:17 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I think as I said twice in the chamber last week, I did facilitate a meeting for Ms Higgins, if she wanted one, with the Australian Federal Police. It was the assistant commissioner who came up to my office and met briefly with me, alone. Again, I took all advice, and then the AFP met with Brittany. That was the conclusion of my engagement, because I had made the reference to the AFP. Again, what we discussed in those meetings is not my story to tell. It is not my story to tell, and I have always continued to respect her privacy and her story, and I will continue to do so. (Time expired) COVID-19: Australia-India-Japan-United States Quad Foreign Ministers Meeting 38 14:18 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. Will the minister update the Senate on the recent Quad ministerial meeting and advise how Australia, India, Japan and the United States are deepening cooperation on shared regional priorities in response to the COVID-19 pandemic? 14:18 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Henderson for her question and her interest in these issues. Australia regards the Quad as a positive diplomatic arrangement with an agenda to match. It brings together four like-minded democracies—Australia, the United States, India and Japan—committed to respecting and upholding international rules and obligations through positive, practical engagement to protect and support the sovereignty, the prosperity and the security of our region. Late last week my three Quad counterparts and I discussed some of the most pressing issues facing our region, including our common recovery from COVID-19 in both health and economic terms and including our joint commitment to tackling climate change, the equitable distribution of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines and broader health security issues such as reducing the risk of future pandemics. Ministers and secretaries reaffirmed our commitment to strengthening the Indo-Pacific's health and economic recovery from the COVID-19 crisis in a way that helps us all, all countries in the region, reinforce their sovereignty and their resilience. We particularly welcomed the new US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, less than a month after his confirmation and welcomed strong engagement and energy from the United States, in relation to deepening Quad cooperation and regional engagement across the Pacific more broadly. This was the third meeting of the Quad at the level of foreign ministers following earlier in-person meetings in New York in 2019, last year in Tokyo in 2020, notwithstanding the COVID-19 challenges that travel presents, both of which I was pleased to attend. We have committed to meeting at least annually, and I am confident the value of these meetings will only grow and ensure our cooperation on tackling regional challenges deepens in a way that benefits our whole region. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Payne. Senator Henderson, a supplementary question? 14:20 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Will the minister advise the importance of Australia, India, Japan and the United States working together on shared regional priorities, particularly, of course, in relation to the pandemic? 14:21 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Henderson. I think it is important to note that Thursday's Quad meeting was another chance to reaffirm our support for ASEAN centrality, particularly the principles set out in the ASEAN outlook on the Indo-Pacific. We're working to support and secure a prosperous region through ASEAN-led architecture, particularly through the East Asia Summit, which met, virtually, in the context of COVID last year. We are longstanding supporters of Myanmar's democratic transition, so we discussed our concerns about the military coup. We reaffirmed our support for an ASEAN-led response to those events. We have multiple engagements of our four nations in a range of areas. Last October, for example, I joined counterparts from Japan and the United States to announce the first project under the trilateral partnership for infrastructure development in the Indo-Pacific, the Palau cable spur. I think it was in December that Minister Birmingham participated in an Australia-India-Japan meeting on resilient supply chains— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Henderson, a final supplementary question? 14:22 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Will the minister advise the Senate how these engagements are vital to upholding rules and norms in our region? 14:22 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales These are very important engagements because the Quad's positive agenda complements Australia's other bilateral regional and multilateral engagements, including, of course, as I said in my previous response, with ASEAN, to support an open, inclusive and resilient region anchored in international law. We reiterated our commitment to ongoing practical work deepening Quad cooperation on regional priorities that were agreed at our in-person meeting in Tokyo last year. They include maritime security, infrastructure, supply chain resilience, as I've mentioned, counterterrorism, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, cyber and countering disinformation, as just a number. We discussed the importance of deepening our cooperation to address climate change, including Australia's focus on supporting adaptation and resilience in the Pacific through our $1½ billion climate finance commitment through to 2025. So despite the significant disruption that COVID-19 is causing, Australia remains absolutely focused on working with our key regional partners to respond to these longer term challenges. (Time expired) Members of Parliament: Staff 39 14:23 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Given that a fourth woman has now come forward with sexual assault allegations against the same perpetrator, has the alleged rapist of Brittany Higgins ever held a lobbyist pass, been on the lobbyist register or had lobbyist meetings or communications with ministers or their staff since the rape occurred, and has he visited Parliament House or any other Commonwealth office since that time? 14:23 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Waters for her question. I understand Mr Bandt asked a similar question in the House. The Prime Minister, in the House, indicated that he is not aware whether such matters have occurred, in relation to passholders or the like; however, the Prime Minister undertook to confirm those matters and to have anything attended to and advised as quickly as possible. Certainly, in this place, I will do likewise. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Waters, a supplementary question? 14:24 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Yes, thanks, President. Given the role of the Department of Finance in handling staff complaints and terminations, what was the former finance minister told regarding Ms Higgins's rape allegations and the subsequent mishandling of the complaint? 14:24 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I will take the question on notice in terms of what advice may have been provided to Minister Cormann. My understanding is, as Senator Reynolds has indicated, there were instances of advice provided to her, particularly in relation to the termination processes that exist around the individual who was released due to security breaches. But as for any other advice or information that actually was provided to Minister Cormann as per your question, I will bring that to the chamber. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Waters, a final supplementary question? 14:25 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland If the Prime Minister persists with the inadequate internal review by Mr Gaetjens into the mishandling of the response to Brittany Higgins's rape allegations rather than an independent investigation, will the government guarantee that Mr Gaetjens's full report will be made public? And will he have full investigative powers and access to all relevant ministers and staff when undertaking his review? 14:25 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Yes, he will have such access. As I stated in the chamber this morning, I understand Ms Higgins has made public her intention to request a full investigation with the Australian Federal Police. The government will provide complete and full cooperation with that investigation, as we have always intended to do, following the engagements that Minister Reynolds outlined her facilitation of earlier on. Employment 40 14:26 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. To date, how many employers have registered to claim payments under the JobMaker Hiring Credit scheme? And how many employers have received payments to date? 14:26 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I don't have the specific data that I can provide to the senator at present, but I will happily bring anything that I can. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gallacher, on a point of order? Senator Gallacher 204953 In a response to an earlier question from Senator Gallagher, Senator Birmingham said that the evidence was in. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gallacher, I'm afraid that is not a point of order. The minister is entitled to take questions on notice. I call him to continue. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Thanks, and, indeed, I'm pleased that Senator Gallacher was listening or at least listening in part to what I was saying. What I was saying was the evidence was clear that a program like JobMaker was necessary. Indeed, that evidence is in the fact that, in targeting a program to younger workers, we can see from the ABS data that jobs for those over 55 have actually increased over time whilst, for those aged between 15 and 34, there was actually a 3.3 per cent decrease between March last year and January this year. So for those of older age groups—those aged 35 plus—there's been an increase in employment of 1.2 per cent. For those aged over 55, there has been an increase of 2.9 per cent. For those in the JobMaker Hiring Credit target age, there has been a decrease in employment. So this was exactly what the evidence and analysis that Treasury had given to us demonstrated—that there was a genuine risk in this recession, as in past recessions, that youth unemployment would be the last to recover and that you would have younger Australians potentially facing longer periods of time unemployed. That was why we put in place a program targeted precisely to that cohort of individuals and that we did so making sure this program had safeguards in place—because I think I can predict where the supplementaries are likely to go—to make sure that employment had to be additional to existing numbers so there would be safeguards around existing employees but incentives to get young Australians back into jobs. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gallacher, a supplementary question? 14:29 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia How many new jobs have so far been created as a part of the government's JobMaker Hiring Credit scheme? 14:29 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia That is very similar, I think, to the primary question, which I took on notice, to provide the senator with any figures in relation to registration for and take-up of the scheme. So I will come back to the chamber with that. This scheme is at an early stage of its operations. Senator Watt interjecting— Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Senator Watt can chuckle. Let me get this straight. Is it the contention of those opposite that they don't want a youth employment scheme? Is that what they're saying? Is that what this lot are actually still saying? They don't want incentives to employ young Australians? Is this what I'm getting from those opposite—that they actually think there's not a problem there to worry about? Is that their contention—that somehow, for young Australians, well, it's fine? The statistics, the data, the evidence, might all show that young Australians' employment situation is more vulnerable, but apparently they don't care. Apparently those opposite don't care. Well, guess what? We do care and we've done something about it and we're working to implement that program and we want to make sure that we help young Australians to get the same— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gallacher, a final supplementary question? 14:30 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia We look forward to the evidence being forthcoming to the chamber. Can the minister guarantee that no worker has lost or will lose their job as a result of the government's JobMaker hiring credit scheme? 14:30 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I'm assuming the prompting of these questions relates to some media reporting that I've seen today about FOIs that were released by the Treasury. I think it's important, given some of the selective quoting of those FOIs, to make clear that they also say very clearly— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Birmingham. Senator Wong on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU On direct relevance, Mr President. It can't be directly relevant to refer to quotes which were not contained in the question. We simply asked the minister to guarantee that no worker has lost or will lose their job. The PRESIDENT I0Q I'm reluctant to make a ruling that quoting from another document can't be relevant to the question. I've allowed you to make the point. I will listen carefully to the minister's answer. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Those FOI documents include the statement from Treasury 'The hiring credit does not create an incentive for an employer to replace an older worker with several new part-time workers.' That's what's implicit in Senator Gallacher's question, and the government rejects that. We built this program with clear additionality criteria in place—in fact, with a double-barrelled additionality test there: firstly, that the business would have to be increasing the headcount of employees and, secondly, that the payroll for the business would also have to increase. Those two criteria are there to make sure that indeed a business has to be taking on new, additional employees, growing the payroll, and, under this program, young employees, to give young Australians an opportunity. Australia Post 41 14:32 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister in the Senate, Senator Birmingham. Christine Holgate led Australia Post to record revenue levels in a period of immense challenge and has previously been praised by the Prime Minister and the Australia Post board. Given that stakeholder ministers were briefed in late November by Ms Holgate and in December and January at meetings with members of the Licensed Post Offices Group that the Chair of Australia Post made several incorrect statements when attending Senate estimates on 9 November—in particular, with reference to Ms Holgate—why, more than three months since the Prime Minister was first made aware that the chair, Lucio Di Bartolomeo, had lied to and misled Senate estimates in evidence regarding Ms Holgate and after she was completely exonerated by Australia Post's independent inquiry, has he not taken action to hold the chair accountable? 14:33 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Hanson for the question, although I don't accept all of the characterisations made in Senator Hanson's question, particularly those in relation to Mr Di Bartolomeo. Obviously his statements to parliamentary committees are on the record and they are there for scrutiny. In relation to Ms Holgate, let me say that I have a very high regard for Ms Holgate, with whom I worked particularly in my previous portfolio, of Trade. I recognise the work that she did whilst at Australia Post. Ms Holgate took the step to resign from her position following some of the evidence that came out in the last lot of Senate estimates hearings. There has been a subsequent review in that regard. That review did making findings in relation to the purchase of Cartier watches and the actions that've been undertaken by Australia Post. Of course, it was Ms Holgate's decision that she resign at the time—I do wish her well. In response to that review I, as finance minister, have taken steps across all government business enterprises to remind them of their responsibilities under the PGPA Act, particularly the responsibilities to ensure appropriate use of taxpayers' money, which, ultimately, was the matter of concern in relation to the purchase of those Cartier watches. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Hanson, a supplementary question? 14:35 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Yes. Minister, I am advised that the stood-down CEO of Australia Post has not signed an agreement to resign and her standing down was not in accordance with Australia Post policy. Why is the Prime Minister protecting the chair of Australia Post, or is this a case of the Prime Minister not being advised of a matter impacting the treatment of a high-profile female? 14:35 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia No, I don't accept the characterisation there, Senator Hanson. The statement released by Ms Holgate following Senate estimates clearly indicated her public announcement of her resignation. That was a decision made by Ms Holgate. As I said, I hold her in high regard. We are all capable of making mistakes and errors of judgement in relation to certain matters. And, of course, in relation to these matters the government has sought to make sure not only that there was an appropriate review which was undertaken but also, now, that all government business enterprises are reminded of their responsibilities and obligations. As a result of that review Australia Post will take further steps in relation to their procedures and practices to make sure that taxpayers' money and funds are respected appropriately in the future. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Hanson, a final supplementary question? 14:36 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Ms Holgate did not resign and she did not release a statement. She continues to receive resounding support from the employees and contractors at Australia Post. Will the Prime Minister apologise to Ms Holgate? Will the Prime Minister, who so quickly abandoned her, support Ms Holgate's continuation as CEO? What action will be taken against the chair of Australia Post? 14:37 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia We will continue to work with the board of Australia Post to make sure that the organisation implements the findings of the review that was undertaken. As I said, I don't accept the characterisation of some of the elements that Senator Hanson has brought forward. I wish Ms Holgate well in relation to her future endeavours. We will continue to work with licensed post office franchisees, postal representatives and others across the Australia Post system to make sure that some of the good work that occurred under Ms Holgate's tenure continues and is advanced by the new chief executive, the recruitment process of whom is well underway. COVID-19: Vaccination 42 14:37 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Cash. With the COVID-19 vaccine rollout now underway, could the minister please update the Senate on how the Morrison government is supporting Australia's multicultural communities to access the COVID-19 vaccine? 14:38 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Hughes for her question. Australia's COVID-19 vaccination program is officially underway. What we saw yesterday, 21 February 2021, was 84-year-old World War II survivor Jane Malysiak, who was able to get the first jab. I think it was a proud moment for all Australians. Ensuring that safe and effective COVID vaccines are available to everyone in Australia is a key priority of the Morrison government, and that is why, as a government, we are extending free access to COVID-19 vaccines to all visas holders in Australia. This will include refugees, asylum seekers, temporary protection visa holders and those on bridging visas. We also know that many people in the first groups to be vaccinated are from culturally and linguistically diverse communities, making timely access to translated and culturally appropriate information critical. The Department of Health vaccine hub has translations in 63 languages available on its website and, now, on mobile devices. To build on this resource the government has developed a comprehensive communications plan to reach people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. The campaign will run across a number of channels, including traditional and social media, and utilise existing networks of health professionals, local community and, of course, grassroots organisations. A range of translated resources have also been developed for multicultural communities, including radio and print editorials in language web content, social media posts and posters. We're also working with SBS to produce short explainer videos on the vaccine rollout in more than 60 languages and with the Migration Council Australia on an animated vaccine explainer in 29 languages. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Hughes, a supplementary question? 14:40 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales How do these supports for our multicultural communities complement our broader vaccine rollout strategy? 14:40 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia As you have heard from both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health, our vaccine rollout ensures that people who are most at risk and who need protection the most will receive a vaccine first. The Pfizer vaccine will be administered through hospital vaccination clinics in each state and territory and in aged-care and disability-care facilities across Australia. Approximately 80,000 doses of the Pfizer vaccine will be released in the first week. Under the Australian government's plan, quarantine and border workers and aged-care residents are on track to be vaccinated by April 2021. In addition to our support for multicultural communities, our public information campaign will keep Australians up to date about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccinations, including how and when to get the vaccine. Our key message to Australians is that it is safe, it is effective and it will protect you and your loved ones. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Hughes, a final supplementary question? 14:41 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales How will our COVID-19 vaccination rollout support Australia's economic recovery? 14:41 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The COVID-19 vaccination national rollout is a crucial next step in our economic recovery. For our most affected businesses, particularly in the tourism sector and the arts and events industries, the vaccine will be particularly welcomed. We are already emerging from the COVID-19 recession in a way that very few advanced economies are. We've seen over 800,000 jobs, and that's approximately 93 per cent of those lost during COVID-19, return to the economy. We are continuing to see consumer confidence, business confidence and job ads grow to levels higher than before the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the impacts of COVID-19, an additional 46,000 businesses were trading over the year to June 2020. Around $200 billion in our economic support is sitting on the balance sheet of families and businesses, providing a long tail of economic stimulus to support our recovery. Members of Parliament: Staff 43 14:42 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Reynolds. At any time did the minister disclose to the Prime Minister that her former staff member Ms Higgins had made allegations she was raped in the minister's office? If not, why not? 14:43 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia In short, no, I didn't. The reason for that, as I have consistently said here in this chamber, that it was not my story to tell. It never was. I, at all times, took my lead from Brittany Higgins, in terms of what support she needed and who was to know about this and who was not. The advice is always, whether it's from 1800RESPECT or whether it's from others, that you always take the lead of the individual, and that is what I did. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McCarthy, a supplementary question? 14:43 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory At any time, did the minister disclose to any of the Prime Minister's staff that her former staff member Ms Higgins had made allegations that she was raped in the minister's office. If not, why not? 14:43 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I will refer back to my previous answer. At all times I took my counsel from Brittany Higgins, in terms of making sure she had the right support— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU On direct relevance: the question, before we get to the justification, was whether or not the minister had disclosed the fact of the alleged rape to any of the Prime Minister's staff. I would ask the minister to return to that question. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, you have restated the first part of the question. I believe the minister was being directly relevant with the answer, and she has concluded her answer. Senator McCarthy, a final supplementary question? 14:44 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory At any time did the minister disclose to any other minister that her former staff member Ms Higgins had made allegations that she was raped in the minister's office? If yes, which ministers and when? 14:44 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I took my counsel at all times from the advice that I received. It was about Ms Higgins's choice— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU Direct relevance. Yes, it is about Ms Higgins and she has made her views very clear. We are asking you questions about your conduct, Minister. The question I'm asking you to return to—through you, Mr President—is whether or not you disclosed the allegation of rape to any other ministers and, if so, when? The PRESIDENT I0Q I believe the minister is being directly relevant. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q I can't instruct a minister how to answer a question. I believe, if the minister is explaining the reasons for a course of action that was raised in the question, that is being directly relevant to the question. That is an opportunity after question time to debate it. Senator Reynolds. Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Senator McCarthy, in her question, is assuming the nature of a private conversation that I had with Ms Higgins. I have consistently said that it is not my story to tell, it is hers. Any conversations we had were never mine to reveal, and they are still not mine to reveal. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU Direct relevance. We are not asking about private conversations with Ms Higgins. We are asking whether this minister disclosed those allegations to other ministers and, if so, when. This minister is accountable to this chamber for her conduct. The PRESIDENT I0Q I am interpreting the minister's answers as giving reasons for the course of action she took or didn't take, so I don't want to rule that as not directly relevant. Senator Reynolds. Senator REYNOLDS 250216 I say again that in the question I was just asked, that last supplementary, it makes assumptions about what may or may not have been said in that conversation. I am not going to say anything that breaches the confidence of that conversation. You are assuming things about— (Time expired) Manufacturing 44 14:47 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, Senator Seselja. The Morrison government has committed $1.5 billion to the Modern Manufacturing Strategy to assist Australian manufacturers across six national priority areas to scale up, improve competitiveness and build more resilient supply chains. Can the minister please update the Senate on the delivery of the strategy? 14:47 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator McLachlan for a very good question. The government launched its $1.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy as part of the 2020-21 budget. It is a key feature of our JobMaker Plan designed to harness Australia's manufacturing capability, drive our economic recovery and ensure future resilience. It's all about jobs and using the best Australian science and technology to scale up our manufacturing businesses for the long term. Delivery of the strategy is on track and it is well advanced. In fact, on Friday the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology visited a great local business, Skykraft, to launch the $1.3 billion Modern Manufacturing Initiative and the first of our detailed industry road maps which have been developed by government in partnership with industry and will inform our grant delivery. The first sector to be rolled out is the space sector, and our other five priority sectors will be launched in the coming weeks. Businesses in the space sector can now apply for grants in two of the three streams of the initiative. These two streams are designed to help businesses translate their great ideas into commercial outcomes and to support projects that integrate Australian businesses into global supply chains. For these two streams, the translation and integration streams, the Commonwealth will cover up to 50 per cent of the project costs. This initiative is all about scaling up manufacturing to grow jobs, so the minimum grant will be $1 million. This is matched funding because we believe industry has to have skin in the game. I'm also pleased to advise that the Manufacturing Modernisation Fund, our stream to help SMEs improve their production, is also well underway, with grants of between $100,000 and $1 million available. More than 500 applications had been received when the round closed last month. They are currently being assessed and we expect the successful applicants will start to receive their funding this financial year. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McLachlan, a supplementary question? 14:49 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia Given space is the first of these sector priority areas to be opened for funding, can the minister outline the opportunities for businesses in the space sector? 14:50 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory Yes, I can. Space not only captures the public imagination and opens up new worlds; investment in space technology has practical benefits for our everyday lives, from technology that helps emergency workers plan for bushfires and helps farmers manage their crops to advances in automation, robotics, engineering and satellite technology. The Space National Manufacturing Priority road map identifies key areas of opportunity for government and industry to work together to lift space manufacturing capability, drive collaboration by helping Australian businesses demonstrate their space qualified products and facilitate access to domestic and global supply chains. This will help Australian businesses compete for a slice of the growing global space industry, and there are benefits right down the line for businesses. For example, Canberra business Skykraft are building small satellite constellations to help improve our communications, travel and banking. They've teamed up with local Canberra manufacturer XTEK to produce the carbon fibre— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McLachlan, a final supplementary question? 14:51 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia Can the minister more broadly outline how Australia is engaging with the international community to enhance opportunities in the space sector? 14:51 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory Yes, I can. The global space sector is currently worth over $350 billion. Our goal is to make sure our Australian businesses can get access to that market. That's why the Liberal-National government established the Australian Space Agency, and we've now entered into a number of formal agreements with international space agencies, including those in the UK, the UAE, the EU, the US, Japan and India, and others. Australia is one of the seven founding international partners who have signed the Artemis Accords. This is a practical set of principles for cooperation among nations participating in NASA's 21st century lunar exploration. Our government is ensuring our local industry has the opportunity to benefit from the Artemis mission, with our Moon to Mars initiative, which provides grants to businesses to help them become part of the supply chain for the mission. It's an exciting era for the Australian space industry, and this government is backing it all the way. Members of Parliament: Staff 45 14:52 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. I refer to reports that at least four women have come forward with allegations of alleged sexual assault, harassment and rape by the same former staff member. One former Liberal staffer who alleges she was raped has said, 'If this had been properly dealt with by the government in 2019, this would not have happened to me.' Did any member of the ministry or their staff have knowledge of this alleged sexual assault prior to the public report? 14:53 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Mr President, I don't believe there is a case to believe as Senator Sheldon has suggested there. I will come back to the chamber if there is anything to the contrary in that regard. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Sheldon, a supplementary question? 14:53 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales The third woman, who was a volunteer for the coalition in the 2016 election campaign, says she was barely out of school when she was allegedly sexually assaulted by the former staff member, who was working in a minister's office at the time. Did any member of the ministry or their staff have knowledge of this alleged sexual assault prior to this public report? 14:53 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Again, not to my knowledge, and I have no reason to believe that would be the case. If there is anything that changes that, I will let you know, Senator Sheldon. Obviously, all of these allegations are incredibly traumatic and distressing, and underpin the crucial work that needs to be undertaken to give all women, all people, confidence in relation to the processes and procedures that are there to enable and to support them to report such instances, such that perpetrators and offenders can be brought to justice. As I've said in this chamber already, the government will give full cooperation to the AFP as they work with Ms Higgins, as she has publicly indicated, as I would expect us to do in any and all circumstances of such terrible matters. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Sheldon, a final supplementary question? 14:55 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Another survivor of alleged sexual assault, Chelsey Potter, has today spoken of the minister's refusal to speak with her. Can the minister explain his response to this request? 14:55 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I can. Ms Potter's story was well publicised in The Sydney Morning Herald in July 2019, I think. I first became aware of Chelsey's claims after my office was approached by journalists from The Sydney Morning Herald shortly before publication. In between being contacted by the journalist and publication, Chelsey sent me a text message to ask if I would like to catch up for a beer with her. I was unable to at the time, but I replied, indicating that I was aware of the conversation she was having with the media, encouraging her to seek independent and professional assistance. I suggested organisations such as 1800RESPECT or the South Australian Women's Information Service as appropriate avenues. In relation to Chelsey and, indeed, others, I've indicated that, through the process this parliament I hope will undertake, we can, I hope, engage with them such that they can feel that that process helps to address the matters of concern they rightly have from their past experiences and that we can all have an improved understanding of how to prevent these issues and better respond to them in the future. Employment: People with Disability 46 14:56 Senator SMALL 291406 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Ruston. This is something that's close to my heart and close to the hearts of those on the government benches. How is the Morrison government assisting Australians with disabilities to enter and remain in the Australian workforce? 14:56 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I thank Senator Small for his question and acknowledge his commitment, along with the commitment of this government, to breaking down barriers for Australians with disability who find themselves unemployed. As we emerge from the impacts of the COVID pandemic, it is really important that we focus on jobs for everybody, but particularly to make sure that people with disability get the same opportunities as everybody else to make sure that they can make their contribution to the economic security and wellbeing of our country. We know that a job is a real game changer for anybody, and that shouldn't be any different for somebody who lives with disability. That's why we are in the process of developing the National Disability Employment Strategy. I'm really delighted to say—and it's probably very topical this week—that I have appointed the 2016 Australian Paralympian of the Year, Dylan Alcott, in conjunction with the Monash University Chancellor, Simon McKeon, as joint chairs of the new Disability Employment Advisory Committee. I say 'timely' because, last week, a very inspirational Australian, in Dylan Alcott, won his seventh consecutive Australian Open wheelchair title, which is just fantastic and a great inspiration for young Australians who live with disability to show them the amazing things that you can do. I congratulate Dylan on his amazing achievement. Together, with Professor McKeon, they are providing absolutely essential advice about ways to positively drive change to assist Australians to gain and maintain employment to the level of their ability. These two gentlemen are supported by a number of other people who live with disability to make sure that our Disability Employment Strategy is informed by people with disability. We want to invest heavily in breaking down the barriers, because we know that people with disability can make some of the most outstanding employees, and that's the message we want to get out to employers so that they employ them. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Ruston. Senator Small, a supplementary question? 14:59 Senator SMALL 291406 Western Australia Minister, can you outline the key priorities of the National Disability Strategy? 14:59 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia First and foremost, the most important thing that we need to do in the development of the National Disability Strategy is to make sure that we get the states, territories, local governments, the community, businesses and everybody in our society to come on the journey with us. It will only be through consultation with everybody, but very much through consultation with people with disability, that we will be able to bring this new strategy into effect later this year. Most particularly, the National Disability Strategy will have a very, very strong focus on employment, and particularly on financial security, education, health and making sure that we change community attitudes so that people with disability will be able to take on opportunities for employment and incorporate the key elements of the broader Disability Employment Strategy. We want employers to understand the advantages of employing people with disability, and that means that we must make sure our recruitment processes are appropriately targeted. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Ruston. Senator Small, a final supplementary question? 15:00 Senator SMALL 291406 Western Australia In recognising work as not only an economic but a wellbeing construct, how is the government supporting young Australians experiencing mental illness into work? 15:00 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I thank Senator Small, because this is a very, very important issue. One of the things that were recently announced in the budget was an additional $45 million to more than double the number of headspace sites around Australia that have got the Individual Placement and Support Program. This program, which now will be rolled out over 50 sites across Australia, is a very targeted program to make sure that we provide clinical mental health support to young Australians but, at the same time, use that support to be able to help them on a pathway or a trajectory to secure employment. We know that the onset of mental illness often occurs in young people; however, we know that we can significantly assist these people and help them with their issues by assisting them in the transition to work. Under the IPS Program, we want to make sure that people can have access to things like job coaching, targeted education and employment opportunities. (Time expired) Members of Parliament: Staff 47 15:01 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I have a question this afternoon for Senator Reynolds, the Minister for Defence. Reports indicate the minister's then chief of staff sought advice from the Department of Finance about the handling of an alleged sexual assault. When did the minister first become aware her chief of staff was seeking that advice? 15:02 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia As I said in my statement last week, I became incrementally aware, over a period of days, of Brittany's story, with private conversations with her and my then chief of staff and also via reports from parliamentary authorities. When I met with Brittany on Monday, we made sure that she had the appropriate support and she also had access to the Australian Federal Police, which she did. Beyond that I'm certainly not going to go into any more detail about those private conversations. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Pratt, a supplementary question? 15:02 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia When did you, as minister, first see that advice, and what action did you take? 15:02 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I could not have been any clearer in answering this. There was a course of conversations, as I said last week, and incrementally as those conversations—the privacy of which I have maintained and I still maintain; I will not breach the privacy of those conversations— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU This minister is accountable to the Australian people through this chamber. We are not asking her questions about what discussions occurred with Ms Higgins, although Ms Higgins's statements can speak for themselves. It is a very straightforward question: when did you first see the advice and what action did you take? Mr President, I would ask you to ask the minister to come back to the question. Otherwise, really, one wonders about the purpose of question time if ministers are allowed to obfuscate and duck in this way. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, I've allowed you to restate the question. My view on this matter is: if the minister is explaining the reasoning behind a course of action taken— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q There's an opportunity after question time for debate. Senator Pratt, on the point of order? Senator Pratt I0T We can ask questions of fact and we are asking, in this case, for a date. When did the minister first see that advice and what action was taken? We are able to ask direct questions. I've been through many of these iterations in estimates, where we're told we can ask for facts and dates without revealing what the advice was. We are not asking for the advice; we are asking for a date. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Pratt, please. My view on this matter is that if the minister is explaining a course of action that she took then it's not up to me. If that is directly relevant to the question being asked—and I am listening carefully; I've allowed opposition senators to restate the question—there's an opportunity to debate the content of answer. But I'm not in a position to direct— An honourable senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q I will listen carefully to Senator Reynolds. Senator REYNOLDS 250216 I have said many times now in this chamber that I became aware of this incrementally in terms of the circumstances. On the Monday when I met with Ms Higgins— Senator Watt 245759 My point of order is on relevance. We're not asking about the chain of events; we're asking a very specific question around when this minister became aware of this piece of advice. The PRESIDENT I0Q On the point of order, we only got about eight seconds into the minister's answer. If the minister is explaining a course of action, I'm going to decree that to be directly relevant. I do take the point it was a very narrow question, so the course of action needs to be explained in the context of being directly relevant to the point asked. Opposition senators have had the opportunity to restate the question. But I can't instruct the minister how to answer, nor the content of an answer to, a question. Senator Wong, I've allowed opposition senators to do so and I've just advised that a course of action can be explained and it needs to be directly relevant. The question was quite specific. I'll call Senator Reynolds to continue. I am listening very carefully. Senator REYNOLDS 250216 I have no more to answer on this because I have covered this at great length. The fact is those opposite in their questions, by the nature of their questions, are asking questions that go to the heart of the private conversations that I had. At the time, I respected her privacy. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Pratt, a final supplementary question? 15:07 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Ms Higgins has said that when police involvement was raised at the meeting with the minister and her chief of staff on 1 April 2019 she was told, 'We need to know now.' Why was this said? 15:07 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Again, this is Brittany Higgins's story to tell publicly. Respecting her privacy, respecting the process that she is going through, it is simply not my position, respecting her agency and privacy, to say anything more on the matter. Senator Wong 00AOU My point of order is direct relevance. The minister should not hide behind Ms Higgins's courage. These are Ms Higgins's words and her account of what occurred. The chamber is asking this minister to explain why those words were said. The PRESIDENT I0Q I believe in this case, Senator Wong, it is particularly clear that the minister is explaining the reasoning for the answer she is giving, so I'm not in a position to instruct her to answer it differently. There is the opportunity immediately following question time to debate these matters. Senator REYNOLDS 250216 I had finished my answer. Senator Birmingham H6X Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 48 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS JobKeeper Payment 48 15:09 Senator STERLE ( e68 Western Australia ) ( ): I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Birmingham) to questions without notice asked by Senators Gallagher and Gallacher today relating to the JobKeeper and JobMaker Hiring Credit schemes. I know this sounds like an oxymoron because there were no answers to the questions. Here we go, another day, another announcement from this mob over here. Come the end of March what we do know is that some 3½ million jobs that are currently being supported by JobKeeper are going to end. We also know there was a $4 billion announcement from this mob over here, saying they are going to create opportunities for employers to get some money to create opportunities for young people. Their figure was 450,000 jobs. So when senators Gallagher and Gallacher asked Minister Birmingham how many jobs would be lost, typically, we got nothing. We shouldn't sound surprised. As someone who experienced youth unemployment in my home town of Fremantle back in the 90s, there was nothing worse than seeing 21 per cent or 22 per cent, whatever it was, youth unemployment in Freo, let alone the youth unemployment that is going to come now. What we do know is that for the majority of these jobs in hospitality, retail and such, the good chances are there will be a lot of young people who will be unemployed. But the problem I have with this announcement of JobMaker—everything has a 'job' in front of it—is it is so smoky, it is so murky and it is so lacking in detail. Senator Birmingham is always half too cute. Senator Birmingham thinks that the best way he can deflect and not have to answer a question is to scream into the microphone at decibels that normally pierce all our ears. He thinks he has got away with it. Well, Senator Birmingham, you are in for a rude shock. You didn't get away with it because one of your failings is you get a little bit too clever. You said you could almost work out what the supplementaries would be. Senator Birmingham also said something about a report in the media. Well, the report in the media that you would be referring to, the only one I have seen so far, actually related to a freedom-of-information request by the ABC. It was a freedom-of-information request, Senator Birmingham—while you are trying to deflect with your loud voice and not answering questions—of Treasury documents. Quite simply, this was from Treasury, not from The Guardian, The Betoota Advocate or the right-wing media you guys read. These documents show very clearly that through the Treasury's own examples obtained by the ABC freedom-of-information process, bosses could sack a full-time employee on $75,000 and replace him or her with three part-time staff on wages of between $22,000 and $30,000 while remaining in front financially, thanks to the generous JobMaker Hiring Credit. It is pretty simple. Opposition senators didn't make it up; that is Treasury—you know that mob down the road down here. My other fear is getting rid of older workers. It is a well-known fact. You would think if this mob over there had any decency they would be trying to work out how to do this properly, how to do it sincerely and how to look after all workers. What about rural workers? You hear the peanut gallery over here, the doormats, who are carrying on all the time. I miss 'Bossie'. What happened to the last of the real Nats—'Bossie', Senator Barry O'Sullivan and Senator 'Wacka' Williams—the real decent representatives of the regions? The rest of you should be ashamed. I would bring them back tomorrow. They have forgotten more than this mob will ever know about representing regions. What about all these jobs in the regions? We heard those opposite banging on a couple of weeks ago. Where are they now? The silence is deafening. There is the laugh when you see the blue sign that looks like the green and yellow sign. What do you call yourselves? Regional Liberals. I forgot Senator Heffernan; he would not have put up with this nonsense. They were the good old representatives of the conservative side of politics for regional jobs, not this lot over here—absolutely shameful. Some of you are alright; I take it back. Here we go again. It just makes sense that, not all but some, employers would do this. How lip-smackingly exciting would it be to have the opportunity for some unscrupulous employers to get rid of older employees, casualise their full-time jobs or put them on part-time? Here we go again, insecure work taking away full-time jobs for permanent jobs. Seriously, where is your moral compass? If you are going to do something, do it properly. What are the unintended consequences—not smarty alec answers at decibels that pierce people's ears, that don't answer anything? (Time expired) 15:14 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Senator Sterle, I'm not even sure what that was about. That was just extraordinary. It was all over the place. Being able to rehash all of those old white men who used to be the stalwarts of the Senate, I hope you welcome the diversity that we now see. And I am so pleased to be part of this place when we now have over 50 per cent women. It certainly gives a different flavour to the place. It's always great to get the views of a range of Australians. I guess that's why, when we look at a range of Australians, we look at how we can best support all Australians. We've just experienced the COVID-19 pandemic, and as we start the vaccine rollout and look to the future and look at how we can get all Australians back to work and our economy back to where it was, to pre-COVID-19 levels—that travel resumes, international borders open up and we start to see life resume to normal—it has been this government that has continually put in place targeted programs to ensure all Australians get the best opportunity but also that the taxpayers' dollars are going where they should go. It's not this carte blanche Prime Minister Rudd special, where they were sending cheques to dead people, where schools were getting wonderful halls that were over inflated in price, where we saw deaths, literally, occur due to the speedy rollout of ineffective programs. The Morrison government has put in place targeted, sensible, economic programs that have ensured most Australians can be supported through this terrible time and we can acknowledge that, since the pandemic started, over 93 per cent of jobs that were lost or hours that went to zero have been returned. We're now seeing women's participation at almost the same level that was record high pre-COVID. But we do recognise that there are certain cohorts that will need more support than others. We're seeing older Australians being employed at a higher rate than ever before, but we're seeing at the younger end of the workforce market that there is a high rate of unemployment, that those jobs are slower to come onboard. That's why the Morrison government has been so focused on programs to support apprentices, to make sure that businesses can keep their apprentices on. We've done that through programs such as HomeBuilder, where, in one of the areas that I have the privilege of looking after in the Hunter, builders and construction workers cannot keep up with demand. It's not only those small businesses in the area, it's all those supplementary businesses—the businesses that supply the tiles and the faucets and the grout. Those businesses are struggling to keep up with demand, and it's because of that program and those initiatives that we're seeing apprentices being kept onboard and younger people in the workforce. We've also looked towards the JobMaker Hiring Credit. This is because we know from experience—and perhaps if those opposite were big enough to look back and make sensible decisions and have sensible discussions, they'd remember—that in the previous recession it was the younger part of the workforce that was impacted for the longest period of time. So in an effort to ensure that we don't see long-term unemployment occurring in our younger part of the workforce, that we're not entrenching disadvantage and unemployment for those under 34, the JobMaker Hiring Credit is a program where employers are bringing new people in the business, not seeing people just being supplemented and subsidised, that jobs are being created. This is to ensure that those members, under 34, of our workforce are given an opportunity to get back to work as quickly as possible and that we don't entrench long-term unemployment, that we don't entrench disadvantage and that we don't lose a generation to the workforce. Economic recovery is underway, and I have absolute faith that the Morrison government will continue to roll out programs that are focused, that are targeted, that ensure that most Australians are set to benefit and the best bang for the buck of taxpayers' dollars is what's allowed to occur. We know that those opposite voted against JobMaker. They won't answer the question of why they don't support young workers. But this government, with this Prime Minister, will ensure all Australians, including our young workforce, are supported as much as possible. 15:19 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria Today the Leader of the Government in the Senate was asked a very simple question: when JobKeeper ends at the end of March, how many people will lose their jobs? It was a straightforward question—direct, simple—but, of course, there were no direct or simple answers to that question. In fact, what we received today was a proposition from the government that simply said they had to make choices, priorities had to be set, because there was a limit on the amount of money that the government had available. They said there was no bottomless pit of taxpayers' money available, that it was borrowed money and—as Senator Hughes, I think, rightfully pointed out—not all people in this country have been treated equally, because not all people in this country have been able to deal with the economic crisis in equal measure. I found that an interesting proposition, given that the JobKeeper program had promised so much but delivered so little, particularly when we consider the number of companies that have accepted public money and, I would suggest, in so doing have a moral obligation to use that money properly. When it comes to the question of priorities, there would be a great deal more money available if the government had provided much sharper attention to the issue of where that money was actually being spent, including on companies such as Premier Investments, the firm controlled by one of Australia's richest men, which shut down many of its stores as the pandemic took hold. They included outlets such as Just Jeans, Dotti, Portmans and Smiggle. The company received $40 million in JobKeeper. They earned bigger profits in 2020 than they did in 2019. Their shareholders received some $57 million in dividends, and some $20 million went to Mr Lew. CEO Mark McInnes received $2.5 million. The revival of the company's fortunes is of course a good thing it will be argued. But did Premier Investments repay any of the JobKeeper money? The answer is no. The Business Council says that companies receiving JobKeeper funds should not pay executive bonuses. Some firms acted ethically. Toyota and Super Retail Group, for example, repaid $18 million and $1.7 million respectively. They had no legal obligation to do so. There was no request from the government to do so, no concern about the moral obligation they had to do so, no sense of political or moral priority. Yet the government talks about not having enough money to deal with those people in this country who have been suffering, and continue to suffer, as a result of the pandemic and as a result of the continuing economic crisis. There's no way that this government is the slightest bit interested in Premier Investments! JobKeeper assistance was provided by the millions and was paid in dividends to those shareholders who increased their profits. Of course, we have the situation of Mr James Packer's Crown casino. Today I read an article in the press—and the minister talked about press articles today—where the universities were contrasted, by Ross Garnaut, with the operations of our casinos. Mr Ross Garnaut points out: 'Few would doubt their'—universities'—'superiority over casinos in terms of their national contribution.' He said Crown employed 15,000 people and universities employed 130,000 people directly and hundreds of thousands more indirectly. Who of course got the money? Crown. Was assistance open to the universities of this country? No, not unless they were private universities. Four private universities—Notre Dame, Bond, Torrens and the University of Divinity—got money, but not the public universities of this country. What does this tell us about the government's priorities? It tells us an enormous amount when a government that talks about not having enough money to help people who are suffering, people who have been facing an acute economic crisis and continue to do so—particularly when the government withdraws support from those Australians at the end of March—has the resources to do so but is choosing to spend that money on its mates, on those political priorities aimed at helping those that don't— (Time expired) 15:24 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Firstly, I would like to acknowledge Senator Sterle's kind comments with respect to two of my predecessors from the state of Queensland, namely the great senator Ron Boswell and senator Barry O'Sullivan. I absolutely agree with Senator Sterle's reflections on those two gentlemen—that they were absolutely fearless and resolute defenders of regional Australia, and whilst they were in this place they did all they could reasonably do to promote the health of the regions. I was actually thinking of former senator Ron Boswell on the Friday before last, when I was celebrating the Lunar New Year with the great Vietnamese community in Queensland at the Tet Festival. Former senator Ron Boswell had an extremely affectionate relationship with the Vietnamese community in Queensland, and I am certainly doing my best to continue that great tradition. Senator Sterle made some comments in relation to the JobMaker hiring credit. He ran the example—and it has been run a few times—that there are all these employers out there looking to sack employees who are perhaps earning $75,000 a year and replace them with three junior employees, using the JobMaker hiring credit. I will say this to Senator Sterle: first, certainly from my experience in the private sector, if an employer has a valued employee, the last thing they want to do is to lose that employee. That is really the best check and balance of all—the fact that employers are seeking quality employees. The second point I would make to Senator Sterle is that there are a number of checks and balances in the system to ensure that employers can't rort the system, and that includes checks and balances which the ATO will run with respect to companies' aggregate payrolls to ensure that those new employees the employer is claiming the JobMaker hiring credit for are additional employees. They are not replacement employees—they are not employees replacing long-term senior employees; they are additional employees. The third point I would make with respect to Senator Sterle's commentary on the JobMaker hiring credit is that all the usual employee protections continue to apply, and that includes Australia's very tight unfair dismissal laws. So let's see what happens. I'm actually extremely positive about the JobMaker hiring credit. I graduated from university in 1992 into the recession we had to have— Senator Dean Smith interjecting— Senator SCARR 282997 And Senator Smith said, 'Me too.' I'm happy to be in that corner with you, Senator Smith. It was extremely difficult for people my age to obtain jobs at that point in time. I certainly had friends who struggled for a number of years to enter into the employment sphere. So I think the JobMaker hiring credit is an extremely positive program. It will cost up to $4 billion, and Treasury has estimated that it will generate up to 450,000 jobs. If employers do the wrong thing, I certainly support the notion that the Australian Taxation Office and the regulators should hold them to account. I think the Australian people expect nothing less. I will deal with Senator Kim Carr's contribution to this debate next. When Senator Carr speaks, I always listen to him very carefully. I serve with him on a number of committees and I have great regard for his views on a range of subjects. With respect to Senator Carr's reflections on companies that received the JobKeeper payment and then announced great profits, I will put it this way: I have a great deal of respect for those companies that received the JobKeeper payment and then, after considering their circumstances over 12 months, decided to repay amounts to the Commonwealth government. I think that was the entirely appropriate thing to do. I applaud those companies. I think they have earned their social licence in our civic community. I think all companies in that situation should carefully reflect upon what the right thing to do is. Does any of that reflect on the success of the JobKeeper program? Absolutely not. It has been an outstanding success. That should be acknowledged from representatives on all sides of this chamber. It's a great thing that over 728,500 employees in Queensland received payments. (Time expired) 15:29 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria For many Australians, last year, 2020, was the most challenging year in living memory. Tens of thousands lost livelihoods and for the first time found themselves in receipt of government assistance. And, boy, do we remember the phones running hot in my office, as, no doubt, they did in offices around the country. Thousands required assistance, not just from JobKeeper but from other government support, simply so they could make ends meet at their homes, so they could pay the bills, pay the mortgage. A lot were reduced to tears, and many people experienced what it means to be on government welfare. Whilst, for some, the beginning of 2021 has seen a relatively normal start to the year in some ways, it is folly to think that these circumstances apply to all. For many Australians, JobKeeper continues to provide a much-needed lifeline, keeping them connected to their workplaces and the bills at bay. I'm deeply concerned, listening to other honourable senators in this place, at the attitude that they bring to the debate before us, at the attitude that we heard today in question time regarding the effect that a premature withdrawal of JobKeeper will have on many workers around this country, especially those in industries that are still yet to get back on their feet. I can think of a few—tourism, hospitality, retail—but I want to touch on aviation. Late yesterday one of my staff came to this place, travelling from Melbourne, and he encountered a pilot who is only being given one shift every month. That pilot made it very clear that he and his wife are struggling. They are thankful that, yes, they are receiving JobKeeper but they are still struggling to make ends meet, struggling to pay school fees for their children. When he went to get a cup of coffee, the lady over the counter felt sorry for him and actually offered to give him a discount. These are the real stories of the real people and the real impact that withdrawing JobKeeper will have on many, many households around this nation—working families unable to pay their bills, unable to send their kids to school and probably unlikely to be able to pay for dinner, lunch or even breakfast. But somehow government senators seem to think the economy is just going to get back on track—snap back, as they claim. But we do see state governments around the country imposing lockdowns, and we will continue to see that, because the spread of the coronavirus will continue, especially while people from overseas enter Australia—and for good reason. But we know that the numbers of people who will suffer will be great. The Reserve Bank governor has told us himself. The government's own Treasury secretary has told us that a pause in the labour market will have an impact on the economy. Whilst the government might seek to hide behind nonanswers in this place on questions of job losses after the premature end of JobKeeper, we know that, for many Australians, the answer will be painfully clear at the end of March. Is this the best that those opposite can muster? Is this the best that they can do to support Australians whilst they are doing it tough? This is simply not good enough. Question agreed to. NOTICES 52 NOTICES Presentation 52 NOTICES 55 NOTICES Withdrawal 55 15:35 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Pursuant to notice given on 18 February 2021, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in my name for today 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 11 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. In addition, pursuant to notice given earlier today, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for today proposing the disallowance of Part 3 of the ASIC Corporations, Credit and Superannuation (Internal Dispute Resolution) Instrument 2020/98. BUSINESS 55 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 55 15:36 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senators Askew and O'Sullivan from 22 to 25 February 2021, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 55 15:37 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence by granted to Senator Keneally for today, Monday 22 February 2021, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. NOTICES 55 NOTICES Postponement 55 MOTIONS 55 MOTIONS Energy 55 15:38 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the Energy Security Board stated in January 2021 that the system security of the power grid is at a critical status after the influx of renewable energy into the system, (ii) in February: (A) the River Thames froze for the first time in over 50 years, (B) hundreds of United States cities recorded their coldest temperatures in decades, (C) wind turbines in Texas froze solid, and (D) solar panels in Germany were blanketed in snow, (iii) naturally variable weather events place serious strain on power grids, (iv) relying on weather-dependent power generation to save us from weather events is a recipe for power failure, and (v) reliable baseload power is essential to provide safety and security for Australians; and (b) calls on the Government to urgently commence the construction of reliable, baseload power generation. 15:38 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The coalition government is a strong advocate of reliable generation to complement and balance renewables and help deliver affordable, reliable power for Australian consumers. This is why we committed to Snowy 2.0, which will deliver 2,000 megawatts of fast-start, dispatchable energy and provide 350,000 megawatt hours of large-scale storage. This is also why we will support a new gas fired generator in the Hunter Valley to replace Liddell if the private sector doesn't step up. It will provide the flexible generation we need to secure our electricity grid and put downward pressure on prices. We need more of the firmed generation that technologies like gas and hydro provide that will keep prices low and the lights on. Question agreed to. 15:39 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—Madam Deputy President, I ask that it be recorded that Labor opposed the motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Yes, we will record that Labor opposed notice of motion No. 1017. 15:39 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania by leave—Madam Deputy President, I ask that the opposition of the Greens to the motion also be recorded. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Yes, we will also record that the Australian Greens opposed general business notice of motion No. 1017. Members of Parliament: Staff 56 15:40 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1013 standing in my name by deleting one word. Leave granted. Senator WATERS 192970 I amend the motion in the terms circulated in the chamber and ask that it be taken as formal. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Is there any objection to the motion, as amended, being taken as formal? An honourable senator interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 There is an objection. COMMITTEES 56 COMMITTEES Australia's Family Law System Joint Select Committee 56 Reporting Date 56 15:41 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: (1) That the time for the presentation of the final report of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System be extended to 30 June 2021. (2) That a message be forwarded to the House of Representatives seeking the concurrence of the House in this variation to the resolution of appointment of the committee. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 57 DOCUMENTS Future Submarines 57 Order for the Production of Documents 57 15:42 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of Senator Wong, I move: That— (a) there be laid on the table by the Minister for Defence, by no later than 9.30 am on Wednesday 24 February 2021, documents (including text messages or any other messages or communications transmitted via electronic or like facilities) held by the Minister or the Minister's office relating to messages between the Minister for Defence and the French Minister of the Armed Forces regarding Naval Group's Australian Industry Capability commitment for the Future Submarines; and (b) documents to be produced under paragraph (a) include any documents that "explicitly stated and included agreement to a commitment on the part of Naval Group 'to a level of Australian industry capability that will have the effect of at least 60 per cent of the Naval Group contract value spent in Australia'" as referred to in the answer to question on notice no. 51 from the 4 March 2020 additional estimates hearings for the Department of Defence through the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. 15:42 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Our relationship with the French government is key to our approach to security across the Indo-Pacific and supporting the Future Submarine program. The documents requested in this motion were subject to an FOI request in 2020 regarding Naval Group's Australian industry commitment. Electronic communications were excluded from the lease on the grounds that it would or could reasonably be expected to cause damage to international relations with the Commonwealth. The disclosure of electronic messages requested in this motion would be in contravention of the well-established Senate recognition of public interest immunity concerning prejudice to Australia's international relations. Releasing these messages could harm our relationship with France, inhibit future flow of confidential information and weaken Australia's bargaining position in international engagement and negotiations in the future. Work to amend the strategic partnering agreement to reflect Naval Group's commitment to spend at least 60 per cent of its contract value in Australia is currently being negotiated. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1018 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:48]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

31 AYES Ayres, T Carr, KJ Ciccone, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Kitching, K Lambie, J McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Rice, J Roberts, M Sheldon, A Siewert, R Steele-John, J Sterle, G Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 28 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J McDonald, S McKenzie, B McLachlan, A Paterson, J Rennick, G Reynolds, L Ruston, A Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

MOTIONS 58 MOTIONS Climate Change 58 15:53 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1019 be taken as a formal motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? An honourable senator: Yes. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 There is, sorry, Senator Whish-Wilson. Housing Affordability 58 15:54 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1015 be taken as a formal motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? An honourable senator: Yes. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 There is, sorry, Senator Faruqi. REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 58 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS ASIC Corporations, Credit and Superannuation (Internal Dispute Resolution) Instrument 2020/98 58 Disallowance 58 15:54 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania At the request of Senator Ruston, I move: That today— (a) at 4 pm, the business of the Senate notice of motion proposing the disallowance of Part 3 of the ASIC Corporations, Credit and Superannuation (Internal Dispute Resolution) Instrument 2020/98 be called on and considered; (b) if, by 4.30 pm, consideration of the motion listed in paragraph (a) has not concluded, the question then be put; (c) immediately following determination of the motion listed in paragraph (a), the business of the Senate notice of motion proposing the disallowance of the Veterans' Affairs (Treatment Principles-Rehabilitation in the Home and Other Amendments) Determination 2020 be called on and considered; and (d) if consideration of the motion listed in paragraph (c) has not concluded within 30 minutes of the motion being called on, the question then be put. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 58 COMMITTEES Community Affairs References Committee, Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee 58 Reporting Date 58 MOTIONS 59 MOTIONS Members of Parliament: Staff, Housing Affordability, Climate Change 59 15:55 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I seek leave to move general business notices of motion Nos 1013, 1019 and 1015 together. Leave granted. Senator WATERS 192970 I move general business notices of motion No. 1013, stand anything my name; No. 1015, standing in the name of Senator Faruqi; and No. 1019, standing in the name of Senator Whish-Wilson: GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1013 That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the Prime Minister has appointed the Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to undertake an investigation into the mishandling of Brittany Higgins' rape allegation, and (ii) on current information, the inadequate response to Ms Higgins' allegations has involved two ministers, senior staff from the Prime Minister's office, the presiding officers, and the Department of Parliamentary Services; (b) expresses concern that an investigation undertaken by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet lacks the independence and transparency that should be afforded to such a serious investigation; and (c) calls on the Government to: (i) engage an independent person to undertake a comprehensive, armslength investigation of the mishandling of Brittany Higgins' rape allegations, and recommend ways to strengthen the complaints process available to all parliamentary staff, and (ii) cooperate fully with any such investigation. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1015 That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) Australia's housing market is one of the most unaffordable in the world, (ii) negative gearing and property-related capital gains tax discounts encourage real estate speculation, drive up property prices and increase inequality, and (iii) negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts are skewed towards high income earners and overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Australians; and (b) commits to winding back negative gearing and property-related capital gains tax discounts. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1019 That the Senate— (a) notes that, under the carbon price legislation in place, Australian farmers were poised to be able to sell carbon stored on their land or emissions reduced through changed farming practices into the European Union carbon market, which would earn Australian farmers today a record high $54 a tonne; (b) further notes that, when the carbon price was abolished by the Liberal government and Clive Palmer, this opportunity for new, lucrative income streams was stripped away, leaving Australian farmers less equipped to adapt to a changing climate and global markets; (c) acknowledges that because of the Government's seven year sabotage of any meaningful climate policies, our major trading partners in the EU, UK, USA and Japan are all considering in the middle of this year adopting carbon border adjustment tariffs to prevent countries like Australia from free-riding off the work of other countries—our farmers now face tariffs of around $54 a tonne on their products; and (d) urges the Government to negotiate with the EU so that Australian farmers can sell their abatement into their carbon markets and to apologise to Australian farmers for the financial damage their climate change policies are doing to them. Senator Gallagher ING I am wondering if you would be able to put the questions separately on each of those motions, because we will be voting differently. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Senator Hanson? Senator Hanson BK6 A point of order: you haven't asked if there was formality to this. She asked for leave, not if there was formality to this. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Senator Hanson, there's no need to seek formality, because Senator Waters sought leave. I call the minister. 15:57 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania by leave—I table the government statements relating to motion No. 1013 and 1019. 15:57 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—I table Labor's statement relating to notice of motion No. 1015. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Senator Whish-Wilson? Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 Can I confirm if you allowed the government to make a statement on two of those motions? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 The statements were tabled. They don't need to seek leave. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1013, standing in the name of Senator Waters, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:02]
The Deputy President—Senator Lines

30 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Kitching, K Lambie, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Rice, J Sheldon, A Siewert, R Steele-John, J Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 30 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J McDonald, S McKenzie, B McLachlan, A Paterson, J Rennick, G Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

16:06 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1015 standing in the name of Senator Faruqi be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:06]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

11 AYES Faruqi, M Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Lambie, J McKim, NJ Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Thorpe, LA Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 42 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Ayres, T Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Canavan, MJ Carr, KJ Cash, MC Chandler, C Ciccone, R Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Farrell, D Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Kitching, K McCarthy, M McDonald, S McKenzie, B McLachlan, A O'Neill, D Paterson, J Patrick, RL Polley, H Rennick, G Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Scarr, P Small, B Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Urquhart, AE (teller) Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

16:14 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business of motion No. 1019 standing in the name of Senator Whish-Wilson be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:14]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

28 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Kitching, K McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Polley, H Pratt, LC Rice, J Siewert, R Steele-John, J Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 31 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Lambie, J McDonald, S McKenzie, B McLachlan, A Paterson, J Rennick, G Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question negatived

NOTICES 62 NOTICES Withdrawal 62 16:16 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria by leave—I wish to withdraw notice of motion No. 1 on the Notice Paper for 25 February 2021. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 62 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Job Security 62 16:17 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, 26 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Green: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The Morrison Government's failure to address job security is giving companies that exploit workers an unfair advantage against honest employers. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly. 16:18 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland This is a very important motion for the Senate to be discussing today as we seek to rebuild and recover from the coronavirus pandemic. From an economic point of view, what the coronavirus pandemic has shown us is that insecure work can have a significant impact not only on our economy, not only on our society, but also on our public health. The Morrison government's failure to address job security is giving companies that exploit workers an unfair advantage against honest employees. We know that there are good businesses out there that do the right thing. There are a lot of good businesses that are trying to keep up, but this government's policies have allowed other businesses to exploit workers and undercut good businesses. Not only do the policies of this government hurt workers but they hurt businesses that are doing the right thing. There are many examples of exploitation of workers in our country and a few come to mind. Of course, wage theft is one of the biggest ways that workers are exploit. The wage theft laws we have in Queensland at the moment were introduced by the Palaszczuk Labor government in its last term of government. They were fought for incredibly hard by the union movement, by young workers. The Young Workers Hub in Queensland did a fantastic job of communicating to young people out there why these wage theft laws were necessary, because time and time and time again we saw that the policies from this government were allowing wage theft to occur in businesses all across Queensland. It was particularly rampant with young workers and particularly rampant in places in South East Queensland, where wage theft went unchecked. In my previous employment I worked for the AMWU and we had apprentices who had suffered from wage theft. It's a complicated process to go through to get back that money. But the Queensland Labor government's criminalisation of wage theft means that those workers are now protected and those bad businesses are on notice that they cannot get away with wage theft anymore. The government has introduced a bill that purports to deal with this issue in some sort of way. But, make no mistake about it, the federal government's policies will water down the hard-fought wage theft laws in Queensland, because they're not as strong as the Queensland laws. So when you hear those opposite talk about the fact that they want to introduce laws to criminalise wage theft or do something about wage theft, something they should have done in every other year of their government, be very clear about what these laws will do. If they will water down the hard-fought wage theft laws in Queensland then they're not good enough, and the Senate shouldn't pass them. Those opposite should not try to mislead people in Queensland that their laws are as strong as the ones already in place. The other form of exploitation that we see most often in Queensland is the use of labour hire to undercut workers' pay. This comes back to this idea that good businesses do the right thing; they employ workers directly and they pay them on a permanent basis. But you've got some businesses out there who, under this government's policies, have seen labour hire as a loophole. Dodgy labour hire companies are used as a loophole to reduce the wages and conditions of hardworking Queenslanders. Businesses that do this get away with it because this government has continually not stood up to those businesses. It has become so rampant that now it is a business model in some parts of Queensland to employ your workforce under labour hire arrangements, sometimes as casual workers, sometimes on short-term contracts. But how can good businesses compete when other businesses are using labour hire arrangements to undercut workers' pay and conditions? Well, they simply can't. And this government has let businesses like that get away with it. I often hear comments from the various LNP MPs and senators from Queensland in this place and in the House of Representatives come down here and say one thing but, once they get back to Queensland, it's a totally different story Because they have been under pressure from the labour movement and from the Labor Party over the last seven years to do something about labour hire. We had George Christensen out there in 2018 saying that mining companies need to start shifting away from labour hire as unemployment rates plummet or risk being unable to attract workers. He is happy to say something like that when he's standing up in Central Queensland but not happy to come down here and do anything about it. Senator Canavan, we know, has got a real flair for dressing up as a miner and smudging make-up on his face and pretending he cares about the plight of working people. He has said, 'In my short time in politics I have had to fight against 100 per cent FIFO and the increasing casualisation of the industry.' He hasn't fought very hard, because it is still going on. They can make statements like that up in Central Queensland and North Queensland, but, when it comes to being here, it's the policies they implement that are letting companies get away with this exploitation. Scott Morrison was asked in question time what he thought about these arrangements and whether, if you're working next to someone and doing the same job, you should get the same pay and workplace conditions. But he wasn't really able to answer that question, was he? The first time, he refused to answer the question altogether. The second time, he just said, 'It's complicated.' That's exactly what Christian Porter said last week when he was asked whether gig workers should get the minimum wage: 'It's complicated.' It's too complicated for this government to do the right thing, to step in and protect workers and the good businesses that choose not to exploit them. We know there have been many examples of exploitation in Far North Queensland and Central Queensland. There was the Operations Services debacle, where BHP literally went out and created a new EBA, got a couple of people in Western Australia to sign up to it, even though it was less than the EBA in Central Queensland, and then sought to apply that EBA, which no-one had ever seen, to the thousands of workers in Central Queensland. And this government's policies have let them get away with it. We know there was a Federal Court case that tried to intervene, to make sure that people who were permanent casuals would have protection under the law. What did the government do? They intervened in the court case, not on the side of the workers but on the side of big businesses and the company that was seeking to exploit workers. Labor thinks that if you do the same job you should get the same pay. It's pretty simple. I can come in here and say that but the senators opposite cannot. Labor has a policy to make sure that if you do the same job you get the same pay. At the moment, there are too many workers in Australia subject to unfair labour hire practices. They're treated like second-class citizens, with lower wages, worse conditions and no job security. While there are workers who like the flexibility that labour hire provides, often it's not their choice—not their first choice, anyway. Their first choice would be to have job security, to get a good job, to be able to get a mortgage, to plan holidays with their family, to plan for the financial security of their family. Because of this government's policies, they're not able to do that. Labor in government will legislate to ensure that workers employed through labour hire or other employment arrangements, such as outsourcing, will not receive less pay than workers employed directly. It's a pretty simple idea. Labor's on the side of workers who have been exploited through labour hire under this government's policies. 16:28 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Labor lecturing the government on jobs is like someone burning sausages on a backyard barbecue telling Gordon Ramsay he's running his food empire badly. They don't know what it's like to navigate the reams of legislation and numerous pitfalls involved with awards and human resources. They don't understand the daily stress of ensuring that there's enough work coming through the door, managing cash flow and creditors. They've never had to worry about a militant union accusing them of wage theft because of a simple, innocent error in applying one of the myriad award rates. Labor is the anti-jobs party, and never has the old adage 'There's no U in Labor' been more true. In my home state of Queensland the Labor Party has for years refused to approve an expansion of the New Acland coalmine, forcing the loss of scores of good, high-paying jobs around Toowoomba. This is even worse when a majority of the surrounding residents want the expansion to go ahead. Let's not forget the Adani Carmichael mine in Central Queensland, a project that promises and is delivering stable, high-paying jobs and also hope for the small towns nearby that were facing a bleak future as the blue-collar jobs they were built on became despised by the new Labor Party. I travel regularly to regional areas to talk to employers and employees, and I can say unequivocally that schemes like JobKeeper, and the changes to IR rules that go with it, were a godsend for both parties. The other thing we always hear from rural and regional Queensland is that people can't remember the last time they had a visit from Labor politicians at a state or federal level. Rather than parroting lines given to them by union hacks, I encourage those opposite and the Queensland Labor state government to get out, to go west and north, and listen to the people at the front lines. For Senator Green, it is all pretty simple. But where is the support—not taxes, but support—for those people who actually create jobs? Because it is small business that is the lifeblood of our economy and Australia's biggest employer. Unlike Labor, the coalition wants people to earn more money and keep more of it. We are the parties of creating jobs and giving people the chance to prosper through their hard work. We have also established the Disability Employment Advisory Committee to give even more people in our society the chance to experience the dignity of real work and the ability to earn a wage and have control over their future. Senator Sterle, who is one of the few on that side who often makes a lot of sense, said just today that everything has the word 'job' in front of it—JobSeeker, JobKeeper, JobMaker and JobTrainer. And he is right. It's because this government puts jobs in front of everything. This government understands jobs are hard fought for, they cost blood, sweat and tears and they are not created by some magical fairy dust as Labor would have you believe. The Morrison-McCormack government has always had zero tolerance of exploitation of workers. That includes the underpayment of wages and entitlements by any employer. That's why the Fair Work Ombudsman is continuing to take strong action on behalf of workers despite the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2019-20 the Fair Work Ombudsman recovered a record amount of money for underpaid workers—$123 million to be precise. They issued 952 compliance notices, recovering $7.8 million in unpaid wages. That is a 250 per cent increase on the number of compliance notices in the previous year. They filed 20 court cases in 2019—more than double the number filed in 2018-19 and close to 10 per cent more than during Labor's last full year in office—and also secured 163 per cent more in court-ordered penalties in 2019-20 than Labor in its last full year in office. They issued 603 infringement notices, an increase of seven per cent compared with the previous financial year, and recovered over $56.8 million in back payments for workers from enforceable undertakings issued. The commitment of the Morrison-McCormack government to this vital cause has remained unscathed despite a global pandemic, evidenced by the fact that within the first six months of 2020-21 the Fair Work Ombudsman has recovered almost $80 million for over 31,000 employees, filed 37 litigations and entered into 12 enforceable undertakings. Moreover, through legislation that is currently before this parliament, the Morrison-McCormack government understands that it is government's responsibility to ensure that an environment exists where Australians can both seek to be employed and be employed. Never has it been more important that this be emphasised given we are undertaking an economic comeback out of COVID-19. The amendment to the fair work amendment will ensure people can gain employment, stay in employment and thrive in employment. The fact of the matter is that, given the current economic environment, businesses, in order to remain competitive in an uncertain and unstable global market, must have the necessary flexibility available to them, acknowledging the special circumstances in which we find ourselves in these COVID times. That's why the government will legislate a two-year extension on temporary JobKeeper flexibilities to businesses in identified industries that have been hardest hit by the pandemic, giving employers confidence to offer part-time employment and additional hours to employees and promote flexibility and efficiency. The Morrison-McCormack government remains committed, as it always has been, to the assurance of a zero-tolerance approach to any exploitation of workers. The Morrison-McCormack government likewise understands the role it must play in ensuring Australians are able to seek to employ and seek to be employed. It is only the creation of real jobs by sustainable businesses that cannot just survive but thrive that will ensure certainty for employees. That should be the focus of us all as we move forward—ensuring that employers are well supported, well resourced and understand that the government seeks to encourage the activities that will mean that they can employ more people, that they have the confidence to employ, firstly, casual people and then move them to permanent part time and then full time, as they feel confident that the work remains for those people, that they can support a line of business coming through the door, that they can manage their creditors and that they can survive in an increasingly regulated environment. Those are the jobs that are genuine, real and should be supported at all costs. I hear Senator Green and others talk about jobs as if they are created magically. It is not the case. Those people on the other side who have ever run a business will have had to go through the stress and worry of the commitment to employ someone, of making that decision—'Will I have enough work for them? Will I be able to pay them every week?' The focus for this economy, for this government, is to ensure that those jobs are real, that those employees have certainty and confidence. Yet once again we will hear from Labor about the fantasy of wanting to support jobs but not wanting to support employers, not wanting to walk a day in their shoes, not wanting to understand just how difficult it is to make those commitments to people, to mortgage your home, to pay everybody else before you pay yourself—because that's the way it is for most small businesses. Most small businesses survive, on average, for seven years, because they are exhausted by regulation, by ensuring there is work coming through the door, by surviving economic upturns and downturns, by managing seasons, if they're in agriculture, and by managing demand, not to mention a pandemic. And yet we once again have Labor wanting to talk about the negative side of employment as opposed to supporting businesses. I'm talking not about taxing business but about supporting business. I would encourage them to walk a mile in the shoes of small business. 16:38 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As an Australian who has been elected to serve the people of Queensland and Australia, I'm very proud to say that I have worked in many countries and I am genuinely proud of Australian workers. We have a phenomenal human resource in this country, unequalled anywhere in the world—the initiative, the hard work, the honesty and the integrity of workers in this country, and of many businesses in this country, especially small businesses, which are the engine room of our economy. More people are employed in small business than in any other sector of the economy. We need to get back the dynamism that has been lost in Australia—lost largely because of the decisions that come out of this building. The MPI is 'The Morrison government's failure to address job security is giving companies that exploit workers an unfair advantage against honest employers.' Let me talk about the example in the Hunter Valley of the exploitation, the abuse and the casual discarding of people who are tossed on the scrap heap when they're burnt out. Casuals have been exploited in the Hunter Valley by BHP, a major mining company, and Chandler Macleod Group, one of the world's largest labour hire firms, an offshoot of Recruit Holdings from Japan, with the complicity of the Hunter Valley division of the CFMEU. It would not have happened without all three being complicit and working together. But let's go back to the root cause. The root of casualisation started in small business because employers were so confused by the complexity of hiring people and so confused by the complexity when there was a problem to discuss, so they went to employing casuals because it became too hard to deal with disciplinary issues in small business. Quite often we see a small business having problems with an employee who's stolen something from their business, and the small business owner then simply trying to address that ends up just paying $8,000 or $10,000. We heard last week from COSBOA, the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, about some companies, some small businesses, paying $20,000 in shut-up money for problems to go away. One of the root causes of the insecurity in this country is the highly complex, needlessly complex and destructive industrial relations situation. Then what we saw was large companies taking the small business model and using casuals for a 'try before we buy'. In other words, they would watch the casual worker on their mine site, in their business, and if he or she came up with the goods then they would hire them. That has led to extreme abuse of workers in this country. It's led to safety hazards, which I have complained about in my submission to the Grosvenor inquiry. But in the Hunter Valley it led to miners being intimidated and being threatened with the loss of their jobs if they reported safety incidents. How stupid is a company when that happens? They're losing that prime source of information about their company. I want to give Mr Bukarica, the national legal adviser for the CFMEU mining division, a huge compliment. In Townsville he had the guts, the integrity and the courage to acknowledge that the Hunter Valley CFMEU is part of the problem at those mines in the Hunter Valley because they enabled casualisation to happen. I also want to give him praise because he said that the CFMEU has not done enough for casuals. Indeed, they have caused the casual issue in the Hunter Valley and the casual abuse of casuals. And he's admitted that his union will need to do more about it. So what we see is the mess that's been created in the past by labour laws that have become far too complex and by the Liberals not addressing this issue in 2016 when they should have. Casuals show us the pain of people at work. Casuals are also a sign of the failed industrial relations situation—no getting away from it. What the government is doing in its latest industrial relations legislation, proposed to come before the Senate next month, is shifting the liability for that mess from large business to small business. They're helping a couple of large companies manage their risk. We've approached this differently. We've gone out to listen. We've written to 80 different organisations—employers, employee groups, unions, union bosses, welfare associations, organisations, small business groups—and we've asked them for their advice, their views. They have come and given us their advice. They said no-one else has invited them to do that; we're the only ones. In addressing this legislation, we have three aims that ensure security for Australian workers, whether they be in small businesses or large businesses, and security for small businesses and large businesses. Our three aims are to protect honest workers, to protect small businesses and to restore Australia's productive capacity. We see the employer-employee relationship as fundamental. It is the primary workplace relationship, and that's what's needed to empower workers. We've got the best workers in the world. What's needed is for employers and employees to work together—empowered employees and empowered employers—because that is the only way to create jobs. Government doesn't create jobs. As much as the Labor Party and the Liberal Party talk about it, government does not create jobs. Honest workers create jobs. Small businesses create jobs. Large employers create jobs. The government creates the environment. Labor and Liberal governments have stuffed this country's workplace environment. The Morrison government talks about security and recovery from COVID. How can that be possible when we've destroyed our electricity sector? How can it be possible when we've got one of the worse tax systems in the world? How can it be possible when we're not supplying the right infrastructure? How can it be possible when we haven't got the skills development needed? How can it be possible when we've got overregulation? Just go and talk to people, not only small or large business employers but also employees, who are sick to death of energy prices, which have gone from the cheapest in the world to the highest in the world under this government and its predecessor, the Labor Party. Instead of propping up the industrial relations club with excessive, needlessly complex legislation, we need to simplify it. In fact, I put that to Peter Strong when he was in my office last week. I said to him that regulations are written at the moment for the few people, employers and employees, who do the wrong thing. They should be written for the majority of good people, the fine Australians, with severe penalties for the bad. We need to turn it upside down: instead of penalising the 100 per cent with the ridiculous workplace arrangements, we need to penalise the real shonks, the real criminals. Instead of assuming people are bad—employees are bad, employers are bad—we need to free people to produce. We need to penalise and handicap those who deserve it. That's what we need in this country: empowering, not frightening. What we see at the moment is an IR club of big employers, big industry associations, large unions, employee consultants, employer consultants, industrial relations consultants and, above all, lawyers. Again I come back to the ETU legal adviser in Townsville, Michael Wright, and Mr Bukarica from the CFMMEU, who both said that we have far too many lawyers involved in industrial relations and that's why it's a mess. They both said they want fewer lawyers, that they want to remove the lawyers. Full credit to the CFMMEU mining division and full credit to the ETU for saying that. The big companies and the crooks are the ones who do the best out of the industrial relations club, because they have deep pockets and they can afford to fund the lawyers and others who live off the backs of Australian workers. What we need to get back to is a simple workplace relationship. Will Labor make a commitment to properly and honestly reform IR? Will you? Will the Liberal Party and the National Party make a commitment to properly and honestly reform IR, to free people so that they're free to compete with the people in Korea, China, India, Africa, Malaysia and Singapore? That's the way to get security of employment: by empowering people. One Nation is the party of energy security and affordability. One Nation is the party of job security. (Time expired) 16:48 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I'm pleased to speak on this matter of public importance, because the Morrison government's failure to address job insecurity is hurting working families and damaging our national economy. It has become a major structural issue in the Australian economy whereby people who do not have access to secure work are being left behind by this government. It is fundamentally unfair not just for workers but also for those businesses who are doing the right thing, because the use of certain forms of insecure work gives companies that exploit workers an unfair advantage against honest employers. The share of workers in insecure work is continuing to increase. In my home state of Tasmania, we continue to suffer from the highest underemployment rate of any state, at 8.9 per cent. There are 37½ thousand Tasmanians who simply can't get the hours of work they need to make ends meet. This is not secure employment. This does not enable people to live with confidence, to plan their life, to buy a house or to do any of those things that require secure employment and secure finances. Australian workers, our national economy and businesses will all benefit from more job security because we all do better when we all do better. Better pay and a fairer industrial relations system will reap benefits for everyone in our society, from the top to the bottom. That is the approach Australians can expect from an Albanese Labor government; not so from Mr Morrison, however. This Prime Minister continues to practise the same old, failed Liberal economic policies of a race to the bottom, the lowest common denominator. In contrast, Labor believes that secure work is an essential component of being able to build a secure life. Secure work allows workers to take leave when they're sick or need to care for a family or household member without putting their jobs at risk. It means that they can have the confidence to spend money to stimulate the Australian economy, boost growth and create more jobs. Good, decent, secure jobs are becoming fewer and fewer with the rise of insecure employment. Yet this government has no plan to arrest that rise. Indeed, they encourage it. What we have seen in the past 12 months with the COVID pandemic is that insecure work not only poses a risk to individual workers but poses a risk to our society as a whole. It is the case that when the pandemic began, casuals, who account for about a quarter of the Australian workforce, lost their jobs eight times faster than those in more secure forms of employment. To rub salt into their wounds, it was an active and deliberate decision taken by this Prime Minister to exclude around one million casual workers from access to JobKeeper, forcing many onto Centrelink. Now that was a measure that the former contributor to this discussion, Senator McDonald, didn't mention in her contribution here today—that this government took the deliberate and active decision to exclude one million casual workers, forcing them onto Centrelink. But, of course, casual work is not the only form of insecure work. When you add in many contractors, freelancers, gig workers and those on temporary contracts or working in labour hire, what we see is that nearly half the workforce misses out on the many benefits of a permanent job. We know that. Who in our workforce, in our society, is more likely to be stuck in insecure work? Women, young people and those from a migrant background. In fact, one thing we have seen from the inevitable recovery in the jobs market, after the first recession in Australia in 30 years, is that the increase in jobs has very substantially been composed of insecure jobs. This has implications not only for people in those jobs but for our broader recovery and for our potential future economic growth because we know that those in insecure work have much less confidence to spend. But these are the things that the government can do to combat the insecure work—(Time expired) 16:54 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia We know we're back in this building when Labor are up to their old tricks. As I do most mornings, I read this matter of public importance with a degree of, shall we say, sympathy, because, ultimately, every day it is for those opposite to concoct a matter of public importance which seeks to attack the government's agenda, and it does so with what could only be described as a limited arsenal. We know that those opposite sit with a divided party and a leader who doesn't know whether he's batting for the woke inner-city types or for the workers, and we know that that narrative streaks its way all through the party. So what do you do in those circumstances? What do you do in order to try to face up to that? What do you do to face up to a government that is led by a prime minister who has seen us through extraordinarily hard times and a 100-year pandemic, and has done so in circumstances that have cemented our economic recovery? Today, indeed, we learned that we've retained our AAA rating, so it's with a degree of sympathy that I read this, because it is a very, very difficult task. What does this represent? It represents nothing but gaslighting. Ultimately, that's what it is. It is parliamentary gaslighting. Psychologists use that term to refer to a specific type of manipulation where the manipulator tries to use someone else's reality to question their own. We do so—we know that—because their questions are usually based on lies and are usually based on matters which are of deep importance, such as the rights of workers. To suggest that somehow the Morrison Liberal government has anything but the workers' best interests in mind is ludicrous. This government has zero tolerance for any exploitation of workers. We've seen that with a number of legislative reforms that have come through. It has zero tolerance for the underpayment of wages and entitlements by an employer. This government has, in fact, taken unprecedented action to date to protect vulnerable workers. That includes a commitment of over $160 million in additional resourcing to the regulator and the Fair Work Ombudsman. There is no unfair advantage to lawbreaking companies in the government's IR reforms. In fact, to the contrary, there are significant measures which prevent exploitation of workers and significant penalties for those who do so. With the various reforms to strengthen and enhance existing compliance and enforcement regimes that are contained in this bill, this government is continuing to take strong action to protect workers from underpayments. But let's compare and contrast that using the example of gaslighting. It wouldn't be the Labor Party blocking these IR reforms that would be causing problems, would it? But wait. What's this? By blocking this omnibus bill, Labor is actually seeking to block serious reforms such as a quicker enterprise agreement approval process through the Fair Work Commission. This process in itself would actively help to deliver pay rises more quickly, but the Labor Party are blocking it. There is an opportunity for more hours for the almost 30 per cent of part-time employees in the retail sector and 40 per cent of part-time employees in the accommodation and food services sector who want more hours, and we're being told that this government is actually standing in the way of workers' rights. It couldn't be more ludicrous. More job opportunities that would provide providing certainty for mega job-creating projects such as greenfield sites are being blocked by Labor's position on this legislation. In fact, if you look at the detail—we do that on this side of the chamber; we look at the detail—the only side that's proposing to cut wages and cost jobs is actually those opposite, the Labor Party. Two weeks ago, in fact, we heard Anthony Albanese announcing his undercooked and disappointing attempt at industrial relations policy, which has nothing to do with helping employees and employers work together. By contrast, the Morrison government, in supporting Australia's jobs and economic recovery package of reforms, will actually give businesses the confidence they need to get back to growing and creating jobs. That is exactly what the Morrison government's industrial relations reforms are attempting to achieve. To suggest that this government is failing to address job security is either disingenuous or just simply missing the point—or it is simple gaslighting. 16:59 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales There is a job security crisis in Australia. There are more than 2.6 million casual workers in Australia. Now, we understand there is a role for casuals. We understand that permanent employment does not suit everyone and their circumstances. But, when one in four workers is casual, it raises serious issues. We have to ask ourselves: how many Australians are forgoing entitlements, like sick leave and annual leave, because it suits their lifestyle or because their type of employment is being used by employers to avoid ongoing commitments of hours, to avoid paying entitlements—the kinds of entitlements that are a betterment for the Australian workforce—or, incorrectly, to avoid paying these entitlements while extracting the same kind of value from their workforce that they have from permanent employees? The recent court cases against WorkPac, championed by the CFMMEU, laid bare the exploitation of casuals in the workplace and that it's rampant. As Senator Roberts has repeatedly raised in this chamber, the exploitation of casual and labour hire coalminers in the Hunter Valley borders on the criminal. The government's response is to do nothing. Actually, it's worse than doing nothing. Their response is to further entrench insecure work, pushing a bill that would create a permanent class of casuals—workers who, regardless of how they are treated or the expectations placed on them, will be called casuals day in and day out—completely overturning the outcomes of the Federal Court that protect casuals' rights. It entrenches the unfair advantage being provided to those employers who see their workforce not as people deserving of fair remuneration but, rather, as numbers on a budget line item, a cost of doing business. They only care about the financial cost, not the human cost. You only have to look at the gig economy: Dede Fredy, a father with a four-year-old son in Bali; Xiaojun Chen, whose eight-year-old son and 15-year-old daughter are in China; Chow Khai Shien, a Malaysian national whose parents and sisters are devastated; Bijoy Paul, from Bangladesh, who leaves behind his parents and sister; and Ik Wong, who had only arrived, from China, in Australia recently. These are the names of the gig workers who died in the past year, on our streets, delivering food for companies like Uber Eats and Hungry Panda. These men and workers have families. They were in families and had been the breadwinners of their families. In many cases, these companies have ignored their responsibility to train, protect and assist their workers. Hiding behind the facade of terms like 'contractors', keeping their workers at arm's length to avoid their responsibilities to safety, to a fair playing field, to fair pay and to remuneration and to be able to organise collectively. I note that today the Attorney-General, in the House, during question time, was asked about workers' rights, minimum pay and safety. He claimed that two government commissioned reviews had found no clear link between the remuneration and safety of drivers. That was a falsehood. The first review, by Jaguar Consulting in 2014, found: 'A small number of studies have identified statistically significant relationships between driver remuneration and accident involvement.' The second, a PwC report from 2016, stated: 'Directly comparing remuneration and safety does demonstrate statistically significant correlations.' These are just two of the reports over the years that have established a link between pay and safety. Workers in transport on low rates of pay are forced to work beyond breaking point, in dangerous conditions, to make ends meet. Every year, more truck drivers die on our roads whilst this government—the one that abolished the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal—continues to ignore the link between pay and safety. Thankfully, there are some employers and employer groups out there who are prepared to call for action, when it's needed, to help end the crisis of insecure work. The Australian Road Transport Industrial Organisation and testimony provided to the Senate inquiry last week last called for regulation of the gig economy. The chair, Peter Anderson, rightly pointed out: The industry sees the oncoming gig economy and the way it's being managed at the moment as a threat to our standard of living and a winding back of employee protections. We would like to see a classification of the industrial relations status of a gig worker. We believe that that simple justification would then be able to lead any jurisdiction and any law in the right direction to ensure that the workers are protected accordingly. Organisations like RTOs, employer organisations, recognise that further eroding the rights of employees and encouraging greater insecurity of work undermines the competitiveness of employers who do the right thing. It's not just insecure work; it's also the by-product of wage theft that has implications for competition in Australia. The Senate inquiry into wage theft received 122 submissions, many of which are from employers. One in particular I will draw the Senate's attention to is the Cheesecake Shop, a franchisor with some 200 franchisee cake bakeries across Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. In their submission to the inquiry they make the point: 'Small business that are compliant face a real threat from non-compliant competitors with a lower cost base.' Businesses in their industry face a daily high rise of unfair price competition for employers who do not pay award rates and steal from their workers who don't make enterprise agreements. As the McKell Institute firmly points out in their 2019 report, Ending wage theft: eradicating underpayment in the Australian workforce, wage theft provides an unfair competitive advantage to some companies. It says companies: … may lose customers, tenders, and government contracts to businesses that commit wage theft and are able to offer lower prices. Particularly in industries such as hospitality and fruit picking where wages make up a large portion of costs, businesses who pay a legal wage struggle financially against those who commit wage theft. Isn't the Liberal Party meant to be the party of business? Don't they recognise that insecure work and wage theft are tools used by unscrupulous employers to undermine the success of their competitors? Wouldn't the Liberal-National Party be up in arms, demanding to do something about those unfair operators? Of course not. They won't act to improve job security, which suggests to me that the only businesses they care about are the ones that take advantage of workers and carry out unfair practices amongst competitors. As we enter the recovery stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is no doubt we need to ensure consumer demand will be critical to our economic recovery. But consumer demand relies on confidence. Workers must have confidence in their pay cheques, in their working conditions and in meeting the rising cost of living if they're going to spend and lift demand. Those businesses who are serious about a COVID-19 recovery must understand the important role that increasing wage growth will play alongside the need to improve job security. The crisis of job security in Australia is one that can only be met with government action. Too many employers exploit our existing system for an unfair competitive advantage. Without government action, this crisis will only get worse. That's why an Albanese-led government is committed to a plan to improve job security, one that will guarantee greater worker rights and conditions to those workers on the edges of the labour market, creating a rising tide to lift boats in the labour market and for all employers. A Labor government will make job security an objective of the Fair Work Act; extend the powers of the Fair Work Commission to include employee-like forms of work and not abandon gig workers and the casualisation of work; consider proposals for portable entitlement schemes to better support workers in secure work in consultation with business; create a fair and objective test for whether someone is truly a casual employee or not; create a clear pathway for permanent work and ensure same job, same pay, ending the practices of labour hire companies paying workers less than workers doing the same who are employed directly; and place a limit on the growing use of fixed-term contracts. 17:09 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland What a time to be alive and what a time to see the last 12 months and the way the Morrison government has managed this COVID crisis. It has been a masterclass in economic management. In the space of a few months, we've managed to get over COVID, and we've already got 90 per cent of people back into work. If that's not job security, I don't know what is. That's despite the fact that the state Labor premiers have constantly been opening and closing, and opening and closing, borders. In the first week of January this year, I remember talking to some small-business men, and they were fired up. They were waiting for that first Friday night. We were all going to go headbanging in the pub. And what happened at nine o'clock that morning? The Premier of Queensland shut the pubs, the restaurants, the theatres, and my barber—my barber lost 1,500 bucks that weekend. That's a threat to job security. That creates uncertainty. That creates unemployment. You've got to ask yourself why these state premiers keep flip-flopping on border closures. Last year, we shut the country down for three or four weeks, and we committed to spending over $100 billion. It was the biggest economic rescue package ever, to make sure that our health system was up to speed and that we had enough ventilators—all of that. I well remember the Queensland Chief Health Officer saying that, once we reopened after the election—funnily enough—we wouldn't have to lock down again. We went 130 days with no COVID cases; we got one case in quarantine, and what happened? Bang! Everything was shut again. Of course, we couldn't have the other Labor premiers being outdone. We had another case in quarantine over in Western Australia, so what did we have to do? That Labor premier had to outdo the Queensland Labor premier and shut down for five days. What's going on here? What's going on with the contact tracing and testing? That is a threat to job security. Do you know what is a bigger threat to job security and a bigger example of wage exploitation? Wait for it—superannuation. Every week, 9½ per cent of the workers' wages are taken from them. They never get to see that money. It's given to someone in one of the big cities, Sydney or Melbourne. One of those white-collared blowhards get to manage that money until people retire, and there's no guarantee of a capital return. Were these people ever asked if they could have 9½ per cent of their money taken? No. There was a referendum in New Zealand in 1997. They were asked if they wanted compulsory superannuation. Do you know what they said? They said no—92 per cent to eight. At the end of the day, the workers want their own money in their pockets. They want to pay off their house, they want to pay off their HECS debt, they might want a speedboat or they might want to upgrade their semitrailer, or whatever it is. There's all that extra compliance for the employer, who now has to make a separate payment, so he says: 'Okay, this just gets harder and harder. Is it really worth continuing to employ people here in Australia, or am I going to shift offshore?' If you want to talk about wage exploitation, that's the other big threat. Finally, the last big threat is, of course, unreliable power. Would you employ someone who only turned up to work when the sun was shining and the wind was blowing? No. But that is what the people on the Left want to do with energy. They just want energy that turns on when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. How can you run a business when you don't know where your energy's coming from next? Which part of Australia are you going to have to wait for the wind to start blowing in before the energy starts coming through? I'll tell you who's feeling exploited. I'll tell you who I'm very worried about right now: the town of Gladstone in my home state of Queensland. They are terrified the aluminium smelter is going to close down. I constantly ask the shadow minister for Queensland resources—because Queensland resources are for Queensland people; we've got the whole Labor thing going here—how many windmills it's going to take to power that Gladstone aluminium refinery. And he can't tell me. 17:14 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia It's always a challenge in this place to rise after Senator Rennick—such an enlightening contribution as always. Seeing as we're talking about this matter of public importance, as you well know, Madam Acting Deputy President Kitching, those on the other side love repeating something so many times they think it becomes the truth, but in actual fact it remains as much as a falsehood as when they first began. Is underpayment of wages an issue? Absolutely. The Fair Work Ombudsman and this government have taken remarkable steps in addressing this as an issue. There have been a number of very significant companies in Australia who have been found to have been underpaying wages—large companies with large human resource departments, companies like 7-Eleven, Commonwealth Bank, Qantas, Bunnings and Woolworths. These are large companies with very complex and well-built human resource systems. Is it wage theft? Do we need to use a pejorative term like wage theft? Well, let's see who else is on the list of those who have underpaid wages? The ABC, a large government broadcaster with a significant human resource department behind it, also underpaid millions in wages. Who else? Senator Scarr 282997 Who else? Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Who else, Senator Scarr? Well, I believe Maurice Blackburn. Maurice Blackburn, a law firm that bills itself as the friend of the worker, as the industrial relations experts, as the labour lawyers—and you can write that in two ways and still mean the same thing! Maurice Blackburn was found to have underpaid wages for hundreds of its junior employees. I don't cast stones. I don't call it wage theft. I say maybe we've got a systemic problem. Maybe we've got a problem where our awards system is actually so complex that the largest most sophisticated human resource systems in Australia cannot get it right. And we expect small businesses to, where the human resource department is one person—it's the husband or the wife, the brother or the sister. It's the employer who's handling three different parts of the business. They're not departments; they're individuals. They're individuals struggling to keep up with a system that is extraordinarily complex. Are companies that do the wrong thing a target for this government? Absolutely. This government is actively working to strengthen protections for employees, to strengthen criminal offences for dishonest and systematic underpayments of one or more employees. We're increasing penalties—four years imprisonment in fact. That is a pretty significant penalty in anyone's book, with $1.11 million worth of fines—again, a very significant penalty in anyone's book. We're increasing the maximum civil penalties for underpayment. We're introducing new prohibitions to stop employers advertising jobs with pay rates below national minimum wages and clarifying that the courts can make adverse publicity orders where appropriate. But Labor are not going to support this. Why? They might say, 'Oh, it doesn't go far enough.' Fine. They need to mollify their union mates. That's all well and good. But these changes directly impact the wellbeing of employers across Australia in a system that is undoubtedly overly complex. Again, I ask all senators to think about those mums and dads, those small-business owners, those single employees who have to operate in this environment, an environment of extraordinary complexity, an environment where the likes of Maurice Blackburn, the labour lawyers, cannot get this right. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 247512 The time for the discussion has expired. DOCUMENTS 71 DOCUMENTS Electric Vehicles 71 Consideration 71 17:19 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the document. It was a very interesting response that was received from the Premier of Tasmania to our Senate resolution from last December which called upon Australian governments to support electric vehicles as a technology to reduce our carbon pollution; to take action to make them affordable and accessible to all Australians; and to not place unnecessary taxation barriers in the way of their uptake. Premier Gutwein's response was glowing about the need to be supporting the rollout of electric vehicles. He let us know that Tasmania has set an ambitious target to transition the Tasmanian government fleet to 100 per cent electric vehicles by 2030—take note, government, what a Liberal government in Australia has committed to do. They've committed to trialling zero-emission buses within the next two years, and they have committed other funding and support for infrastructure, including fast chargers, other chargers and a range of other technologies. What they note in the letter—remember, this is the Tasmanian Liberal government—is that, although they welcome the Australian government's support for electric vehicles, further policy levers remain available to support uptake, including fuel efficiency standards, electric vehicle sales targets, electric vehicle purchase incentives, subsidising home charging installation and public awareness initiatives. Premier Gutwein continues: I would encourage the Australian government to continue to support electric vehicle uptake and look forward to working with the Australian government on further actions to increase electric vehicle uptake within Tasmania and nationally. Clearly this letter is saying what governments should and could be doing and what this government is not doing with its pathetic Future Fuels Strategy that was released last month, which basically has completely dropped the ball, leaving Australia in the very slow lane; in fact, it is broken down by the roadside when it comes to supporting electric vehicle uptake. The Senate motion asked Australian governments to not place unnecessary taxation barriers in the way of electric vehicle uptake. In particular, this was a letter to state and territory premiers to ask them to not proceed down the path that the Victorian and South Australian governments are proceeding of imposing a tax on electric vehicles. That would mean it would be a disincentive for electric vehicle uptake. I'm very pleased to get this positive response from the Tasmanian government. I'm hoping this government will listen to it and realise that we need to be doing an awful lot more to support the rollout of electric vehicles to keep up with the rest of the world and even just to keep up with Tasmania. There are actions we can take as a federal parliament to let the state governments that are considering imposing taxes on electric vehicles know that it is a very unwise way to be going. A private senator's bill, introduced by me, has been referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for consideration over the coming months, including some hearings at which it will be exploring the taxes that the states are proposing to impose on electric vehicles; how that's not the best way to go; and what we as a federal parliament could be doing to actually be discouraging the state governments from imposing those sorts of state taxes which would discourage the uptake of electric vehicles. I look forward to seeing the involvement of a range of senators across the parliament participating in the inquiry in the committee process on my private senator's bill and doing what we can to join with the rest of the world, and even keep up with Tasmania, and to really support the uptake and the use of electric vehicles across the country. 17:24 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I rise to take note as well in relation to item No. 3 on electric vehicles. We now have two letters tabled in response to the Senate resolution of 1 December on electric vehicles. I look forward to receiving the responses from the other states. These responses showcase the total and utter confusion caused by the lack of a national plan on electric vehicles. The Tasmanian Premier and I are both waiting in anticipation for the government's release of the national strategy for electric vehicles. Is the government prepared to share the date on which this will be released? In February two years ago, during his speech on climate solutions, the Prime Minister made it clear his government was working on a national vehicle strategy. Well, it must be a cracker of a strategy because we're still waiting. The Prime Minister said: 'The government is developing a national electric vehicle strategy to ensure the transition to new vehicle technology and infrastructure is carefully planned and managed.' My advice is to stop planning and get engaged, because the transition is already happening and it is being led by the states and territories. There's a risk with this piecemeal approach, state by state, each with different policy settings, different taxes and different apprehensions with consumers and industry—all sorts of uncertainty as a big disincentive for electric vehicle uptake. As I said in my motion on 7 December last year, the government must provide national leadership on electric vehicles by delivering the national strategy it promised. In the interim, whilst the nation waits for a national strategy, the government could demonstrate a modicum of leadership by dealing with the issue of which EV plug to use. Today we have at least four different plug types, creating confusion for car owners and industry alike. Why not make things simple and mandate a single plug to give Australians certainty? This is one tangible element that the Prime Minister's proposed back in 2019, when he said the government would investigate mandating a single electric vehicle plug to improve the consistency and interoperability of public charging. This would be at least one small step to resolving some ambiguity. Senators, who would have thought that the world would break out into a pandemic, that there would be all sorts of terrible issues occurring right across the world, that here in Australia there would be lockdowns, border closures and all that sort of stuff? And now we get to the point, gladly, where we're seeing a vaccine rolled out. And we've seen all of that happen whilst the government has been unable to decide what sort of plug to use. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 72 DOCUMENTS Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, Cashless Debit Card 72 Order for the Production of Documents 72 17:28 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory by leave—I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning royal commission confidentiality provisions and the cashless debt card. 17:28 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the documents. In taking note of this response, I think it is worth reminding those following at home of exactly where we are at this moment. It is a week since the passage through this Senate of a Greens bill to establish the protections needed for witnesses to give evidence to the disability abuse royal commission while being fully protected. That bill passed this chamber with the support of the crossbench. In response to that bill passing, the government said: 'Oh, no, we've got our own bill coming. It's going to be much better and it's going to address all of these other issues. We're going to do it before the end of the autumn sitting.' It was one of those rare occasions where a coalition government said, 'We support what the Greens want to do and we want to go further.' Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting— Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Unprecedented, Senator Whish-Wilson. Yet on the legislative agenda published for this week there was not a single bill listed that dealt with this issue—even though the government has had 18 months to deal with this issue. It has had 18 months to respond to the community, 18 months to respond to the demands of the commission itself, and the Attorney-General has failed to do so, once again seeming to stall a change which the community desperately needs. There can be no excuse for this type of delay. I ask government senators to reflect upon it. Why is it that your government was dragged kicking and screaming to the establishment of the royal commission? It was established. People have begun to tell their stories. As part of that process it has become abundantly clear that this very simple legislative change is needed to extend the current confidentiality provisions so that they exist in perpetuity, protecting people's confidentiality and privacy and ensuring that they do not come to harm if they tell their stories to the disability abuse royal commission. You knew about it in February 2019; the chair of the royal commission wrote to you in February 2020; the interim report, published in October 2020, identified it as an impediment to the investigation; yet here we are in February 2021 and you still have not acted. It seems very clear to me that the only thing that ever drew a solid statement on this out of you folks was that the bill ended up passing the Senate in the first place, spooking you into doing something. In some ways I bloody well hope that that is the case. If not, we have an Attorney-General's Department that takes 18 months to craft a basic piece of legislation, which is very worrying for this country. But I cannot think it is the case, because I do remember, as I'm sure Senator Whish-Wilson does, the speed with which the Attorney-General's office was able to respond when a few needles were found in strawberries. We had legislation dealing with that within a couple of weeks. If only disabled people were needles in strawberries; maybe we would have had action by now. If only disability abuse seemed to threaten some of the government's regional allies; maybe we would have had action by now. This is one of the most farcical stalemates I have seen in three years. Surely you cannot want to sit on that side of the chamber in the pocket of 'big abuse'? Surely you want to see people tell their stories? Surely you want to see people give this evidence as to how they have been so poorly treated? This is something that could have passed in the blink of an eye in this place. We could have banged it through in non-contro with very little debate. It could have been done in March last year. We could have gathered an entire year of evidence. Instead, we have seen a structural impediment to this historic investigation continue. It is absolutely unacceptable that it is 18 months later and the government is still stalling. There can be no further delay from the Attorney-General or the Prime Minister. As I understand your conception of the autumn sitting, it ends at the end of March. That gives you two more weeks after the conclusion of this Senate sitting week to get that bill through—to get it through, get it done, get people the protections they need. While you're at it, could you be so polite as to respond to the royal commission's request for an extension of 15 months to its life? As it's owing in no small part to the fact that the commission has lost 18 months buggering about trying to get you to do this, that would be much appreciated. All you need to do is to do your job and get out of the way. The evidence will flow. Get on and do it. You have two weeks left. The community are watching you, and we expect action. I thank the chamber for its time and I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted. 17:35 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I rise to take note of the tabling of the results of the OPD for the final evaluation report by the University of Adelaide on the cashless debit card. Last week we finally saw the University of Adelaide evaluation of the cashless debit card in Ceduna, east Kimberley and the Goldfields go up on the Department of Social Services website. One wonders whether that would have gone up if this OPD hadn't been moved in this chamber. This evaluation was released over a year and a half late after it was due, and most of the evidence was collected back in 2019. I'll tell you what: when you read it, you know very well why they didn't want to table it before we debated that bill. They extended the trial for another two years in the very dying days of parliament last year, because this report does not have evidence that the cashless debit card has, in fact, achieved its objectives. The government can't show that the cashless debit card has made much statistical success towards its stated goals. The evaluation is quite clear that it is not possible to attribute changes in the trial sites to the cashless debit card alone. Changes in alcohol consumption can't be attributed to the card alone because there were many other measures put in place at the same time. Besides, if you read the report, 46 per cent of CDC participants report that they don't consume alcohol at all. Nearly 50 per cent don't actually consume alcohol, and yet this card was rolled on for another two years. No discernible change in employment outcomes were reported in the evaluation across all three trial sites. There was little consensus amongst whether and how children's welfare had changed since the card was first introduced. Again, we were always told 'this is about the children' but the bottom line is that the government can't show that the cashless debit card has achieved its intended goals, because the data is so poor. Despite this, the researchers have drawn on the data to infer some possible perceived changes. I remember when there were perceived changes for the Northern Territory intervention, but when that was tested out it was shown that there weren't any changes. I bet you that's what's going on here. We're working on perceptions that there have been changes, not real changes. The report talks about the degree to which the CDC is perceived to have decreased the use of alcohol or illicit drugs instead of using hard data to demonstrate statistically significant changes. This cannot be overstated. They can't demonstrate statistically significant changes. The government spent $2.5 million on this evaluation and they still can't tell us whether the CDC achieved its aims to reduce alcohol consumption or drug or gambling misuse. Perceived changes aside, what the evaluation does tell us is that the majority of the cashless debit card participants would prefer to opt out of the current trial. Once again, we have a process here that the participants want out of. They don't want to be on the card, but stakeholders still want the card to continue. It is absolutely outrageous that the government can continue to push this so-called trial while they cannot demonstrate outcomes. Let me quote what it says in the report. It says that the majority of participants reported 'feelings of discrimination, embarrassment, shame and unfairness' across all trial sites. So stakeholders can say, 'We think there's a change,' but participants, the people on it, are suffering from discrimination, embarrassment and shame. Others have talked to me about loss of dignity, loss of control over their lives. That is what this report can show. It's not perceived. This is what participants are actually saying. Disappointingly, this evaluation did not critically engage with the assumptions underpinning the cashless debit card itself. For example, the researchers accepted: The academic literature suggests that there is a strong relationship between excessive D.A.G— drug, alcohol and gambling— consumption, social status and domestic violence and crime … This literature is actually contested, and it is poor academic practice to present these claims uncritically. The researchers failed to include any mention of the growing literature of empirical research into the cashless debit card and income management. We have yet again seen stakeholders given a platform in this evaluation, just like they were in the last set. That again didn't show any real outcomes for the cashless debit card. As you can imagine, stakeholders often express positive views and opinions about the cashless debit card, probably because they are not on the card and don't experience firsthand the shame, stigma and discrimination, which is what the participants report. The evaluation never justified why non-cashless-debit-card participants needed to be included in the research in the first place. While the authors say that they used mixed-methods research to triangulate the evaluation, more could have been made about the lack of pretrial data and how this stops any real insight into the 'changes' before and after the CDC. I've said it before, and I will continue to say it: without proper baseline data the government will never be able to measure any so-called impact of the cashless debit card. These so-called trials were not set up in a way that meant they could be measured. I said it in this chamber when we were debating the very first bill, and I will continue to say it: you don't have the baseline data. This is an ideologically driven program. If the government are going to make any significant intervention in people's lives, they need robust evidence, particularly if they're going to continue it year after year in a program that causes shame, stigma and discrimination, as reported by the participants in their own so-called evaluations. The minister herself acknowledged the lack of data around the cashless debit card when we were debating the bill to extend the card at the end of last year. Minister Ruston said: But can I just put on the record that there is nobody in this chamber that's more frustrated than me about the lack of quantitative data around these measures. She went on to say: … what they haven't been able to provide, and what I want to get access to, is the hard, quantitative data. I accept that it is incredibly disappointing that we're not standing here with the kind of information that we would have liked. Let me tell you: the evaluation does nothing to fill that gap in quantitative data. We still don't know the actual number of hospital presentations or police call-outs. The Senate should have access to this evaluation data, and we should have had it when we were debating the extension of the cashless debit card last year. Would the card have been voted down once and for all if the crossbench had seen this abysmal evaluation? We will never know, unfortunately, which is what the government wanted. They did not want to present this when Senator Griff, for example, was making his decision that actually meant that this card continued for another two years. These so-called trials were always targeting First Nations people, stigmatising people on income support and those with addiction issues, rather than addressing the underlying causes of disadvantage. We need to stop this racist, discriminatory, stigmatising policy once and for all and give people on income management the choice, because that's what the cashless debit card is. It is income management. We need to give people a choice. If they want to be on the card voluntarily, in a properly constructed program, fair enough. But don't make it compulsory, because it does not work. You've tried and tried and tried. There have been three evaluations—the middle one had a couple of evaluations tucked in there—and you have never been able to show that it works. This income management has been in place since 2007, going on for 14 years. You haven't been able to prove it works. Give it up and start putting the money into addressing the underlying causes of addiction and disadvantage. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BILLS 75 BILLS Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Refunds of Charges and Other Measures) Bill 2020 75

Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Refunds of Charges and Other Measures) Bill 2020

First Reading 75 17:45 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 75 17:45 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— Today I introduce the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Refunds of Charges and Other Measures) Bill 2020 which amends the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (ESOS Act). The Bill reflects the Morrison Government's commitment to support the international education sector by cutting red tape to open new market opportunities for education providers, while expanding the study options available for international students. In 2019, international education contributed $40 billion to our economy and supported around 250,000 jobs. Border measures introduced to control COVID-19 have meant some students have been unable to return to Australia to resume their studies after travelling home for holidays and Chinese New Year and new students have been unable to come to Australia to begin their studies. If we are to support the recovery of this important industry, our fourth largest export, we must continue to be one of the most sought-after study destinations in the world. We must respond to student demand and adapt the regulatory environment to help education providers to deliver new products. This Bill builds on measures the Morrison Government has already put in place to support the international education sector, including significant regulatory and fee relief. The Government has asked the education regulators, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency and the Australia Skills Quality Authority, to offer maximum flexibility to providers so they can respond to students' circumstances and needs. This has allowed providers to introduce flexible tuition options and deliver operations online where necessary, helping to minimise disruption to international students' education. The Bill complements the Government's Budget commitment to 50,000 additional places for short courses providing Australians with the opportunity to retrain or upskill during the COVID-19 pandemic. This Bill will enable education providers to provide access to a wide range of supplementary courses, including short duration courses and microcredentials for overseas students, increasing the attractiveness of Australia as a study destination. It will create opportunities for Australian education providers to expand their business and boost the availability of skilled workers as our economy recovers. This Bill clarifies the intention of the ESOS Act by aligning the definition of course with the established regulatory frameworks in place for formal education qualifications in Australia and provides a mechanism for the Minister to include or exempt courses where appropriate to reduce the regulatory burden on education providers, while maintaining our strong student protections. This Bill forms part of the Morrison Government's deregulation agenda, and will cut red tape to save over $2 million annually for the international education industry. The Bill will clarify and improve the regulation of courses and allow charges collected under the ESOS Act to be refunded in special circumstances. The ESOS Act provides important protections for students. It ensures rigorous standards are applied to any course delivered to international students, above the existing strong domestic regulations. It protects international students' investment in an Australian education and upholds the integrity of the visa system. These requirements will remain. Overseas students will continue to receive these protections, including consumer protection provided through Australia's unique Tuition Protection Service, for their substantive course of study. However, these extensive requirements need not apply to some short duration courses that are low cost and supplementary to a student's main course of study. For example, students seeking to work or do further training in the hospitality, construction, retail and healthcare sectors require specific qualifications including first aid and barista courses, responsible service of alcohol, hygienic food preparation, infection control or construction white cards. This Bill will also provide a mechanism to act quickly to support the international education sector in times of emergency or extreme financial stress in the sector. If an event similar to the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic happens in the future, provisions in this Bill will support education providers by allowing refunds of the charges they pay for registration on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS) to deliver courses to international students. As part of the Higher Education Relief Package announced on 12 April 2020, the Government has already provided more than $10.9 million in regulatory fee relief to the education and training providers to help them adapt and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. This helped providers to invest in retaining staff or reshaping their offerings to suit the current environment. Part 1 of the bill amends the ESOS Act to allow for CRICOS charges paid by providers to be refunded in special circumstances from 1 July 2021. This provision will enable the provision of rapid and sector-wide support to CRICOS providers in special circumstances, such as in the current COVID-19 pandemic. Generally, such circumstances would be characterised by unexpected events or situations, across the sector, creating undesirable or anomalous outcomes that could be improved or remedied by refunds of charges. The refund power would be at the discretion of the Secretary and exercised on behalf of the Commonwealth. It will not apply to administrative errors, like returning overpayments, as that power already exists. Similarly, this amendment will not exempt providers from the charges as there are existing provisions under the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Regulations 2011 that exempt new and existing providers from the requirement to pay CRICOS charges. Part 2 of the Bill amends the ESOS Act to refine the definition of "course", which was outdated and too broad. The new definition more explicitly aligns ESOS with the established regulatory frameworks in place for formal education qualifications in Australia. Vocational Education and Training Courses, higher education courses, school courses, ELICOS, and Foundation programs will remain in the scope of ESOS. The changes mean that all other courses which do not align to domestic, state or territory quality education frameworks will not be included within the scope of ESOS. A further provision enables the Minister responsible for international education to make a disallowable legislative instrument to include and exempt certain courses from the ESOS Act requirements. This will allow the Minister to add or remove exempt courses as needed, in response to emerging issues in the sector, while ensuring appropriate Parliamentary oversight. The purpose of these amendments is to make it easier for overseas students to study courses that are supplementary to their main course of study. International students will not be able to apply for student visas based solely on these courses but can take them alongside their main course of study. The new arrangements enabled by this Bill create opportunities for education providers to enter a global market in an emerging form of education, opening new markets and potential business opportunities. It will provide assurance to students that they can choose to study a supplementary course that complements their primary field of study, reflects their personal interests or improves their employability while in Australia These arrangements ensure the Government can act swiftly to refund CRICOS charges in special circumstances, should this be required. In summary, the measures in this bill will reduce red tape, simplify the regulatory environment and create flexibility to respond to special circumstances with regulatory relief. I commend the Bill. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021 76

Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021

First Reading 76 17:46 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 76 17:46 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum and revised explanatory memorandum, and move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— This Bill establishes a mandatory code to address the bargaining power imbalances that exist between digital platforms and Australian news media businesses. Public interest journalism plays an important role in our society. This role can only be fulfilled by a strong, diverse and sustainable Australian news media sector. This bill responds to the key findings of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's (ACCC) Digital Platforms Inquiry. The ACCC conducted a detailed world-leading inquiry over almost 18 months and set out 23 recommendations in response to the substantial market power that has arisen through the growth of digital platforms, their impact on competition in media and advertising markets and implications for news media businesses, advertisers and consumers. The ACCC found that digital platforms had become unavoidable trading partners of news media businesses, providing them with substantial bargaining power. This problem is not unique to Australia and we recognise that similar findings are emerging overseas. Since commissioning the ACCC review in December 2017, the Government has undertaken an extensive policy development process over almost 3 years which has included public consultation on a position paper and exposure draft legislation. As the Prime Minister has said, the laws of the digital world should reflect as far as possible the laws of the physical world. We are not seeking to protect traditional media companies from the rigour of competition or technological disruption – which we know benefits consumers. Rather, we are seeking to create a level playing field where market power is not misused, and there is appropriate compensation for the production of original news content. To that end, this Bill will establish a new, world-leading code of conduct for news media businesses and digital platforms. The code ensures that digital platforms share the benefit they obtain from using Australian-sourced news content with the news media businesses who create that content. The Treasurer will be able to determine that a digital platform is subject to the Code, having regard to ACCC and Treasury advice about whether a substantial bargaining power imbalance exists. ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority) would assess eligibility of Australian news media businesses to participate in the Code against criteria set out in the Code. The framework contained in the Bill recognises that agreements can be entered into outside of the Code. Where a news media business reaches an agreement with a digital platform, it can agree to not bargain or pursue compulsory arbitration under the code. If a news media business cannot reach an acceptable agreement with a digital platform outside of the Code, it will have the option to trigger aspects of the code to address the bargaining power imbalance. This includes minimum standard obligations that digital platforms must meet for all news media businesses registered under the code; requirements for good faith bargaining over remuneration and the application of final offer arbitration if bargaining between parties does not succeed. Should arbitration be required, both parties must each submit a final remuneration offer. Arbiters are then required to: Consider the benefits for both parties from having Australian news content available on digital platforms; and Take into account the cost of producing news content and whether any final decision places an undue burden on the digital platforms. In assessing the offers made by each party, arbiters must consider the outcome that would have arisen if commercial negotiations had taken place in circumstances where the digital platform did not have a bargaining power imbalance. The code also contains provisions to limit, as far as practicable, digital platforms' ability to avoid the code and to take retaliatory action against news media businesses for participating in the Code. This includes through provisions that prohibit digital platforms from differentiating between Australian news media businesses covered by the Code. Penalties will apply to breaches of the key provisions of the Code. The ACCC will be responsible for enforcing the Code and will be able to issue infringement notices with smaller fines for minor Code breaches. The Code will be reviewed by Treasury after one year of operation to test the effectiveness of its operation. The News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code is a world-leading initiative and a key part of the Government's strategy to ensure that the Australian economy is able to take full advantage of the benefits of digital technology, supported by appropriate regulation to protect key elements of Australian society, such as a strong, sustainable and independent Australian news media. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. Debate adjourned. 17:47 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory I move: That resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour. Question agreed to. VET Student Payment Arrangements (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2020 78

VET Student Payment Arrangements (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2020

Returned from the House of Representatives 78 Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 2) Bill 2020, Crimes Legislation Amendment (Economic Disruption) Bill 2020, Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2019, National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Mandatory Credit Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2019, Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2020, Telecommunications Amendment (Infrastructure in New Developments) Bill 2020, Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2020 Measures No. 2) Bill 2020 78

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

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Economic Disruption) Bill 2020

Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2019

National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Mandatory Credit Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2019

Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2020

Telecommunications Amendment (Infrastructure in New Developments) Bill 2020

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

Assent 78 Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020 78

Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020

Reference to Committee 78 17:48 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia Under standing order 115(2)(a), I move: That this bill be referred to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 11 March 2021. One thing that is of no difference in this chamber of this building is that we must do everything we can to keep our shores safe. There is not a senator or member in any parliament around the states or in the nation that would disagree with that. We do everything we can to stop the flow of drugs coming into this nation. One thing I can assume with confidence is that the majority of drugs coming into this nation aren't coming here by hot air balloon. I think I'd be pretty safe to say, senators, that they're not strapped to the legs of pigeon flocks heading down from South-East Asia or South America; I think I'm on the money there. One thing I could say without any fear of contradiction is that they're—and we see Border Security on the TV—catching everyone bringing in all sorts of food in their suitcases, so there's probably a good chance that the majority of these massive drug hauls aren't coming into Australia on our planes and we hope that everything is screened as it's going through. That's what they're telling us or showing us. Coming back to what I can safely say, they have to get here by ship. It's pretty simple. I can say this without any fear of contradiction: they're not coming on Australian ships. How do I know they're not coming on Australian ships? We haven't got any. The only two Australian ships we've got flagged and crewed are our gas buggies running off the north-west coast on the big side of Australia. What I can safely say, without any fear of contradiction, is that it would be flag-of-convenience vessels. In last week's media, we saw some major drug hauls off the coast of Hinchinbrook Island. Possibly it was cocaine. I haven't seen icing sugar wrapped up like that. It might have been heroin. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong and it's sugar or flour or some damn thing. To get back to the topic, we've seen the attempt of the government to make it as hard as possible, even harder, for our maritime workers, our wharfies or our seafarers, and our aviation workers. If they're doing something wrong, clamp down. But, as I said earlier today, I cannot for the life of me accept—no way—not applying the same standards to exploited foreign seafarers and flag-of-convenience vessels. It bewilders me. We also know the murky, murky system that comes with the flag-of-convenience vessels, where most of the time we don't even know who owns the ship. And yet this government tries to look us in the eye and tell us, 'We have to get harder on Australian seafarers'—what we've got left of them, plying our coastal trade—'we have to get harder on wharfies and we have to get harder on aviation workers, but don't look over here, because everything is mickey mouse; it's all tickety-boo.' That is because 24 hours to 48 hours earlier—I think it's about 500 nautical miles—the shipping company, not the shipmaster, sends an email to our authorities saying, 'These passports will match the people that are on the boat. Look at the photos. It's not a problem, absolutely.' I talked in here earlier about Captain Salas and the shameful events that happened on the Sage Sagittarius. Our authorities, God bless them—and I'll stand up and I'll support those men and women in uniform—couldn't even find him. It took Owen Jacques, the journalist on the Sunshine Coast, to inform our authorities, when the trial was on. They didn't know where Captain Salas, the convicted gun-runner and money-launderer, was. Three of his sailors had died on board—two of them had gone overboard. He was actually plying our coastal trade. He was in Gladstone and he was leaving the next day. I've clearly spoken about the disrespect that is shown—and I lay the blame at the feet of the government and the relevant ministers—to inquiries, to Senate procedures, to the Senate and to all the senators involved in the inquiries by people not giving the answers. Madam Acting Deputy President Kitching, you know they cannot use the excuse of national security. We offer them the opportunity to go in camera. It is now time to call them back. The minister needs to lead the charge and tell his subordinates, 'Start answering questions. Australians need to know.' 17:53 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I rise in support of Senator Sterle's motion to refer the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020 to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. We've had a last-minute amendment to this legislation, which has been on the books for years—an amendment that takes away the rights of so many workers within this industry. At the same time, as Senator Sterle quite rightly outlined, we've got ships being crewed by people that do not get proper security checks. How, within 28 or 48 hours, can you possibly turn around and do a proper check on an overseas seafarer who is carting ammonium nitrate around the shores of this country? How can you possibly do it so quickly? We know they can't do it for Australian seafarers. We know they can't do it for aviation workers. We know they can't do it for workers working on our ports. So they're not doing it and they're not doing it properly. This particular bill seeks to extend a right to dramatically expand the powers of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission—an organisation which, at this point, is substantially underresourced and which hasn't been cross-examined in any real detail about this proposal which would see workers lose their clearance entirely on the basis of untested intelligence. They would be doing it on the basis of a suspected future breach. It's a bit like saying: 'You're likely to get a speeding ticket sometime in the future. I will just fine you now.' But the fine in this case is losing your job. The fine in this case is pertaining to people they don't have evidence against. You can take the worst of all circumstances—be a pariah amongst your community, lose your job, be embarrassed with your family, and be robbed of your income. What if we had this sort of approach to corporations on wage theft? My goodness! Imagine saying, 'I think this company is in that group that might steal by wage theft, if you cross-examine the sorts of statistics on wage theft—which parts of the market and who is most likely to offend—so let's just hold them to account straightaway.' That would be ridiculous, but that's exactly what they are doing with seafarers and aviation workers, based on intelligence that is not transparent and is not appropriately accountable. Quite clearly this is all trumped up. If you were trumping this up into some sort of national security concern, then you would actually have a strategy for the seafarers who have been brought in from overseas who do the coastal shipping. But guess what? They don't. It's not hard to work out why they don't; it's because that's where the big money is for those corporations that put us in danger. That's what good government is supposed to be about. It's supposed to be about making sure it's not about the dollar but about the community. It's about our national interests, not just about the next trip we can get at a lower rate. As I said before in relation to ammonium nitrate—let alone gun running, drug using and murderers, as Senator Sterle has pointed out—it's critically important that we look at the appropriate merits of any proposition, and that opportunity has not been fully exercised. Yes, it had a momentary look at the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, but there was not a proper investigation into the aspects that the government has put forward. There has not been an opportunity for appropriate committee surveillance of these issues, and it will be able to give evidence in an appropriate way. Answers have not been given. I've sat in various hearings of RRAT—not in camera—when we were cross-examining about the strengths, pitfalls and weaknesses. There was no suggestion that these sorts of arrangements were going to specifically be put into this bill when we were actually having these discussions. They avoided it because they're hiding from the facts and trying to put it through at the last minute because it doesn't stand the test. This affects real people and the capacity to have this done transparently. The fact is that this is being sped through. It's appropriate that this be given further consideration so that all the parties and the crossbenchers can give it proper consideration. I urge people to support the proposition from Senator Sterle. Let's make sure we get this on track. 17:58 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria The Greens will be supporting this motion from Senator Sterle in relation to the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill. We think it's very appropriate that this legislation be sent off to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport committee for further consideration because there are so many unanswered questions about it. As it stands at the moment, from what is known, without further consideration and further discussion to amend it and make it a workable bit of legislation, there is this huge disparity between extra security controls being placed upon Australian workers and, in contrast, the security controls on foreign seafarers just not being there. I think we've been having this debate the whole time that I've been in the Senate, 6½ years, and nothing has changed. There is a lot of control—appropriately, yes. Where we need to make sure that Australian workers aren't a security risk, it's appropriate to have those controls. But this legislation is increasing the controls, making it more difficult for Australian workers to actually be able to work in our ports and airports. At the same time, nothing is being done about the security risk of foreign seafarers. Their risk to security, as I said in my speech in the second reading debate, is a big question mark, particularly because of the very poor conditions that the seafarers are working under on a lot of these ships. In terms of the pressure on them, there is the potential risk of them thinking that maybe they could get a bit of money on the side, maybe do something nefarious, because they get paid next to nothing, they have families at home that are struggling and they haven't been home for months, if not years. They are at prime risk of being susceptible to taking action that's not in Australia's interests and potentially being a security risk, yet this huge gaping hole in our security is just not being given the proper consideration that it needs by this government. Along with the whole issue of the demise of the Australian shipping industry, the increasing reliance on foreign owned ships and flag-of-convenient shipping, where you have workers who are being really dreadfully exploited, you have environmental standards going out the window. Yet the government has sat on its hands and we have had nothing that has progressed this issue any further the whole six years I've been here. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the motion, as moved by Senator Sterle, that the bill be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [18:05]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

34 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Dodson, P Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Griff, S Hanson, P Hanson-Young, SC Kitching, K Lambie, J Lines, S McCarthy, M (teller) McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Rice, J Roberts, M 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 Birmingham, SJ Bragg, AJ Brockman, S (teller) Canavan, MJ Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ Paterson, J Rennick, G Reynolds, L Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021 81

Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021

Second Reading 81 18:09 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia The bill before us in the chamber, the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021, as we know, is a bill to establish a mandatory code of conduct to help the sustainability of Australian news media. It does this by seeking to address the bargaining power imbalances between digital platforms and Australian news businesses. Most Australians will know something about this because it's certainly been in the news of late, and if they didn't see it in the news then many Australians would have seen their Facebook content and platforms disrupted. We know that this code has been more than three years in the making, spearheaded by the ACCC through the digital platforms inquiry. It is Australia's attempt to address the decline in public interest journalism by capturing news media revenue from dominant digital platforms, as other jurisdictions have attempted to do with varying degrees of success. From the outset, Labor has indicated in-principle support for a workable code to address the bargaining imbalance between dominant digital platforms and Australia's news media. On that note, Labor supports the bill to establish this mandatory code of conduct to address this imbalance. However, we note that the code of conduct does not preclude parties from their own commercial negotiations or reaching deals outside the code, and I look forward to hearing more from the government about that later, as we note that seems to have been happening. The bill has a framework to empower the minister to designate certain digital platform services with a significant bargaining power and to empower ACMA to register certain news media businesses that meet certain thresholds so that those parties may be brought together to arbitrate, negotiate and bargain in good faith to reach binding agreements or access an independent arbiter to determine remuneration under final offer arbitration, should they be unable to reach agreement. We also see that the bill will enable digital platforms to publish standard offers which provide smaller news media businesses with a pathway to accessing those agreements, as well as setting minimum standards for digital platforms, including having 14 days advance notice of algorithm changes that might impact news media businesses. We note that the code will be reviewed within one year of the commencement of the bill. The Labor Party have extended constructive in-principle support and we see that the government has signalled the consideration of amendments. However, I think the minister tabled some amendments to the explanatory memorandum. I'm unaware whether they have tabled or signalled any amendments to the bill itself in this chamber. We saw that the government circulated amendments for debate in the House on 17 February and described those amendments as 'a number of clarifications and technical amendments'. Progressing from there, we supported the bill as amended by the government in the House. But we stand here today with still a number of questions for the government on how it intends to implement this law in practice. These questions are particularly in relation to what digital platforms and services will be designated under this new code and when. Those questions from the Labor Party remain outstanding. As late as today we have been waiting to find out whether you would amend the bill further. We've seen Treasurer Frydenberg say that he is continuing discussions with Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg about the outstanding issues within the code. He indicated that some amendments might be made. But we see that the government has not elected to amend the bill. Labor is of the view that, for the government to ensure that a bill of such consequence in a negotiation context be readied for debate in this parliament, it's not good enough that these issues have remained unclear until now. I'm assuming that no amendments are to be made. For many months now Google and Facebook have expressed concerns that the code wasn't workable and explained that they may withdraw products and services from Australia if their concerns were not addressed. Indeed, we've seen news that Google has been working to land deals with Australian news media publishers, which is a welcome thing. But it appears that there is also some kind of understanding that's been negotiated between Google and the government when it comes to the future designation of Google services under the code. However, we see that Facebook continues to express serious reservations about the bill, and somewhat of an explosion of that has impacted on many Australians' access to information. Facebook took the unprecedented world-first step of restricting publishers and people in Australia from sharing or viewing Australian and international news content. But we see also that there was a large-scale overblocking of material not subject to the code, including the pages of health, emergency and community services, and we'll need to discuss these issues further in the committee stages. Millions of Australians are understandably aggrieved that Facebook blocked them from accessing content, including important community services, in the midst of a pandemic. Issues like this need to be fixed as a matter of urgency. Blocking news services subject to the code could persist, impacting large mainstream media companies as well as smaller publishers. So we need to call on the government today to do its job, to craft a workable news media code that supports the media without undermining our digital economy or disrupting millions of Australian citizens and small businesses, as we have seen, because a great many communities benefit from sharing information on these platforms. In the additional comments to the report of the Senate inquiry into this bill, Labor senators cautioned, very strongly, that the withdrawal of Google search and Facebook news sharing from Australia would disrupt many millions of Australians who use these services every month and more than a million small businesses that are relying on these platforms as part of their rebuilding after COVID. The delay and uncertainty with these processes has dragged on, and we've seen the disruption to millions of Australians of the services they access online. Labor very much affirms that Australian sovereignty should be respected and that Australian law should be well crafted, proportionate and fair. We don't say that the government should respond to threats from digital platforms but we do call on the government to do its job—the job it said it would do—and find a way to support the media without disrupting millions of Australians and small businesses. Labor's been very much outcomes focused during this debate. We want a code that's about ensuring the sustainability of public interest journalism and the importance of the fourth estate, in light of the ongoing disruption to the news media that we've experienced over some decades, and its traditional business models, and that's further been disrupted by the power of the digital platforms we're discussing in this legislation today. It is, ultimately, about having a healthy, functioning democracy, which means we need access to news and information. As to the potential impact of this legislation on news media businesses, digital platforms, small businesses, citizens and consumers, I have to say that the government should have had its ducks in a row a lot earlier, rather than seeing the chaos of last week. We know that there's still a great deal of uncertainty about the future of designation of the platforms and services, which will remain, under this legislation, a matter of ministerial discretion. So we don't know what further disruption we might see as part of future negotiations if the government gets this wrong. Not all Australian news media businesses have struck deals, as we know, with the digital platforms, and the passage of this bill may impact their relative negotiation position with those platforms. We remain concerned about this and we want to see balance. It's not clear to us how the government will achieve the intention of levelling the bargaining position between the news media and digital platforms if certain services are not designated and the negotiate-arbitrate provisions of the code do not apply. This remains to be seen. For this reason, Labor recommends the government use precise language in its public statements regarding what designations it intends to make under this code. We want to save any misunderstanding or unnecessary uncertainty for the media, digital platforms, small businesses, citizens and consumers who may be impacted—and they look very likely to be impacted. It goes without saying that the government needs to be judicious when it comes to making designation determinations under this code once it's passed. There's a great deal of stakeholder concern with the bill. We note that the corollary of addressing the dominance of digital platforms could involve potential impacts beyond the news media, and the outcomes of this might be unknown. Many small businesses, small and medium news media, publishers, citizens and consumers are worried about these impacts. The government's indication by media release on 8 December that the code will apply to Google Search, combined with the minister's subsequent enthusiastic promotion of alternative search engines, such as Microsoft's Bing and DuckDuckGo, caused many Australians and small businesses uncertainty and worry about the potential impacts of this legislation, noting Google's threat to withdraw their search engine from Australia. So we see a great deal of concern from stakeholders expressed should Google Search withdraw—and should Facebook also withdraw news from Australia—in response to the passage of this bill. The disruptions would be very real, and that's despite the alternative search engines and social media platforms that are available. We're very used to the dominance of Facebook and Google in this regard. I'd like to thank all of the constituents for reaching out to us in the Labor Party about those concerns. Reporting has recently referred to the withdrawal of Google Search from Australia as a 'death sentence' for small to medium enterprises. I don't have time to go into the detail of many of the concerns, such as how much revenue, if any, will be invested in additional journalists, with the exception of the ABC, which is committed to investing in regional services should it be able to access revenue from arbitration and what economic loss to the community there would be should Google or Facebook withdraw services. We can see that some mainstream businesses will benefit from increased traffic and advertising on their news products, but there are also risks to small and independent businesses, who may lose referrals, and media diversity could be undermined rather than strengthened. We in Australia have one of the most concentrated media markets in the world, and search engines and social media are absolutely instrumental in accessing news and information and ensuring that we have access to a diversity of sources both domestic and international. Other reforms that this government has put forward have not been achieved, and there's a lot more to do. We're pleased that evidence that work on the code to date has improved the responsiveness of digital platforms to the news media, but this is not an end in itself. Finally, we support this bill. The government needs to act on the balance of the recommendations of the report that has prompted this legislation. In closing, I move the second reading amendment standing in my name: At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate: (a) notes that: (i) Australia has one of the most concentrated media markets in the world, (ii) since the Government's changes to media law in 2017, there have been alarming contractions and warning signs of market failure in Australia's media landscape, and (iii) the Bill was introduced 18 months after the ACCC delivered the Final Report of the Digital Platforms Inquiry in June 2019 and does not address all of the ACCC's recommendations to support public interest journalism; and (b) calls on the Government to: (i) do more to support public interest journalism in Australia as a matter of urgency, (ii) deliver a support and transition package to assist news media publishers unduly negatively impacted as a consequence of this Bill, and (iii) make appropriate provision to ensure the viability of AAP newswire as a matter of priority". 18:24 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise this evening to speak in relation to the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021. This bill enacts recommendations from the ACCC after some three years of work by the regulatory body on these issues. I think it's really important to say at the outset that this bill is designed to deal with one particular part of the issues facing public interest journalism in this country—news media and, of course, the long-awaited regulation of the big tech giants. It doesn't solve everything. It certainly cannot stand alone as the only action that needs to be taken to ensure that we deal with the monopoly that exists online with the digital tech giants and the monopoly that exists within Australia's media landscape—namely, the monopoly of the Murdoch press. We know that public interest journalism in this country has been struggling for quite some time. Trying to get to the negotiating table with these big tech giants to negotiate how they access the services of digital advertising and revenue spend has been very, very difficult. The ACCC's report, after three years, made it very clear that there was a power imbalance in relation to the ability of media organisations and publishers to actually have a fair and genuine negotiation with those big tech giants. Facebook and Google didn't need to turn up to the table and they didn't need to put genuine offers on the table, and, in many cases, they refused to do so. Monopolies are bad. They often lead to a lesser quality product and higher prices for the consumer. In this scenario, we have seen that the monopoly that both Google and Facebook have had has really made it difficult for those who create news journalism in this country to be able to be paid for the content that they create, access the advertising revenue in a fair and transparent way and continue on their very important work. Public interest journalism is essential to ensure that we have a robust and accountable democracy; to ensure that there are journalists being paid for the work that they do to investigate very important news and stories in the public interest; to ensure that there is a fourth estate that is willing and able, funded and resourced, to hold the government of the day and the parliament to account. It is essential that we have journalists working to inform the rest of us about what is going on in our own backyards, in our own communities, across the country, and, indeed, where Australia fits in the rest of the world. As I said at the outset, this particular piece of legislation doesn't solve all of the problems we face in 2021 when it comes to the current online platforms or the monopolies within the media landscape here. It deals with one particular part. It deals with advertising revenue and the bargaining process for that, and that is it. The government and this parliament have a lot of work to do to make sure this is not set-and-forget, that we actually roll up our sleeves and get serious about making sure there is a proper investment and that the settings are there for investment into media diversity in this country to make sure that we can tackle the other big monopoly that exists in Australia. That, of course, is the monopoly of News Corp. We can't have a continuing attack on our public broadcaster from this government. Cut after cut after cut is making our public broadcaster less and less effective when it comes to covering the stories that really matter to Australians and making those stories and that information accessible. We need to make sure that small publishers, independent publishers and start-up news organisations can get a foothold in the market and are able to flourish so that we are not just employing new journalists in this country and the next generation of journalists but ensuring that, as consumers, as the audience, as regular members of the community, we have free and open access and transparency to be able to consume the information and the news that those new platforms and those new agencies are able to create for us. There are a number of things in this piece of legislation that need amending. Overall, the principle of tackling the power imbalance is absolutely right; it does need to happen. But there are a number of amendments needed to make sure the Australian people—the community, our news organisations, our smaller publishers and other regular users of the internet—are protected. We need to make sure that the ABC's funding is secure, and I foreshadow that, as part of tonight's debate, I'll be moving an amendment to protect the ABC's funding going forward. We'll also move an amendment to ensure that small and independent publishers get a fair say when it comes to the review of this legislation in 12 months time. We called for a review of the legislation, and it has been promised by the government. We want to make sure that small independent publishers are front and centre when the impacts are being considered. We also want an amendment to ensure that the revenue gained through this piece of legislation actually goes where it is intended—that is, to the journalists themselves. We want to see this money flow to the newsrooms, not the boardrooms. This shouldn't be simply another slush fund for big media corporations that already monopolise the market here in Australia. It needs to go to ensuring that journalists and photographers get paid for their work and that the groundbreaking public interest stories that are waiting to be uncovered right across the country are uncovered and made accessible to everyday Australians. We need to make sure this money actually goes to journalism and not just into the pockets of shareholders or executives. Putting this piece of legislation aside, there is also the looming issue of how we deal with the power of big data. It is not just an issue Australia has to grapple with but something countries and governments right around the world are facing. The power of big data, corporations like Facebook and Google, to run surveillance on their customers, their everyday users, and to bundle up that data and sell it off for their huge profit at the expense of people's privacy and the integrity of their use online, is just extraordinary. It needs to be reined in. In the European Union there has been a long-running debate in relation to reining in the power of the tech giants and ensuring that the individual user has control over where their data is collected, who it's collected by and where it goes next. It worries me, as a mother, that everything my 14-year-old daughter does online is tracked and traced by big corporations right around the world. It worries me that these big corporations don't just know where she has been, what she likes, where she shops and who she is friends with but dictate what she's going to show interest in next. She is a 14-year-old, and her data footprint is being collated, collected and then sold to the highest bidder. It is simply not okay. We have to make sure we implement proper protections for users' data and privacy right here in Australia. We don't need to be on our own in this. The EU is there and many other countries are going there. Australia needs to be front and centre in making sure we protect the user, the individual person online, not just the interests of the big corporations. We also, of course, need to tackle big money in this space. When you have big corporations like Facebook, Google and the Murdoch press paying little to no tax in this country, you know you've got a problem. Tonight we will be moving an amendment that goes directly to this point because we shouldn't be in a situation where two big billionaires, Mark Zuckerberg and Rupert Murdoch, get to dictate what news Australians get to consume, when they consume it and by which means they can consume it, all the while not paying tax in this country. We need to start turning up the heat on these big corporations and these billionaires to pay their fair share of tax, to ensure that these services and these products exist in the public interest, not just for the corporate profit. We have got to stop these corporations from being able to run their tax affairs so they can minimise their tax using offshore havens. We need to make sure that the Australian people get bang for their buck when pieces of legislation like this pass. Monopolies are bad. We need to take them on and we need to have the guts and the courage to do it. This amendment tonight is only one small part and it's not going to fix the problem at large. We need to get some amendments into this legislation. I look forward to debating this bill in the committee stage. I also look forward to having a genuine discussion with both sides of government, both sides of parliament, in relation to how we're going to rein in these big billionaires for good, because for far too long they have called the shots. They've absolutely called the shots. We've got to rein in the big tech giants, we have to protect people's data and their privacy and we have to make sure that Australians have access to a diversity of public interest news and that it's not just dominated by the wills, the whims and the political agenda of a billionaire from his apartment in Manhattan. I look forward to debating the rest of this bill into the evening. 18:37 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I too rise to make a contribution on the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021. Last week we saw the worst of behaviour from big tech. It was on show for all to see. The petulant behaviour of Facebook and what they did last week reinforces for me why this legislation is not only necessary but that the tough stance that the government has taken on this issue is justified. My constituents in New South Wales were met on Friday in the Daily Telegraph, which is a widely read newspaper in New South Wales, with headlines such as 'Faceblock—Social media giant's news ban lays bare its callous disregard for Australians'. It goes on to say 'Unfriendly fire hits Oz' and it looks at the sites which were blocked, which included sites of emergency services, support services such as helplines, charities, government agencies, university research sites, commercial sites, sports sites, retail sites, arts and other sites. They are listed. Indeed, one very interesting little headline by James Morrow read, 'It's time I zucked off and became anti-social'. I wonder whether after my speech this evening I will be zucked off by Facebook and my Facebook page deleted? But, of course, there is concern. For example, the newspaper also talks about how the block by Facebook was shutting the door to child abuse cops, and how Facebook would risk hindering probes into under-age sex complaints. The editorial on that day was very interesting. It's headed 'True colours shown and they're all bad.' It was interesting. It summed up the situation very, very well and it drew an interesting parallel between the need for Australians, particularly post pandemic, to look at and examine decoupling from China and the dependence that we have on China. It said that, just like China, Australia must now find other ways to connect and be informed online. In other words, it said and drew this parallel: China hit Australia with trade barriers and tariffs, and now Facebook has hit us with indiscriminate page purges. It is a very good analogy. Of course, I have been advocating for us to decouple from China, just as I think that the time has come for other players to be involved in this space. I'll now look at some detail in relation to this bill. It will establish a world-first mandatory code to address the bargaining power imbalances between digital platforms and Australian news businesses. We know that consumers are obtaining their news more and more online, and news media businesses are now having to deal with the challenges of finding a viable and sustainable business model so that public interest journalism can be provided. But, at the same time, we do see that digital platforms are thriving, with their advertising revenues growing in leaps and bounds. Under these circumstances, it is totally unacceptable that digital platforms continue to earn revenue from news content that is created by Australian news media outlets and news businesses without them being properly remunerated. The ACCC found that this situation has arisen because of the imbalance of the bargaining power between these platforms and local businesses. That's why this code seeks to find a fair and flexible way to deal with this imbalance. The code will encourage the parties to negotiate commercially outside the code, and there are processes that will be put in place if these negotiations are not successful. It's important to look at bargaining; it does say 'good faith' bargaining. There is also a process of arbitration in the event that a deal cannot be reached. The code also, importantly, provides for standard codes and for the publishing of standard offers, which are ways for those small businesses to avoid the cost and time of going to arbitration. Of course, the code will apply to Facebook and Google at first, but will be expanded in the future to other platforms. There are also substantial penalties for breaching the code's provisions. As the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I do want to raise a number of scrutiny points which were raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I'll again reiterate another bill which has substantial and significant matters that are going to be set out in delegated legislation. This is, of course, of great concern to the committee that I chair, because we do continue to see again another legislative scheme which should be included in primary legislation rather than delegated legislation. This was a concern that was raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. It also raised the question of the power of the minister to make a determination that specifies services as designated digital platform services and specifies corporations as designated digital platform corporations. This is the sort of thing that should be in the primary legislation rather than the delegated legislation, because here we have circumstances where rights will be affected. These are concerns that have been repeatedly raised and, unfortunately, here we have another bill that is likely to fall foul of scrutiny and delegated legislation principles. In recent opinion piece 'Big Tech has no claim to moral high ground', Rachael Falk, the chief executive of the Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre, makes some very valid points. She refers to an incident at the San Bernadino County Department of Public Health. Following that incident, a problem emerged in relation to the phones and accessing encrypted data. Despite the death and the carnage and the desperate search for answers to what had happened, Apple dug its heels in and wouldn't provide the necessary assistance to authorities. And recently we've seen the banning of former President Trump by Twitter and Facebook. Ms Falk makes this comment: It is, at best, misguided altruism, but is more likely feigned in the name of wokeness. It serves to build a false sense of trust and camaraderie with users, when ultimately all these platforms want is their data and dollars. It is also virtue signalling of the highest order and of the worst kind. The type that has much more to do with the bottom line than the betterment of society. The kind that is worth billions to Big Tech. Importantly, for all people, this must be a wake-up call. Because any threat to free speech is a threat to democracy. And by muzzling Trump, these platforms have demonstrated the potential power they wield in "designing discourse". She states, and I think it's worth noting this very important point: This power is far more immense than that of a government or media mogul—it represents a move away from social media to social engineering, algorithms over informed decision making. There is no moral high ground. We've seen what happened with Parler, the social network platform that was very popular amongst conservative users. It was plunged into internet limbo recently, facing a technical, complex and very costly path to getting back online. Amazon booted the company from its cloud computing services, knocking it offline—again, taking the decision for what they deem you should be reading and have access to. I think Silicon Valley is silencing dissent while depriving users of free-speech alternative platforms. There is an article, written by spiked online editor Andrew Doyle, called 'We ignore Big Technology censorship at our peril'. He's not a fan of former President Trump; nevertheless, he does make some very important and valid points. I'd like to pick up on some of them. He says: The glee of seeing Trump banned has blinded left-wingers to the threat posed by Silicon Valley. The greatest trick of authoritarians is to convince their subjects to rejoice in their own subjugation. Over the past week we have seen self-proclaimed 'leftists' cheering on multi-billion dollar corporations as they ratchet up their policies on censorship and their determination to control the parameters of acceptable thought and speech. The article also states: Big Tech censorship is set to be one of the most important issues of our time, and those of us who still care about our liberties are right to be vigilant. Let us consider the misconceptions one by one. The tech giants of Silicon Valley operate a collective oligopoly over the equivalent of the modern-day public square. The article goes on to say: These kinds of corporate oligopolies are precisely the reason why antitrust legislation exists in an open-market economy. … The way in which the tech giants have coordinated to prevent users from accessing Parler, a rival platform established in 2018, demonstrates that they are willing to go to any lengths to ensure that their dominance of the market is absolute. I would like to continue my comments with what Twitter did in terms of banning a former president, Donald Trump. I thought that was absolutely appalling. I was actually pleased to see that Chancellor Merkel was very critical of that as well. Of course, there is the hypocrisy of Twitter. They're prepared to let totalitarian rulers continue to promote their bile and their vile comments. They were prepared to take action in relation to President Trump but still let the head of Iran continue with his activities, particularly calling, as Iran does, for the wholesale eradication of Israel. That's just hypocrisy in the extreme. I conclude my remarks with some comments that were made by spiked-online editor Brendan O'Neill. He talks about the unaccountable billionaires in Silicon Valley who switched president Donald Trump off, which is a clear and grotesque interference in democracy. He refers to this as Silicon Valley influences switching off politicians and preventing them from engaging online. People should not underestimate just how serious this is. 18:52 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia Thirty-two years ago, on a cold June day, scientists in Melbourne succeeded in realising a project that had been in the making since the mid 1970s. It started out as idle speculation. But interest grew over the years as the possibilities became clear and obstacles were overcome. By the late 1980s the project secured enough support and funding for it to become a reality. So on that June morning in 1989 a computer at the University of Melbourne established a connection to a NASA satellite, which in turn connected to a computer at the University of Hawaii. Australia had joined the internet. In the months that followed the connection was upgraded and more universities were brought in. The Australian Research Council and the CSIRO both contributed funding and before the year was out our first internet service providers were established, allowing businesses and individuals to connect to the internet in their own right. Since then the internet has transformed our society, our economy and the way that we live. But one effect is already clear: the internet can enable much greater competition in some markets but greater concentration in others. Market concentration is already one of the most difficult and enduring economic policy issues in this country. A small number of large corporations dominate many of our markets: the big four banks, the supermarkets, the airlines, electricity providers, gas companies and fuel companies. Concentration allows each to exercise market power—power they would not possess in a truly competitive market, power they can use to exploit their stakeholders. Suppliers are often squeezed to the point of bankruptcy, as our dairy farmers can attest. Employees are required to work harder without the wage rises they deserve, as many workers will tell you. Customers pay top dollar for often mediocre service and mediocre products, as anyone with an electricity bill will know. And governments are squeezed to provide a favourable regulatory and tax setting. The winners from market power are corporate executives and shareholders. We are now approaching the 30th anniversary of the National Competition Policy, but we have not made enough progress towards a truly competitive Australian economy. We still have an economy that suffers from too little competition, too little innovation and too little market reform. For all the benefits the internet has brought and will continue to bring to Australia, it can also cause harm through increased concentration. We must act now to intervene, to regulate and to prevent the increasing concentration of market power, before it is too late. The default structure for tech is a natural monopoly, a winner-takes-all market that Google, for example, enjoys with search and Facebook enjoys with its social network. Unlike past monopolies these businesses don't squeeze consumers into paying top dollars for their services. They use their market power in a different way; they compel users to give up their privacy. The price the public pay for Google and Facebook services is giving up their privacy. Business pays in other ways. The news media has paid most dearly. Their content has been stolen and reused by digital platforms, who earn advertising revenue from the content but pay little, if any, compensation to the news publishers. Publishers have been unable to challenge this practice out of fear that they will be cut off from Google or Facebook, risking their entire business. This was happening while 'the rivers of gold' were drying up with publishers and many of them were struggling to survive. The last decade has been one of consolidation as news publishers merged and closed, and embarked on waves of redundancies. To give publishers the best chance for survival, the Turnbull government introduced media reforms in 2017. In retrospect, that bill should also have dealt with the unethical practices of some digital platforms. But, at the time, there was a belief that publishers could reach a fair deal with the platforms. Sadly, that wasn't the case. The negotiations on that bill were very intense, with my colleague Nick Xenophon primarily seeking support for civic journalism—particularly to help smaller media entities transition to the digital environment—while I focused on securing what became the ACCC's Digital Platforms Inquiry. We were successful in putting the case to government, and I am glad that that inquiry has led to this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021. Despite all the hyperbole and the grandstanding, this bill is really a routine piece of legislation. It simply provides that a platform and a publisher can enter into arbitration if they can't reach a deal. It's not rocket science; that's all it is. Neither party is forced to participate. If a publisher or platform don't want to do a deal with each other, they are not obligated to do so. The code only applies when both sides want a deal but they cannot come to an agreement. The arbitration process will remedy the problem of platforms delaying negotiations and squeezing suppliers of news content. It does so by creating a pathway for a rapid, fair outcome that considers the benefits each side receives from the deal and the costs they incur. The legislation is routine—even, I dare say, mundane—but you would never know this if you focused on the extraordinary reactions from the platforms. Google's threat to quit Australia and Facebook's decision to deny service to thousands of Australian news providers and government pages were a massive and very pathetic overreach. These stunts demonstrated that tech companies believe they can intimidate democratic governments to secure favourable outcomes. But they have spectacularly backfired. Google's threat to leave Australia lost them any parliamentary goodwill they may have enjoyed. Facebook's decision to block pages like the Bureau of Meteorology, state health agencies and local community groups lost them any public sympathy. Going rogue has demonstrated to Australians that there is an urgent need to regulate digital platforms. This is why I'm also moving an amendment that forces designated platforms to disclose their user data practices. They'll have to publish what types of data they collect, what data they make available to other businesses or foreign governments and how users can opt out of having their private data harvested. Transparency alone will not change their behaviour, but it will mean users are better informed about the practices of digital platforms and it will foster a debate about what practices are appropriate. It is a vital step in developing a regulatory framework that controls digital platforms and forces them to comply with community standards and, importantly, expectations. This bill and my amendment are temporary measures. As the internet and digital technologies evolve the policy challenges and opportunities will also evolve. The important thing today is to lay the foundations for future regulation. There will be occasions when tech companies engage in behaviour that is unfair, unethical or dishonest. When they do it is entirely appropriate for government to intervene. There is nothing special about tech that allows them to do as they please. But the longer we wait to create a framework for regulating platforms, the harder it will be to hold them to account. So we must start work today, work to build a framework that protects Australians and their privacy and ensures tech companies act fairly, ethically and honestly. 19:01 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I rise to address the Senate on the question of the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021. I must start this contribution by reflecting upon where this legislation fits into the Liberal tradition in Australia. We have always been a party that has supported markets, that has believed that markets ultimately deliver better lives. But we have been prepared, in the past, to intervene where there has been market failure, or in the public interest. This is something that I reflected upon in my first speech in this place some 18 months ago. At the time I quoted Theodore Roosevelt, who spoke about his own philosophy of intervening in a coal strike of 1902—not for the basis of labour or for capital but in the public interest. Roosevelt said at the time: Now I believe in rich people who act squarely, and in labor unions which are managed with wisdom and justice; but when either employee or employer, labouring man or capitalist, goes wrong, I have to clinch him, and that is all there is to it. That is exactly the philosophy that we take as Liberals in Australian liberalism and that is a feature of this bill, because we have come to the view that big tech companies are a threat to our liberal democracy and they have an inordinate amount of power over our society and over our economy. They are the railroads and, indeed, they are the monopolists of the 21st century. Big tech is lightly regulated when you compare it to the sort of regulatory burden that would face a telecommunications company or an energy provider or, indeed, a bank. So we have made a judgement, based on evidence, that there has been market failure which has led to the drying up of money for public interest journalism. The simple example here is—and I make this point as someone who used to work at SPC on the tomato line—that you wouldn't go into a shop and steal a can of tomatoes and give it away for free, which is effectively the deal you see when tech platforms appropriate, in some form, journalists' products and then give them away for free, thereby collecting advertising revenue on that basis. The ACCC undertook a landmark report into digital platforms in this country, where they found that for each $100 of online advertising in Australia $50 went to Google and $28 went to Facebook. So these laws were often known as the Google and Facebook laws. The way these laws will operate, as I'll step through them in a moment, is they will see the designation of Facebook and Google as the initial two cabs off the rank. This is not about trying to retrofit changing market dynamics. It's not trying to engineer the economy. It's simply saying that where there is journalism produced, appropriated and given away for nothing that should not happen. There should be a financial transaction between the media company that is creating the journalism and the tech platform which is using it to drive revenue. It's not about going back in time and regenerating or rebirthing Video Ezy; this is about crossing the Rubicon and providing a limited set of regulations around big tech companies in Australia. This is the beginning—this may be the end but, hopefully, it's closer to the beginning of my parliamentary career. Over the course of that I imagine you'll only see more regulation in the big tech landscape because these organisations are effectively utilities. They are essential services that people in our country rely upon. As we've seen this very week, people rely upon these market based institutions to access information. Just as we regulate telecommunications companies, banks and energy companies, we should always look at utilities through a prism of competitive neutrality. Of course we're not the only liberal democracy which is grappling with the challenges that public journalism face today as a result of big tech appropriation of their property. In France, which I think has been the first mover, alongside Australia, two weeks ago Google announced that they would be paying French publishers almost $100 million for content. In the European Union and France, they are using copyright law. We have chosen to go down the path of using competition law in Australia. As people are aware, the world is watching how we progress with these reforms. This bill is based on bringing the parties to the table—that's what it does. It designates a power to the Treasurer which he or she can apply to organisations which are designated to be these big tech organisations. Google and Facebook are the first two. Over the past few weeks there have been many threats. All sorts of things have been said. Only a month ago it was said that these laws would break the internet. In the past few weeks we've started to see deals being done in Australia by Google with news outfits. I have to give credit where credit is due: Google is doing the right thing. I can't say the same for Facebook, which in the last week has gone rogue and decided that it would use its immense market power in a petulant way to switch off not just news information but community based information, health information and charitable information. For what purpose? Just to demonstrate its immense market power. Facebook going rogue and removing genuine news content from its platform has left it as the home of fake news and cat photos. That is not surprising to me, because Facebook's performance at the Senate Economics Legislation Committee was nothing short of petulant. I was disappointed that they couldn't put forward their Australian based head. There may have been a reason for that, I don't know. It reminded me very much of Rio Tinto's ham-fisted management of the destruction of the Juukan Gorge, where they effectively said that there were people in London trying to manage relations on the ground with the PKKP people. You've got to be serious. The founder of Facebook, Mr Zuckerberg, is engaged with the Treasurer on a daily basis—they had seven calls on the weekend. But Facebook couldn't put forward their Australian based head to come and address the Australian Senate when it was considering this detailed legislation. That was a very disappointing showing from Facebook. I'm not surprised that they have carried out these ridiculous threats over the last week, which of course they've had to wind back. I understand that, in most cases, the charities community based information has now been restored. But, of course the news has not been restored. But that is okay. If Facebook doesn't want to have news on its platform, fine. People will go to apps. People will go directly to websites. The Australian government spends $1 billion each year providing news to Australians in the form of the ABC. I am a supporter of the ABC. There are mixed views about the ABC in this chamber. I am a big supporter of it. I think it can always do better. I think the ABC has had issues in the past with bias. But I pay credit to David Anderson, the managing director of the ABC, who in the past week has said the employees of the ABC—that is, the working journalists—should not bring the ABC into disrepute by making political statements. That is a very good point. That is something he has taken from the BBC's director-general, who has taken BBC journalists off Twitter when they have made partisan statements. It would be a ridiculous position for taxpayers to be funding partisan material. The reality is that we spend $1 billion each year on the ABC. There is good news available there. There is good news available at News, Sky and The Guardian. So if there is no news on Facebook, big deal. That's fine. The caravan will roll on and the dogs will bark. We are better placed now than we were a month ago when these hearings were being conducted. Google was saying that the changes will break the internet. They were advertising directly to the millions and millions of people who use the website every single day. But now they are doing a deal. It really worries me—and this is coming from someone who believes strongly in the value of markets and the utility of corporations—when these organisations are going around saying the internet is going to be broken but now we're going to do a deal. And now you've got Facebook saying the world is going to end. It really worries me. I don't think we should resile in any way from being prepared to put more regulation onto these organisations. For what they do, they are lightly regulated. They don't face capital requirements and minimum service standards. They are not licensed. Yet they have so much information and wield so much power. Some of the best work done in this parliament is done through the committee system. When this legislation was being reviewed, there was a strong sense on all sides that this was a bill that was doing an important thing for our country. We may not agree with every last component part of it, but we all agree with the thrust of the changes and that they are inevitable. Some technical amendments to the bill have been circulated by the minister. These are changes requested in large part by the tech companies, which we as a government are happy to accommodate. These go to changes in relation to algorithms and the way arbitration works. At the end of the day, I come back to the point about the tin of fruit. You don't go into a shop and steal a tin of fruit and give it away for free. This is the principle at stake here. Yes, it's complicated. Yes, it can be difficult. Yes, there are lots of lies and lots of threats. But that is the principle at stake. Giving away public interest journalism and putting that at risk is a price we can't afford to pay in a liberal democracy that relies on having that institution maintained. Facebook, in their overreach, have reminded us all of the immense market power this organisation has. This is just a start. My view is that the big tech companies need to do a lot better at self-regulating. If they don't, then we will be prepared to regulate more. They are engaging in censorship. They have become publishers. I've always thought that they are publishers, because they decide who gets to use their platforms, they get to decide who gets to be published on their platforms. They have decided to take public figures off their platforms in recent months. They have decided to edit the news. They have decided to turn off pages for community events and charities. They are the masters of their own domain. They are publishers, and they are sitting on a cesspool of defamatory material and material which drives incitement. In my state of New South Wales we have state laws which prohibit incitement, but you can look at Facebook and you will find any number of posts which would offend against those laws. I think it is very wrong that these big tech companies are allowed to get away with breaking our laws. I am positive that this particular issue that we are trying to solve here, which is to ensure that there is a level playing field so that media companies who commission public interest journalism can be paid, is going to pass this parliament. That will be an important step. But it is the start. We need to come back and look at the conduct of these organisations in terms of the way that they maintain content which is defamatory or driving incitement. That is very important. It's an argument for the ages. But I again remind the chamber that this is a bill that is consistent with the foundational strand of Australian Liberalism—that we will always act in the public interest and that we are prepared to come after you, no matter who you are. 19:16 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021 is a masterclass in self-interest from both the tired old parties. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, my view is that this bill should more rightly be called the 'Getting the News Media On Side Before the Next Election Bill'. It's apparently co-sponsored by every party in this place that seeks to replace data based policy, fact based policy, with cynical political expediency and public gutlessness. The government has no place getting involved in a fight between the billionaires in legacy media and the billionaires in new media, yet it looks like that is exactly what our parliament is doing. One Nation spoke with Google and we spoke with them again this morning, and it seems now that this matter has been resolved in private meetings with the government where assurances were exchanged. So Australia is now governed behind closed doors, and the people's house, the house of review, the Senate, is simply here to rubber-stamp what is put in front of us. One Nation does not own a rubber stamp. Our many reservations about this bill remain, even if Google has found a way to work with them. It's true that there are no clean hands in this debate. When Facebook banned conservatives last year, the Left, or the control side of politics, applauded the move as the legitimate actions of a private company. Left or Right are useless terms; really it's control versus freedom. The Left likes to control. Yet, when Facebook banned Australia's left-wing news media last week, there was outrage. 'They're a public utility; they can't do this to us,' shrieked the left-wing commentariat. Perhaps Facebook got the idea of deplatforming from Channel 7 and Channel 9, who deplatformed Senator Hanson last year. Conservatives must now deal with the political Left and with a left-wing media that is so convinced of its own moral superiority that the suppression of dissenting opinions is now celebrated. The Left, the control side, have clearly not considered the norms they have created to destroy their opponents and that those same norms could one day be used against themselves. Google is right on board with this agenda, demoting conservative websites in Google search results simply because they advocate values that everyday Australians still share and value. YouTube has cancelled thousands of conservative channels and demonetised many more to suppress our voice. Google has decided that conservatives and patriots are the enemy of their brave new world and must be silenced. Google propaganda is clearly on display in image search, where they operate to portray our world not as it is but as they wish it to be and judge that it should be. That is not their job. It's no surprise, then, that many Australians, especially on the conservative side, have left Facebook and Google. They had it coming. Let me be clear: One Nation is a trenchant critic of the Orwellian nightmare social media has become. Our left-wing legacy news media, though, are no better. Some sections of the left-wing legacy media print very little material that could be described as journalism and a great deal of material that could be described as propaganda. The ABC spent two years conspiring with a foreign power to prepare a story that misled viewers as to the intent of One Nation's visit to the United States. We demanded the raw footage from the ABC to prove the story was manipulated, and the ABC refused. Truth and honesty are strangers to left-wing controlled media in this country. One Nation is concerned about the small businesses this bill will hurt. Two examples are the Glasshouse and Maleny Country News and the Koondrook and Barham Bridge Newspaper—small businesses that are resisting the takeover of country news by the media oligarchs and printing truth without fear or favour. These papers are not protected by this bill, which is only concerned with protecting large media organisations, who will receive extra money to continue their buy-up of country news. The National Party seem to be happy with this, once again turning their backs on their rural constituents to woo the urban bubble, marching to the Liberal wets. Australian Associated Press—AAP, as most people would know them—are not protected by this bill, since their model is copyright based and this bill only concerns itself with financial outcomes. AAP, though, employ 80 staff, and their newsfeed supports 250 rural news organisations. The increased revenue from Google will remain with the legacy media services and not feed back to AAP. This might have something to do with the Murdoch news media's new wire service, NCA NewsWire. They are just waiting for AAP to fall over so they can have a monopoly on news wire too. This will lead to a further consolidation of news ownership in Australia and yet more power to News Corp. Labor are supporting a process that will lead to more power for Rupert Murdoch. Kevin Rudd will be upset, won't he! When TheBetoota Advocate sounds more like a real news site than an actual real news site does, Australian media must accept they are the agents of their own demise. Television is also on the nose. The highest rating program on television since the Sydney Olympics was the Australian Open final way back in 2005, attracting 4.3 million viewers. The MasterChef final in 2010 rated 4.1 million. In 2020, the MasterChef final rated just 1.6 million—60 per cent less. Tentpole programming is attracting half the audience it used to despite Australia's growing population. When Malcolm Turnbull destroyed community TV 10 years ago, it was to force their million-strong audience back to commercial TV. That strategy has been a complete failure and must be unwound. Print newspaper circulations are also falling. Listen to these figures, Madam Acting Deputy President. Over the last 10 years, the Herald Sun has gone from 550,000 to 303,000, a 45 per cent fall. One Nation's great friends at Brisbane's Courier Mail, who bash us, are down from 211,000 to 135,000, a 36 per cent fall. And, wait for it, The Sydney Morning Herald is down from 210,000 to just 78,000. That's a 63 per cent collapse. With a lower audience, our conglomerate media companies are in search of more revenue and now want to take Google's. Is this the business of the Senate? This bill demonstrates a complete failure to understand how the internet works. Let me give you an example. A startup media company trying to establish a user base would submit their news stories to Google. In return, that company, that startup, would pay Google so much per click for every person who clicked through to the startup news site. News stories cost between 20 and 50 cents a click in the Google advertising network. Over the last 20 years, Google has sent seven billion visitors to Australian news sites who, in turn, have used this traffic to monetise by showing advertising and encouraging subscriptions. If the Australian news media were paying for their traffic from Google, this bill would run into billions. This relationship, though, benefits both parties equally. So the basic assumption of the bill that there is a power imbalance is simply wrong. It is false. Legacy media could have opted out, at any time, simply by adding a metatag to their header advising Google and other search engine crawlers to not index a page, section or entire site. News sites are not using that metatag, even though they could, because they want Google to index their stories in order to send them more traffic. Rather than paying Google for that traffic, legacy media now wants Google to pay them. We're only having this fight now because internet search has reached the top of the exponential growth curve. The market has reached maturity, as have digital advertising and online subscriptions. The $18 billion advertising industry is now equally split between digital and real world, with little opportunity for significant growth in a post-COVID economy. To read this bill, one would think that real-world advertising and digital advertising were interchangeable. That's nonsense. They're not. Online advertising is suited to short messages. Legacy media is still king of longer format advertising. For over 200 minutes of advertising consumed online, 300 minutes is consumed in the real world. Both have their role in the economy. As with any maturing market, Australian media has narrowed ownership so much it has effectively become a cartel. This bill represents nothing more than the billionaires in the media cartel thinking they have more power than the billionaires in the social media cartel, and, with an election looming, the government has decided to pick a side—because Mr Murdoch picks sides and decides who wins. That is the history of elections, in federal parliament, in Australia. The Liberals and Nationals want that, and Labor can't afford to let them have it. That is a terrible basis upon which to formulate public policy and legislation. The Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021 is a solution in search of a problem and should never have come before the Senate. 19:28 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I thank you, Senator Roberts, for your courtesy in allowing us to alter the order here this evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important bill today. I've received much correspondence on it, and it's one that is going to have dramatic implications if it is passed. I speak, of course, of the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021. I want to say at the outset that I support adequate regulation of big tech platforms. That's needed for accurate information to flow through our democracy. The swift rise to global dominance of the internet and social media industry now can be compared to the introduction of the printing press in the 15th century. Australians growing up today have never had so much information at their fingertips but with less confidence about where it comes from. As traditional news has withered, particularly local and regional news, fake news and click bait has metastasised with, often, terrible consequences. We saw the horrifying effects of Trump's big lie about the 2020 election, with the Capitol riot, the domestic terrorism sponsored by the proliferation of the deranged QAnon theory and online message boards, and the incitement of religious and ethnic violence in Myanmar and Sri Lanka prompted by incendiary and false social media posts. As we saw in the course of the pandemic, even basic facts about the virus and simple measures such as wearing masks became political and debated facts. Debunked cures such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were promoted in the face of scientific evidence, and the wearing of simple cloth masks was called 'child abuse'. Almost all my colleagues in this place would recognise this as an untenable situation. We cannot continue to let lies spread across the search and social media platforms. We cannot continue to watch public interest, local and regional journalism decline. Yet this bill is so threatening to Facebook that Facebook has threatened to take its toys and go home at the slightest threat of regulation. Although the Liberal government have completely botched their consultation process for this bill, I'm deeply troubled by the sight of a tech giant actively censoring its platform in a display of raw power. If the government were to fold on this bill, it would be a signal to other digital platforms that they can run roughshod over the Australian people with impunity and that they're above government regulation. I urge the government to fix this matter as a matter of urgency, which brings us to the bill that the chamber has before it today. This particular bill aims to introduce a mandatory code that would provide a framework and penalty system to address the bargaining imbalances between digital platforms and Australian news media. While this bill actively encourages agreements to be made outside of the code, it does establish minimum standard obligations for all businesses registered under the code, requirements for good faith bargaining and the application of final offer arbitration when initial bargaining between the parties doesn't succeed. I note that Seven West Media has now signed a deal with Google worth more than $30 million a year, and that is even before the bill has passed. I do welcome this announcement and I hope that Google and Facebook accept regulation and their obligations to host countries to negotiate in good faith. This structure has proved successful for the dairy code and it should, indeed, be implemented across other sectors, particularly the car dealer industry and the franchising sector. We need to ensure that all Australian businesses and business owners have the opportunity to negotiate on a level playing field with vast multinational corporations. This bill has been three years in the making, and I thank all the hardworking staff at the ACCC for their exhaustive work in drafting the code. I also support the planned review after a year. A piece of legislation this major, and one of the first in its field internationally, needs to be reviewed constantly to ensure that the intended purpose is being achieved and that unintended consequences can be dealt with swiftly. This code is not the final answer for, and nor is it the final saviour of, public interest journalism. This government has overseen the rapid consolidation of most journalism in this country into the hands of two men, Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Stokes. The government did that by the abolition of the longstanding protection of public interest journalism that was embedded in the two-thirds rule and the reach rule. Australia has now, as a consequence of this government's action, one of the most concentrated media markets in the entire world, and that this already restricts choice for Australian consumers is simply a fact. Regional news media continues to decline and was almost wiped out by the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic downturn that has ensued. Historic papers, such as the Barrier Daily Truth out at Broken Hill, were brought to the brink, and over a hundred print newspapers actually closed their doors in 2020. The Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, has confirmed that media diversity in regional and remote areas is already at or below the minimum number of voices in 68 per cent of licence areas. The ACCC also noted that, between 2008 and 2018, 106 local and regional newspaper titles closed, a 15 per cent decrease across all areas. That was even before COVID hit. This leaves 21 local government areas—broad communities across this country—without any kind of local newspaper. This regional media decline has serious implications for democracy at a local level. It erodes the accountability of regional councillors to their electors, it erases the proud identities of many local towns and regions and it further cuts off many First Nations communities from local voices. The bill will ensure that media organisations have more money and more revenue from ad services, but it does not guarantee that that money will be spent on public interest journalism and on regional newspapers. I note that in 2017 the Nick Xenophon Team negotiated a $60.4 million package for regional media in this place. They did that in a deal for their support in watering down our media laws. As a consequence of that deal by Nick Xenophon, over 200 regional newspapers have gone under. I can remember being in this very place that night and predicting exactly that outcome, which was pooh-poohed by the government. Senator Xenophon, as I recall, had to explain the deal that he'd done because the government had done it so swiftly they didn't even know what they'd agreed to. But the consequences are real. I shudder to think what the media landscape will look like when Scott Morrison pulls JobKeeper on 31 March. This bill is but one of a suite of measures that the ACCC recommended in its August 2019 report entitled Digital Platforms Inquiry: final report to ensure the sustainability and future of public interest journalism. It recommended media reforms, stable funding for broadcasters, tax incentives and philanthropy measures, among other important initiatives that could help to stop our haemorrhaging media landscape. This bill sets out six main elements to establish a mandatory code of conduct. Firstly, bargaining: this requires the responsible digital platform corporations and registered news business corporations that have indicated an intention to bargain to do so in good faith. Secondly, compulsory arbitration: where parties cannot come to a negotiated agreement about remuneration relating to making available covered news content on designated digital platform services, an arbitral panel will select between two final offers made by the bargaining parties. That is an important way to resolve power differentials in the community interest. Thirdly, general requirements: among other things, this requires responsible digital platform corporations to provide registered news business corporations with advanced notification of planned changes to an algorithm or internal practice that will have a significant effect on covered news content. Fourthly, non-differentiation requirements: responsible digital platform corporations must not differentiate between the news businesses participating in the code or between participants and nonparticipants because of matters that arise in relation to their participation or their nonparticipation in the code. Fifthly, contracting out: the bill recognises that a digital platform corporation may reach a commercial bargain with a news business outside the code about remuneration or other matters. It provides that the parties who notify the ACCC of such agreements would not need to comply with the general requirements, bargaining and compulsory arbitration rules, as set out in the agreement. Lastly, standard offers: digital platform corporations may make standard offers to news businesses which are intended to reduce the time and cost associated with negotiations, particularly for smaller news businesses. If the parties notify the ACCC of an agreed standard offer, those parties do not need to comply. However, despite all that, I am very troubled by certain aspects of this bill. I'm concerned that, during the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill, concerns were raised about the use of delegated legislation to confer upon the Treasurer a range of powers, including the right to determine a 'designated digital platform service' and a 'designated digital platform corporation' without relevant parliamentary scrutiny. And this move for delegated legislation, giving all the power to one person—in this case, the Treasurer—and taking away the scrutiny of this place, the Australian people's place, where they send us to stand up for them, is just a signature move by this government; it's a concentration of power. I know that within the ranks of my great party, the Labor Party, and also the Liberal and National parties there are great concerns about the erosion of the democratic traditions that underpin good governance in this country. The Prime Minister doesn't seem worried about it, and it seems the Treasurer loves getting his delegated legislation, so maybe they are the two culprits who need to be accountable. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills labelled the clauses I'm talking about akin to Henry VIII clauses, which authorise delegated legislation to make substantive amendments to primary legislation. Despite writing to the Treasurer with these concerns, they were ignored by Treasurer Frydenberg. Labor supports the bill, because it attempts to arrest the freefall that public interest journalism has found itself in since the rapid expansion of the internet; however, I note the appalling rollout of the legislation, which resulted in Facebook erasing news media from its platform in a stunning slap in the face to the Australian people. For this reason, Labor recommends that the government use precise language in public statements regarding what designations it intends to make under the code. This is in order to save any misunderstanding or unnecessary uncertainty for the media, digital platforms, small businesses, and citizens and consumers who may be impacted. You don't have to look too far back in this place—what happened when Senator Xenophon did a deal behind closed doors without adequate scrutiny—to see this government setting in train the demise of regional newspapers, the loss of the capacity to tell the stories of local communities, the terrible impact of the loss of jobs in those communities and the dislocation of families. Maybe mum was working on the local newspaper, and dad might have been the local doctor. All of that was eroded by a government that doesn't like the clear light of day. It wants to do deals in the dark, wants to do it behind closed doors and wants to get legislation through here but give itself power to just pull a little bit out and do a deal on the side. That's not good government, and the cost to Australia in the media sector has been the loss of a voice in local communities. And once these things go, you can't get them back. It's hard to build something, but this government is really, really good at breaking things. We are seeing the consequences of that in regional communities right across this country. Labor supports the bill, because it does give local media organisations the appropriate carrots and sticks to do some bargaining with these large digital platforms. The legislation is a world first, and I hope it provides momentum to other movers to effectively regulate tech giants. We must ride over the waves of their petulance and pass legislation that's in the public interest, and I urge all members to support this bill. 19:42 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland In a 1999 BBC interview, David Bowie told a sceptical Jeremy Paxman: I don't think we've even seen the tip of the iceberg. I think the potential of what the Internet is going to do to society, both good and bad, is unimaginable. When Paxman retorts, 'It's just a tool though isn't it?' Bowie expresses his belief that it is going to crush our ideas of what mediums are all about. The structure of the public sphere has been so much changed by the internet that it can only be accurately compared to the invention of the printing press and the print revolution that followed. The print revolution completely changed the structure of public life, increasing the volume of content and making it much more accessible. This same phenomenon is happening again with the internet but at a much faster pace, and we are struggling to keep up with all of the consequences. One of these consequences is the effect on news media. As the internet has exploded in the last 20 years, it has completely changed how and where people get their news. Most people now read their news online rather than in print, with print advertising having fallen by 75 per cent since 2005. At the same time, online advertising has increased eight-fold, and so news media has adapted and moved online through websites and apps. However, the way people will come to this news is through big tech platforms like Facebook and Google. And because of the nature of the internet and how it has evolved, these digital platforms dominate the online advertising market. They do this by using a model where users are individually targeted based on large amounts of data that correspond to their likes, searches, purchasing, browsing and so on. With this in mind, most advertising dollars are getting snapped up by big tech, rather than the news companies, with Facebook and Google collecting a whopping 81 per cent of online advertising. This means that news media outlets have lost a major revenue stream and it makes it hard for them to stay afloat in the digital age. This isn't just bad for these news businesses; it's bad for consumers. Having a healthy and robust landscape of public interest journalism is vital for a democracy to work. We need journalism that will hold government accountable and keep the public informed in an unbiased manner. Therefore, it's important that we pass laws that will protect journalism from unfair cartel-like business practices, which is what we're seeing with Facebook and Google, having built a dominant position in the advertising market for themselves. It is unfair because digital platforms are profiting off the content that Australian news outlets create. When someone clicks a news link in Google, most of that ad revenue ends up with Google and not the news site. Yes, platforms help drive traffic to these news sites, but news is what draws people to, and keeps a lot of people on, the platforms. This is a symbiotic relationship in which both participants benefit but it is also one where the platforms hold all the power and are getting all the profit. This is what this bill aims to rectify. This bill will make social media giants pay news companies for their content. These businesses put all the work into producing articles and news content and they should be appropriately compensated for it. Digital platforms have become the trading partners of news media, whether they like it or not, due to the way advertising works on the internet, and trading partners will usually strike deals as to the terms of their trade. What's happening now is that there is a power imbalance in the negotiation because the platforms hold all the advertising dollars. What this bill does is establish a mandatory bargaining code which corrects the bargaining power imbalance. Now when a news company is in negotiation with big tech and is offered a deal that they are unhappy with they can trigger the code to come into effect. If the two sides cannot come to an agreement by themselves then the code will require both sides to come to the table and negotiate in good faith. The code also establishes minimum standards that must be met for their negotiations and, importantly, a final arbitration process. If the two sides can't come to an agreement after three months then both sides will each submit their own deal to a panel of independent arbiters who will choose the one they believe to be fairer. This way the government doesn't get involved with, or set the terms of, the deal but they incentivise businesses to strike a deal themselves or force them to come to the table. The code of conduct simply ensures that the deal actually happens and in a fair and timely manner. The coalition government is doing its job of regulating business when it needs to and breaking up monopoly power that the tech giants have gained because of their control of advertising revenue. While the platforms will have to pay the news companies for their content, the bill has made concessions to big tech by acknowledging the value they bring to the relationship. This value comes from giving news content greater reach and circulation which arbiters must take into consideration in their final decision. This is considered along with the arguably greater value of the creation of original news content and the work that goes into its journalistic process. Digital platforms and news media have a symbiotic relationship, and this bill will ensure that it's a mutually beneficial, rather than parasitic, one. As well as the unfair market power that Google and Facebook have gained, they've also become the gatekeepers of how we access most of our news, and this has given them a power over the public arena that is concerning. Over a third of Australians get their news from Facebook, and many others find the latest headlines through Google either by searching or by having articles recommended to them. Their algorithms govern what news gets promoted and what gets suppressed. During the drafting of this bill, we saw them threaten Australians by threatening to take news off their sites altogether. We won't be bullied. There is far too much power resting in the hands of a few giant companies, and their effect on news and its circulation is just one aspect of it. We saw them abuse this power just recently, as every major platform banned the then sitting President of the United States before, during and after the recent US presidential elections—a move that amounted to nothing more than censorship. In a dictatorship, it's the dictator who does the censoring, and the actions of the media giants reflect this. Digital platforms should not have control over who can and cannot speak, especially when it comes to democratically elected public officials. Though they are private companies, their platforms have become the new public square where politics and business are done and where news is published. Global corporations just continue to get larger and more powerful, and they use that power to shape society. This is a very dangerous trend, because, in the Western world, many of the checks and balances the governments are subject to do not apply to corporations. Just as, when any new resource or technology becomes big, it's the government's job to step in and regulate the space, it's high time we started holding these companies to account. These companies must come under the same scrutiny and regulation that traditional media has come under over the years, as our world evolves in a new direction. This bill will be an important regulating factor in keeping these tech giants in check, by forcing them to pay their fair share for content and also by requiring them to inform the news companies of any algorithm changes that are likely to have a significant effect on their website traffic. Given how quickly the internet has evolved, we're still figuring out when to regulate it, how to properly regulate it and how it fits into greater society. Where the internet was once the Wild West, big tech companies have become powerful oil barons controlling the land. It's time for the government to step in and break up the monopolies. When it comes to news media and breaking up the market power these digital platforms have over news distribution, having a mandatory bargaining code will set an important precedent for other nations as they start regulating these digital platforms. Another area that we should seriously consider is whether people who set up accounts on these social media sites should actually use their real names, rather than anonymous avatars. They often proceed to bully other commentators if they don't agree with their point of view. This type of behaviour wouldn't happen in real life. If some of the comments that were made on social media were said face to face in a pub, it's highly likely you wouldn't walk out in a vertical position, yet on social media people seem to get away with the most heinous insults, with very little respect to those posting other comments. We get plenty of this in the political space, but, for me, the real concern is the psychological effect it must have on our children going forward when they're bullied relentlessly on social media. I know we've had some tragic cases here in Australia. I would like to see further controls on the social media giants in this space, because there's no decorum on social media. Quite frankly, it's a cesspit. It's a gutter and it needs to stop. If Facebook and these other media giants aren't going to demand that people use their true identities or, if it's a corporation or an organisation, be fully transparent—democracy is based on transparency and accountability, yet it's very difficult to hold people accountable for often abusive or defamatory comments when they hide behind avatars. Sure, you can go and take out a legal case, but a lot of people don't have the money or the time or the inclination to try and track down who the anonymous people are behind the bullying on these social media giants. Another area where we need to crack down on these social media giants is their ability to transfer profits offshore or even keep their profits offshore. If you look at the Google special purpose accounts issued in 2019, they paid $3½ billion in service fees to related parties. Where that money went, I have no idea, but I do know where the problem lies, and it's in accounting standard AASB 124, which relates to related party transactions. Effectively there's a distinction in Australia between the types of accounting reports that you have to release. If you're an Australian entity and you're a big organisation, you have to do general purpose reporting and you have to disclose a lot more information. But, if you're a big tech or a big company and you can wrangle your way out of having a public interest test here, you only have to do special purpose reporting, and that special purpose reporting requires a lot less disclosure, hence it becomes a lot easier not just for digital multinationals but for all multinationals to hide their related party transactions. And, yes, the tax office can go after these guys, but it is very difficult for the tax office to go after every multinational that's been set up in Australia. I think, if every multinational was required to give much greater disclosure of related party transactions, you'd find that there'd be vigilant antiprotectionists and patriots who'd happily pay 70 bucks to ASIC to get a hold of their accounts to troll through the related party disclosures. Anyway, business always performs better when there is competition, and this government is doing its job to regulate the market when there is a problem. This will be an important step in redistributing the overall power these platforms have and it will preserve the integrity of our public interest journalism and, in turn, our democracy. This bill won't fix all the problems with big tech, but it is an important first step in standing up to them. I commend the bill to the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Thank you, Senator Rennick. I'm just contemplating or digesting the thought of walking out of a pub vertically, but I think I get what you mean! 19:57 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021. Whatever your view of this bill, if passed, there is no doubt it will constitute an important global milestone in the regulation of digital platforms. Its advocates see the bill as pushing back on the unaccountable and invasive behemoths of surveillance capitalism: these global giants who have power and profits unprecedented in world history. In my first speech in this place, I called for these companies to be held to account and to pay their fair share of tax. The Morrison government likes to describe the fight with Facebook and Google as an issue of national sovereignty. If they really believed that, they would be taking unilateral action to tax these companies properly, rather than simpering on the sidelines waiting for the OECD to get the United States to agree to a global system to tax multinational corporations. I also called for regulation to ensure that their staff, their contractors and the smaller businesses that rely on them are paid and treated fairly. I remain strongly of the opinion that taxing these companies fairly and squarely is what we should be doing, and I include all the other foreign companies, media and otherwise, who avoid tax and seek to benefit from Australian government contracts, customers, skills, workers and infrastructure. I believe this media bargaining code, developed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, was developed with good intentions. It tries to address the power imbalance between the digital platforms, Facebook and Google, and the news media companies that produce the journalism content that is viewed and shared on these platforms. But it is important to see the bigger picture. The bigger picture is the functioning of democracy and the scrutiny and accountability that journalism brings to this parliament and all our institutions. The problem with this code, as the government has constructed it, is that it fails to genuinely protect the media diversity that underpins our democracy. My test for this bill is twofold: firstly, whether it encourages and supports a thriving media ecosystem that includes the start-ups and future titles that the internet encourages and, at the same time, arrests the decline of public interest journalism in Australia, including the haemorrhaging of small and regional newspapers and broadcasters and the threats to independent news wholesalers like AAP; secondly, whether it supports jobs in the industry. The success of Australian democracy depends on a free press and the diversity of voices within it, and that ultimately depends on media jobs. If people are employed in the media industry without reporters, producers, researchers, still and video photographers, and without expert analysis, there is no media industry and no democracy worth its name. Democracy needs a busy, noisy, competitive and competent ecosystem of voices. This includes a diverse media as well as labour unions, charities, academics, think tanks, churches, other civil society actors and not-for-profits. All of these voices are threatened when a diverse media industry is threatened. But the truth is that the money that this media bargaining code delivers to local publishers has no conditions attached. There is no requirement that money be spent on public interest journalism. There is nothing to stop Rupert Murdoch using it to pay out News Ltd executive bonuses, just as we saw with the JobKeeper wage subsidy, which also had no accountability built into it. There is nothing to stop former Liberal Treasurer and chair of Channel 9 media, Peter Costello, from deciding to redecorate his office if he is so minded. There is also nothing stopping these companies using the money to gobble up their small competitors and close them down. We could very well get to the end of our first year of the media code and find that we have fewer jobs in public interest journalism and less competition in the market. Google, Facebook and the other digital platforms have, no doubt, had a profound impact on our media environment and have challenged business models. But the strength and diversity of public interest journalism had been on the decline for years prior to the arrival of Google, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram. I now want everyone in this chamber to reflect on the closure of regional and small publishers around this country in the past year or so. We have to make sure that this never happens again. Before 2018, there were the following closures around Australia: the Comet News, The Advocate, Hills Avon Valley Gazette, Midland Kalamunda Reporter, North Coast Times, The Western Herald, Hills News, Rouse Hill Courier, Penrith City Gazette, Mt Druitt St Mary's Standard, Blacktown Sun, Parramatta Holroyd Sun, Cooma-Monaro Express, Wagin Argus, Merredin Wheatbelt Mercury, Central Midlands & Coastal Advocate, The Roxby Downs Sun, Casey Weekly, Frankston Weekly, Casey Weekly Cranbourne, Knox Weekly, Monash Weekly, Maroondah Yarra Ranges Weekly, Peninsula Weekly, the(sydney)magazine and TheMelbourne Magazine. Seven suburban newspapers in Melbourne's south-east, including the Frankston Weekly, the Monash Weekly and the Peninsula Weeklyhave closed since 2018. But News Corp has closed a further 122 papers. A total of 76 papers will become digital only, bringing the number of online titles published by the company to 92 after News Corp launched 16 new online titles in recent years. But 36 small papers will disappear entirely, including Queensland's Buderim Chronicle, Caloundra Weekly, The Capricorn Coast Mirror, Coolum News, Nambour Weekly, Ipswich Advertiser, Maroochy & Kawana Weekly, Gold Coast Sun, Hervey Bay Independent, Maryborough Herald, Balonne Beacon, Surat Basin News, Herbert River Express, Innisfail Advocateand the Central Telegraph. In New South Wales the titles to fold are Coastal Views, The Northern Riversecho and The Richmond River Express Examiner. In Tasmania, there is Tasmanian Country. The following regional titles will become digital only: in Queensland, Mackay's The Daily Mercury, Rockhampton's Morning Bulletin, The Gladstone Observer, Bundaberg NewsMail, Fraser Coast Chronicle, Gympie Times, Sunshine Coast Daily, The Queensland Times, Warwick Daily News, The Central & North Burnett Times, Central Queensland News, Chinchilla News, Dalby Herald, Gatton Star, Noosa News, South Burnett Times, Stanthorpe Border Post, The Western Star, The Western Times, The Whitsunday Times, Whitsunday Coast Guardian and Bowen Independent. News from towns covered by the Atherton Tableland are The Northern Miner, Port Douglas and Mossman Gazette, and The Burdekin Advocate. This will contribute to appear as it does now, under the regional sections of The Cairns Post and Townsville Bulletin. In New South Wales there are Tweed Valley News, Ballina Shire Advocate, Byron Shire News, Coffs Coast Advocate, Grafton's Daily Examiner and Lismore's Northern Star. In the Northern Territory, there is Centralian Advocate. Community titles in Melbourne will become digital only. They are at Stonnington, Mornington Peninsula, Knox, Whitehorse, Monash, Northern, Whittlesea, Maroondah, Moorabbin, Moreland, Lilydale, Yarra Valley, Frankston, Bayside, Cranbourne, Greater Dandenong, Moonee Valley, Maribyrnong and Wyndham, and they include the Mordialloc Chelsea Leader and Caulfield and Port Phillip Leader. Also moving online are local news titles in New South Wales and the ACT: Fairfield Events, Penrith Press, Macarthur Chronicle, Blacktown Advocate, Canterbury-Bankstown Express, Central Coast Express, Hills Shire Times, Hornsby Advocate, Liverpool Leader, Manly Daily, Northern District Times, Parramatta Advertiser, Inner West Courier, Southern Courier, Illawarra Star, Wagga Wagga News, St George Shire Standard, The Canberra Star, Newcastle News, The Blue Mountains News, Central Sydneyand The South Coast News. Queensland titles to cease printing are: Albert & Logan News, Caboolture Herald, Westside News, Pine Rivers Press, Redcliffe & Bayside Herald, South-West News, Wynnum Herald, North Lakes Times, Redlands Community News and Springfield News. South Australian papers to cease printing and move to digital are: Messenger South Plus, Messenger East Plus, Messenger North, Messenger West and Messenger City, Adelaide Hills News and The Upper Spencer Gulf News. These are just some of a number of closures that have already taken place. The real test for this government, and for this bill, is that no other companies fall into disrepair and our democracy is not further undermined under this government's watch. 20:09 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I asked people online what they'd like me to do with this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021. You wouldn't believe it, but it seems that they're a lot smarter than we are, because, out of nearly 2,000 who responded, 70 per cent said they're opposed to this code. How is it that they understand what's at stake better than do the people in this building? Why does that not surprise me? When you are charging a business every time a customer enters their store, you're going to break that business. That's what this code does. Every time a person shares a news story on Facebook with their friends and family, Facebook has to pay. Facebook is paying for someone else's use of their platform—oh, dear!—a platform they're providing to that user for free. Something's not right here; it's not common sense. Some people in this place have argued that we should support this legislation only if the ABC and SBS are included in the code. What a terrible, terrible idea this is. It will not lead to a cent of new money for the ABC or SBS. The only people who are able to decide how much money our public broadcasters have are those in the government. Every extra dollar from Facebook or Google only stays an extra dollar if the government were to let it stay that way. If the government were to decide that the ABC or SBS don't need the extra money, they just cut the budget—just like that. There's no difference between how much the ABC or SBS would have before and after the media bargaining code comes into effect. Do you know what would be different? Facebook and Google don't offer three-year funding certainty to ABC or SBS, unlike the government. So all we would be left with is public broadcasters with less funding certainty and no extra funding that are now reliant on two multinational corporations to cover their costs. We have hit a whole new low in this country. This is the big win secured by the Labor Party and the Greens. Well done to you; great negotiators you are! In fact, Labor would have you believe that, if it weren't for them, this bill wouldn't proceed and journalism in Australia would be over. Well, I reckon you've done that yourselves. Labor would have you believe that they've delivered a bipartisan solution to ensure that journalism survives in Australia. Do you know what you've actually done? Please, just have a good think about it. I'll tell you what you've done: you've made the Australian media landscape more dependent on the success of Google and Facebook, not less. Great job! Well done! media diversity saved! What a load of rubbish. The Greens think they've secured a deal that ensures that every dollar that comes from this bargaining code gets spent on journalism. Oh, surely not! I cannot believe the Greens have fallen for this. This is biggest joke I've heard all day. Even the Greens have fallen for it. Let's say that every day I spend $10 on lunch. You give me $10 now and say that the condition is that I agree I can only spend it on lunch. I say to you, 'Yeah, no worries. That's fine, mate,' because that is what I was already going to spend. But what do I do with the $10 I normally spend? I put it in my pocket and walk off with it. You think you've got what you were after, and I've got 10 bucks to spend on whatever I want. This is exactly the same situation the Greens amendment has put News Corp and Nine in. This is the extent of the protection the Greens have managed to achieve. This is it. Well done! Nice work! I'm sure that Australian journalists are sleeping easy this evening. The people who are going to pay for your big tax on digital part players are the people with no choice but to pay it: the ones who want to advertise on Google or Facebook. This is what is at stake, because the media companies don't pay to put their stuff on Google or Facebook, do they? The ones who pay for the services provided by Google and Facebook are advertisers, and the average small business advertising on Google spends $30 a day on advertising. Do you know how much advertising space $30 a day will get you in the papers of News Corp or Nine? Let me put it this way: you had better get out your magnifying glass because you're going to need it. It's that simple. They know as well as any of us in this place do that they are not competing for those same advertisers because not every business has a lazy few million dollars to drop on wall-to-wall full-page advertisements in every edition of the local paper. For every JB Hi-Fi or, of course, Harvey Norman, which is flogging it out there—I'm keeping them alive at the moment—there are 10,000 small businesses doing their best to try to earn an honest crust, because that is all they can afford. They are not going to the newspapers to get in front of customers, because it's not cost effective to do so; it will take them out. They could get in front of their customers for pennies on the dollar if they were to go through the digital players. They're the ones whose prices are set to go up as a result of this code. The big news players don't care about that. They don't give a stuff about small business. Why would they? They have never done so before and they're sure as hell not going to start today. For them, nothing changes. Google and Facebook created a new market for advertising that was targeted, cost effective and local. The news companies have invested precisely nothing in developing this market, but they still want some of the benefit of it. They say, 'Yes, well, it's our stuff on Facebook and Google that people are clicking on, and, if it weren't there, Facebook and Google would have fewer people visiting.' Okay. Does my Aunty Mabel get money from this code, too, every time she shares her cat video? Every time my cousin shares her famous recipes, should Facebook have to pay her for that privilege? I'm sure she'd love it. She'd love to be paid for her pies, I can assure you. These news companies have their own websites, where you can find all their news content whenever you want. If I want updates from Aunty Mabel, I've got to go to social media companies to get it. Australia has a need for decent-quality journalism, and we are losing it at a rapid pace. But you can't slap together a popular problem and an unpopular company and say the solution to one is to shake down the other. The solution isn't to break the way the companies operate. For all the bluster, this is just a really bad idea done very badly. If you want Google and Facebook to fund public interest journalism, then it's simple; it's really easy. It's called 'tax'. One simple procedure: tax. This code amounts to a white flag in tackling tax avoidance. The real tragedy is that every payment Google and Facebook make under this code will be tax deductible. So not only are we not going to make Google and Facebook pay more tax; we're actually going to make them pay less tax. This just keeps getting better. Also, Rupert Murdoch and Peter Costello can cut themselves a fatter cheque. How about that? Look who's winning here. It wouldn't have anything to do with those political donations, would it? Of course not. I've got no doubt that the 200 subscribers to News Corp's latest streaming service, Binge, will be over the moon that their parent company can now afford to buy the rights to more American TV content. Yay! And shareholders of News Corp and Nine will be delighted that their dividend is about to be fattened up on the back of shareholders in Facebook and Google. How is that fair, though? If we want more money for journalism, let's tax companies making heaps of money and put that money into supporting journalism—put it directly into journalism. If we want Google and Facebook to pay more tax, let's make them pay more tax. Let's say they do, and let's say there's an extra $200 million to spend. Who in Australia really thinks that the best way to spend $200 million is to give more money to media companies? Media companies need money—I get that. But you know who needs money? Everybody. Welcome to the real world. This solution to the problem of how to fund public interest journalism is totally unlinked to the extent of the problem itself. It throws a bucket of money at the problem at the expense of spending on it on any other worthy cause for time immemorial. If all it takes to fix the problem of funding public interest journalism in Australia is $100 million, why do we justify the overspend of the other $100 million that this policy will provide? Are we really saying that, even once the problem is solved, there's still no better way to spend money? Not ever? It's a basic standard of how to do good policy to say that you don't provide an unlimited supply of money to fix a problem that doesn't require an unlimited amount of money to fix. This code delivers an uncapped value to news companies, completely divorced from the scale of the problem that we all acknowledge exists. It doesn't scale when the scale of the problem changes; it just slugs the end user for now—until this foolish and short-sighted policy meets its fully justified end. Between now and then, we all suffer. Some of the problems that are caused by this policy will be irreversible. We can't put the genie back in the bottle. If we spill this, it's staying spilt—it's that simple. It's finished. It's not cleaned up with a simple repeal. This breaks the media and it breaks the internet, and it does so permanently. Everybody making their speeches has failed to offer a number for what it will take to fix a problem that we want to solve, because they have no idea. That should scare us. Nobody knows what it will take, so the squeeze on small business will just continue forever—all this because a few media barons decided we should start the squeeze. Maybe food-bank charities should just buy themselves the newspapers so you guys will start falling over yourselves to give them some money! This whole exercise has been so embarrassing. You're all so desperate for positive press that you're prepared to make bad policy the law of the land because you think it will make them like you. Let me tell you what's going to happen next. News Corp is currently trying to make its own newswire service a profitable product. Currently it's competing with a non-profit alternative, the AAP. AAP is not included in the code. News Corp is included in the code. News Corp will get money from the code. It will be able to use this money to cut the price of its products. This will put pressure on its only competitor, a not-for-profit that currently provides news to, among many, the ABC and the SBS. If AAP is unable to compete with the only competitor it has, it will go out of business. It is that simple. If AAP goes out of business the only competitor available to take up its position in the market is News Corp. How convenient for Mr Murdoch! Thanks to this media code, we're one step closer to having News Corp write copy for the public broadcaster. Thanks to this media code, we're one step closer to the public broadcaster being financially dependent on the private sector for their funding. Thanks to this media code, we're now making it more expensive for small business to get into the market and cheaper for large businesses to maintain their share of the market—all in the name of encouraging competition, huh? Is that what you call it! This is your competition policy—really? This is bad policy done badly, for bad reasons and for reasons of interests. Anybody who supports a strong public broadcaster should oppose this legislation. The Greens and the Labor Party should be embarrassed with themselves. Seriously! Anybody who supports a free and fair market, operating efficiently, should oppose this. It is a shakedown. This is a bipartisan shakedown delivered by a consensus of absolute stupidity here this evening. Journalism is important enough to deserve better than the poorly researched, poorly understood justifications being thrown around by a political class that's desperate to be noticed by the people it's clambering up to serve. Great work, everyone here this evening! You've all made the same passionate speech as each other, all defending why you're supporting such crappy bad law. You're about to make a terrible mistakes, with both eyes open. You are displaying the same indifference as the major news players to the interests of the little guy. The crime we're all apparently trying to correct with this bill is that digital platforms are collecting revenue from news stories they don't pay for. They're collecting revenue by selling advertisements. Revenue from those advertisements doesn't go back to the person who produced the stuff they're selling ads against. This legislation is so badly designed it would be like making Channel 9 pay for every Coles ad it runs during program breaks because Channel 9 has created valuable real estate in the form of a television program, just like Google has created real estate in the form of search results. Channel 9 makes money by selling advertising space against a television program, just like Google makes money by selling advertising space against those search results. To argue that Google should have to pay news companies for every dollar it makes against the real estate it produced from nothing is like arguing that people who appear in the evening news should be entitled to revenue the TV company collects by selling advertising between breaks in the 5 pm bulletin. Let's advance that and see how Channel 9 feels about that, shall we? Of course they'd oppose it. They'd say, 'That's not fair.' What part of that example is wrong, though? What is the difference? The contributions to this debate have been full of people complaining about the practices of digital platforms. If you want to run a business out of town because you don't like how it's doing business then fine. But when you're gone it won't be journalism that suffers. We all pay the price so you can get a headline. What's more important and what's even sadder is that we've already lost enough journalists over the last five or six years. The people who are going to suffer more than anyone are those journalists right down at the bottom. You can guarantee that this revenue ain't going down to them. That's absolute rubbish. If you thought we had fake news beforehand, watch it come in spits and spats now. It's coming! 20:24 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I would love to spend the next 15 minutes explaining what those differences are and how my good friend across the aisle there doesn't quite understand this law and I will explore exactly why that is. I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2020. It's clear there has never been a more important time to get this bill passed than today. Mr Zuckerberg and Facebook think they can hold this government for ransom; they can't and they won't. Cutting off small media publishers, government pages, even the CSIRO public health advice in the middle of a pandemic in a bid to intimidate this Senate to not pass this legislation is just not on. This is Australia, and we won't be told what to do by a US conglomerate. Let me make one thing clear: this government will not be held to ransom by this tech giant. This tech giant is acting like a child who isn't getting their way. It is acting like a child who just got bowled out in backyard cricket and is picking up their bat and ball and taking them home. I say to Facebook, 'Don't let the gate hit you on the way out.' This government is going to keep batting on, whether or not Facebook likes it. These actions reinforce to me the importance of this legislation and, importantly, the tough stance the Morrison government has taken on this issue. The Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2020 establishes a world-first, mandatory code to address the bargaining power imbalances that exist between digital media platforms and the Australian news media businesses. This piece of legislation reflects a change in the media environment we're currently facing. This legislation has been brought about in no small way through Facebook's own actions. With consumers now turning more and more to news online, news media businesses are grappling with the challenge of finding a viable and sustainable business model for the provision of public interest journalism. Public interest journalism plays an important role in our society and this role can only be fulfilled by a strong, diverse and sustainable Australian news media sector. This bill ensures that the Australian news media sector remains sustainable and we continue to get quality local news. This bill responds to the key findings of the digital platforms inquiry. As all senators know, the conclusion of that inquiry was that a significant bargaining power imbalance exists between digital platforms and Australian news media businesses. That's a common-sense conclusion that, I think, any ordinary person in the street would quite readily recognise to be the case. While these platforms have emerged from almost nowhere, 15 years ago or less, companies like Facebook, Google—indeed, Amazon—were just start-ups in university dorms. I was working in Silicon Valley at the time that these start-ups were just starting to get going. These platforms were the disruptors of traditional industries and businesses, and they have certainly disrupted. However, today, such companies are the behemoths of the business world. Governments should not prop up industries past their use-by date but public interest journalism should not be taken and not paid for. The size of these platforms, not only their market capitalisation and corporate power but also their dominance in our personal lives, is just too much. Today, these digital companies are now the modern railroads and utilities from last century and they are central to 21st century living. Life as we know it today would not be the same without them. They keep us connected and they keep us informed. Not only do they help us communicate but they are now the platforms on which we conduct commerce, consume entertainment and get our news and journalism. In a sense, they're an indispensable part of our everyday lives. While digital technology companies are booming, traditional media has been crippled under competitive pressure. Traditional media has relied on classified advertising to form the backbone of its revenue and the backbone of its business model. Classified advertising really underwrote journalism, printing costs and almost everything else in a media business. In many instances, and certainly for print journalism, as much as 90 per cent of revenue came from classifieds. Classified advertising has been disrupted by these online platforms, and it's safe to say it's been disrupted in a number of ways. If you look for a job in Australia these days, you might go to Seek or LinkedIn. If you're looking to buy a car, you might go to Carsales. If you're looking to trade something second-hand you might go to Gumtree. If you're looking to buy real estate, there are any number of online platforms you would go to. All of these revenue sources have been taken from traditional print media and are now in the hands of well-established and successful technology companies that have taken a large portion of this business and found a way to make money from it. While that is great—as a Liberal, I will always support free enterprise—it is vital that we also protect our news media. These classified ads, which are now dominated by tech companies, previously funded our news media in Australia. Without the revenue sources that they used to get, news media in Australia will no longer exist. This legislation is protecting exactly that. It is unacceptable that big tech giants are earning significant revenue from the effort of Australian media outlets. This bill responds to the key findings of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's Digital Platform Inquiry. The ACCC conducted a detailed world-leading inquiry over almost 18 months and set out a series of recommendations in response to the substantial market power that has arisen through the growth of digital platforms, their impact on competition in media and advertising markets, and their implications for news media businesses, advertisers and consumers. The ACCC found that digital platforms had become unavoidable trading partners of news media businesses, resulting in a substantial bargaining power imbalance. Since commissioning the ACCC inquiry in December 2017, the Morrison government has undertaken an extensive policy-development process that has been going for almost three years, which has included public consultation on a position paper and exposure draft legislation. As the Prime Minister has said, the laws of the digital world should reflect, as far as possible, the laws of the physical world. We are not seeking to protect traditional media companies from the rigour of competition or from technological disruption, which we know benefits consumers. Rather, we are seeking to create a level playing field where market power is not misused and there is appropriate compensation for the production of original news content. To that end, this bill will establish a new, world-leading code of conduct for news media businesses and digital platforms. The code ensures that digital platforms share the benefit they obtain from using Australian-sourced news media content with the news businesses who create that content. The Treasurer will be able to determine that a digital platform is subject to the code, having regard to ACCC and Treasury advice as to whether a substantial bargaining-power disparity exists. ACMA, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, would assess the eligibility of Australian news media businesses to participate in the code against criteria set out in that code. The framework contained in the bill recognises that agreements can be entered into outside of the code. Indeed, they are encouraged to be entered into outside the code, and we acknowledge that Google are currently in the process of entering into similar sorts of agreements with Australian media companies. This is a far better example of corporate responsibility than the heavy-handed tactics of its Silicon Valley counterpart, Facebook. Where a news media business reaches an agreement with a digital platform, it can agree not to bargain or pursue compulsory arbitration under the code. If news media business cannot reach an acceptable agreement with a digital platform outside of the code, it will have the option to trigger aspects of the code to address the difference between bargaining powers. This includes minimum standards obligations that digital platforms must meet for all news media businesses registered under the code, requirements for good-faith bargaining over remuneration, and the application of final offer arbitration if bargaining between the parties does not succeed. The News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code is a world-leading initiative. The senators in this place should make no mistake: the world is watching. This code is designed to level the playing field and to ensure a sustainable and viable Australian media landscape. It's a key part of this government's strategy to ensure that the Australian economy is able to take full advantage of the benefits of digital technology, supported by appropriate regulation, to protect key elements of Australian society. One such key element is a strong and sustainable news media landscape. In testimony to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, Free TV, the industry body, argued: … in a well-functioning democracy there is a responsibility that falls on the businesses that become gateways between the community and information. They go on to say that this responsibility has been borne by commercial TV broadcasters for some time and that, for decades, as an influential media platform, these businesses represented by Free TV have operated under a regulatory compact that requires them to pay broadcast licence fees, pay spectrum fees and meet stringent content obligations. They say that this responsibility should now be shared by companies of the size and influence of Google and Facebook. A submission to an ACCC concepts paper, which was drafted collectively by 88 regional, state and national news publishers, argued that the establishment of the news media mandatory bargaining code 'is likely to be one of the most important media policy decisions affecting Australian democracy for decades'. So, as you can see, many key organisations support this legislation, while big tech giants—Facebook, Google, Twitter—are seemingly opposed to it, although some are coming around. Some have even said that this legislation doesn't go far enough. Reset Australia, which describes itself as, 'an independent, non-partisan organisation committed to driving public policy advocacy' and committed to fighting the 'digital threats to democracy' supports the bill but believes it should go further. It is clear that there are many views on this legislation—some for, some against and some wanting to go further. That said, the Morrison government has tried to juggle the many views and strike the right balance. As such, the bill which is before the Senate today does just that. It strikes just the right balance. I want to end by thanking the communications minister, Minister Fletcher, for his fantastic work, and the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, for pulling this legislation together. In the face of bullying and intimidation from Facebook, these ministers and the departments around them have stood up for Australian local news media. The bill before the chamber tonight should be supported by all senators. 20:38 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021. I've spoken many times in this place about the importance of supporting regional media organisations and ensuring there is a balance within our media market. Although we may not have balance in this country, I will do everything in my power to support the ability of regional media to tell the stories of our beloved communities—firstly, because they deserve a voice, and telling the story of our country in this place is paramount to our democracy, and, secondly, because the free flow of information has become such a normal part of our lives, and it helps solidify us as a people. Facebook and Google are amongst the most powerful entities in the world. They wield so much power over our lives, firstly, in their ability to provide us with information and, secondly, in their ability to control many aspects of what we see and how frequently we see it. It's an unparalleled power. They are more powerful than government and traditional media. People have strong views about social media platforms. For the most part I believe they are a wonderful resource for a curious mind, but in recent times they have become a matrix which we almost religiously tap into and follow every day, sometimes getting lost. Screen time for many of us would now average between three and four hours per day, without us even being consciously aware of how often we are using the platform and the devices on which we access this information. Over many years Facebook has evolved from a platform that connected individuals and created networks to a most comprehensive piece of infrastructure to provide us with information about anyone and anything. It is an advertiser's dream, with access to every company and brand the world over. It has also become such an important source of news and stimulation for over 19 million Australians. Traditional media, like newspapers, radio and television, have since been bypassed. For too many Australians, Facebook is where they get their news from. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Facebook provides us with the ability to access news media when they allow news organisations to utilise their platform to reach millions of Australians, and now it has unceremoniously taken that from us. Facebook has a particular business model and it expects all others to pay it for the service it provides, to pay for its infrastructure and technology that connects 2.8 billion people globally. Facebook does not want to pay news services for their content. I believe that's a bit unfair. Many have argued that this act displays an arrogance from an extremely powerful entity that has too much power over the way we live our lives. Others are concerned we will now have less informed opinions because people will not be able to access the news and read it as they have become accustomed. For many, this means that, if they want to consume news, they will have to seek out more traditional forms of media or download the specific app of a news service and potentially pay a subscription to access the information that they want. I believe there is broad in principle support for a code and regulation of digital platforms. The Morrison government has been late to the party on this issue, like so many others. These social media giants have been in our lives for nearly two decades now and they have been largely unregulated. Mr Morrison has mismanaged this reform like he has mismanaged every reform in this space. In fact, he has mismanaged so many reforms, as we have spoken about so many times in this place. Many stakeholders have serious and specific concerns with the bill as drafted, and Labor concurs with them. Google and Facebook explained that they would withdraw products and services from Australia if their key concerns were not addressed. It is a failure of the Morrison government for not managing this process better. Australia is trying to recover from a global pandemic. We are a country prone to bushfires and floods. To have a global giant, without a social conscience, that controls the dissemination of information is a dangerous position for this country to be in. This government is not a government that negotiates or enjoys being critiqued, and now Facebook's decision has disrupted 19 million Australians and 1.3 million small businesses. Labor recognises that the timing of debate and amendment forms part of the government's negotiation strategy with Google and Facebook, but the government really has failed to cooperate with Labor regarding these reforms. We recognise the power imbalance identified by the ACCC between news media companies and digital platforms and the importance of supporting a diverse public-interest news sector in Australia. Australia needs a workable code, and the Morrison government must address stakeholders' concerns with this bill to ensure that happens. Labor recommends that the government use precise language in public statements regarding what designations it intends to make under the code. It's important that there be no unnecessary uncertainty for the media, digital platforms, small businesses, citizens and consumers who may be impacted. I want to address the concerns of local media in my home state of Tasmania, because last week, when Facebook decided to cancel journalism on their feed, many journalists feared for their future and their job security, and we know that there already has been a huge impact from so many print media closing their doors, which means fewer opportunities for journalism in this country. Facebook blocking news content hurts everyone. After all, when we are less informed, we are less likely to make rational decisions. Facebook makes millions of dollars out of journalism in Australia. Google has acted constructively with the government and publishers while airing its concerns, and I hope that Facebook does the same. We need to be grateful that, as Australians, we do have a free press. Although certain news organisations increasingly have agendas and philosophies of thought, we still have a free press. They make editorial decisions and they pick sides, which isn't always dignified, but they make that choice. That is so very important to the health of our democracy. Choice is fundamental in the media market, and now it means Australians will be forced to seek out media instead of seeing it so easily on their Facebook feeds. I think that journalists and media organisations will rise to the challenge they now face. Their work can be accessed via their websites or apps or via Google News Showcase. Facebook is a huge part of Australia's culture. Most Australians use the platform, and they deserve to have their access to news media readily. A well-informed public serves our democracy better than a public which does not question its government or the actions of politicians. Not being able to access information will damage our communities. People need to access information, including emergency warnings, which affect people's lives in a crisis. I hope that Facebook does the right thing by all Australians. Facebook profits from the 19 million Australians who use its platform to stay in contact with their loved ones and organisations, and it could save a person's life. Facebook is a matrix which promotes the most powerful companies in the world. It's also the largest piece of propaganda infrastructure the world has ever seen. Good, bad or downright ugly, we all use this platform. It can be better, and it should be better. After all, Facebook, at the moment, couldn't have picked a worse time to take the news feed off their platform. We are facing the worst pandemic in more than a century in this country. At a time when we need to roll out the vaccine to help protect Australians from COVID-19, that platform would have been a vital part of disseminating information. There is a challenge for this government to be able to disseminate information in relation to the vaccine and reassure the Australian people that they should have this vaccine. The rollout, the opportunities and the categories of people in the order in which they will be vaccinated are all very important things that are facing the Australian people at this time. We have managed the pandemic very well compared to overseas countries. There is still a lot more work to be done. We still cannot be complacent, and that's why we need to ensure that people do take the opportunity to have this vaccine. It is not mandatory, but we on this side of the chamber and those on the government side—in fact, I would think, everyone in this chamber—would encourage all Australians to take that opportunity. It does concern me that, with the news feed now being removed from this platform, it will engender some more difficulties in disseminating this information. Facebook can be better, so I urge them to negotiate in good faith and to have a social conscience and a compact with the Australian people. People have been speaking in this chamber, and I've been listening to the debate, about the money that's going to be raised and where that needs to go. And I know there are going to be amendments to ensure that there is proper funding of the ABC, the public broadcaster in this country, which serves this country and has served this country for decade after decade. So there will be amendments, and I'm looking forward to the debate and the arguments that are put forward then. But I think, too, we must always remember that it's the journalists and the best, most educated and smartest people who work in this field who should be encouraged and should be supported. In my home state of Tasmania, we have seen a cut to the media, whether it's the journalists or whether it's the television camera people. Being able to access news and to get good news stories out into our community is fundamental to having a robust democracy. I urge those people who are negotiating with Facebook to negotiate in good faith, and I urge people to consider very carefully how we support good journalism in this country—how we can ensure that there is diversity in the media and the presentation of media. We do want to ensure that we have freedom of speech and freedom of media, and we have to do everything we can to ensure we secure that platform for the future. 20:52 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021. The purpose of the news media bargaining code is to level the playing field between news media companies and big technology—Google and Facebook in particular—when negotiating commercial agreements. The code was recommended by the consumer watchdog, the ACCC, after its inquiry into digital platforms in Australia. I'm sure all Australians realise that Google and Facebook are the gatekeepers of the internet and that these tech giants profit off the advertising revenue that's used to support independent media. Often when you click a link in an article that you found on Google or Facebook, the money from those ads goes to the tech giant; it doesn't go to the person who has written the article. The Greens are really proud that our spokesperson, Senator Hanson-Young, secured the inclusion of public broadcasters—the ABC and SBS—in the code and that we were able to negotiate for public funding to protect that other news wire service, the AAP, in the short term. But let me be crystal clear: we know that this bill cannot solve all of the issues of public interest journalism or media concentration in Australia, and we acknowledge and are at the forefront of all the work that still needs to occur. We remain greatly concerned about the role that the Murdoch media monopoly plays in our democracy. That's why we have, since time immemorial, opposed all of the moves to further concentrate media ownership and we have always voted against laws that would seek to facilitate that concentration of media ownership. It's also why we supported the petition of former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, which gained the support of half a million Australians, I might add. It's exactly why there was a need for the media diversity inquiry to be established, which we participated in setting up—indeed, we chair it, and we heard some great content just last week. But no billionaire—no individual, whether it's Rupert Murdoch or Mark Zuckerberg—should have control over the news and the information that Australians are allowed to access. We need a free press. We need a diversity of news ownership, a diversity of news and views, and we need strong public interest journalism. That is what helps keep a democracy robust; it is what helps hold power to account. The other tasks are, of course, to make sure that new and big tech companies pay their fair share of tax, to raise the revenue to fund public broadcaster and public interest journalism. I'm going to speak a little bit more about that this evening and, indeed, move an amendment that addresses that very point. We also desperately need to secure the ABC's funding in legislation so it cannot be cut by future governments. This particular government has a terrible track record of slashing and slashing and slashing the ABC. They have lost so many staff. Every year, there's a new round of excellent-quality journalists who are then put on the scrap heap thanks to this government continually cutting the ABC's funding. We could fix that by securing that funding in legislation, and the Greens intend to continue to lead the charge for that to occur. We also need to protect the AAP Newswire with long-term public funding. It, too, is a crucial news service and it also helps bolster some of those regional and rural outlets that provide excellent local news but that also rely on AAP copy, again, undertaken by very well-qualified and very efficient journalists. They are the broader issues that we at the Greens are conscious still need to be rectified. We don't propose that this media bill is a solution to those things—it is one step—but we will continue to campaign for all of those reforms to ensure that we have diverse, properly funded public broadcasters and public interest journalism, which in fact benefits all Australians and makes our democracy function more strongly. The Greens will be moving several amendments to this bill. My colleague Senator Hanson-Young has already talked about the fact that she will move a second reading amendment to ensure that the government doesn't cut ABC funding in a manner that might offset the money gained under the code. We very much look forward to support for that amendment; it is a crucial one. Another colleague will also move an amendment relating to protecting data rights and ensuring that users have control over how their data is collected—much like the gold standard the EU have recently implemented. I'll come back to the amendment that I will foreshadow and speak about, but we'll also have some amendments when we come to the committee stage to make sure that the money that news organisations gain through the code is spent in the newsrooms, not in the boardrooms, and that that money is invested in public interest journalism, not just into the pockets of shareholders or overseas parent companies as profit. We'll also move substantive amendments to make sure that the impact that the code has on small and independent and startup news organisations is examined with a 12-month review of the code. I note that many of those smaller outlets, including The Guardian and Junkie to name a few, are in strong support of this code. Nevertheless, we think it is prudent to review the effects and the operation of the code after 12 months and we will be moving an amendment to that effect as well. If I can come to the amendment that I foreshadow I will be moving, it is to note that billionaire Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation controls much of the Australian media, that billionaire Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook controls much of Australia's online activity, and that both big corporations pay little to no tax in Australia. It would also note that the Senate is of the opinion that implementing a media code is not the best way of addressing the growing power of the billionaires and the big corporations and that, in fact, we call on the government to deal with the growing concentration of media and online ownership by implementing new tax measures, by funding public interest journalism and by increasing media diversity. So with that said, I foreshadow that I will so move that second reading amendment on sheet 1213. I conclude my remarks. 20:59 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria It is my great pleasure to rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021. This bill brings together the results of three years of extensive public consultation by the Morrison government with stakeholders right across Australia's vast media landscape. These laws were drafted closely with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which had found that government intervention was required to correct the enormous imbalance of bargaining power between digital platforms and local news businesses. The code represents a world first. This is a global first in tackling the glaring issue of the decline in traditional advertising revenues, where traditional media organisations in this country are being subjected to what we can only say—and in recent days we've seen this, obviously, from Facebook—is nothing less than abuse of market power. There has been a dramatic change in our media landscape. Fundamentally, this bill is about ensuring that journalists are properly remunerated for the content they generate, which, of course, so benefits the global technology platforms. I understand firsthand the sweat, the blood and the tears that go into producing quality journalism. I worked over some 16 years for a number of media organisations, including channels 7, 9 and 10 and the ABC, in various roles in news and current affairs. I also made a few documentaries. I well understand the hard yakka it takes to produce one one-minute news story. It involves a lot of resources, a lot of people—camera operators, journalists, editors, producers—and all of the technical requirements to actually broadcast. Things have changed a lot, of course. It is now a lot easier to broadcast live than it was in the old days. But there has been a dramatic change in our media landscape, where the margins of our traditional media companies are being squeezed by the big global players. This code is all about providing a level playing field. A strong democracy requires a free, diverse and sustainable domestic news media sector. This bill will support Australian publishers and broadcasters, big, medium and small, through a number of crucial measures. These include measures to encourage parties to undertake commercial negotiations outside of the code and to support small news media businesses with efficient pathways to finalise agreements with platforms by enabling them to publish standard offers. Another measure is to establish a negotiation framework under the code which allows parties to bargain in good faith and reach binding agreements. In contrast to the appalling behaviour we have seen from Facebook in recent days, I do want to commend the conduct of Google, which has entered into a number of very significant deals with media companies in this country, including News Corp Australia, the Nine Network and the Seven Network. I hope and trust that there will be more deals to follow, including for smaller regional players, which are also vitally important in holding us as a government to account, in our democracy and, of course, in ensuring that public interest journalism in Australia is alive and well. There is a measure in the bill which sets clear and workable minimum standards for digital platforms, including requiring 14 days advance notice of deliberate algorithm changes which impact news media businesses, and a measure which ensures that an independent arbiter is able to determine the level of remuneration that should be paid under a fair and balanced final-offer arbitration model, should the parties be unable to reach agreement. So in this country we legislate for Australians and for the benefit of Australian companies. This is landmark legislation. I pay credit to the Prime Minister, to the Treasurer and to the communications minister, who led the charge on this very, very significant legislation. The Morrison government has also introduced a range of technical amendments and clarifications which will improve the workability of the code whilst retaining its overall effect. These changes include streamlining the requirements for digital platforms to give advance notice of algorithm changes to make them more workable, clarifying the arbitration criteria so that it considers the reasonable costs of both the digital platform and news media businesses, clarifying the role of the ACCC and ensuring its focus is on providing factual information to assist the arbitrator, adjusting the effect of anti-avoidance provisions so they take effect from the commencement of the code and ensuring the government's policy intent of not interfering with existing contractual rights under the code is achieved. To ensure the code is working as the government intends, the code will be reviewed by Treasury within one year of its commencement. I mentioned the conduct of Facebook in recent days and I've already made some statements on the record about this but I want to reiterate my disappointment and my disgust at how Facebook has blocked Australian news. In doing so, it has done so much to trash its reputation in this country. It is completely irresponsible for Facebook to have blocked vital health information pages during a pandemic. It is completely irresponsible for Facebook to have blocked a wide range of vital information pages, including pages belonging to the Royal Children's Hospital, MS Australia, a number of Indigenous health services and The Kids' Cancer Project. This conduct is an assault on Australian's freedom and a gross abuse of power. We contrast this appalling behaviour with the behaviour of Google, which has operated in good faith to reach the deals that I referenced earlier. As I say, we expect that more deals will follow, and I think, as a result of the good conduct of Google, its reputation will be further enhanced in this country. Make no bones about it: the conduct of Facebook has ricocheted around the globe. Many other citizens in many other countries are appalled at what has happened here in this country. We will not be bullied. We will not be intimidated. The Morrison government have consistently said that we want to see Facebook and Google remain operating and viable and thriving in Australia but we also expect them to comply with the laws passed by our democratically elected parliament of Australia. I am pleased to report that there has been some very good progress in some other countries such as Canada. Some initial reports that have just come out in the last day or so have indicated that Canada is poised to support the very landmark and world-leading example of the Morrison government and make companies like Facebook pay for news content generated by Canadian publishers. The Canadian heritage minister, Steven Guilbeault, strongly condemned Facebook's move. He is quoted as saying: I think what Facebook is doing in Australia is highly irresponsible and compromises the safety of many Australian people. What Facebook did was highly irresponsible. It did compromise safety. I received an email from a person—I won't identify this person—who said that he was most distressed because a friend had posted about her very traumatic experiences as the victim of a crime. She had spent a number of years doing so on her Facebook page, including posting a number of very relevant news media articles concerning the trauma that she had suffered. These articles have now been removed. Her plight, her position, her decision to fight for what she believed in have been undermined because of Facebook's conduct. I really hope that we do see other countries around the world following the lead of the Morrison government and taking a stand against these global giants. I will say something to Facebook: Mark, if you're listening, I worked for a news corporation in New York in the late 1990s and early 2000s at a time when News Corporation acquired Myspace. Myspace was going to be the big, new global platform and there were great aspirations for its future, but within a number of years that particular platform gradually died away. If Facebook, in this country, becomes a place where people can no longer trust the information it publishes, if it becomes a place where credible news can no longer be found, where credible journalism can no longer be found, then Facebook's role in our democracy is diminished. Not only is this an issue of its reputation; this is an issue of its relevance. I say to Mark and all of his other executive team all around the world, as they count their billions of dollars, including billions of dollars of advertising revenue, just have a look at the demise of some other platforms when they do the wrong thing by the people they serve. Facebook is only as good as the people who use it. If they lose the trust and confidence of those who use Facebook then Facebook may well one day see a similar demise. This code is healthy for our democracy. It preserves jobs in newsrooms, in media organisations, around this country, from the small country towns to our big cities. It gives great confidence to those young men and women who want to forge a life in journalism, who want to forge a life working in media, including in traditional print or broadcasting. We understand that public interest journalism often requires lengthy, complex and cost-intensive investigations. These laws will ensure that journalists and publishers are rightly rewarded for their work, rather than it being ripped off by the platforms, as has been occurring. Of course I'm also very pleased to make mention of the fact that the bill involves substantial penalties for breaching the code's main provision and these penalty provisions will be enforced by the ACCC. It is good to see universal support for this bill across this chamber. I acknowledge that there are some proposed amendments. But it is wonderful to see, across this chamber—from the Labor Party, the Greens and the crossbench—a strong backing for this landmark legislation. As I say, I really hope and trust that our bill and our aspirations for our Australian media companies are picked up by other countries around the world and adopted, which can only be a very good thing for our democracy. 21:14 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales In September 1993 Rupert Murdoch gave a speech from London that was broadcast via satellite to analysts and investors at various locations around the world. In the speech he announced for the first time that his business would expand to the internet, offering 'endless data and information', even electronic newspapers, to anyone in the world with the necessary equipment to receive it. He said: Technology is racing ahead so rapidly, news and entertainment sources are proliferating at such a rate, that the media moghul has been replaced … … … … The consumer is in the saddle, driving the telecommunications industry. The technology is galloping over the old regulatory machinery. The parliament finds itself today debating how the regulatory machinery can catch up. It's no small irony that Mr Murdoch, still a media mogul, has championed this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021. The next year brought the first mention of the internet in this chamber. In August 1994, Senator John Tierney reported, 'I recently returned from a study tour to the United States where I looked at the information super highway, its implications for Australian industry and society and its implications for the parliament in terms of the regulatory framework that we establish and modify to assist the development of this new stage of the industrial revolution.' From the very beginning it was widely understood that the internet would have a profound effect on our society. Over the decades speeches given to this have chartered the internet's development. The first mention of Google in Hansard was in 2001, the first mention of YouTube in Hansard was in October 2006, the first mention of Facebook in Hansard was in April 2008, and the first mention of Twitter in Hansard was in May 2009. There is no record that I could find of a mention of Myspace. The optimism of the early 1990s has given way to a certain grimmer reality. There are deep concerns about the privacy of consumers, concerns about the power of internet companies and concerns about the democratic principles at stake, particularly after the 2016 election in the United States. Those concerns wrote to specific forms of power that the large tech companies have acquired through a cycle of accumulation described as surveillance capitalism—that is, the capacity to collect large amounts of data and the ability to process that data through sophisticated algorithms to build a profile of users that can predict what they will do so they can sell advertising based upon that information. Importantly, the cycle of accumulation leads the tech giants to accumulate ever greater amounts of data and engage in ever-intensifying behaviour modification. This power has created immense wealth for the global tech giants. Rarely did these companies, nor senators in this chamber, pre-empt the dark implications of this new power. Rarer still were the attempts to substantially regulate them. The power of these platforms has grown mostly unchallenged, particularly as platforms began to take on the role of a fundamental public service. That power was nakedly on display last week when Facebook denied access to Australian news sites to millions of their Australian users. Facebook's actions were not only a disgraceful response to a matter of public debate but a risk to public safety, including by blocking resources for domestic violence victims, blocking the Bureau of Meteorology potentially during an emergency and blocking government health advice during the global pandemic. The University of Canberra's Digital news report: Australia 2020 found that during the COVID-19 outbreak 49 per cent of respondents used Facebook as their only source of news about the coronavirus. A vital public service that informs millions of Australians about a deadly pandemic was held ransom to the political will of a large multinational company. As I speak in this chamber, Facebook continues to block Australian citizens from consuming news on their platform. It is an extraordinary situation, and so we do debate this bill with the eyes of the world upon the chamber. Labor will indeed support this legislation. We have some reservations about some aspects of the legislation that will be the subject of amendments, I imagine, tomorrow morning. And there has been some debate in the community about the bill and whether or not the bill prefers the interests of one set of global media giants over another. I say to this place: this should not be the last time we consider these issues. We've got to look past the interests of global media giants and see the interests of ordinary people—the citizens of the country. We've got to be determined and carefully watch developments, particularly in the US, where the last congress and the new Biden administration appear to be developing an approach to antitrust legislation. We should carefully consider our approach and our response as those global developments occur. It remains to be seen whether the government's code is workable and how big a difference it will make. The code has exposed a large number of Australian businesses to uncertainty. It doesn't guarantee any particular outcomes for media organisations, journalists, citizens or consumers. It's not clear how the money raised will be directed towards public interest journalism; in particular, regional journalism, where 150 titles have closed over the life of this government; investigative journalism, which was referred to in the last contribution; and news wire services, such as AAP. It is indeed heavily weighted to the large media interests. Australia has one of the most heavily concentrated media markets in the world, and the bill contributes very little to enhancing our media diversity. It doesn't deal with the parlous state of employment in journalism, and it's unclear how the code would affect future funding arrangements for the ABC and SBS. It's not clear that the code is the most efficient or effective way of directing resources from the tech giants to support journalism. It is only one of the ACCC's recommendations to support public interest journalism. Other recommendations include genuine media reform, stable and adequate funding for public broadcasters, adequate direct funding, and tax incentives and philanthropic measures. The Morrison government is yet to explain what is going on and what this means for Australians, but it is indeed a start. It is a first step for this place and for Australia in dealing with regulation for this very important sector of our economy. I look forward to seeing a focus—noting some of the other contributions—on the tax paid by some of these global giants, and some proper, effective regulation. I suspect that some of the answers lie in what this parliament does, some of the answers lie in what legislatures overseas do, and some of the answers lie in global cooperation, in the interest of citizens, to make sure that we don't see abuses of market power and the misuse of the power of information around the world. Google has now signed deals with 50 Australian publishers, amongst them Seven West, The Guardian Australia, Nine, Australian Community Media, Schwartz Media and Junkee. The world-leading nature of this legislation does rekindle Australia's role as a social laboratory. In the early 20th century, Australia led the world in social reform such as the minimum wage, unemployment benefits and the age pension. There were democratic experiments as well: the secret ballot, mandatory voting, women's suffrage. At the same time, Australia should be a place where we develop novel approaches to regulation for technology companies. Australians are early adopters of these technologies. Rarely disconnected from our phones, we are enthusiastic users of smartphone technology. We should be paying attention to these issues here. It has made Australia a place where there are soft launches of apps and features. It was in Australia, I'm less than pleased to report, that we first had access to the wonderful features of Pokemon GO. It was a big feature of my kids' lives. It did mean that I could observe them playing Pokemon GO in places all over Sydney. Despite the fact that they were very connected to their telephones, it did mean they got a bit of exercise and got out in the sun a little bit more than they otherwise might have. I am reliably informed that Senator Duniam, who is in the chamber, can be found at various locations around Tasmania clocking in, or whatever it is you do on Pokemon GO. Senator Duniam interjecting— Senator AYRES 16913 That's it. Do they have branches in Tasmania? Senator Duniam 263418 Yes, one. Senator AYRES 16913 Good. It makes sense that Australia is a place where that work can be done. Many countries will be watching our progress. Australia must be vigilant about the digital threats to our democracy, both from overseas and, in particular, from extremist organisations here. In his 1993 speech, Mr Murdoch claimed 'Advances in the technology of telecommunications have proved an unambiguous threat to totalitarian regimes everywhere.' History hasn't been kind to Mr Murdoch's optimism and it wasn't only him who was optimistic about that. I think many of us, as we were observing the growth of the internet and social media, thought it would be a useful adjunct to enrich our democracy. The spread of social media hasn't been followed by a wave of democratic sentiment across the world. It's fomented a distrust in elected government, wild conspiracy theories, reactionary political movements, including fascism. The fault is not solely with the tech platforms. Some of the media companies have been engaging in exactly that kind of behaviour as well. I have to say that some of the material that Sky News circulated on its platform that was then reinforced across Facebook, posting figures like Lauren Southern and Steve Bannon and wild conspiracy theories about the American election, was enthusiastically posted by some of the people who sit on the other side of the chamber. I'm pleased to say they are not represented there this evening but some of the characters in the LNP circulate that material as well. Of course, that kind of sensationalism, that kind of appeal to a sort of reactionary base element is a result of a deliberate strategy to ride the algorithms of social media. It encourages users to seek out media they already agree with. The feedback loop creates a radicalising effect. There are consequences for this deliberate attempt to write off the spread of conspiracy theories. Late last year Sky News Australia shared videos across its digital platforms that cast doubt on the result of the American election. There are some still on its YouTube page. One says 'Pennsylvanian postal worker who claims US vote was rigged denied he recanted allegations'—1.1 million views. Another story says there is 'something odd about postal votes which magically materialise for Biden'—an editorial from Alan Jones, 760,000 views. 'US postal service worker alleges potential voter fraud, according to Project Veritas'—nearly 900,000 views. 'Something stinks to high heaven in the US presidential election', from former Senator Bernardi—nearly 800,000 views. The false belief, the deliberately propagated, deliberately misrepresented, often propagated by interests hostile to the interests of the US was directed deliberately towards the insurrection at the US Capitol, which was a direct attempt to overturn the will of millions of American voters. Five people died; 140 were injured. It could indeed have been much worse in casualties or its impact on American democracy. We can't afford to ignore that the most significant threats to democracy always come from inside. In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote: … the species of oppression by which democratic nations are menaced is unlike anything that ever before existed in the world; our contemporaries will find no prototype of it in their memories. The spiralling mix of algorithm and politics is an oppression that has not existed yet in the world. It divides our society in new and complex ways. It undermines our ability to have a shared view of facts and reality, and it radicalises people and movements purely for profit. Responding to it will require long-term leadership, proactive attempts to regulate our public sphere and require accountability from our media for the views that they publish. The code is a start, but there is indeed much more work to do. 21:29 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I also rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021. As other senators have done so far in this debate, before I turn to the bill itself I want to make some observations about the events of the last week. As I've said many times before, as somebody who believes in private property rights, I accept the fact that a social media company who wants to run their platform without any news on it has every right to do so. However, their users—and everyone else—are entitled to make judgements about them if they do so. In their desire to avoid the implications of the news media bargaining code, Facebook has removed news from their platform and delivered a significantly diminished service to their users as a result. As we've heard throughout this debate, many Australians do turn to Facebook for their news and current affairs, and they are now not able to do so. Inevitably, Facebook will become a less attractive platform for them as a result. In my capacity as Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I am also concerned about the implications of this decision for the spread of misinformation and disinformation. The spread of misinformation and, in particular, state sponsored disinformation, is of great concern. It contributes to many of the problems that the PJCIS will be examining this year, including foreign interference in our democracy and increasing extremism and online radicalism, and they are also apparent in debates about the safety of vaccines. Some examples of this misinformation appear to be, at face value, at least trivial, like a recent viral post purporting to explain that the real reason why we celebrate Australia Day on 26 January is not in fact because of Captain Arthur Phillip and the First Fleet landing on that day in 1788 but in fact the passage of a citizenship act in 1949. I've no doubt many senators received the email I did and saw the Facebook post that that originated from. But there is a much darker side to this too. One very troubling recent example of an apparently state sponsored disinformation campaign was exposed in The Daily Telegraph by Ellen Whinnett. She wrote about the experience of a young researcher, Vicky Xu, who, courageously, has exposed the shocking mistreatment of the Uighur people by the Chinese Communist Party, both in her capacity, previously, as a journalist and then as a researcher at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. For her troubles, she was targeted by a transparent attempt to discredit and intimidate her in the form of a social media video which smeared her reputation. Regrettably, Western social media companies, including Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, were all vectors for this disinformation. Some of those platforms took far too long to address it or only did so after receiving a media inquiry about it. There have been proposals for quite heavy-handed government-led solutions to these problems that I fear could easily end in a form of state censorship. As a supporter of free speech, that is the last thing that I want to see happen. I would much rather see social media platforms take their own initiatives to combat these problems, as Facebook has been at pains to assure this parliament and other legislatures around the world they are doing. But one of the best tools we have to combat false information is to make it easy for truthful information from trusted sources to be more easily shared. With their decision to ban news in Australia, Facebook has—perhaps inadvertently, perhaps unintentionally—made that task much harder. I believe—contrary to some of the things we hear in this chamber and elsewhere in public debate about the Australian people—that, by and large, actually, most Australians are pretty savvy about the information they consume. Polling shows that Australians place different levels of trust in different media channels, such as television, radio, print and online, and they even differentiate in their level of trust in individual news outlets or news brands within those categories. But, if they lose one of their main avenues to access that information, inevitably the overall quality of the information they can access about events and the world will decline—particularly as what is replaced in their news feeds will not just be photos of friends and family and music and cat videos, but also the sorts of wild and lurid posts that can unfortunately go viral on those platforms. In a climate where confidence in vaccine safety and efficacy is so important to Australians returning to a normal life, this is not just an academic concern. We will all pay an enormous cost if access to factual, evidence based information about COVID-19 vaccines, for example, is replaced by false information which needlessly undermines Australians' trust in them. In that light, it is particularly unfortunate that, in seeking to remove the ability of Australians to share news on their platform, Facebook also, apparently inadvertently, took down a range of official sources of health information, along with charities and others who are really quite distantly removed from the provision of news. Facebook may have unwittingly contributed to a problem I believe they are genuine in tackling, and I urge them to carefully consider the implications of their decision. Throughout this debate, I've met with and heard from both the media and tech companies, and I understand the different perspectives they bring to it. I also participated in the Senate select committee on public interest journalism in 2017 and 2018, which first grappled with many of these issues. It was a classic Sam Dastyari/Nick Xenophon trip down memory lane—I think Senator Hanson-Young participated in it also—but it was launched for very good reasons and in recognition of the important role that public interest journalism plays in our liberal democracy. Of course, our democracy is not just the act of voting at a polling booth every few years; it's the complex, fragile and interrelated institutions that help hold democratically elected leaders to account. In addition, of course, to the role that parliaments, independent courts and civil society play, journalism plays an indispensable and vital role in that process. It's completely understandable why media organisations, academics and Australians more generally are concerned about the loss of revenue that media organisations have suffered from the transition to a digital online world and the impact that has had on the public interest journalism they provide. It has clearly made it much more difficult financially, economically, to provide support for public interest journalism in the digital world. Print newspaper outlets in particular have lost that effective monopoly they once had on classified advertising, which for decades cross-subsidised the important public interest journalism they undertook. I suspect that, in years gone by, people who chose to advertise their house or their car through a print newspaper didn't realise or even really care that they were bankrolling public interest journalism and investigative journalism. But that is the effect of what they did and the migration of that advertising to online sources has had a massively disruptive effect on our media industry. Tech companies, admittedly, have found what is often a much more efficient and effective way for advertisers to reach those audiences. They can do so much more directly, and often more cheaply, but in doing so they are bypassing news media companies. In recognition of the important work that news media companies were able to do because of that cross-subsidisation, we have all been grappling with how we ensure they are sustainably funded going forward. The inquiry looked at other things, including tax deductible awards for organisations, tax deductible funding for news media organisations, more public funding and even a direct tax on tech platforms. I admit that, during the inquiry process, I was quite attracted to the idea of allowing tax deductible donations for philanthropic contributions towards investigative journalism in recognition of the fact that we allow tax deductible donations towards advocacy on matters like environmental issues, social justice issues, refugee issues and general welfare issues. Why would it not be the case that other things of public value, including investigative journalism, could be funded by generous philanthropists through tax deductible donations? I note that there are in fact many philanthropists who operate in this space in Australia and overseas who do put their own money behind these efforts in a very commendable way. I thought providing them with a tax deduction to facilitate and encourage that was one possible part of the solution to this problem. But I also accept that none of the solutions canvassed by that Senate inquiry was perfect, because this is a difficult problem to solve due to the very nature of journalism in a democracy; and that's probably why none of the ideas proposed by that committee were taken up by the parliament. For very good reasons, we are all appropriately wary of direct government intervention in the form of funding or regulation of media outlets. By its very nature, if we want journalists to hold governments to account, we want politicians as far as possible from decisions about how they are funded. History and, indeed, sadly, much of the world today contain salutary lessons about why that is the case. Inevitably, with these other options canvassed, politicians would have had a hand in deciding which media outlets would have qualified for funding and the basis on which they did so. All of the problems that would have entailed for their independence are fairly obvious. A virtue of this code is the fact that the parties have been encouraged to take—and some are, indeed, undertaking—commercial negotiations outside the code in the hope that the code never needs to be invoked, let alone the arbitration provisions of the code, which have been very controversial, I note, through the Senate inquiry and public debate. It is welcomed that Google, for instance, appears to have reached agreeable commercial terms with as many as 50 media outlets without the code being invoked. I think it would be fair to say that most members and senators, and certainly me, have a very strong preference for these issues to be resolved commercially, with the least involvement possible from the government. I also appreciate that tech platforms, particularly Facebook and Google, contribute enormous value to media companies in the form of the significant referral traffic that they send their way. That's perhaps why no media company has ever elected to remove themselves from those platforms, despite their concerns that tech companies were freely profiting from their efforts. In this respect, I particularly welcome the inclusion of the two-way value exchange in the code. In my view, this is a significant improvement by the government on the original draft code proposed by the ACCC. In my view, it was an oversight of the ACCC not to recognise that two-way value exchange inherent in these relationships between tech companies and media organisations. It's appropriate to recognise that, while there is value for tech platforms in hosting news on their sites—we all go to these sites to look for news—there's also value for the media companies to be linked to by these platforms. I think it's also sensible that the digital platforms have been permitted to publish standard offers, in recognition of the fact that smaller media organisations are clearly not equipped to engage in complex legal negotiations with large multinationals. I also welcome the fact that there is a one-year review by Treasury of the effectiveness of the operation of the scheme. Even with our best intentions in this place, we should always be wary of the potential for unintended consequences in the laws that we pass. In concluding my remarks, I turn to the report of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee into this bill, capably chaired, as always, by my friend Senator Slade Brockman, which had an important contribution to make on this issue of further reviews and consultation. It notes: … even supporters of the bill, felt that further amendments were possible to improve the law. Free TV recommended a series of amendments, as did SBS, the ABC, the MEAA and Solstice Media, amongst others. Treasury also acknowledged that, despite the many and varied consultations and legal advice, that as is commonly the case for all legislation: 'there are legal risks associated to the bill, both domestic and international.' Treasury also noted that the government, in developing the bill, had considered its domestic and international law obligations. The committee accepts that there remains the possibility that not all risks have been taken into account, and that further refinement may be needed to the arbitration mechanism and other parts of the Code so that they work in an optimum manner. Accordingly, the committee strongly supports the 12 month review mechanism built into the legislation. I, too, strongly support a robust and independent review of the effectiveness of this code and its operation to ensure that there are no unintended consequences and inadvertent effects, that it is achieving the government's policy objectives and that Australia does remain a very attractive place for innovation and for tech companies to invest and base themselves here. If we are to be a prosperous 21st-century country, then we want to ensure that we are an attractive, safe and reliable place for them to invest and that they are not discouraged by excessive or burdensome regulation. 21:43 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory It seems a fair proposal: a code to ensure that news media businesses are fairly remunerated for the content they generate, helping to sustain public interest journalism in Australia. But, like so much with this government, the difference between what is talked about and the reality of the impact it has on people and businesses is vast. It's that vast gap between reality and delivery that's the hallmark of so much of what this government does. Like many Australians, I woke up on Thursday 18 February and started flicking through my Facebook news feed, and it quickly became apparent that there wasn't a lot of news in my feed. It wasn't just the mainstream news organisations whose posts were missing; it became apparent that many, many organisations were no longer visible. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology, which uses its Facebook page to deliver climate updates and severe weather warnings, was blocked. So too were fire and emergency service pages and state health departments, where daily coronavirus figures and information about potential exposure sites are listed. They were deleted, as was the official page for the governments of the Australian Capital Territory, South Australia and Tasmania. Homelessness services, crisis centres, legal services—all blocked. First Nations organisations in the arts, health, media and community sectors all found that their news feeds had been blanked. Thankfully, a lot of these pages have been reinstated, but the pages of many First Nations media organisations are still blank and are likely to remain so, caught in the crossfire of what has become—pun intended—a face-off between the government and a multinational tech giant. Organisations such as NITV, the Central Australian Aboriginal Media Association, CAAMA, Bumma Bipra, 3KND, the National Indigenous Times, the peak body First Nations Media Australia and so many others have all had their social media voices silenced. Ironically, First Nations media organisations are in many ways the very definition of public interest journalism. They tell our stories in our way, keep our language and culture strong and alive, and reflect us out to the wider community as well as to ourselves. Back when I started as a cadet with the ABC, way back when, there were very few First Nations people on television and on radio. Stories about First Nations issues, people and communities were usually negative and didn't receive a lot of prominence—certainly not on a national level. And while this is changing, largely due to the work of the trailblazing First Nations media workers and organisations, it's not just the big headline stories and issues that are important. Our community based media organisations tell the stories that mean so much at the grassroots level. I don't know how many of you have ever watched ICTV, for example—Indigenous Community Television. ICTV is an independent, not-for-profit First Nations media company based in Alice Springs. Most of its content is contributed voluntarily by production companies, organisations and individuals who are in remote communities or providing services to remote communities. Over 50 per cent of their content is in an Indigenous Australian language, and more than 50 language groups are represented. ICTV's television service broadcasts for 18 hours per day, seven days per week, on channel 601 VAST across remote Australia and on free-to-air digital services on Channel 41 in Alice Springs, Broome and Roebourne. Their core purpose is to improve the lives of First Nations people, especially those living in remote areas, by providing media distribution outlets that enable the active sharing of stories, culture and language. They also produce some of their own content, such as the wonderful Our Bedtime Stories, which presents stories for children in language, using traditional storytelling techniques together with animation, music and film. If you aren't fortunate enough to have a set-top box or to live in one of the free-to-air regions of ICTV, you can catch their programming on ICTV Play online. And I certainly urge you, senators, to jump on and enjoy some of the content produced in some of our very remote communities. While you're online, jump on to indigiTUBE, a project of First Nations Media Australia, that is an amazing resource of audio and visual content from around the country, including documentaries, music, animation, podcasts and much more. Just these two services will give you a taste of the rich variety of stories that glimpse into the lives of First Nations people around the country. These services fortunately still have their social presence, but they will be impacted by this media code. It could bring them benefits, if this government does its job properly by making available funding that will support their work and the work of other organisations in the First Nations media sector. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 112 ADJOURNMENT Workplace Relations 112 21:50 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland Many had hoped that 2021 would see Mr Albanese and the Labor Party adopt a much more mature approach to industrial relations, but I'm afraid, upon reflection, we have had no such luck. As with Labor's policies at the last election—we must remember their big taxing policy has not yet been abandoned—their latest effort at industrial relations policy appears to be nothing more than a thought bubble or some sort of cater to their base. Not only is it economically flawed; it has so little reflection upon its economic impact, its financial consequences or, indeed, the need for proper detail for it to be regarded as anything more than a momentary fantasy. Let's take a closer look at what Labor is proposing for the Australian industrial relations landscape. The first thing we can reflect upon is Labor's plan to cut the pay of casual workers. While there are some people who don't want to be casual workers, there are a lot of people who very much do. They value their 25 per cent loading and the freedom that comes with it. On the ABC's Insidersprogram just two weeks ago, ACTU secretary, Sally McManus, confirmed that casual workers would face a massive up-front pay cut under Labor's industrial relations policies. She told the ABC that casual workers would compulsorily lose their 25 per cent casual loading under Labor's policy to provide sick, annual and long service leave—a plan that, on average, netting off all of those things, would cost casual workers $153 a week, or $7,953 a year. No small change to Australian families! I can tell you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that policy would be devastating for the 486,000 casual workers in my home state of Queensland. Next, we've got Labor's $20 billion—not million, but billion—job tax. Mr Albanese's sweeping commitment to give Australians in what he calls 'insecure' work new leave types—including giving all 2.3 million casual workers and 1.2 independent contractors access to portable sick leave, annual leave and long service leave—represents an enormous financial hit for which he has no plan to pay. If a casual worker wants permanency, we're more than happy to facilitate that, but to inflict it without any kind of worker choice, to force it upon people without giving them control of their financial future is, quite frankly, draconian. This would represent a massive financial hit on businesses which would drive up the cost of employment with the obvious consequence of killing jobs—if you want to stop job creation, this is the fast track to do it—and it would increase the cost of day-to-day goods and services at a time when so many Australians can least afford it. Indeed, the Attorney-General's Department has estimated that this could cost business up to $20.3 billion per year. No small sum! At a time when Australian employers and employees are recovering from the biggest economic hit since World War II—the after-effects of COVID—Labor wants to hit them once more with a new $20 billion tax. Imagine how much damage this new tax would do to Queensland's 600,000 small-business owners, family-business owners and the 221,000 jobs that have returned in Queensland over the past seven months with the assistance of the support of the federal government. They're already having to deal with the difficulty that comes from operating under state Labor. We still, in Queensland, have to cope with the second-worst unemployment rate in the country due to the inertia of state Labor. It's even worse than Victoria, which spent most of 2020 in lockdown. That's nothing to be proud of, Ms Palaszczuk. But federal Labor's new $20 billion tax would only make the situation so much worse. If that wasn't bad enough, then we have Labor's plan for the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Taking note of the Mr Shorten playbook, Mr Albanese let the cat out of the bag in his recent speech, highlighting his plan for what he said was: … the abolition of the discredited and politicised Registered Organisations Commission and the Australian Building and Construction Commission. We don't accept that on face value, of course, but these are the organisations which hold lawless unions—and they are thugs of the first degree—like the CFMMEU to account. The abolition of the ABCC would be absolutely devastating for Queensland, where we've seen union officials like David Hanna convicted for destroying literally tonnes of documents and Michael Ravbar and James Fissenden convicted of unlawful coercion. It is a fancy name for bullying if ever I've heard it. With officials like these, it should be no surprise that trade union membership has slumped to a historic low of 14 per cent—down from 40 per cent in just 1992. That seems like only a moment ago. But the ABCC does more than just hold lawless unions to account. Since its restoration in December 2016 it has recovered more than $2.6 million in underpaid wages and entitlements, and that's benefited more than 4,000 employees. It has collected over $11 million in penalties that have been awarded in the cases that it has brought. It has been successful in nearly 90 per cent of the cases it has brought—not by any measure the discredited organisation Mr Albanese would have you believe it is. Let's move on to the next part of Labor's plan—or should we call it a lack of a plan—for a fair test for determining who is a casual worker pursuant to the Fair Work Act. They might've used that term 'fair test', but we actually have no detail at all from Labor about what this test should be, what the definition should look like. We just have the sort of vague generalities we've come to expect. The fact is it's Labor's failure to insert a definition of the term 'casual worker' into the Fair Work Act that has created years of confusion for both employers and employees. It has left us with the unreasonable position, adopted by the Federal Court in the decision of WorkPac Pty Ltd v Skene, which permitted double dipping by those who take the benefit of casual loading on one hand and then the value of permanent entitlements on the other. After two years as leader you might think Mr Albanese would tell Australians what his definition of a casual worker might be, but still we have crickets. Mr Burke has confirmed that Labor won't be providing a definition anytime soon. Of course, they've said on the record they won't be providing a definition until they form government, so let's cut through it. The Labor Party's industrial relations policy is to slash the wages of casuals, to put a $20 billion tax on business, to bring back union lawlessness with the abolition of the ABCC and to not tell us what their definition of a fair test for casuals will look like until after they've been elected. Let's compare and contrast. The Morrison government, on the other hand, is providing Australians with well-reasoned, strong, but also fair, industrial relations reform. They're not radical. They're not driven by ideology. But they represent a fair and balanced response to problems that all sides of the debate agree must be fixed in order to give employees the confidence to go out into the market and give employers the confidence to invest. That could be delayed or even blocked as a consequence of those opposite, and that's exactly what Mr Albanese has signalled he will do. But, when he stands in the way of these reforms, he stands in the way of a fairer deal for all Australian workers, he stands in the way of opportunity for those who currently sit in the unemployment queue, he stands in the way of the criminalisation of wage theft and he stands in the way of protection for Australia's most vulnerable workers. COVID-19: Tourism 114 22:00 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Earlier this month we passed a sombre anniversary for the tourism sector. Monday 1 February marked the beginning of the travel bans which threw our tourism industry into crisis. As one of the first industries to feel the hit of COVID-19, tourism will also likely be one of the last to recover. Over the past year, I've spoken to hundreds of business owners on teleconferences, Zoom and in person in regions like Far North Queensland and Tasmania. Every single one of them has expressed to me the challenges that they are facing, the importance of government support, and their desire to get back to business as usual and keep doing the jobs they love. But the other message that has come through loud and clear is the need for certainty, and I know you're very much aware of this, Mr President. The foundation of tourism businesses, of future bookings and forward planning—whether you're a tour operator running on the Great Barrier Reef, a travel agent in Perth or an accommodation provider in Sydney's CBD—certainty is critical. That is why the issue around JobKeeper is such a blow to the sector. The government have known for months that they were going end to JobKeeper. So why is it only in the last two weeks that Minister Tehan met with operators to talk about what they need most from JobKeeper and what they need post JobKeeper? The government talks about the challenges facing the industry, offering their sympathy and understanding, as I know you're fully aware, Mr President, but these businesses don't want government sympathy; they are in these circumstances as a direct result of government decisions and deserve a government response. JobKeeper ends in just 34 days. For the government to claim they are waiting on data or engaging with the sector on what they need at this late stage is completely unacceptable. We know the sector is in trouble; we know that jobs have been lost; we know that international-facing businesses like tour operators, wholesalers and travel agents will find it difficult until international travel is possible again; and we know that the sector can't afford to wait for the government's announcements schedule. Pre COVID, this industry employed over one million people across 300,000 businesses. These jobs are at risk, and decisions about their future are being made right now, not at the end of the month. Knowing what an absolute mess the government have made of previous support packages, like the one put forward for travel agents, which is producing vastly inequitable outcomes, it's vital that there is time to properly implement these programs. Mr President, if you could pass this on to your colleagues: I strongly urge the government to be upfront and provide certainty to the industry about what support will be available post JobKeeper. If you can do that, Mr President, while we wait for this— An opposition senator: You're relying on the President. Senator FARRELL I0N Yes. He's sitting up there and he's listening, when he's not playing with his mobile phone. And I know he'll pass that on to the government, while we wait for this certainty. To all those employed in this sector, I want you to know that I and my Labor colleagues will continue to fight for you and for the future of this important industry. We stand with you every step of the way. Water 114 22:04 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland In serving the people of Queensland and Australia, tonight I will review the National water reform 2020: Productivity Commission draft report, dated February 2021, a periodic review of the operation of the National Water Initiative. Put simply, this report is a celebration of profit over people. Let's go through the many failings of this report. Failing No. 1: the National Water Initiative has resulted in water being taken from family farms that were producing food and fibre for the world. Instead, large corporate agriculture purchased that water. The result has been a huge reduction in the number of family farms growing varied crops that support a wide range of local services and local communities. Commercial agriculture, also known as monoculture, uses large acreage devoted to crops like almonds, grapes or oranges. These properties are highly mechanised, reducing local employment to just a handful. Compared with family farms, corporate agriculture puts a fraction of the wealth back into local communities. The profits from corporate agriculture are moved to capital cities and then to overseas tax havens. There's nothing in corporate agriculture for everyday Australians and their communities. The Productivity Commission celebrates this increased profit, even though it comes at a massive cost to employment and the health of regional Australia. Failing No. 2: corporate agriculture uses its ability to run at a loss during the growth phase to purchase water at whatever price it takes. That's forcing family farms out of the water market and ultimately off the land. This water is then moved downstream through natural constraints like the Barmah Choke in search of cheaper land. Water has to be stuffed through these constraints to meet downstream irrigation requests. The environmental devastation in the Barmah Choke, the Goulburn River and elsewhere in the connected basin is not included in the Productivity Commission's calculations, yet protecting the national estate matters. The extra profits accruing to the big end of town must be balanced against the environmental damage that the creation of these profits causes. Money might be all that matters to the Productivity Commission. One Nation suggests it goes back and factors environmental damage into its calculations now, not at some point in the future. These natural constraints can't wait for the next review in 10 years, as suggested on page 13, table 2. By then, the damage will be irreparable. Failing No. 3: the Productivity Commission failed to quantify the risk to Australia's economy from shifting agricultural production from diversified family farms to monoculture. For example, one negative movement in the price for almonds, for oranges or for table grapes—and that has happened before—will decimate billions of dollars of agricultural production. The Productivity Commission might not understand risk; One Nation does. Before the National Water Initiative corrupted the water market, Australian agriculture was resilient and diversified; not now. Failing No.4: the report praises water trading as transparent. This government tried to introduce a transparent water scheme register in 2012, and it failed. Following this sole attempt, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority simply gave up. We do not have a national water register. Water trading is a feeding ground for ruthless water traders and speculators. If the Productivity Commission considers this system to be transparent, the Productivity Commission must be using X-ray glasses. It's not transparent; it's broken. Shortly, the Senate will be asked to vote on a bill to create the office of the inspector-general for water compliance. The key responsibility of this office will be to investigate water trading. Since its inception in 2007, the Water Act has provided for a water register on which to record these trades. No such water register has ever been created. The Liberal-National government continues to break its own laws. How does the inspector-general inspect water trading when there is no register of water trades? It doesn't and it can't. A complete, transparent, basin-wide water register is 14 years overdue and should be started immediately. Failing No. 5: water licences, once taken from family farms through unequal economic power, are then being traded into different valleys. The Productivity Commission report applauds this. There's no analysis in the report of the effect on the land of this changed distribution of agricultural production. Corporate agriculture is buying up marginal farmland cheaply, then miraculously it's brought to life with water transferred from traditional agricultural areas. This is not for cropping purposes where the land can rest. These new areas are being devoted to permanent plantings that require continuous watering and continuous run-off. The result is massive salination and environmental damage. This is a time bomb with a short fuse. Just a few years of this irresponsible agriculture due to unrestrained water trading and the issue of salination will be back in the headlines. At that time we'll ask: how did this happen? Well, it happened because we listened to the Productivity Commission. We valued corporate profits and so-called market efficiency over careful custodianship of the land, custodianship that family farms practised for almost 200 years successfully. Failing No. 6: custodianship of the land goes back much further than just 200 years, and the Productivity Commission has 'provided some views on Aboriginal submissions for consideration by the committee'. Meaningless nothing words is all the Productivity Commission has to offer, because Aboriginal use of water can only be quantified by volume, not by utility. Soon after my return to the Senate in 2019, I flew over the whole Murray-Darling Basin and then toured the whole Basin, including the northern Basin, which is northern New South Wales and southern Queensland. In Wilcannia, I spoke with Aboriginal community leaders, Wadi and Eddie Harris. I thank Eddie and Wadi for explaining that their people are a river tribe. At the heart of their culture is their connection to the river, the Darling River. Kids used to spend the day in the river entertaining themselves in a healthy and constructive way. Sometimes there were fish or yabbies for dinner. Elders used to take the young ones and sit in the river and tell Dreamtime stories to encourage respect for themselves and their culture. When mismanagement drains the river, these things are not possible. River tribes can't move downstream chasing the water; they need water where they are—there. Wilcannia has the same problem many country towns have; their town weirs are insufficient. Wilcannia's weir is in the wrong spot and frequently suffers blue-green algae blooms. The New South Wales government has been promising a new weir for 30 years yet still construction has not started. What a metaphor that is for the way in which the Nationals have abandoned their so-called country constituency. That's why One Nation's weirs for life program will build new weirs in country areas to increase water storage for human needs. One Nation listens to and engages with rural Australians, with family farms. I ask our rural supporters listening to this speech: when was the last time you saw someone from the Productivity Commission on your farm, asking you about how agriculture really works? In summary, the Productivity Commission report into water policy does not consider the damage to rural communities. It does not consider environmental damage in a meaningful and responsive way. It does not consider the risk to Australia's economy and exports of having billions of dollars of production tied to monoculture. It does not consider employment lost from monoculture. It does not consider the final mile of the financial transactions, where the money winds up and who pays tax on the income. It does not consider that water-trading accountability must have a transparent accurate water register. It does not consider custodianship of the land, in particular, salination from corporate agriculture's permanent plantings in areas that are not suitable for permanent plantings. Finally, it does not consider or factor in the dislocation of Aboriginal river tribes for whom water is the centre of their culture. There have been way too many desk audits from bureaucrats in the big cities, falsely declaring the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is working just fine. They are audits that cannot quantify environmental damage, damage to rural communities and deprivation of Aboriginal cultural use of water. These things are ignored, and a glowing report card issued—falsely. Meanwhile, the Nationals, the self-proclaimed party of the bush, is busy chasing city votes and saying 'yes, Sir' to the Liberals. Rural Australia can't take this. Rural Australia has had a gutful. If the final report does not widen its calculations to include the full issues, One Nation will move to reject the report. Senate adjourned at 22:14