2021-03-15 46 1 5 Senate 0 1

Monday, 15 March 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 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 10:01 The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 1 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 10:01 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I advise the Senate that Senator Payne has been appointed as Acting Minister for Defence. Senator Payne will represent the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Minister for Defence Personnel, the Minister for Defence Industry and the Minister for Home Affairs. I also advise that Senator Cash has been appointed as Acting Attorney-General and Acting Minister for Industrial Relations. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Rearrangement 1 10:01 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That intervening government business be postponed till after consideration of government business order of the day no. 2, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020. Question agreed to. Rearrangement 1 10:02 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That the following general business orders of the day be considered today at the time for private senators' bills: No. 68 Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill 2020 No. 43 National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2019 (No. 2). Question agreed to. BILLS 2 BILLS Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill 2020 2

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill 2020

Second Reading 2 10:02 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Australian governments have failed to create wealth from the Commonwealth's ownership of vast reserves of oil and gas. I had thought it was a case of mismanagement and incompetence. Now it's clear: foreign owned oil and gas companies have too much political influence in Australia. I can think of no other explanation for the major parties arguing against the proposal in this bill. Everyone seems to agree our natural resources should be developed for the benefit of the Australian community, but, when I propose putting that idea into the law, it is opposed by the government and the opposition. It's no wonder the primary vote of both major parties has fallen over the years and Liberal Party membership is falling faster than lemmings running off a cliff. In the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill 2020, I propose to make the benefit of the Australian community a guiding principle in the interpretation of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, or OPGGS Act. The Australian OPGGS Act is 1,150 pages of rules, rules which address in detail the awarding and management of petroleum licences, titles and safety and the jurisdiction of the regulator. The equivalent legislation in Norway is 39 pages long and is objectives based. The Morrison government and the opposition say they oppose my 17-word amendment to the OPGGS Act because of unintended consequences. My view is that the proposed objects clause would fix many of the existing unintended consequences created by the narrow focus of the OPGGS Act, such as causing taxpayers to take on the liabilities of the Northern Oil and Gas company in February 2020, which include $4 million a week to maintain the floating platform known as the Northern Endeavour in non-production mode and the decommissioning costs of the Laminaria and Corallina oilfields in the Timor Sea, which are estimated to be up to $1 billion. It would fix unintended consequences like enabling foreign owned companies to hoard petroleum licences when Australian companies would be willing to put long-held licences into production and bring that gas onshore to Australia. Unintended consequences have not proven to be a problem for Norway, who have made the benefit of the Norwegian society as a whole a guiding principle in their equivalent of the OPGGS Act, the petroleum activities act. Section 1.2 of Norway's petroleum activities act states that petroleum resources are to be managed for the benefit of the Norwegian society as a whole. Managing petroleum resources for the benefit of Norwegian society as a whole has created a sovereign wealth fund of around $1.4 trillion and funded the best aged-care system in the world. Australia will never have a sovereign wealth fund like Norway's, because the big political parties put their interests ahead of the interests of the Australian people. My bill is not a tax bill and does not seek to change any tax law. In April 2017 Michael Callaghan handed his report to government. In 2019 the government responded to the Callaghan report by removing taxes from onshore gas. Here we are, four years later, and only now the government says it will consult with the industry on whether it would be willing to pay for our gas. Good luck with that! My bill is about increasing the supply of gas to Australia, with a view to lowering the price of gas in Australia and creating new jobs. How do government ministers sleep at night knowing that Australia is the only large gas exporter in the world where the domestic price of gas is higher than the exported price? The price differential is a massive problem for us. The multinationals are taking out and exporting $50 billion worth of Aussie gas. And, thanks to the deal our government has done, we get only around $200 million in taxes. The tiny nation of Qatar has a different approach. It receives around $26 billion in royalties on the gas it exports. What is wrong with our government? We should be telling these multinationals, in regard to the retention leases in place, that they need to use it or lose it, not just build up never-ending tax credits at our expense. Our government is propping up the multinationals while denying Australian companies who want to develop the opportunity to extract gas. The government won't encourage the building of a pipeline from the north-west to the eastern states as promoted by Twiggy Forrest—a nation-building project worth tens of thousands of jobs that will benefit Australians for decades. We're paying more domestically for our gas than they are in the countries it's exported to. Gas sets the price of electricity one day in four. As our aged coal-fired power stations are retired and replaced by gas-fired power stations, the price of gas will increasingly set the price of electricity. If we pay more for gas than our competitors do, we pay more for electricity than they do. If we want to sell what we make, and buy what we need, we must be able to buy our natural gas at the same price as our competitors overseas do, and we must be able to deliver globally competitively priced electricity to families and industry. The government fell into an elephant trap when it timetabled the closure of coal-fired power stations before it had a plan to replace the reliable electricity they provide to households and business. I say 'elephant trap' because the inability to supply electricity after the retirement of these coal-fired power stations was so obvious and so big that it should have been avoided. The belt-and-braces solution successfully adopted by Germany has not been followed by this government. Instead, the Australian government has adopted the high-risk approach. It has bet the farm—your farm, my farm, everyone's farm—on finding solutions to grid stability problems caused by wind and solar power before we lose the reliable electricity provided by coal. In the next 15 years, nine coal-fired power stations in Australia are timetabled to be shut and with them the loss of 60 per cent of the reliable energy they produce. The Liddell Power Station in the Hunter Valley in New South Wales is the first of nine large power stations to be retired in the next 15 years. Its closure in April 2022 was announced in 2015. But, despite seven years notice, there is no replacement in sight for the 1,860 megawatts of reliable electricity Liddell now produces. This third-term government has been so focused on the next headline or poll of public opinion that it has been caught without a plan to stop widespread blackouts, load shedding and energy demand management after Liddell's planned closure. The government has brought 12 months of reliable electricity supply to the nation by making Liddell's owner keep the coal-fired power station open until April 2023. Further, the government told the private sector they must make final investment decisions to replace 1,000 megawatts of Liddell's power by April 2021, or the government will step in and build a gas-fired power station at Kurri Kurri near Newcastle. The private sector have no intention of pulling the government out of the elephant trap, and their laughter at the government's fanciful plan echoes around the world. Since then, the owners of the Yallourn Power Station in Victoria have announced it will close four years earlier, and the elephant trap just gets deeper. The government has little choice but to build a gas-fired power station and increase the supply of gas. The government's Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Grid Reliability Fund) Bill 2020 is intended to funnel a billion dollars into fixing grid reliability problems and allow the funding of the Kurri Kurri gas-fired power station. One Nation's view is the government should fund the building of new clean-coal-fired power stations rather than waste any more money subsidising weather-dependent electricity supply. Coal-fired power stations in the eastern states, including South Australia, will deliver the globally competitive electricity prices we need to manufacture steel, glass and aluminium. The government says it will not pick winners for the supply of electricity. But at every opportunity it distorts the market with subsidies and policy, and to keep the masses happy it talks about unproven technology like hydrogen. Where does the government think it's going to get the hydrogen? Huge amounts of heat created by gas-fired electricity will cleave off the hydrogen from either natural gas or water. But in any case hydrogen technology will not come in time to rescue the government. The 2021-22 budget handed down last October announced the government wants to unlock the state and territory owned onshore gas reserves by spending $28.3 million in five strategic basins. Onshore gas providers have subsequently told the Australian Energy Market Operator the government's plans to increase onshore gas supply are unrealistic, which leaves the government with little alternative than to reform the gas laws relevant to the federally owned offshore gas. That brings me full circle back to the proposal contained in my bill. My proposed amendment to the OPGGS Act will have the effect of increasing the supply of gas to Australia, and eventually the price will be lowered. The Australia Institute supports the proposed addition to the objects clause, saying that offshore oil and gas industries contribute little to the Australian economy in terms of tax revenue and employment. Many projects represent a net cost to the Australian community as subsidies, clean-up costs, environmental impacts and depletion outweigh the relatively small tax and employment benefits. Prosper Australia also supports the proposed amendment. They say the current objectives of the OPGGS Act breach Australians' human rights to a fair return on the exploitation of their natural resources and call successive government failures in their brief as landlord-in-chief for all Australians. Perhaps the most surprising response to the proposed amendment comes from the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, which argues against the proposal on the grounds it would create unacceptable uncertainty for titleholders and decision-makers. What about the owners? That is the problem. The OPGGS Act just benefits oil and gas companies. This must change. My proposal is modest, but it's a positive first step. The Australian people need to make these issues election issues if they want to fund aged-care reforms and the NDIS. If Australians don't prioritise these issues, they can expect to spend their final days without the essential things we all need. As I've said continually in this House, we are just giving away our resources. We do not charge the multinationals and we don't hold them to account enough. When we got Prelude, which is a floating platform, the former resources minister, Senator Canavan, allowed them to hook it to the continental shelf. They don't pay anything like the others do of the 15 per cent domestic gas supply that comes across the borders of Western Australia. I've said in my speech that approximately $48 billion to $50 billion a year in gas is exported from Australia, and we are lucky to get about $200 million or $300 million in returns from that. Yet Qatar, who don't export as much gas as we do—we are the largest exporter in the world—make $26.6 billion from their gas. Papua New Guinea have their gas up there. We actually did the deal for them. They make more out of their gas—about $1 billion a year—than we do. We in this country are the fools. Surely we can take note of what happened in Norway? They have exported their gas and they have got paid for it. They have a $1.4 trillion fund. What is wrong with the people in this place? Why are they not supporting the Australian people? These are our resources. We will never get them back again. We are not making the money out of it that we should. We are talking about aged care at the moment and how we are going to fund it. All they are worrying about is taxing the Australian people again. They are not looking at taxing the big multinationals. They have retention leases in Australia for 35 years. They keep signing off to give them another retention lease. They don't put on them, 'Use it or lose it.' They don't say, 'You have to develop this.' I know of Australian companies that actually want to be able to work those leases, but we won't give them the opportunity. They are destroying our own companies. They are not making multinationals pay their fair amount of tax in this country and yet they are forcing the Australian people to pay higher prices for our gas than what we export it at. These are manufacturing industries. If you want to head down the path on climate change of going to wind and solar, it won't drive our manufacturing industries and provide jobs. It is about time they wake up to themselves in this place and look after the Australian people and our resources, because they belong to the people, and charge accordingly. 10:17 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I also rise to speak on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill, a bill that is noble in intent but, I'm afraid, flawed in its execution. Before I go into the details of the bill, I recognise just how important this industry is to Australia's export performance. Australia has abundant supplies of natural gas both offshore and onshore, enough for more than 50 years based on current production. It is Australia's third-largest energy resource, after coal and uranium, and it is a crucial part of Australia's energy mix, providing a quarter of the nation's needs. Australia is one of the world's two largest liquefied natural gas exporters. Australia exported 78.3 million tonnes of LNG in 2020, valued at approximately $36.2 billion. LNG is Australia's second-largest energy export commodity, behind iron ore. Natural gas from Australia is exported to many countries in the region, mainly Japan, the largest importer of Australian gas, China and South Korea but also Taiwan, Malaysia, India and other places via spot markets. The Australian oil and gas industry directly supports over 32,000 jobs. The National Energy Resources Australia, NERA, estimates that each direct job in the oil and gas industry supports an additional 10 jobs across the supply chain in the wider economy. Ernst & Young have estimated that over $310 billion would have been spent between 2010 and 2020, highlighting Australia's strong place in the upstream industry. This includes about $170 billion spent directly since 2007 on five offshore LNG projects, which include Pluto, Gorgon, Wheatstone, Ichthys and Prelude. Growth of the market since then has seen Australia become the largest LNG exporter in the world, overtaking Qatar as additional LNG plant capacity has come onstream over the last few years. This has meant more export earnings, or royalties, and greater export income, something that benefits all Australians, as it provides not only taxation but also royalty income to help fund infrastructure, education and social services. One Nation is proposing to add the following clause to the objective of the existing Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act: … to ensure that the exploitation of these natural resources is for the benefit of the Australian community— the remaining objects of the act are: (a) to provide an effective regulatory framework for: (i) petroleum exploration and recovery; and (ii) the injection and storage of greenhouse gas substances; in offshore areas … While this change might seem innocuous, in effect it injects a major uncertainty into the act. It would make potential legal challenges to decisions made under the act more likely. The OPGGS Act provides for the safe and responsible operation of offshore oil and gas activities. It ensures that risks to safety and the environment are reduced to as low as reasonably practicable. It also ensures that industry meets the requirements of good oilfield practice and ensures that the recovery of oil and gas is at its optimal level. The proposed One Nation amendment injects ambiguity and uncertainty into the objective, particularly around the use of the term 'for the benefit of the Australian community'. The issue that I have is this term is not defined and would therefore likely be open to interpretation by the courts. The courts rely on stated objectives of an act to help them interpret those acts, and it will be up to them to decide what such a benefit means. As we've seen, the courts have become far more active in accepting legal challenges to resource projects based on a range of environmental arguments, so it would seem highly likely that activist groups could use the One Nation objective to argue that an activity such as drilling an offshore well to recover oil is contributing to, let's say, climate change or impacting the environment. Therefore, they would argue, it is not for the benefit of the Australian community. If a court accepted that argument, it rapidly flows on to all the activities regulated under this act. Even if the courts did not accept this argument, the process of legal challenges can take years, and we've seen that in so many projects over the years, particularly in Senator Hanson's home state of Queensland. So, even if the challenge is ultimately unsuccessful, the process can be lengthy enough to effectively derail projects. The stated aim of amending the objective appears to be around collecting more tax from the industry, which One Nation and Senator Patrick both believe is inadequate. However, as the Economics Legislation Committee noted in its report on this bill: Taxation treatment is not a responsibility of the OPGGS Act but rather fits within the legislation under the purview of the Treasurer such as the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) and company taxation arrangements. The PRRT is a profits-based tax and specifically recognises the large investments required to explore for, and produce, oil and gas resources. As a result, One Nation is seeking to turn an industry regulatory act into a taxation act. It is ill-fitting both the objectives of the current act and the type of regime it is enacted under. As we know, offshore petroleum activities—and that includes oil and gas exploration and development, along with greenhouse gas storage—in Commonwealth waters beyond state and territory coastal waters are governed by the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. We also know that Commonwealth waters are three nautical miles from the territorial sea baseline to the edge of the outer limits of the continental shelf. The object of the legislation is to provide an effective regulatory framework for petroleum exploration and recovery and the injection and storage of greenhouse gases in those offshore areas. The legislation provides the framework of rights, entitlements and responsibilities of governments and industry and is objective based. Importantly, the framework also sets out the requirements for occupational health and safety, structural well integrity, environmental management and resource management. The OPGGS Act also establishes a regulator and a titles administrator. The National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, commonly known as NOPSEMA, is an independent statutory body. NOPSEMA and the National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator, NOPTA, are both cost recovered from the offshore oil and gas industry. An audit of NOPSEMA was conducted by the Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel, and relevant experts in 2019. That audit provides an additional level of assurance to the community that the relevant scientific and environmental considerations are part of NOPSEMA's assessment process and decision-making. Dr Finkel's audit found that NOPSEMA is a highly skilled, professional and competent regulator, that it has appropriate processes and practices to meet regulatory requirements under the Offshore Petroleum Greenhouse Gas Storage (Safety) Regulations 2009 and that NOPSEMA has appropriate processes and practices to ensure that environment plans are assessed against relevant, sufficient and complete scientific and technical information. The OPGGS Act has established a regime that enables a title holder to progress from exploration through to production and decommissioning. Offshore petroleum titles provide rights to companies to apply for permission to undertake petroleum related activities within their title area, and those proposed activities are subject to approvals for environmental and safety matters and technical title assessments, based on resource management. Title decisions under the OPGGS Act are made by the joint authority comprising the responsible state or territory minister and the responsible Commonwealth minister. This joint decision-making arrangement with states and territories recognises that offshore oil and gas projects play an important role in supplying natural gas to domestic markets and generating economic activity in regional areas. According to publicly available title data, there are currently around 366 active offshore petroleum titles and around 80 companies active in Commonwealth waters. Of these titles, there are currently 82 active petroleum retention leases in Commonwealth waters. The OPGGS Act requires regular five-yearly reviews of the commercial viability of oil and gas resources under the retention release, with discretion for governments to initiate a commerciality review within the five-year period if required. This industry is incredibly important to Australia. It directly supports over 32,000 jobs, and National Energy Resources Australia estimates that each job adds 10 additional ones. It bears repeating: 10 additional jobs. Further, Ernst & Young has estimated that over $310 billion will have been spent between 2010 and 2020, highlighting Australia's strong place in the upstream industry. So I think it's safe to say that this industry is not one that we want to put at risk of activists or activist courts. 10:29 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales It's a very good time, this Monday morning, to have a Western Australian in the chair, Madam Deputy President, although momentarily—a proud Labor Western Australian. There is a concentration of Western Australians, I notice, in the chamber today. In fact, there are two more Liberal senators from Western Australia here than there will be Liberal members of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly over the course of the next three or four years. I don't say that with any hubris, glee or any of those things—no smugness from me about this issue, none at all! But they could conduct future caucus meetings over there in a Goggomobil, I'm told. I look forward to seeing that, and I look forward to Premier Mark McGowan continuing to represent the interests of Western Australians strongly, as he did last year when the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, and Clive Palmer teamed up to try and stop— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order! Please resume your seat, Senator Ayres. Senator Hanson? Senator Hanson BK6 Point of order: this is not relevant to the bill that's before the chamber. The senator needs to be drawn back to the bill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Thank you, Senator Hanson. I'm wary that we have wide-ranging debate in this place, but I remind Senator Ayres to be relevant to the bill in question. Senator AYRES 16913 I will get back to it. The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill 2020, as is constructed, has a series of objectives. I listened to Senator Hanson carefully as she made her remarks in support of the bill. Senator Hanson is correct to point to the many, many years of energy policy failure in this country. She is correct to point out, in particular, the failures of this government on energy policy, in particular in relation to gas and oil. There aren't too many ordinary Australians who can understand why it is that Australia exports gas to industrial and energy consumers around the globe at one price but is currently constructing import facilities on the east coast to import gas at a higher price. Allegedly, we're to have a gas led recovery, but it's hard to see that there's any real policy or any real substance behind the government's claims. From a legal perspective, this bill doesn't meet those requirements. The existing Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act has two clear objectives: to provide an effective regulatory framework for petroleum exploration and recovery; and the injection and storage of greenhouse gas substances in offshore areas. Adding a legal requirement that resource exploitation is for the benefit of the Australian community doesn't, in our view, achieve the objectives Senator Hanson has set for the parliament or for the bill she has put forward. She is right to point, in particular, to those European economies and the way that they have handled these questions. The history of Norway in this space, over the course of the last 40 or 50 years, is a history of careful public management of public reserves not just in the interests of the citizens of Norway but also for all of the Scandinavian countries—a careful management of energy policy and industry policy that means that those countries are net exporters of manufactured goods. Senator Hanson is right to point to the German example, where German manufacturing continues to be a mainstay of the German economy. In fact, Germany has a trade surplus in manufactured goods with China. It is the product of generations of careful industry policy, of active government, of making sure that the energy policy requirements of German industry are met. It's a complete counterpoint to the abject failure, over successive governments of the Liberal and National parties, to actually do the serious, long-term, beyond-the-political-cycle hard work that is required to deliver manufacturing industry, to deliver trade surpluses that deliver good jobs and to lower energy prices for households and for industry. Offshore petroleum developments are already subject to a range of vastly more specific regulations to test if they're for the benefit of the Australian community. The existing act already gives responsible state and Commonwealth ministers the capacity to suspend leases if that is in the national interest. It's a political test, subject to the judgement of an elected official—as it should be. We don't include 'for the benefit of the Australian community' clauses in other regulatory frameworks; it's implied. It is clear that public officials and elected officials should act in the community interest. When the parliament legislates, it legislates in the interests of the Australian community. Of course, that's open to political debate. It's the very source of political debate. Adding a redundant 'for the benefit of the Australian community' clause doesn't mean that oil and gas developments are environmentally sustainable; it doesn't mandate that Australian oil and gas investments should employ Australian workers and offer them decent wages and conditions; it doesn't deliver the objective that they should create real tax revenues that can be spent on protecting vulnerable Australians and making the country stronger; and it doesn't mean that cheap natural gas produced here could be used in Australian industry. Those are all objectives that I'm sure Senator Hanson shares with most of the other senators in this place. If senators were interested in pursuing those objectives they would have voted for them in previous legislation and would have forced the government, over the course of this last miserable eight years, to do its job in the interests of Australian citizens and Australian industry. If we want to deliver a result in this parliament which meant that more tax revenue was extracted from these projects then we won't deliver that objective by amending this piece of legislation. If we were concerned in this parliament about the wages and conditions of workers in offshore gas, well, where was this parliament when workers at the Esso offshore rig in Longford had their pay cut by 40 per cent? There was a picket line for 742 days, trying to defend the rights and interests of those workers. There were 742 opportunities for senators in this place to show their support while, this week, we'll be considering legislation which would strengthen the hand of companies which want to cut the wages and conditions of ordinary workers. There will be an opportunity this week to be on the side of ordinary workers in collective bargaining and trying to defend their jobs and wages against companies which will use every trick in the book—every opportunity in the legislation—to reduce costs and to act against the interests of ordinary people. The public interest test is capable of managing concerns about offshore gas developments. It does require some leadership. There is even a recent example: the application by Advent Energy to open up petroleum exploration from Manly to Newcastle as close as five kilometres offshore. The licence, called PEP 11, would have opened up some of our most densely populated and most tourism-dependent coastline to gas exploration. It was an absurd and dangerous proposition. It didn't stack up from an economic perspective, an environmental perspective or, indeed, an energy perspective. Opposition to the proposal included the local tourism industry; the local fishing industry; local surfing groups; Indigenous communities; local Labor MPs; local Independent members of parliament, such as Ms Steggall; and local Liberal MPs, such as Ms Wicks and Mr Falinski. Even the New South Wales Nationals—not known for their environmental credentials—opposed the project. But the minister who had the power to sign off on the proposal wasn't swayed. The member for Wide Bay said that he was concerned about some of the exaggerated claims being made by groups who are opposed to the permit. He went on to say: I mean, this exploration area is over 4000 square kilometres. A well, if one is actually successful in terms of an exploration permit, is only the size of a dining table. I mean, I think we just need to have some perspective of what's been proposed. And right now, this is an extension of the exploration permit. He said, 'Any rig is unlikely to be visible from the coast.' So the minister at this point was completely contemptuous of legitimate community and industry concerns, and it took the Prime Minister being dragged by the only thing that this Prime Minister understands—that is, negative public opinion—to that conclusion by public opinion to stop it. And where did he do it? He did it at the place this Prime Minister does all things: at a press conference. There is in this process in this place the fact that changing the act won't fix the problems that Senator Hanson has pointed to and that many other senators around the place have pointed to. Changing the Prime Minister might have that effect. Changing the minister might have that effect. It requires public officials, members of parliament, senators and ministers who are prepared to act in the public interest. We are the second-largest exporter of natural gas in the world, yet our domestic gas prices are consistently higher than international ones. While the port of Gladstone is exporting over 20 million megatonnes of natural gas annually, other ports along the east coast are building import terminals. The coalition has promised a gas-led recovery, but their record on fuel security is abysmal. It is just bunkum. Instead of focus group tested targets designed to wedge their opponents and trying to dig themselves out of catastrophic policy failure, the government should try actually delivering. Regional Australia and Australian manufacturing need this Prime Minister like they need a hole in the head. The gas-led recovery is nothing but a slogan. Like Goldilocks, we need just the right amount of gas: enough to deliver certainty of supply and low prices to manufacturers who use gas in their manufacturing processes at the right price and enough to secure grid stability to facilitate more cheap renewables as batteries and other storage technologies fall in price. But gas is very expensive. We don't want so much in our electricity that it lifts prices for households and businesses. A recent example of the government's policy failure is that in the 2021 budget they announced that they were investing $220 million in—you guessed it—a competitive grants process to build an additional 780 megalitres of onshore diesel storage, but by October BP had announced they were closing their refinery in Kwinana at a cost of 750 jobs. Minister Taylor then announced that they were speeding up support for domestic refineries and that they would create 1,000 jobs, yet last month Exxon Mobil announced that they were closing their refinery in Altona, Victoria, at a cost of 350 jobs. Since the Morrison government announced that they were securing Australia's long-term fuel supply, half of our domestic oil refinery capability has closed. Industry doesn't need the kind of help that the Morrison government offers. Nationals like Minister Pitt and Senator Canavan might like to parade around in hi-vis and make-up, but they are killing jobs with their disastrous energy policy approach and their fuel security failures. They are like myxomatosis for jobs, these characters. Eight years of blue-collar jobs have gone backwards. In the end, what they are really prosecuting is a weird culture war. They are importing American political rhetoric and exporting blue-collar jobs. That's all the Nationals and Liberals in this place know how to do. They can write a leaflet and they can post a meme, but they can't deliver on energy policy, they can't deliver on energy security, they can't deliver on lower prices and they can't deliver for Australian industry. 10:44 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I rise in support of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill 2020. For decades the predominantly international oil and gas companies operating in Australian waters have engaged in economic pillaging and plundering on a national scale, and nothing has been done to stop it. The intent of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill is to make benefit to the Australian community a guiding principle in the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act. We've heard, on a couple of occasions, that the objectives centre around an effective regulatory framework for petroleum exploration and recovery and the injection and storage of greenhouse gas substances in offshore areas. I want to make sure everyone in the chamber and everyone listening understands what Senator Hanson's bill seeks to do. It seeks to add these words: 'and to ensure that the exploitation of these natural resources is for the benefit of the Australian community'. I am just flabbergasted that the members on both sides, Labor and Liberal, are going to vote against these words. The Liberal Party is going to vote against this: 'and to ensure that the exploitation of these natural resources is for the benefit of the Australian community'. The government is going to vote against that. Labor is going to vote against that too. I might have to go and look into the statutes for the words 'treason' and 'treachery'. I guess they will be relying on parliamentary privilege to prevent them from being found guilty of such a thing, because that's exactly what's happening here! It's a very mild amendment that seeks to direct officials' and ministers' attention to the fact that we should not be conducting these operations without considering whether or not the activities are for the benefit of the Australian community. The balance is all wrong, with the scales firmly tipped in favour of exploration and extraction companies. Unsurprisingly they're all saying, 'Don't change anything,' because it's great for them. They try to spin and say that they're doing the right thing, but they're not. I saw Chevron's submission to this inquiry. They talked about employing workers; they talked about paying income tax. Well, I'm sorry; workers pay income tax. They're trying to chalk that up as their credit—that somehow we benefit because the workers pay income tax. Let me just explain to you what the corporate tax situation is for some of those companies. Thankfully, because we have ATO tax-transparency data, we can now see what's going on. ExxonMobil Australia: $56 billion in revenue, rounded, and no corporate tax paid. Chevron Australia Holdings: $28 billion in revenue over five tax years, and not a cent in corporate tax paid. ConocoPhillips Australia Gas Holdings: $7 billion, with not a brass razoo of tax paid. They take our resources and they pay no tax. They pay us nothing for it. Santos: $23 billion in revenue, with only $3 million in tax paid. Beach Energy: $6 billion in revenue, with only $360 million paid. In the chamber this morning, we heard, correctly, that Australia has become the largest supplier of liquefied natural gas. Yet, in the financial year 2018-19, that delivered a paltry $1 billion through PRRT. By comparison, Qatar generated $26 billion—on less gas! How does that work? I've been around long enough to have watched what happened in 2015. The Labor government was to blame for this. They set up gas trains in Gladstone, which saw the production of gas go up significantly, to the point where, in 2017, there were constituent companies in South Australia coming to the office of my former boss, Senator Xenophon, saying, 'It's not that we can't get a reasonable price; we can't even get an offer to supply gas.' All of the gas was being ripped out of the local domestic supply so that companies could export it overseas. As a result of negotiations, which I was heavily involved in, for the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism, we have seen the supply aspects of this addressed. As has also been pointed out in this chamber, we now have a situation where we're the largest exporter of LNG, but we pay more here in Australia for our gas than what people pay in Asia for our gas molecules. How does that work? It's unbelievable. But wait, there's more! In 2016, the Australian company Woodside Petroleum dumped a floating production storage and offloading asset, the Northern Endeavour, on a small, undercapitalised company. We're now seeing these stranded assets being palmed off to little players. And what happened? NOPSEMA intervened after the new company took over the platform and drove the owners of the Northern Endeavour into liquidation. The end result is that the FPSO is now laid up in the Timor Sea, being crewed and maintained in lighthouse mode at taxpayers' expense, awaiting decommissioning. The cost thus far to the Australian taxpayer has been $100 million. Go and look at it in the budget papers; you'll see a line item associated with the Northern Endeavour. Woodside finished up with this platform, offloaded it, and then NOPSEMA put the company out of business. I'm not speaking from hindsight. In 2019, I talked to NOPSEMA at estimates. I said, 'You run the risk of having this company go under and the Australian taxpayer owning and having to pay for an oil platform.' They said, 'No, no, Senator, that's not going to happen.' That's exactly what did happen. These companies come into Australia, take our oil and gas and don't give us any return in terms of corporate tax, and then offload their ageing platforms, and we're paying for that now. The total estimate of cost to the Australian taxpayer to fix the Northern Endeavour, to uncouple it from its oilfield and to decommission the site and the vessel is somewhere between $350 million and $1 billion. This is for Woodside's aged vessel. The ironic and sad thing here is that the government went to Woodside and paid them by way of a contract to advise them on how to decommission it. So Woodside take this platform and offload it, and now they're charging us back to give advice on how to get rid of it. It's just unbelievable. You couldn't read about it. Woodside's conduct in this is grossly immoral, bordering on criminal, and what the government has done is mind-numbingly stupid! We have a bill here before the Senate that seeks to place as an objective in the act some very, very sensible words, that when NOPTA and NOPSEMA are carrying out their work and when ministers are looking at things happening in the oil and gas industry they must ensure that the exploration of these natural resources is for the benefit of the Australian community. But, no: the government can't bring itself to vote for that and neither can the Labor opposition. I listened to Senator Ayres; he's normally quite articulate—he's normally very clear in what he says to this chamber—but he was all over the place. He talked about a lack of jobs and he talked about the fact that we're not getting any return from these gas companies. He talked about a whole range of things, such as the fact that we're paying higher prices and the fact of these import terminals. How crazy is that? We're the largest exporter of gas in the world and yet, at the same time, we're building import terminals. Seriously? That's how broken this is. Yet the government wants to maintain the status quo, supported by the opposition. It's disgraceful. The very simple words in Senator Hanson's bill require people to consider the benefit to the Australian community, and traitors on both sides of the chamber are simply saying, 'No, we don't want that.' Senator Ayres recognises the problems but doesn't accept what Senator Hanson said, that this is a small nudge in the right direction. Why wouldn't you take it? It's unbelievable. I commend this bill to the Senate. 10:57 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill 2020 seeks to insert a new objects clause within that act, which reads as follows: … to ensure that the exploitation of these natural resources is for the benefit of the Australian community. One Nation have claimed that this will have ramifications for the operation of the act, including the cancellation of underutilised oil and gas leases and the implementation of gas reservation requirements. The department thinks otherwise, warning that, in its view, the proposed amendment is worded broadly and that it's unclear what benefit is being measured or how it could be quantified. As far as the Australian Greens go, we want to place a couple of things on the record. Firstly, the gas industry in this country are one of the worst corporate actors in Australia's history. They have made obscene profits by cooking our planet, trashing our environment and trashing cultural heritage. And while they've been doing all those despicable and disgraceful things they have avoided paying almost any tax and have employed barely anyone, while funnelling billions of dollars offshore in profits. They have corrupted our politics with political donations and with one of the most smoothly operating revolving doors in this country, where former ministers and former major-party politicians in this place roll out once they've retired into cushy consultancy work with the gas sector. Of course, the gas sector is not alone in that—the banking sector does it, the gaming sector does it and the coal sector does it—but the gas sector is right up with those other rent-seekers, those other parasites and those other destroyers of our democracy in regard to a very, very smoothly operating revolving door, which has very, very deleterious impacts on our body politic. Let me make it clear what gas is in this country. It is the fastest-growing source of pollution in Australia, which is driving the breakdown of our climate. Even as we give these speeches today in debating this bill our climate is breaking down around us. Gas is as dirty as coal. Of course, like coal, the overwhelming majority of the gas that we extract or mine in this country is exported. Interestingly, in Australia the biggest domestic user of the gas that's not exported is the gas industry itself. It's not the manufacturing industry or domestic consumers. The biggest domestic user of gas in Australia is the gas industry itself. That's because it requires massive amounts of dirty energy to extract the gas and to process it into liquid to get it ready for export. We heard some very interesting facts and figures from Senator Patrick. I'm going to add some further facts and figures for this chamber now in regard to the abject failure of the gas industry to pay its fair share of tax and the extent to which the gas industry is polluting our environment and driving the breakdown of our climate. In the 2018-19 financial year, 28 major gas companies sold $55,112,837,464 of gas and paid no tax whatsoever. No tax whatsoever was paid by those 28 major gas companies which sold over $55 billion worth of gas. They paid no tax. It's about time we cracked down on tax avoidance in this country. It's about time we forced big corporations to pay their fair share of tax so that we can fund the supports for our people that the Australian population expects—the public services that they expect, like a functioning hospital system, a strong public education system, extra support for people with disabilities, extra support for people in aged care and extra investment in public transport to help us reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Those things we can fund if we make the big corporates pay their fair share of tax. Big corporate tax avoidance is not limited to the gas sector in this country, but, boy oh boy, they are right up there in terms of their absolute tax avoidance. I will just mention a few companies on the way through. For example, Chevron Australia Holdings Pty Ltd emitted 13.1 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent gases in 2018-19. In that financial year Chevron Australia Holdings Pty Ltd gave over $124,000 in political donations in this country and paid zero company tax. In the 2018-19 financial year, Woodside Petroleum Ltd emitted 9.2 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, gave over $280,000 in political donations and paid no company tax whatsoever. In the 2018-19 financial year, Santos Ltd emitted 5.8 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, gave $150,000-plus in political donations and paid zero company tax. These corporations are leeches on our body politic. They are leeches and parasites on our country and they are getting away scot-free by avoiding their tax obligations in Australia and paying no tax whatsoever. Why are they doing that? Because they've got the two major parties quite comfortably in their pocket. It is no surprise to the Australian Greens that we are seeing a unity ticket on this legislation between the Liberal and National parties and the ALP, because they both support the so-called gas led recovery. They both support opening up massive new gas fields for fracking in places like the Galilee Basin and the Beetaloo Basin. Of course, they both love a bit of coal-hugging and support, on a unity ticket, for the Carmichael coalmine proposed by Adani. Not only do these 28 major gas companies dodge their tax obligations but they employ less than 0.2 per cent of the Australian workforce. Over the journey they've given tens of millions of dollars in donations, and now in return you've got Mr Morrison and Mr Albanese wanting to give the gas industry our public money to expand. Well, enough is enough. Stop selling yourselves out, stop selling Australians out, stop selling our climate out and stop coming in here and shilling for a gas industry buying your votes with their dirty political donations. An expansion of our gas industry using public funds, as supported by both major parties in this place, will not only squeeze out cheaper and cleaner renewables but actually lock this country into decades of higher pollution, particularly greenhouse gas pollution, and higher energy prices. The International Energy Agency has said that we cannot have one single new piece of fossil fuel infrastructure if we want to meet the Paris Agreement. But, of course, while both major parties in this place love to pay lip-service to the Paris Agreement, when you look at what they're actually doing, they are both actively seeking to undermine it. Gas has no place in a clean, modern economy. We need to be building a clean, modern economy so we can drive thousands of jobs in construction, tens of thousands more in smart manufacturing, and tens of thousands more in reforesting, rewilding and urban greening so that we can actually help nature to draw carbon down from our atmosphere. The Greens are proposing a second reading amendment, which has been circulated in the chamber. It's based on our view that, while we should be utilising our natural resources to the benefit of the Australian community, we have to be careful about defining what that benefit actually is. Fossil gas is cooking our planet and it's doing so, in the main, through the methane released during extraction and transport, through the liquefaction of gas into LNG for export, and through the combustion of gas in buildings, energy and the electricity sector. Benefit to the Australian community, particularly if you—as the Greens do—place value on the wellbeing of future generations of Australians, must take into account these climate impacts. If we're going to have any hope of meeting the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement to prevent us from driving over the climate cliff into significant collapse of our civilisation, we must have a plan to keep gas in the ground. That is the why we are proposing a second reading amendment in the terms that the Senate is of the opinion that Australia's offshore oil and gas industry is a large contributor to climate change and that it is to the benefit of the Australian community to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below two degrees above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. As I said, what a surprise that we are now facing the Liberal-National parties and the ALP on a unity ticket on gas, doing the bidding of their dirty corporate donors in this place, preparing their post-parliamentary careers through one of the most smoothly operating revolving doors in this place! Don't even get me started on how we negotiated the treaty over the Timor Sea gas with Timor-Leste, when we bugged the Timor-Leste cabinet when they were deliberating over the treaty. As a result, some of the big gas corporations absolutely made off like bandits and made obscene profits while Australia's government actively worked to ensure that Timor-Leste, one of the poorest countries in the world, was dudded through those negotiations. The ramifications of that are still happening today as Bernard Collaery faces court over a politically motivated set of charges and Witness K has pled guilty. We are awaiting developments in those legal matters. I say to colleagues: if you want to have a look at the power of big corporate gas, read Mr Collaery's book and weep at the way that the gas industry in this country, like the coal industry, the banking industry and the gaming industry, owns politicians in this parliament, how they capture those politicians with their dirty corporate donations and how they buy votes with institutionalised bribery and the promise of cushy, well-paid jobs once people have finished their efforts shilling for the gas industry in this place. I move the Greens second reading amendment: At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate is of the opinion that: (a) Australia's offshore oil and gas industry is a large contributor to climate change; and (b) it is to the benefit of the Australian community to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels." 11:12 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill 2020 is a simple bill that does a lot. I have to say, 'Well done,' to One Nation. I sort of wish I'd thought of it myself. All the bill does is say that the benefits that come from Australia's natural resources should go to Australians, not overseas and not to big multinational companies. Those resources belong to us, every Australian, and they should benefit us. That money should be going back into our public hospitals. We shouldn't have people waiting on level 1 for months and months to get operations. We have educational problems out there. We should be throwing money and everything we've got at that and aged care, NDIS, mental health services and the list goes on and on. I don't understand how in God knows how many years Australia has come to this much of a mess when it comes to our resources that are sitting in our ground and how we've missed out on so much of the share of that. The major parties in here have undersold us, and both of them should be absolutely ashamed of themselves today. That's what we are talking about. That is all this bill does. It says our resources should benefit Australians. It says the benefits should come back to us. From here on out in the future, if you are going to make deals and sell our resources then make sure 51 per cent stays in Australian hands. Can't we at least do that from here on in? This bill does that by saying that the regulators that approve offshore mining projects have to make sure those projects benefit Australians before they can go ahead. It is simple, it's effective and it's common sense. Who could be against making regulators make decisions about what's in the national interest? I'll tell you who. The Liberal and Labor parties—that's who. They have been underselling us for years and have ripped us off and ripped off the Australian people. It completely blows my mind. It blows my mind that the major parties think that expecting our regulators to do the right thing by the country is controversial. What could possibly be controversial about expecting our regulators to put Australians first? How can that be something you would worry about? This is the sad reality of where we are today. The Liberal and Labor parties think it is fine to sell out Australians. That's what they've been doing for years. I'm surprised we own anything these days. They talk big on doing what's right by the country, but, when it comes down to it, they will sell us out every time and as cheap as chips. That's where things are at. This sort of attitude is why Australian industry is in the state it's in. And don't even go into manufacturing; it goes well beyond offshore mining. You're selling the country out from under our feet and you've been doing it for a very long time. The Tasmanian farmers know that's true. I say this to the major parties: go and talk to them for five minute and in five minutes you'll see how much of a problem we have here. We're selling all our farmland to China. We're letting foreign investors buy up our country. What has happened to our food security? You have sold us out on everything else. What about food security for our future, our children and our grandchildren? We're letting all our iconic Aussie brands go overseas. We're letting all our profits and benefits—the fruit of Australian workers' labour—get carved off overseas. We're letting overseas investors come in and just buy up the Australian companies that keep regional communities working—the companies that hold up and support entire regional towns. They just buy them up, and it's all going on under the mantra of free trade. Free trade? Well, someone's getting something for free and it ain't the people of Australia! They're not getting anything for free. The cult of free trade has made Liberal and Labor blind to what's going on under their own noses. You don't want to see the truth. You don't want to see what your decisions in the past have done to this country. Quite frankly, you should be ashamed of yourselves. I just don't get it. I don't know the reason why. I don't know if it's their political donors—that is more than likely so, and, by the way, they can be bought as cheap as chips, and that's even more embarrassing—or if it's just plain arrogance, but they don't want to admit that we have a problem here. This is why I've been saying that we need to get our country making things again. Make Australia make again! Don't just sit out there and talk the talk; I want to see you walking the walk—and so do the people of Australia. We want to see manufacturing. We want to be self-sufficient. That's what we want. Stop selling us out, because, I'll tell you what, there's not a lot left. If there's anything that the past year has shown us it's that we have to start backing ourselves, backing our industry and backing the people here in our own country. Stop undermining us. Stop undermining our resources. Stop undermining the people of this country. If you don't think we're smart enough to carry it out then have the courage to stand up and tell us so. We need Australian-made free trade. That's the lesson of the coronavirus, yet you've learnt nothing out of this. That was your warning, and there'll be more to come, no doubt. God works in mysterious ways. It's called karma. If you haven't learnt from this and you haven't got manufacturing up and going and you're out there just talking the talk and not walking the walk, then watch it come back to bite you fair on the backside, because it will. We've got to be self-sufficient again. We've got to start owning our own resources and our own industries, because what we make we control. Nobody else controls us. That's what the major parties don't seem to understand. They just don't get it, or maybe they don't want to get it. Maybe it's more to the point that it's so far gone they have no idea how to fix. This is what I say to them: we have to start backing our manufacturing sector, we have to strengthen the rules around foreign purchases of our key assets, and we have to diversify what we're making and who we're selling it to so no other country can control the fate of our country. There's so much work that needs to be done, but every time the crossbench tries to get started the major parties drag their feet. They put their fingers in their ears and their hands over their eyes. They just don't want to hear it and that's terribly sad. This bill won't fix everything. As I said, it's a simple little bill. There's a lot that needs to be done, but what we're talking about today deals with one small part of a bigger problem. It's a start. It's pointing us in the right direction. It's clever and it's common sense. Once again, I thank One Nation for bringing it up in the chamber and, once again, I hear very little out of the major parties. Let's face it, we're in the situation we're in today because of the both of you, and that is shameful in itself. And you can't even admit that these days, because, apparently, everything is rosy out there! I don't know where you guys sit. You might want to get out of your bubble and see what's really happening out there on the ground because, I can tell you, where this country is right now would bring tears to your eyes. That's why I support this legislation. Everyone else in this place should do so as well. Shame on those who do not. For once in your life you can make a difference in here today, which you will not do because you can't see through your own faults. You cannot see that. This country is a mess, if you haven't noticed! It's a mess. You've been selling it out for way too long. You've sold the Australian people out year after year and there's bugger all left out there. Well, I'd like some of that back—like the millions of others out there. We want that money going back into our health system and our aged-care system. Don't worry about cutting the NDIS, like you're already doing over there, Liberals—that's exactly what you're doing. If you'd invested in it in the first place and done the right thing then you wouldn't have to worry about money. All those resources out there were given as cheap as chips to everyone else, and that could have been coming back into the country. That money could have been serving in our schools and making our kids smarter by investing more in them. This is where we are today. Quite frankly, it's shameful. 11:20 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I rise to make some remarks on this private senator's bill, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill 2020. I accept that there are laudable objectives being pursued here by the crossbench. I'll start by making it known that I have a particular philosophy of government, which I would describe as a form of Menzian liberalism. When it comes to these matters, Menzies himself said in a 1961 election speech: For governments have no money to spend except that which has been earned and paid over, by tax or loan, by the men and women of Australia. That is my philosophy for government. When it comes to the conduct of large companies, there's a basic judgement that governments need to make as to how these are regulated and taxed in the public interest. In this country we have regimes to deal with that, but it has to be based on the idea, in my view, that the government itself can't be the generator of revenue or the driver of the economy; that needs to be done by the private economy. In our world, where we live with a small domestic population but with the 12th-biggest economy on earth, we must rely upon foreign investment and private investment—both—in order to fund our lifestyles into the future. As I said, I think there are some laudable objectives in this bill, and when it comes to the question of regulation and tax there's no doubt that the debate about large companies in terms of banking institutions, technology companies and oil and gas companies is an important topic for this chamber. It's one where good people will have different views. My view has been that big tech should have more regulation and my view, especially following the Hayne royal commission, is that there should be more regulation in the banking space. And my view on oil and gas is that there's a case which can be made that there should be more taxation paid. But taxation, by the way, is not levied on revenue; taxation is actually levied on profit. I think that's a sound principle, but I think we could look at this again. We have a regime, the PRRT, which deals with these matters and it is something that needs to be working in the interests of our country. There's an industry which has been driven by my former colleagues in the accounting profession designed to harness base erosion and profit shifting for large companies, and that has been a major issue. It's not an issue that Australia, by the way, can solve on its own. Base erosion and profit shifting is like climate change: you can only solve it through a multilateral framework through international agreements. I think that most attempts to deal with it unilaterally are pretty futile. Of course we can consider going back to 1973 or 1974 and talk about Rex Connor and his plans to nationalise resources, but they weren't good plans. That was not a successful period: inflation was at 15 per cent and it took 20 years to get the budget back into the black. I don't think we should do that, but I do think the issue around the way that large resources projects have their tax arrangements set is an issue we should pursue. I think there is a case to be made that more tax could be paid, but tax has got to be paid on profit. In my mind, the two key outputs of the gas and oil industry are the large amount of largely foreign investment that it brings—we haven't got enough money in this country to develop our own country; we never have and never will, especially not with the way the superannuation system has been allowed to run so poorly—and jobs. There are 30,000 direct jobs and 80,000 indirect jobs. Those are important things. If the crossbench is seeking more taxation to be paid on profit, that is something that could be pursued, but not through this exact bill. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2019 (No. 2) 13

National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2019 (No. 2)

Second Reading 13 11:26 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I rise to support the bill before the Senate, the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2019 (No. 2). While this particular piece of legislation is moved by Senator McAllister, it's very important to understand that this is the government's bill—the bill that it hasn't brought forward to this place. It was commissioned by then Assistant Treasurer Mr Frydenberg in August 2015. It was later developed by then Assistant Treasurer Kelly O'Dwyer. She said at the time: Legislation will be developed subject to the Government's other legislative priorities, but at this stage is expected to be progressed during 2017. They were heady days indeed. The legislation she developed imposed a ceiling on the total payments that could be made under rent-to-buy schemes. It restricted the amount rental companies and payday lenders could charge customers. On 23 October 2017 the then Minister for Small Business, Michael McCormack, released the exposure draft, promising: The Government will introduce legislation this year to implement the SACC and consumer lease reforms. More than three years later, here it is—the government's bill, word for word. Disgracefully, it's not part of the government's own legislative agenda. What has taken the government three years to fail to introduce legislation in this area? There is confusion on the other side about whether they are for the shonks or the chancers or the sleazebags in the payday lending area, whether they are for the interests of the banking industry or whether they are for the interests of the high-fee, low-return retail funds. They are completely confused. The one thing we know is that the people who claim to form the government of Australia are never on the side of ordinary people in the area of finance regulation; they are always on the other side of the ledger. What has the relevant minister been up to that was too important to do this bill? In December 2017 the member for Deakin, Mr Sukkar, took responsibility for this portfolio, and the new Assistant Treasurer was very busy indeed. If media reports are to be believed, Minister Sukkar's staff had previously taken a very close interest in Minister O'Dwyer's affairs, and the affairs of the Liberal Party, in her seat. There was even a Department of Finance investigation into exactly how interested the electorate offices of Mr Sukkar were in the branch affairs of the Liberal Party. Mr Sukkar is the biggest stacker in Victoria. However, the investigation conducted, indeed, by Mr Sukkar's old firm, ultimately found that he'd done no wrong. One could say that the Morrison government's narrow definition of 'the rule of law' prevailed there too. Despite the member for Deakin's considerable interest in local Liberal Party affairs, he failed to introduce this legislation to the parliament for ideological reasons. As The Australian reported in December 2018: … the changes have run into opposition from some Liberal backbenchers, who have raised concerns the crackdown imposes too many restrictions on the operation of the free market. They weren't alone. The Institute of Public Affairs sent a research note—a generous term—to all parliamentarians, criticising the proposed law as 'just more red tape' and 'based on paternalistic assumptions'. And of course there was all of the lobbying by the appliance rental industry and payday loan providers. And the Treasurer was just too busy. The misery that payday loans have created has simply become more entrenched over that period. Why was the Liberal government prepared to legislate then but not now? In 2017 ASIC had reported instances where some consumers had been charged lease fees equivalent to an interest rate of 884 per cent per annum. One company, Cigno, was particularly notorious. It used a complex company structure to avoid regulators, it charged up to 1,000 per cent interest on the loans that it wrote and it aggressively marketed loans to vulnerable people: single mothers, Indigenous Australians, welfare recipients. There is an important relationship, indeed, between the failures of our welfare system and the payday lending industry. For Cigno, one opportunity was the introduction of income maintenance in remote Indigenous communities in Western Australia. A community manager in the remote town of Warburton described how it would work. 'The government gives people these key cards to control how much these people spend of their social security payments, but they're rubbish', she said. 'It's hard to pay the bills with them, and they don't work when they need to. Then suddenly you have someone promising to transfer $200 in a couple of hours. That's powerful. So word gets around.' Here are examples cited by ASIC when they finally shut Cigno down. First is a borrower who was an unemployed Newstart recipient. The loan began at $120 and became a $263 advance because of handling fees. For some people in this place, that's lunch, but for this person $263 is a very significant amount of money indeed. Repayments were set at four fortnightly payments of $66. The borrower immediately defaulted. The total amount owed became $1,189. Another borrower, a DSP recipient living on $850 a fortnight, got loans of $200 and $150. Combined fortnightly payments were $265—completely unconscionable. When he defaulted, the amount owed jumped to $2,630. When ASIC finally announced that they were cracking down, Cigno rebranded. They are still in business, trading as MyFi, completely brazenly, completely without any action from this government. Normally, economic distress leads to an increase in payday lending, but so far the pandemic has been bad for payday lending. Some estimates have put Cash Converters at 70 per cent of the Australian market share for payday lending. In 2018 alone, they reported a $104 million revenue stream from their loan books, but the pandemic has slowed those rivers of gold mostly coming out of the pockets of poorer Australians. The CEO of Cash Converters said: Our loan books, the engine room of the Company, finished a combined 24.2% below 30 June 2019 … ASIC Commissioner Hughes has speculated: … the reason for that is that borrowers from payday lenders are accessing support from other avenues such as government support programs. It turns out that, when you make the welfare system livable, people don't take out payday loans. Mr Hughes then told the COVID committee: … when we get to what is being referred to colloquially as 'the cliff' at the end of the various support programs, we think there will likely be an increase in utilisation of those payday lending programs. Of course, the payday lenders are all out there for the cliff. They want to see the end of JobKeeper and JobSeeker, because poverty pays for that industry. And the government is, at best, a bystander. At the end of this month, the JobSeeker rate will return to below-poverty levels. JobKeeper will end entirely. Not all sectors, industries and communities have been part of the recovery. In December there were still 1½ million workers relying on JobKeeper—10 per cent of the workforce. They are about to be left behind by the Morrison government. The Commonwealth Bank estimates that 110,000 workers will lose their jobs by the end of March; two-thirds will be in what the bank calls high-risk industries: transport, 22,400 job losses; accommodation, 31,000 job losses; arts and recreation, 15,400 job losses. Those workers will now be forced by this government to live on $44 a day and will become victim and prey to exactly the payday lending industry that this government supports and props up. That economic pain will be concentrated in the regions, which rely on those high-risk sectors for employment. It will be felt in the local businesses that rely on that income being spent in their communities. That means too many Australian families will go back to a position where they cannot afford the basic necessities of life, with no support from this government, no plan for jobs. And, when Australian families are forced to make desperate financial decisions, they will be left at the mercy of an unscrupulous industry that preys upon them. The Morrison government is trapping Australians into poverty. The Senate inquiry into this bill led to a strange conclusion. Despite the inquiry hearing clear evidence that the current regulation of payday lending is deeply flawed, that the bill's proposed reforms would directly address those challenges and that there are alternatives to consumer leases that allow low-income people to have access to credit at competitive and conscionable rates, government senators advocated not passing the bill, which was written by their own team. It's an extraordinary proposition: the opportunity to help, the opportunity to provide a regulatory framework that supports the interests of low-income Australians, with the only people on the other side of the argument being the payday lenders, and this government chose to support the payday lenders and leave ordinary Australians in poverty and at the mercy of this industry. On a bill they drafted in response to their own inquiry into exploitation, they wrote: The committee acknowledges the commercial reality that those with higher credit-risk ratings are charged more to access credit. The committee considers it appropriate that regulations are commensurate with this risk and that, at the same time, the regulation is sufficient to ensure consumers are appropriately protected. What is the 'commercial reality' for the 110,000 additional workers who are going to lose their jobs and be on $44 a day, prey to the payday lending industry? They have the heart of a pea, on the other side, in terms of these issues. Are the decisions that those families have to make commensurate with the risk they face? There was a brief moment in 2017 when members of the Liberal government—I've lost track of whether it was Abbott, Morrison or Turnbull at the time—were prepared to do the bare minimum to protect vulnerable people: the heady days of 2017 and 2018, when they actually understood what their responsibility in government was. But when Minister Sukkar decided to reverse course, he chose a side alright. He chose to ignore the suffering of Australia's most vulnerable people. He chose to support the worst elements of this industry that profit from the misery of ordinary people. The government members of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee made the same choice. Government members who failed to stand up for vulnerable Australians in their caucus room are complicit in that choice. Government senators who vote against this bill and do nothing to deliver accountability from what passes for their finance and economics team are complicit in the government's failures in this area. The simple fact is that people like Minister Sukkar, and plenty of people on the other side of this chamber, simply do not understand the decisions that desperate people have to make because they will never have to make them themselves. They fail to imagine the lives of the poorest Australians, whether they are long-term unemployed people or families or people who have been displaced by the government's failures to deal with the end of the JobKeeper program and the 110,000 additional people who will be thrown onto the ranks of the unemployed. It's the failure of those on the other side of this chamber to imagine those lives that means they will continue to fail in this area; they'll continue to create additional misery and poverty in our communities. It's that kind of failure of leadership and failure of economic capacity that continues to hold this country back. 11:40 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Before I get to the substantive matters of the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2019 (No. 2), I will take the previous speaker, Senator Ayres, to task on a couple of points he raised. I think you really belled the cat, Senator Ayres. You very much revealed, through your speech, that this is nothing more than a Labor Party stunt. You've taken a government bill and reintroduced it as a stunt. That's because things do change, things do move on. The structural frameworks under which we operate, particularly in our financial services sector, are extraordinarily complex. As the environment in which we operate changes, so too does the way that governments and the institutions of civil society, including institutions like banks, need to change. We see that the government is responding. What Senator Ayres' speech completely failed to acknowledge, which is not particularly surprising, is that there is another piece of legislation in this identical space that has been introduced to parliament. In fact, the Senate economics committee, which he talked about a bit, has just finished considering that bill, and I believe it will be debated in this place shortly. We have a situation where this particular bill, as a government bill, was overtaken by events. We now have a government response, which includes a response to more general circumstances in the economy caused by the pandemic in particular, that will address the issues in this bill and wider issues in the economy to do with the provision of credit by banks and other financial institutions. The reforms that will come to this place, which cover a lot of the areas also covered by this bill, are designed to enhance financial inclusion and ensure that Australian consumers accessing small-amount credit contracts and consumer leases are better protected. In fact, the government's reforms in the other legislation—again, which covers the broad area that is covered by this bill—strike the right balance between protecting consumers and maintaining a viable sector to provide these products. I'll just pause briefly here. It is important that these products are not seen merely through the prism of the product itself but also through what other options are available to people in society. Sometimes those options are not good. We heard in committee hearings that people do seek to access credit through non-legal means if no credit is available through legal means. I think that is something that this place has to be cognisant of. The other options are actually very, very negative. When people go and look at non-regulated means of obtaining credit, they're entering a very dark world indeed. While making it easier for Australians to access credit, the Morrison government will not stand for predatory behaviour by small-amount credit lenders and consumer lease providers. For the first time, consumer leases will be regulated by the Commonwealth to provide greater protections for consumers. The reforms include that a person who receives 50 per cent or more of their net income from Centrelink cannot devote more than 20 per cent of their net income to small-amount credit contracts and consumer lease repayments, with no more than 10 per cent of this being allocated towards SACC repayments; and that a person who receives less than 50 per cent of their net income from Centrelink cannot devote more than 20 per cent of their net income to small-amount consumer contracts or consumer leases. These are separate caps. The reforms also include providing legislative support to ASIC for prescribed information to be disclosed by lessors and clarification of the penalties for imposing prohibited or excessive fees, charges and interest, or breaching lease-cost caps. Responsible lending obligations will continue to apply to both of these products. I think that's a really important point to make, because something that has been lost in the public debate around responsible lending is that responsible lending obligations are disappearing; actually they are not. They are not disappearing for small-amount credit contracts and consumers leases. It's important to note that these products play an important role in many people's lives. The proposal that the government is bringing forward strikes the right balance between protecting consumers and maintaining a viable sector to provide these products. We make our position very clear. The Labor stance and its pointscoring on this issue get us nowhere. To add more detail on the small-amount credit contracts, as I've talked about, we will implement those reforms to enhance financial inclusion and ensure the consumers of those types of products are better protected. They are a high-cost form of borrowing; there's no doubt about that. They are more typically accessed by some of Australia's most vulnerable consumers. While these products can be useful for consumers—and, in the end, individuals have to be given the right to decide their own financial futures—and can be useful as an emergency source of funding, repeated borrowing can lead to repayments which can consume a great proportion of people's income and become increasingly unaffordable over time. The reforms that we are putting forward are designed to limit consumer harm while maintaining access to small-amount credit contracts and consumers leases. To this end, we'll impose a cap on total payments that can be made under those consumer leases. The permitted cap on costs will be equal to the sum of the base price of the goods hired under the lease, permitted delivery fees, permitted installation fees multiplied by four per cent per month up to a maximum of 48 months. Lessors will additionally be able to charge a one-off establishment fee of 20 per cent of the base price of the goods. As part of those wider reforms the government is introducing, it will also introduce a new protected earnings amount for small-amount credit contracts and consumer leases. Small-amount credit contract providers and consumer leases will be prohibited from providing a contract that would result in a person who receives 50 per cent or more of their net income from Centrelink devoting more than 20 per cent of their net income to small-amount credit contracts and consumer lease repayments, with no more than 10 per cent of their income being allocated towards small-amount credit contract repayments; and, for a person who receives less than 50 per cent of their net income from Centrelink, from devoting more than 20 per cent of their net income to small-amount credit contracts or consumer leases. These protected earning amounts will maintain access to credit while ensuring enhanced protection for the most vulnerable consumers. Getting back to the broad framework that we have in place, this is an area that has undergone significant change over a long period of time. Going back to 2009, the national credit framework was established, which involved such things as a licensing regime, responsible lending, dispute resolution and a national credit code. In 2011 we saw changes in improved disclosure, restrictions on unsolicited credit and prohibited fees being charged. In 2014 we had comprehensive credit reporting introduced, allowing positive credit information on borrowers to be shared. In 2018, we had the establishment of AFCA. I think in the future this date will be looked back on as a very important date, because AFCA has provided a forum through which individuals can take complaints in the lending space to an independent authority, at no cost to themselves, which, again is very important. This is not weaponising and forcing people into the courts at extraordinary costs. We all know that that cost barrier of entering the legal system, particularly on small amount credit contracts, but even on larger amount contracts, can be very difficult for average income earners. Going to court is an extraordinarily expensive business, even if you believe you have a very, very good case. The delivery of AFCA as a low cost, independent authority, where disputes can be resolved in a way that is advantageous to consumers, has been a great step forward. From memory, the information coming out of AFCA shows that some 70 per cent of resolutions of claims in AFCA proceedings were found to favour the consumer. I will correct the record if I'm wrong on that, but I'm reasonably sure I'm correct. It's only been in place for three years, since 2018, so we have a relatively new dispute resolution body which is proving to be very advantageous to consumers. It is something that we as a government can be very proud of. But, as a society, we've now got an avenue towards the resolution of disputes for people who are perhaps sold products or enter into arrangements that are not advantageous to them and have some legal problem associated with them. Those disputes can be resolved in a way that is low cost to all parties and result in a fair outcome for consumers. I'll leave my remarks there. Again, putting this bill up in this way is merely a stunt from the Labor Party. We will not be supporting the bill. 11:52 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia I listened with great interest to my colleague Senator Brockman's comments. But, fundamentally, this issue is quite distinct from mere politics. I just want to put a couple of pieces of evidence on the record before I get into more substantive issues. The Consumer Action Law Centre noted the lure of these products: I think people will often act in the most simple, convenient way to deal with the hardship in front of them ... when someone is faced with a stressful situation, when they're experiencing some form of desperation, they'll be attracted to what seems to be the easy option. I think that that would be generally accepted as a proposition. When people face a calamity, an illness, the loss of a job or the inability to put milk in the fridge because the fridge is blown up, I think people will look for a solution immediately. We do live in a society where you can't not have a TV, fridge and the like. I think that's quite an instructive piece of evidence. It's also important to go back to Commissioner Kenneth Hayne's final report, where he said: My conclusions about issues relating to the NCCP Act can be summed up as "apply the law as it stands". Commissioner Hayne made a clear recommendation relating to the NCCP Act: The NCCP Act should not be amended to alter the obligation to assess unsuitability. These are very clear pieces of evidence that point us in the right direction. When people get into trouble, they're going to look for the solution, and the solution is a loan. They're not going to read the fine print; they're not going to examine the punitive interest rates; they're going to deal with the immediacy of their situation. I think it is incumbent on the government to take action. I think Senator Brockman's contribution about the limitations on how much a Centrelink recipient can borrow was very good, and those should be in place. My experience in that area, dealing with a friend of mine, is that, once they get to that stage where they're getting a deduction from Centrelink, they quite often have access to a no-interest loan run by one of the various not-for-profits, which are really good. He has told me ad infinitum that, once people have been through the mill a couple of times and they get to the stage where they have to make decisions about how they afford the normal necessities of life, they become very skilled at it. But it's an inordinate journey to there. Quite often they're under tremendous stress and strain through punitive interest rates and penalties. I think the royal commission did point to a period where there was substantial redress for people who were given money when it was clearly unsuitable for them and they couldn't repay it. The situation there hasn't really improved much. I don't think that weakening the standards is simply going to improve the lot of people who are very vulnerable to predatory loans. I saw an ad on the TV the other day which said: 'Don't worry about payday. Payday could be today.' I don't know what that's about. Do you hand over your income to a third party and you can just withdraw it early? How does that help you? Payday is Thursday, and you can take your money out on Monday? You're still broke by Saturday. There are all sorts of things going on in this space which I think we should be cautious about. If we look at the end of JobKeeper—a great program that can't go on forever—it may well be that we're going to see more people moving to JobSeeker, which, although it has had a slight increase, is still a very, very meagre amount. People will borrow when faced with a crisis in their life. I'm not sure that this is the way to go forward with it. The government has been failing to act since 2017, delivering more business to payday lenders and to consumer lease providers, at the expense of ordinary Australians. I don't know what we do in terms of people having access to credit when they desperately need it, other than that we should go and fund the no-interest loan providers to the maximum we possibly can, because there is a proven track record there of people coming to terms with their financial budget, making plans which work and going on to make smart, commercial decisions. It has been explained to me how they work. A no-interest loans adviser will sit down with the consumer, go through their budget and say: 'Here is the amount that you can spend'—it might be $1,300—'That's the amount that you would qualify for under a no-interest loan. We want you to go out into the consumer world and get a deal. Get three deals, but don't make any commitments until you come back to us, and we'll see how you went.' And people do. They're very proud to go out and get three quotes. What normally happens is that the adviser will say: 'Fine. You've done good work here. This is how the world actually works. But what I want you to do now is go and see this provider, because I'm pretty sure he can beat the three loans you've got.' The lesson learned is: get quotes. Check the market, see what you've been offered and count the cost of the loan. The no-interest loan situation with the Good Guys is a great deal, and invariably they match whatever is available and undercut what's in the marketplace. The consumer—and it's usually a woman, a single mother, who for whatever reason is in a precarious circumstance—will learn through that process to take power and take control of her own budgeting, and grows exponentially during this process. This is what people tell me. So, rather than making it easy for payday lenders to prey on people, we as a national parliament, and the government particularly, should be helping to increase financial literacy in this sector, where perhaps we don't need so much regulation or legislation. Clearly at the moment it's desperation versus opportunity, desperation versus the need for that fridge or computer and the need to keep the household going. In that environment, people are not making great decisions. I know there are two sides to the story. If the credit provider discloses the terms of the credit and someone takes it, it's not a great decision by the consumer, but often it's driven by desperation. We do know that those who have part-time employment, those who are on the minimum wage and those who are on JobSeeker, disability payments and the like are not in a position to make too many discretionary decisions about expenditure. It's virtually a case of: 'It's happened. I need to fix it. Let's go and do it.' Some of the things that are currently at odds with what we would call the norm is that payday lenders can charge interest rates equivalent to more than 200 per cent per annum, and there is no cap at all on the costs that can be charged by these lease providers. Lenders continue to sign people up to loans and leases with unaffordable repayments, which causes people to wind up in a debt spiral and leaves struggling families in debt or poverty. Surely the federal government is not in favour of that? Surely the federal government is not in favour of a predatory system where people end up entrenched in debt and poverty? This bill directly addresses these challenges. It provides for a cap on the total repayments that can be made under a consumer lease. There's better regulation of repayment and of repayment intervals, removal of fees for loans that have been fully paid, prohibition of door-to-door selling, anti-avoidance protections and stronger penalties for wrongdoing. And regarding penalties for wrongdoing, right across the whole financial area I don't see too many penalties being applied. The royal commission pointed to some success, but this bill removes some of that protection. I know Senator Brockman referred to ACFA, but I don't see that there's any particular trail of evidence that they've been the good cop on the beat. I don't see the evidence of that. All we are seeing is evidence of perhaps a lack of protection for people, and this bill would make it better for consumers. The 2019-20 summer bushfires and the COVID-19 pandemic have increased financial vulnerability and rendered more Australians vulnerable to the promises of small-amount credit contracts and consumer leases. Also, young people are increasingly concerned about their financial security and are more likely to be taking on debt as a means of relieving immediate financial stress. Consumer protections are needed more than ever. I think that's a very important point. Consumer protections are needed now more than ever, as we move into the uncertainty of the post pandemic—if we get vaccinated, if we can start moving around this country again, if people get back to reasonable amounts of employment, if 100,000 people don't drop onto the Centrelink/JobSeeker market. We need to be cautious. This bill should be supported because it's not doing anything particularly untoward. We know that in certain areas the economy is actually overheating. We know that the housing sector has blown out of the water. It is exponentially overheating. There will be other bills that will come before the parliament with discretionary limitations for the purposes of driving the economy. I'm not sure how we can drive the economy from this point. These are the most vulnerable consumers in the economy. They are those who are going to face stress and immediate problems which are going to require some borrowed money. I'm not sure that we can clearly see that this is going to drive the economy forward. It may well just drive another bubble along the way, which is a bubble of disaster, despair, poverty and debt. Low-income families are disproportionately going to find themselves in an awkward predicament in the not-too-distant future if the economy doesn't improve and they don't have full employment and slip onto JobSeeker. If they have one of these payday loans, with up to 200 per cent interest and predatory fees, it's going to be tough. They're only one dose of COVID away from disaster. If their income dries up altogether, if they're casual and get sick or if there's an illness or accident in the family, they will wind up with a predatory debt that will push them further down at a time of their most vulnerability. I support Senator McAllister's efforts here to bring fairness and equity back into this sector and keep prudent regulation in place that would limit the ability of people to prey on the most vulnerable section of our community. I finish up by saying that, if the government wanted to do something smart, it would put a whole lot more money into interest-free loans and not-for-profit groups that administer those schemes so very well across this country, because they improve the financial literacy of the recipients exponentially and will go some way to relieving the need for any of this legislation. 12:07 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I rise to speak against this private senator's bill—the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2019 (No. 2). I do acknowledge that it has been brought with good intentions, but there's a lack of understanding of both the financial environment and the existing additional changes that are being made by this government. I listened very carefully to Senator Gallacher. He is a very significant contributor to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. Under the steady hand of the chair, Senator Brockman, we had a very good investigation of the government's proposed changes to SACC lending, so I have a very good understanding of the environment that is in place and the changes proposed by the government and this bill. We heard a great deal of evidence from a huge number of community groups, lenders and consumer representative organisations. So much detail was useful to the committee. I reflect on a number of the things raised today that have already been discussed. I remind the opposition about the reality in regional Australia, particularly in my part of the world of Far North and western Queensland, where access to small credit is sometimes difficult, particularly given that the large banking institutions are withdrawing from that part of the world. Customer owned banks are so important to the successful financial environment in north and western Queensland. They have a huge amount of regulation, which makes it difficult for them to compete, but they do provide a terrific service. But as far as other sorts of lending go, it is critical that there be an environment that allows for easier access to finance which still remains well regulated and overseen for people who are in difficult circumstances. Senator Gallagher used the example of the fridge going, and that's a very good example of a requirement for finance where people urgently need access to something that otherwise would be a difficult and long process to go through. I also want to draw the chamber's attention to AFCA. AFCA is a free, fair and independent authority which manages complaints and claims. We heard evidence from them about the speed and success they have in attending to complaints that consumers have around any poor practice that may exist in the financial industry. I also acknowledge contributions made about the lack of financial literacy in the community. This is something that disturbs me enormously and it's something where I think we would be well served by providing education to young people, particularly as they leave school and start working. I remember that when I started working as an accountant I would receive my pay in cash in a little envelope on Friday afternoons. You can imagine just how difficult a temptation that was, managing not to spend that over the weekend. Fortunately, with the reduction of cash in the economy that's less of a challenge to young people today, who generally receive a direct deposit or other form of payment. The government is on the record, making its position on these reforms clear: we will not support Labor's—and others'—political pointscoring on this important issue. The purpose of the legislation is to reduce the risk to SACC consumers, who are often on lower incomes and in potentially precarious financial positions, or at risk of becoming unable to fund their basic needs or other necessary commitments as a consequence of entering into a SACC. It will also make it easier, in some respects, to obtain credit, ensuring the sector's viability and allowing people to continue to utilise such lending as a regular part of their lives. The reforms also include providing legislative support for ASIC to prescribe important information to be disclosed by lessors to customers, and a clarification of the penalties for imposing prohibited or excessive fees, charges and interest in breaching cost caps. Whilst making it easier for Australians to access credit, the Morrison government will not stand for predatory behaviour by small-amount credit lenders and consumer lease providers. The bill amends the National Credit Act to establish a mechanism for restricting the payments that are allowed under a SACC for all consumers and will cap repayments at a maximum of 10 per cent of a customer's net income. There are some terrible stories of people on supported incomes being trapped in a never-ending debt cycle after being lured into unsuitable credit arrangements. Recent news reports highlighted a woman who borrowed $75 but had to pay back $110 with interest and fees. Another woman on Centrelink payments borrowed $250, but her total debt repayment was $880. And another woman claimed that she borrowed $100 to buy food and ended up repaying over a thousand dollars due to late fees and interest. For this very reason, the reforms also include that a person who receives 50 per cent or more of their net income from Centrelink cannot devote more than 20 per cent of that to consumer lease repayments, with no more than 10 per cent of this being allocated towards SACC repayments. Additionally, a person who receives less than 50 per cent of their net income from Centrelink cannot devote more than 20 per cent of their net income to SACCs or consumer leases. These are separate caps. The permitted cap on costs will be equal to the sum of the base price of the goods hired under the lease, permitted delivery fees and permitted installation fees multiplied by four per cent per month, up to a maximum of 48 months. Lessors will additionally be able to charge a one-off establishment fee of 20 per cent of the good's base price. SACCs and consumer leases are high-cost forms of borrowing and are more typically accessed by some of Australia's most vulnerable consumers. While these products can be useful for consumers as an emergency source of funding, repeat borrowing can lead to repayments consuming a greater portion of income, becoming increasingly unaffordable. This proposal strikes the right balance between protecting consumers and maintaining a viable sector to provide these products. I think it is also important that we understand the cost of regulation on this industry. This cap of four per cent per month up to 48 months will mean that there will be a number of credit providers who will no longer be able to afford to provide credit in this space. These are people who previously were able to provide credit to customers who were in urgent need of finance, but the cost of regulation will mean that that cap on the interest rate will not allow them to cover the cost of doing business. That is of some concern to me because currently they are providing a service to Australians who, for one reason or another, urgently need to access finance in a regulated market. I think that is the critical part. If we do not provide a regulated market for credit lending then people will be forced to go outside of the market. They will be forced to move outside of the regulated market, where you can have very, very bad outcomes, indeed. I don't need to go further into that. I'm sure we all understand what some of the criminal activity has been in the past. That is why it is important that this government provides a strong, regulated environment and a safe environment for Australians to access credit as they require it. 12:17 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Just observing what Senator McDonald said then about this bill, the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2019 (No. 2), being misguided, I think we've got to actually have a look at the basis of this bill, which was actually the exposure draft legislation that this government put out for consultation. So that is the actual substance of what we're putting forward here and which we have done so continuously since the government failed to act on this back in 2017. I want to commend the work Senator McAllister has been doing and also my good friend the member for Oxley, Milton Dick, who's also been highlighting government inaction on this. The consequences of inaction are issues that are being felt by the community right across the country. It is unfortunate that these challenges have been accentuated by the pandemic and what Australians are dealing with at the moment. There are a lot of people out there who are feeling the pain of the economic challenge that Australians are confronting. The reality is that the inaction of this government is actually making that challenge worse for so many Australians. We saw that with what the government have done in regard to superannuation and allowing early access for people. That has accentuated this problem. We are also going to see in it a couple of weeks time when the government end JobKeeper as well. I certainly know from my travels through regional Queensland last week that that is going to have a devastating impact on so many people across Queensland and no doubt across the country at the same time. So it is disappointing that the government haven't used the opportunity that we've presented to them today with this bill to actually tackle one of those challenges head on, and that is in regard to the consumer credit protection amendment. As I said, this replicates the exposure draft legislation that was released for consultation by the government in 2017. The bill was a response to a review the government commissioned in 2015 to tackle the increasing exploitation of people who entered into small amount credit contracts and consumer leases. Stakeholders in the broader community responded to the draft legislation, but the government have so far failed to act. Debate interrupted. Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 21

Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020

Second Reading 21 12:20 Senator ABETZ N26 Tasmania I am in continuation on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020. In the few moments left, I turn to the issue of how this bill intersects with faith based higher education institutions. As my colleague Mr Leeser advised the other place, former Victorian Crown counsel Mark Sneddon made this observation: 'The current Western secular notion of academic freedom used in the French report implicitly values knowledge derived through empirical, scientific and closed-universe knowledge rather than knowledge which is in part derived through faith traditions and revelation. That sets the scene for an academic staff member or a student to claim an academic freedom to deny the faith tradition and revelation on the basis of the empirical data and secular logic.' The French and Walker reviews didn't ask about or consider this issue in their reports. There are real, albeit, thankfully, few, examples of academics at faith based institutions who have recanted on the core beliefs underpinning their particular institution. When eight institutions with an enrolment of about 10,000 students express a concern, it's appropriate to take note. Our schooling system rightly acknowledges Islamic teachers for Islamic schools as being an essential requirement for maintaining the schools' ethos—so too Christian teachers for Christian schools. Similarly, with broadcasting in our community, we expect a particular standard from our publicly funded broadcaster which may rightfully differ from that of our private or community radio stations, be they JOYFM in Melbourne or 106.5FM in Hobart, southern Tasmania. Protecting the integrity and reason for being of our faith based institutions is vital. At this late stage I would respectfully suggest for consideration by the government the inclusion of the following statement in the explanatory memorandum: 'Higher education institutions which have a religious ethos may require their staff and students to exercise their freedom of speech and academic freedom in a manner that does not denigrate and is respectful of the beliefs and practices of the religion and its adherence and the religious ethos of the institution.' I acknowledge the procedural issues with this request, in the current state we are with this bill. At a minimum, could I invite the minister with carriage of the bill to include in the summing-up the statement made in the other place confirming that this bill does not intend to impact on the right of faith based institutions to hire and continue to employ staff in accordance with their religious ethos. That said, I commend the bill to the Senate, but, with the comments I've made, invite the government to consider the protection of faith based institutions. 12:24 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise to speak in favour of the bill before the Senate, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020. In doing so I'd like to open with what I consider to be the best articulation of the essential purpose of a university—by the founding member of my party, Sir Robert Gordon Menzies, who said that university must: … be a custodian of mental liberty, and the unfettered search for truth. I think that concept, that idea, that articulation of what goes to the very essence of a university goes to the heart of all that I'm going to contribute in relation to this debate. Sir Robert Gordon Menzies spoke about the 'unfettered search for truth' as being core to the university's mission. Our universities need to be unfettered by codes of conduct which overstep the mark and go too far into the realm of freedom of speech and academic freedom. They need to be unfettered by a sense of managerialism which does not give appropriate recognition to the essential essence of the university. They need to be unfettered by any submission to the wishes of donors or powerful stakeholders with respect to free intellectual inquiry which occurs on our campuses. This principle, in my view, needs to be absolutely embedded into the culture of all of our universities, because if it isn't then I would say that those institutions which do not recognise those principles going to the heart of their essence, their very being, should not be referred to as universities. A number of important concepts came out of the French review in relation to the issues relating to free speech and academic freedom on our campuses. There are two concepts coming out of that review which, from my perspective, go to the heart of the recommendations. The first is that freedom of lawful speech on our campuses is a paramount value. It's not another value to be recognised, it's not something to be considered in the course of 51 clauses in a code of conduct; it is a paramount value. There's no better articulation, in my view, with respect to the importance of freedom of speech than in John Stuart Mill's essay On Liberty, where he talked about the importance of freedom of speech from two perspectives. The first perspective is from the point of view of human rights, of the individual, of the individual's right to speak their mind in a lawful manner and to give voice to their ideas and their concepts. The second perspective is just as important: the right of others to listen and hear that point of view, so that they can consider that point of view, reflect on what they believe and out of that exchange of ideas come out with a better understanding of the reasons that they believe what they believe. That paramountcy needs to be reflected by our universities. The second concept coming out of the French review is that academic freedom is a defining value. Again, it is not another value to be considered in the 51 clauses of a code of conduct but a defining value going to the essence of what it means to be a university. Ultimately, the French review made a number of recommendations, and these recommendations were made with a view to strengthening freedom of speech and academic freedom on our campuses. It was recommended that protection of freedom of speech and academic freedom be strengthened within the sector by the adoption of umbrella principles embedded in a code of practice for each institution. We've seen over the course of the last 12 months that recommendation being put into effect. I'd like to refer to the findings coming out of the review of the adoption of the model code on freedom of speech and academic freedom, which was prepared by Professor (Emeritus) Sally Walker and released in December 2020. There were a number of findings which I think go to the importance of, firstly, the fact that the French review occurred and, secondly, that that process of strengthening freedom of speech and academic freedom on our campuses needs to be done. The first reflection I'd like to make in terms of the finding of that recent review in relation to implementation is that a number of the universities, when their codes were reviewed, seemed to value freedom of speech and academic freedom but not go that extra step of actually being committed to those freedoms. It is not enough simply to value academic freedom; academic freedom must be a defining value of our universities. It is not enough simply to value freedom of speech; it must be a paramount value. I do call upon all of those universities who did not in my view go that extra step—or in the view of the professor who undertook the review of the implementation of the codes at the relevant universities—to reflect on and consider the primacy which they give academic freedom and freedom of speech in their university policies. The second observation coming out of the review by Professor Walker was that a number of the universities added provisos or qualifiers to academic freedom or freedom of speech as values. Let me give the Senate some examples. Some universities wanted to qualify freedom of speech and academic freedom with provisos such as 'standards of scholarship' and 'professional standards', or they said academic freedom and freedom of speech must be conducted 'reasonably, professionally and in good faith'. Unfortunately, in a number of these articulations of their codes there was a lack of definition given to what standard of scholarship means, what the relevant professional standards are and what it means for an academic to engage in good faith. The issue with all of these qualifications and provisos is that they water down freedom of speech and academic freedom. Freedom of speech is a paramount value, and academic freedom is a defining value of our universities. The third point I'd like to make in relation to Professor Walker's review is to give my heartfelt congratulations to the institutions that Professor Walker identified as exemplars in terms of their introduction of the code. There were three: La Trobe University's Protection of Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom Policy, the University of Sydney's Charter of Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom and RMIT's Intellectual Freedom Policy. Each and every one of those institutions could be congratulated with regard to how they have implemented the French review recommendations. A senator on the other side of the House who I always listen very carefully to— Senator Ciccone interjecting— Senator SCARR 282997 No, Senator Ciccone, I'm not referring to you in this case. I do listen to you very carefully, but not in this case. This is amongst others, including Senator Ciccone and Senator Watt—I won't leave him out. It is Senator Carr. Senator Carr did tend to focus somewhat on the fact that French in his review did not find that there was a crisis of freedom of speech or academic freedom in our campuses. I think Senator Carr did make a reasonable point that that was certainly the finding that was contained in the recommendations from the French review. However, that is not to say that there aren't issues which need to be addressed, because there are issues which need to be addressed and addressed very carefully. On 13 February 2021 I was listening to Saturday Extra with Geraldine Doogue on the ABC, as I sometimes do. Senator Ciccone, you obviously are also a frequent listener of Ms Doogue. She was interviewing Mr Greg Craven. Mr Greg Craven is a very esteemed academic in this country. He was Vice-Chancellor and President of Australian Catholic University from January 2008 to January 2021, and he had a long, esteemed career prior to that. Whenever Mr Craven writes an article or gives a view, I listen extraordinarily carefully. I want to read you a quote from that interview which caused me great concern: … people in conservative parties who think about this sort of stuff—intellectual—conservatism are now looking at universities and saying: 'Well, this is odd. You're meant to play both sides of the intellectual street. We don't think you could be a conservative at your university. We don't think you could get tenure. We don't think you could publish.' So it's moved on from, I think, what was sort of a club-type thing to a very serious question. I mean, if we have universities which are, by definition, meant to be universal but really are only prepared to tolerate one side of debate then it's not surprising that the political expression of the other side of the debate is suspicious. Mr Craven continued, and this is perhaps the most damning indictment I've read for some time about the state of academic diversity in some of our universities: … as someone who's been an academic for 39 years, I have seen universities in multiple contexts pretty well crush conservative academic careers. If I had a young, conservative-thinking, brilliant academic come to me and say, 'Gee, would it be a good idea to pursue an academic career in Australia in history or law or political science or literature?' I'd say, 'No.' That's what Mr Greg Craven, who was vice-chancellor and president of ACU from January 2008 to January 2021, said, and that would be his advice to a young, conservative-thinking, brilliant academic embarking on their career. That troubles me greatly. I think it should trouble chancellors and vice-chancellors of our universities that Mr Greg Craven, someone who has been a vice-chancellor and an esteemed academic, has come to that view. These are his words, not mine: 'If I had a young, conservative-thinking, brilliant academic come to me and say, "Would it be a good idea to pursue an academic career in Australia in history, law, political science or literature?" I would say, "No."' That is not good enough, and our universities need to do better to make sure that we have diversity of academic thought. In conclusion, in that respect, in terms of academic thought, I reflected on a great professor I had. I know Senator Watt went to the University of Queensland, so, hopefully, he would fondly remember—I'm sure he would, being the fair, magnanimous person that he is—a great university academic by the name of Dr Suri Ratnapala, who was a professor of jurisprudence when I went to university. Professor Ratnapala was one of the world's leading experts in relation to the writings of Friedrich Hayek, one of my heroes in terms of academic thinking, who, in his text The Road to Serfdom, wrote what is I think the most powerful rebuttal of socialism that has ever been written. The story I want to tell about Suri Ratnapala is of how he assessed the exam that was written by one of my friends at university who was of a totally different political persuasion to mine. This was someone who would declare himself to be a Marxist—unashamedly Marxist. He did Dr Ratnapala's course with me and in his exam he wrote as his main essay a Marxist critique on Hayek's theories. My exam contribution was somewhat different from my Marxist friend's, but my Marxist friend got a high distinction—a 7 as we used to call it—from Dr Ratnapala in terms of his Marxist critique. I got a distinction. I was pretty happy with that, but my Marxist friend got a high distinction. Why? It was because the professor was impressed with the critical thinking, the contribution and the intellectual thought that was put into that exam. There was no favouritism given to one political perspective or the other. There was recognition of a student who had put a lot of thought into the material, had read the material and had made an extremely well thought out, prepared critique of Hayek. That's what our universities should aspire to. They should aspire to the whole breadth and width of intellectual thought. Our students should be taught how to think, not what to think. 12:39 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland Speaking at the University of New South Wales, Sir Robert Menzies described the right and duty of universities and academics to pursue new knowledge as one of the most vital for human progress in all fields of knowledge. He noted that a university that treated an academic as no more than a person hired to study as directed and to teach in accordance with rules laid down by other people would be an extremely strange university. It would have failed to understand the immense importance of academic freedom. As you know, Acting Deputy President McLachlan, intellectual freedom and freedom of speech are two things I feel very strongly about, not for ideological or dogmatic reasons but for really practical reasons: if we can't speak with one another about things on which we disagree—respectfully, with care, listening, with engagement—then we don't sharpen our ideas, we don't make them better. There's a biblical expression 'as iron sharpens iron'—as conflicting ideas meet, they are refined, they are improved. That is how we prepare the minds of the people who come through our universities to engage with difficult problems and to solve them. It's how we equip our society with the tools it needs in order to solve the challenges it will face going into the future. Take away that, on any basis—whether it's the desire not to offend, whether it's the desire to make people feel safe or whether it's the desire to make people feel cocooned—well, we can indulge feelings too much in an environment that is supposed to be about the big ideas. When I think back to Sir Robert Menzies's statement, which was 56 years ago—56 years on, our universities have failed to live up to this important standard of academic freedom. Over the course of the last decade we've seen a number of disturbing incidents and anti-free-speech policies permeating our university campuses. The list is long. We've seen policies restricting the use of unwelcome, 'mildly unpleasant' or sarcastic language. There was once a time when satire, sarcasm and humour were indicators of a great mind and a source of good and helpful social commentary. We've seen restrictions on the personal use of social media and definitions of bullying that are so broad as to include terms such as 'unintentional offence' and 'emotional injury'. We've seen the introduction of trigger warnings and safe spaces to protect people from exposure, to mainstream ideas that they simply don't agree with. We've seen the termination of academics, including, at James Cook, Peter Ridd, for having a view that challenged the professional research of his colleagues, based on his own professional research. Fancy having an employment contract that limits your ability to engage intellectually! We've seen the withdrawal of a textbook because a quiz question offended international students from China. And this is just the start of a very long list. It is of serious concern that universities—the institutions designed to facilitate a flourishing debate—have instead become hotbeds of censorship and entirely lack viewpoint diversity. I'm proud to say that I played an important role in making the case for the establishment of the French review into intellectual freedom in our universities. It was in Senate estimates, following some really egregious cases of deplatforming, that I took the public servants from TEQSA through the legislation, through the funding agreement between the universities and the federal government by which the taxpayers give their financial support to our universities. I asked, in the context of these egregious breaches of free speech and intellectual freedom, how I could be assured that universities were doing their job in enforcing the funding agreement where it provided, by incorporation of different terms of the act, a requirement that academic and intellectual freedom be respected. The answer was that they were doing nothing—nothing. I'm pleased that led to the establishment of the French review. And while those opposite have made an awful lot of hay out of one line in the French review that said that there wasn't a crisis, I can tell you that it didn't give a good bill of health, either. The French review identified a lot of room for improvement—and I think that might be the world's biggest understatement. Following that, former Justice French recommended that our universities adopt a model code to protect academic freedom and freedom of speech. Following that point, after a little time had elapsed, I took to estimates again to check universities' performance by the measures that had been set up in the model code. You will be shocked to find that, for the most part, they failed dismally. I'm pleased to say, following that examination, though I may not have made many friends at TEQSA, I did succeed in encouraging our minister, doing an outstanding job in the portfolio, to commission Professor Sally Walker to review the progress that our universities are making towards implementing the model code. I'm a senator for Queensland and so I am reassured to see that all Queensland universities have made some commencing steps to put into effect those principles. But I've got to tell you, Professor Walker's review was not all good news either. As at the release of her report, only nine of Australia's 42 universities had academic freedom and freedom of speech policies that were fully aligned with the model code. Alarmingly, nearly half of Australia's universities have been rated by Professor Walker as 'not aligned' or having 'significant areas of policy not aligned' with the model code. They continue to fight against the idea that a university should have, as a foundational principle at its very core, the idea that there is a contest of ideas. Crazy stuff! It's further concerning that no Queensland universities have been held out by Professor Walker as exemplars for free speech and academic freedom. Indeed, there is only one in the country that has done a full replication of the French model code, and that's Victoria's La Trobe University. I salute them. It is good to see a university prepared to show that the sky won't fall in if they're prepared to act in accordance with their founding principles. Professor Walker identified further deficiencies in current academic freedom policies. Thirteen universities were found to be diluting their policies with quite imprecise restrictions on academic freedom: limits of one's right to speak strictly to their areas of expertise, substituting terms like 'standards of scholarship' for the more fundamental freedom, or trying to sub in alternate but more restrictive concepts like 'professional standards' and restrictions so that speech is only allowed 'when done in good faith'—greying the edges to be able to keep people in fear about what they can and can't do and say and speak about and learn about without facing the ire of university disciplinarians. They're also diluted when they're spread over multiple documents or undercut by other policies that leave room for the exercise of administrative discretions that could limit freedom of speech or academic freedom. The result is academic freedom in name only. As we work to implement the model code, amendments to the legislation are necessary to ensure consistency between legislation and university statutes, to support regulators and universities alike in promoting academic freedom. This bill, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020, does just that. The bill amends the Higher Education Support Act to repeal and replace the use of the phrase 'free intellectual inquiry' with the more precise reference to 'freedom of speech and academic freedom', adopting the language of the moral code. It defines 'academic freedom' in the Higher Education Support Act, and the amendments appropriately distinguish freedom of speech as a common freedom from elements of freedom of speech and intellectual inquiry that are central and distinctive aspects of academic freedom. The consistency of language to be achieved by the measures in the bill will facilitate compliance with and adoption of the code, provide for more consistency and more transparency in the policies that are adopted by universities, and result in stronger protections for academic freedom and freedom of speech in Australia. But an on-paper commitment is not enough. We need all of our universities to have a clear cultural commitment to academic freedom and free speech. The French review makes this very, very clear. Culture here is key. Policy is not the end of the story; it's only the beginning. Universities have to actively create and engender a culture of free speech and academic freedom so that the words they must live by match the words they now say they so strongly support. Vice-chancellors have an important role to play in this, and they need to lead from the front. That's how we send a strong message that this matters and it matters at every level of the institution. The academic board should have a prominent and direct role in this too. Professor Walker also suggests more novel measures, like induction programs on academic freedom for new students. I'd suggest that there should be consequences for those who are intolerant of free thought and expression, and that those should be made very clear to academics and students alike. When we wrap our universities in cottonwool, when we protect people, like snowflakes, from ideas that challenge them, we deny them the opportunity to argue their case strongly. We deny them the opportunity to become the iron that is sharpening the ideas in this country that will solve the problems we face going into the future, and we deny ourselves the resilience that it takes to confront our most challenging problems. But it's important that we make it very clear this isn't designed to have unintended consequences. There are some parts of the sphere that have different needs. One example I give you is higher education institutions that are established, funded and structured around their religious ethos. In that circumstance, a theology college, say, needs to be treated in a slightly different category, because for it to require its staff and students to exercise freedom of speech and academic freedom in a manner that deviates from the beliefs the establishment was set up to teach, uphold and defend would be very strange. It would be very strange to see a departure from the core ethos of an institution like that. It's very important that we don't, in establishing this important principle for public universities, have the inadvertent effect of undercutting the foundation of institutions that are established for specific purposes. It's very important that in such an institution the beliefs and practices of the faith for which it was established and the adherence of the staff who work there to those beliefs and practices can be maintained in a way that ensures the institution is meeting its purpose. While a public university is established to pursue intellectual freedom no matter what, as its core and defining belief, a religious educational institution actually might have a different purpose. It might be balancing trade knowledge or professional knowledge with a faith based rigour that puts it in a slightly different category. So I'd make that distinction as we put in place this very important regime. This government is steadfast in its commitment to ensuring that education is effective, and that means making sure that intellectual freedom is meaningfully operating in our university campuses. This bill is just another example of the steps the coalition is taking to restore universities to their traditional role as bulwarks of free speech, as crucibles of original thought and as places that meaningfully and genuinely prepare students and academics alike not only to confront ideas with which they may not initially agree with tolerance, respect and dignity but to use those ideas to solve the problems we face as a nation. 12:54 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to start my contribution to the debate on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 with the statement that central to scientific endeavour is an environment that gives permission for the work of talented people to challenge the status quo, to develop ideas and to deepen our knowledge and understanding. This work demands a creative and innovative spirit, courage and objectivity, and a deep respect for the scientific method. Universities had, and should once again have, a central role to play in advancing thought and finding better ways of doing things. Therefore, their scientific staff must work in an environment that supports academic freedom. The Dalai Lama said: In order to exercise creativity, freedom of thought is essential. One Nation introduced these concepts and requested action from the then education minister, Dan Tehan, and I commend Senator Stoker for commenting that the government supports this initiative. Mr Tehan took these concepts from One Nation, particularly from Senator Hanson. He made sure that the now education minister, his replacement, Minister Tudge, continues to champion true freedom of speech in academia. Therefore, One Nation wholeheartedly supports the new and expanded definition of academic freedom and hopes that no-one will ever need to endure what Professor Peter Ridd is still going through to fight for these fundamental academic freedoms. Professor Ridd was an employee of James Cook University for nearly 30 years. He describes his experience of standing for academic freedom against that university as feeling 'hunted'. Peter's so-called crime was to question the quality assurance of research outcomes related to reef science. But it is his duty, as a scientist, to question, to be rigorous and to protect the integrity of science. Every scientist's first duty is to be a sceptic and to challenge what he or she is being told. Quality assurance is a concept that many corporate organisations are familiar with. They do not invest money, time, energy and effort without that quality assurance. Yet it seems that some of our universities have strayed away from the discipline of the scientific method so much that they don't feel the need to justify research outcomes or to deal with challenges to quality and assurance. Considering that billions of dollars of taxpayers' money is funnelled into policy development based on so-called research, it is not negotiable that these research outcomes must be above reproach. When we consider that the opportunity costs and the consequent costs for some policy based on so-called science are in the trillions of dollars for our whole nation, it is essential that science is challenged. I have listened firsthand to many canefarmers and industry bodies from North Queensland and Central Queensland who attended the hearings into water quality in the Great Barrier Reef. These farmers and community members are exasperated, with one saying: They trusted reef scientists to get the science right, … that trust has been destroyed. Instead cane farmers are being publicly demonised … They also said that the reef regulations reflect a systematic abuse of science, based on assumptions and not evidence. Communities are being gutted. Apart from the destruction of so many livelihoods, think of the cost to our society, to Queensland, to communities and to our nation when policies are knowingly based on poor science—which, by definition, is not science. Energy policies, climate policies and renewable energy policies based on so-called science are costing $13 billion in addition to the normal costs of electricity. That's an average of $1,300 per household across Australia in addition to the cost of electricity. For every so-called green job created, 2.2 jobs in the real economy are destroyed. The Murray-Darling Basin act—the Water Act 2007—is now destroying communities across the Murray-Darling Basin, our No. 1 food bowl, and it's based on rubbish that contradicts the empirical evidence. Any scientist worth their professional reputation should have the freedom to stand against poor scientific outcomes and the lack of appropriate peer reviewing. I'll go beyond that: it is the duty of every scientist to do so. The professional integrity of scientists should compel them to defend spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on policies that do not have a robust scientific basis and which are destroying people's livelihoods. Professor Peter Ridd has over 100 scientific publications and he has co-invented a worthy list of instrumentation, including an instrument for monitoring the effect of sediment on the reef, which is technology now used around the world; a water current meter, which is marketed by James Cook University worldwide; an optical system for measuring pipeware, which is used in mines Australia wide; and a system for managing agricultural weeds, which is marketed through AutoWeed. This is an impressive list of achievements. After three decades of work, such a scientist ought to be held in high esteem. If a scientist of this academic calibre and such commercial achievements and practical nous can still feel hunted down by a university for challenging the quality of research results in other departments—and hunted to his emotional and financial detriment—how the hell can we ever expect our upcoming brilliant minds, with far fewer runs on the board, to ever have the courage to do the same? We can't. The simple answer is that these newcomers will not challenge, because they do not have the safety of freedom of speech and can't risk their careers crashing and burning before they've started. Instead, these upcoming brilliant minds will fall into line and continue to expand the increasing pool of homogenous groupthink. And there is the death of creativity and the narrowing of truly great solutions to tomorrow's problems. In recent decades we've seen our society, our country, being decimated by policy driven science—and that is not science. It's costing us trillions. We need to return to science driven policy—policy that is driven by science, true science that passes quality assurance tests and questions from sceptics. Professor Ridd has become the modern-day Galileo, for daring to challenge the common myth that farming methods in the Great Barrier Reef catchment areas are damaging the reef. Professor Ridd's research shows that commonly held myth to be incorrect, to be a lie. James Cook University didn't like it, maybe because there is no doubt, in their view, that there would be a gaping hole in James Cook University's funding for Great Barrier Reef research if water quality was indeed just fine, as Professor Peter Ridd's work and the work of others confirms and suggests. I acknowledge that universities are required to enshrine in their policy statement clear messages around freedom of speech and academic freedom. While we cannot intrude upon the enterprise agreements between universities and their employees, the amendment I will put forward today in the committee stage requests that higher education providers must take reasonable steps to ensure that enterprise agreements include provisions to uphold the freedom of speech and academic freedom. This commitment to academic freedom needs, wherever possible, to move beyond a policy statement that sits on the shelf and to enter the enterprise agreements, since that is where the cultural change will be brought about. We cannot afford to be timid and ordinary when it comes to scientific endeavours. One Nation supports this bill, because we must give our scientific staff the academic freedoms they need to be at their creative best. Universities, businesses and governments all need to be prepared to update their outdated views when our brilliant minds in academia show us a better way. I'll finish with the words of the late Steve Jobs, talking about his company Apple, one of the leaders in the world in new technology: It doesn't make sense to hire smart people and tell them what to do; we hire smart people so they can tell us what to do. 13:03 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise today to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 and the proposed definition of academic freedom. This bill is incredibly important. It will provide stronger safeguards for academic freedom and freedom of speech within our universities and higher education institutions. As many of my colleagues know, I have children, as many here do, and they are growing all too quickly—more quickly than I'd like to admit. Soon enough, they'll be leaving school and will be pursuing their post-school education and weighing up their post-school options. They may choose to pursue the path of tertiary education and settle themselves into university life for several years. I note at this point that I am one of the possibly few people here in the Senate who chose not to go down the higher education path. I undertook a trade as an electronic technician when I finished school. This bill provides a new definition of academic freedom that protects, through law, the very important principles of freedom of expression which are essential to seeing these institutions kept accountable. This bill will ensure that current university faculty staff, students and the generation to come will have the opportunity to engage in opinion-rich educational settings. Staff will be free to speak in the fields of their academic research and study with unrestricted comment and no fear of academic bias or suppression from the dominant university culture which may unjustifiably limit the range of perspectives that are welcome on campus and in classrooms. In some ways it's a shame that we actually have to legislate these freedoms for our students and professors of today, but there have been significant examples of threat that have warranted this bill. Universities should be bastions of free speech, not fomenting a culture in which censorship and intolerance of opposing viewpoints abound. This is certainly something worth fighting for. Higher education in Australia has a very, very rich history. In 1852, the University of Sydney opened its doors to students as Australia's first university and was among the first public non-denominational universities in the British Empire. When William Charles Wentworth proposed the idea of Australia's first university in 1850, he imagined the opportunity for the children of every class to become great and useful in the destiny of this country. Today I believe that the way that we can stay true to Wentworth's original values and purpose is not by enticing our universities with funding which twists their arms to become more like megabusinesses, scuffling to meet their KPIs for the next funding injection. Institutions for higher education must foster the growth of informed, autonomous students who bring rich skills and thinking to their prospective vocations. This is what will truly make such institutions and their product useful in the destiny of our country. Equally, the rights of our academics and teachers must be protected as they remain free to speak and share their research and professional views openly. In 2015 over 1.3 million people were enrolled as students throughout Australia's higher education institutions. These students were all taught by academic faculty who answer to the powers that be in terms of their research, teaching and how openly they might share their beliefs. As outlined in the recommendations from the 2019 independent review into freedom of speech in higher education undertaken by the Hon. Robert French AC, a former chief justice, no less, of the High Court of Australia, a change in wording from 'free intellectual inquiry' to 'freedom of speech and academic freedom' will align the language of those requirements with the French model code. This will further protect staff and students in sharing honestly about their research, findings and conclusions. There has been a growing view among the general public that universities are becoming more and more 'woke', advocating for their version of free speech and making space for the voice of minority groups. However, this advocated free speech and support for minority groups seems to be very, very selective. While it stifles unpopular conservative views, religious groups, professors of science, history academics, medical experts and many more who through their fields of proficiency have traditional views to share seem to be the targets of the growing radical Left culture of the university campus. In some cases these academics have had their research papers refused for publication because the findings support conservative world views. There have even been instances where tutors and lecturers have gradually had their teaching hours reduced to nil, because their work was considered a little too right of centre. With the Morrison government's record funding to the higher education sector we have to get this right going forward. We must ensure that our universities are encouraged to remain places of free thinking—environments that promote curiosity and celebrate the sharing of diverse and informed ideas. The main element of this bill is the introduction of the following definition of 'academic freedom' in legislation: (a) the freedom of academic staff to teach, discuss, and research and to disseminate and publish the results of their research; (b) the freedom of academic staff and students to engage in intellectual inquiry, to express their opinions and beliefs, and to contribute to public debate, in relation to their subjects of study and research; (c) the freedom of academic staff and students to express their opinions in relation to the higher education provider in which they work or are enrolled; (d) the freedom of academic staff to participate in professional or representative academic bodies; (e) the freedom of students to participate in student societies and associations— regardless of what they might be— (f) the autonomy of the higher education provider in relation to the choice of academic courses and offerings, the ways in which they are taught and the choices of research activities and the ways in which they are conducted. Before I close I would like to just touch on what I heard Senator Abetz say earlier in his contribution. He suggested adding the following paragraph to the minister's summation. I want to put my support behind that. He said that he'd like to see included: Higher education institutions which have a religious ethos may require their staff and students to exercise their freedom of speech and academic freedom in a manner that does not denigrate and is respectful of the beliefs and practices of the religion and its adherence and the religious ethos of the institution. I support the inclusion of this paragraph, whether it be in the minister's summing up or in the explanatory memorandum for the bill. Freedom of religion is another one of the great freedoms on which Western civilisation is based. If we were to see anything undermine that then that would be a great loss to the free, democratic and liberal society in which we live. This bill seeks to strengthen protections for freedom of speech on campus. This is a good thing. There are many different views, and those views should be able to be freely spoken. Of course, there's a responsibility when it comes to sharing those views, and people must be mindful and careful about how and what they say, but it's important that students and faculties are not in any way held back because they may have a view that is different to the prevailing view of that particular institution, because it might be seen as more conservative or possibly even more to the Left. Frankly, we need freedom and we need to ensure that that continues. This is an increasingly important arena for free speech, not only due to cancel culture and political correctness running amok but also due to foreign influence and the potential for influence on students with families and assets overseas. Through this lens, freedom of speech on campus becomes not only important but incredibly necessary. I commend this bill to the Senate. 13:14 Senator SMALL 291406 Western Australia I can only concur wholeheartedly with the comments that previous senators have raised. Without freedom of speech, no good idea ever becomes a great idea and no ridiculous idea ever founders under the weight of reason. So, where former Chief Justice French found that even a limited number of incidents were seen to affect or impinge upon freedom of speech, the adverse impact on the public perception of the higher education sector and indeed the future of our nation remains very real. The amendment bill, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020, is a necessary and functionally sound amendment that improves the alignment of academic freedom and freedom of speech more broadly. The amendment bill improves that existing language where it relates to free intellectual inquiry, which I would have thought was self-evident. If a university cannot be a place of truly free intellectual inquiry we don't have much hope as a nation. It is important to note that the intention of the bill is to protect freedom of speech, and it is not to be used to impinge upon the beliefs and religious ethos of the higher education institutions around Australia. So, while staff and students will remain free to exercise their right to free speech in the respective academic inquiries they undertake, the institutions themselves will not be forced to undermine or contravene the fundamental religious precepts that underpin their existence. This is an important delineation between the freedom of academics and students to engage in that free speech through the academic environment and the freedom of speech that they rightly enjoy as Australians in their personal capacity. Speech made in an academic capacity is more correctly and descriptively categorised as an academic freedom of speech, while speech made in any personal capacity is more appropriately considered under the broader definitions enshrined in Australia. For the benefit of both students and staff, this amendment bill is essential in improving the definition of 'academic freedom' and highlighting the importance of that freedom to the future of study and research in Australia. It is also essential in underpinning the important role of freedom of speech in Australian statute. Freedom of speech is a basic and fundamental component of our society, and I think it is the duty of all senators in this place to clarify and protect this freedom when it is under attack from the woke, from the cancel culture and from the Left, who ultimately would rather control that thought and expression in Australia such that those views which run counter to what they hold to believe are dismissed rather than debated rigorously. I think that discussions around freedom of speech are often overcomplicated and overthought. It is simply a personal liberty that must not be impinged upon by government. It isn't given to us by government. It is an inalienable right that we are born with in a free democracy. It is our primary duty as representatives of the Australian people to guard this right from governmental interference or, in fact, interference from any other source. Freedom of speech must be protected in our society but most especially on university campuses, where the very purpose of the work and study undertaken on that campus is to challenge and further intellectual pursuits and broad understanding of the issues we confront as a nation, no matter where the results and research or even the context of that debate may lead. In fact, it is often speech we most fundamentally disagree with that is that most important to protect. As Noam Chomsky said, even Goebbels was in favour of free speech for the views that he liked. So was Stalin. If you do not support the free speech of ideas that you disagree with, or even rightly despise, you are not in favour of free speech at all. So why not support this cautious and incremental reform to maximise freedom in all areas of society, particularly one as important as academic study in the universities? I would contend that it is better to have a 'dangerous', if I can use the term, level of free speech rather than have a limitation on freedom of speech that is controlled by anyone at any point in time. In the context of an Australian university, that even limited number of incidents that Justice French found does have a negative impact on the public perception of the higher education sector. So it is important to set a solid and clear standard, not only to protect freedom of speech but to more appropriately delineate the freedom of academic inquiry that is undertaken, or ought to be undertaken, on a university campus. I emphasise that freedom of speech, as a fundamental right here in Australia, should be as simple and as clear a concept as possible, and this amendment improves the definition for that academic freedom of inquiry whilst preserving the tenets of freedom of speech in Australia. That delineation is essential to preventing students and academics who engage in free intellectual inquiry from being cancelled or otherwise affected by the woke revolution that we seem to be in the grips of. This is critical to the success of our nation and, indeed, the universities that operate here. By aligning the act with the model code as proposed by Justice French, this will strengthen the principles of basic freedom of expression and unequivocally support a culture of freedom that must be enshrined in all of our university campuses. The freedom to express a countervailing opinion is essential because the progress of our society is reliant on this natural and very basic freedom. This shouldn't be controversial. The antithesis to full freedom of speech is controlled speech, and that control resting in any individual's hands at any time should be of grave concern to all in this place. Universities that receive public funds shouldn't want, much less be permitted, to restrict the outcomes of academic research or in any way punish those who undertake research in those institutions, even where the conclusions aren't controversial. Why? It is because if the conclusions were wrong or not supported by a rigorous interrogated debate then they would naturally go by the wayside. That is the point of freedom of academic inquiry. Ignoring the outcomes of research is simply sticking one's head in the sand, and that is where the matter should rest. In my view this is an essential reform to protect a fundamental freedom in Australia and help ensure our prosperity as a nation into the future. The academic environment and the culture of freedom on our campuses will be all the better for it, as will our success as a nation overall. Having any top-down pressure on research outcomes in a higher education institution might be expected in an authoritarian regime, but it absolutely cannot be permitted in Australia. The unique characteristics of and influences on those higher education institutions in Australia require this government to ensure that academics and students, when functioning in that academic capacity, have the freedom of their academic inquiry protected. The existing phraseology of free intellectual inquiry is too broad, and we've seen that through the cases that my colleagues have cited here today—most notably the dismissal of Professor Ridd. It is imperative to this government's continued support for the culture of free thought and inquiry that this bill be accepted. 13:23 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise in support of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020. I must say the word 'freedom' gets thrown around a lot. I sometimes think it's thrown around without any thought for the true meaning of the significance of the word and its impact because of how hard it has been for us to get the freedoms that we have today and the sacrifices that have been made to obtain those freedoms. When I hear the word 'freedom', I often go back to that movie of recent times, Braveheart, about William Wallace, who was so elegantly played by Mel Gibson. There's a great scene at the end where William Wallace is being executed, and he yells out, 'Freedom!' There is a lot of criticism about whether the film is all correct or not, but what is true is that William Wallace was, indeed, executed in the name of what he thought was freedom. I'm going to read out to you the exact details of his death because I think it is worth remembering how hard fought for our freedoms have been and how hard we need to fight to make sure we keep them. After he was captured, Wallace was transported to London where he was tried for treason and atrocities against civilians in war. He was then crowned with a garland of oak to suggest he was the king of outlaws. He responded to the treason charge: 'I could not be a traitor to Edward, for I was never his subject.' Following the trial, Wallace was taken from Westminster Hall east to the Tower of London. He was then stripped naked and dragged through the city at the heels of a horse. He was then hung, drawn and quartered. He was strangled by hanging but released while he was still alive. He was then emasculated. For those of you who don't know what that is, it's where you have your entire crown jewels removed. He was then eviscerated; he had his bowels removed. His bowels were then burned in front of him. He was then beheaded. His head was then dipped in tar and placed on a pike atop London Bridge where it was later joined by the heads of brothers John and Simon Fraser, fellow Scottish patriots. Wallace's limbs were displayed separately in Newcastle, Berwick, Sterling and Perth. A plaque was unveiled in 1956 and stands in a wall of St Bartholomew's Hospital near the site of Wallace's execution at Smithfield. It includes, in Latin, the words: 'Dico tibi verum libertas optima rerum nunquam servili sub nexu vivito fili.' In English that translates as: 'I tell you the truth. Freedom is what is best. Sons, never live life like slaves.' I think that is an incredibly inspiring story of the sacrifices that people have made throughout history in order to fight for freedom. Nine years later, in the year of our Lord 1314, as was put so eloquently in the movie, a bloke by the name of Robert the Bruce went out and won that freedom. Whether it's true or not, he's quoted as saying, before he ran out to battle: 'You have bled with Wallace, now bleed with me.' Today, as we put this bill forward, I ask the people on this side of the chamber to bleed like Wallace and fight like Robert the Bruce to make sure that we stand up for academic freedom because without freedom of speech, without freedom of thought, we are nothing more than slaves. I'm pleased to promote this bill because it will provide stronger protections for academic freedom and freedom of speech at our nation's universities, something that seems to be lacking on today's campuses around the nation and, indeed, the Western world. While this bill only applies to freedom of speech at universities, I think it's something that we should look at in other spheres as well. I know out there in the world of social media today, there are a lot of digital lynch mobs that are more than happy to come along and abuse people, to the point where they're actually afraid to say what they really think. There's a lot of bullying going on there. In my view that's just as big a threat to freedom of speech and freedom of thought as the suppression of free thought at universities. Of course, we should also give a big shout out to Peter Ridd, who has fearlessly stood up for what he believes in, as well as Drew Pavlou who was kicked out of the University of Queensland for standing up for what he believed in, and, indeed, our own Craig Kelly, who was kicked off Facebook for standing up for what he believed in. We're always up against the command and control tendencies of those who wield power. We must always make sure that those who don't wield the power— Senator McAllister interjecting— Senator RENNICK 283596 I'll take that interjection, thanks, Senator McAllister. At the end of the day, having been in this chamber for almost two years, I actually think the bureaucrats wield a lot more power than the elected members of parliament do. You've only got to look at the RBA, which has autonomous control over the monetary policy, our currency. We have the Australian Research Council, which the law says is responsible for and has ultimate control over $3 billion and how that money is granted. We have the ABC, which has no independent review body for how it behaves. There are plenty of examples where the bureaucrats are basically unaccountable for their actions—and I forgot to include the universities in that. So I'm more than happy to stand by my assertion that where taxpayer dollars are being spent the bureaucrats are held to account. In many cases that means we're going to have to take back the idea of an independent statutory authority. Ultimately, at the end of the day, the bulwark of democracy is accountability and transparency. Whether we like it or not, bureaucrats aren't elected. People may not like politicians, but we are elected and we are held to account for what we do. We are very transparent; we have to stand here in the chamber and stand up in front of the media and our constituents. It's very important that we are held to account as well. The purpose of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill is to amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003, to repeal and replace the two references to free intellectual inquiry with references to freedom of speech and academic freedom, and to insert a definition of 'academic freedom'. This bill gives effect to the recommendations from the 2019 independent review into freedom of speech in higher education which was undertaken by the Hon. Robert French, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. This bill will provide a new definition of academic freedom that enshrines in law principles of freedom of expression. These are an essential part of life at our universities for both academic staff and students—as they were when we went to university. This definition closely aligns with the definition recommended by the French review, with a minor technical modification recommended by the University Chancellors Council and developed in consultation with Mr French. This modification excludes one element: the freedom of academic staff, without constraint imposed by reason of their employment by the university, to make a lawful public comment on any issue in their personal capacities. That was part of the definition originally recommended by Mr French and included in his proposed model code. As part of the consultations on the proposed definition, it has been suggested that this element is more about freedom of speech than academic freedom and shouldn't be conflated with a definition of academic freedom. I recall when universities were once the bastion of freedom of thought and speech, and once drove political and social discourse. Now, courtesy of cancel culture, the far left, disguised as neo-Puritans, are busy trying to shut down debate under the guise of safe spaces and for fear of offending. A survey commissioned in 2019 asked students how they saw the current state of freedom of speech in universities. The survey included students of all political persuasions—39 per cent of respondents supported the ALP, 28 per cent supported the Greens, 14 per cent supported the coalition and 20 per cent were other or undecided. The results were concerning, to say the least: 41 per cent of students felt that they were sometimes unable to express their opinion at university; 31 per cent of students had been made to feel uncomfortable by a university teacher for expressing their opinion; 47 per cent of students felt more comfortable expressing their views on social media than at university; 59 per cent of students believed they were sometimes prevented from voicing their opinions on controversial issues by other students; and 82 per cent of students agreed that university students should be exposed to different views, even if those views were challenging or offensive—and 86 per cent of Greens-supporting students, 82 per cent of Labor-supporting students and 82 per cent of coalition-supporting students agreed with this statement. In my home state of Queensland we have had the highly publicised drama involving Drew Pavlou at The University of Queensland. And in August last year the University of New South Wales media team deleted Twitter posts from one of its academics, now adjunct law professor and Human Rights Watch Australia director, Elaine Pearson, which drew an online backlash from foreign students. The University of New South Wales, after receiving a barrage of angry responses from Chinese students and state owned media responded with: The opinions expressed by our academics do not always represent the views of UNSW. We have a long & valued relationship with Greater China going back 60 years. UNSW provides a welcome & inclusive environment & is proud to welcome students from over 100 countries. Do we know what the offending tweet said? Now is a pivotal moment to bring attention to the rapidly deteriorating situation in Hong Kong. Fair dinkum. The central and allegedly most controversial element of the proposed amendments is the introduction of the following definition of 'academic freedom' in the legislation: (a)   the freedom of academic staff to teach, discuss, and research and to disseminate and publish the results of their research; (b)   the freedom of academic staff and students to engage in intellectual inquiry, to express their opinions and beliefs, and to contribute to public debate, in relation to their subjects of study and research; (c)   the freedom of academic staff and students to express their opinions in relation to the higher education provider in which they work or are enrolled;    (d)   the freedom of academic staff to participate in professional or representative academic bodies (e)   the freedom of students to participate in student societies and associations; (f)   the autonomy of the higher education provider in relation to the choice of academic courses and offerings, the ways in which they are taught and the choices of research activities and the ways in which they are conducted. The explanatory memorandum includes the following explanation: The statutory definition in Item 4 closely aligns with the definition in the French Model Code but includes a minor technical modification recommended by the University Chancellors Council … Professor Sally Walker, who is currently undertaking a review of the university sector's implementation of the French Code, has advised that this approach is preferable. The freedom of academics and students to engage in intellectual inquiry, to express their opinions and to contribute to public debate are deeply connected with the role of an academic and the role of a university are key elements of academic freedom. However, this is quite different from an academic making a comment in their personal capacity. Any such comment is not connected with their role as an academic and is more appropriately considered to fit within the ambit of a broader social freedom of speech. To quote from Brendan O'Neill, a UK columnist who himself has felt the wrath of universities: It is undeniable that we live in a society where freedom of expression is in crisis. Whether we are being censored by the state, by self-styled guardians of correct-thinking, by mobs or by ourselves, we are being censored. And this matters. It matters because, at both the individual level and the social level, freedom of speech is essential to human flourishing. Freedom of speech gives real power to the individual. It liberates us not only to express our own views – which is of course incredibly important – but also to listen to the views of everyone else and to use our mental and moral muscles to decide for ourselves if what they are saying is right or wrong. Freedom of speech is the foundation stone of moral autonomy. It demands that we take ourselves seriously, weigh things up, make moral judgements, and correct error as we find it. Censorship, by contrast, infantilises us, weakening our mental and moral muscles by inviting us to rely instead on the judgements of our superiors; on those who will decide on our behalf what we may see, what we may read, and what we should think. To reflect for one more moment on those words of Wallace, he said: They can always take our lives but they can never take our freedom. I commend the bill to the Senate. 13:39 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Academic freedom is and should always be one of the cornerstones of our learning institutions as part of the bedrock upon which our universities and our society as a whole are built. Without academic freedom, we lose the magnificent contest of ideas. That contest is the catalyst that generates the research and ensures the success of future directions, and it's gone. Without academic freedom, the ability to think, to develop ideas and to expand our view of the world is lost. Without academic freedom our learning institutions across every age group, from earliest childhood to universities and beyond, become places where students are taught what to think, not how to think, and, as we see, to the detriment of us all, the cancel culture takes over: you're either right or wrong; in or out. Step outside the party line, upset the online trolls or say anything beyond what social media demands and you're out. History is obliterated because it's offensive to the fringe. It doesn't fit the agenda of the thought police. Gone is the premise that history is there to be learned from. Gone is any criticism around lack of rigour or falling standards in academia. Criticise and your career is over. Our halls of learning are becoming dungeons of dogma. Our schools are becoming indoctrination centres. Our children aren't learning how to think, how to inquire, how to question. They're not learning how important their intellectual curiosity really is and how critical it will be for them in years to come. They're being dumbed down and taught what to think. They're being taught there's right and wrong; that's it—nothing more. And they're learning the terrible consequences of being wrong—the loss of friends, the expulsion from groups, even the loss of jobs, all because they questioned the accepted dogma—as are their teachers. Just ask the highly respected Dr Peter Ridd after his outrageous sacking by James Cook University, or read about the treatment dished out, again by James Cook University, to the late Professor Bob Carter or about Dr Howard Brady, a victim of the appalling cancel culture at the increasingly intolerant ANU right here in Canberra. Exercising academic freedom takes more than curiosity. To push the boundaries of often long-established, well-accepted beliefs takes courage, often in bucketloads. I can speak with the benefit of personal experience when I say that speaking truths that don't fit the current, long-accepted dogma will inevitably result in criticism, personal attacks, vile abuse, ridicule and, sometimes, much worse. I'm also aware of an incident that occurred more than 20 years ago when a university lecturer was told to remove a segment of a course he was teaching that included a number of the views and policy that I'd expressed both in parliament and publicly. He was told that, even though the issue in question referred to my belief that all Australians should be treated equally, he should stop teaching his students that topic and remove my name from the course. Today young children are being indoctrinated with issues around their gender or around what and how their parents should speak to them. Express your religious views and you're guaranteed ridicule and isolation—even expulsion from many places. It's classic socialism designed to create another generation of Alinsky's useful idiots and it's going on around us every day in every state of Australia, and I say: enough is enough. The Left set themselves up as the gatekeepers of knowledge and they proceed to shame, vilify and excommunicate anyone who dares to disagree. That's not my Australia and I know it's not the kind of Australia most of us want. To expect our academics to work in an environment that shackles their freedom and restricts where opinions, professional critiques and research can go is wrong. It dumbs us down as a nation. It guarantees we'll be non-competitive internationally. It sends our future generations into lives of guaranteed mediocrity and disadvantage. The other requirement to be able to exercise academic freedom is, of course, freedom of speech. Contrary to popular belief, Australia doesn't have a legislated right to freedom of speech. Unlike the United States, we have no bill of rights. We have no specific mention of freedom of speech in our Constitution that even remotely resembles what is enshrined and defined so vigorously as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Why successive governments have avoided legislating freedom of speech protections remains a mystery. Of course, with freedom of speech comes the paradox of being forced to hear things you may strongly disagree with and the reality of saying things others may disagree with. The right to free expression carries with it the risk the cancel culture mob will rage against you for anything contradictory to their agenda. Conveniently, those in the woke world believe in free speech, but only so far as it fits their world view. I can speak from experience with regard to that. Over the years, even going back to when I was first elected to parliament, I had meetings around Australia, and the halls were packed out, because people saw me and thought: 'Who is this woman? Who is this elected member of parliament? We don't hear people who speak with this truth, with this honesty.' Most people have said to me, 'You're only saying what we're thinking, but you've got the guts to get up there and say it.' The people of Australia are screaming out for that honesty, for that truth, instead of beating around the bush and not being upfront and honest with people. They saw in me something that was different. It happens here in this chamber as well—that I get up and say something and I get ridiculed for it because I dare speak beyond the boundaries of what is accepted. By whom? Who sets the debate? We're allowing people out in the academic world to set the agenda of what we should say and how we should say it. That's why our kids are so confused, and the people of Australia are becoming like sheep: 'You can't say that. You've got to live in your own little world, in your own little box. You can't go beyond that.' Yet other countries, other people around the world, would dearly love to have the freedom we have, and we are so quick to give it away, and we're going to let others control what we say and think. I don't need someone to tell me what to or to control how I think. As a member of parliament, I will be judged by the people at the ballot box, and if they don't like what I say they will throw me out. But I won't have any other Australian, with their own opinion or their own culture, turn around and tell me what I should be saying or what I should be thinking, because I have too much respect for the people who have fought for our freedoms. And with those freedoms came freedom of speech. I rue the day when I had lecturers come into my office, 25 years ago, saying: 'We have been told how we should teach in the university. If we don't teach that way, we are going to lose our jobs.' I had a friend who was learning to become a teacher—and I hear it all the time—saying, 'We actually have to agree with their way of teaching and we have to agree with this thought process, otherwise we will have our grades put down.' This has been happening for decades, yet no-one intervenes or does anything about it. That is why we have these generations coming through who are being conditioned, and it's a real shame because that's not the Australia that I want and it's not the Australia I want to hand on to my grandchildren and to future generations. For academic freedom to be genuine, we must recognise that it carries with it the need for a hand-in-glove relationship with freedom of speech. Academics who are speaking about their research or the research of others must not be limited in their comments by the notion that freedom of speech as a right is not available to them. A reference to textbooks or the views of others' research or opinions must be allowed the freedom of open and unfettered discussion. We cannot ever have another case like that of Peter Ridd or a cancellation like that suffered by Professor Bob Carter. Academic freedom is something to be celebrated by every Australian, especially when it carries with it the right of free speech. I'm pleased that our discussions with the minister have resulted in positive outcomes in relation to this sector. I particularly welcome the minister's commitment to work with us on constructive amendments designed to reduce the ever-increasing overall HECS-HELP debt, which currently stands at over $50 billion. Simultaneously, any reduction in the overall debt must be done in a way that does not unnecessarily disadvantage users of the scheme. We are very fortunate in this country to have universities and colleges for our youth to go to. A lot of other countries don't have that. That's where it's very important that I do support this bill. And, working with the government, it was very important to One Nation—to me and to Senator Roberts—that changes be made to this, and Mark Latham talks about it constantly in the upper house in New South Wales. He's very much about education, about freedom of speech. It is the cornerstone of who we are as a nation. As I've said, many lives have been lost and sacrifices made for our freedom, and with that is freedom of speech. If we do not want to live in a society that is socialist, communist, then we are going to have to stand up for what we believe in, and it starts in this chamber with each and every one of us, who have been given the opportunity that very few Australians have. There are only 76 senators here, out of the whole population of 25 million Australians. The importance of that in itself is that we must be true to ourselves and have freedom of speech here to express what we truly believe in, because that's how the people judge us. We are supposed to be leaders of this nation. Never let anyone shut you down for your true thoughts on what you want to achieve for the Australian people, because they rely on us to make those right decisions. That's why I will continue to speak, whether it's in this chamber or outside this chamber, my true thoughts, what I want to see. I won't be shut down with the call that I'm a racist. My racism, as it appears, is because I dare call for equality for all Australians. And I will continue to do that. It's about standing up for our rights. That's why I support Peter Ridd and Bob Carter for what they've done, and even Craig Kelly. Craig Kelly has the right as a member of parliament to stand up and have his say. He has the right to question it. Let the people judge him. And that's why it's so important that we do that in a fair and just manner. That's where One Nation supports this bill. 13:51 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria It is my great pleasure to rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020. John F Kennedy said that conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. In recent years we have seen an increasing number of instances of conformity worming its way into the halls of our universities and research institutions. In August 2020, Elaine Pearson, Director of Human Rights Watch and an adjunct lecturer at the University of New South Wales faculty of law, tweeted that she was very concerned about the human rights implications of Hong Kong's new national security law. Incredibly, the tweet was deleted by UNSW in response to criticism by pro-China students. The tweet was later reinstated by the university, but it should never have been deleted in the first place. This was an unacceptable betrayal of academic freedom. Earlier, in 2018, Dr Peter Ridd, a distinguished marine physicist at James Cook University, was sacked after publicly questioning his colleague's research on the effects of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef. As a result, he had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of donated money, as well as his own savings, to make his case in the High Court. The purpose of a university is to be a place where academics can seek the truth and disseminate it to students, but this is not possible if academics cannot engage in free intellectual inquiry. The principle of academic freedom is the source of a university's capacity to produce meaningful, rigorous and independent research which benefits all. In this sense, academic freedom is a paradigm feature of any vibrant university culture and is essential if universities are not to become mere mouthpieces for ideology, of course as they were in the Soviet Union and continue to be in many other countries around the world. This bill ensures that academics have that freedom. It does so by introducing a definition of 'academic freedom' which allows academics to teach, discuss and conduct research at will. It enshrines the freedom of academics to engage in intellectual inquiry free from government or corporate influence. It ensures that academics can freely contribute to public debate on issues related to their research without fear of sanction. It also affirms the autonomy of universities in relation to their choice of academic courses and offerings and ways in which they are taught. This is a full and robust conception of academic freedom and shows that our government is committed to maintaining it. All of this is in keeping with the fundamental liberal principles on which the Liberal Party was founded: the priority of individual freedom over collective inertia; the value of practical and intellectual enterprise; and the idea that the proper role of government is to protect natural rights and freedoms, not impose an ideology. Some might argue the bill does not go far enough because it does not give academics the right to free speech that would allow them to express their personal opinions on any matter whatsoever in public under the shield of academic freedom. However, academics can already express their personal opinions in public, just like any other Australian. They, like other Australians, do not require a stronger definition of 'academic freedom' to do that. A nuclear chemist expressing a personal opinion on the price of milk is not an exercise of academic freedom. The definition of 'academic freedom' in this bill helpfully preserves this important distinction. None of this undermines the government's commitment to maintaining a free and open society in Australia in which freedom of speech is respected and upheld. None of this undermines the government's commitment to liberal principles. None of this undermines this government's commitment to supporting free, intellectual inquiry at universities. Our government understands that freedom of speech is the cornerstone of our democracy. It understands that the health of our society can be measured by the extent to which it upholds and defends freedom of speech. It understands, as John Stuart Mill said: When one's ideas are not challenged, one's ability to defend them weakens. Our government understands that legislation is sometimes necessary to ensure that, when our ideas are challenged, we have the freedom to defend them. In this increasingly polarised age, it's easy to be taken up in the swell of ideological fervour on any given topic, whether it be climate change, gender and identity politics, social justice or even free speech itself. This can only do us harm, because ideology is the sworn enemy of free inquiry. Ideology is a ruinous fire which burns everything in its path. As Edmund Burke said: Rage and frenzy will pull down more in half an hour than prudence, deliberation, and foresight can build up in a hundred years. It would be folly to think that our universities are immune from ideological pressure. It would be folly to think that political neutrality is always defended by university management. This is why we must remain vigilant and protect the principle of academic freedom, a bequeathment of an intellectual tradition going back almost a thousand years to the world's first university at Bologna in 1088. Today's academics are inheritors of that tradition, and it is one we must guard jealously if we are to maintain our universities as places of genuine learning, places where we can learn to seek the truth for its own sake and not for the sake of ideological purity or political advantage. This bill ensures that academics, whatever their political persuasion, will not have that held against them in the course of their intellectual work. The bill strengthens free speech in this country by ensuring that academics like Elaine Pearson and Peter Ridd can pursue their research freely without illegitimate and undue restriction, whether from universities, students or governments. It ensures that conformity—that insidious, implacable enemy of freedom—is kept at bay at our universities. I commend this bill to the Senate. 13:59 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I thank all senators for their contribution to this debate. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 will amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to give effect to recommendations of the independent review of freedom of speech in Australian higher education providers conducted in 2019 by the Hon. Robert French AC, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. The amendments will provide a new legislative definition of 'academic freedom' that encompasses aspects of freedom of expression that are characteristic of the relationship of higher education institutions, academic staff and students. They will also enshrine the need for public universities to have a policy that upholds freedom of speech and academic freedom. These are fundamental tenets of Australian higher education, and this bill will provide stronger protections for both academic freedom and freedom of speech. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Ruston, it being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 35 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE March 4 Justice 35 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Payne. Today, hundreds of thousands of Australian women are marching for justice, raising their voices, saying, 'Enough is enough' and that sexism, sexual harassment and sexual assault must stop. Instead of joining these women, just metres from the front entrance, the Minister for Women sat in this chamber for the debate on a bill she had no responsibility for. Why? 14:00 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I welcome the exercise of open democracy that all those who have participated in today, men and women, have taken up to provide their views both in demonstration and through the form of a petition. The parliament and the government will, of course, give appropriate consideration to the March 4 Justice petition. The process of parliament and of being a minister means that we meet with hundreds of people every year in the parliament. It's the responsibility of any elected government to form positions on those important issues by working through those carefully as a government and through the parliament. It is what we are elected to do. It's our responsibility to listen to the concerns of all Australians. Both the Prime Minister and I have sought to do that with organisers of today's protest directly and to hear from them directly in a number of ways. I do take those concerns very seriously, as do my coalition colleagues. The Prime Minister's offer of that meeting with organisers still stands. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, a supplementary question? 14:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Instead of listening to the hundreds of thousands of women marching for justice by joining them on the lawns in front of Parliament House, the Prime Minister remained in this building. Why? 14:02 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I think the Prime Minister has said in his comments on this matter that it is not his usual approach to engage in action such as that outside the chamber. That is not his usual approach. But he has on a number of occasions, with a number of different representatives of community and on a number of different issues, always sought to offer the opportunity for a private meeting directly with the Prime Minister—the highest office holder in our system, the highest office holder in this country. In the context of this process, he has done the same. He has offered that opportunity to those who have organised today's protest and to those who wish to raise these issues. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, a final supplementary question? 14:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Ms Brittany Higgins spoke at the March 4 Justice on the Parliament House lawns today. She spoke with great courage. She said: 'This isn't a political problem. It is a human problem.' Will the Morrison government stop treating this as a political issue and start listening to Australian women— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I need to be able to hear the question. Senator WONG 00AOU who are saying, across this country, 'Enough is enough'? 14:04 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I have had the opportunity to scan Ms Higgins's remarks, and there is a range of those statements that she has made today with which I agree and, in fact, there are concerns she has raised over recent weeks with which I also agree. It's one of the reasons the government has worked closely with those opposite—indeed, with those around this chamber—in support of the development of an independent review of this workplace, its cultures, its unique qualities, to specifically and directly address these issues. We do take this very, very seriously. We have heard those concerns, and my own personal remarks, which I am very happy to repeat in this chamber, are that we as parliamentarians—all of us—must own these problems. We must own the failings that have enabled these events to occur and we must own the solutions. (Time expired) Domestic and Family Violence 36 14:05 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Ruston. Can the minister please update the Senate on how the Morrison government is helping people to have the tools and confidence to ensure that disrespectful behaviours are not learned in childhood? 14:05 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I thank Senator Askew for her very important question. Today I'm very pleased to be able to advise the chamber that last night the first ads in stage 3 of the Stop it at the Start campaign began airing on national television. We did this, along with a number of other measures, to make sure that we gave the Australian public the tools and the confidence to call out disrespectful behaviour when they see it. We know that early intervention is absolutely the key to giving adults the opportunity to play a role in making sure that all Australians feel safe in their own homes, in their communities and online. Last week, to mark International Women's Day, Minister Payne and I announced and launched the third phase of this campaign, which is targeted at the prevention of family and domestic violence perpetrated against women and their children. The Stop it at the Start campaign challenges disrespectful attitudes and behaviours that can often be learnt in childhood and, if left unchecked, may escalate into violence. Specifically the campaign is about telling Australians to unmute themselves, to speak up. If you see disrespectful behaviour, don't ignore it, don't excuse it. You need to speak up and call it out. Research which we've conducted shows that four out of five of us agree that violence against women is driven by disrespectful behaviour. But many people do not feel confident to call out that disrespectful behaviour when they see it. Each and every one of us does have a role to play in making sure that every one of us feels safe. Taking action on this issue may seem overwhelming. But if we all take small steps together and we show respect then maybe—maybe—we actually can change the dial here. We know that not all disrespectful behaviour results in violence, but all violence has started with disrespectful behaviour. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Askew, a supplementary question? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my right. 14:07 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania Can the minister explain how the Morrison government is supporting Australians who are experiencing or at risk of experiencing domestic violence? 14:08 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia There is no excuse for family or domestic violence. Last year, during the COVID pandemic, we were faced with a potential crisis, which we sought to respond to by providing a $150 million domestic violence response package to make sure that the states and territories had the frontline capacity to respond to any increases in domestic violence as a result of the lockdowns from the COVID pandemic. This is in addition to the $340 million, a record investment, that we invested in the fourth action plan, and also the guaranteeing of the ongoing commitment to the 1800RESPECT, 24-hour a day, seven-day a week hotline, and making sure that future funding was locked in in perpetuity. We're currently in the process of consulting on the next plan, which will commence in 2022, and we want to listen to all Australian, all people who are impacted, to make sure that we have the best possible plan going forward. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Askew, a final supplementary question? 14:09 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania Can the minister advise on what services are available for people experiencing domestic, family or sexual violence? 14:09 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia We certainly understand that reaching out for help can be quite difficult for people, so to make sure that free and confidential advice is at the end of the phone at all times we have funded 1800RESPECT and we'll continue to make sure that this service is available to every single Australian who may wish to access advice, counselling or support or merely find out what they should do next in a situation of domestic violence. As said, during the coronavirus lockdown there was a shift in how people decided that they wanted to respond, and we saw a significant increase in the number of people that were seeking to use online and telephone services as a way of accessing support. The national manager of 1800RESPECT, Melonie Sheehan, said: More people are calling the service in the very late hours, closer to midnight and we have also seen an increase in people contacting us via webchat as this may be when and how people feel more comfortable or safer to seek support. Tourism 37 14:10 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator Payne. Last week, after months of anxiety for the tourism sector, the government finally released their package for the tourism industry when JobKeeper ends. Why did the Morrison government announce a package that the Australian Tourism Industry Council has said 'will fail to stem major job losses and closures now occurring among many small, family run and larger tourism businesses'? 14:11 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Farrell for his question. The Australian government's tourism and aviation package, a $1.2 billion package, combined with our vaccine rollout, which is underway, is part of the government's national economic recovery plan. What that means for the tourism sector is that, in many ways, the recovery will be driven by Australians holidaying at home until we are able to re-engage with the international tourism sector. It does, I acknowledge, Senator Farrell, continue to be a challenging time for our travel and tourism sector. So, in addition to the record levels of economic support that we have provided during COVID-19, including JobKeeper and small business cash payments of up to $100,000, which have sustained literally hundreds of thousands of tourism businesses and jobs across Australia, the tourism and aviation package provides further targeted assistance to help the tourism sector rebound and save as many jobs as possible. What we will see with Australia's airlines, hotels, caravan parks, restaurants, bars, travel agents and tourism operators is a push from Australian domestic tourists as part of that new support package. That mix of half-price airline tickets, cheaper loans for business and direct support to keep planes in the air and airline workers in their jobs is a bridge back to a normal way of life for Australians. The centrepiece of the program is a demand-driven program of 800,000 half-price airfares to get Australians travelling to support tourism operators, businesses, travel agents and airlines, who continue to do it tough through COVID-19 while our international borders remain closed. It means taking more tourists to our hotels and cafes— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Farrell, a supplementary question? 14:13 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia In response to the only demand-driving element of the proposal, the chair of the Tourism Restart Taskforce, Dr Jeremy Johnson AM, has said: The discount airfares will do nothing for tour operators, travel agents and wholesalers … Is Dr Johnson correct? 14:13 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I'm not familiar with Dr Johnson, but what I do know is that the tourism package itself will take more tourists to our hotels and our cafes while taking tours and basically exploring their own backyards. That will mean more jobs and opportunities for investment for the tourism and aviation sectors. It is important for local communities, especially in regional Australia, that we will continue to financially support flights which are so key to health services, employment opportunities and social activities. The half-price ticket program will initially operate in 13 key regions which include the Gold Coast, Cairns and Townsville, the Whitsundays and Mackay region, both Proserpine Island and Hamilton Island, the Sunshine Coast, Darwin, Lasseter and Alice Springs, Launceston, Hobart, Devonport and Burnie, Broome, Avalon, Merimbula, Adelaide and Kangaroo Island. In this chamber in recent weeks and months, I have responded to questions on these issues, particularly around Tasmania and around Queensland, and I note that— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question? 14:15 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia If you can, please make sure that the minister keeps within her time, Mr President. I do have a further supplementary question. The Accommodation Association of Australia has stated: 'The lack of support in this package will result in a loss of jobs and slow our recovery once borders are open.' Why has the government abandoned 300,000 Australian workers? 14:15 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I absolutely reject the premise of Senator Farrell's question. There are a number of other new measures in the support package which I hadn't previously had an opportunity to speak to, including the expansion of the SME loan guarantee scheme, as part of our commitment to support up to $40 billion in lending to small and medium enterprises—precisely the sorts of businesses that Senator Farrell was referring to, I presume. Under the existing scheme, over 35,000 loans, worth more than $3 billion, have already been provided. These are helping thousands of businesses get to the other side of this pandemic. What the SME Recovery Loan Scheme will benefit from is an increased government guarantee. This will increase from the current 50-50 split between the governments and the banks to an 80-20 split. We also see support provided through the new international aviation support helping Australia's international passenger airlines to maintain more than 8,000 core international aviation jobs, support for regular passenger airports to meet their domestic security screening costs— (Time expired) Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety 38 14:16 Senator SMALL 291406 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. It has been 14 days since the Prime Minister released the final report from the royal commission— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Pause, please, Senator Small. I can't hear the question. Senator Small, you can commence the question again. I noted who it was directed to. Senator SMALL 291406 In the 14 days since the Prime Minister released it, can the minister please update the Senate on the final report from the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety? 14:17 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I thank Senator Small for his question. The final report of the royal commission was provided to the Australian government on 26 February and was publicly released following tabling in the parliament on 1 March. It is a very significant report. The final report, Care, Dignity and Respect, comprises eight volumes totalling more than 2,500 pages and includes 148 recommendations. The government thanks the royal commissioners, the Hon. Tony Pagone QC, Lynelle Briggs AO and the Hon. Richard Tracey AM RFD QC, for their considerable work in conducting the royal commission and all of those who contributed throughout the course of the inquiry. The royal commission's report provided some very difficult reading. I thank all those brave individuals, families, carers and aged-care workers who gave evidence to the commission under difficult circumstances. Now we owe it to all of them to act on recommendations of the report and to acknowledge the significant and sweeping proposals required to reform the aged-care sector. We must do better. It was this government that called the royal commission and it will be this government that delivers. We will not shy away from implementing the reforms needed to deliver the care our senior Australians require and deserve. The scale and scope of the report and the expectations of the Australian community demand a comprehensive understanding of its outcomes and its recommendations. We intend to provide a full response to the report by 31 May, as the recommendations of the Royal Commission ask. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Small, a supplementary question? 14:19 Senator SMALL 291406 Western Australia Can the minister advise the Senate on the Australian government's response so far to the royal commission? 14:19 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Thanks, Senator Small. The government will immediately invest an additional $452.2 million as an initial step in responding to the report. This includes $18.4 million to enhance the oversight of the government's Home Care Packages Program, to deliver better value for senior Australians and the Australian taxpayer; $32 million to immediately enhance the capacity of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission and provide greater regulation around the use of restraints in aged care, as we've previously committed; and $189.8 million to residential aged-care providers to provide stability and maintain services. And this equates to around $760 per resident in metropolitan residential aged care and $1,145 for those in rural and regional areas. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Small, a final supplementary question? 14:20 Senator SMALL 291406 Western Australia Can the minister outline what other measures the government has undertaken to implement in response to the royal commission? 14:20 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Thank you, Senator Small. I can. We have committed $90 million to support a viability fund to assist those facilities which are facing financial challenges, particularly as the sector begins to restructure to respond to change and the choice of people to live at home for longer; $91.8 million to grow the skilled and professional aged-care workforce, recruiting up to 18,000 personal care workers into both home care and residential care; and $30.1 million to strengthen the governance of aged-care providers and legislated governance obligations across the entire sector. This will be a significant reform for this country and for the aged-care sector. As I've said a number of times, it is this government's determination to ensure that those reforms are undertaken, and, of course, as the Prime Minister and I have said, we will respond more fully to the recommendations of the royal commission in the budget. National Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces 39 14:21 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. A hundred thousand people marched for justice today around the country, calling for an end to gendered violence and for equality, safety and respect. Brittany Higgins, Rachelle Miller, many survivors and powerful women of colour were speakers there. Myself, our other female senators and our Greens leader were there. Many of our staff attended. Many of the Labor MPs, their leader and their staff attended as well. Virtually no Liberal MPs attended the march. Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Sorry, Senator Waters, I'll give you— Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my right! Order! Senator Waters, I'd ask you to commence again midway through the question. I got up to where you said 'staff attended'. Senator WATERS 192970 Thank you, Mr President. The PRESIDENT I0Q I ask for silence. Senator WATERS 192970 Virtually no Liberal MPs attended. I commend those who did, but the Minister for Women wasn't there and the Prime Minister wasn't there. Despite many people travelling a long way to be there, the Prime Minister wanted women to come even further and have a closed-door meeting with him. He couldn't find 10 minutes to go and meet with them. One of the asks of the petition which I will seek leave to table, signed by 70,000 people, is for action to implement the 55 recommendations of the 'respect@work' inquiry. My question is: when will we see action to implement those recommendations? I seek leave to table this 70,000-strong petition calling for that and other things. Leave granted. 14:23 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Waters for her question and, indeed, I do acknowledge those who have rallied in Canberra and elsewhere around the country today. I acknowledge the many important messages that were conveyed in the remarks made by various people speaking at those different rallies and events. As Senator Payne has already reinforced to the chamber, the Prime Minister invited—and the invitation continues to stand—representatives of those who organised and conducted the rallies to come and meet with him and with any other senior members of the government, as they wish. Indeed, that is consistent with many such protest rallies or other events that have taken place over the years and the work and the offers that have been made on those occasions and accepted by event organisers and activists, or others, on those occasions. I would encourage the organisers of this event to reconsider their refusal to accept the Prime Minister's invitation and to have those meetings. In relation to the recommendations and calls for action in the petition that Senator Waters has just tabled: there are a number of those on which work is underway. I thank all senators, including Senator Waters, who cooperated with me and the government in establishing the multiparty independent review into workplace practices. That was an important action to get underway and it is one of those actions called for in the petition. In relation to the Respect@work report: the government is acting on a number of those recommendations already. That includes committing $2.1 million in the 2020-21 budget to implement recommendations related to the establishment of the Respect@Work Council— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Birmingham, the time for your answer has expired. Senator Waters, a supplementary question? 14:25 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland The Prime Minister's ministerial standards require ministers to act with integrity, accountability and in the public interest. The Prime Minister can call for an independent investigation into whether ministers meet those standards. Far from being a breach of the rule of law, this investigation is commonplace. It happened in the High Court and it happens across the private sector. It does not replace police investigations; it is a separate question as to whether the Attorney-General is suitable to hold the position of the highest law officer in the land. When will the Prime Minister order an independent inquiry into Minister Porter's fitness to be Attorney-General? 14:26 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I do note that the analogy is drawn, as it was by Senator Waters, and often by others, between the investigation that the High Court undertook in relation to former Justice Dyson Heydon and these other matters. Indeed, the matters that the High Court investigated, as many other entities do, relate to workplace harassment matters and allegations of what occurred in that particular workplace. There is a significant difference in relation to the type of investigation you would expect conducted on those matters compared with criminal law allegations that date back a considerable period of time. The right and appropriate way for criminal law allegations to be investigated in this country is through the appropriate legal channels. The government absolutely stands by and supports all of those independent law enforcement agencies to do their jobs. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Waters, a final supplementary question. 14:27 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland On a day when women are asking to be heard, Minister Porter is suing the female journalist and the ABC. That sends a message about silencing women. If this is designed to alleviate pressure for an internal inquiry, it won't work. Did the Prime Minister ask Minister Porter to launch the defamation action, and was it so that the government could try to brush aside further questions by claiming this matter is before the courts? 14:28 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia In relation to whether the Prime Minister requested any such action, I'm confident that the answer to that is no. In relation to the action that Mr Porter has initiated: as I have said publicly previously, all Australians are treated equally before the law. That includes the rights of all Australians not to be defamed and, if they believe they have been defamed, to take action in relation to those matters. That's what Mr Porter is doing. Tourism Industry 40 14:28 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator Payne. When the government announced its much anticipated support package for the tourism industry, 13 regions had been identified for support. At that time, Darwin, Adelaide, Hobart and Townsville were not included in the successful list. A document quoted by Hobart's The Mercury shows that these locations were in fact originally included but then removed by the government at the last minute. Why were Adelaide, Darwin, Hobart and Townsville dumped from the government's announcement? 14:29 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Chisholm for his question. I believe that I indicated the locations for the half-price ticket program in my earlier response. I listed those to the chamber. I indicated that the number of questions which I have received on these matters from those opposite in recent times have specifically asked about those locations. What I was going to say, before my time expired in my earlier response, was that destinations were chosen in consultation with airlines in regard to relevant routes, using Austrade data to determine the regions that were most impacted by the loss of international tourists. There is capacity to add to the list, based on further consultation, based on consumer demand, based on the capacity of 13 destinations— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Payne. I have Senator Farrell on a point of order. Senator Farrell I0N The point of order is relevance, Mr President. The question is a very simple one: why were those four towns—Townsville, Hobart, Adelaide and Darwin—originally on the list and then taken off the list? The PRESIDENT I0Q I'm listening very carefully to the minister's answer. I've allowed you to restate that part of the question, Senator Farrell. I'm going to continue to listen, but the minister was going to the very point of the determination of which places were included. I'm going to consider that to be directly relevant. I can't instruct her on the terms in which to answer. Senator PAYNE M56 As I was saying, the destinations were chosen in consultation with airlines in regard to relevant routes and using Austrade data to determine the regions most impacted by the loss of international tourists. I indicated to the chamber that there is capacity to add to the list, based on further consultation, consumer demand and the capacity of the 13 destinations and the success of the program. As I understand it, the Prime Minister has said that this is an initial list of destinations and that more routes will be added. Indeed, after further consultation with airlines and industry and advice from Austrade, Townsville, Hobart, Darwin and Adelaide have been added to the initial rollout list. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Chisholm, a supplementary question? 14:31 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland In a confusing and embarrassing series of backflips, Darwin, Adelaide, Hobart and Townsville have now been re-added to the list, only days after the announcement. If these locations were chosen based on actual need, rather than political targeting, why were they dumped from the original announcement, only to be embarrassingly re-added? 14:32 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I'm very disappointed that those opposite do not seem to support the inclusion of Townsville, Hobart, Darwin and Adelaide. I'm deeply disappointed by that, because that would seem to not be particularly representative of their obligations as senators in this place— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Payne. I have Senator Wong on a point of order. Senator Wong 00AOU The point of order is direct relevance. The question isn't what the opposition's position is. The question is why the government took these locations out, then put them back in. It's a very simple proposition. The minister might want to obfuscate by creating straw people arguments, but the question is, with your announcement, why were they taken out and then re-added? The PRESIDENT I0Q On the point of order, it is not directly relevant to be making observations about the motives of those asking questions. It is, however, directly relevant if the minister is talking about the determination of the locations. I can't instruct her to inspect a premise, but it is not directly relevant to assign a motive to the people asking a question. Senator PAYNE M56 I believe that I had said to the chamber that, after further consultation with the airlines and industry and advice from Austrade, Townsville, Hobart, Darwin and Adelaide have been added to the initial rollout list. What I don't understand is why those opposite don't support that. Why don't they support Townsville, Hobart, Darwin and Adelaide? The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Payne. I have Senator Wong on a point of order. Senator Wong 00AOU The point of order is direct relevance, Mr President. You have just made a ruling that assignation of motive does not meet the direct relevance rule, and then the minister immediately goes to assigning motive. I'd ask you to pull her into order. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Payne, on the point of order? Senator Payne M56 On the point of order, Mr President, what I said immediately after your ruling was: after further consultation with the airlines, industry and advice from Austrade, Townsville, Hobart, Darwin and Adelaide had been added to the initial rollout list. I'm very happy to keep saying that. The PRESIDENT I0Q On the point of order— Senator Watt interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Watt, I'm trying to rule on your leader's point of order. The move from relevance to direct relevance has always been interpreted to contain the nature of an answer. When ministers answer a question, further material that is provided, in my view, still needs to be directly relevant and to meet that test. I can't instruct a minister to accept the premise of a question, however. So the minister can answer in the terms that a minister deems fit. But it isn't appropriate to assign a motive to a person asking the question. Senator Payne? You have concluded your answer. Senator Chisholm, a final supplementary question? 14:35 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland After being dumped from the list, Darwin was re-added within hours, while Hobart and Townsville took three days to be reannounced. Was Senator McMahon more convincing in her arguments, or did Senators Abetz and Canavan just take longer to complain to the Prime Minister? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I'll call Senator Payne when I can hear her answer. Order across the chamber! Senator Payne. 14:36 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I have been very clear to the chamber in relation to the addition of routes. I have also said the Prime Minister has indicated this is an initial list of destinations and more routes will be added. I indicated that further consultation with airlines and with industry and advice from Austrade enabled Townsville, Hobart, Darwin and Adelaide to be added to the initial rollout list. What I would also say is that those senators on this side to which Senator Chisholm referred are superb advocates for their communities and superb advocates for their states and their region, and we hear crickets on the other side in terms of their own advocacy. An honourable senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Can we have silence so I may call Senator Roberts? Senator Roberts. Migration 42 14:36 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Cash, and relates to net migration, which is the difference between the number of arrivals each year and the number of people leaving. In the October budget the figure for net migration in 2020-21 was negative 71,600. The budget made the statement, 'Permanent migration will not resume until the second half of 2021.' Minister, are these two statements still accurate? 14:37 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Roberts for his question. Senator Roberts, you would be aware that in fact it is now 12 months since we had to close the international borders due to COVID-19. As a result, there is no doubt that immigration to Australia has been impacted. This has had a number of effects, as you know. The government is completely aware of this, and I know that I have discussed this with you previously. We are doing everything that we can to keep Australians safe, in particular in relation to the rollout of the vaccine. But, from our perspective, immigration, as you know, at this point in time, has been stopped as a result of COVID-19. Our priority as a government is to keep Australians safe, and that is exactly what we are doing. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Roberts, a supplementary question? 14:38 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The immigration minister's office receives passenger manifests online daily. The Australian Bureau of Statistics data for settler arrivals has not been updated to 2021 data. I asked the Minister for Home Affairs for updated information on 16 February, and this information has not yet been provided. Minister, how many settler arrivals and how many other arrivals have occurred nationally in 2021 to date? 14:39 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Senator Roberts, in relation to the exact figures, you did mention the Minister for Home Affairs; I would need to seek those figures from the Minister for Home Affairs. I don't represent the Minister for Home Affairs. What I can confirm, though, is that the 2020-21 migration program, as I said to you in the answer I provided to your first question, has had to be shaped and has had to be adapted to changing circumstances and to support Australia's economic and health recovery from COVID-19. I think you would accept that that is a fact. In terms of the migration program ceiling for 2020-21, it has been retained at 160,000 places, to maximise flexibility for program delivery. In relation to those places, I can advise you that 79,600 places were allocated for the skills stream, 77,300 places were allocated for the family stream, 100 places were allocated for the special eligibility stream and 3,000 places were allocated for the child— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Roberts, a final supplementary question? 14:40 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland In the last three days, Sydney airport processed 50 international passenger flight arrivals. Each day, Australia receives more than 10 overseas passenger flights. Arrivals and returns are broadly equal, so there can be no talk of empty planes. My office is fielding a question over and over again, so I ask that question: Minister, who specifically is on these planes—students, temporary workers, refugees, partner arrivals for migrants already here or other categories? 14:40 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, Senator Roberts, you actually have asked a question that would be more appropriately directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs. So, in relation to that, I will take the question on notice for you and provide you with what advice I can. But, as you know—and I think as the Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs himself, Minister Dutton, have been very clear about—our priority is to get as many Australians home as possible. That continues to be our priority. Apprenticeships 43 14:41 Senator McMAHON 282728 Northern Territory My question is to the fabulous Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Morrison-McCormack government is continuing to support a new generation of skills reform through the extension of the Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements wage subsidy? 14:41 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank our great senator from the Northern Territory for her question, and I am pleased to advise the Senate that last week the Prime Minister and I announced that the Morrison government would be turbocharging our commitment to create new apprenticeships in Australia. Senator Wong interjecting— Senator CASH I0M Senator Wong, actually, the word 'turbocharging' is exactly what we are doing. That is because last year, in October, we announced that the government would create 100,000 new apprenticeships and traineeships through our Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements wage subsidy. It provides 50 per cent of the apprentice's wage to the business that takes on the new apprentice. The program has been incredibly successful, and I would like to thank all the employers out there, because it's the employers who have provided opportunities to these apprentices. And we created the 100,000 new commencements in less than five months—100,000 apprentices and trainees, in less than five months. As a result of this, we announced that we are now uncapping the program. Any business that now takes on a new apprentice or trainee up until 30 September 2021 will receive the 50 per cent wage subsidy for a full 12 months. We've seen the creation of now over 100,000 new apprenticeships and traineeships within that five-month period, and we now want to see the creation of tens of thousands more. This is all part of the skills led recovery getting us out of COVID-19. This is about backing opportunities for Australians, particularly young Australians, as well as helping Australian businesses to get the workers with the skills they need. This is, as I said, thanks to the fantastic employers out there—around 40,000 of them—who have put their hands up and taken a new apprentice or trainee into their business. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McMahon, a supplementary question? 14:43 Senator McMAHON 282728 Northern Territory Can the minister explain to the Senate how this builds on essential support being provided to keep Australian apprentices on the tools and in work through the COVID-19 pandemic? 14:44 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Senator McMahon is right: it does exactly do that. It builds on measures we've already got in place. And of course the first measure we put in place was our Supporting Apprentices and Trainees wage subsidy. That has now kept around 122,000 apprentices and trainees in work, in around 60,000 small and medium businesses across Australia. These are apprentices who, but for this government's support, would have been let go, because the first people to be let go during a pandemic, COVID-19, are of course apprentices and trainees. In relation to the Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements wage subsidy, I can advise that the initiative has so far supported the creation of over 8,000 bricklayers, 6,000 electricians and almost 11,000 people in retail and hospitality work. They are people who, but for the wage subsidy, may not have been taken on. But employers, because of the wage subsidy, have been able to put up their hands and take that new apprentice or trainee into their business. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McMahon, a final supplementary question? 14:45 Senator McMAHON 282728 Northern Territory Can the minister outline how these investments are continuing to support Australia's economic prosperity into the future? 14:45 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The Morrison government is providing record levels of funding to our vocational education and training sector to rebuild our economy and to also prepare for the future. This includes the Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements wage subsidy, as I've talked about; the Supporting Apprentices and Trainees wage subsidy; and the $1 billion JobTrainer Fund. That is, of course, the $1 billion fund that we put together with the states and territories to create around 320,000 additional places—that is, new places in the training market—that are either free or low fee. We have been working with the states and territories. All states and territories signed up to the $1 billion fund. The key to the success of this is ensuring that those training places are in areas of skills demand. In other words, people are actually training so that they can get a job. They are training in areas of demand that will get them a job. We are providing record funding to vocational education and training in Australia because, as the Prime Minister said, this is a skills led recovery. (Time expired) Attorney-General 44 14:46 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. In 2019 when answering a question on women and the reporting of rape, Mr Morrison said: One of the things that often happens with that is they're not believed, and their stories are not believed and it's important that their stories are believed and that they know that if they come forward their stories will be believed. When deciding whether the Attorney-General was a fit and proper person to remain in his role, why did the Prime Minister listen to the Attorney-General but not bother to read the alleged victim's own words? 14:47 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia As I said in response to Senator Waters's questions earlier, we have in Australia, with sound legal and other establishments in place, practices and processes that are well-established for the handling of allegations. The Prime Minister and his office acted in accordance with advice from law enforcement agencies that allegations of a criminal nature ought be provided, where possible, to police at the earliest opportunity, and that is what the Prime Minister's office did. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question? 14:48 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Former Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson has said that the allegations against the Attorney-General should have been referred to the Solicitor-General. Given John Howard had no issue with twice asking the Solicitor-General for advice on allegations against his workplace relations minister, why has the Prime Minister failed to listen to advice and refer the allegations against his Attorney-General to the Solicitor-General? 14:48 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The allegations in question are related to an alleged criminal event dating back to 1988. The Solicitor-General—or, indeed, any other individual office holder outside of a court and its legal process—is not in a position to be able to determine the veracity of those allegations. That's what we have courts for. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question? 14:49 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Why won't the Prime Minister establish an independent inquiry into the sexual assault allegations against his Attorney-General which would listen to the complaint and consider the alleged victim's own words and the testimony of James Hooke and others? 14:49 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia As I've said in a few answers now, we have established legal processes to handle such allegations. As I also said in response to Senator Waters's question, the Attorney-General has exercised the same rights as any other Australian in relation to the initiation of defamation proceedings. I have no doubt that such matters will be heard in a court of law in accordance with all of the normal rules of that court of law at some point in the future. Queensland: Olympic and Paralympic Games 44 14:50 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Sport, Senator Colbeck. Can the minister advise the Senate of what the recent announcement by the International Olympic Committee about the 2032 Olympics means for Queensland and the rest of Australia? 14:50 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Australians and Queenslanders, in particular, are excited by the International Olympic Committee announcing that South-East Queensland is the preferred bidder for the 2032 Olympics and Paralympics. This decision means that we are now a step closer to hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games, with the IOC entering into exclusive negotiations with Queensland for the 2032 event. The announcement is a game-changing development for the bid, which has long been supported by all levels of government. Since the government announced its support for the bid in 2019, we've been working with the Queensland government, the councils of South-East Queensland as well as the Australian Olympic Committee and Paralympics Australia to put forward the best possible bid for South-East Queensland in 2032. Not only will this event add a new chapter in Australia's sporting history, as it did with Melbourne in 1956 and Sydney in 2000; it will also deliver an economic boost for jobs in Queensland and in Australia. The announcement from the IOC is a positive development, but we still have a lot of work to do. The Australian government will, over coming weeks and months, continue to work closely and cooperatively with the bid partners during the exclusive negotiation period. We want to make sure that we don't miss this golden opportunity for South-East Queensland, for all of Queensland and, indeed, for all of Australia. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McGrath, a supplementary question? 14:52 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Can the minister explain how securing the 2032 Olympics will build on the work done by the government to showcase our nation to the world? 14:52 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Australia has a rich history of hosting world-class international sporting events. The 1956 Melbourne Olympics and Sydney 2000 were enormously successful and gave significant confidence to our nation. In recent years Australia has hosted the AFC Asian Cup, in 2015, the 2018 Invictus Games, the 2018 Commonwealth Games and the ICC Women's T20 World Cup. Next year we will host the ICC Men's T20 World Cup, the FIBA Women's Basketball World Cup and the UCI Road World Championships. In 2023 we will co-host the FIFA Women's World Cup and, in 2026, the UCI BMX World Championships. We're also in with a great show of securing the 2027 Rugby World Cup. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McGrath, a final supplementary question? 14:53 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Can the minister outline the next steps in securing the 2032 Olympics for Queensland? 14:53 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Thank you, Senator McGrath, for the question. While the IOC announcement was very welcome news, there remains a lot more work to be done to secure the 2032 Olympics and Paralympics for Australia and Queensland. The Australian government is continuing to work with the Queensland government, the South-East Queensland Council of Mayors, the Australian Olympic Committee and Paralympics Australia as the exclusive negotiations, or targeted dialogue, with the IOC occurs over the coming weeks and months. The targeted dialogue specifically addresses our capacity to host the 2032 Games and conveys our preferred host status. Only the South-East Queensland bid has this status. We are very clear that we must continue to work hard to outline our vision for a successful 2032 Olympics so that our bid can be successful when the winning bidders are announced later this year. Members of Parliament: Staff 45 14:55 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Today, despite repeated attempts by this government to undermine and delegitimise her experience, Ms Higgins spoke to thousands of women at the March 4 Justice and called for action. Will the Morrison government now stop shifting blame and listen to Ms Higgins? 14:55 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Indeed, the government respects very much the statements made by Ms Higgins. Can I say that I appreciate the engagement of quite a number of staff representatives and former staff in relation to the establishment of the independent review that the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Kate Jenkins, is undertaking on behalf of parliament in relation to parliamentary workplaces. The input made, both publicly and privately, by some of those former staff as well as current staff into the terms of reference and the nature and the conduct of that review is greatly valued. I now hope that the manner in which that review has been stood up can provide confidence to individuals to participate fully in the review process and to share their experiences, as the terms of reference invites them to do, to work with Ms Jenkins as she independently assesses recommendations that can be brought forward to the government and this parliament in terms of action to be taken. We have also, as an interim measure, put in place a new hotline to handle critical incidents and provided details to parliamentary staff, both current and former, in terms of their ability to use that service and to reach out to that service, which has staff who are equipped to handle trauma-counselling type matters. They have been trained and advised in relation to the referral services that are available such that they can assist in referral, be they for criminal matters through appropriate pathways with appropriate support, or be they for harassment, workplace bullying or other matters, which can be referred, again, appropriately through for investigation and assessment with appropriate support. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Walsh, a supplementary question? 14:57 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Today Ms Higgins spoke of watching the people she had dedicated her life to deny and downplay her experience in question time. The Minister for Women, Senator Payne, said: The only way it will change is if we as parliamentarians own the problems, own the failings and make the necessary changes. She repeated those comments today. Exactly when will the Morrison government listen to Australian women and own its failings? 14:58 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Well, indeed, we do. As Senator Payne has rightly said in both her International Women's Day address but also in question time today, we need to acknowledge that we all have a responsibility in relation to the many issues that have been raised over recent weeks, in particular. We have a responsibility to ensure that this place sets an example for the nation in terms of the type of workplace practices that are here. Workplace practices need to ensure, so far as possible, that we stamp out instances of bullying, sexual harassment or sexual assault, that we provide appropriate support services and investigatory services in support where such instances continue, and that we set an example in all of those processes, procedures and practices for others to follow. That's the type of work that I'm committed to supporting. I trust that Ms Jenkins, in the review she's undertaking, will deliver recommendations that assist us in that regard. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Walsh, a final supplementary question? 14:59 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria The Morrison government didn't listen to Ms Higgins when she needed support after the alleged rape, didn't listen when she went public with her experience; instead it called her a 'lying cow'. Even today they refused to listen when she spoke at their very doorstep. Why is the Morrison government refusing to listen to the voices of Australian women calling for justice? 14:59 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia We certainly are committed to supporting Ms Higgins and to cooperating and assisting with the police investigation which is underway as extensively and fully as we possibly can. The government has always been willing to cooperate and assist in relation to those investigations. We are also determined to continue our work in relation to the broader issues, not just those in the parliament that I've referenced in the previous two answers but those across the community more generally. I was asked earlier about the Respect@work report and we are implementing the first nine recommendations of that report. Many others apply to the private sector and we are working with the private sector on aspects of that. We are pursuing the implementation of those around training resources and we are seeking to make sure that there is a portal with information for employers and employees on how to eliminate and deal with sexual harassment. And there is the establishment of the Respect@Work Council, that I referenced before. We are committed to working on all these issues— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Birmingham. The time for the answer has expired. Senator Birmingham H6X I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 46 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Western Australia: Energy 46 15:01 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory I have an additional answer to a question on 25 February from Senator Roberts. The additional information is that the Western Australian government manages the WA electricity market. While it is not connected to the National Electricity Market, ensuring that all Australians have, affordable reliable power is a priority for this government. The Morrison government is focused on delivering policies that ensure that Australian families and businesses have access to the affordable, reliable power that they rely on. We want to ensure that there is a balance in the system, and that includes a range of technologies. Batteries have a role to play, alongside other technologies, like pumped hydro, coal and, of course, gas. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 46 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Question Nos 2026, 2027, 2029, 2030, 2031, 2045, 2051, 2052, 2053, 2055, 2059, 2065, 2066, 2072, 2077, 2078, 2272, 2357, 2358, 2426, 2427, 2972 46 15:02 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria Under standing order 74(5)(a) I rise to seek an explanation from the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. The unanswered portfolio questions are as follows: Nos 2026, 2027, 2029, 2030, 2031, 2045, 2051, 2052, 2053, 2055, 2059, 2065, 2066, 2072, 2077, 2078, 2272, 2357, 2358, 2426, 2427 and—at long last—2972. These questions have remained unanswered for some time and it's not just the problem of not answering those questions—of not providing responses to those questions on notice—there's a larger problem for the Prime Minister and his government. Clause 74 of the Senate standing orders provides that a minister has 30 days in which to provide an answer to a question. As at midday today, 15 March 2021, there are 22 overdue questions on notice lodged via the Table Office. The oldest of those is 151 days overdue. As an ardent question-on-notice lodger— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Senator Kitching, I might just remind you that you've listed the questions that remain unanswered. We need to seek a response from the minister and then you can take note of that response. Senator KITCHING 247512 I'm happy to seek a response. 15:03 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Kitching. I will be brief in my response. I thank Senator Kitching for some advance notice in line with the traditional courtesies on these matters. I understand that the questions relate to questions in the Prime Minister's portfolio. In the short time since the advice, I have sought to raise these issues with the Prime Minister's office. Together, we will have them tabled as soon as possible. 15:04 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the minister's answer. I thank the minister for his explanation. As at midday today, 15 March 2021, there are 22 overdue questions on notice lodged via the Table Office. I do hope that, given the oldest of these is 151 days overdue, the Prime Minister's office might see a way forward in responding as promptly as possible, given it has had so much time. I am an ardent question-on-notice lodger because I believe in the principle of government accountability and because I believe this government in particular is quite an unaccountable government in the history of governments of the Commonwealth, and this is one of the most flagrant disregards for the Senate and its standing orders that I have ever seen. Remember, we are all bound by those standing orders—except, it appears, the Prime Minister's office. The Prime Minister is meant to lead by example, an example that flows down to his ministers and his backbench, but this particular answer is more than five times over the mandated time frame set by this chamber for the return of answers. There's a clear pattern of disrespect and a lack of transparency and accountability by the Prime Minister, and, by extension, the minister representing him in this place, Senator Birmingham. Beyond my questions on notice, there are presently nine freedom-of-information requests lodged with the Prime Minister's office. These are under review with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner because all nine FOI requests were refused by the Prime Minister's office. This is an extract from a recent email sent to me by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner: As set out below, the OAIC continues to experience a year upon year increase in the number of IC review applications received. The OAIC's Annual Report 2019-20 indicates that there has been a focus on resolving matter which are over 12 months old: While the OAIC continues to face resourcing challenges in the FOI area, we implemented further process improvements and resolved more IC reviews during the reporting period than ever before. We achieved a 26% improvement, resolving 829 IC reviews in 2019-20. The significant increase in the number of applications after sustained increases in previous years, along with our focus on reducing the number of cases over 12 months old, meant we finalised 72% of IC reviews within 12 months, short of our target of 80%. As stated in the Annual Report, the OAIC continues to face challenges in the FOI area. The OAIC continues to see an increase in the number of new applications lodged which in turn impacts on the ability to finalise existing reviews. The percentage of matters finalised relates to all matters on hand and includes those finalised through our 'Intake and Early Resolution' processes. These processes often result in matters being withdrawn or closed on the basis of jurisdictional issues. As noted in the Annual Report, the OAIC received 1,066 IC review applications last financial year. We remain committed to finalising all IC reviews as quickly as possible. In doing so, we have been focused on resolving the oldest matters first. As you can see from the extract of that letter from the information commissioner to me that I've just read out, the OAIC, which is an independent umpire, is clearly starved of funding, and this would appear to be a deliberate move by the Morrison government to avoid accountability. I think that is a great shame. As some of you may know, and, Madam Deputy President Lines, you may know this as well, there has been a gold standard set in this building for constant evasion and masterly obfuscation by the Department of Parliamentary Services. But, as someone who has entered—I almost hate to say this—over 11,000 questions on notice over the life of this parliament alone, I have never seen a question on notice that's 151 days overdue. So what can you do in 151 days? If you're in Victoria, you can have a lockdown and a quarter. You can get more than halfway to Mars. You can walk nearly one-third of the way along the Great Wall of China. And you can easily walk from Melbourne to Cairns. That's what you can do in 151 days—except if you're the Prime Minister's office, which doesn't respond to questions on notice within the time frame that most other departments and agencies, most other portfolio ministers, manage to be able to do. This is disrespectful to the Australian people, who are paying all our salaries. They are paying the salaries of the people in the departments and agencies, and they are paying the salaries of the people in the Prime Minister's office. We had seen half a trillion dollars in debt well before coronavirus. The Australian people are going to be paying that debt for a long, long time, as will their children and probably their grandchildren as well. We would ask that the Prime Minister and his office respond to questions on notice. They do not get to remove themselves from this process. I would like them to answer those questions on notice. Australia is one of the oldest democracies in the world. We don't deserve a culture where there is a lack of transparency lest we believe the old adage—and I hate to say that this might actually be true—that the people who keep the most secrets have the most to hide. I would like those questions on notice answered. I would also like the FOIs dealt with as well, but one step at a time. This is a Prime Minister and a government that are not transparent about how they spend public money. This is a Prime Minister and a government that kept secrets about their plan to sack a quarter of this country's posties under the cover of a global health pandemic. But perhaps the biggest, deepest and darkest secret of this government is that which is keeping the member for Chisholm in the other place as a national security threat. Some here might know of the Federal Court documents in which our own domestic security agency, ASIO, made an adverse security assessment of Huifeng, known as 'Haha', Liu—no relation to the member for Chisholm, though they are close because he has donated money. If not for its serious security implications, we would put this story in the 'truly bizarre' pile—an ex-Chinese PLA soldier turned businessman nicknamed 'Haha' who doesn't speak English yet somehow becomes a go-to community representative and party donor for conservatives in this country. It almost reads like a John le Carre spy novel, except, when it comes to 'Haha', the joke is on all of us. Some members of the government have risked national security by courting donations from this man. In the case of the member for Chisholm, this just confirms more of what we already know. The member for Chisholm hasn't been disendorsed, but that's partly because of factional issues in Victoria. I would say that this is the deepest, darkest secret of this government. What happens when people don't respond, when the government isn't transparent, is you start to get people overriding the standing orders of this place, and that leads to bigger and darker problems for a government. All Australians deserve transparency and accountability from their government. Beyond unanswered questions on notice, the Senate seeks here today an answer to the following question above all: what exactly is this government trying to hide? Most of those who sit opposite were preselected on a mantra of small government that should not be running interference for those who seek to obfuscate and evade parliamentary scrutiny by refusing to answer questions on notice put to them by the Australian parliament. I would say that everyone opposite did face questions like that when they were preselected, but we've seen that they don't believe in what they tell their preselectors. I'm going to now go through some of these questions on notice that seem so difficult to answer: Can details be provided of all incoming guest of government visits, including costs, in 2018-19 and 2019-20. Now, not a very difficult question: 1. Please list the number of Freedom of Information Act requests ('FOI requests') received by the Department for the following years:    a. 2019-20 financial year; and    b. 2020-21 financial year to date. 2. For each year above, please provide: a. the number of FOI requests the Department granted in full; b. the number of FOI requests the Department granted in part; c. the number of FOI requests the Department refused in full; and d. the number of FOI requests the Department refused for practical reasons under the Freedom of Information Act. 3. For each year above, please also provide: a. the number of times the Department failed to make any decision on a FOI request within the 30 day statutory period— They must be very aware when they haven't met the time line requirements, so I wouldn't have thought that was a hard question— b. the number of times a request to the Department resulted in a practical refusal (ie no decision was made on the request). 4. For each year above, please also provide: a. the number of times the Department's FOI decisions have been appealed to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC); and b. the number of times has the OAIC overturned—in whole or in part—the Department's decision to refuse access to material. These are very simple requests for things that essentially are in a database but can't seem to be found—for, remember, nearly half a year. Here's another one: Please provide a list of all members of the Deregulation Taskforce Advisory Panel since its establishment, including the periods of their appointments. One might not have thought that was too difficult. Here's another one: Are members of the Deregulation Taskforce Advisory Panel entitled to any remuneration; if so, please provide a full breakdown of the remuneration to which each member is entitled. I wouldn't have thought that was hard either. With reference to a news article, 'Australia Post licensees and customers flood PM Scott Morrison with $5 notes', I asked: 1. How many $5 notes have been received in total. 2. How many $5 notes has the Prime Minister's Office in Parliament House received. 3. How many $5 notes has the Prime Minister's department received. 4. Have any $5 notes been received at any other locations. 5. Have any other denominations (including coins) been received:    a. can a breakdown and total value of these be provided. 6. Have any notes or coins in any currency other than Australian dollars (AUD) been received:    a. can a breakdown be provided …    b. in AUD, what is the total value (in the exchange rate on the day of the answer being provided). 7. What is being done with the money received; and if nothing, what will be done with the money received? This was in relation to post office franchisees saying that they would send $5 notes in in order to pay for the purchase of Cartier watches by the former managing director of Australia Post. This is another question: In relation to bonuses, short-term incentives, rewards or gifts - monetary or otherwise - awarded to any executive, employee, officer, contractor or any other person, can the quantum of expenditure be provided for each of the following periods for the portfolio (all departments, agencies, government appointed boards, boards and structures) : a. 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020; and b. 1 July 2020 to 10 December 2020. As you can see, Deputy President, these are not particularly difficult questions. A lot of that information will reside in databases or Word documents that people keep on their computers. It's just that, after 151 days, it seems that the Prime Minister's office cannot be bothered to answer these questions. As I have said before, the Prime Minister should be leading by example. It is a wonder that we're not having other ministers and other departments and agencies following the Prime Minister's example and paying no regard at all to the standing orders of the Senate. I know that there are some ministers in the other place who don't always act respectfully towards the Senate, but one might assume that, when one reaches the highest political office in the land, one might be able to follow some of the rules. It's not like they're short-staffed in there either. I would like the Minister representing the Prime Minister to take this response to his explanation on notice. I still don't really have a response, in fact, as to why it has taken 151 days. It's extraordinary really. But I'll leave it there. Question agreed to. Question Nos 2943, 2944, 2945, 2946, 2947, 2948, 2950, 2951, 2952, 2953, 2954, 2955, 2956, 2957, 2958, 2959, 2960, 2961, 2962, 2963, 2964, 2965, 2966, 2967, 2968, 2969, 2970 and 2971 49 15:18 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria Under standing order 74(5)(a), I rise to seek an explanation from the Minister representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services, Senator Ruston. Clause 74 of the Senate standing orders provides that a minister has 30 days in which to provide an answer to a question. As at midday today, 15 March 2021, there were 29 overdue questions on notice lodged by the Table Office, but I would point out that, at 9 am today, there were 125 outstanding questions on notice. Much like a primary school student, Minister Robert seems to be hurriedly doing his homework. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Are you putting the list of the outstanding questions? Senator KITCHING 247512 The portfolio question numbers are as follows: 2943, 2944, 2945, 2946, 2947, 2948, 2950, 2951, 2952, 2953, 2954, 2955, 2956, 2957, 2958, 2959, 2960, 2961, 2962, 2963, 2964, 2965, 2966, 2967, 2968, 2969, 2970 and 2971. 15:20 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Thank you, Senator Kitching, for your question. Across the whole of the Social Services portfolio more than 500 questions on notice have been lodged for response, and many of them have had quite complex data and analysis requirements. We've also attended numerous COVID committee hearings and responded to an additional approximately 80 questions on notice as a result of attendance at that committee. As part of the response to the COVID committee, the department, across both portfolio areas, agreed to provide comprehensive fortnightly datasets to the committee to ensure that we were providing information in the most timely way possible to assure transparency and to ensure that the information was available for anybody to see. I understand that, as a general rule, my department is regularly on time with questions on notice; however, with the COVID environment as it has been over the past 12 months, there has been a significant increase in the amount of information that has been sought from the departments that sit within the Social Services portfolio. We obviously are very keen to be able to provide the necessary information to this place and to ministers who ask questions on notice, so, in requesting that information, we thought the provision of fortnightly datasets and the like would be of assistance, but, Senator, I will certainly take the request that you've provided in relation to ensuring that the remainder of the questions that are still on notice and are yet to be answered are answered and are tabled as soon as possible. 15:22 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria Thank you, Minister Ruston, for your response. I move: That the Senate take note of the minister's failure to provide either answers or an explanation. I have to say that this department is doing better than the Prime Minister's office and the Prime Minister's own department. They really lead by very poor example. This department isn't anywhere near the Prime Minister's office, it being 151 days overdue. These are slightly less than that. I am going to refer to the answers that were provided by the minister this morning. This morning the minister returned a single answer for 98 questions that were overdue, and I'll read you the answer: The Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Government Services meets with a range of government and community stakeholders on a regular basis. Providing a response to this series of ninety-eight Parliamentary questions on notice (2833 to 2930) would be an unreasonable diversion of resources. How can it be an unreasonable diversion of resources to tell the Senate that Minister Robert has actually been doing nothing? Let me read you an example of one of these 98 questions that were responded to this morning with that 'it would be an unreasonable diversion of resources'. My question was: Can details of all official duties undertaken by Minister Robert on 5 July 2020 be provided. But apparently that's an unreasonable diversion of resources. To answer that, I would hope that the minister or his office kept a diary somewhere. The reason I'm asking this is that the minister claimed travel allowance, so he should want to answer that question because it would prove that he was actually doing something to claim the travel allowance. I think that he would want to answer every one of those 98 questions and that someone in his office would keep his diary and could tell what he was doing that day, for which he has claimed travel allowance. Senator Ruston interjecting— Senator KITCHING 247512 I'll take that interjection. I'm not yelling at you, Senator Ruston. You are the representing minister here. If you could, convey to Minister Robert that he might like to respond to some of these questions for his own benefit. While we're on the subject of Minister Robert—and I'll keep in mind standing order 193(3)—I can't really go past robodebt. Let's look at Minister Robert and what he did there, to see what a wonderful exemplar of a minister he's been. Robodebt is not just a failure of this government to provide for Australia's most vulnerable but an example of this government's agenda to punish people who need support the most. I think we're a pretty lucky country here, and we should share that luck. It should not suit more affluent people in a society to want other people to be downtrodden. We don't want great disparity in societies, I think. Robodebt was an example, really, of trying to degrade people who actually need support. Robodebt, of course, was a plan cooked up by the Prime Minister when he was Minister for Social Services and carried on by his former flatmate Minister Robert. In order to build the illusion of a budget surplus, in 2015 the then social services minister and now Prime Minister, the member for Cook, put together a plan to raise unlawful debts using a Centrelink robot that calculated debt using unreliable averaged ATO data. It wrought terrible destruction on some of the community's most vulnerable. More than 2,000 people died after receiving robodebt notices. Thousands more dealt with the stress of debt collectors and the shame of wrongly being called a thief. One point two billion dollars of taxpayers' money—$1.2 billion!—was spent in settling a class action. The Prime Minister expanded the scheme when he became Treasurer and now refuses to take responsibility with a robodebt royal commission. The government ignored at least 70, if not more, AAT decisions spelling out robodebt's illegality. In November 2019 the government admitted it was unlawful and paused the scheme. Even then they continued to fight robodebt appeals at the AAT—there's nothing like throwing good money after bad—and they've failed to deliver on their promise to refund victims of the scheme, with 3,000 dead people's estates still owed robodebt refunds. As the minister responsible for the NDIS, the member for Fadden has also overseen widespread neglect and misery. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a vital national service, but after seven years of this government it has been slashed and mismanaged to such an extent that people are now dying of neglect in their homes. In early 2020 it was revealed that, over three years, 1,200 Australians with a disability had died while waiting to be funded for the scheme. Imagine that you're a person with a disability, you hear of this scheme and you think it's something the government is doing to help you, yet you are one of 1,200 Australians with a disability who will die before they are funded by this scheme, which was brought in supposedly to help them. Minister Robert denied anyone had died waiting, even though this was cold, hard data provided by the National Disability Insurance Agency. Since then, reports have emerged of NDIS participants who have died due to the failure of the government to properly oversee the scheme and the providers that deliver its services. One of these Australians was Ann Marie Smith. Ann Marie Smith was a 54-year-old Adelaide NDIS participant who died on 6 April of severe septic shock, multiorgan failure, severe pressure sores, malnutrition and issues connected with her cerebral palsy, after being confined to a cane chair 24 hours a day for more than a year. Imagine sitting in a cane chair 24 hours a day for more than a year. Just pause and imagine that. Ann Marie Smith's NDIS package included six hours of support per day. Reports are that she received only two hours of care per day and had not been outside her house in years. How could she? She was in her cane chair 24 hours a day. Ann Marie's terrible demise is nothing short of a tragedy. She should be alive and thriving. Instead, she was neglected and abandoned and she died in the most terrible and degrading circumstances. Ann Marie Smith died after years of neglect on 6 April 2020. A year on, and the government still hasn't taken any tangible steps to stop something like this from happening again. Another victim of this government's and Minister Robert's neglect is David Harris. NDIS participant David Harris was dead in his Parramatta unit for two months before his body was discovered by police. After he was found by authorities, his grieving sister, who is based interstate, learned David's NDIS funding had been cut off because he missed an annual review meeting. This meant cleaners and other NDIS funded supports stopped visiting the 55-year-old, who was schizophrenic, diabetic, incontinent and in need of regular injections. How many Australians with a disability must die in their homes before Minister Robert admits that there is a problem? The minister and his office have also been briefing out to a journalist that he will become Australia's next Minister for Home Affairs. That is what his office is briefing out to journalists upstairs. What he really should do is concentrate on the portfolio he has now and fix the problems in this system. No-one wants another Ann Marie Smith. No-one wants another David Harris. Yet, as I stand here talking today, I bet there's another Ann Marie Smith. I bet there's another David Harris who, because of some bureaucratic bungling, is not receiving the support they need, even though they may well be an NDIS participant. There are certain things that people say that aren't great about the Gold Coast, but I'm afraid that Minister Robert probably exemplifies some of those more terrible characteristics of the Gold Coast. An honourable senator interjecting— Senator KITCHING 247512 The white shoe brigade! And, like any grifter, Minister Robert wants to move on to his next victim, which seems to be the Department of Home Affairs. He'd really like to move on to Defence, I hear, where he'd be given the opportunity to grift with defence contractors, but I'm sure the Prime Minister is willing to put him in charge at some point. But, for people who rely on some level of support provided by our social welfare system and for those living with a disability who just want a life of dignity like any other Australian, Minister Robert cannot in good conscience be left where he is. I'm going to read out some of the questions on notice that I put in, and the chamber can judge for itself whether these are really difficult questions on notice or if they could have been answered some time ago, within the 30 days as provided by the standing orders, or whether there's some excuse for Minister Robert to be taking more time and delaying these questions on notice. In the 2017-18 financial year, how many new National Disability Insurance Scheme providers were registered? This is not a hard question. With reference to the figure to be provided to question A above, how many new NDIS providers were registered within 30 days of lodgement? Obviously, this is to see whether there is efficiency within the department. With reference to the figure to be provided to question A above, how many new NDIS providers were registered within 30 days of lodgement without additional information or documents being requested from an applicant? With reference to the figure to be provided to question A above, how many new NDIS providers were registered within 60 days of lodgement? I'm not going to read through, but I wanted to know 60 days, 90 days, 120 days, 150 days, 200 days, 250 days and 300 days. If it took 300 days to lodge a new NDIS provider as we understand it, I wanted to know how many of those there were. Now, I've asked up to how many new NDIS providers were registered within 400 days of lodgement without additional information or documents being requested from an applicant, because my understanding is that, as it takes longer for an NDIS provider to be registered, that means there are people in the community who should be on the NDIS but cannot actually get to an NDIS provider. That's why we want this information. I asked that for 2018, 2019, from July 2020 to 31 December 2020 and as at 5 February as well. These are not difficult questions; these are questions that are in a database that the department will hold. I want these questions answered. For example, can a current organisational chart for the National Disability Insurance Scheme Quality and Safeguards Commission be provided? Apparently it takes longer than 30 days to find an org chart. That's what I'm after. I still don't have an answer to that, and I have no idea how long it is going to take to get an org chart. Senator Wong interjecting— Senator KITCHING 247512 I'll take Senator Wong's interjection. It's a secret org chart. I would also like information on the historical status of registered providers and the dates of registration. Apparently, they're also very difficult questions. Apparently, some of this information isn't available. I'm happy to share with Senator Ruston why I'm asking for this—to understand what the NDIS is providing and where the gaps are for people in the community who should be on the NDIS. That's why I am asking these questions. It's not out of idle curiosity. I would like these questions responded to. It has been over 30 days, as provided by the standing orders. I would really appreciate it if Senator Ruston would speak with Minister Robert and ask him to respond as quickly as he is able. I take Senator Ruston's point that during COVID they have been regularly providing information. Obviously the departments have been busy. I'm a reasonable person. I do expect these questions to be answered. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 52 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS March 4 Justice, Members of Parliament: Staff, Attorney-General 52 15:36 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women (Senator Payne) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Birmingham) to questions without notice asked by Senators Wong, Gallagher and Walsh relating to the treatment of women. Today more than 100,000 women and men attended rallies in 36 different locations across the country. My mum was one of them. She attended a march in Lismore. My mum has been waiting for a long time. She sang along to Helen Reddy's anthem 'I am woman' in the 1970s. I won't say that I didn't tear up a little when I arrived at the march on the lawns here and heard that song being played. I realised how long so many Australian women have waited for equality and have waited to be heard. Women of all generations are tired of not being listened to. They are frustrated that, after decades of fighting for equality, we are still facing the same problems and are still hearing the same stories again and again. We have had enough of sexism. We have had enough of sexual harassment. We have had enough of violence against women and their children. We have had enough of sexual assault. We have had enough of rape. We have had enough of not being safe or valued in our workplaces. We have had enough of inequality and discrimination. Women today were saying that they will no longer be silent and will no longer be silenced. One in five women over the age of 15 has experienced sexual assault. Over the last five years, 40 per cent of women have experienced sexual harassment at work. Ms Brittany Higgins appeared today and gave a brave speech to a crowd who wanted to hear her voice. She said, 'To see real progress we must seek it out.' She made the point that time is on the side of perpetrators because the status quo is the friend of the perpetrators. While there is no action, no progress, no urgency and no ambition there are no costs and no consequences to the perpetrators all across Australian workplaces. The frustration and the anger that so many Australian women are feeling right now is because we have been fighting for equality and for respect for a very long time. It would be good to know that there is a government that is listening, a government that's capable of approaching the task of reform, change and progress with ambition and urgency. As a government in its eighth year, there has been plenty of time and plenty of opportunities for this government to take that project on. This is a government that inherited the first-ever National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, established under Prime Minister Gillard. But it was a Labor project left languishing for the entire period of this government. When I was appointed to this portfolio, I sought through estimates to find out what was happening with the initiatives in this plan. It took months—months and months and months—to get an update. It was unclear who was in charge of the national plan. Was it Senator Ruston? Was it Senator Payne? They didn't seem to know; certainly, no-one in the department even had a spreadsheet that could be provided easily to a senator asking questions about implementation of this national document to tackle violence against women and children. There is no urgency, there is no commitment and there appears to be very little interest in these issues from this government, universally. It's not surprising to me that the level of curiosity about the claims being made on government today is so low—so low that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Women couldn't even do these marchers the courtesy of going down to the lawns and listening with respect; listening to the victims and survivors who once again told their stories and talked about what it meant to them to have been silenced but now to speak. I don't understand why the Prime Minister didn't attend that march and I don't understand why Minister Payne sat in this chamber. I simply don't understand it, but I will say this: Australian women are saying that enough is enough and that we expect more. 15:41 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Firstly, I acknowledge Senator McAllister's contribution. It was impossible not to feel the passion of her address and also the pride which she had for her mother attending the march in Lismore. I do acknowledge that deeply. I think we need to be fair to Minister Payne. I was actually in this chamber, giving a speech in relation to the bill on academic freedom and freedom of speech, and Minister Payne was actually attending the chamber, discharging her duties as a minister of this government. Whilst I have heard reflections cast upon senators for not being in this place at certain times, which is considered disorderly, I must say that this is the first time I've heard reflections being cast on a senator for actually being in this place and doing their job. I've known Senator Payne for over 30 years. She is an extraordinarily decent person who cares deeply about these issues. I think that anyone who, with a fair and reasonable mind, looked at Senator Payne's background, her advocacy on these issues and other issues of great social consequence could not come to a conclusion other than the fact that Senator Payne is extraordinarily sincere and committed to doing what can be done in relation to addressing the issues raised by Senator McAllister. Certainly, in the context of budget estimates, I've admired how Senator Payne, wearing her Minister for Women hat, has addressed issues and questions which have been put to her by members from all parties in relation to the discharge of her ministerial responsibilities. In particular, I congratulate the minister with respect to her dedication to promoting the cause of women across the Pacific region. In relation to the accusation levelled at our Prime Minister that he could not make time to meet the people who convened in their march on this place: I think it's important that we quote what the Prime Minister has said in relation to that matter and that it's on the public record. To quote the Prime Minister: I haven't had a habit of going out to do any marches when they've come to Canberra … But I'm very happy to receive a delegation and I'll respectfully receive that, as I'm sure they will respectfully engage with me. The reality is the Prime Minister has adopted a course of conduct where he does not engage outside the parliament with marchers, whatever the cause, but he made a sincere invitation to a delegation to come and meet with him, and also with Senator Payne, in relation to the matters of concern. I think that's a fair and reasonable position for our Prime Minister to adopt. There have been some other comments made during the course of this debate which I think senators need to carefully reflect upon. Certainly comments in relation to the Attorney-General and the description with respect to the call for independent inquiries into the matters that were the subject of a criminal investigation, which has been closed, I think bear extraordinarily close scrutiny. The fact of the matter is—and this is my view and certainly the view of other members of my legal profession whom I've discussed this with—it would be extraordinarily problematic to embark on an independent inquiry, the heart of which goes to matters which were the subject of a criminal complaint. That is simply a reality of the situation. It is problematic, and I think those opposite should at least acknowledge the fact that these are extraordinarily difficult issues and that there is a legitimate view that having an independent inquiry into matters which have been the subject of a criminal investigation which has closed, especially when the allegations are more than three decades old, is a difficult proposition. That certainly has been argued by such eminent lawyers as Arthur Moses SC, who was president of the New South Wales Bar Association and the Australian Law Council. 15:46 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales My heart is fairly beating out of my chest at this point in time. I've got four minutes and 52 seconds to make some comments about what's going on here today. And I can tell you it is nowhere near enough time to put on the record the disgrace of what has happened in this parliament and what has happened around this country for far too long. There were questions asked today—and I accept that Senate Scarr's doing his job of trying to defend his government, but it is hard to accept when you defend the indefensible. Today we heard from Minister Payne, who should be standing up for women, who should be standing up with women today, outside this parliament—thousands and thousands of us across the country, with good men—and saying, 'Enough is enough. It's time for change,' and she chose to be in here, instead of with the Australian people. That is an indication of how out of touch this government is with the reality of what's happening to women. I've been in this chamber and I've spoken about sexual harassment that's going on in businesses across this country. I spoke for AMP Annie, whose voice was robbed of her. We're sick and tired of our voices being taken by people and silenced in the platitudinous words that we heard today from those who dared to stand and say, 'We didn't go outside, because they didn't want to meet us on our terms.' That's what the government said today. That's what Senator Payne said. That's what the Prime Minister said. 'They would not meet me on my terms inside this place where I have overseen rape.' They won't acknowledge that adequately. And today they showed that they are not up for the change that is needed to rid us of this cancer—the cancer in this building and across this nation. Today Michele O'Neil, a fine Australian unionist—a union is a very, very powerful part of democracy, and this union is led by two remarkable women—commenced her speech and spoke about the pad foot, the sound of men's feet approaching as a young girl lies under the covers. I was reminded of what it was like when I was 10 years old and I was at a party and I heard that sound. Thank God I had enough education from my parents to be aware of it and to get up and get out of the way of sexual assault—as a 10-year-old! Let me tell you what's gone on for me in the last few weeks, like all these women across the country. I thought I'd packaged up a lot of the rubbish that I've had to take from men. I thought I'd put a lot of it away, in the boxes where I leave it littered behind me. I thought it was gone. But so much of it has come up, and this is what's happening to women across this country. It is a deep, wild and angry rage. I've had men in this parliament—parliamentarians—yell out at me, as I'm walking along the corridor, 'Hey, sexy legs, how's it going!' When did that get sanctioned? When is that okay? It's never okay—Senator Scarr, you're right—and there are decent men. But there are too many who are not decent, and there are too many leading this government, both men and women, who are in the business of shutting this thing down, of silencing women. Well, we will not be silenced. I've got one minute and 24 seconds. Do you want to hear more about what it's like, from the age of 12 or 13, when your breasts start to grow, to have men want to grope you? Do you want to hear what it's like to be in a workplace where, because you're a woman, you're fair game for any comment, any day, and where you learn to laugh it off with the blokes, because that's the only way you're considered tough enough for an Australian workplace? Well, that is not good enough. I will not stand for it. Women of Australia will not stand for this any longer. It's got to be done. I can hear, from the very quiet, careful and controlled comments from Senator Birmingham, that this government is going to hide behind the words 'due process', 'procedures', 'strategies' and 'planning'. Well, we've heard all that before. We've heard it over and over and over, and it's not enough. It was never enough. It's not going to be enough. It's time for wholesale change. I don't want my daughters to continue to put up posts on the Me Too page about things that break my heart. I'm going to be a grandmother in two months, and I want the child who's born in the next two months to live in a different kind of Australia, but this government is not up to the task. (Time expired) 15:52 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I will start by reflecting in the same way that Senator Scarr did, reflecting on those who have made contributions—Senator McAllister and Senator O'Neill. And I join with them in recognising the deep importance of addressing these serious issues that, sadly, too many workplaces in Australia are challenged by. Everyone deserves to be able to come to work and to work in a safe environment—everyone. Our national parliament ought to be and should aim to be the model workplace that all other workplaces could model themselves on. All political parties and those who work in Parliament House have a role to play in ensuring that we achieve this. The government has taken some very significant steps. But, sadly, I don't seem to see the recognition of those steps that have been taken. I actually welcomed the fact that initially there was some real bipartisanship in getting on board and making sure that the independent processes that need to be put in place are there. The government has taken significant steps in the past few weeks to address the concerns raised by current and former staff and by parliamentarians, and I'll take you through those. It's why we've established an independent and confidential 24/7 telephone service to support current and former Commonwealth ministerial, parliamentary and electorate office staff and those who have experienced serious incidents in any Commonwealth parliamentary workplace. It's why this government has announced an independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces, which will be led by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Kate Jenkins, and work is also underway by Stephanie Foster, the deputy secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I don't know Stephanie personally, but I sit on the Finance and Public Administration Committee and she often presents in front of estimates. Having sat through that and watched how she conducts herself, we know that she is a thoroughly independent person. She is a very professional person and somebody who I am confident will do an outstanding job in the work that she has been tasked to do, which is to assist and advise the Prime Minister on how to improve the processes that are necessary to support people—in particular, staff—when serious matters arise. Everyone has the right to protest and to raise their voice. These are serious issues, and the whole parliament is working through the response to the concerns that have been raised. I recognise the importance of the stated aims of those who marched on the steps of Parliament House today, out there on the lawns. I encourage those who were part of that, and the organisers, please, to take up the offer that was provided by the Prime Minister in good faith to sit down and listen so that he can hear from them and so that a genuine discussion can take place. That's what's needed here. I welcome the exercise of free speech by those who were outside. It's appropriate that we engage with these issues, just like we had the debate on the bill around freedom of speech on campus prior to question time. The freedom to express and be able to deal with issues in a free and appropriate way is of course very important. We will continue to work with those opposite and anyone in this place to proceed with this independent review into the issues that Ms Higgins has claimed happened, and also the culture in this workplace. I hope that this issue doesn't continue to be politicised. It would be disappointing, but the risks are present when those opposite seem to exploit the trauma that has been caused. We have to focus on what is necessary to move forward. (Time expired) 15:57 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria When the government became aware of the assault on Brittany Higgins in this place two years ago they had one job, and that was to listen—to listen to her and to help her speak out. When the story of the assault on Brittany Higgins broke just a few weeks ago, the government still had one job: to listen and to help her speak out. When the story of the allegations against the Attorney-General broke, the government again had one job: to listen to the story of the woman we now know was called Kate and to hear her story. In the era of Grace Tame, who had to launch a campaign called 'Let Her Speak' to be heard, in the era when one in five women in this country will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime, in the era when that figure is so much worse for women of colour, in the era when one woman is murdered a week by a man she knows, and in this era when sexual violence against women is at epidemic proportions, the government has one job: to listen and, by listening, to send a powerful message to all victims-survivors of sexual assault—to tell them that they too will be heard. It's to tell women around the country that their voices will be respected and that they will be believed. It will tell the women of Australia that their government gets it, that their government understands the shared experience of every woman—whether that experience is the relentless comments, the looks, the words or being spoken over when you have something to say, or whether it's the abuse, the violence, the sexual assault or the murder. The government has had just one job in all of this, and that is to listen—to listen to women and to let them know that their own government has their backs. It is because this government has refused to listen that the women of Australia have taken to the streets today all around the country. It's because, instead of listening, on every occasion this government has rolled out its political machine to silence women from speaking up. This is what Brittany Higgins said she was faced with two years ago, a political machine that made her choose between speaking out and keeping her job. And, this year, when she found her voice, the government moved to discredit her. The Prime Minister himself used victim-blaming language, drawing attention to what he called the vulnerable position she found herself in instead of taking aim at the alleged perpetrator and sending a message to perpetrators that it is they who will be held to account for raping women, not women who will be held to account for speaking out. The Prime Minister himself showed his complete lack of understanding of the epidemic of violence against women in this country when he had to ask his own wife what to do. This year, when the friends of Kate found their voices on her behalf and presented a 30-page dossier of allegations against the Attorney-General, the government moved again to silence Kate. The Prime Minister didn't even read the allegations. He didn't even read them. He didn't read them before he declared that he had asked the Attorney-General if it was true. He said no and that was the end of it. Well, the women of Australia have shown today that this is not the end of it. We have seen today that this is not the end of anything. What we have seen today is the women of Australia saying loudly and clearly that enough is enough. There is a rawness and a rage in our country today, because the women of Australia have had enough. They've had enough of being silenced, enough of being disrespected and enough of seeing machines roll out against them when they try to speak up. There is a conversation going on today about violence against women, and it is getting louder. It's in our schools. It's in our workplaces. It's in the corridors of this very building. It's in the streets. The only people who are choosing not to be part of that conversation are the government, the Morrison government, the very people who should be leading the way. Question agreed to. National Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces 56 16:02 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given to me by Senator Birmingham. I just want to firstly thank everyone who has spoken today and everyone who took the time to go to the March 4 Justice today right across the country. There were a good 100,000 people—men, women, people of all genders, young people, people of colour, people who held some fabulous signs and people who spoke with such courage, grace and strength. It was a moment that was incredibly uplifting and enraging all at once. So firstly my deep gratitude goes to those who have spoken out on these issues. But the Prime Minister didn't go along to the rally today. I asked Senator Birmingham, who represents the Prime Minister in this chamber, why on earth not? Some people had come from miles away to be at the march today and the Prime Minister wouldn't even find 10 minutes in his diary to walk out and listen to them. I listened to the speakers. There were many people from other political parties that were there listening as well. There were powerful words. The Prime Minister should have been there. He should have been listening to those speakers and he should listen to women full stop. He didn't do that. I am very disappointed that the Minister for Women was not at the rally today either. It sadly speaks volumes. Once again, I commend the strength of all those who spoke at the march today. I tabled a petition that 70,000 people had signed. One of the asks of that petition was for some action on a now 14-month-old report that the Sex Discrimination Commissioner prepared and tabled last year about sexual harassment in all workplaces. It's called Respect@work. There are 55 recommendations. My question to the government was: how many of those recommendations are you acting on? At the very end of the time to answer that question, I got a sort of response. Minister Birmingham said, 'A number of those recommendations.' Well, I want all of them acted on. The women of Australia deserve to have all of those recommendations adopted and implemented, and it's not good enough to use a pandemic as an excuse to not progress gender equality. You've progressed an awful lot of other dastardly policies. You've found time to do that, but you haven't found time to keep women safe and you haven't found time to bring in a federal corruption watchdog. You've used the pandemic as an excuse not to do the things you don't want to do—for shame. I then asked about the Prime Minister's ministerial standards. You wouldn't really know it, but there are meant to be some standards. They're written in a document. They're not actually used, in my view, but they are written down. They say that ministers are meant to act with integrity, accountability and in the public interest, and they even foresee the Prime Minister conducting an independent inquiry when it looks like maybe those standards have not been met. So there is a process that could be used by the Prime Minister to look at whether his minister, Minister Porter, is in fact acting with integrity, accountability and in the public interest. Instead, we get this absolute nonsense from the Prime Minister and some of his other lackeys that it would be against the rule of law to have such an inquiry. Nobody believes that. That is the most ridiculous assertion we've ever heard. An investigation under the Prime Minister's ministerial standards about whether the Attorney-General is a fit person to remain in that role is a separate question to the investigation of the alleged rape by police and other authorities. The two can happen simultaneously, or they could happen, except of course the woman took her own life. We know that, sadly, the justice system is misnamed for so many people who seek justice and are denied it, including Kate. We've had this nonsense about the rule of law, saying that an independent investigation isn't possible. That didn't stop the High Court. It doesn't stop the private sector. It didn't stop the Law Council. It didn't stop sporting clubs. There is so much precedent for having an independent inquiry. There is specific mention of the ability to do so in the Prime Minister's ministerial standards, but he continues to refuse to uphold those standards. I thought it was terrible timing and another insult to women that Minister Porter chose today to sue Louise Milligan and ABC for running the Four Corners episode which alluded to the fact that he had some serious questions to answer. Today, of all days, when women are hitting the streets asking to be heard and listened to, Minister Porter wants to silence them with a defamation action, which the Prime Minister may or may not have asked for. Minister Birmingham didn't think so, but it wasn't entirely clear. Do better. The women of Australia have had enough. We are sick of this government, we are sick of the patriarchy and we're coming for you. Question agreed to. NOTICES 57 NOTICES Presentation 57 Presentation 60 16:07 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I give notice that on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings: Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Early Childhood Education and Care Coronavirus Response and Other Measures) Bill 2021 Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Bill 2020 Industrial Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2020 Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (General) Bill 2020 Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (Customs) Bill 2020 Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (Excise) Bill 2020 Industry Research and Development Amendment (Industry Innovation and Science Australia) Bill 2021 National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020 Online Safety Bill 2021 Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Age of Dependants) Bill 2021 Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021 Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2021 Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No.1) Bill 2021 Work Health and Safety Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2021 I table a statement of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows— STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2021 AUTUMN SITTINGS FAMILY ASSISTANCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE MEASURES) BILL Purpose of the Bill The bill will support the Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) sector and families in need of child care during the COVID-19 pandemic and other emergencies that have a significant adverse effect on the sector. The bill will provide certainty about the operation of the ECEC Relief Package and continued access to child care subsidy (CCS) during times of crisis, including through enhanced flexibility in financial support and amelioration of requirements in the family assistance law that are inappropriate when the market for provision of child care has been significantly disrupted. Reasons for Urgency Passage of the bill by the end of the 2021 Autumn sittings is required to ensure amendments to the family assistance law are implemented in time to mitigate the adverse effects of that law on the ECEC sector and families as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, the automatic recovery of business continuity payments made during the ECEC Relief Package, the automatic cessation of children's enrolment in child care, and the cancellation of CCS for families that have not been able to lodge income tax returns. The amendments respond to the evolving impacts of and issues highlighted by COVID-19 on the ECEC sector and families and provide certainty to child care providers, enable IT system enhancements and provide further support to families using child care. (Circulated by authority of the Minister for Education and Youth) STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2021 AUTUMN SITTINGS INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (REGISTER) BILL 2020 INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (REGISTER) CHARGE (GENERAL BILL) 2020 INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (REGISTER) CHARGE (CUSTOMS BILL) 2020 INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (REGISTER) CHARGE (EXCISE BILL) 2020 INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2020 Purpose of the Bill The Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Bill 2020 (ICEMR Bill) would establish a national framework to manage the ongoing use, handing and disposal of industrial chemicals, in order to reduce the impacts on the environment and limit people's exposure to potentially harmful industrial chemicals. The Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (General) Bill 2020, Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (Customs) Bill 2020 and the Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (Excise) Bill 2020 (collectively referred to as the ICEMR Charges Bills) would provide a framework for applying cost recovery charges. This would allow the Commonwealth's costs of administering the framework in the ICEMR Bill to be appropriately recovered. These charges would be called scheduling charges. The Industrial Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2020 is a companion bill to the ICEMR Bill. It would make a number of consequential amendments to the Industrial Chemicals Act 2019 to ensure the scheduling charge can be collected alongside the registration charge already collected under the framework of that Act. Reasons for Urgency The ICEMR legislation gives effect to intergovernmental agreements between the states and territories and the Commonwealth Government. The passage of the bills is necessary to enable the establishment of the National Standard for the environmental risk management of industrial chemicals. State and territory governments are anticipating the passage of the ICEMR legislation and are preparing to implement scheduling decisions that will be made once the ICEMR legislation is in force. If the Bills are not passed in the Autumn sitting period, this will delay the implementation of the National Standard in all Australian jurisdictions, including the Commonwealth. This may undermine current momentum with states and territories for delivery of the reforms. (Circulated by authority of the Minister for the Environment) STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2021 AUTUMN SITTINGS INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (INDUSTRY, INNOVATION AND SCIENCE AUSTRALIA) BILL Purpose of the Bill The Bill amends the Act to rename the independent statutory board known as 'Innovation and Science Australia' (ISA) to 'Industry Innovation and Science Australia' (IISA), and to make consequential amendments to other legislation as a consequence of the name change. There are no financial implications, nor does it have any other effect than the name change. Reasons for Urgency The change in name was announced in the lead-up to the 2020-21 Budget and is already in effect in practice. It is therefore important to ensure that this aligns with the legislative descriptor for this statutory board - as inconsistencies could cause confusion amongst stakeholders. The Prime Minister has also requested that this change be achieved as a matter of urgency. (Circulated by authority of the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2021 AUTUMN SITTINGS NATIONAL CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION AMENDMENT (SUPPORTING ECONOMIC RECOVERY) BILL Purpose of the Bill The reforms in the Bill will reduce the time and cost associated with the provision of credit by removing responsible lending obligations for products other than small amount credit contracts and consumer leases. This will provide greater flexibility to lenders in adhering to principles of 'prudent' lending. Borrowers will benefit from reduced application times and the need to provide information to lenders. The Bill's amendments to the Credit Act enhance the consumer protection framework for consumers of small amount credit contracts and consumer leases, while ensuring these products can continue to fulfil an important role in the economy. Reasons for Urgency These reforms are required as soon as possible so that consumers can continue to spend and business can invest and create jobs as the economy recovers from the economic impact of the COVID-19 crisis. The Bill's amendments to the Credit Act are required as soon as possible to provide regulatory certainty for Australian consumers. (Circulated by authority of the Treasurer) STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2021 AUTUMN SITTINGS ONLINE SAFETY BILL ONLINE SAFETY (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL Purpose of the Bills The bills will create a modem, fit-for-purpose regulatory framework for online safety that harnesses the strengths of the existing arrangements and holds industry to account for the safety of their products and services. Reasons for Urgency Passage in the 2021 Autumn parliamentary sittings is necessary to introduce a new regulatory framework for illegal and harmful content - extending the reach and scope of the eSafety Commissioner's powers and making industry more accountable and transparent in relation to their efforts to keep users safe on their services. The measures in the bills will enhance the protections from online harms for all Australians, including a new scheme to address adult cyber abuse. While children are particularly vulnerable to online harms such as cyberbullying, increasingly and prominently adults are facing abuse and hate campaigns online. The most serious forms of abuse are disproportionately targeting women and minority groups, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the LGBTIQ+ community, people with mental health issues or people living with a disability. This kind of targeted abuse serves to silence certain voices and discourages engagement online. Online trolling also has a negative impact on the economy (estimated at $4 billion) due to lost income and medical expenses. Passage of the bills will send a strong message that the online world is not an ungoverned space. (Circulated by authority of the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2021 AUTUMN SITTINGS PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (AGE OF DEPENDANTS) BILL 2021 Purpose of the Bill The Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Age of Dependants) Bill 2021 amends the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 to increase the maximum age of dependents for private health insurance policies from 24 to 3 I years and remove the age limit for dependents with a disability. The bill is part of the Government's commitment to ensuring private health insurance is affordable and provides value for money for consumers. Reasons for Urgency If the bill is not passed in the 2021 Autumn sittings, then insurers will not have the option to offer young people, families and people with a disability access to more affordable private health insurance products from 1 April 2021, as announced by the Government in the 2020-21 Budget. Private health insurers also require certainty from passage of the bill, to undertake product and systems changes, as well as communicate to customers. (Circulated by authority of the Minister for Health and Aged Care) STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2021 AUTUMN SITTINGS SOCIAL SERVICES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (STRENGTHENING INCOME SUPPORT) BILL 2021 Purpose of the Bill The bill will permanently increase the maximum basic rates of working age social security payments by $50 per fortnight and permanently increase the ordinary income-free area for jobseeker payment, youth allowance (other), parenting payment (partnered) and related payments to $150 per fortnight. The bill will also extend, from 1 April to 30 June 2021: the criteria for a person to qualify for youth allowance (other) or jobseeker payment in circumstances where the person is in quarantine or self-isolation or caring for a family member or household member in quarantine or self-isolation due to COVID-19; the waiver of the ordinary waiting period for jobseeker payment and youth allowance (other); discretion to extend the portability period for certain age pensioners and recipients of the disability support pension (for severely disabled persons) unable to return to, or depart from, Australia within 26 weeks due to the impact of COVID-19. Reasons for urgency This bill must be passed before current temporary COVID-19 measures end on 31 March 2021. If this bill is not passed in the 2021 Autumn sittings, permanent increases to maximum basic rates of payment and income-free areas will not begin to be paid on 1 April 2021 and all temporary COVID-19 arrangements will cease on 31 March 2021, which will mean the Government is unable to provide increased social security support to individuals into the future. (Circulated by authority of the Minister for Families and Social Services) STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2021 AUTUMN SITTINGS NAME OF BILL Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2021 Purpose of the Bill The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Special Recreational Vessels Act 2019 (SRV Act) to extend the repeal date in section 17 of the Act from 30 June 2021 to 30 June 2023. This will allow special recreational vessels (also known as superyachts) to continue to operate charters in Australia until a longer-term regulatory solution is found. Reasons for Urgency Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on consultation timeframes, reforms will not be identified and agreed before the SRV Act sunsets. Extension of the repeal date before 30 June 2021 is needed to support superyacht charters in Australia beyond this date. The ability to charter brings economic benefits into regional communities in Australia, supporting local industries and establishing Australia as a destination for these vessels. (Circulated by authority of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, The Hon Michael McCormack MP). STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2021 AUTUMN SITTINGS TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (2021 MEASURES NO. 1) BILL 2021 Purpose of the Bill The bill extends from 21 March 2021 to 15 September 2021 the expiry date of existing temporary relief allowing companies and their officers to meet regulatory requirements in respect of, among other things, document execution and virtual meetings using digital technologies and makes permanent the temporary changes made to continuous disclosure laws in May 2020 and which are due to expire on 22 March 2021. Reasons for Urgency Passage of this legislation as soon as possible, and before the expiry of the temporary relief, will provide certainty to the business community. (Circulated by authority of the Treasurer) STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2021 AUTUMN SITTINGS WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT (NORFOLK ISLAND) BILL Purpose of the Bill The Work Health and Safety Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2021 clarifies the operation of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (the Act) in relation to the Commonwealth's undertakings on Norfolk Island. The Bill removes a number of references to Norfolk Island that have the potential to confuse duty holders about the way the Act applies to the Commonwealth's work on Norfolk Island. Reasons for Urgency Passage of the Bill as soon as practicable is necessary to provide clarity to duty holders on their obligations under Commonwealth work health and safety laws. (Circulated by authority of the Attorney-General) CONDOLENCES 64 CONDOLENCES Somare, Grand Chief Sir Michael Thomas 64 16:08 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales by leave—I move: The Senate records its deep sorrow at the death, on 26 February 2021, of Grand Chief Sir Michael Thomas Somare, the first and longest serving Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, places on record its acknowledgement of his central role in Papua New Guinea's development, including of its national constitution, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family and the people of Papua New Guinea in their bereavement. Papa blo kantri. As well as bearing the title of Grand Chief, Sir Michael Somare was rightly known as 'father of the nation'. Sir Michael was the principal architect of Papua New Guinea's smooth and peaceful independence from Australia in 1975. He served his country throughout his life, including as Papua New Guinea's first Prime Minister and then as Prime Minister on several other occasions, including the longest period between 2002 and 2011. He also served in other ways, including several periods as Leader of the Opposition, through to his eventual retirement from politics just four years ago, in 2017. As the nation's first and longest-serving Prime Minister, the Grand Chief has an unparalleled place in Papua New Guinean history and in Pacific history. His contribution to peaceful order and growth in the Pacific was widely appreciated across the region. He worked with Australia and with leaders from across the region from the 1970s through to the 2010s, helping to build the peaceful region of which we are a part today. The early development and successes of the South Pacific Forum, now the Pacific Islands Forum, owed much to the firm friendship that Sir Michael built with Ratu Mara, Fiji's founding Prime Minister. His contribution touched every aspect of Papua New Guinea's transition to full sovereignty, from helping to shape Papua New Guinea's constitution to launching its economic independence to fostering the creative arts in celebration of Papua New Guinea's rich and diverse culture. I was honoured to see this firsthand in one of my visits to Papua New Guinea. In 2018 I attended the reopening of the National Museum and Art Gallery with Sir Michael and Lady Veronica. The gallery, 44 years ago, was his vision. He wanted it to be an intensely indigenous institution, a centre for cultural activity, identity and knowledge. So our work with Papua New Guinea to refurbish the gallery is a very strong reminder of the emphasis that Australia places on Papua New Guinea's culture and diversity and the emphasis that I know he wanted to see. As you walk through that gallery—and I have said this to many people—you see one of the most extraordinary series of exhibits of regional culture that I have ever seen. It is spellbinding. You view it in silence but wonder at the complexity and diversity of the culture laid out across the gallery. That was his vision. That was his leadership. And we played a small part in bringing that back to the people of Papua New Guinea in 2018. Sir Michael was dedicated to his family as a loyal husband and father. I want to extend my personal condolences to his daughter Dulcie Somare, whom I know personally, on this great loss. As a loving son, Sir Michael talked publicly about his own father's advice to him about the magic of peace, saying, 'Every clan has its own special magic, and ours is the magic of peace.' He was also a conciliator. In 1975, on the cusp of Papua New Guinea's independence, Sir Michael wrote in his autobiography: 'When people come to fight us, we will call them to eat first. We sit down together, we talk, we eat. Then we say to them: "All right, if you want to fight, take your spears and stand over there. We also will take our weapons, and will stand on this side."' The effect of this magic on those interlocutors was profound. By the end of the 1960s and into the early 1970s there was bipartisan support in Australia for Papua New Guinea's self-determination. Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, Prime Minister when Papua New Guinea became a sovereign nation, acknowledged former foreign minister Andrew Peacock's key role in the process as Minister for External Territories in 1972. No transition to political independence is easy. In the early 1970s Papua New Guinea faced major political, economic and separatist challenges. Sir Michael's gifts as a consensus builder, an inspirational leader and a fierce believer in his people were essential to the peacefulness of PNG's transition. His dedication to public service and national unity helped to create the vibrant and unbroken democracy that Papua New Guinea has been since independence. Australia has a strong relationship with an independent and sovereign Papua New Guinea, thanks to the groundwork Sir Michael laid for an enduring friendship between our countries. Sir Michael was generous, and full of energy and time. He was a model for leadership. In doing all of these things and so much more Sir Michael spread the magic that his father taught him. Papa blo kantri. 16:15 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I rise on behalf of the Australian Labor Party to express our condolences following the passing of former Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea Grand Chief Sir Michael Thomas Somare at the age of 84. Throughout the histories of nations there are those who are icons, giants, that people look to, who lead people through struggles and who help people see who they are and what they can be, and the people of Papua New Guinea have lost one of theirs. I offer my party's condolences not just to Lady Veronica and Sir Michael's family and friends but to all the people of Papua New Guinea on the passing of Sir Michael Somare—papa blo kantri, the father of the nation, Grand Chief and Papua New Guinea's first Prime Minister, whose leadership spanned decades and the premierships of Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Howard, Rudd and Gillard. He served as Prime Minister on three occasions: from 1975 to 1980; from 1982 to 1985; and from 2002 to 2012. In the latter period I did have the opportunity to meet the Grand Chief, as minister for climate change, as the Rudd government engaged deeply with Papua New Guinea on climate change and deforestation. Sir Michael Somare's campaign to lead his people into independence coincided with Gough Whitlam's and Labor's determination to end Australian colonialism and deliver self-government to the people of Papua New Guinea. Mr Whitlam made that clear on visits there as opposition leader in 1970 and 1971. Indeed, Gough Whitlam wanted to see self-government within a year of coming into office and full independence within his first term, and, give or take a few months, that's what happened. At the same time it was Michael Somare, with his Pangu Party, seeking to unite the people of Papua New Guinea in a campaign for independence: A lot of people in this country thought we wouldn't be able to do it, they were talking in terms of two or three decades, while I was talking in terms of two years. With some comparability to his own experience, Gough Whitlam once said Sir Michael's country 'had found a man whose time had come'. Sir Michael was the son of a police officer who bore the tribal name Sana—a name he would later take himself. It is not insignificant that it is a tribal name which means 'peacemaker'. The values to which he was exposed in early life as his father carried out these dual roles in cultural and secular leadership would stay with him throughout his political career. His first vocation was in teaching, a role that again took him to different regions across Papua New Guinea. This evolved into a career in journalism and broadcasting, something that would bring with it his first forays into politics. He attended Administrative College in Port Moresby, which was designed to build the skills of the local population to serve in the Australian colonial administration but also had the effect of bringing together individuals who shared a vision of a new nation—a nation that would govern itself, a nation not subservient to a foreign master. Somewhat unwittingly, colonial Australia built the training ground for the leaders of Papua New Guinea's independence movement, and that is a good thing. Momentum towards independence for Papua New Guinea was building throughout the sixties and into the early seventies. After little progress under Australian colonial rule for half a century, international pressure began to come to bear. There was acceleration through this period, as there was in many other parts of the world. Sir Michael Somare was one of many energetic, young, idealistic and nationalistic individuals ready to bring the curtain down on Australian administration. They came together and they organised politically. Sir Michael's union background helped him to connect with other movement participants, of whom he soon became a pre-eminent leader. At the same time Gough Whitlam was modernising Labor and preparing to modernise Australia, including an end to the era of colonisation. Leaving his public service job to successfully contest the second elections for the House of Assembly in 1968—the year I was born, Mr President—Sir Michael entered parliament representing East Sepik and succeeded to the leadership of the Pangu Party. He became a key figure in the preparations for independence and in the preparation and adoption of the constitution for the new country. So, whilst Sir Michael did not arrive with independence, independence arrived with Sir Michael. Recognising the importance of bringing people with him and with the movement for independence as a whole, as well as tempering the urgency with which some wanted to move, he engaged carefully across the nation and across peoples. This included travelling to the highlands and villages to talk directly with more conservative tribal leaders. For Sir Michael independence was the goal, but he recognised it had to be in keeping with Papua New Guinea's traditions and had to be delivered organically, peacefully and, most importantly, in a culturally unifying way. Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has reflected that Sir Michael was not just a disrupter but helped to build a new status quo, helped to steer his nation through the heady days of independence and beyond. Having successfully delivered independence peacefully, as the country's first Prime Minister, Sir Michael had to make it stick. It was no foregone conclusion that the new nation would be a success, particularly considering its diversity of tribal groups. Papua New Guinea was described by Sir Michael as 'a melting pot of tribes, clans and families that were never meant to be the same,' so of course, as always, the role of leadership in those early years was pivotal. Sir Michael helped to build a nation that saw the strengths that lay in its traditional culture and diversity as sources of unity and common ground rather than as sources of potential fracture and disharmony. Regrettably, Papua New Guinea today is not without serious struggles. Too few children complete school. Too many women are subjected to family violence. Preventable disease still has a devastating impact on the population and, as we speak, the worsening outbreak of COVID-19 poses a grave threat. But it is a country that has made its transition to independence in peace and in optimism—a legacy that is Sir Michael's as much as anybody's and a legacy which Labor will always be proud to have supported. Ronald J May of the Department of Pacific Affairs at the ANU noted of Papua New Guinea: It remains one of a fairly small number of post-colonial states that have maintained an unbroken record of democracy. It has managed to maintain the spirit that characterised its transition to independence, best described by Papua New Guinea's first Governor-General when he said in 1975: … we are lowering the flag of our colonisers … not tearing it down. Of course, it was only a few months later that Sir Michael joked, following the dismissal of the Whitlam government: We've only let Australia go for a few months and look at the mess they're in. Sir Michael Somare died in February 2021. Papua New Guinea and the wider Pacific has, with his passing, lost one of its most prominent and respected leaders. In his last address to the parliament, in 2017, Sir Michael said: 'We progress through many waves and changes in the world. We survived our own bad decisions. We have united at times when the world thought it was not possible to do so. We must be thankful and we must always count our blessings.' All these things are true and they are in large part true because of Sir Michael's stewardship. The opposition again express our deep condolences to the people of Papua New Guinea and to Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare's family and his loved ones. 16:23 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory It's an honour to say a few words to support this condolence motion today on the passing of Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare, Papua New Guinea's first Prime Minister. Can I say it was an honour to represent the government at the very moving memorial service that was held in the high commission here in Canberra over the weekend. As Minister for International Development and the Pacific, I'm acutely aware of how significant Sir Michael's leadership of Papua New Guinea was, including for Australia's relationship with our region. In the 1960s and 1970s, as Sir Michael Somare was emerging politically and growing in his influence, questions of self-determination and democracy were at the heart of national affairs in Papua New Guinea. Papua New Guineans wanted independence, and Australia too wanted PNG to emerge as a successful independent nation. At such a time, the emergence of political self-determination could have happened in a number of different ways. In so many countries independence was won through violence. Fortunately, as we know, a determined and charismatic Sir Michael Somare guided PNG along an entirely peaceful path, and an independent sovereign nation emerged in 1975. The Australian flag was respectfully lowered in PNG, not torn down. It is to Sir Michael's enduring credit that he not just managed to forge unity of PNG's diverse peoples but simultaneously presided over the negotiation of an enduring political compact with Australia. Our two countries worked together on independence and have continued to partner on securing a sustainable and sovereign path of development for PNG. Sir Michael's successes in building consensus and building relationships across the region meant that he developed strong ties with successive Australian governments and leaders, from Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser through to Bob Hawke, John Howard and Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard. Australia's relationship with Papua New Guinea under Sir Michael Somare in his successive terms as Prime Minister set the tenor for Australia's broader engagement with the Pacific. Sir Michael came to symbolise PNG's independence movement, but he also ensured that its independence was more than symbolic. His enduring focus was on PNG's ability to forge a unique national identity, govern independently and sustain itself economically. At the point of independence, Australian financial support for Papua New Guinea was significant. Of course it was since PNG had been an Australian territory for several decades. But neither side wanted a long-term relationship of financial dependence. Under Sir Michael's stewardship, and that of subsequent PNG leaders, PNG built its economy and developed its self-reliance. Guided by PNG's priorities as a sovereign nation, Australia continues to provide a helping hand, but we do so in ways that Sir Michael Somare helped establish. We do so as peers—sovereign, independent and free—but linked fundamentally by our past, our present and our future. Right through to 2021 and the continuing COVID era, our partnership with PNG seeks to enhance health security, deepen economic sustainability and strengthen regional stability. We continue to champion self-determination and locally driven decision-making throughout the Pacific, just as we did in 1975. Self-determination, consensus building and respectful partnerships to advance security, prosperity and stability in the Pacific is a legacy that sir Michael has helped bequeath to Australia's relationships with our nearest neighbours. In closing, I would like to recognise Sir Michael's family—Lady Veronica, their children and their grandchildren. Most profoundly I acknowledge with gratitude the extraordinary contribution Sir Michael Somare made to the tradition of peaceful cooperation that binds the Pacific today. May he rest in peace. 16:28 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I rise to speak on this condolence motion and to pay my respects to the father of Papua New Guinea, Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare. In doing so, I want to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Wong and, in contributing to this important motion, recognise the close relationship between Papua New Guinea and Queensland and the very close and customary relationship between the sovereign peoples of the Torres Strait and PNG. In his time as chief minister and then as Prime Minister, Sir Michael in his important role in the independence of PNG always understood and valued the relationship between Papua New Guinea and Queensland. The state of Queensland and Papua New Guinea share more than an international border. Sir Michael remarked in 2008 that the connection extended to his own education. He was educated by Queensland teachers under the Queensland curriculum. It extended even to the sugar crop in Queensland, which he was reliably told originally came from Papua New Guinea. Sir Michael lived a life of service to his people and to a nation. As vice-president of the Public Service Association, he spoke up on local wages and the working conditions of local workers. He helped launch the school of broadcasting in Port Moresby. But it was independence and the transformation of Papua New Guinea into the youthful, modern and proud nation that it is today that was Sir Michael's life's work, bringing people together and uniting a nation against the odds. In 2008, Sir Michael delivered an historic address at a sitting of the Queensland parliament in Cairns. It was the first time an invitation of that kind had been offered to the Papua New Guinean Prime Minister and, as he remarked at the time, was an occasion: … fitting recognition of the importance we both attach to our relationship and to the long and extensive links that have prevailed between our two peoples. Sir Michael told the parliament: Relations between Papua New Guinea and Queensland are indeed the most extensive of all relations with other Australian states. … The challenge for us is to ensure that the reservoir of goodwill that exists between our peoples is exploited to the fullest to deepen our relationship and grow our respective economies. These challenges remain today. Right now, we face the challenge of responding to the coronavirus pandemic together. In the future, we will face many more challenges. The way we face those challenges will always be informed by the deep affection and reverence our nation has, and the Far North Queensland community has, for the 'father of PNG'. The Torres Straight Islands and PNG share more than an international border. They share customs and kinship. The Torres Strait Treaty, signed by Sir Michael and Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser in 1978, is recognised as one of the most creative solutions in international law. It uniquely aims to maintain the lives and livelihoods, the traditions and family life between the people living within the Torres Strait protected zone. Families live across these islands, and you can reach out and almost touch the villages from the shore of another. Because of this closeness, and the treaty which Sir Michael authored, we are not two countries or two people; we are family. And so we grieve with the nation of Papua New Guinea for the loss of your Grand Chief, not as simply a partner in the Pacific but as family. As a sign of the close connection between not only our two countries but also between the regions of Papua New Guinea and Far North Queensland, of the four memorials for Sir Michael being held in Australia, one of those memorials will be held in Cairns later this week. That memorial service will be held this Thursday, 18 March, at Saint Monica's Cathedral on Abbott Street in Cairns. On that occasion, the many people from Papua New Guinea living in Cairns, and the people connected to the Torres Strait, will have the opportunity to grieve and commemorate a great life. I extend my condolences to Lady Veronica and to the entire Somare family. 16:32 Senator MOLAN FAB New South Wales We are proud, as a nation, to say that, as a Commonwealth and as a federation, we are a young nation. Compared to our Indigenous peoples in the old world, yes, we are young. But still, as one of the oldest democracies in the world, Australia has assisted a number of nations, not just in our region but across the world, to either attain a form of democratic government or to sustain that form against internal problems and external aggression. Australia has a proud record of doing so, and one of the main agencies for doing so has been the Australian Defence Force under the direction of government. One of our nearest neighbours is Papua New Guinea. Its road to independence has been long and hard, and the person we are here to commemorate today, Sir Michael Somare, played a major role in that process and has deep links to Australia. The eastern part of the island of New Guinea has been ruled by three external powers since 1884. Germany ruled the north of the island, beginning that year, calling it German New Guinea. The United Kingdom colonised the southern half in the same year, calling it British New Guinea. It transferred that portion to Australian administration in 1905. At the outbreak of World War I, Australia took the northern half of the island from Germany in the only truly independent military action ever conducted by Australia—that is, without being in a coalition with other nations. After World War I, Australia administered the northern and southern halves of the eastern side of the island separately until 1949. World War II broke on PNG with violence and suffering. The size of the catastrophe for the local Melanesian people has never been measured, but the interruption to their lifestyle, their local subsistence economy and the introduction of disease and conscript labour could be measured perhaps by the fact that well over 200,000 Japanese, Australian and US soldiers died in the fighting in PNG. So the impact on the local people must have been immeasurable. As we know, the two territories were combined after World War II into the territory of PNG. This was the nation into which Sir Michael Somare was born. We rise today to offer our condolences on the death of Sir Michael Somare, the first Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea when the nation gained independence from Australia in 1975. Sir Michael grew up in East Sepik province, first attending school there during the Japanese occupation. Sir Michael became a teacher, teaching at several schools. He returned to Sogeri for further training from 1962 to 1963. He was interested in politics early in the development of his nation. He was co-founder of the pro-independence Pangu Party in 1967. In 1968 he became the first official opposition leader in the fledgling PNG parliament. In 1972, when PNG achieved self-government, Sir Michael became the first Chief Minister, and then PNG's first Prime Minister in 1975 when the nation achieved its independence. It was at this stage that my life and those of PNG and, very briefly, Sir Michael Somare became mildly interconnected. My first posting on graduating from the Royal Military College in December 1971 was to Papua New Guinea. I was sent there, as a lieutenant infantry platoon commander in the 1st Battalion of the Pacific Islands Regiment, for three years—half in Port Moresby and half in Lae. My job was to command 30 PNG soldiers as one of the last Australian lieutenants to be sent to PNG, as all young lieutenants who arrived after I did were Papua New Guineans. Our function was not only to lead and train the PNG soldiers to provide security to the process of self-government and independence, backing up the police in internal security, but also to assist in building the nation of PNG. This last duty involved what was called 'patrolling', which was walking, carrying very heavy packs, often with local white kiaps or civilian administrators, through the hills and mountains, swamps and rivers of PNG—as my father and uncles did during World War II—for eight months of each of the three years I was posted to PNG. We were to tell the villagers along the route that there was a country called PNG and they were it. I might have made some small contribution to the stability of PNG during self-government and independence, but that country and the PNG people taught me much more about myself as a person, a leader and a soldier than I could ever remember, and for that I will always be grateful. I met Sir Michael during that period on several occasions, none of which he would ever have remembered. Probably the strangest was when I played representative Australian Rules football for PNG against a visiting representative Australian Aboriginal team—all Victorian Football League, VFL, players—as ruck. We lined up in the centre of the main Port Moresby stadium to be personally greeted by Sir Michael. Apart from the umpire, I was the only white man on the field and stood considerably taller than most PNG players. Sir Michael, moving along the line of players, shaking all our hands, had to significantly lift his gaze and his handshake when he came to me. He may also have noticed that I played appallingly on that day and PNG lost. I was lucky enough to see up close the remarkable change that this society of PNG has gone through from when I was a lieutenant on many visits back to PNG, until I went back as a general many years later. PNG has had many stumbles as a nation, as we all do as our nations develop, but in all those visits I was able to see how Sir Michael inspired and led his people. Apart from being a key figure in the independence negotiations and in the preparation and adoption of a constitution—the single most difficult task that one could ever imagine—Sir Michael was the first and longest-serving Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea. He served either in government or as a senior statesman through political crises, natural disasters, economic trials, rebellion, conflict and constitutional challenges. He was honoured by being made a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George by the Queen in the Birthday Honours List in 1990. He is often referred to by his people as Grand Chief or the father of the nation—titles earned through those three separate terms as Prime Minister, totalling 17 years leading the nation. The nation of PNG, our closest neighbour and of the greatest importance to this country and the rapidly changing strategic environment facing our region, will miss the advice and leadership of Sir Michael Somare, as will many Australian leaders and many of my generation who served in PNG. I offer my condolences to the people of PNG. May Sir Michael Somare rest in peace, and may the nation he led, of which he was the father, prosper in his absence. 16:40 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I'm deeply honoured to speak on this condolence motion in relation to the passing of the Grand Chief, Sir Michael Somare. And perhaps I could say to my friend the senator from New South Wales that it should be recognised that Sir Michael was a devout Blues supporter! There were occasions when political leaders from Queensland visited Papua New Guinea and sought to present Sir Michael with a Maroons jumper and were quickly disabused of the notion that Sir Michael could possibly support a team other than the Blues. An honourable senator interjecting— Senator SCARR 282997 Or other codes—indeed, Senator. It was in the period between 1999 and 2001 that I lived and worked in Papua New Guinea, and as part of that process I sat the Papua New Guinea law exams. There were three law exams that I had to sit: constitutional law, customary law and land law. It was in reading the history of the development of PNG's constitution that I developed a deep abiding respect for Sir Michael Somare. I can remember that in the year 2000, when PNG was celebrating the 25th anniversary of its independence, there was a lot of discussion with respect to the journey to independence and where PNG had gotten up to at that stage, after 25 years. I always reminded my friends in Australia that PNG had gone on a fantastic, momentous journey to independence. It was still a functioning democracy. It still had rule of law. It still had free press. And it still does, to this day. That year, 2000, there was an Olympic torch relay. Senators here might not realise that the Olympic torch, as it made its way to Sydney, actually went through Papua New Guinea. The penultimate holder of the torch during that relay was the great Melbourne Storm winger Marcus Bai, in keeping with PNG's esteem for the great game of rugby league, the greatest game of all. But the last holder of the torch was Michael Somare, and I can picture Sir Michael with the torch as I deliver this speech, and the joy with which he took that torch as he handed it on to those who were to take it to the Sydney Olympics. In reflecting on Sir Michael's contribution to the independent state of Papua New Guinea we should give careful regard to the events of 1980. In my view, this was a key moment in the history of Papua New Guinea. Sir Michael, who was the sitting Prime Minister in the time leading up to 1980, had been the subject of three no-confidence motions on the floor of the parliament in Papua New Guinea. Now, no-confidence motions are not a rare thing on the floor of the parliament in Papua New Guinea, and politics in PNG is extraordinarily robust. Sir Michael had successfully defeated the first three no-confidence resolutions. But in 1980 he succumbed to one; he lost one. So, the father of the nation, the first Prime Minister, had lost a motion of no confidence on the floor of parliament. What did Sir Michael do? He respected the decision of the parliament, he respected the democratic process and he stood aside for the next prime minister. That was a key point where Papua New Guinea demonstrated that instead of going the way of some post-colonial nations, where they embrace dictatorship and despotism and turn their back on democracy, PNG would not take that path. Indeed, Sir Michael successfully contested the next election, where his Pangu Party had a storming election win. A storming election win in a Papua New Guinea context was 51 seats out of 109—about 34 per cent of the vote. That's a huge win in Papua New Guinea's first-past-the-post system. So Sir Michael respected legal and democratic processes deeply. He carried no rancour or hubris in relation to the discharge of his deeply held responsibilities and he was well respected by all of the people of Papua New Guinea, including the people of Bougainville, even during the times of great difficulty in that regard. Sir Michael, notwithstanding the fact that he was a Blues supporter, did have a close connection to Queensland, and I would like to tell at least two stories in that regard. I'm informed by a friend of mine who was head of the PNG Students Association at the University of Queensland that, on one occasion, Sir Michael presented himself to a bank in Queen Street in Brisbane to convert some kina into Australian currency. The bank teller advised him that Sir Michael would have to show identification before she could convert the currency, in response to which Sir Michael duly presented the 50-kina note and said, 'That's me, Sir Michael Somare.' I think he got his Australian dollars! Sir Michael was also known to go to horseraces in Brisbane and really enjoyed that spirit of freedom he could have in a Brisbane context, where he didn't need a security detail; he was just another racegoer enjoying the day. Finally, I would just note—and I was reflecting on this over the weekend—that perhaps the events of Sir Michael's final journey, from Port Moresby to his final resting place in Wewak, say all you need to know about the regard in which Sir Michael was held by the Papua New Guinean people and also about Papua New Guinea's relationship with Australia. When Sir Michael's casket was taken to the PNG airport, the attendants attempted to load it into the Air Niugini flight to go to Wewak, and the casket wouldn't fit. So the attendants proposed to put the casket in the hold of the Air Niugini flight. In response to that, the many hundreds and hundreds of Papua New Guineans present watching this journey revolted. This could not occur. Their founding father, Sir Michael Somare, could not suffer the indignity of being held in the hold of an Air Niugini flight on his final journey to Wewak. So what was the solution? Well, the Australian RAAF provided a transport plane. After some negotiations with the Somare family and also with the protesters, it was agreed that that plane would collect Sir Michael and deliver him, with dignity and honour, back to Wewak. That, in my view, says everything you need to know about the special relationship between Australia and Papua New Guinea. Long may it be so. 16:48 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales As a former Minister for International Development and the Pacific, I would like to add my condolences to the family of Sir Michael Somare and to the people of Papua New Guinea on his passing. I would like to associate myself with the comments that have been made by my colleagues. Most especially, Senator Scarr, your anecdotes about Sir Michael really demonstrate the close relationship that Australia has with Papua New Guinea, on so many different fronts. I have to say that I always enjoyed my visits to Papua New Guinea, but most especially my interaction with the people of Papua New Guinea. Let's not forget that the stability, security and prosperity of the region is, for Australia, second only to the defence of Australia. When you look at the history of Papua New Guinea and what has been relayed to us in relation to the history of Sir Michael Somare, as Grand Chief and father of the nation, you know that Sir Michael contributed very much to the stability, security and prosperity of not just his own country but, in turn, the region. I know that many in Papua New Guinea will mourn him—close friends, like Dame Meg Taylor, who have worked so hard to carry on his legacy. As Dame Meg leaves her role as Secretary General to the Pacific Islands Forum, I know that she leaves a legacy of which her dear friend Sir Michael would justly be proud. His memory, I think, will live on. Whilst Papua New Guinea will continue to face challenges, I'm sure that the legacy of Sir Michael Somare will be a guiding light for the years to come. Vale, Sir Michael. Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places. BUSINESS 70 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 70 16:51 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Bilyk from 15 to 18 March 2021, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 70 16:51 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Reynolds from 15 to 18 March 2021, for medical reasons. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 71 COMMITTEES Public Works Committee 71 Meeting 71 16:52 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia by leave—I move: That the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 6 pm. Question agreed to. NOTICES 71 NOTICES Postponement 71 COMMITTEES 71 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications References Committee 71 Reporting Date 71 16:53 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. MOTIONS 71 MOTIONS World Tuberculosis Day 71 16:53 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1049 be taken as a formal motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Is there any objection to the motion being taken as formal? An honourable senator: Yes. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 There is. DOCUMENTS 71 DOCUMENTS Aboriginal Flag Committee 71 Order for the Production of Documents 71 16:54 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, by no later than 9.30 am on Wednesday, 17 March 2021, the government response to the report of the Select Committee on the Aboriginal Flag. 16:54 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The government is currently finalising its response to the Select Committee on the Aboriginal Flag and the government intends to table the response to the Senate when it is finalised. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 72 MOTIONS Domestic and Family Violence 72 16:54 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1051, standing in my name, by sadly updating the numbers of women killed from five to eight. Leave granted. Senator WATERS 192970 I move the motion as amended: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) 8 women have been killed by violence in Australia in 2021, as reported by Destroy the Joint's Counting Dead Women project, (ii) no national government toll reports on women killed by violence in real time, (iii) more than 370,000 women are subjected to violence from men each year, (iv) 1 in 3 women have experienced physical violence and, on average, one woman is murdered every week by her current or former partner, (v) women are nearly three times more likely than men to experience intimate partner violence and 2.5 times more likely to be hospitalised from family and domestic violence, (vi) young women, women with disabilities, and First Nations women are more likely to experience violence, (vii) coercive control is abuse in its own right, and a strong indicator of future physical violence, and (viii) demand for domestic and family violence services continues to increase; and (b) calls on the Government to: (i) recognise violence against women as a national security crisis, (ii) fully fund frontline family and domestic violence services to ensure all those seeking safety can get the help they need, and (iii) coordinate a national approach to combating coercive control. 16:55 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Every single death is one too many. We know that domestic violence against women takes many forms, including coercive control. The decision to legislate in this area sits with state and territory governments. We welcome the work being undertaken by all states to investigate the options for legislative reform and the significant work that that requires. This week the Morrison government launched the $18 million Stop it at the Start national campaign to educate influencers of young people early and ask them to call out disrespect when they see it, because we know that, while all disrespect doesn't end in violence, all violence starts with disrespect. Question agreed to. Victoria: Environment 72 16:56 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I, and also on behalf of Senator Rice, move: That the Senate opposes the proposed gas import terminal at Crib Point in Victoria which threatens the marine life of Westernport Bay, Ramsar listed wetlands, Aboriginal heritage, and local businesses. 16:57 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Gas is critical to the Australian economy and is a key element of the COVID-19 recovery. We want to see Australian gas working for all Australians. Securing community acceptance for new gas projects is key to ensuring that industry can thrive and communities can reap the benefits. The local member's concerns and opposition to the project have been noted. Due to our record levels of intermittent renewables in the grid, additional gas supplies are needed to support our manufacturing sector and to keep the lights on. All import terminals are subject to state and Commonwealth regulatory and environmental processes. The Crib Point proposal is currently being assessed through a Victorian government regulatory process. 16:57 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CAROL BROWN F49 As the Greens party knows, this proposal is currently under review via the usual process in Victoria. That process has included an opportunity for public input, with thousands of submissions received and, no doubt, listened to. Decisions on this proposal or any other should be made via the proper processes, not via stunt motions by the Greens party in this place. Question agreed to. Tasmania: Environmental Conservation 73 16:58 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I inform the Senate that Senator Whish-Wilson will also sponsor the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senator Whish-Wilson, move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) national parks are public land held in trust on behalf of all Australians to protect their natural and cultural heritage values, (ii) the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area is managed by the Australian and Tasmanian governments on behalf of the world's people and protected for its incredible natural and cultural heritage values, (iii) since 2014, the Tasmanian Government has run a secretive process to facilitate developments in national parks and the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, overseen by the Coordinator-General, (iv) there are around 30 developments that are now in the pipeline as a result of this opaque and corrupt process, (v) this process has been developer driven and allowed for some completely inappropriate developments on public land, and (vi) a potential development at Halls Island in the Walls of Jerusalem National Park and Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area has widespread community opposition because of the destruction of wilderness that will occur if it proceeds; (b) condemns the privatisation of Tasmania's public spaces, including in national parks and the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area; and (c) calls on the Tasmanian Government to stop the sell-out of Tasmania's national parks and the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1052, standing in the name of Senators McKim and Whish-Wilson, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:03]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

 9 AYES Faruqi, M Hanson-Young, SC McKim, NJ Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Thorpe, LA Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 39 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Brown, CL Canavan, MJ Carr, KJ Chandler, C Davey, P Duniam, J Farrell, D Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Hughes, H Hume, J Kitching, K Lambie, J Lines, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Polley, H Rennick, G Ruston, A Scarr, P Small, B Smith, DA Sterle, G Stoker, AJ Urquhart, AE (teller) Van, D Walsh, J 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 China: Human Rights 74 17:06 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion 1043, standing in my name Leave granted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? A government senator: Yes. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 There is an objection. Senator Patrick 144292 Pursuant to contingent notice, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Patrick moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of this Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion No. 1043 immediately, determined without amendment or debate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:08]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

 12 AYES Faruqi, M Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Lambie, J McKim, NJ Patrick, RL (teller) Rice, J Siewert, R Steele-John, J Thorpe, LA Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 33 NOES Askew, W Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Brown, CL Carr, KJ Davey, P Duniam, J Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Hughes, H Hume, J Kitching, K Lines, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Polley, H Pratt, LC Rennick, G Ruston, A Scarr, P Small, B Smith, DA Sterle, G Stoker, AJ Urquhart, AE (teller) Van, D Walsh, J 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 17:11 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I seek leave to make a short statement about the motion that we were just denied the ability to vote on. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator RICE 155410 We have had leave denied on Senator Patrick's motion. We have just failed a suspension of standing orders, denying the Senate the ability to consider an issue of critical foreign policy. Barely a month ago we had the government and the Labor Party giving notice of a motion in support of the US alliance and, as we said then, we took that as a move that finally—a welcome change—the government and Labor would now allow foreign policy motions to be considered by the Senate at this time. But, sadly, that appears not to be the case. I want to put on the record that the Greens would have supported Senator Patrick's motion if we had been given the opportunity to vote on it, because the Chinese government's abuses against the Uighur people are appalling. We have millions of Uighurs who are detained in re-education camps, and the Chinese government is conducting a campaign to reduce Uighur birthrates and to systematically destroy cultural heritage. This is at the very least cultural genocide, and the Australian government must— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Rice. Please resume your seat. Senator Duniam. 17:13 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute Senator DUNIAM 263418 As is often the case with matters as complex as this relating to foreign policy, we don't deal with them as formal motions, but Australia remains deeply concerned by reports of enforced disappearances, mass detention, forced labour and pervasive surveillance of Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang and by restrictions on freedom of religion and belief in China. Recent reports of systemic torture and abuse of women are deeply disturbing. The Australian government urges China to allow international observers, including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, to be given immediate, meaningful and unfettered access to Xinjiang at the earliest opportunity. We consider transparency to be of utmost importance and will continue to work closely with our key partners to advocate on this issue in a meaningful way. 17:14 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING I'd like to just briefly acknowledge and associate myself with the comments of Senator Duniam—this feigned outrage at being denied formality by Senator Patrick, who is a marvellous actor, at times. That's exactly what he's trying to do. We are having every motion denied at this point in time. Every motion that you choose is being denied. A substantial matter like this, on human rights violations, deserves more from this Senate than moving a motion during formal business, where it's a yes or a no. There is no ability for anyone to speak. That is the problem we have with this, and the abuse of this part of the program. It is an abuse of this part of the program. Senator Lambie interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie! Senators have the right to be heard in silence. I would ask that to be observed. Senator GALLAGHER ING Labor strongly condemns the human rights violations against the Uighurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang. But we do not believe that moving it during formal business at this point in time allows that to be appropriately debated. 17:15 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I seek leave to make a one-minute statement. Leave not granted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Patrick, to suspend standing orders, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:17]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

12 AYES Faruqi, M Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Lambie, J McKim, NJ Patrick, RL (teller) Rice, J Siewert, R Steele-John, J Thorpe, LA Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 33 NOES Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Brown, CL Carr, KJ Davey, P Duniam, J Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hughes, H Hume, J Kitching, K Lines, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Polley, H Pratt, LC Rennick, G Ruston, A Scarr, P Small, B Smith, DA Sterle, G Stoker, AJ Urquhart, AE (teller) Van, D Walsh, J 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 World Tuberculosis Day 76 17:20 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to move motion No. 1049, standing in the name of Senator Pratt relating to World Tuberculosis Day, and have it determined without amendment or debate. Leave not granted. Senator GALLAGHER ING Pursuant to contingent notice, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent general business notice of motion No. 1049 being moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Patrick, on a point of order? Senator Patrick 144292 I point out that the Senate has twice denied suspending the standing orders today and that generally prohibits— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Patrick, please resume your seat. That's a debating point. Senator Patrick interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Please resume your seat. Senator Patrick interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Patrick, unless you are seeking to make a further point of order, I'm ruling that to not be a point of order. Are you seeking to make a second point of order? Senator Patrick 144292 I'm just seeking to understand. Normally the President or the Deputy President would not permit multiple attempts to suspend the standing orders. The Senate has expressed its will—it's not willing to suspend the standing orders today. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Patrick, the understanding is that the rulings have been to frustrate the Senate. I will now put Senator Gallagher's suspension motion. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Gallagher to suspend the standing orders be agreed to. Question agreed to. Senator GALLAGHER ING At the request of Senator Pratt, I move: That the Senate— (a)   notes that:       (i) 24 March is World Tuberculosis (TB) Day, commemorating the lives lost to this disease and recognising the impacts of COVID-19 on TB services globally,       (ii) TB remains one of the deadliest airborne infectious diseases, including 15 million deaths in the last decade,       (iii) years of progress in fighting TB could be lost due to disruption of services from COVID-19, and       (iv) the United Nations has reported that global targets on TB, to which Australia agreed, will not be met, and that 1.4 million more people are likely to die from TB in the next five years if urgent action is not taken; (b) acknowledges that:       (i) Australia's $1.1 billion of international COVID-19 support, pledges to multilateral organisations and our $242 million to the global fund will help save millions of lives,       (ii) $13.3 million from Australia in 2019 will support antimicrobial resistance and drug-resistant TB research in the Pacific, and       (iii) Australian investment in TB research has resulted in drug therapies that radically reduce the burden of treatment; and (c) calls on the Government to increase investment in research and development, and Asia Pacific TB services to safeguard current progress towards meeting global targets agreed by Australia. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 77 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE COVID-19: Tourism 77 17:22 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 76760 I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am today two 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 letter from Senator Gallagher proposing a matter of public importance was chosen; namely: The jobs of hundreds of thousands of Australians working in tourism, which remain at risk because the Morrison Government failed to listen to the industry in developing its package for when JobKeeper is ripped away. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 76760 I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's discussion. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly. 17:23 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Mr Acting Deputy President Griff, I know you are one person who would have been amazed and dumbfounded by the government's proposed package for the tourism industry last week. Anybody who has been to Far North Queensland will understand how much devastation has been caused to the tourism industry as a result of the closure of our federal border. I'm not talking about our state borders here; I'm talking about our federal border. The federal government decided to close that border. International tourists used to come to this country to see some of the greatest natural wonders in the world, like the Daintree, the Great Barrier Reef and all the magnificent places in our north. The tourism industry was looking to the federal government to come up with a package post JobKeeper. The first observation I'd make about that is that JobKeeper ends in two weeks time. Whatever the government was going to propose to replace it, the logical thing would have been to do what the Labor Party suggested—that is, keep JobKeeper going in those industries that have been adversely affected by, amongst other things, the downturn in tourism. The government decided not to do that, but they were coming up with their own package. As we know, we saw Minister Tehan and the Treasurer go up to Cairns, and the best that the government could come up with was this so-called 'ticket to recovery', as the Prime Minister called it. Anybody who talks to anybody in the tourism industry, whether you're a hotel operator, whether you're a restaurant or a hotel or even an ordinary retail shop, knows that this package is not going to do the trick. It doesn't fit the bill for what the industry desperately needs at the moment. The industry was looking for some leadership from Mr Morrison and the Treasurer. The industry didn't get it from this package. Can I give you an idea of how silly some of these proposals were? One of the proposals was to try and help Kangaroo Island, in my home state. Of course Kangaroo Island needs some help. They had terrible bushfires and terrible loss of life last year. You might even recall that the Prime Minister was unaware there had been loss of life on Kangaroo Island. Then they got hit by the pandemic. So they certainly need some assistance. The government decided that they would give out cheap tickets to Kangaroo Island. There are no international flights into Kangaroo Island. I don't know why; as a former tourism minister I approved an extension to the length of the airport in Kingscote which would have allowed for that. But for one reason or another there are no international flights. The only way you can get to Kangaroo Island by plane is to fly to Adelaide. I can see Senator Hanson-Young is also shocked! The only way you can get to Kangaroo Island is via Adelaide; you can't get to it via an international flight. So the original proposal, which, we have now seen, is on the original website, included the concept of flying into Adelaide and then flying on to Kangaroo Island. But the incompetence of this government—when they finally announced their package, they left Adelaide off the list. Senator Hanson-Young I0U Outrageous! Senator FARRELL I0N You're right! We don't agree on much, Senator Hanson-Young, but we do agree on this: it was outrageous. You couldn't fly into Kangaroo Island unless you flew into Adelaide. I understand the Premier found out that Adelaide had been included originally. When he saw the list, it hadn't been included; it had been excluded. He jumped up and down, and Adelaide got added to the list. That is just one small portion of the outrageous way in which this government has treated the tourism industry. 17:28 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland To question the coalition's commitment to our tourism sector displays a cynicism that is unworthy of even the most partisan political hack. I'm sorry to interrupt the love-in between the opposition and the Greens that I've just been watching, but I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Leonardo da Vinci: There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see. Because the Labor Party fall into the category of those who do not see, I'll indulge them with some truths. The coalition's tourism assistance package alone is worth $1.2 billion, spread across subsidised flights for tourists, expanding our offer of guaranteed loans for businesses on top of the already $3 billion in loans that have been processed. We've allocated cash payments to travel agents, cash for zoos to keep feeding animals and subsidies for regional airport security costs, but what I've outlined only just scratches the surface of the coalition's commitment to one of our biggest industries. We've also brought in tax breaks for businesses, which have been most welcomed, and spent millions on domestic tourism advertising campaigns urging Aussies to holiday at home. There is an extraordinary thing about this, though. I sat on the inquiry into the impact of COVID on aviation, and I watched the TWU, in unison with airlines, call for exactly this sort of package—$1.2 billion spent on 800,000 seats, to allow Australians to fly into the communities that have been the most heavily impacted by international tourism cuts. I sat in those hearings and heard union after union explain that what they wanted was for their employees to be connected to their real jobs. They wanted training and currency so that they remained able to operate a safe airline industry. We have delivered on that. The government has delivered on 800,000 flights—people with their bottoms on seats, flying around the country—allowing baggage handlers to work, allowing caterers to work, allowing pilots and aircrew to work. They will not just be tied to businesses through JobKeeper but will actually have their jobs operating. This will restore confidence in the tourism industry, because, thanks to the Labor governments in Queensland, Victoria and other places shutting the borders at a moment's notice, there is now no confidence among Australians to book flights, because they're worried they'll be trapped somewhere a long way from home and will have to do two weeks of quarantine. It is extraordinary to me that, having delivered on exactly what it is that industry and the unions, in partnership, spent days talking about in this inquiry, now, when it's actually delivered—no, no; they've got to take another opportunity to be critical of the government, as we recover from the worst pandemic in human memory. The other point that I'd add is that, with real people flying on real planes to real destinations, every dollar spent on flights equates to approximately $10 on the ground. That includes accommodation and experiences, things like going out to the reef or going out to Kangaroo Island—where I've never been but I look forward to going one day—or buying an ice cream or a meal in a restaurant. These are all important multipliers that mean that people are back engaged in the sort of world that we want. I compare our approach to the approach of the Queensland Labor government, which has been engaged in some of the most shameful political grandstanding I've seen. It has used people's genuine health concerns to drive a stake into the once strongly beating heart of Queensland's tourism by unilaterally closing borders, without notice, and, as I said, smashing consumer confidence. Not only that; it has tried to blame the federal coalition when we have given more than $28 billion in support to Queensland alone, while state Labor has barely been able to manage to rustle up $8 billion, primarily because it is broke. Federal Labor would do well to advise its Queensland arm to get its finances in order and start delivering for tourism in Queensland. 17:33 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to contribute to the debate on this matter of public importance. What an absolute shambles this government's tourism announcement has been—an absolute shambles. First of all, within six hours of the announcement, new destinations had to be added. Adelaide and Darwin were added. We've heard from those who work within the broader tourism industry just how disappointed they are that, despite all the calls for action and support, for months and months now, they've been left with very little. It might help the big corporate airlines, but the small tourism operators right across the country are left with virtually nothing. At the end of this month, those who have been relying on JobKeeper are not going to be able to rely on that either. So not only has tourism slumped in these places; the thing that has been keeping many people's heads above water is about to end as well. The government took its sweet time getting to a point of announcing any type of tourism package. Then, when it was put on the table, it missed the mark. It delivers for the big end of town but does nothing for small businesses in rural, regional and metro areas that rely week to week, month to month and season to season on tourism business and tourism dollars. The other key element of the tourism industry that is still being left out in the cold is the arts and entertainment industry. Still nothing of any value has been put on the table by this government to support artists and entertainers across the country, despite the fact that it was the arts and the entertainment industry that was hit by COVID restrictions when the lockdowns first came in 12 months ago. Venues were closed, events were cancelled and people were out of work, and they are still out of work. Despite the constant calls for more support from the government, for inclusion in JobKeeper, for a specific arts and entertainment package, we still see nothing of much value from this government. Senator Farrell has already spoken about what a shambles even the announcement about being able to fly to Kangaroo Island was. I must say that everybody in South Australia saw straightaway what an absolute joke this announcement was. No wonder it had to be fixed in less than six hours of being made. But overall, I ask this: at the end of March, when JobKeeper finishes, hundreds of thousands of people are going to have their wages cut or will lose their jobs, and what good is a holiday if you don't have a job? This government continues to miss the mark over and over again. Why did we see this announcement rushed out so quickly late last week? It was because the Prime Minister knew that Newspoll was out in the field last weekend. That's what this was about. This was about trying to buy some votes, buy some positive publicity, and they still stuffed that up. They splash around $1.2 billion and they can't even get it right—$1.2 billion in order to buy a bit of a bump in the polls when everything's going pretty shabbily on their side of government, and this Prime Minister still can't get it right. Well, Australians aren't silly and they're not going to be bought and treated like mugs so easily. We know there are many people who are still doing it really tough. They've had their wages cut. They've lost their jobs. They're desperately waiting for the season to come back around so that they can invest in their tourism business or they can keep working in their casual job. And, rather than doing what the industry called for, which was an extension of JobKeeper, an extension of support across the board for the tourism industry, for the arts and entertainment industry, the government decided to look after the big corporates and the airlines and have a 'she'll be right' attitude for those small business operators and casual workers who actually do all the hard yakka. It is just unthinkable that the Prime Minister thought that this was going to be enough to satisfy workers, to satisfy the Australian people and to make people think they were serious about supporting the tourism industry. The Prime Minister has to go back to the drawing board. We need a decent tourism package. We need support for small and medium businesses, sole traders, those who have been smashed economically because of COVID-19. Workers in industries that rely on tourism—arts and entertainment, hospitality—need to know the government are willing to look after them, too. All they're being told so far is, no, they're not. So the Prime Minister has to go back to the drawing board and come up with something better, because this ain't it. I ask again: what good is a half-price holiday if you don't even have a job? That's the problem the Prime Minister is not willing to fix. 17:40 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Quite frankly, when the government is in trouble, what does the Prime Minister do? He throws money around. As the previous contributor to this discussion said, $1.2 billion has been splashed around, but he can't even get that right. Is he really interested in saving jobs? Look at the destinations in Tasmania that have been picked for this investment: Burnie, Devonport and Launceston, which just happen to include two of the marginal seats held by Liberal members. Then there was the afterthought to include Hobart. But Tasmania's mighty tourism sector is at risk, and it's at risk because this government has no plan and it has refused to actually listen to the sector. Abolishing JobKeeper at the end of the month will have an impact on over a million workers, affecting workers not only in my home state but right across the country. Thousands of working families in Tasmania are going to be without jobs or will not be working enough hours. This investment in the airline industry, giving people half-price fares, is okay if you have a job. But, if you haven't got a job, it's of no benefit to you at all. The Morrison government made an announcement on 27 September last year about the $50 million Recovery for Regional Tourism Fund to support nine tourism regions that had been hit hard by the travel restrictions imposed by COVID-19, and Tasmania was allocated $13.5 million from this fund. Almost six months later, how much money has gone to the Tasmanian tourism industry? Not a cent. In fact, the applications for this grant don't even close until 30 September 2021. So once again Prime Minister Morrison is there for the photo opportunities and the big announcement, but there's no follow-up. Those in the struggling tourism sector in Tasmania are going to have to wait until at least 2022 before they see any of the $13.5 million for Tasmania. In the meantime, we know that travel agents are finding it extremely difficult, and this injection of funds won't help one travel agent, because they don't actually make money out of internal travel. Their money is made from bookings for international travel and cruises, so these half-price airfares are not going to be of any help whatsoever. The government are doing what they do best, and that is policy on the run. With these cheap flights, it is clear to see that their transparent pork-barrelling in marginal seats with their latest scheme is a new low. It was only after lobbying and outrage from the sector that Hobart, the capital of Tasmania, was added to the destinations list. Hobart was there and then it was taken off before it was put back. We've had sports rorts, we've had community grants rorts and now we have the flights rort from this government, which just keeps digging itself into a deeper and deeper hole. The Australian people aren't silly. They see through this Prime Minister, a Prime Minister who has been left wanting over and over again. He thinks that throwing $1.2 billion at this scheme is going to get him a bump in polls. People will not forget that he has been left wanting on some of the most serious questions that this government has had to answer. (Time expired) 17:44 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland It's quite astounding, the audacity of the Labor Party, when it comes to criticising the federal government on support for the tourism industry and support for the Australian economy as a whole. This package announced last week by the Morrison government of $1.2 billion is just a drop in the ocean compared to what we have spent overall. It's interesting that this time last week I was up in Cairns—I spent a week up in North Queensland—and the Palaszczuk government announced $200 vouchers just for the city of Cairns. Cairns is all Labor held state seats. Did we come out and accuse the state Labor government of pork-barrelling or anything like that? No, absolutely not. All we happened to point out was that, while the state government was sticking a whopping $3 million into the economy of Cairns, we had in the last 12 months injected over $800 million into the city of Cairns. That's over 25 times more than what the state Labor government is going to be doing over the next few months. So while the Labor Party is sitting here and saying the federal government is putting the tourist sector at risk it's not true at all. It's worth noting that, if industry has been impacted, it's been by the inconsistencies displayed by the state governments, especially the state Labor governments. In the main, it's been the state Labor governments—the three big ones of Victoria, Queensland and WA—who've kept their borders closed and who've kept flip-flopping as to when borders are open and when borders are closed. It was interesting that, just at the start of this year, I got an enormous amount of feedback. I got trolled big-time by the Labor trolls and the digital lynch mob on social media. But late last year we had the chief medical officer of Queensland come out and say: 'We don't need to lock down again. We've got this under control.' We went for 130 days with no cases and then we had just one case in quarantine—so the source of it was known—and what did the Queensland Premier do? At nine o'clock on Friday morning, she came out and said she was going to lock down the city of Brisbane, over two million people, at five o'clock that afternoon. Thousands of workers in the hospitality industry were directly impacted by that. We have to remember that this was the first week back this year. A lot of businesses were restarting. They were going to make a fresh start in a new year. They got to Friday and the first weekend of the year and what happened? The state Labor government shut down Brisbane, resulting in thousands and, I suspect, millions of dollars in losses for the hospitality industry. We were talking about the aviation sector. We had the CEO of Virgin come out and call for the state governments to have a consistent framework in regard to (1) border closures and (2) the restrictions on hospitality venues across the country. I also have a very good friend of mine who is a leading Australian musician who has personally called me and asked for some consistency in the restrictions across the states. He had a gig to play in Adelaide. I got a call from him on the weekend, going back a few weeks. He had a gig to play in Adelaide. South Australia shut the border with Victoria again and, suddenly, he was short a bass player. The event was all booked and then he had to ring around and try to find someone to come and play at that event. This the sort of inconsistency that is leading to a lack of confidence in the hospitality sector and the tourism sector in opening up. It is worth noting that, as we head into winter this year, this is a fantastic opportunity for southerners, especially from New South Wales and Victoria, to fly north to Queensland. They would have loved to have done that last year, and at one point the Premier opened up and then closed down again. But this is the perfect opportunity to keep the borders open this year. What we have to remember with the tourism sector is, for about the last 15 years, more people have left Australia than entered Australia. We've actually had a deficit in the tourist numbers. So what we have is a net tourist deficit—that is, more departures than arrivals. So there is an opportunity now with the international borders closed to promote internal tourism across the country. There's an opportunity for the higher spenders who normally would go overseas to come up to Queensland or vice versa. It is very important that the state premiers apply consistency. We've now got the vaccine rolling out. Hopefully, as the year rolls on, we'll get that out. We should have contact tracing and testing in place. We've got our numbers across the country down to single digits outside of quarantine. So there is absolutely no reason why the state premiers can't give some confidence to our hospitality industry and to our tourism sector. It was interesting. I note Senator Polley said before that you've got to have a job to be able to spend money to go on a holiday. I thought to myself, 'You've actually got to have a job to get superannuation as well.' One thing I'm not going to take from the Labor Party is the lack of universality in this particular package, given that they promote superannuation despite the fact that unemployed people, stay-at-home mums and people on a disability pension don't get superannuation either. The other thing, of course, is the idea that tourist operators will miss out on this. It is not true. People aren't going to go travelling and do nothing when they get there. For example, they'll arrive in Cairns. They'll book a scuba diving trip. They might book a trip up to Port Douglas. They might go out on a boat. They might take some tours inland to see Daintree forest. For all of those things they can walk in off the street if they want to book something, so there is still opportunity for travel agents to get some spin-off effects of this. Likewise, they're not going to sit in their hotel room and eat room service every night; they're going to go out and they're going to eat at these venues. So the idea that this money has been misallocated or wasted is just more fearmongering and negativity from those opposite us. Quite frankly, I think the whole premise on which this MPI is based is completely false. I touched on the numbers before in Cairns and I'll touch on them again. The state Labor government is putting $3 million into Cairns for tourism. In the last year alone the federal government has put over $800 million in. But, if we just look at Queensland overall, the federal government has put $28.5 billion into Queensland. What has the state Labor government done? They're putting in a measly $8.8 billion over the forward estimates. If the Labor Party and their state Labor colleagues are so worried about creating jobs, let me tell you the one key message I got out of North Queensland last week: 'We need more water.' The state Labor government has only built two dams in the last 30 years. For one of those dams, Paradise Dam, they're not quite pulling it down, but they're halving the size of the wall. They're going to reduce the size of that dam. In one dam in Beaudesert they've got the water wrong and the water is brackish. The people of North Queensland are calling out for more water security. I saw the Mayor of Port Douglas last weekend. He needs a lake. Port Douglas could run out of water very soon if the state Labor government doesn't get busy and build a bigger lake for Port Douglas to have some water supply. So there is great opportunity here to take that capacity in the labour market and go build some dams. I'm happy to go the Treasurer and get an infrastructure bank up and running to fund the states to build these dams, but we've got to remember it's wealth for toil. Here is the opportunity to create more, long-lasting jobs. There are so many benefits of water security. We get irrigation. There are benefits for agriculture. We get clean, green hydro energy. How good is that? We get flood mitigation. That will help reduce risk and reduce insurance costs in North Queensland. We get recreational activities like water skiing. I know that in my hometown of Chinchilla on the weekends we used to all go out to the weir and do water skiing and kayak back up the mighty Condamine. So there is a great opportunity here to get busy and build dams. It's wealth for toil. It's not wealth for whingeing and wailing, which is all we ever seem to get from the Labor Party. It's about time they got with the problem and started to look forward and have a vision for this country, rather than looking backwards. 17:54 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Over a million Australians are employed in our tourism industry, a sector which is critical for our economy as a whole and is especially important for those regional communities which rely almost entirely on tourism. We know that the sector has been doing it extremely hard because of COVID. This has real impacts for regional communities and also for the individuals, the families, the households who rely on the JobKeeper lifeline right now. While many sectors hit by COVID have begun to recover, tourism is different. It will continue to need help until domestic and international travel fully resume. JobKeeper has been absolutely vital for the sector, and that is exactly why the Labor Party argued so strongly for the JobKeeper program. But we still haven't seen a plan from the government for the good, secure jobs that are needed to replace JobKeeper. In Victoria alone, it is estimated that over 300,000 jobs in tourism, transport and hospitality are at risk today without JobKeeper. It absolutely beggars belief that the government has announced a tourism package that will not protect jobs, that doesn't respond to the needs the industry itself has identified, that has been met with disappointment and confusion by tourism operators in regional communities, and that actually encourages Victorians to abandon their plans to travel to their own tourist towns and instead take a flight interstate. The Victorian tourism minister, Martin Pakula, has written to his federal counterpart asking that four extra destinations be included in the government's poorly targeted tourism package. Minister Pakula has been frank in saying, 'Somewhere in the Canberra bubble there seems to be a misunderstanding of how Victorian tourism works.' He went on to say, 'Regional and metropolitan tourism recovery is too important for it to be coloured by the electoral map.' Victoria has asked the federal tourism minister to include in the scheme Melbourne Airport as well as the regional airports in Mildura, Bendigo and Albury in New South Wales. Given the government's on-again, off-again naming of locations in this scheme, Victorians will have to watch closely to see whether their airports and towns make it onto the list, and indeed, if they do, whether they stay on the list. Let's face it: this scheme is an absolute shambles and it has been a shambles from day one. The Deputy Prime Minister's shambolic interview over the weekend failed to reassure tourism operators, or anyone else for that matter, that the government has a plan to get local economies back on track. This scheme is a politicised vote-buying exercise. That is what it is. It is not a jobs plan. It is a politicised vote-buying scheme put forward by this government. What Victorians want is a federal government that will actually support a plan for real recovery that will look after the people of Victoria and that will back the tourism operators and make sure local jobs are protected. Victorian regional communities are definitely doing it tough. They need a federal government that backs them up. The people in regions who rely on tourism need a real plan from this government. They absolutely deserve better from the government. There are just too many Victorians employed in this industry to let it fail under this shambolic government scheme. 17:58 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I rise to speak on this MPI. I want to condemn the Labor Party for the economically reckless position it has adopted in opposing the Morrison government's $1.2 billion aviation and tourism package. I'm a proud Victorian senator and I'm very disappointed by the contribution of Senator Walsh, who clearly does not understand what is going on in Victoria. Last Friday I visited the Great Ocean Road Chocolaterie & Ice Creamery. It's a business which is based in three different locations: the Mornington Peninsula, the Yarra Valley and on the Great Ocean Road near Anglesea. When Daniel Andrews imposed the snap, five-day lockdown across Victoria, when there was not one regional COVID case anywhere in our state, this business lost $300,000 in five days. There were countless businesses in Victoria which suffered on the Valentine's Day weekend: accommodation providers, tourist parks and tourist destinations, like the chocolaterie. I have not heard Labor senators in this place speak out about the enormous economic damage that Victorian businesses have suffered as a result of unnecessary restrictions in Victoria, including the last five-day lockdown. That lockdown cost our state $1 billion. So perhaps, if Senator Walsh had done her homework, she would understand that businesses like the chocolaterie depend on a clientele from interstate which amounts to some 22 per cent of their overall clientele. After the most exceptionally difficult year, Ian and Leanne Neeland back this package. They believe that half-price tickets to Avalon Airport, commencing on 1 April, will make a difference. Why will it make a difference? It is because tourism businesses cannot function or operate without tourists. Since the confidence of so many tourists has been destroyed—so many people are reluctant to cross the border into Victoria because of the way the border lockdowns have been managed in Victoria—this is not just a huge incentive to come to Victoria, into Avalon from places like Queensland and Sydney, but this is a great confidence booster. As Ian Neeland said: 'Anything that can be done to attract more people to the region is really welcome. Almost 22 per cent of our customers pre COVID were from interstate, and now there are virtually none. Just imagine having more than 20 per cent of your customer base wiped out? They need confidence to travel and perhaps this package can be helpful.' The bottom line is that passenger arrivals to Avalon Airport fell over 72 per cent in 2020 due to COVID. Our region's tourism sector employs some 17,000 people just in the Geelong and the Great Ocean Road regions, and it contributes almost a billion dollars to the local economy. Already we've seen the support package prompting a 75 per cent increase in the number of Australians searching for domestic holidays online. I absolutely condemn the partisan attack by the member for Corio, Mr Marles, and the current member for Corangamite, Ms Coker, who have once again failed to stand up for our region. In asserting that this package is too focused on marginal seats, Labor continues to put politics ahead of constituents in the Corio and Corangamite electorates. Avalon Airport is deep in the heart of the Corio electorate. It services the Wyndham region—Western Melbourne, it services Southwest Victoria and it services much of Victoria because it's so easy to fly in and out of. We in the Morrison government are so proud of the work we have done to stand up for regional tourism through our Geelong City Deal and through our investment in the international terminal at Avalon Airport, creating Victoria's second international airport. I absolutely say to Mr Marles that with the majority of workers at Avalon Airport coming from the Corio and Lalor electorates, and with so many businesses in our region dependent on tourists coming to our region, Labor's failure to back half-price tickets to Avalon and all the other airports we have designated shows a reckless disregard for the tourism and hospitality sectors. So, I call on as many Australians as possible to visit our region, to eat in our restaurants, to sample our wineries, to spend up big and, of course, to visit wonderful tourist attractions like the Great Ocean Road Chocolaterie and Ice Creamery. It is rather interesting: Mr Albanese visited Corangamite last Friday, and it was all negativity and no solutions. He was accompanied by the current member for Corangamite—someone who failed to back fast rail between Melbourne and Geelong, someone who stood shoulder to shoulder with Mr Shorten and his $387 million of taxes and is now embroiled in a grubby war with the CFMEU, which is demanding that the member for Corangamite repay hundreds of thousands of dollars. She backed a state Labor Geelong City Deal that did not include one project in Corangamite. She failed to speak up about the restrictions that caused so much grief in regional communities right across Victoria, including in Corangamite. She failed to say a thing to stand up to the Victorian Labor government when they shut down the Rip Curl classic, which has now moved to New South Wales, costing local businesses in Torquay, Jan Juc, Bellbrae and across the Surf Coast countless hundreds of thousands of dollars. She even failed to stand up and speak out against the human rights abuses in Victoria, when people were shut in their homes with no notice—most notably, those shut in the public housing towers. And now Ms Coker is failing to stand up for tourism businesses—hotels, pubs, cafes and restaurants—which need tourists. They need a market. This is a very important package for our country. It includes a whole range of different elements. Of course there are the $800,000 half-price tickets, and the government and the Prime Minister have made it very clear that if there is a case for further airports to be added then we will do so. But how ridiculous of Minister Pakula to be advocating for Tullamarine Airport to be included in this package—so that business travellers can have their tickets to Melbourne subsidised? Already we are seeing hotels in Melbourne subsidised to the tune of $1 million because of the hotel quarantine program, which is actually not currently being used. We have seen an absolute disaster with the hotel quarantine program in Victoria, which has led to more than 800 deaths. Frankly, when you compare the fact that our government has stood shoulder to shoulder with all Victorians, delivering in excess of $40 billion of support, I condemn Labor for rejecting this package. This is not just important for hotels and pubs and cafes in our important regional tourist areas. It's important for the viability of our airlines. It's important for airline workers. It's important for travel agents. And it's important for businesses that now can access a new government backed loan scheme, where the government is backing these loans to the tune of up to 80 per cent. This is an incredibly important spend for our country—$1.2 billion, including for regional Victoria—and I condemn the Labor Party for opposing this critically important rescue package. 18:08 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I rise to speak on the impact that the removal of JobKeeper will have on the tourism sector and the wider economy, particularly in my home state of Tasmania. But I won't let an opportunity go by to comment just quickly on Senator Henderson's contribution. I really have to wonder whether Senator Henderson has got over the fact that the people of Corangamite just prefer Ms Coker. They chose Ms Coker to represent them. And I really think there was a reason for that: because Ms Coker is an extraordinary local member—hardworking, passionate and committed to her electorate. One of the things that has been said in this debate is around the areas that have been selected. Anyone, if they were fair dinkum, would say that the announcement of this initiative was a failure. It's amazing to me that government members and senators come up and try to spin the fact that extra areas, extra cities and extra towns have been added because they made a case. We know that's not correct. We know that there was a list put out there—accidentally, presumably—and then, suddenly, the official list was reduced by three cities, which included Hobart in my home state of Tasmania. Come on! You've got to wonder. This government has mucked up so much. They have failed in so many ways in terms of initiatives and funding and grants that don't reach where they're supposed to be reaching. They don't reach the communities they're supposed to be reaching. They don't reach the people they're supposed to be reaching. This announcement is no different. The government are saying to the Australian people 24 hours later, 'Oh, we've had representations and we're going to add Adelaide and Darwin', and then, three days later, after the original announcement, 'We're going to add Hobart.' It is nothing to do with people jumping up and down, the tourism industry jumping up and down or the Labor politicians in Tasmania jumping up and down, saying, 'Why isn't Hobart on there?' A government senator interjecting— Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Sorry? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator Brown, just ignore the interjections. Senator CAROL BROWN F49 I think that is exactly what I'm saying: we had people jumping up and down and the government realising once again that they had made an error and mucked up the whole announcement, and there was the fact that the original list was tweeted out. You've got to ask: was this all about marginal seats? Unfortunately, this is what this government is all about. It's all about politics first. It's not about the people. It's not about the community. That is why they have continued to— (Time expired) 18:12 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Hear, hear, Senator Brown! I would like to speak about the Northern Territory. Tourism is the lifeblood of the Northern Territory. In 2018-19 tourism directly employed 8,400 people in the Territory; that's 6.3 per cent of overall Northern Territory employment. It supported 15,600 jobs, or 11.8 per cent of the region's total employment. In the same period, total tourism gross state produce, GSP, was $2.6 billion, or 9.5 per cent of GSP. You can see by these figures that tourism is a critical part of our economy in the north. While the Territory has done a remarkable job in keeping us safe from COVID, our tourism industry has been hit hard. You only have to see the stories in recent months, in particular around our icons, our jewels, of the Northern Territory in terms of the national parks of Uluru and Kakadu. Let's not forget all the others in the tourism industry of the Northern Territory—hospitality, the hotels, accommodation, the cafes, the stores, the campgrounds, the caravan parks. They are so vital, in particular in the Top End as we prepare for the dry season, which is, in terms of the north, a very critical time for having people come up, spend their money and get away from the cold climates in Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney. This government's refusal to listen to the tourism industry ahead of cutting off JobKeeper kicks them when they're down. Added to the list were Alice Springs, Uluru and Darwin at the last minute. Was there a bit of confusion? Was Darwin there initially but taken off and then put back on because of the cries that the Northern Territory was missing out? It's great that Darwin is back on, don't get me wrong, but the confusion around that upset people even more. People thought, 'We obviously don't matter.' These places were added at the last minute and included in the half-price airfare scheme. How is it going to impact tour operators, cafes, restaurants, accommodation providers, retailers, taxi drivers and hire car companies? All of this is still unknown. It is astounding that the government is expecting cash-strapped Australians to spend their own money trying to save our tourism industry when it won't do the same. It might shock members of the government to learn that many Australian families cannot afford the airfares to Darwin or Alice Springs, even at half price. It would cost a family of four over $2,000 to fly from Sydney or Melbourne to Alice Springs at current prices. That doesn't include the cost of accommodation, tours and the rest. Whilst I highly recommend people visit us in the Northern Territory, the fact is that many Australian families just can't afford this at the moment. Territory businesses are worried. They're staring at an uncertain future, especially in the regional centres of the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory government's tourism voucher scheme has assisted many to stay afloat. I certainly commend the Territory government for that. Companies that rely heavily on international visitation, like bus and tour operators, are looking at grim times. The owners of businesses like Emu Run, Uluru Camel Tours and Wayoutback Australian Safaris are going to be forced to make some very tough decisions with JobKeeper ending on 28 March. (Time expired) 18:17 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Last week we saw the public treated to a live set of the Prime Minister's greatest hits—selective pork-barrelling, corporate welfare and policy by photo-op. After a year of unimaginable anxiety and uncertainty, aviation and tourism industry workers tuned into the morning news to see the Prime Minister grinning at them from an A330 Airbus, brandishing a novelty-sized boarding pass. 'Our ticket to recovery,' he said. He called it the aviation package, except that it wasn't. The Morrison government's ticket to recovery was in fact a cynical attempt to buy votes in marginal seats and give millions more of public money to Qantas and Virgin, all with no requirement that Qantas keep their staff connected to their jobs. This attempt by the government is socialism for the rich and powerful while the working people of this country get next to nothing. There are no guarantees and no obligations on the money that's being handed out. No sector of the economy has suffered more during the COVID-19 pandemic than the aviation sector, yet the Australian government has consistently sold those workers short. It has sold them out again with this announcement. At every opportunity the Prime Minister has had to give these workers a helping hand, he has pulled that hand away. A recent report from the OECD on COVID-19 support for the aviation industry ranks the Morrison government 18th out of 28 OECD countries. That is 18th out of 28 in the OECD. We're behind the Netherlands, the US, the UK, Switzerland and even Portugal. As a direct result of the Morrison government abandoning the aviation sector Australia has recorded one of the highest rates of job losses in the sector, at over 30 per cent, compared to just 19.5 per cent in the United States and 15 per cent in Singapore. How do you get the airline industry back up and running at short notice to make sure that we're ready after COVID? The stories have been spoken far and wide, largely about abandonment by this government. There are heartbreaking stories of workers, like catering and cleaning workers at dnata. The Morrison government excluded those workers from the JobKeeper program. There are the ground handlers with decades of dedicated service to Qantas, who saw their roles outsourced in the middle of the pandemic. We heard from Peter Seymour during a recent Senate inquiry. Peter was a Qantas employee for 31 years, towing aircraft between hangars and terminals. In 2019, Peter was diagnosed with stage 5 prostate cancer. He continued to work for Qantas, until the side effects of his radiation therapy made this impossible and he went onto sick leave. In the middle of the pandemic, Qantas took Peter off sick leave—off sick leave! He was forced to return to work to pay the bills, until he was forced to take redundancy. He said: I was put in this position by Qantas, not COVID—Qantas. Desiree, another worker who has been outsourced by Qantas, said: I cannot explain to you what that stress has meant to me, and I don't think my happiness will ever be restored. Peter and Desiree, like thousands of other workers, have been abandoned by this government for pork barrelling, novelty boarding passes and gimmicky photo-ops. We need 'AviationKeeper' and I urge the Morrison government to finally step up. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 The time for this discussion has expired. DOCUMENTS 85 DOCUMENTS Consideration 85 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 85 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Aviation 85 18:22 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I table a response to a question taken on notice during question time on 24 February 2021, asked by Senator Patrick, relating to the regional airline network support program and seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows— Dear Senator I am writing in relation to a question you raised regarding the Regional Airline Network Support (RANS) program during Question Time on Wednesday 24 February 2021. Regional Express Airlines (Rex), along with all our aviation operators, continues to play an important role in the aviation sector during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our programs have supported Rex to operate more than 2,400 return services and carry more than 75,000 passengers since 28 March 2020. The Australian Government is in regular contact with states and territories, including the South Australian Government, on the operation of the regional aviation network. Airlines are receiving Government assistance under different programs based on their specific circumstances. Rex is one of 15 operators receiving funding to guarantee critical aviation services, particularly in regional and remote Australia, throughout the unprecedented downturn in aviation activity. This will ensure essential workers can travel domestically, support health transport services and distribute critical goods and equipment. The funding available through the RANS program is provided to support the regional aviation market and is proportionate to Rex’s market share. Commercial activities such as raising equity to expand operations is different to the Government providing support to services that are operating at a loss in the current environment. As I conveyed during Question Time, ultimately decisions on network configurations and scheduling are a commercial matter for airlines. The regional aviation network support does not compel airlines to fly particular routes however, the Government will continue to monitor the need for future support. In addition, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission continues to monitor airline activity and publishes quarterly reports on airline competition in Australia. The Government supports a competitive aviation sector, which will provide Australian consumers the best possible access to aviation services at an affordable price. I note that Qantas have announced that they are reviewing their network and considering additional service on any of the routes that Rex decides to discontinue - this includes the Adelaide to Kangaroo Island route. The Government has also provided support to internationally reliant tourism regions, including Kangaroo Island, through the $50 million Recovery for Regional Tourism Fund. The Fund helps regions and businesses create and retain jobs by driving visitation, spurring demand and improving product diversity by driving interstate visitation. This will help these regions to achieve greater leverage from the domestic market and to help ensure there is a vibrant, internationally focussed tourism industry still in place when international visitors return. Up to $3.5 million in support is available for Kangaroo Island. The Government has committed more than $2.7 billion to support the aviation sector throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Our programs have been targeted, specific to the needs of Australian communities and developed in close consultation with the sector. This year will also see the delivery of the Government’s Five Year Plan for Aviation which will outline the national policies and reforms needed to support the sector through the challenging recovery period and beyond. I trust this information is of assistance to you. I have provided a copy of this letter to the Deputy Prime Minister and to the President of the Senate, for their information. Yours sincerely Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash BILLS 86 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Reuniting More Superannuation) Bill 2020 86

Treasury Laws Amendment (Reuniting More Superannuation) Bill 2020

Returned from the House of Representatives 86 Third Reading 86 18:22 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. COMMITTEES 86 COMMITTEES Road Safety Joint Select Committee 86 Appointment 86 18:23 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 A message has been received from the House of Representatives forwarding a resolution agreed to by that House proposing the appointment of a new Joint Select Committee on Road Safety. 18:23 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to have the message considered immediately. Leave granted. Senator DUNIAM 263418 I move: That the Senate concurs with the resolution of the House of Representatives proposing the appointment of a Joint Select Committee on Road Safety. Question agreed to. National Disability Insurance Scheme Joint Committee, Public Accounts and Audit Committee, Public Works Committee 86 Membership 86 18:23 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia The President has received a message from the House of Representatives informing the Senate of changes in the membership of the following joint committees: National Disability Insurance Scheme —Joint Standing Committee Discharged—Mr Georganas Appointed—Ms Payne Public Accounts and Audit —Joint Statutory Committee Discharged—Mr Conroy and Dr Leigh Appointed—Ms Thwaites and Ms Payne Public Works —Joint Statutory Committee Discharged—Ms L. M. Chesters Appointed—Ms Owens BILLS 87 BILLS Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2020, Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2020, Export Control Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020, Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019, Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019, Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020, National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020, Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2019, VET Student Payment Arrangements (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2020, Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Refunds of Charges and Other Measures) Bill 2020, Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2020, National Collecting Institutions Legislation Amendment Bill 2020, Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021 87

Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2020

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

Export Control Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019

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

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

National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020

Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2019

VET Student Payment Arrangements (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2020

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

Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2020

National Collecting Institutions Legislation Amendment Bill 2020

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

Assent 87 COMMITTEES 87 COMMITTEES Education and Employment References Committee 87 Reference 87 18:24 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I move: That the following matter be referred to the Education and Employment References Committee for inquiry and report by 21 October 2021: Models for Government investment in early childhood education and care (ECEC) with particular reference to: (a) the levels of government and other funding required for ECEC to optimise economic and social participation, equity of access and developmental benefits, and maximise ECEC's contribution to national productivity; (b) the roles of Commonwealth, state and territory governments in the funding and management of ECEC services, including child care, kindergarten and preschool; (c) the actual and potential economic, social, and developmental benefits from ECEC for children, families, educators, communities, and the economy; (d) workforce planning to ensure high quality training and conditions for early childhood educators; and (e) any related matters. The motion is for the Senate Employment and Education References Committee to look into models for government investment in early childhood education and care, with particular consideration of a range of critical issues. We've moved the motion for this Senate inquiry because we believe very strongly that there's a need to optimise economic and social participation for people with children, that the issues around equity of access and the developmental benefits for children also need to be recognised and that therefore early education, care and development have an intrinsic purpose in terms of contributing to children's and family wellbeing and social and economic wellbeing, as well as to the productivity of our nation. When you look at public debate about these issues and you talk to Australian families, it's high time for the parliament, and for the Senate, to listen to those families, and to children's development experts, about their needs and to people seeking to participate in the economy about these issues. We've seen very directly the fact that Australian families have struggled with skyrocketing childcare costs in what is a broken system. The 2018 so-called investments by the Morrison government have, sadly, failed to keep a lid on the out-of-pocket costs experienced by families, even though this government promised that that was the intent of changing the subsidy system. Those changes have failed to support working parents and, in particular, women to work full time or to increase their hours. If you were to look at those issues in the context of disincentives to work, it would be very clear that the take-home pay that you would add to the family pay packet with the second-income earner moving from working three days a week to four or five days a week is not worth the while of a great many families considering further participation in the workforce. This means we see parents, educators and the sector at large screaming out for reform. Labor's put forward a plan for cheaper child care, but this is a contest of ideas that really needs to take place in this parliament so that we can put Labor's policy under scrutiny but also question the coalition on its plans. We also need to engage with the states because the states have a role in subsidising kindy and preschool, a critical part of those early years. But those subsidies aren't applied equally in terms of who gets to use them, who has access to them at what age and how many days a week you can access them. The money the Commonwealth hands over to the states to support those state programs is also not equally allocated when you look at which states get money. The results of all this are that there are children in our nation who don't have access to early education, even though it would be very much in their developmental interests to have that access, that families can't afford to use child care and that, also, when they do, they're subject to a really fragmented system. It's a juggle that I remember very well as a working parent, where two days a week, from nine till three, my son would be able to go to kindergarten, and then I would have him in long day care on the other day. But it was complicated greatly by the fact that kindergarten was available for three days a week, not two, in the alternate weeks. This meant that you couldn't book, for example, an extra day every alternate week for your childcare placement, because you couldn't drop in one week and drop back out in the other. The system is incredibly fragmented and it does not work for working parents. We know that we need to make child care more affordable. At the moment, 97 per cent of families in the system are being adversely affected. It needs to be made more affordable for an overwhelming number of families. We want to be able to give a voice to parents—parents who sometimes have to stay home simply because they can't afford to go to work. The Labor Party very much respects the choices of Australian families to stay home, look after and be with their children, and to develop their interests and their wellbeing at home if they want to—and if they're able to. But that's not the case for all families. There are many families, including those of women like myself—I realised that our family wellbeing was going to be much better if I was able to pursue my interests as a working parent, making me a better mother and parent at home. But it's telling that there are too many parents who have to stay home simply because they can't afford to go to work—those out-of-pocket childcare costs, if you're working on that third or fourth day or if you have more than one child using child care, are simply too expensive to make it worthwhile. In addition, the best outcome for our children and our future is indeed a well-funded and well-organised system. We need to expose the faults in our system. We need to uncover them and highlight where we think we can make improvements. Our children and our families deserve a world-class early childhood education system—a system that's able to boost the economy and also strengthen the resilience and education of Australia's children. I note that Labor has a policy which would see the $10,560 a year childcare subsidy cap scrapped. It will be an issue to see how well that will work, and that can be interrogated by this committee. But, equally, it can put the coalition on its mettle to see where it wants these issues headed. The maximum childcare subsidy rate should, in Labor's view, be lifted; the childcare subsidy rate needs to be increased and also tapered for every family earning less than $530,000. That may seem like an extraordinary amount of money—indeed, it does in my view—but the issue is that there are families which simply choose not to participate in early childhood education. These are skilled professionals and people who have a worthwhile contribution to make to the economy who simply don't participate, not only because of the subsidy rate but also because of the fragmentation of the system and how difficult it is to access quality care. Under Labor's plan, a million families would be better off and it would remove financial barriers for more than 100,000 families who are currently locked out of the system. This is quite telling: we want to scrutinise this and talk to the community about our own policies, but we also want to see the coalition challenged in this debate. Labor believes that a plan for cheaper child care is a win-win: it's good for parents, good for children and good for the economy. We want to work with the Australian community to talk about what the nation's plans should be. This includes testing the coalition on its current policy settings. We know that the current system disproportionately affects women, who make up the majority of Australia's second-income earners. The way the current system is designed simply means that second-income earners earn little or even nothing for working a fourth or fifth day in a week. Making child care more affordable will give women back the power to make choices. If they want to work more hours or days they shouldn't be penalised, but Australian families currently don't have that choice, because going to work is simply unaffordable. That's not only doing a disservice to those household incomes but also to the businesses that would like to say to Australian women, who have no choice at the moment, that they will be able to take up more hours in their workplace if they're available. At the moment we do have some critical nation skills shortages that would be served by allowing women to work those hours by making going to work and having children a much more affordable and desirable thing to do. We know that women's participation in the labour force is lower in Australia than it is in similar countries. It is especially lower for women working full time. So, to lift economic growth, we must make child care more affordable for Australian families, and this is something that has very much been highlighted by the Grattan report. In the context of discussions about workplace assault, power in the workplace et cetera, I have to say that intrinsically linked to sexual harassment and workplace policies should also be the capacity for women to take up leadership roles and be respected in their workplaces so that they are able to drive workplace culture effectively. Currently, families don't have that choice. Currently, we also know that, because of the kinds of cultural expectations that we have in Australian workplaces, it is indeed hard for men to step back and play more of an active role at home. So, in my view, we very much need to look at these issues holistically. The Productivity Commission released data in February this year that shows a 21.7 per cent rise in one year in the number of parents who aren't working because of childcare costs. That means this nation now has more than 90,000 parents not working because of out-of-control fees under this government. The data shows childcare costs rose by some 5.6 per cent between 2019 and 2020. That's supported by the latest inflation data from just last week. Out-of-pocket costs in Brisbane, Sydney and Darwin are now higher under this government than they were under the old system. There are a great many issues that we need, and want, to dive into in this inquiry. I've highlighted some of the economic issues. Equally important is the early development role of early education for our nation's children. The first years of a child's life are so critical to their development. Ninety per cent of brain growth occurs by the age of five. This is why Labor is intrinsically committed to improving our national system for child care and early education, and it is why we should be having a robust national discussion about these issues, engaging with early childhood specialists and educators and with Australian families on these issues. Harvard University's Center on the Developing Child say that if early adversity is not mitigated, then vulnerability can impact on lifelong learning, behaviour and health. Greater access to child care helps children get the best access to early education and can play a critical role in improving their lifelong outcomes. Australian families deserve better, but, most importantly, Australia's children deserve better. The current system is a fragmented mess and families are under incredible financial pressure. Caps on the childcare rebate, the loss of family benefits and the tax system mean that some second earners could be working for little or nothing on the fourth and fifth days of a full-time week. The CCIWA highlighted this when they said: … in a household where both parents have the potential to earn $60,000 per year full-time, the second income earner would be working for about $2 per hour on the fourth day and nothing on the fifth day. That is an outrage. It puts Australia's families in a ridiculous situation. Of course you're not going to enrol your child for the purpose of early education, even if you're not working, if you can't afford to do so. The daily fees are simply too high to make a robust decision for your family that says: my child and their interests would be best served by being able to access a greater amount of time in the early education system. We know that it's around 15 hours a week, which simply is not adequate to meet those needs. (Time expired) 18:40 Senator LINES 112096 Western Australia I too want to contribute to this debate. I want to start by looking at the way in which the governments of Mr Abbott, Mr Turnbull and Mr Morrison have really botched early childhood education and care in this country. Far be it for me on this day, the March 4 Justice day, to suggest that early childhood care is women's business, but I'd hazard a guess that this is the view of the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments and their succession of male early childhood education ministers. They just don't get the importance of affordable early childhood education and care to the economic wellbeing of families, women and the nation. They just don't get that quality early childhood education and care which is affordable for families is good for everyone. As we know, until recently there were no women at all on their powerful Expenditure Review Committee. We know that they were shamed into cobbling together, after the budget had been announced, their Women's Economic Security Statement. It was pretty laughable, because it was quite difficult to pinpoint economic reforms that would benefit women, but they'd managed to cobble something together because they'd been criticised by women's groups, by economists—indeed by most people in Australia—for that very poor budget and that they definitely had their male credentials on the line. Since then they have appointed Senator Ruston to that powerful economics committee. Of course, we know that under Mr Abbott, who laughably and disgracefully appointed himself minister for women, there was only one woman in cabinet, and, quite frankly, things haven't got much better since those days. The test to ascertain whether governments are truly interested in women's economic advancement is how important they rate early education and care. Where is it on their agenda? Let's have a look at what they've done in the area. They promised us a new, beaut system of child care with a guaranteed cap on the skyrocketing fees to families. But we know that hasn't worked. The only group that's in denial about the failure of that system to make child care more affordable is, indeed, the Morrison government. I think the Prime Minister made it a bit of a signature policy of his to somehow magically reduce fees across Australia for working families using early childhood education and care. Well, it has not worked. We know that the cost of early childhood education and care for families is now a significant burden. Indeed, it is holding women back. It becomes too expensive for parents to use care full time, and that burden is then carried by women, who continue to work part time. We know what that does to women's economic advancement: they fail to get promotions. We've got a 13 per cent wage gap between men's and women's wages in this country, and nothing makes that figure stick more than condemning women to part-time work because full-time child care is completely unaffordable. You heard Senator Pratt earlier talk about how she managed her son when he was in early childhood education and care. It's a burden for families, and we're putting that responsibility onto grandparents. There are now many, many grandparents in this country who look after children one or two days a week because early childhood education and care are simply not affordable. Of course, if that's a choice for families, good on them—that's what should happen—but lots of families are forced into that situation. And we don't know how many families are accessing backyard care. We know it's been a problem in the past, but we have no idea about that. We can measure the number of grandparents who care for children, but we don't know what is happening with backyard care, which is unregulated and where children are potentially placed in vulnerable situations. It has been shown recently that, with Mr Morrison's 'rolled gold' or 'beaut' system, out-of-pocket costs in Brisbane, Sydney and Darwin are now higher than they were under the old system. What we've seen, right back from when Mr Howard introduced the current system, which has been tinkered with at the edges, is that no-one has really tackled childcare costs adequately. The government have made an absolute botch of it, and it is not front and centre of their agenda. They have now put it with Mr Tehan, who has the very big responsibility of education. If we've got child care on the one hand and the education system—schools, universities—on the other, we all know which direction he is going to get pulled in, and early childhood education and care will continue not to get the support or indeed the spotlight and focus that they need to have. The increased costs that I've just talked about in those major cities of course come at a time when wages in this country have been stagnating. For most Australian workers, wages have not risen. During the pandemic many Australians lost their jobs. The group that has been hardest hit during the pandemic is again women. We've seen a recent shameful study—and I've heard nothing from the government about this—showing that women of child-bearing age, with university degrees, are now not being re-employed. What is the male-dominated Morrison government doing about that? Nothing. Not a word have we heard. So that is a growing problem, and we'll see women continually being held back because males with university degrees are being re-employed at a much, much faster rate than women of the same age with the same qualifications. That tells you employers are making a very clear choice about really not supporting adequate family leave for men and, particularly, women. With that wage burden, where women have lost employment and where wages have stagnated, families are now having to make choices about childcare fees. 'My childcare fees have gone up four per cent'—or six per cent—'how am I going to afford that?' What else is coming off the family budget to enable families to continue to work, where that is their choice? We don't know that, and it's one of the issues that a Senate committee can really drill down into. But we do know that childcare costs are a significant burden on family budgets. The other issue, which you rarely hear the government talk about—and, in fact, I'd argue it's the most important point—is that early childhood education and care are good for our children. We all know that putting the services, support and education in when children are young is the biggest boost we can give to children. Study after study shows us that the first years of a child's life are vital to their development. In fact, 90 per cent of brain growth occurs by the age of five years. So children in quality early learning are absolutely benefiting from that. What we want to see is stimulating, quality early childhood education and care; we know it's good for children. But it needs to be not only good for children but affordable. What about for children in vulnerable families? Harvard University's Center on the Developing Child says that, if early adversity is not mitigated, vulnerabilities can impact on lifelong learning, behaviour and health. We know that. We know that it has a big impact if it's not reversed. So ensuring that children in vulnerable families have access to early education is a social good. But I have never ever heard those on the other side, in the Morrison government, talk about a social good. It goes completely over their heads. Thrive by Five recently took out a full-page ad signed by a range of academics and other well-known people across Australia. They've been very vocal, and rightly so, about the need for children to have access to quality early childhood education and care, and for this care to be affordable for families. They too back the need for all children to have access to quality learning. Of course, we saw this during the pandemic. Early childhood educators have been amongst the strongest advocates for quality education and care, and they were champions during the COVID pandemic, particularly during the lockdowns. Without them, doctors, nurses and other frontline workers wouldn't have been able to go to work. Yet these people are not adequately paid for the contribution they make to the wellbeing of our children—nor, indeed, were they for their selfless service during the pandemic. Parents know this, academics know this and Thrive by Five know this. It seems the only group who don't know or recognise this are the government, who are in a position to do something about the shocking wages in the sector. Make no mistake: it is the federal government that funds this sector. I know the Prime Minister likes to say he doesn't hold a hose and he's not the police, and I'm sure he's saying he's not responsible for childcare centres, but he is. Responsibility for the poor wages of early childhood educators rests fairly and squarely at the feet of the Morrison government—nowhere else but at their feet. To add insult to injury, this was the very first sector the government removed JobKeeper from. If that's not a sign that they don't understand, or won't acknowledge, the importance of this sector to families—in particular to women's economic advancement and the development of children—I don't know what is. It frustrates me, and I'm sure it bewilders families, when the government stand up and defend their caps system. In WA there has been a massive increase in the mean per-hour fee. In suburbs such as Belmont and Victoria Park, where I live, we've seen fees go up by 3.4 per cent—no wages growth and a fee rise of 3.4 per cent. In Joondalup, in the northern suburbs, we've seen fees go up by 6.7 per cent. In Swan, out in the eastern suburbs, we've seen fees go up by 5.2 per cent. And in the more affluent suburbs of Cottesloe and Claremont we've seen fees go up by 4.4 per cent. This is unacceptable. It's just amazing that the Morrison government continue to ignore what's happening in Western Australia. In their recent tourism package, the only place in WA to get money was Broome. You and I know, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, that if we fly from Perth to Broome we'll pay $2,000 return. If someone flies from Sydney they'll be getting there more cheaply than us. If that's not punishing Western Australians, I don't know what is. Labor has a solid plan. We want to cap fees for 97 per cent of families who use early childhood education and care, and we want to have a Senate inquiry so that these issues can be properly addressed and placed fairly and squarely at the feet of the Morrison government. And be it on their own heads if they say, 'Oh, we don't run childcare centres!'—which I suspect is exactly what we'll hear from the Prime Minister. It's time they faced the truth. They fund this sector, and they need to get it right for families in this country. 18:55 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland We serve Australia, and we see early childhood education and care funding as crucial. I'm in a party whose leader is female. She's in fact a grandmother, and she has a very talented and hardworking daughter who also has young kids. I'm a parent, and I know what's involved in raising a child—not as much as a mother knows; nonetheless, I am a parent. And I remind people that Maria Montessori probably did more work on early childhood education, human development and human behaviour than anyone who has ever lived and anyone who's alive today. Her research, her findings, were profound. She said that the critical years for the formation of both character and intellect are birth to six. So early childhood education is fundamental. Character and intellect are developed then. I'm going to be brief, because the main point I want to make is to thank Senator Pratt. She approached us, and our offices then spoke. This is an important topic, as I said. But what we didn't see, what we didn't hear, was an articulation from that office of the problem. That's not a criticism of that office. It's just that basically my staff asked, 'With this inquiry, what is it you're going to achieve?' And we were given the Labor Party policy in return. The secretariat in the Senate is already busy and very stretched, so we need to see evidence of what will come from this, from all the work that will be involved. I want to point out an example of someone who works with us very well, and that is Senator Deb O'Neill. She came to us in the previous weeks with her bill regarding more protection for franchisees and for car dealers in particular. We worked with her, and we've worked with Senator O'Neill in the past. That's the sort of person we like to work with. That's what we need: facts. And, Acting Deputy President Sterle, we've worked well with you. You've come to us with facts. It is the same with Senator Sheldon, with Senator Gallacher and with Senator Gallagher. We appreciate people coming to us. We will work with anyone. We'll work with any party, provided that we are given the facts, the data, the substance that people want support on. We've worked with Senator Patrick and take great delight in working with him, and Senator Griff and Senator Lambie, and the Greens; we've worked with the Greens. Perhaps I should point out that the Liberal-Nationals coalition learnt first, and they learnt very quickly, that we do work honestly and sincerely, and we stick to our position until we're given evidence otherwise. And then we will come on board, so we can be critical and questioning. But that's our job, because we serve the people of Australia. So, while I thank Senator Pratt for approaching us on this, we need the substance, we need the facts, we need the data. That's all I needed to say, apart from the fact that One Nation sees early childhood education as critical and sees child care as critical. But it needs to be based on fact. 18:58 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I rise to speak on this reference proposed by the Chair of the Education and Employment References Committee, Senator Pratt. The reference proposes an examination of how best the Australian government should invest in early childhood education and care to achieve the very best care and development outcomes for young Australians. This reference is a critical and important opportunity for the committee to examine and recognise the central value of early childhood education to children, to families, to communities and indeed to the whole Australian economy. Really, it is long past time we examined and committed to solutions to the problems that are plaguing this sector. There are so many questions about how we as a society support, fund and roll out quality early childhood education services in Australia today. Funding is one of the big questions. How should we best fund this critical sector? How should we best manage and deliver quality early childhood education and care? And of course one of the most important questions in how we deliver quality early childhood education and care is the workforce. How do we support a quality early childhood education workforce? Today we know that the dedicated, qualified professional workers in this sector are severely undervalued. Critically, we need to examine, as this reference proposes, the wages that we pay to our hardworking early childhood educators. This is a hugely important sector to our community, to our society and to our economy. We know that early engagement with children and their families through early childhood education and care delivers strong outcomes for the community. There is a very well established body of evidence, which, indeed, is growing, that early engagement with children and their families delivers the best, strongest outcomes. Early childhood education and care is critical for children's social development, emotional development, language development and, indeed, cognitive development. In fact, we know that 90 per cent of a child's brain development occurs in those critical early years of zero to five years of life. And so the best outcomes are going to be delivered by a system that delivers high-quality, affordable and accessible early childhood education. We want to be able to fulfil the potential that our children have and we want to be able to lift their opportunities. There is also, of course, a growing body of evidence about the importance of early childhood education in dealing with disadvantage. Early childhood education and care is absolutely critical for children who come from backgrounds where they need extra support, where they need extra education and care if we're going to be able to lift their opportunities as they enter school and as they become young adults in our country. Quality programs mean much greater educational attainment for children, flowing through the school years and, indeed, into adulthood. And accessibility to services is critical to delivering the full developmental benefit that can be unlocked through quality early childhood education. Improving affordability and access to early childhood education is going to benefit hundreds of thousands of Australian children and their families, and it's not just going to benefit children and families; it's going to benefit the whole economy and benefit social participation as well. Early childhood education and care services, of course, increase the opportunities for patterns to go out and work and for them to earn. And that doesn't just affect them in their own households; it affects all of us. It affects our economic potential. We know as a country that we have a problem with the workforce participation of women and that quality, affordable, accessible early childhood education is critical to boosting the participation of women in our workforce, in our economy and, indeed, in our society. But it is absolutely critical that parents know when they put their children into early childhood education and care that they receive the highest quality programs. That in turn relies on the workforce. It relies on the right workforce planning and asking: how do we secure a strong professional workforce into the future? It relies on the best, highest quality training for staff. And, critically, it relies on us committing to decent, respectful pay and conditions for our skilled and qualified early childhood educators. For many years, I've been hearing from early childhood educators that the wages are just so low they can't actually afford to stay in the jobs that they love. If we want a high-quality early childhood education sector, we need to invest in the educators themselves and we need to figure out how to do that in a sustainable way. We can't continue to offer quality early childhood education in this country when about a third of educators are leaving the jobs, sector and industry they love every year because they just can't afford to stay on those low wages. Nothing in early childhood education is possible without an absolutely exceptional workforce of dedicated, committed early childhood educators. But, to deliver that workforce, we absolutely need to figure out how to deliver better wages and better conditions to those educators and better training so that they can be their very best. The low wages in the early childhood sector are absolutely at odds with that goal. They are at odds with maintaining this exceptional workforce. Early childhood educators have done absolutely everything they can to make their case to this federal government. They have campaigned for better wages for years. They have tried to raise their wages through the bargaining system. They have run work value cases. They have won equal pay cases. They have walked off the job multiple times to try to get the respect and the recognition that they deserve from this government for their important work. Over 90 per cent of these people are women and they are qualified. They are professional. They are dedicated. They are committed to the children that they are providing education to and care for. But they are severely undervalued. They are flat out underpaid. With wages as low as $21 or $22 an hour, this absolutely critical workforce is earning around half the average wage. So, if we value this sector, if we value the contribution early childhood educators make to the sector, we have to figure out how to provide professional wages to the majority women who work in this sector and who, day in and day out, provide excellent and high-quality education services to children. The fact that this sector is over 90 per cent women and the fact that the sector has been seen as women's work is really the key factor in why their wages are so low today. Fixing affordability for families is absolutely critical, but it's only half the problem that we face in the sector today. We absolutely need to improve the pay and the working conditions for educators themselves. So the future of early childhood education and, indeed, our whole education system has to include a plan about how we finally ensure that those educators are paid what they are worth—educators like Kerry, who has been in the sector for over 30 years. She is an educator who finds it difficult to afford to stay in the job that she loves. She's been in the sector for over 30 years but she, as a senior educator, earns only around half the average wage. She can't afford to buy a house. She rents. She can't imagine when she'll be able to retire. She's in her 50s and, because of the low wages she has been on for over 30 years, she can't see when she'll be able to retire. It is extraordinary that we organise such a critical sector like the early childhood education sector on the basis of low wages. It's extraordinary that the federal government has continued to look at early childhood education as basically babysitting. On the league table of OECD expenditure on this sector, we as a country are nowhere near the top. We do not invest in this sector at the same rate as other countries which have much better outcomes. As early childhood educators say, while they absolutely love their jobs, love doesn't pay the mortgage or the rent. While they love working with children and are dedicated and committed to doing that, love doesn't put food on the table. We need a sustainable early childhood education sector—one that recognises in pay packets the professionalism of educators and one with affordable and accessible education that supports parents to return to work. We need a sustainable early childhood education sector that provides the highest quality early childhood education and care that invests in our future generations. We shouldn't be a country that spends well below the OECD average on this critical sector. We should absolutely invest in it. We need a federal government that values early childhood educators—that values them in their pay packets, that values their professionalism and that respects and rewards them. We need a federal government that will invest in and develop a sustainable quality early childhood education system. For all of those reasons I think this reference—to examine how we can best invest in early childhood education and care to achieve the very best care and development outcomes for young Australians, to examine the funding, to examine the management and delivery of services and, critically, to assess the wages that we pay our hardworking early educators—is absolutely critical. This reference is critical. This investigation is critical. I commend this reference to the Senate. 19:12 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I rise to speak briefly on Senator Pratt's motion to refer to the Senate Education and Employment References Committee a reference about early childhood education. I want to say at the start that early childhood education and care is an essential service. It should be universal and it should be free. I say this not just from a rights perspective. There is a compelling case for free and universally available early childhood education and care because it has enormous benefits for children and enormous benefits for families. Of course, it has enormous benefits and is good for women. It also has enormous social and economic benefits for our whole community. It leads to a more equitable society. I have been a beneficiary of affordable early childhood education and care, as have my children. I would not have been able to study or have a career if I hadn't had that benefit. But I can tell you it didn't come easily. The early childhood education opportunities and child care that were around where I lived when I was studying were completely unaffordable. I was lucky that a few students at the University of New South Wales got together and lobbied the university to open the first cooperative childcare centre at the University of New South Wales. I cannot thank enough the early childhood education and care workers at that centre and across the board who educate and care for our children, our little ones. I agreed with Senator Walsh when she said that they are some of the lowest-paid workers in our country. That is completely unacceptable. If we do value education and if we value care for our children then we must, as a priority, value those people who provide that education and care. But I guess we also have to acknowledge that in our patriarchal society caring work has long been seen as women's work. It's undervalued, and that has created a heavily casualised and underpaid workforce in this particular sector, which is early childhood learning and care. This is not an accident, to be really frank. The entire system, and practically our entire economy, really relies on the unpaid and underpaid work of women in caring roles and on the skills and difficult work done in early childhood and childcare centres. That is simply an extension of this underpaid work. I think this inquiry is important because it will examine how to fund early childhood education and care well. Every day I meet people in the community—especially women—who tell me that most of the salary they're earning goes to pay for early childhood education for their children. That's not a country that we should be aspiring to. We should use exactly the same logic as our public schools, where education is free, for early childhood education and care because that's where our children are going to be set up for the rest of their lives. I'll conclude by saying that it's important to inquire into how we can fund early childhood education and care to be fee free. We did it in the pandemic with the stroke of a pen, but then a few months later the government took us back to the old broken system. And it is a broken system; it is hard for people to afford that system but it should be an essential and universal service. I commend this motion to the Senate and I hope that we can agree to start off an inquiry so that we can move towards a system which is universal and fee free for every family and every child in this country. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU The question is that the motion moved by Senator Pratt be agreed to. A division having been called, it will be deferred to a later hour. COVID-19 Select Committee 94 Report 94 19:18 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That the Senate endorses the findings of the Select Committee on COVID-19 that it does not accept the public interest immunity claims made by various ministers as detailed in the committee's second interim report, and adopts the recommendations of the report. As foreshadowed in my contribution when the select committee's second interim report was tabled at the end of the last sitting period, today I'm calling upon the Senate and my fellow senators to stand up and perform one of the most vital and constitutionally important functions we are called on to do—that is, that the Senate meaningfully assert its unique powers and pre-eminent role in holding the executive to account and, in doing so, reject the Morrison government's inappropriate misuse of public interest immunity claims. The government has repeatedly invoked PII claims without satisfactorily addressing the public harm that would be caused, and this has been a consistent and dismaying occurrence through the course of the Select Committee on COVID-19's inquiry. Let's be clear about what this means: as outlined in the committee's second interim report, the invoking of the PII claims by numerous departments, agencies and their responsible ministers constitutes a wilful obstruction of access to information that is unquestionably critical to the committee's scrutiny work. The obstruction not only undermines the committee's special role in scrutinising government at a time when many of the parliament's most powerful scrutiny mechanisms were not able to operate as designed but also is a direct assault by the executive on the Senate's explicit powers and purpose. The Senate was deliberately endowed with expansive powers of inquiry, including those that allow the Senate to order information from ministers. Equally, the Senate recognises that executive government holds information which ought not be disclosed and that there are clear and established practices which enable government, for instance, to make a substantiated claim of public interest immunity. It must be noted that the committee, through its work over the past year, has recognised this important caveat on the Senate's powers and has considered and granted two claims of public interest immunity because it was reasonable to do so and the claims met the test that has been created by this chamber. However, the government's repeated misuse of public interest immunity claims to withhold information diminishes the select committee and, in doing so, it ultimately also diminishes and erodes the Senate's unique function of oversight and scrutiny. As I said last month, we as senators and as custodians of the institution of the Senate, which will endure long after we have all departed, must respond to this challenge presented by executive government. As I've also said, we cannot allow the Senate to receive only the information that is politically convenient for the government to provide when they want to provide it. Otherwise, we'll continue to see cynical and deliberate attempts by this government to delay or deny access to information that is fully within the purview of the Senate's power to access. But this does require all of us in this chamber who don't sit on the government's benches to work together to demonstrate that the power of the Senate as a whole, its collective resolve, is to protect its role and ensure that one of its most important responsibilities, in terms of scrutiny, accountability and transparency and the power to require documents from the executive, from ministers, is protected. We've had a series of questions for which we have been seeking answers from the government, along with information and documents, and I should say that we start usually by asking for that information to be provided through the committee. If it's not provided through the committee then the committee of course allows for questions to be taken on notice. What happens then is that, unless the committee secretariat chases up those questions, they're often not answered; they just hope that the question goes away. It's meant the committee has had to write to the department, initially, reminding them of the questions that were asked and seeking the documents. Then the department refers it to the minister, as is appropriate, and the committee waits for the minister to reply, often in a letter seeking to protect information. The committee may have asked, for example: what was the date that the Chief Medical Officer first briefed the cabinet about the COVID-19 pandemic? It doesn't seem to be highly controversial or information that must be kept secret. The letter will come back, often months later, basically saying, 'Cabinet-in-confidence means we cannot provide this information.' It's an abuse of the Cormann motion, which very clearly sets out the process for claiming public interest immunity and the process for demonstrating the harm that providing that information would cause to the public. So there are different aspects to the public interest immunity process that need to be answered. Quite often the response we get from the government through the ministers is lazy, uses a reason that doesn't meet the test set out and passed by this chamber in the Cormann motion and doesn't provide any explanation for the harm that might be caused by the provision of that information to this chamber. There are seven public interest immunity claims that we have brought back to the Senate chamber. We have sought to resolve this through the normal process, through the committee, by asking questions and questions on notice and going through the process. We find ourselves now with the responsibility to report back to this chamber the way the government does, when it chooses to do—and on unusual issues, like when the chief medical officer first briefed the cabinet. For the life of me I cannot understand why that has become one of the biggest secrets in the land during the COVID-19 pandemic, but evidently it is. I didn't think we'd have to go down this path, because I thought the question would be answered, to be honest. It was only when it was consistently refused to be answered that we had to go through this process. We've also asked for legal advice around the Attorney-General's Department receiving information around the interaction of the privacy amendment bill with the COVIDSafe app and the United States' Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act. In answering that, the Attorney-General not only failed to provide the document but also said, 'We're not going to provide it, because we never do.' Again, that is not following the Cormann motion; that is not providing evidence or any explanation about the public harm that might be caused by the provision of that information. At that time, when that information was sought, we were talking about basically implementing an app that helped provide location data on individuals in the middle of a pandemic. It was urgent, and we supported the rollout of the app, but there were also some significant questions around how it interacted with legislation and how people's privacy was protected. So there were genuine reasons the Senate committee should have been provided that information or with some answer rather than no answer. There were other examples. I think with the minister for health it was around the economic modelling of the COVID response. I remind people that this committee was set up with the agreement of the government. The government agreed to the establishment of this committee as a way of providing accountability, scrutiny and transparency to the most urgent government response this country has probably seen post the war. We had billions of dollars flowing out the door. We're going to have a trillion dollars of debt racked up by the time we finish this. Whilst Labor accepted the need to spend money and supported the emergency response, in fully understanding the decisions the government took—including why some people were left out of the economic packages and others weren't—and understanding the information that underpinned those decisions, once those decisions were taken we weren't wanting to go back and see why the government made those decisions; we were wanting to understand the impact of those economic packages once the government had made those decisions. But again we were told, 'It's cabinet-in-confidence; we're not going to provide that information.' The terms of reference for this committee are to monitor and scrutinise the Australian government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and any other related matters. So this falls squarely within the terms of reference, and the economic and health response has been the predominant focus of this committee. Seeking information about the modelling that underpinned those decisions in terms of the economic response was, we thought, important. On another one the government rejected: we called the Productivity Commission chair, Mr Brennan, to the committee. He came to provide evidence, and it was very useful. In the course of his evidence he mentioned he'd given a presentation to the national cabinet. We asked for a copy of the presentation he provided. Presumably it's good enough to provide to state and territory governments, but it's not allowed to be provided to the Senate so it can understand what the Productivity Commission's view of the COVID-19 pandemic and the response to it is. Again, I didn't think that was too controversial. We put in a request for that to be provided, it was referred to the Treasurer and they denied access to that document. Importantly, we asked the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians about when he first briefed the cabinet about the unfolding crisis in Commonwealth regulated aged-care services in Victoria. Sadly, as we know, 75 per cent of all deaths from COVID-19 in this country were people in residential aged-care services that are funded and regulated by the Commonwealth government. As the minister appeared, we were asking questions about that period in May, June and July 2020 and what was happening—when was the aged-care minister briefing cabinet? Again, we've been told we're not allowed to have that information either. These are simple questions. They don't go to the heart of deliberations of cabinet. They don't disclose anything in terms of cabinet deliberations or discussions. They're not related to a decision of cabinet. Yet the government has decided that it won't provide that information to the Senate. This is important, and we will continue to do this as more public interest immunity claims roll in, because fundamental to the work of this chamber and to holding this government to account is the ability of the Senate to call for documents, to require those documents, to call for evidence, to provide scrutiny and to ask the hard questions and for the government to respond, in accordance with the motion that Minister Cormann, as a member of the opposition, moved and passed in 2009—the Cormann motion. It's very clear, and this government doesn't follow it. It doesn't follow it whenever it doesn't want to. That's what we're seeing with these public interest immunity claims. We believe that these are matters of significant principle that require the Senate to work together, particularly non-government senators. Otherwise we will simply be spoonfed the information that the government want to spoonfeed us, on their terms and on their time. And that's not been the role of Senate committees or this chamber. I would urge senators, particularly the crossbench, to think about this as a matter of principle and as a matter of making sure that when the Senate COVID committee, which is going to go for this entire parliament—but it's not just the COVID committee; it's all committees—calls for documents, that call is treated properly under the terms of the Cormann motion by the government so that when they claim public interest immunity it meets the test, as outlined in the Cormann motion, but that when the committees disagree with that claim of public interest immunity there is actually a contest on this floor, to contest that and to push back on the government. If we don't support these recommendations of this committee, then the government gets its way. 19:33 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I too rise to speak about the COVID-19 select committee public interest immunity claims. I'm making a contribution to this debate not only as a senator in this place but also as the chair of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, where we have concerns about the way this government operates and the lack of legislation that is reliant upon regulations. As senators, we have not only the power but also the duty to scrutinise the government and to hold the executive to account. But the government's repeated misuse of public interest immunity claims in order to withhold information diminishes the select committee, and, in so doing, ultimately dismisses, diminishes and erodes the Senate's unique function of oversight and scrutiny. As senators, we cannot allow the Senate to receive only information that is politically convenient for the government to provide. We cannot allow the government to drip-feed information based on its political agenda. This government has a reputation, under this Prime Minister, of being a government of spin, photo opportunities and lack of transparency. That's how the public is perceiving the Morrison government. If we don't stand up to this government to ensure that there is scrutiny, then we will see the public becoming more and more cynical about our democracy. We will continue to see cynical and deliberate attempts by this secretive government to delay or deny access to information that it is fully within the scope of the Senate's power to access. We must protect the Senate's role and allow it to continue to perform one of its most important responsibilities, by endorsing the seven recommendations of this committee's report. This would give effect to a series of OPDs that would ensure that information denied to the committee—inappropriately claimed by the government to be protected by public interest immunity provisions—is provided to the Senate by no later than 12 pm on 17 March 2021. By not providing these documents, the government is denying the committee's ability to scrutinise government decisions, and this will have a significant impact on the lives of Australians. As Senator Gallagher has already highlighted in her contribution, this committee was set up with the government fully aware of the need to have scrutiny at a time when there was the COVID-19 pandemic and the necessity for the government to act and to expend money. It was fully aware there would have to be oversight of that expenditure. That meant that it was going to be scrutinised by that committee, but, more importantly, it was going to be scrutinised by this chamber. Unfortunately, the behaviour of the government reflects a pattern of conduct by this government of smoke and mirrors and cover-ups and running a protection racket. The public are losing faith in this government to act in their best interests. The government's most recent announcement, of half-price airline tickets to conveniently located destinations in marginal seats, is just another example of how Mr Morrison—like his government—is a spin master and will only act for his own political gain. As we were faced with unprecedented circumstances last year, the Morrison government was afforded sweeping powers and billions of dollars of taxpayer funds to properly enact policy. We have to remember this is taxpayers' money, and we know this government will have racked up trillions of dollars of debt. It is only reasonable that the actions of this government are scrutinised by the committee, with transparency and accountability being crucial to upholding our democracy. The Select Committee on COVID-19 is one of the primary mechanisms to perform this duty and evaluate the Morrison government's response to the COVID-19 crisis. However, as highlighted by the work of this committee, this government has, on numerous occasions, obstructed its work and blocked attempts to gain vital information. The inquiry was deliberately given expansive powers of inquiry, including the authority to order information from ministers. With each of the government's claims discussed in the second interim report, adequate reasoning is not provided to justify withholding the information. But this is the normal practice and behaviour that we have come to expect from those sitting opposite. If we fail to stand up for the Senate's power of inquiry, I fear that it will become compromised, and our democracy will falter. The Australian people deserve to have transparency and accountability. I commend the hard work of Senator Gallagher and our Labor team in their pursuit of the information from ministers. There has been claim after claim of public interest immunity, more often than not without any substantive explanation of how the public will be harmed by the release of such information. As Senator Gallagher has said, some of this information has been given to state and territory leaders but not to us, Australian senators responsible for scrutinising this government. The information includes requests to confirm the date on which the Chief Medical Officer had briefed cabinet—a key part of the government's initial response to the pandemic—which, over nine months after Dr Murphy's tentative answer, remains confidential; whether or not a US law enforcement agency could access data collected by the COVIDSafe app; the economic modelling underpinning the government's response; and a presentation by the Productivity Commission to national cabinet. The former Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, now the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services, was asked when he first briefed the cabinet about the pandemic and if he briefed them at all on the royal commission's report during the outbreak in residential aged care in Victoria. These have been important questions. Again, we are being stonewalled by this government. I acknowledge that the government had to enact swift responses to this once-in-a-century event, but information such as this is essential to evaluate and examine so that we can better prepare ourselves for the future. JobSeeker and JobKeeper were successful in maintaining domestic consumption, but billions of dollars of taxpayers' money was spent on these schemes, and it is only appropriate that we view the data the government had which determined the level of these supplements. We tragically lost 685 Australians in residential aged care last year. Australia was one of the worst-performing countries in the world when it came to protecting older Australians from COVID-19. We must know when Minister Colbeck briefed cabinet about the management of COVID-19 in the aged-care sector. I have to say that older Australians—most Australians, certainly those members of our community who have family and loved ones in the aged-care sector in this country—have every reason to lack confidence not only in this minister but in this government for their lack of care for elderly people, not just during the pandemic but since they've been in government, with the royal commission bringing down its interim report, titled Neglect. There is no reason why there should be hostility from the government when we are asking questions like, 'When did Mr Colbeck brief cabinet in relation to COVID-19 and residents in aged care?' Not disclosing such information causes us to question whether any briefings occurred until 5 August 2020, by which time 130 residents had already died. This report made seven recommendations to obtain vital information from ministers in their response to the COVID-19 crisis, and, by denying access, they are denying us justice. As I said earlier, the public are losing faith in this government—for good reason, I might add. The Australian people, via the powers of the Senate, have the right to this information. The Senate must protect that right. Therefore, I call on the senators on the crossbench to endorse the recommendations made in this report. We cannot allow the Senate to receive only information that is politically convenient for the government of the day. The claim of public interest immunity is a callous attempt to deceive the Australian people, and it is not exclusive to this committee. As I said at the outset, I chair the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. Our committee works in a bipartisan manner because our role is to scrutinise legislation—not to debate the legislation, but to scrutinise that legislation—and we have raised our concerns at attempt after attempt by the Morrison government to delegate legislation so as to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. They are doing this by stealth and are trying to erode the functions of the Senate. The government also routinely deny access to information, rejecting freedom of information requests and giving late and ambiguous answers to questions on notice. The only reason I can see for the government continuing to do that is that they are trying to hide something. Now we know the Prime Minister is the master of spin. We know his agenda is only ever run by the political necessity of ensuring his political survival. That's what we saw on the weekend with this $1.2 billion bonanza for the airline sector, promising half-price fares to some destinations based on Liberal marginal seats and seats that they are targeting to win. Then, of course, they had to go back to the drawing board, when they were exposed for the frauds that they are, and add some further destinations. Well, the Australian people are not blinded by the confetti of money that it suits the government to throw around the community at their own political timing. The community expects this chamber to be able to scrutinise the actions of the government. The billions upon billions of dollars that this government has been spending during this pandemic have not necessarily been well targeted. We have highlighted those sectors that were left behind, and we know what's going to happen at the end of the month when JobKeeper is cut. I know the dramatic impact that's going to have on my Tasmanian community, which relies so much on small business, tourism and hospitality. We know the impact that that's going to have. We know that wages have stagnated in this country. We know underemployment and casualisation are hurting Australian workers. We will always demand to have scrutiny of expenditure by this government. Therefore, these recommendations from this committee should be supported. Along with my Labor colleagues, I seek the support of the crossbench and to have them stand with us and demand scrutiny of this government, because that is so important to our democracy. At this point in time we need to assure our community that there is scrutiny, that there is transparency and, most importantly, that there is accountability. So, in this chamber and in the other place, we will hold this government to account each and every day, because that's our job and that's what the Australian people expect from us each and every day. 19:48 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I want to speak on the Second interim report: public interest immunity claims of the Select Committee on COVID-19 and the tabling of documents. Transparency and accountability are bedrock principles in government which I think you would find near-universal support for among the Australian public. In fact, if you ran a poll asking whether transparency and accountability are desirable traits for a government, I think close to 100 per cent of respondents would say yes. I say 'close to 100 per cent' because there are at least 112 members of the coalition government who, based on all the available evidence, would tick 'no'. This is a government so averse to scrutiny it has two senior cabinet ministers on indefinite paid leave, avoiding questions in this place, hoping that serious allegations against them will just blow over. Earlier today, tens of thousands of people marched across the country, including just outside these doors, in the Women's March 4 Justice—and, of course, I was one of them. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, rather than accept an invitation to meet this rally, opted to hide behind closed doors. This is emblematic of the Morrison government's approach to transparency and accountability. The Prime Minister bunkers down, hides from scrutiny and hopes we all will move on to the next scandal. It's never his responsibility and, of course, 'There's nothing to see here'—that's all you get from this Prime Minister. Occasionally he'll throw someone under the bus so that he can make a clean getaway, as he did with the now former Minister for Sport Senator McKenzie over sports rorts. But, more often than not, scandals engulfing this government are not only not the Prime Minister's fault; they are not anyone's fault. Take robodebt, the baby of the Prime Minister in his previous life as the Minister for Social Services—373,000 people were hounded for debts they did not owe and $1.7 billion was repaid. All the time, the government knew their actions were illegal. Parents have come forward telling of the suicides of their children, but neither the Prime Minister nor anyone else in the government were ever held properly accountable. Let's take the Paladin affair, another matter. A $500 million government contract was handed to a security firm being run out of a shack on Kangaroo Island without public tender awarded—no accountability from the Minister for Home Affairs and no accountability from the Prime Minister. Or how about the Watergate affair, when the then minister for water resources, Barnaby Joyce, was accused of funnelling $79 million to the company of the minister for energy Angus Taylor in the Cayman Islands? Again, there's been no real accountability from the Prime Minister or the minister for energy. What does it take to lose your job in the Morrison government? It raises a serious question, doesn't it? Meanwhile, the same government shirks accountability by vigorous stacking of the body which reviews many government decisions, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. A parade of ill-qualified Liberal mates now sit on the AAT. As Crikey reported in September 2019, the federal government had appointed 64 members and senior members to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal over the preceding six years who either worked for the coalition or had another form of close connection to that party. The stacking has continued in the 18 months since that article was finished, including former Liberal Senator Synon being appointed head of the social services division of the tribunal late last year. By no coincidence, this is the division which had the audacity to expose the illegality of the robodebt scheme. What do you do? You stick one of your mates in there and make sure that doesn't happen again. At the same time, the federal government has repeatedly cut funding to the ABC, and of course we learned today that the Attorney-General is now, in fact, suing the ABC. What we have is a full-throttle attack on the media and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the few entities which have the power to hold this government to account. This brings me to this rather incredible second interim report of the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19. During this unprecedented pandemic, the federal government was afforded sweeping powers by this parliament. Large sums of financial stimulus passed through the Senate in an expedited fashion to deal with the crisis. And it was necessary. Labor worked constructively to make sure that the expenditure of the unprecedented amount of public money was subject to scrutiny by the parliament. Thus the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 was born. The Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 was tasked with inquiring in detail—and in public—into how these powers were used, how these sums were spent and why certain decisions had been made. It was established with bipartisan support, yet, as a result of repeated, substantial and wilful obstructionism, the committee has been forced to produce a report reminding the government of its obligations to transparency and accountability. They are a government who show contempt for accountability in all its forms, especially when it comes to what they do when they spend money. It's not their money. It belongs to the public, to taxpayers. It's not the Liberal-National re-election slush fund. The select committee on COVID has been forced to demand that the government no longer hide behind vague claims of public interest immunity which allow it to selectively drip-feed information to the Senate. We also see that not one but six cabinet ministers have been cited in this report as attacking the Senate's inquisitorial powers by misusing public interest immunity claims. The Attorney-General, Christian Porter, has sought to hide whether US law enforcement agencies can access data collected by the Morrison government's COVIDSafe app. The Minister representing the Minister for Health in the Senate, Minister Cash, has sought to hide COVID-19 data modelling from the Department of Health. The former Minister representing the Treasurer, Mathias Cormann, sought to hide a broad range of information, including regarding support to the aviation sector, JobSeeker modelling and the design of the JobKeeper program. I for one would be very interested to see the advice provided to the government about why Rex needed an untied grant of $54 million while it recorded an underlying profit while Virgin, on the other hand, was left almost to collapse in administration. Another job for the mates. The Minister for Finance, Minister Birmingham, has sought to hide a presentation provided to cabinet by the Productivity Commission. The list goes on. The Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Minister Colbeck, has sought to hide the contents of briefings provided relating to aged care during COVID-19 and to the interim report of the royal commission. And the Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister Ruston, has sought to hide advice provided regarding changes to asset testing for Centrelink payments. These are important matters which the Senate and the Australian public have a right to know about. As set out in this report, there are clear reasons why the public immunity interest test has been misused by the respective ministers. I welcome and wholeheartedly support the thoughtful recommendations within the second interim report. It is time for the Morrison government to front up and finally restore some accountability and transparency into the framework. 19:58 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I rise tonight in support of the motion relating to the ability for a Senate committee to get access to information relevant to its line of inquiry. The general principles upon which I support this particular motion go back to the functions of the Senate. The Senate has two major functions. The first of those is to review, amend, and reject or pass legislation, and that is something that this chamber does quite well. We seem to have worked out how to do that, how to have a good contest of ideas and so forth. The second function, of course, is to conduct oversight of government, the scrutiny of government—to watch over what government does, to shine a light on what government does. The purpose of that is not to obstruct the government in its stewardship of the nation but simply to examine that stewardship to make sure that, in the conduct of government, things are done properly. That's the purpose. In this instance, the circumstances are that we've had a Senate select committee established to look at the government's response to COVID. That's quite a reasonable thing to do, noting that, as Senator Sheldon said, a lot of public money was being spent for public purposes throughout the pandemic. That's not to criticise anything that the government has done specifically in relation to that, but the Senate decided to examine the conduct, the stewardship, throughout the pandemic. In doing so, of course, it needs access to information. It needs to inform itself as to what government is doing and to critique, criticise and congratulate. They are the sorts of things we expect to happen in these committees, but that's not possible if the information is not being handed over. As a result, orders for the production of documents have been made to get access to information. I just want to take people to a well-known case, Egan v Willis, in the High Court of Australia. The background to this is that the New South Wales parliament, trying to carry out its functions in respect of reviewing legislation, sought access to documents. When the New South Wales Treasurer refused to provide those documents, the Treasurer was ejected from the Legislative Council. He raised an issue of trespass upon himself in being escorted from the chamber. The High Court dealt with that. I just want to go back to some of the principles that were determined in Egan v Willis and some of the things that were said by Justices Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne: (ii) Each House performs the parliamentary function of review of executive conduct, in accordance with the principle of responsible government; (iii) The Legislative Council has such powers as are reasonably necessary for the proper exercise of its functions; (iv) Production of documents by ministers is reasonably necessary for the performance of both functions (i) and (ii). That's not Senator Patrick giving an opinion; that's the High Court of Australia saying that this is what the law is in this land. Often ministers stand up and say, 'No, we're not going to provide these documents,' but they do so inconsistent with the law of the land, with the rulings of our High Court. People are talking about the rule of law recently. The government is thumbing its nose at the High Court in respect of the principles it has laid out. In respect of this particular motion tonight, recommendation 1 of the COVID committee was to do with the fact that, during the discussion on the Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020 dealing with the COVIDSafe app, the committee wanted to look at legal advice that had been produced about whether using a US company risked data perhaps being sent back to the United States. It was not unreasonable to ask for the production of that legal advice. Of course, ministers stand up here all the time and say, 'Consistent with the principles or the previous statements of other attorneys-general in this place, we're not going to provide those legal documents, because legal professional privilege is involved.' Well, there's another case that followed from Egan v Willis and it's called Egan v Chadwick and Others. It was dealt with by the New South Wales Supreme Court. I want to read to the chamber the exact words of the three judges agreeing in respect of rights for a legislative council—or it could be a senate—to have access to documents which are otherwise legally privileged. What they said is this: In performing its accountability function, the Legislative Council may require access to legal advice on the basis of which the Executive acted, or purported to act. … access to such advice will be relevant in order to make an informed assessment of the justification for the Executive decision. Accordingly: … access to legal advice is reasonably necessary for the exercise by the Legislative Council of its functions. They added, 'If any access should occur as a matter of the occasion and the manner of the exercise of a power, not it's existence.' They make it very clear that the Senate—the Legislative Council in the case of New South Wales—has the ability to call for legal advice. Justice Priestley said: 'The justification for legal professional privilege does not apply when a house of parliament seeks the production of executive documents. It must have the power to call for information relevant to the fundamentally important task of reviewing, changing and adding to the statute laws of the state. There will be from time to time information in the executive documents either necessary or useful for carrying out this task.' There is no question that it is proper and lawful to request access to legal documents, and it is improper to withhold it. I don't care about the opinions of Attorneys-General; I care about the law of this land, and the government scoffs at it! On one occasion it might say, 'It's convenient; we're going to rely on rule of law.' On another occasion, it simply turns its back on what is the law of this land. It's really clear. Make no mistake. That is the situation. That is the law as it exists in Australia. Unfortunately, we've got a government that is acting inconsistent with the law, particularly in reference to recommendation 1. To the rest of them, of course, what has happened is the government has decided to sprinkle cabinet-in-confidence dust over all of the other information that's being sought. Now, the claim of cabinet in confidence is a serious one—it does warrant some level of protection and respect of deliberations and the decisions of cabinet—but, unfortunately, the Morrison government has watered this down completely. It has arrogantly stated that cabinet is now anything it wants it to be. It can be a meeting of doctors, a meeting of the AHPPC. It can be a meeting of gas executives with the NCCC. Let me make it very clear: a cabinet is a collection of ministers responsible to one parliament. There is no such thing as a national cabinet. I don't mind if you form a national council to deal with issues related to COVID, that's quite appropriate, but you don't sprinkle cabinet secrecy dust over everything. You don't say: 'I am the Prime Minister. I'm dissolving COAG, and now I'm going to make it all part of cabinet, and nothing that the government does will be seen because it's all national cabinet in confidence.' Sorry, but that's not the way it works. Another principle of cabinet is one of collective responsibility. Minister Ruston will know this. Minister, you have collective responsibility. You can say whatever you like inside the cabinet, it's protected—as deliberations of cabinet ought to be. But once you step out of the cabinet, you are as one or you resign from cabinet. They're the rules. And yet in the national cabinet we see the Prime Minister come out and say one thing, and then we see the Western Australian Premier come out and say another thing, and then we see the New South Wales Premier come out and say another thing again—clearly not collective responsibility. The situation in relation to that will be tested very shortly. I have actually asked for the minutes of the national cabinet. I asked for them under FOI and of course the government denied them to me, making a claim that they were cabinet-in-confidence. I took that to the Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioner, properly, forwarded it to the AAT, where it can be dealt with seriously. At the time, the government said: 'Nothing to see here. All precedents are sorted out; it's not complex.' That's what they said. But it got to the AAT, and I'm happy to inform the chamber now that the matter is so serious that it's been referred to a Federal Court justice—Justice White in Adelaide—and, suddenly, the government has made its mind up that it is important and has appointed a QC to represent it! So it went from something that was not an issue to something that requires a taxpayer funded QC to keep secrets from the Australian public which never should have been kept secret. It's disgraceful! It's disgraceful and it's arrogant. It's arrogant to stand and say, 'I am simply, as a Prime Minister, going to unilaterally say that everything the government does is now secret.' That's what they've done and I'm going to fight this. I'm sure that Justice White will make a good decision on this, but it may need to go further. So government, you're on notice. If I win that case then everything that has been asked for in relation to the COVID committee will suddenly become available under FOI, because the defence that's being run—the racket that's being run here—to keep things from the parliament will evaporate by way of judicial order. It's sad. There are a number of recommendations in this committee report that basically say the Senate needs access to information in order to do its job properly. We're not after information about the top speed of our future submarines and we're not trying to see what the exact range of an F-35 is. We're simply trying to see perhaps what decisions were made in respect of border closures, or some of the earlier decisions relating to vaccines. There are lots and lots of different questions being asked by the committee and the shutters get put up, unlawfully and arrogantly, by the coalition government. It's not proper. Sadly, we find ourselves debating this—and I absolutely support Senator Gallagher in relation to this particular motion that she has put, because she's trying to do her job as the chair. She's trying to make sure that the committee can properly examine the reference made by the Senate to her committee, but she can't, because information is being denied, inappropriately and unlawfully. There's no question about that, so I will be supporting this motion. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the motion moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [20:17]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 33 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Green, N Griff, S Hanson, P Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Kitching, K Lambie, J McAllister, J 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 Walsh, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 29 NOES Antic, A Askew, W Bragg, AJ Brockman, S (teller) Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Fawcett, DJ Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Rennick, G Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Small, B Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 Education and Employment References Committee 102 Reference 102 20:19 The PRESIDENT I0Q Earlier this evening a division was deferred relating to the motion moved by Senator Pratt proposing a reference to the Senate Education and Employment References Committee. It now being after 7.30 pm I put the question that the motion be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [20:21]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

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

Question negatived.

 BILLS 103 BILLS Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 103

Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020

Second Reading 103 20:23 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The central recommendation of Mr French's review was the adoption of a model code on freedom of speech and academic freedom. As outlined in the Walker review of progress toward this goal, which was released on 9 December 2020, 23 out of the 42 had either fully implemented the code or mostly aligned, but there is more to be done by the remaining institutions. The government encourages all universities to consider Professor Walker's evaluations and take steps to respond to her recommendations. I acknowledge that the bill's definition of 'freedom of speech and academic freedom' does not seek to impinge on the beliefs and religious ethos of an institution. I thank those who have made contributions to this bill. I commend the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 103 20:25 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1231, standing in my name: (1)   Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 24), at the end of paragraph (c), add "or in relation to the Commonwealth Government". The purpose of this amendment is to add a very simple term, 'or in relation to the Commonwealth government'. At schedule 1, item 4, there is a definition of academic freedom. The bill seeks to put in context what academic staff can look to in terms of academic freedom. It lists the freedom of academic staff to teach, discuss, research, disseminate and publish; the freedom of academic staff and students to engage in intellectual inquiry; and the freedom of academic staff and students to express their opinions in relation to the higher education provider in which they work or are enrolled. I wish to add the words 'or in relation to the Commonwealth government' so that staff or students can make their views known in relation to not just the education provider but also the Commonwealth government. The definition goes on to refer to the freedom of academic staff to participate in professional or representative academic bodies; the freedom of students to participate in student societies and associations; and the autonomy of the higher education provider in relation to the choice of academic courses and offerings, the ways in which they are taught and the choices of research activities and the ways in which they are conducted. This actually seeks to broaden the definition of academic freedom. Given that this is a bill that purports to be about freedom of speech, it should be of course no difficulty whatsoever for the government to support this amendment. The great Liberal defenders of free speech surely will support the notion that students and staff can comment not just on their academic provider—that is, their university—but on the government of Australia. I would have thought that was a pretty fundamental concept when we're talking about freedom of speech. The problem with the bill is that it confuses academic freedom and freedom of speech, despite it being called a freedom-of-speech bill. Nonetheless, I don't think the government will have any difficulty, if it's serious about freedom of speech, in supporting the rigorous protection of free speech in universities. After all, universities are places which are supposed to harbour the opportunity for people to express their views—not just about the university but about the policies being pursued by the government of Australia. Former Chief Justice Robert French, in his inquiry—I think it's important to draw attention to this—said the claims of a freedom-of-speech crisis in Australian universities were not substantiated, that there was no evidence of a free-speech crisis on campus. Nonetheless, the government has persisted with this particular bill, so I think it's appropriate to put in place protections for academics and students, to give them the opportunity to comment on government policy. By accepting this amendment, the government will remove the taint that they're being paranoid in their pursuit of their agenda as cultural warriors and—as I heard so often in the second reading debate—in their fears of the Left in this country. It's a truly remarkable proposition that the Left is so powerful and has such an enormous influence that it's necessary to bring forward bills such as this. If it is such a serious question then the rights and protections of academics and students to express their opinions in our great public institutions should be enshrined in the legislation itself. The academic bodies have not been particularly concerned about these matters. I think it was at a National Press Club address last year that Professor Deborah Terry made the point that our institutions 'are places of knowledge, critique and dialogue'. She said they are 'communities of diversity and inclusion, courtesy and respect'. She went on to say: We honour our calling as we impart our founding ethos and these skills to each new generation. …   …   … Australia's universities are places where people debate issues rigorously and vigorously. And they are places where uncomfortable debates—challenging debates—are held. That does not mean that we suspend courtesy, compassion or kindness along the way. Indeed, the art of a great university education is acquiring skills in how to dismantle and refute the ideas of those with whom we disagree. Expertly. Methodically. Cogently. And—perhaps even—charmingly. And always doing so with integrity and respect for others. Academic freedom is at the heart of what universities do. She made the point that American professors Matthew Finkan and Robert Post observed that it is 'the freedom to pursue the scholarly profession according to the standards of that profession'. She said: All freedoms are, of course, not without limits under the broader law. In Australia, freedom of speech is not exempt from laws that ban hate speech, incitement to violence, discrimination or defamation. And within that broader framework, freedom is flourishing. So it's appropriate, given that context and the way in which Universities Australia has argued the case, that we should ensure that the legislation covers a guarantee that staff and students can comment on government policy, a fundamental freedom-of-speech issue which I note is excluded from the government's list—how remarkable. I look forward to the government's support for this amendment. It's a very straightforward matter. It should have no trouble whatsoever in endorsing such a fundamental principle of academic freedom and such a fundamental principle of freedom of speech. 20:32 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales The Greens support this amendment. The freedom to express opinions with respect to the Commonwealth government is really important. Staff and students should be free to criticise the government without fear of repercussions or adverse action. But this government really doesn't want anyone to speak up. This government, when it comes to its members, wants everyone to shut up. They don't want anyone to hold them accountable. If we had any doubts about that, we need to look no further than the last three weeks, when all this government has been doing is cover-ups, silencing people and obfuscating since the allegations of rape and sexual assault were made. As I said in my contribution to the second reading debate on this specific bill, some of the most powerful civil rights movements of our time included university staff and students who were critical of government policies and government positions on the level of government responsibility for funding and regulating higher education. From time to time university staff and students may have strong opinions about the Commonwealth as those opinions relate to their particular issues or, really, any issue that's happening in the country. They have the right to express and voice their opinions about the Commonwealth. 20:34 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Minister, this bill is about academic freedom. Are you aware of any instances of censorship with regard to people speaking up against any government, state or federal? 20:34 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Senator Roberts, I'm not aware of any instances but, given that I only have carriage of this bill on behalf of another minister, I will make sure I check that and come back to you. But, to the best of my knowledge, the answer is no. The government believes that this amendment is unnecessary— Senator Kim Carr AW5 Oh, what a surprise! The TEMPORARY CHAIR 217241 Senator Carr! Senator RUSTON 243273 The amendment seeks to include the freedom to criticise the Commonwealth government in the definition of academic freedom. This is a free speech matter, rather than an issue of academic freedom. The government doesn't support this amendment, because the freedom of expression of opinions on any matter in a personal capacity is already implicit in the adoption of the French model code, which all universities have already agreed to. So, as I said, the government will not be supporting this amendment. 20:35 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria The government's hypocrisy is exposed in that very statement—absolutely and completely exposed! The government can't manage to separate the issue of so-called academic freedom from freedom of speech. It can't define these issues, or has no capacity to define these issues, because what this is really about is the campaign by right-wing extremist elements within the government to try to find a diversion from its problems. There is no evidence—no evidence—anywhere that the universities are in a crisis on the question of academic freedom any more than there is a crisis in terms of the capacity to have freedom of speech. But the government can't accept any proposition that says, 'We'll enshrine that in legislation,' exposing, as such, the hypocrisy—the total hypocrisy—of this government when it comes to this measure. The minister's response does not surprise me, because this is a flawed proposition from beginning to end. It was designed to actually allow for the extremist elements within the government to claim that it's doing something to try to bring the universities to heel—universities which they regard as essentially institutions hostile to them. It's a nonsense proposition to begin with, given the number of coalition members who had academic careers within our universities; it's a nonsense, given the range of extraordinarily conservative views that come out of our universities; and it's a nonsense in view of the fact that their own appointed reviewer, Chief Justice Robert French, found that there was no crisis. There was no crisis and they had to manufacture one for their own narrow political purposes. That's because they can't reconcile the problem of university autonomy and they can't reconcile the fundamental principles of proper debate within universities with the proposition that they want to bring them to heel. That's the real nub of the question here. This amendment puts them fairly and squarely on the spot so they have to make a decision. If people are able to have freedom of debate, freedom of opinion and freedom of speech then the capacity to criticise the government should of course be willingly accepted. But it's not, therefore exposing the hypocrisy of this whole proposition that the government has before the chamber. The CHAIR: The question is the amendment on sheet 1231 as moved by Senator Carr be agreed to.

The Committee divided. [20:43]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)

 32 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R (teller) Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Green, N Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Kitching, K Lines, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Rice, J Sheldon, A Siewert, R Steele-John, J Sterle, G Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE Walsh, J Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 36 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W 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 Lambie, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Rennick, G Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 20:46 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 1127 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 16), omit "academic staff", substitute "staff engaged in academic activities". (2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 18), omit "academic staff", substitute "staff engaged in academic activities". (3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 22), omit "academic staff", substitute "staff engaged in academic activities". (4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 25), omit "academic staff", substitute "staff engaged in academic activities". I foreshadowed these amendments in my speech in the second reading debate. These amendments will ensure that the academic freedom provisions apply not only to those university workers who are considered academic staff but to those across the institution who may undertake academic activities, including teaching, scholarship and research. As I said in my speech on the second reading, at a modern university much academic work is undertaken by others in the university system who may not be classified as or considered academic staff. They can include research assistants and other professional staff who may from time to time deliver lectures, engage in research or otherwise contribute to the academic activities of the institution. These amendments will extend the academic freedom provisions to more people doing academic work on our campuses and not necessarily confine their operation to a limited cohort of university workers. I commend the amendments to the Senate. 20:47 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria These amendments would expand the scope of academic freedom protection to all staff who engage in academic work beyond what their substantive employment classification would normally be. These amendments are practical ones. They have been moved on the basis that they ensure academic freedom applies based on the nature of the work being undertaken, not on the way in which the staff are actually classified. We know that many workers in our universities are employed as professional staff, whether they be in university laboratories or in libraries, and that they engage themselves in research projects and the like; therefore Labor will support these amendments and the proposition that lies behind them. 20:48 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The government does not consider that the Greens amendments would broaden the scope of academic staff in relation to academic freedom principles and policies beyond what is already provided for in the bill. The government expects that all universities will adopt and implement the model code and that its principles and definitions will flow down into all other university policies, and this includes the broad definition of academic staff proposed by Mr French, which is that academic staff are 'all those who are employed by the university to teach and/or carry out research and extends to those who provide, whether on an honorary basis or otherwise, teaching services and/or conduct research at the university'. Universities themselves have committed to adopt the model code. The government is confident that universities understand academic freedom applies to all academic activity, not just to staff who may be narrowly designated as academic staff within an enterprise agreement. The government will not be supporting these amendments. The CHAIR: The question is that the amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 1127 as moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to.

The Committee divided. [20:54]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)

 32 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R (teller) Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Green, N Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Kitching, K Lines, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Rice, J Sheldon, A Siewert, R Steele-John, J Sterle, G Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE Walsh, J Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 36 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W 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 Lambie, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Rennick, G Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 20:57 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move One Nation amendment (1) on sheet 1216 revised: (1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 12), after item 3, insert: 3A At the end of Subdivision 19-G Add: 19-120 Provider's enterprise agreement to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom A higher education provider that is a *Table A provider or a *Table B provider must take reasonable steps to ensure that: (a) any enterprise agreement under which academic staff of the higher education provider are employed includes provisions to uphold the freedom of speech and academic freedom of the provider's academic staff, consistent with the provider's policy under section 19-115; and (b) no other provisions of such an enterprise agreement, or other policies or codes of conduct of the higher education provider, restrict or burden those freedoms of the provider's academic staff otherwise than in accordance with the provider's policy under section 19-115. I acknowledge that universities are required to enshrine in their policy statement clear messages around freedom of speech and academic freedom. While we can't intrude upon the enterprise agreements between universities and their employees, the amendment I put forward today requests that higher education providers take reasonable steps to ensure that enterprise agreements include provisions to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom. This commitment to academic freedom needs, wherever possible, to move beyond the policy statement that sits on the shelf gathering dust into the enterprise agreements, where it drives behaviour, since that is where cultural change will be brought about. It is not just policies but actions and behaviours that need to be changed. 20:58 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria This is a proposition that, I'm afraid, hasn't been thought through in any great depth. This is a matter that's at the core of the High Court proceedings at the moment in regard to the Ridd matter. These are questions that go beyond the issue of free speech protections. They can't be overridden by other important workplace protections such as antidiscrimination legislation and policies of workplace occupational health and safety, or, for that matter, on measures such as hate speech and questions in regard to the incitement of violence. These are not matters that can be overridden in regard to discrimination or defamation. For a senator to suggest that we should do that is an extraordinary proposition. These measures are quite important to the way in which universities function. As the chair of Universities Australia made clear, it goes to the question of the way in which academics communicate with one another as much as anything else. They are communities where you're able to impart fundamental knowledge and skills and to pass that on to new generations, and where you are able to vigorously debate matters—uncomfortable matters—but to do so with respect and courtesy and compassion and an understanding that you are expected to act in an expert and coherent manner. I'm afraid that, in the situation that has led to the circumstances in regard to James Cook University, those matters were absent. It wasn't a freedom of speech issue at all; it was a question about the way in which people sought to operate outside their areas of knowledge, their critiques, their dialogue, their capacity to treat each other. It goes to all the other matters I have mentioned, to important workplace protections that exist for all employees within the university system. So Labor is not going to support this amendment. It's been ill-considered. It's part of an ideological obsession rather than a proper consideration of how we should ensure that our universities are run properly and are able to do their job properly for the advancement of the nation. 21:01 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales The Greens are supportive of strong enterprise bargaining agreements developed with higher education workers and their unions. We are supportive of enterprise agreements that clearly protect academic freedom. But we are not supporting this amendment. Any legislative steps to ensure that academic freedom is incorporated into enterprise agreements should be treated with sensitivity and must be carefully considered before being brought into parliament. This amendment was circulated just a few hours ago. As far as I know, Senator Roberts has not even consulted the National Tertiary Education Union about the implications of this amendment. Moreover, there is a clear need so far, Senator Roberts, as it relates to enterprise agreements, to distinguish academic freedom provisions from broader protections with respect to freedom of speech, and this amendment does not do that. 21:02 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The government will not be supporting this amendment, although it thanks One Nation for proposing it and respects the sentiment behind it. Employers and employees are free to make enterprise agreements which include terms that pertain to the employment relationship. The proposed amendment seeks to constrain university employers' and employees' ability to freely agree to the terms and conditions of employment in their enterprise agreement. It also seeks to constrain the standards and policies that universities may set in relation to freedom of speech and academic freedom. Item (b) of the proposed amendment is also unnecessary, as in practice it simply reflects the operation provisions in Mr French's proposed model code on freedom of speech and academic freedom. Effectively, the amendment proposes that other institutional policies should reflect and be consistent with the institution's policies on freedom of speech and academic freedom, which the government expects will be consistent with the model code. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 252157 The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

The committee divided. [21:08]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Walsh)

 3 AYES Hanson, P Lambie, J Roberts, M (teller) 45 NOES Abetz, E Askew, W Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Canavan, MJ Carr, KJ Cash, MC Chandler, C Ciccone, R (teller) Colbeck, R Davey, P Dodson, P Duniam, J Faruqi, M Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Keneally, KK McDonald, S McKenzie, B McKim, NJ McLachlan, A McMahon, S Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Patrick, RL Pratt, LC Rennick, G Rice, J Scarr, P Siewert, R Small, B Smith, DA Steele-John, J Stoker, AJ Thorpe, LA Van, D Walsh, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 0 PAIRS

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

 Third Reading 109 21:13 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020 109

Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020

In Committee 109 21:14 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales I rise to contribute to the committee stage of this debate and move amendment (1) on sheet 1117: (1)      Clause 2, page 2 (table items 1 to 3), omit the table items, substitute: 1. The whole of this Act   At the same time as the Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Act 2020 commences. I flag that Labor has a number of amendments that have been circulated to the chamber. I will be speaking to those and asking some questions, and I would encourage senators to consider the issues that have been raised. As I flagged in my speech in the second reading debate, Labor has a number of concerns in relation to the transport security serious crimes legislation. The amendments that we are moving seek to address those concerns. The first amendment that I wish to speak to tonight and questions that I wish to ask go to the issue of foreign flagged crew. This amendment delays the commencement of the legislation until the Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020 commences. I start with this amendment because it is, I understand and accept, an unusual amendment for us to consider. That is, the effect of this amendment would be that, should the transport security serious crimes legislation pass this parliament, its commencement would be delayed until a private senator's bill that I have submitted, the Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020, commences. I will just belabour this point because this is the only way that we have to deal with the gaping hole that sits in this legislation. The gaping hole that sits in this legislation is that, while the government is making changes to the provision of security clearance cards for Australian domestic workers at Australian airports and seaports, it is not doing one thing at all to address flag-of-convenience vessels and their foreign crew and the security challenges that they pose. Let's understand this: under this legislation, while Australian workers can be subject to a three-month wait for their security clearance, foreign crew can currently access a maritime crew visa, subclass 988, and enter Australia with as little as 24 hours notice, with no security clearance and no MSIC required. We know that at one stage last year Rio Tinto used eight ships in Queensland waters. Four of the ships had Australian seafarers, and all required an MSIC. Four had crew on foreign vessels. Through flag-of-convenience arrangements, none of these crews needed an MSIC or a maritime security clearance. This issue came out in the Senate inquiry. Foreign crew are currently escorted by an MSIC passholder when in secure areas of ports, but Australian government authorities have been concerned that foreign crew can be open to exploitation from organised crime syndicates or terrorist groups. As indicated by the then Department of Immigration and Border Protection, this isn't some stakeholder group that the government likes to dismiss. This was actually their own department raising concerns in 2017 that: There are features of flag of convenience registration, regulation and practice that organized crime syndicates or terrorists may seek to exploit. Reduced transparency or secrecy surrounding complex financial and ownership arrangements are factors that can make flag of convenience ships more attractive for use in illegal activity, including by organized 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 … These are not my words; these are the words of the Department of Immigration and Border Security. In 2017 we also heard evidence that the New South Wales coroner was investigating three highly suspicious deaths onboard Sage Sagittarius. The foreign master of that ship was a person of interest in those investigations. The same man, Captain Salas, had admitted to being a gun runner when subpoenaed to appear in the Coroners Court. Captain Salas was allowed to work in the Australian domestic shipping industry under a maritime crew visa for eight months. It is all well and good for the government to stand up and parade about and say they're getting tough and they're cracking down on security arrangements for Australian workers who work at ports and airports, and we have a number of amendments that go to some of our concerns about the legislation. But there is nothing in this legislation that addresses the security risk posed by foreign crew, by flag-of-convenience crew. That is why I am moving this amendment—because Labor proposes that there is a better way to ensure that foreign crew are subject to more-extensive security requirements, and that would be to reform the maritime crew visa. We feel so strongly about this that we are asking this Senate to approve that this transport security bill cannot be commenced until the security challenges around foreign crew have been addressed. We're going to hear the government say that the vast majority of maritime crew visa holders do not require unescorted access in maritime security zones. They'll say that any seafarer, whether Australian or foreign, is only required to hold an MSIC if they require unsupervised access to a maritime security zone. And they're going to say that obligating visa holders to comply with elements of the MSIC scheme where they do not require unsupervised access to a maritime security zone would pose a significant financial burden on the administration of the scheme for no discernible benefit. While the Canberra boffins here tell their ministers that foreign crew do not have unescorted access to ports, any wharfie can tell you that this is not the case. Any worker on a wharf can tell you that that's not the case. The Morrison government have taken their eye off the ball when it comes to security at our ports, and foreign crew, as we heard in Senate inquiries, are routinely left to wander around secure areas. This is something that was examined in the recent RRAT inquiry into this flawed bill. So, my first question to the government is: does the government agree with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's 2017 finding that there are features of flag-of-convenience registration, regulation and practice that organised crime syndicates or terrorists may seek to exploit? Does the government agree that, as the Department of Immigration and Border Protection said in 2017, reduced transparency and secrecy surrounding complex financial and ownership arrangements are factors that make flag-of-convenience vessels more attractive for use in illegal activity, including by organised crime and terrorist groups? Does the government agree that flag-of-convenience ships, as the Department of Immigration and Border Protection said, can be used in a range of illegal activities, including the illegal exploitation of natural resources, illegal activity in protected areas, people-smuggling and facilitation of prohibited imports or exports? And if the government doesn't agree that there are risks, can it please explain where the Department of Immigration and Border Protection is wrong? Senator Sterle e68 I can answer that for you. Do you want me to do it for you? 21:24 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I appreciate the generosity of Senator Sterle in allowing me to answer on behalf of the government. I know he would love to be on this side seizing the opportunity himself. The government will not be supporting the amendment to the bill on sheet 1117, because that would make the commencement of the bill, as Senator Keneally has outlined, contingent on the passage of Senator Keneally's private member's bill, which seeks to link aspects of the MSIC background check process with maritime crew visas, particularly as they apply to foreign flagged vessels. That would have the consequence of those people being unable to get visas unless they underwent a similar process. The opposition's bill replicates what is already in place under the maritime crew visa requirements that exist in current migration legislation. For a person to be granted a maritime crew visa—and this is important for those opposite who have kicked and screamed and fought this all the way—their criminal history and their national security risk are considered by the Department of Home Affairs before the visa is issued. Requiring that this also be assessed under the MSIC scheme is an unnecessary duplication of those requirements. The government doesn't support Senator Keneally's bill, so an amendment to make the commencement of this bill contingent on the passage of a bill that the government doesn't support would mean it's very likely that the important measures in this bill would never commence. An argument has been made by those opposite that there is an injustice in using, for instance, detailed criminal history checks, or criminal intelligence reports, to assess the suitability of an Australian working on our wharves for an MSIC. The injustice that they say exists as a consequence is that people coming into Australia on foreign flagged vessels do not face the same background checks, the same level of scrutiny. Senator Keneally interjecting— Senator STOKER 237920 That's the argument you've made. I understand what you're saying. I'm showing you, Senator Sterle and Senator Keneally, that I've listened and I've understood what you said. Now, if you'd let me address the floor on that, that would be nice. The difficulty with that—and it's important that those listening at home are able to follow this information—is that the vast majority of people who hold maritime crew visas do not require unescorted access to maritime security zones in the way that a person who has an MSIC receives. Visa holders are not given the free rein on our wharves that a person with an MSIC has. It's been said by those opposite that anyone who has worked on an Australian wharf knows that people with a maritime crew visa are not subject to those restrictions in practical terms. Not only does that sit very uncomfortably with the clear evidence that was given by the department at the hearing but it also is reliant upon the evidence of those people who most have a vested interest in ensuring that they don't face the scrutiny of a rigorous MSIC scheme, and those are the unions that have fought so hard against this scheme. I would suggest that the reason for the government's opposition to this amendment is, put simply, the fact that it is simply not necessary in circumstances where criminal histories are checked and national security risks are checked for maritime crew visas and, furthermore, those people who receive such a visa do not require, should not be receiving and do not in practice receive unescorted access to zones that a person with an MSIC does have access to. 21:29 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia Senator Stoker, I just want to clear a few things up. This is not something that I've just been asked to come down and have a chat about. I've actually been living and breathing this for many, many years, as many in this place would probably understand. For those who don't, I am the chair of the Rural, Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, which has been looking into this bill. We've been doing it for years. I think we've had five inquiries, and I must thank my colleagues in the Greens and on the crossbench, because when this bill was going to go through three weeks ago I actually went to the crossbenchers for support to continue. I thank Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts, I thank Senator Lambie, I thank Senator Patrick, I thank Senator Griff and of course I thank my colleagues in the Greens, through Senator Rice, who has been a stalwart on this bill from the time that it came up. Not only that, Senator Rice has been a stalwart on the issues facing our shipping industry. Like myself and Senator Sheldon, Senator Rice has watched the demise of the Australian shipping industry through teary eyes. Through the years of Prime Minister Howard we used to have 170-odd ships. I know that's a bit of history going back there, but it wasn't that long ago. Now we're down to 13, and that's if we count the icebreaker down there—what's it called? The one that's being replaced and we're waiting for the replacement ship to come? Otherwise, we're talking about 12. Let's talk about our Australian ships, just while I'm at it, to give some clarity here. We have the two gas buggies—and good on Woodside for continuing with the gas going out of Dampier to Japan and Korea. Those are Australian vessels, Australian flagged and Australian crewed. Let's talk about the six that are running to Tasmania—the passenger ships, the Toll ships and the sea freight ships. And we can talk about the old clunker boat—no, the clinker boat. Sorry about that, boys and girls on the old clinker boat. I did pass you recently in the Bass Strait; I was on the Toll ship. Sorry about that! So it doesn't leave a lot of confidence in the crossbench, the Greens and myself that the government has the best interests of Australia's seafarers and our shipping industry front of mind, because they don't. But I do have to pull you up, Senator Stoker, when you talk about clear evidence given to the committee. I will clearly, clearly articulate a few things that led to the frustration we had when I approached the crossbenchers and the Greens for support to continue the inquiry because of the disrespect that was shown—as Senator Rice knows—to the Rural, Regional Affairs and Transport Committee. We had questions and we clearly and fairly sought answers to the questions about what the importance of this bill is, asking, 'Tell us how this bill is going to improve stopping the flow of illegal drugs coming into our nation.' As I've said very clearly a number of times, not only at Senate inquiries around this matter but to the Senate, the majority of the supply of illicit drugs—and I know that there are chemicals which make illicit drugs able to be purchased on our shores—are not coming in by hot air balloon. We are not seeing those coming across from Indonesia to our shores. They're certainly not being strapped to the legs of carrier pigeons. If they are, my goodness me, how big is the pigeon? I have one piece of evidence here, which I won't table, from as late as 12 March—what are we today; about the 16th or something?—that in the last couple of days 200 kilograms of cocaine was intercepted on a boat off Sydney. The majority of illegal drugs in this nation are not coming through our airports. We all know—and I won't talk about what we've all done on previous committees and inquiries when we've gone backstage at Sydney or Melbourne airport, as we have, haven't we, Senator Rice? And I won't talk about the intelligence committees which we've all served on, because we turn our TVs on and see Border Security. We see those fine, diligent and hardworking men and women in border protection and immigration going through suitcases. They're probably finding the odd bit of fruit and veggies or some meat—and I won't talk about the other things we've found. So how is the majority of drugs coming in? Listen to the government and to the ill-informed senators on the other side who are desperately trying to protect their minister. He doesn't really deserve any protection to be honest with you, but I understand how it works in this building: you're told to go down and do your duty. Do you seriously think that if we make it as hard as possible for a wharfie or a seafarer or someone working at the airport with their ASIC—and I know all about MSIC and ASIC. It was the first inquiry I did when I came here 15-odd years ago. Do we seriously think that these are the men and women who are importing and distributing the drugs? And I'll tell you about distribution. For God's sake, you know who the baddies are. You've got laws out there. Go into it. You cannot fool me for one minute. Senator Sheldon, you would remember the disrespect the Senate was shown once again by the department of border protection and immigration. I don't blame the good folk there. The good man turned up in his uniform; he was summonsed. I'll tell you where I lay the blame; I lay the blame clearly at the feet of Minister Dutton. This is the same minister and the same secretary, Mr Pezzullo, from when I uncovered the fact that truck drivers were being exploited under the foreign visa system, on student visas. There is a common trend here. Are you seriously telling me that, if you make it as hard for possible for some decent working man or woman on the waterfront, who's doing the right thing day in and day out, you're going to combat the flow of illegal drugs into this area? Seriously, you should listen to what's stuck under your nose! I'm going to help you out here, Senator Stoker, because I think you could be a very decent person, but you're getting fed the wrong information. Don't take that nonsense they've put in the bit of paper under your nose. We know what's going on in this nation. You have no idea. If you knew what was coming through—200 kilos! It's not an Australian mothership, because we damn well haven't got any out there. It's not an Australian crew. It's not Australian flagged. If you really want to address the issue of foreign drugs in this nation, can you seriously, in your heart of hearts, sit there and think that this is the bill that's going to fix it? It's not going to fix it, and I'll tell you why: because Minister Dutton in his office, all the boffins you've got there and all the pointy heads in the bureaucracy down here in Canberra at the department go, 'Oh my God, the drugs will stop because we're going to deny someone who may have a son who's been wayward, who's joined a motorcycle gang, his MSIC or his ASIC, and that'll stop the flow of drugs coming into this nation.' Come on, ladies and gentlemen! Please wake up. Is that your own evidence from your department down there? I said, 'Do we actually have the checks and balances?' I can tell you, I don't have an MSIC and I've walked up the gangplanks and I've come down the gangplanks. 'Hello, boys and girls,' I've said as I've walked through security. 'No worries. I'm with him. I'm all right; he's got an MSIC too.' They say, 'Yeah, good to go.' They wouldn't know me from a bar of soap. When those seafarers come down the gangplank, I'm one who always stands up to look after foreign seafarers. But let's not fool ourselves. I'm going to have another 10 minutes when I talk about Captain Salas and the Sage Sagittarius, make no mistake about that, because I was the one who found that one out too. 'What's in your bag, mate?' Do you ask that? We asked the department officials, 'Do you know what's in the backpacks or suitcases of those foreign seafarers coming off these vessels?' No idea. It started off as crickets. 'Do you actually scan them like at the airport? Do they shuffle through security at the waterfront, where they strip off their belt and all that, and they go through, and the camera comes up, and there's a false alarm because they didn't take off their belt or they've left 10c in their pocket?' Zilch. Nothing. Not a clue. No idea. Is there any form of saying, 'I know the passport photo matches the face here for this Filipino or this Iranian'—and I'm not being prejudiced, because they are the majority of foreign seafarers being exploited around our coastline. 'Is that really you?' No idea. I asked them, 'Do you check this?' Do you know what the answer was—and I know you're going to have some fun here, Senator Sheldon: 'No, we don't have anyone. There's no-one on the port. We've got no idea.' This is before I even start with another 10 minutes about the temporary voyage permits—let me get going on that! Half the time, some of these ships don't even apply for a temporary voyage permit. We've got no idea. This is cuckoo land; this is crazy stuff. I feel sorry for my colleagues across the chamber who are running Minister Dutton's line: 'I'm going to be tough as. I'm the ex-copper. I'll tell you what, we're going to stamp out drugs.' Oh, my goodness me! My question to you, Senator Stoker—I'm sorry you've got carriage of this; you're in the wrong place at the wrong time—is: do you honestly believe that this bill will stop the inflow of illicit drugs into this great nation via flags of convenience, foreign ships and exploited foreign seafarers? 21:39 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I very much enjoyed that, Senator Sterle. I look forward to an awful lot of theatrics tonight. I'm glad I've eaten well and settled in. The bill will certainly do no harm, particularly in the circumstances to which you point, and it will do some good in relation to the people who do pose a risk on the MSIC side. 21:40 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria The Greens are supporting this amendment from the Labor Party because we believe, like almost everybody in this place believes, that addressing the issue of serious crime is an incredibly important thing that we should focus on. We are supporting this amendment because, if you are concerned about addressing serious crime, it's important to look at where the problem is. I reiterate the comments made by Senator Keneally earlier on. Very clear evidence was given in the 2017 inquiry into flag-of-convenience shipping. Senator Keneally quoted this and I think it is worth quoting this again: There are features of flag of convenience registration, regulation and practice that organized crime syndicates or terrorists may seek to exploit. … factors that can make flag of convenience ships more attractive for use in illegal activity, including by organized crime or terrorist groups. This means that flag of convenience 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. We are being told that the whole purpose of this legislation that has been introduced—and I will quote the explanatory memorandum—is to 'reduce criminal influence at Australia's security controlled airports, security regulated ports, and security regulated offshore oil and gas facilities'. If that's what we're aiming to do then we need to be looking in the right place. It seems to us that increasing the difficulty of getting an MSIC or an ASIC is not going to address this purpose at all. In contrast to what the minister just said about this bill not doing any harm, it is going to do harm and put unnecessary, unreasonable limitations on people's ability to work at our airports and ports. It will do significant harm. It will continue the harm this government has been doing to our domestic shipping industry for the last seven years. At the same time as our domestic shipping industry is going down the gurgler we are doing nothing about dealing with the risks of criminal activity from flag-of-convenience shipping. We are having legislation introduced that is looking in entirely the wrong place. Minister, the explanatory memorandum says that the aim is to 'reduce criminal influence at Australia's security controlled airports, security regulated ports, and security regulated offshore oil and gas facilities'. What evidence do you have that increasing the difficulty of workers being able to get an MSIC or an ASIC is going to achieve that purpose? For the life of me I cannot see that it is going to do that, given that we know that there is far greater risk of criminal activity through flag-of-convenience shipping. 21:43 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland The threat, the impact and the cost of serious crime of this kind in Australia are real. There is a significant amount of information that indicates that serious and organised criminals who are based in Australia are controlling the illicit markets that can serve to fund a broad range of criminal activities and that they do pose a real risk to Australians. Organised criminals are gaining a major source of their revenue from the illicit drug market. Quite frankly, anything we can do to ensure our airports and seaports are not safe havens for serious criminal activity is important. These are important goals. They are objectives worth chasing. The Australian Institute of Criminology has estimated that the cost in 2016-17 of crimes of this nature—serious organised crime—is between $23.8 billion and $47.4 billion. It's a cost that we expect will continue to rise. And so it is really important that the government put measures in place to prevent serious crime so that we can provide for the safety and security of all Australians. I understand the point that you make is in relation to the foreign flagged vessels, as distinct from the Australian based people who carry an MSIC. I've indicated already in my answer to Senator Keneally the ways in which the maritime crew visa involves criminal history checks and security assessments to ensure that the risk on that front is mitigated, and the regime proposed in this bill is about strengthening the checks that apply to those who are based on Australian soil. 21:45 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales It's really interesting, isn't it? I came into this place and discovered that I was taking over Senator Leyonhjelm's office. I did the appropriate smoking ceremony to try to cleanse it a little bit—actually, I did it more than once. I'm not sure how it went, but one thing that did impact on me was that he thought this proposal that's been put up by the government wasn't worth voting for, because this government previously put up a very similar bill. We've got a situation here where the government are not really about dealing with problems on our waterfront or problems on our border, because there are quite clearly a whole series of significant weaknesses in our border security when it comes to drugs. What they are about is sounding like they're doing something. And what do you do when you want to sound like you're doing something? You take somebody's right off them. You no longer presume they're innocent before being proven guilty—or proven innocent—because of some intelligence, intelligence given in vengeance because someone's active in their union, intelligence which doesn't appropriately hold the people making those accusations to account. There are a whole series of systems that can hold to account people that make false accusations. But, guess what? You don't get told what they are. When you don't get your MSIC or your ASIC, you no longer have a job. You're terminated. That's the presumption of innocence when it comes to this government. Wait a sec—there's not always just that presumption of innocence. In actual fact, the government has a very different view about the presumption of innocence. When it comes to the rule of law, the minister representing the Attorney-General says, 'We'll do anything we can,' but, when it comes to Christian Porter, it isn't the rule of law, is it? You have to have the presumption of innocence. Heaven forbid—he's an attorney-general, and, God, they're only port workers. So let's just go on the intelligence and get them sacked. Let's just turn around and treat them differently, because it's not Christian Porter. Why shouldn't we treat them differently? Quite clearly, the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General like to go on about the rule of law, just like you, Senator Stoker, earlier today on the ABC. You said that, under the rule of law, people should be presumed to be innocent. But what you're doing here is taking away the presumption of innocence. People don't get their work. They get terminated. They get held over. They are not able to work. That's taking away the presumption of innocence. That's the worst thing you can do to a working person who's supporting their family—destroy their livelihood. But don't worry; it's the rule of law here. What did Christian Porter say about the rule of law? He said: My guess is if I were to resign and that set a new standard there wouldn't be much need for an Attorney-General anyway because there would be no rule of law left to protect in this country, so I will not be part of letting that happen … Don't worry—it goes larger than Christian Porter. Scott Morrison said: There is not some other process. There is not the mob process. There is not the tribe-has-spoken process. That's not how we run the rule of law in Australia. No, the way you run the rule of law is you make accusations which can't be tested, for which this government can't appropriately be held to account. People lose their livelihood—except when it comes to Christian Porter, when it's a very different scenario. My question is this: will you apply the rule of law to these workers and give them the presumption of innocence? Progress reported. ADJOURNMENT 115 ADJOURNMENT Illicit Drugs 115 21:50 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I rise tonight to speak on the recent Australian Lawyers Alliance report Doing more harm than good: the need for a health-focused approach to drug use. This is an excellent report, and I would recommend that people have a very good read of it. The report so clearly demonstrates how drug policies across Australia are ineffective and, in fact, causing harm. Current policies target and stigmatise people who use drugs. This sends people who use drugs, who are fearful of law enforcement, underground. People who use drugs become reliant on drug suppliers, not just for the drugs themselves but also, as the Australian Lawyers Alliance pointed out, for any information about what they are taking and how they should use it. This fuels a dangerously unregulated drug market, and people of all ages and backgrounds are dying as a result. It's very clearly pointed out in this report. With this context in mind, it is little wonder that people who use drugs are less likely to know where or even if they can seek help. This effectively denies chronically ill Australians the medical treatment and health support they need. For years now, many medical and public health experts have been advocating for a shift in the focus of drug policy from criminal law enforcement to the broader health and social issues associated with the harmful use of drugs. Again, this is pointed out in the report and has, in fact, been starting to occur elsewhere on the planet. The report points out that Australia's current approach, with its emphasis on criminalisation, has shown little success in reducing illicit drug use. This approach has failed to address rates of recidivism among people who use drugs, and has failed to reduce the number of people overdosing on drugs. In fact, criminalisation exacerbates people's disadvantage, resulting in further financial distress, mental ill health, and difficulties finding and keeping housing. In my home state of Western Australia, WANADA—the peak body for the drug and alcohol sector in Western Australia—reported in its 2020 state budget submission that approximately 30 per cent to 50 per cent of people accessing mental health services have co-occurring issues with alcohol and other drug use. The criminalisation of drug use also increases the level of stigma associated with drugs, and further marginalises and excludes people who use drugs. Prohibiting certain drugs is inherently stigmatising because it conveys a message that certain drugs are bad and, therefore, so too are the people who use them. As a result, criminalisation and prohibition have been unsuccessful in addressing the various social problems associated with substance abuse. Again, this is clearly pointed out in the report. For more than half a century, governments have aggressively pursued a disastrous war on drugs. This policy, which criminalises a health problem and has only succeeded in making things worse, needs to change. There are many alternative approaches to criminalisation that I urge the federal government and state and territory governments, who are also responsible for making laws in association with drug use, to seriously consider. These are pointed out in the report. Decriminalisation removes the use or possession of a prohibited substance from criminal offences, and implements a range of civil and administrative measures to deal with the conduct. In this case, there is a state response designed to deter the conduct from occurring again—for example, similar to traffic violation, where a fine may be issued to deter the conduct. Legalisation is another area to consider. This removes the criminal offence for the use or possession of substances, and does not replace it. Regulation of the use and possession of substances involves a regulatory model of prescription, pharmacy or licensed sales. For example, this could take the form of the medicinal cannabis market. The Australian Lawyers Alliance strongly supports the decriminalisation and, preferably, the legalisation of the possession and use of illicit substances. It is evident that decriminalising or legalising drugs does not increase use but instead allows harm minimisation policies to be put in place that produce better outcomes for users. As more and more countries recognise the failure of criminalisation as a policy response to substance abuse, the evidence for effectiveness of health focused harm minimisation strategies is becoming more apparent. But Australians states and territories have been cautious in their approach by comparison to these countries. There are significant benefits to adopting internationally recognised harm minimisation policies—again, pointed out in the report. For example, the costs associated with the criminal justice system are reduced, meaning public funding and resources could be redirected into health and social services. In other words, treat this issue as the health issue it is. There would also be reduced numbers of people in the criminal justice system, where many people end up for minor offences—in WA, more than 80 per cent of prisoners and offenders appearing before the courts were identified as having problems associated with substance use. Finally, it enables individuals to address the health and social problems that often arise from illicit substance use; 94 per cent of people accessing alcohol and other drug services have reported lifetime exposure to homelessness. It is time for reform. We need leadership urgently on national drug law reform, to explore the range of options to decriminalise and de-penalise, legalise and regulate our current approaches. This will enable the diversion of government funding and financial resources from law enforcement, prosecution and incarceration into health and social services. It will also ensure that the inherent dignity of people who use drugs will be respected and promoted by removing the criminalised stigma associated with illicit drug use. The government has a responsibility under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to ensure that everybody has the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. The Australian Charter of Healthcare Rights promotes all people receiving health care in Australia having the right to receive safe, high-quality care in an effective continuum. Tonight I'm calling on the state, territory and federal governments to abandon their current approaches, which have failed. Prohibition and criminalisation of substance abuse has not worked. Embrace decriminalisation, take a harm minimisation approach and invest in public health and social services to address drug use, the causes of addiction and the associated social and health effects. All governments in Australia must stop and think about the approach they have taken. Analyse it: it is not working. It is time that we developed a new approach. We need to take a harm minimisation approach and we need to address this issue as the health issue that it is. We can help and support people. We need to stop criminalising and stigmatising people who use drugs. It is time to stop devoting precious public resources to criminal law enforcement and to start working together to build a harm minimisation approach that treats alcohol and other drug dependence as the health issue that it is. The Commonwealth government should and must take leadership here. State and territory governments also need to take leadership and look to the work that's being done internationally. Look at what works and look at how we can better support people, not stigmatise them. We should ensure that drug addiction and drug use are treated—as I keep repeating, because I want to ram this message home—as a health issue. It needs to be addressed as such. Somare, Grand Chief Sir Michael Thomas 116 21:59 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I rise to say a few words on the passing of Sir Michael Somare. He was a towering figure in the history of Papua New Guinea, a driving force for the development of PNG's national constitution, that nation's first Prime Minister and its longest serving Prime Minister, holding office for a total of 17 years, over four separate terms. He was Papua New Guinea's longest serving member of parliament, faithfully representing the East Sepik constituency for a remarkable 49 years. To his fellow country men and women, he was simply the Grand Chief. It was a title that reflected his immense standing and the deep respect in which he was held. To Australia, Sir Michael was a longstanding and respected friend—indeed family, because Papua New Guinea, our closest neighbour, is family to Australia. The ties are deep, forged and remembered at Kokoda, Port Moresby, Milne Bay, Lae, Rabaul and Bomana by the many kiaps, those young Australians who patrolled and worked with local village communities, walking across their vast and rugged interior because it was once a territory of Australia. Indeed, we defended it with their help during the Second World War. Sir Michael's successes in building consensus and relationships across the region meant that he developed strong ties with successive Australian governments and leaders, from Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser through to Bob Hawke and John Howard. But his connection to the leadership of our country goes back to the Gorton government. As a young man, Michael Somare championed an independent Papua New Guinea, and he did so working with Australia, working together, something that would characterise his time. It is to the great credit of so many Australian and Papua New Guinean leaders in the late 1960s and early 1970s that they came to a shared recognition that sovereignty must rest with the people of PNG. So it was right that, many years later, Sir Michael, John Gorton and Gough Whitlam came together to receive honorary doctorates for their work in delivering independence, because, on the day when Papua New Guinea became independent, the Australian flag was respectfully lowered. Unlike in so many other places, it wasn't torn down. One of those who witnessed that significant moment was a future Governor-General of Australia, Michael Jeffery. In 1975, he was a young soldier. He said later of his time in East Sepik, 'I well remember the Australian flag being lowered for the last time and the beautiful Papua New Guinea flag being raised in its stead.' He recalled the positive spirit that surrounded independence, which was in large part a great credit to Sir Michael Somare. He wasn't a man who tore down. He understood that free nations are built on democratic institutions and what he called 'sana', a word from his own language signifying peace, consensus and inclusion. Indeed, I hope those will be remembered as being the hallmarks of his public life and legacy. Thanks to his vision and commitment to sana, PNG's path to independence was a smooth one. It's a nation still growing, of course, but the foundations of this new nation were laid in peace. Sir Michael remained a defender, proudly, of his country's independence, but he always appreciated Australia's unfailing commitment to his homeland and to PNG's success. He carried the Olympic torch when it passed through PNG on its way to Sydney in the year 2000, and we can only hope it will pass through PNG again if the Olympics in Brisbane, in the year 2032, are to come to fruition. He was also, like so many Papua New Guineans, a great rugby league fan. Unlike so many Papua New Guineans, when it came to State of Origin he was a devoted fan of the Blues, but I'm sure that's something that we can grant him a little grace on on behalf of Queenslanders. He was a great man of faith. He was a man of conviction and commitment. He'll be deeply missed by many friends in Australia. One of those friends who knew him well is now a judge of Australia's Federal Circuit Court. He recalls meeting Sir Michael many times over the years. 'He had a gravelly voice,' said Judge Egan, 'an engaging manner, was always courteous and polite, and he genuinely took an interest in what people had to say.' He recalls meeting Sir Michael at a Christmas party in 1976 in Port Moresby, overlooking the harbour. Judge Egan's brother had been appointed Papua New Guinea's first post-independence Director of Public Prosecutions shortly after the declaration of independence, and the now judge was staying with him during the holiday period he had from his time studying at the University of Queensland. Present at the party were a number of Sir Michael's contemporaries from the University of Papua New Guinea, of whom two were important members of what became known as the 'gang of four', who, from the beginning of autonomous government, were the departmental heads responsible for administration in Papua New Guinea. There Sir Michael openly discussed, even among the company of Australians, the challenges that were faced by PNG. He spoke of the need to bring together, in a cohesive one, people from the often hostile ethnically diverse groups that were widely scattered throughout the country. What impressed about him was his absolute determination, in all he did, to do everything in his power to make sure that PNG, with all of its untapped natural resources, would benefit from what he said was 'sensible and sustainable development'. It was a term much before its time that is now well used throughout Australia and in places such as this quite often. Thirty-five years later, in August 2011, Sir Michael's last term as Prime Minister came to an abrupt end when, by a majority vote in parliament, Sir Michael's appointment as Prime Minister was terminated on the erroneous ground of incapacity. Sir Michael had had complications following heart surgery in Singapore and, during his convalescence, was replaced in haste by Peter O'Neill. Though that appointment was later ruled by the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court to be invalid and unconstitutional, Sir Michael was prevented from returning to his prime ministerial duties for the balance of his term, even though he had recovered and returned to Port Moresby. 'It was following the termination of Sir Michael's prime ministership that I was briefed'—these are Justice Egan's words now—'as overseas counsel to represent Sir Michael in the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea in proceedings that were colloquially referred to then, and indeed now, as "the two prime ministers case".' It's fascinating for the lawyers in the room. It commenced with a view to overturning what was understood at that time to have been the usurpation of his prime ministership. Judge Egan had been admitted as overseas counsel in PNG and often appeared in that jurisdiction. He spent a week there marshalling evidence and settling affidavits from medical and other specialists designed to satisfy the court that, though Sir Michael had been temporarily incapacitated, he was not—relevantly—labouring under any disentitling incapacity, as that word was understood under the PNG constitution. Judge Egan recalls him as a person who could speak to anybody, someone who greeted people with happiness and someone who felt deeply that his removal as Prime Minister was a wrong which needed to be righted, lest it be seen as creating a worrying precedent that would jeopardise the robust democracy into which he had invested so much. It was then that Judge Egan was surprised to hear Sir Michael suggest that they should go for a walk so he could show him the impressive hotel garden. Sir Michael rose to his feet and the judge offered to take his arm to help him. But, with an unmistakable steely glance, Sir Michael thanked the judge for the offer but said it was important he get to his feet by himself, and he insisted he walk unaided. He then insisted on telling all the judges that he was able to do so. That's precisely what he did, and he won his case. His determination to win was not for himself but for his people, and that was a characteristic he exhibited throughout his life. The whole of PNG is in a period of mourning, but it was very important to see the flags lowered to half-mast here in honour of the soul and the rest of that soul. Vale, the Grand Chief. Senate adjourned at 22:09