2021-06-23 46 1 6 Senate 0 1

Wednesday, 23 June 2021

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

 

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 09:31 The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind senators the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, we will move on. STATEMENTS 1 STATEMENTS Business 1 09:31 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement of no more than five minutes—in fact, it won't be anywhere near that—to seek clarification about the government's sitting program. Senator Birmingham H6X Two minutes? Senator GALLAGHER ING Yes. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for two minutes. Senator GALLAGHER ING I do thank senators for giving me leave. The opposition would like to understand the intentions of the government in relation to two bills, in particular, acknowledging that we sat last night to deal with time-critical bills. There are a number of time-critical bills listed on the program today. I'm conscious there is also limited time for government business over Wednesday and Thursday. The opposition would like to understand how the government intends to deal with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021. We know that both those bills require substantive debate. They're not listed on the program today. We would like to understand from the government how they intend to deal with those bills before the Senate adjourns at the end of tomorrow's sitting. The PRESIDENT I0Q Does the government wish to respond, Senator Birmingham? 09:32 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement of not more than two minutes. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for two minutes. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I thank the Senate, and I thank Senator Gallagher for her question and interest in that regard. The government certainly welcomes interest from the opposition in relation to the EPBC amendments. Those amendments, as we have traversed in the Senate in different ways, which are well known, seek to try to streamline approvals processes between the Commonwealth jurisdiction and state jurisdictions and to ensure that the costs and impact of getting a development approved are reduced without undermining or reducing the environmental protections. The government would very much welcome the Labor Party indicating its support to pass that legislation. If that were the case, then of course we would cooperate to ensure its swift passage to provide that certainty for Australian business and to ensure that Australian business has the certainty and has the opportunity to get projects off the ground at the least possible cost, with the least possible waste of time, with the least possible duplication, whilst ensuring— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I'm hearing the opposition is ready to debate it. What we would like to know is whether they are ready to support it. As Senator Gallagher has indicated— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my left! The minister will be heard in silence. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X there are a series of time-critical bills, and I thank the opposition for their cooperation in the passage of a number of those last night. We look forward to working through a number of others today and tomorrow. Should the opposition be willing to indicate its support for the passage of the EPBC reforms, then of course the government would list that legislation for tomorrow and work with the opposition to secure its passage. An opposition senator interjecting— Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X But, if you're not supporting it, Senator, then of course we must prioritise those time-critical bills, and that is what the government will do. BILLS 2 BILLS Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Penalties) Bill 2021 2

Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Penalties) Bill 2021

Second Reading 2 09:35 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales Labor will be supporting this bill. As outlined in the explanatory memorandum, the purpose of the Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Penalties) Bill 2021 is to amend the Biosecurity Act 2015 by increasing the maximum penalties that a court can impose for noncompliance with requirements under the act. Penalties will be increased for specific existing civil penalty provisions to provide a proportionate regulatory response to the conduct covered by those provisions. The bill increases the penalties for specified criminal offences to ensure appropriate punishment for those who jeopardise Australia's biosecurity status by breaking the law. The explanatory memorandum states: In the face of growing regional and global threats such as African Swine Fever and hitchhiker pests (such as khapra beetle) the current penalty regime needs reinforcement to provide an effective deterrent against non-compliance. The explanatory memorandum also states: The growth in trade and travel expected as part of the economic recovery from the current COVID-19 pandemic is expected to accentuate the threats, making it imperative to send a strong message that breaking Australia's biosecurity laws is not worth the potential commercial gain. Under the act, penalties for a contravention may include a civil penalty, a criminal offence or both. The increases to the civil penalties are intended to deter noncompliance with the act and to ensure the maximum penalties available reflect the gains that individuals and businesses might obtain, or seek to obtain, in engaging in conduct that jeopardises Australia's biosecurity status. The civil penalties will be set at a level that means the penalty is not merely perceived as a cost of doing business. This is particularly the case for corporations. There are 28 separate penalties being increased. For example, some will increase from 120 penalty units to 300 penalty units; others will increase from 300 penalty units to 1,000 penalty units. It is noted that the explanatory memorandum states: The Bill would have no financial impact on the Australian Government Budget. But, of course, Labor has concerns about the bill. It's clear the Morrison government has shifted away from the biosecurity levy that was recommended in an industry review back in 2017 and moved to a penalty based system that relies on a court determining if a civil or criminal offence has taken place. The bill appears to be just another ad hoc measure reliant on the court system to apply penalties, rather than a genuine attempt to upgrade Australia's biosecurity arrangements. Labor has spoken to many farmers and other stakeholders across the agriculture sector, and they continue to raise concerns about Australia's biosecurity system. It's clear there has been a huge policy void over the past few years when it comes to the Morrison government doing anything of note around strengthening Australia's biosecurity system. This has been extremely disappointing, given the significant risks pests and disease could pose to Australian produce. Labor also want to take this opportunity to put on the record our ongoing concerns in relation to the Morrison government's current management of Australia's biosecurity system. We know that Australia's biosecurity system underpins more than $60 billion of agricultural production, $53 billion of agricultural exports and $42 billion in relation to the country's inbound tourism industry. The cost of a single outbreak of disease or pests has been conservatively estimated to exceed $50 billion. So, with so much at risk, where has the government's urgency been to update Australia's biosecurity system over the past eight years? We've already seen the Morrison government axe a biosecurity levy. As already mentioned, this levy was a recommendation made in 2017 as part of the Craik review. This report included 42 recommendations and found that the system was underfunded. At the March estimates the department revealed the government's progress in relation to the Craik review. In four years the government has only completed 17 of the 42 recommendations. Twelve recommendations require enduring effort, eight are in progress, four require no further action and one is on hold. Given the serious risks to Australia's agriculture sector, this slow response from the Morrison government is not good enough. This brings me to the biosecurity funding that was included in the budget. The budget's commitments to biosecurity just make up for what the Morrison government was planning to take away after the biosecurity levy failed. It's not good enough that farmers were left for years waiting to see what the government would do to update Australia's biosecurity arrangements. This budget is a missed opportunity, and Australian farmers deserve better. We've also seen a number of amendments needing to be made to legislation regarding biosecurity. There was a bill that passed the parliament last month that was essentially fixing a past drafting issue. There must be confidence in Australia's biosecurity system given it protects the agriculture industry from pests and disease. But the Morrison government, having to amend the act over past drafting issues, reduces the confidence the agriculture sector has to adequately maintain Australia's biosecurity framework. Further reducing confidence was the publication last week of the Australian National Audit Office report around biosecurity. The findings of the ANAO report are extremely concerning. The ANAO concludes that the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment's arrangements to respond to noncompliance with biosecurity requirements are largely inappropriate. What does this say about the Morrison government's interests around biosecurity risks? The ANAO findings in relation to the inadequacies of Australia's biosecurity system must be taken seriously. A biosecurity system that is deemed to be inappropriately managed has massive implications for the agriculture sector and it puts Australian farmers in a very vulnerable position, and that is totally unacceptable. The ANAO report also validates numerous and serious concerns raised by farmers and the agriculture sector. As already mentioned, biosecurity threats and inadequacies of the current system are issues that are consistently raised with Labor and, no doubt, MPs from all parties. Incursions of pests and diseases are of great concern to farmers, who know the significant risks if and when Australia's biosecurity system fails them. The Morrison government must do better for the agriculture sector when it comes to Australia's biosecurity system. Of course, we know there are other issues impacting on the agriculture sector that the Morrison government has failed to address even though the government knows the impact these issues are having on Australian farmers. For example, the Morrison government has known that there is a structural reliance on migrant workers to pick produce on Australian farms. This reliance has been occurring for some time. The COVID-19 pandemic further highlighted this structural reliance, given the issues of travel and quarantine arrangements over the past year. Labor has written to Minister Littleproud three times now about our concerns around the agriculture workforce shortage: first in January, then in February and then another letter in April. Why have we written so often to Minister Littleproud? Because he promised to fix the workforce shortage because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The minister has admitted there are 25,000 prevetted and work-ready Pacific islands workers. The minister promised these workers were ready to go, but clearly they were not. It's one of those classic Morrison government marketing moments: all announcement, no delivery. Where are these 25,000 prevetted workers? How many of them are working on Australian farms? There are obviously not enough workers, because produce is rotting on Australian farms. It's just another broken Morrison government promise. What's in the budget? Well, the Morrison government has again missed an opportunity to properly fix Australia's agriculture workforce issues and set the industry up for growth. The question for the government is: what measures in the budget will help farmers pick their produce today—not next year, not the year after, but today? There's a grab bag of half-measures and pilot programs that will not solve the serious issues in Australia's agriculture workforce today. The minister said in March that the government 'will continue to address the immediate needs of our farmers' when it comes to the workforce. But where are the budget measures that go towards addressing these immediate needs? There are none. When you look at the funding in the budget for employment in the agriculture sector, it is over either two or four years; there's no funding to help farmers now. Even the minister's media release didn't give the workforce any attention. That gives you an idea of the lack of attention this government has given to the workforce shortage in agriculture. In the budget there's no substantial response to the Agriculture Workforce Strategy, which was handed to the Morrison government more than six months ago. The budget predicts that COVID-19 restrictions that have caused huge labour shortages and crop losses on farms will last another year. But there is no plan to deal with this issue in agriculture now. We know that the COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to a serious shortage of workers across Australian farms. However, the Morrison government has long been aware of the these structural issues with the agriculture workforce—long before COVID—and it's done nothing to address this chronic labour shortage. What is clear is that the minister continues to turn his back on the Seasonal Worker Program and quarantine arrangements, both of which are the responsibility of the Morrison government. The government has done nothing. The latest figures from the National Lost Crop Register indicate that these labour shortfalls have resulted in around $50 million of crop losses to date. That is a national shame. Produce is rotting and being dumped by farmers because the government couldn't deliver on their announcement—their promise to deliver 25,000 prevetted workers. So there's nothing from this government for the immediate workforce issues for farmers, and that is a great disappointment. Over the medium to longer term, we look forward to seeing the Morrison government's formal response to the National Agriculture Workforce Strategy report. Given the strategy has been on the desk of the minister since October last year, we really should be seeing a response sooner rather than later. On top of the bushfires, the drought, the COVID-19 pandemic and the workforce shortage, we know we have another crisis that farmers and regional communities, particularly in my home state of New South Wales, have to face, and that is the mouse plague. The mouse plague is now impacting across multiple states. Has there been a national response from the Morrison government? No. The response from the Nationals was not to come up with a plan to deal with the mouse plague; it was to come up with a plan to deal with their former leader and install a new leader, in Barnaby Joyce. Has there been a request for the Morrison government to fix the mouse plague with a national response? Yes, there has: Labor has written to the minister, calling on him to help the states fix this crisis. Instead, the Nationals have been too busy fixing the crisis inside their own party room. The New South Wales agriculture minister—the Liberal-National coalition agriculture minister—has written to the Morrison government, asking for it to provide assistance with the mouse plague. So we've got the Nats and the Libs in New South Wales asking for federal help from the Morrison government to assist with the mouse plague. We have no response from the Morrison government. I'm concerned about the impact the plague is having, and will continue to have, across Australian farms. New South Wales farmers have estimated that the plague has already cost $1 billion in lost crops. The mouse plague has to be discussed with state and territory agriculture ministers. I hope the minister puts the mouse plague at the top of the agenda when he next meets with them. Australian farmers must have confidence and certainty that the Morrison government will manage the biosecurity system so we can protect and mitigate any risks to our agriculture industry from pests and disease. It's a huge risk to our agriculture sector, with production being more than $60 billion. It is clear from the experts that the Morrison government has more work to do to make sure that our biosecurity system is well resourced and not at risk of failing. Labor will be keeping a close eye on how the Morrison government continues to manage our vital biosecurity system. 09:50 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania The Greens support the intention of the Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Penalties) Bill 2021 to raise penalties to make sure that lack of compliance with biosecurity laws isn't just a cost of doing business for some enterprises or some individuals. We accept that higher penalties provide a level of increased deterrence or are a push to get more compliance; however, the punitive system of applying penalties still relies on court cases potentially in the case of criminal offences. I understand this covers civil and criminal offences. This requires, firstly, resourcing so that noncompliance can be detected, which can be through a whole range of different measures, through to levying the penalties and getting convictions in courts, so it's a long and difficult process. As I think has already been alluded to here, the alternative was a levy based system, which has been rejected by the government. Being a Tasmanian I am especially aware that my agricultural community and our clean, green and clever exports to the world and to the nation are very vulnerable to biosecurity risks. We only very recently saw a fruit fly outbreak in Tasmania that literally brought the stone fruit and other industries to their knees for well over 12 months. Biosecurity outbreaks like that can cripple our agricultural enterprises. I commend the collaborative approach with regulators to stamp that out. It took a long time and there was a lot of work done on compliance, but eventually it was successful. It's not the kind of thing we want to see in future. I note that it's still very uncertain as to the source of that outbreak. Having had my own agricultural enterprise, having had a vineyard, I'm well aware of the pests and diseases farmers are constantly having to fight across many horticultural and other agricultural industries to be sustainable and to produce crops. Of particular concern to me working in the wine industry was European wasps. This is an example of a biosecurity breach and risk. Once again no-one to this day can point to exactly when European wasps made their way into Australia and Tasmania. It's believed they came in on cargo shipments as early as the 1960s and went undetected. Of course, these wasps are not just a massive problem for agricultural crops like grapes—in one year I had my entire riesling crop stripped by European wasps before we could kick it, and I know that wasn't uncommon—but also a massive threat to biodiversity in Tasmania because they are capable of stripping an entire area of its insect life as they go through a protein phase before they go into a sugar phase, which is when they tend to go into agricultural crops. It is a textbook example of why we need to have much stronger compliance on biosecurity and the kinds of unintended consequences of having a system that allows pests and diseases to spread. I also note what has been talked about in the chamber today. The bill we have before us today has come eight years into the process of looking at how we can better manage biosecurity risks in this country. There doesn't seem to have been any urgency at the federal level at all to update our biosecurity system. The Craik review, which was released in 2017, included 42 recommendations. I remember being on the Senate RRAT Committee when this exact system was being looked at and, crikey, I remember some of the criticisms of Senator Bill Heffernan from this place about the biosecurity system and what we needed to do to update it. Of those 42 recommendations, I understand that only eight have been implemented. When we look at the bigger picture, this is window-dressing. What is one of the biggest vectors for the spread of biosecurity risks for pests and diseases? Climate change. I want to talk a little bit about that today because, if we are talking about future threats to biosecurity and how we manage those risks, we need to talk about how we're going to manage climate change. An interesting panel discussion was reported in the Farm OnlineNational back in April 2017. It was a panel discussion at the New South Wales Farm Writers conference entitled 'Biosecurity: National Strategies and International Challenges'. It had a number of interesting speakers, including Rennylea Pastoral Company director Lucinda Corrigan, who was formerly a director of Meat & Livestock Australia. She said altered weather patterns had changed the biosecurity challenge for her cattle enterprise located in New South Wales. 'Climate change is a major factor for the spread of pests, weeds and disease, which have spread south from hotter areas,' Mrs Corrigan said. An example she gave was Theileria, a blood cell destroying parasite carried by cattle ticks, which has appeared in her region over a short period of time. She said, 'A virulent form of the disease appeared in the Murray Valley 10 years ago, and some people lost 10 per cent of their stock, calves and cows.' She went on to list fleabane and subtropical weeds which she said had spread into her district with changed rainfall patterns—which, of course, had significant impacts on the viability of their operations. That panel went on to discuss other challenges from climate change. Professor Tim Reeves, from the University of Melbourne Primary Industries Climate Challenges Centre, said climate change will bring an added degree of difficulty to the already onerous task of biosecurity and managing bio security risks. 'Climate change is really important when modelling likely incursions, and where and how they might spread,' said Professor Reeves, who is also a Crawford Fund board member. 'While some very good research is being done, climate change brings a third element to the task,' he said. 'If we manage biosecurity with a steady as she goes, business as usual approach, it is highly unlikely to be satisfactory in the coming years.' Senators can read more of his contribution in that article themselves if they want. He talked further about the balance between summer and winter rainfall patterns across the continent and how that has led to changes and, of course, extreme weather events, which he said 'create the spread of plants with high-wind events, while changing rainfall patterns could alter the range of pests bringing new biosecurity threats into different regions'. He said: 'It will impact on the number and type of exotic pests and diseases that can survive and thrive in certain regions. For example, northern Victoria is no longer a winter dominate climate, but has uniform rain throughout the year. A shift of moisture conditions of that nature will change many things, including the ability of pest and diseases to encroach on new areas.' Sharing the panel at that event with Ms Corrigan and Professor Reeves was Australia's inaugural Inspector-General of Biosecurity, Dr Helen Scott-Orr, who is also the coordinator of the New South Wales Crawford Fund and its training program and the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. Dr Orr said the focus of her role, to which she was appointed on a three-year term—this is going back to 2017—was the federal agriculture and water department's performance of biosecurity functions. That article in the Farm OnlineNational states: Dr Scott-Orr is reviewing incursions into Australia of pests and diseases over the past 10 years; hitchhikers and contaminants that have come in cargo which is not subject to quarantine regulations; invasive exotic mosquitoes; and the military’s application of biosecurity regulations for when its own forces return from overseas duty, as well as its regulation of overseas forces that travel to Australia. And she added a number of comments there about biosecurity risks that need to be managed around climate change. What is my point here? My point is really obvious. We have a party in this Senate, in this country, that has four per cent of the national vote: the National Party. It is in coalition with the Liberal Party. It has a gun to the head of the Liberal Party. It is clearly a climate denying party that purports to represent farmers but doesn't represent farmers. It has just toppled its previous leader, Mr McCormack in the other place, and inserted Mr Barnaby Joyce in the other place. He is openly a climate denier. He refuses to entertain the idea of even weak 2050 emissions targets. We heard this morning that there was some kind of secret deal done behind closed doors to keep their coalition together, where farmers will be paid to take climate action, which they already are and they certainly were under Greens-Labor climate action plans. But what's my point? Climate change is a threat to biosecurity. It's a threat to farmers across a whole range of factors. It's a threat to farmers because of changes to rainfall, because of extreme weather events and because of extreme heatwaves. It's a threat to farmers because of biosecurity. And yet we have a party in this place that doesn't represent farmers, that doesn't believe that climate change is a threat or a risk, that doesn't believe in taking climate action. How are we going to manage biosecurity risks if we don't take effective action on climate change? How do we even expect to do that as a country? When you consider what we've got before us today—which the Greens support; I will reiterate that—you see it really is a bandaid on a severed limb when you consider the challenges that we face as a country and the challenge that's not being acted on by this government. Farmers around the country need to stand up on climate change, and many of them, thankfully, are. There's been a big outpouring of sentiment across many organisations and from many farmers around the country disgusted, quite frankly, at the role that the National Party are playing and have continued to play in this government after the last eight years to hijack any action on climate change. Let me say this very clearly: the National Party do not represent the interests of farmers in this country. If they don't have a plan for climate change, if they don't even believe in climate change, if they don't want any climate action and if they're prepared to do whatever it takes to undermine or blow-up climate action, including this unstable coalition that they govern in, then they don't represent farmers. They certainly don't represent the future of farmers. Farmers know climate change is a threat. They know it's one of the biggest threats they face. Climate action is good for farmers. It can be good for farmers in many ways. The costs of inaction by far outweigh any costs of action. The costs of inaction are severe, and farmers understand that. We know that, with discussions with the EU on a potential trade deal, the EU wants to see carbon tariffs. I know the US is talking about this. The world is talking about penalising countries that don't take climate action, and it seems as though our farmers are going to be penalised because of this government's stupidity and downright short-term, self-interested politics, which has delivered no climate policy in this country for the last eight or nine years. So by all means bring in a biosecurity bill to try to help farmers and to help share the risk of biosecurity outbreaks, but don't kid yourself for one minute that this bill before us today is going to have any major impact on managing biosecurity risk if we don't manage one of the main causes of future threats to biosecurity, which is climate instability. 10:04 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales As has happened so many times this week, Labor's support for this imperfect piece of legislation, the Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Penalties) Bill 2021, comes after eight years of neglect by a tired, self-obsessed government that has lost its way. In biosecurity, that neglect has led to failure. That failure has led to an obvious crisis, and it's only in an utter crisis that this government can be provoked to action. In the midst of that, Australian agriculture suffers, Australian family farmers suffer, and there are risks to our exports, to food safety and to public health. Our biosecurity system is fundamental for $59 billion worth of agricultural production and $45 billion worth of agricultural exports. The ambition of this government is very narrow in agriculture. There is no ambition, really, to lift Australian agriculture up. There is no ambition, in particular, to lift Australian agriculture up the value chain. That's where the good jobs are: in food processing and value-adding into agriculture. It is inescapable—even this government can't escape the fact—that federal biosecurity is a federal government responsibility. It keeps out critical threats to our agriculture, like African swine flu, foot-and-mouth disease and other diseases or pests that would be catastrophic for farmers. As trade and travel resume after the pandemic—if they do, if the government can get its act together on vaccines and quarantine and if we can finally open the country up after the government's manifest failure in these areas—it is indeed a critical time to re-evaluate our biosecurity regime. This bill increases civil and criminal penalties for breaches of the act. The penalties send a clear message that breaking these laws is not worth the potential commercial gain. But what this bill doesn't do is establish consistent funding for our biosecurity arrangements at the border. Strengthened biosecurity laws are only as useful as their enforcement, so you require stiff penalties, but effective enforcement also requires certainty amongst potential perpetrators that they will be caught. For this government, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, there is a long history of neglect in this area. In the 2014 budget, the Abbott government abolished key biosecurity agencies: the Biosecurity Advisory Council and the National Biosecurity Committee stakeholder engagement consultative groups. Those cuts meant there are simply fewer biosecurity officers on the ground enforcing these laws that we're strengthening in the chamber today. The consistent solution expressed by farmers and by every stakeholder in the industry was a biosecurity levy, which would mean that the importers that necessitate the biosecurity enforcement effectively pay for it. That levy proposal was the product of a comprehensive review of biosecurity arrangements which found there is: … broad concern that existing funding and resourcing arrangements are inadequate and ad hoc and, if continued, will not be able to support the national biosecurity system into the future. The proposal was simple: $10 a container for shipping and $5 a container for airfreight. There's a familiar pattern here: the coalition government made a big announcement, they set a deadline and then they comprehensively failed to deliver it. It's hard to understand why they would fail to deliver it. Perhaps it is because the National Party spends a lot more time listening to the Minerals Council than to farmers who rely on biosecurity. And who was the agriculture minister during this period who put Australian agriculture and our biosecurity at risk? It was the member for New England, in his usual orgy of self-promotion and his usual approach, where he responds to the stimuli around him rather than thinking about the national interest. He was very focused on a fight with American actors about their pet pooches, but under his watch we saw lapse after lapse after lapse in biosecurity. Cuts under the member for New England's watch meant that our biosecurity scheme saw 39 per cent fewer seizures of items from air passengers and 56 per cent fewer mail articles seized. His ideological commitment to cutting public services, which you can hear him talk about in any pub throughout New England, where he denigrates public servants, has put our biosecurity regime at risk. Is it any wonder that we've seen a series of harrowing biosecurity scares since the Joyce cuts came into effect? The tomato-potato psyllid was discovered in Australia for the first time in 2017 in a suburban garden in Perth and in a commercial capsicum crop north of the city. This pest has the potential to reduce tomato and potato production by 20 to 50 per cent. Cucumber green mottle mosaic virus was discovered on watermelon farms in Katherine and Darwin in September 2014 and rediscovered in Western Australia in 2016. Panama TR4, an existential threat to our banana industry, was discovered in Tully in Queensland in 2015 and has already cost the Queensland government $26 million in their eradication efforts. Russian wheat aphid, discovered in South Australia in 2016, has the potential to adversely affect 75 per cent of our grain crops. Pacific oyster mortality syndrome, discovered in Tasmania in 2016, destroyed $50 million worth of Tasmanian oyster crops. The white spot disease, first discovered in the Logan River near Brisbane in 2016, immediately did $25 million worth of damage to the prawn industry. It's highly infectious and kills more than 80 per cent of prawns in an infected farm. Now, all of these things happened over the miserable tenure of the member for New England as the minister for agriculture. He has never accepted responsibility for these biosecurity lapses that happened under his watch. There was an ANAO report—and it becomes harder to say 'an ANAO report' over and over again the more tired you are—into biosecurity arrangements released in the last few weeks. It found: The department's arrangements to respond to non-compliance with biosecurity requirements are largely inappropriate. In the absence of frameworks, plans or targets— Sound familiar? It sounds a bit like the vaccine process— to determine the desired outcomes of its regulation, the department is unable to demonstrate that its response to non-compliance is effective at managing biosecurity risks. It further found: The department's compliance framework is largely inappropriate to support its response to non-compliance with biosecurity requirements. Now, did this abject failure of our biosecurity arrangements cause any upset in the National Party this week? No. It's all been about themselves. Instead of concern for farmers, this week's coup was the product of the Deputy Prime Minister's naked ambition and nothing else. Farmers—family farmers; Australian agriculture; agribusiness in this country—cannot trust this Deputy Prime Minister to advance their interests. Remember his work as the drought envoy? As farmers suffered through a catastrophic natural disaster, the member for New England, in a sop to his ego, was appointed to a position where his sole responsibility was to listen to farmers and report their needs to the Prime Minister. He held that position for nine months. He helped himself to $675,000 worth of expenses, including two staff who apparently were engaged with him on that project. And how much of those nine months did he spend doing the work that he was engaged to do? About three weeks. And how did he convey the needs and requirements of Australian agriculture to the Prime Minister, who'd forked out so much public money into this utter boondoggle? Was it through a report that was tabled to the parliament? No—there was no report. Was it through formal communications to the Prime Minister or the cabinet? Not at all. It was conveyed to the Prime Minister through a series of text messages, apparently. So, with $675,000 in expenses, during an absolute national crisis for Australian agriculture, all this bloke can do is three weeks worth of work and a couple of text messages. That was how seriously he took the hardship Australian farmers were facing. As regional Australia faces a housing crisis, as thousands of people struggle to find a permanent home in country towns, as biosecurity risks lap at our doorstep under an inadequate biosecurity regime, as we're trying to recover from drought and flood, and as we're trying to deal with the impacts of challenges in our export markets—we are losing markets to key competitors overseas—how can we expect the Deputy Prime Minister to take seriously his responsibility as a public servant, as a person whose job is to serve his constituency, which, for the National Party, is allegedly country people in country industries? How can anybody expect that this particular leopard's spots have changed? There is only one person whose concerns the Deputy Prime Minister takes seriously; there's only one person whose interests he serves. That is, of course, the Deputy Prime Minister himself. It is self-interest all the way down with this lot. And that is why, when we come to this chamber to support this legislation, we do it with no confidence at all that increased penalties and the improvements that are set out in this bill will result in any change in terms of overall biosecurity arrangements for Australians and, in particular, for Australian agriculture and Australian family farms. What this country needs, what Australian agriculture needs, is a government that's got some ambition for rural Australia. What this country needs is a government that's committed to fixing the biosecurity arrangements, to providing pragmatic responses to problems, to solving issues in the interests of Australian agriculture, including importers and exporters, and to making sure that we deal with our public health challenges. It doesn't need a government that is obsessed with itself and with its own naked self-interest and that can only ever make announcements and never deliver. The only thing that matters to Mr Joyce or Mr Morrison is the glare of the cameras and the headline the following day. It is never about the hard work of working with Australians to fix the problems that it's absolutely in our national interest to fix. I commend the legislation to the Senate. 10:18 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I rise to speak on the Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Penalties) Bill 2021 and to give support to the bill. I will be brief in my remarks. It is clearly important for Australia to maintain its biosecurity. We have a fantastic agricultural industry, which would be put in jeopardy if we don't have strong protections in relation to biosecurity. However, I will just foreshadow that I'm moving an amendment in the committee stage, and I'll talk to that amendment now. The amendment I'm moving seeks to deal with a situation we had a few weeks ago where the government sought to use biosecurity measures to prevent Australians from returning home—in fact, to make it a criminal offence for Australians who may be overseas during a biosecurity emergency to return back to their home country. That is inconsistent with the idea of the rights of citizenship; it's inconsistent with the moral obligation the government has to assist Australians when they are overseas and find themselves in difficulty. My amendment will make it very clear that the power that was exercised by the health minister to prevent Australians who were in India from returning home can never be exercised again in that manner. It's an example of what can happen when a power is granted for good measure—I went back and I read through the explanatory memorandum for when the power was initially granted by the parliament. There's not a mention of that sort of use of the power that was requested of the parliament, so it was an abuse. I think the government knows that they made a big mistake in the exercise of it. But with the coalition government you just never know what they're going to do next. They are secretive in the way they do business. They don't respect the Senate—we saw that yesterday when we were talking about the provision of information to the Senate. They are quite disrespectful in terms of openness and transparency. Last night when we were dealing with an ARENA regulation, we saw the government table an amendment that was 180 degrees from the intent of the objects of the act. It was unlawful. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee had made it very plain and clear that that was unlawful amendment. It would have been struck out if someone decided to take that measure to court. But the Senate should never have allowed that regulation. Thankfully, we found ourselves in a situation where, at the recommital of the vote thanks to an injury with Senator Whish-Wilson, the Senate did its job really well last night. But it just shows you what happens when governments stray off the pathway. They stray away from the proper use of power granted by the parliament when they, in legal terms, act ultra vires, beyond power. That's what we saw in relation to the use of the biosecurity laws in the pandemic. Just so everyone's clear: my amendment makes it very clear that you cannot prevent an Australian citizen returning from overseas during a biosecurity measure on the basis of a biosecurity concern. It doesn't affect other measures that we have in law related to terrorists and other people that we know we wish to keep from this country. Any Australian who's overseas and in trouble and wants to return home can. Of course, the minister or the government can apply other measures, such as the requirement to quarantine, and issue other directions to make sure that the community is safe. We bring our people home, we put them in a place that doesn't endanger the community and we make sure they have the best medical attention that they possibly can. That's what my amendment seeks to do, to clarify that that power which was exercised is not to be exercised in the future. That would be unquestionably beyond power. I will be asking that the Senate accept and support my amendment. 10:24 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I rise to speak on the Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Penalties) Bill 2021. This bill is about sending a clear message to individuals and companies that put at risk Australia's $61 billion agriculture industry and over $1 trillion in environmental assets by contravening the Biosecurity Act. A strong biosecurity system is critical to Australia's prosperity. Remembering that we are a trading nation, we need to protect our trade at all times. Our biosecurity laws protect agriculture, tourism and other industries, plant and animal health, the environment and our market access. They are necessary to allow us to trade and for our nation to continue to thrive. Agriculture continues to be one of the nation's economic powerhouses, despite the effects of droughts, floods, bushfires and the COVID-19 pandemic. As the world recovers from COVID-19, it won't be business as usual. Trade has changed forever and will be more competitive than ever. Keeping Australia free from pests and diseases is key to maintaining Australian agriculture's clean and green status. The government's 2021-22 budget announcement of $400 million of new funding for biosecurity confirms this government's longstanding commitment to safeguarding Australia from exotic pests and diseases before they reach our shores. These biosecurity measures introduced by the Australian government will deliver lower costs for producers and support market access. Effective biosecurity systems, aligned to the whole of government initiatives for simplified trade and reopening our international borders, benefit Australia's trade and travel supply chains. We are stepping up our resourcing and our efforts to stop pests and diseases such as African swine fever, khapra beetle or foot and mouth disease establishing in Australia and potentially devastating our livestock, crops and, more importantly, our total environment. On average over 2.5 million shipping containers arrive in Australia each year. We are improving the arrangements for clearance and risk management, which will have substantial benefits for government and importers. We will ensure Australia's biosecurity system supports our agricultural sector to contribute to both Australia's national economic recovery and industry progress towards its goal of $100 billion in value by 2030. We are addressing increasing global threats by better anticipating and interpreting risks, enabling the rapid detection of pests and diseases before they reach Australia. This bill is urgently needed to strengthen the penalties for a number of civil penalty provisions and criminal offences under the Biosecurity Act. The proposed increases to maximum penalties will more appropriately reflect the impact these contraventions may have on Australia's biosecurity status, market access and the economy than the current provisions. The increased civil penalty amounts will more effectively deter noncompliance with the act and provide a proportionate regulatory response. Increased amounts for criminal financial penalties will provide appropriate punishment for those who jeopardise Australia's biosecurity status by breaking the law. A large number of pests and diseases currently pose a high risk to Australia's biosecurity in an increasingly complex import environment. In late 2020, we had several detections of the khapra beetle that I mentioned previously, including in packaging for refrigerators and in highchairs sold to consumers. We are currently seeing the emergence overseas of a new variant of African swine fever, which we must protect our nation against. Although African swine fever has not been detected in Australia due to our strong biosecurity controls at our borders, either variant could have a devastating impact on our pork industry and associated businesses within that industry. The potential entry and establishment of these pests and diseases is an ever-present threat to the livelihoods of farmers and associated industry participants. In the face of these kinds of growing regional and global threats, the current penalty regime needs to be significantly enhanced to provide an effective deterrent against noncompliance with Australia's biosecurity requirements. Growth in national trade and travel as the economy recovers from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic is expected to increase such threats, making it critical that the increased penalties are in force as soon as possible to send a strong message that breaching Australia's biosecurity laws is not worth any potential commercial gain. Breaching Australia's biosecurity laws can have serious consequences for the country's biosecurity status, market access, and plant, animal and public health. The economy and the environment are all at risk. It is critical that the penalties for individuals in companies who choose not to follow the law are appropriate and adequate. This bill will amend the Biosecurity Act to increase the maximum financial penalty that a court could impose for noncompliance with certain requirements under the act. It will increase the penalties for specified civil penalty provisions to deter noncompliance and increase criminal penalties to provide appropriate and proportionate punishment in the sentencing of offenders. The increased penalties relate to the assessment and management of biosecurity risks of goods that are brought or imported into Australian territory and the carrying out of biosecurity activities in accordance with an approved arrangement. This bill increases the number of civil penalties that a court could impose from 120 penalty units to 300 penalty units or, in dollar terms, from $26,640 to $66,000, such as for contraventions relating to the assessment of biosecurity risks—for example, failing to comply with a direction not to move goods under section 128. Where the contravention is committed by a corporation or a body corporate, the maximum penalty may be up to five times this amount. This is because the corporate multiplier can apply penalties to bodies corporate under the Biosecurity Act because of the operation of section 82 of the regulatory powers. The targeted increase to civil penalties in this bill will offer the flexibility to respond proportionately to those individuals and companies who should be aware of their obligations under the act. The increased civil penalties will deter noncompliance with the Biosecurity Act so that breaching the law cannot be seen just as part of the cost of doing business. Otherwise, it's not worth the risk. The Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Penalties) Bill 2021 will ensure that the maximum penalties available to the courts reflect the profit and gain that individuals and businesses might believe they could obtain or seek to obtain by breaking the law. The increase of criminal penalties for fault based offences will allow for the proportionate and appropriate punishment for offences under the Biosecurity Act that align with maximum penalties across the key provisions. This bill does not add any additional administrative burden on industry, which is very important, or introduce any new civil penalty provisions for criminal offences; it strengthens the existing penalties under specified provisions of the Biosecurity Act. I commend the bill to the Senate. 10:33 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Penalties) Bill 2021 will amend the Biosecurity Act 2015 to provide stronger civil and criminal penalties for those who expose Australia to biosecurity risk through noncompliance with the act. The bill will increase the maximum financial penalties that apply to a number of civil and criminal penalty provisions across the Biosecurity Act. The increased civil penalties will serve as a deterrent to anybody considering undermining our biosecurity laws, and the criminal penalties will allow appropriate and proportionate punishment for offences under the act. The penalty amounts in this bill more appropriately reflect the impact that contraventions may have on Australia's biosecurity status, market access and economy than the current penalty regime. Deterring noncompliance with the Biosecurity Act will help maintain Australia's favourable biosecurity status and protect our $71.2 billion agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries and valuable and unique environmental assets. This is particularly important in anticipation of growing biosecurity risks with anticipated growth in international trade and travel as the economy recovers from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. I thank senators for their contribution to this bill, and I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. (Quorum formed) In Committee 10 10:37 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I move amendment (1) on sheet 1306: (1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 3), at the end of the Schedule, add: 3 At the end of subsection 477(1) Add: Note 3: Certain requirements must not be determined under this subsection, such as a requirement that prevents an Australian citizen or permanent resident who is overseas from returning to Australia (see subsections (5A) and (6)). 4 At the end of paragraph 477(3)(b) Add "(subject to subsection (5A))". 5 After subsection 477(5) Insert: Determination must not include certain matters (5A) A determination made under subsection (1) must not prevent or restrict an Australian citizen, or a permanent resident (within the meaning of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007), who is outside Australian territory from entering Australian territory. (5B) To avoid doubt, subsection (5A) does not mean that other requirements in a determination made under subsection (1) cannot apply to those persons upon entering Australian territory. 6 At the end of subsection 478(1) Add: Note 3: Certain directions must not be given under this subsection, such as a direction that prevents or restricts an Australian citizen or permanent resident who is overseas from returning to Australia (see subsections (5A) and (6)). 7 After subsection 478(5) Insert: Direction must not require certain matters (5A) A direction given under subsection (1) must not prevent or restrict an Australian citizen, or a permanent resident (within the meaning of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007), who is outside Australian territory from entering Australian territory. (5B) To avoid doubt, subsection (5A) does not mean that other directions under subsection (1) cannot be given to those persons upon entering Australian territory. 8 Application of amendments — human biosecurity emergency powers The amendments of the Biosecurity Act 2015 made by items 3 to 7 of this Schedule apply in relation to: (a) a determination under subsection 477(1) of that Act; or (b) a direction under subsection 478(1) of that Act; that is made on or after the commencement of this item (regardless of whether the human biosecurity emergency period during which the determination or direction is made begins before, on or after that commencement). In my speech on the second reading I made my contribution in relation to this amendment. I just urge that people have a look at this. It's about ensuring that government doesn't abuse the power to keep Australians from returning to Australia during a biosecurity emergency. It doesn't stop the government imposing other restrictions on Australians returning, such as quarantine or giving them a direction as to where to go, but we must look after Australians who are in difficulty overseas, especially during a pandemic. 10:38 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I rise just to let Senator Patrick know that Labor will not be supporting his amendment. 10:38 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania The Australian Greens will be supporting Senator Patrick's amendment, and we look forward to the vote. 10:38 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The government won't be supporting Senator Patrick's amendment, although we do acknowledge the intent of the amendment. During a human biosecurity emergency period, the health minister may, in accordance with sections 477 and 478 of the act, determine emergency requirements that he or she is satisfied are necessary to prevent or control the entry, emergence, establishment or spread of the declaration listed human disease—such as COVID-19—in an Australian territory or a part of an Australian territory. A person who fails to comply with the requirements may commit a criminal offence. The Australian government has established protocols for the exercise of emergency powers under the act to ensure that the emergency powers are used only where necessary to protect the health of Australians based on expert health advice and following appropriate consultation. The bill contains existing provisions to ensure that the powers are used only where appropriate and necessary and, therefore, the amendments are not necessary, are not proportionate and could impact on the government's ability to respond to this and future health emergencies. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question before the Senate is that amendment (1) on sheet 1306 moved by Senator Patrick be agreed to.

The committee divided. [10:44]
(Temporary Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 10 AYES Faruqi, M Hanson-Young, SC McKim, NJ Patrick, RL (teller) Rice, J Siewert, R Steele-John, J Thorpe, LA Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 30 NOES Antic, A Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Canavan, MJ Colbeck, R Davey, P Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Hanson, P Hughes, H Hume, J Lambie, J McCarthy, M (teller) McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S Paterson, J Payne, MA Rennick, G Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Scarr, P Small, B Smith, DA Sterle, G Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

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

 Third Reading 12 10:49 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021 12

Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021

Second Reading 12 10:50 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I rise to make my contribution to the Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021. This amends the Water Act to effectively split the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to create a new agency with responsibility for the compliance function and to create a new position of Inspector-General of Water Compliance to head this agency and establish new offences and civil penalty provisions for unlawful conduct relating to contraventions of the Basin Plan, taking water when not permitted and insider trading with water. I should state from the outset that Labor supports this bill. It's a long overdue and much needed addition to the regulation of this country's largest river system. But unfortunately this bill does nothing to address one of the principal threats to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and to communities and ecosystems up and down the river. The threat is the junior coalition partner, the National Party, under the leadership of Mr Joyce. One of the first acts of the National Party after Mr Joyce's re-elevation to leadership was to vote against a motion on Monday supporting the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full and on time. Minister Pitt may well say that the government is committed to implementing the full Basin Plan, but let's wait and see how long he maintains that portfolio or, indeed, his party maintains that position. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan includes 450 gigalitres of additional flow that was supposed to be secured through efficiency measures. It was a key part of the plan. In fact, on some views, it was this commitment that secured South Australia's participation in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. That additional water was supposed to be delivered by 2024. But here we are, just three years out, with no clear pathway forward. The government has ruled out on-farm measures and buy-backs and would be looking exclusively to off-farm efficiency measures to find the additional 450 gigalitres. The problem is that the government's listed infrastructure is almost exclusively for irrigation infrastructure in New South Wales and doesn't specify how much water, if any, would be saved by the investment. In fact, only two of the 450 gigalitres have been delivered so far. This outcome seems relatively unsurprising when you take into account the ongoing antipathy towards this additional water allocation by the Nationals. Back in 2016, Deputy Prime Minister Joyce, as he was then and as he is again now, wrote to the South Australian water minister to say that the 450 gigalitres couldn't be delivered without hurting river communities. He was more blunt in other comments, saying there wasn't 'a hope in Hades of South Australia getting the water'. Mr Joyce's comments were so alarming that the Nick Xenophon Team promised to block everything that came through the Senate, prompting then Prime Minister Turnbull to confirm in writing the government's commitment to the plan. Well, Prime Minister Turnbull's gone and Deputy Prime Minister Joyce is back and, with that, the water allocation for crucial ecosystems is under threat. As Senator McKenzie explained to the Senate on Monday, the Nationals believe that the 450 gigalitres was never guaranteed and apparently, 'The science is now pointing to a complete rethink of how we manage the Lower Lakes in South Australia.' Even the coalition government in South Australia is spooked, with the Liberal state water minister, David Speirs, saying: 'I would be extremely disappointed if the change in the leadership for the Nationals saw a change of approach. The time for talk is over and we will continue to push all basin jurisdictions to get on with delivering what's already been agreed.' The problem is that delivering what's already been agreed, as quoted earlier, hasn't been a strong suit of this government, and this bill is the perfect example. It is worth reviewing how this legislation came to us. Compliance has been an issue of concern for a long time and has been considered in reports, including the 2017 Murray-Darling Basin water compliance review conducted by the MDBA. The issue registered on the public's attention, though, with the 2017 Four Corners investigation into water theft, which went on to spark no less than a royal commission. In 2018 the government, in effect, accepted the recommendation of the Productivity Commission to create a Basin Plan regulator when it appointed former AFP commissioner Mick Keelty as Northern Basin Commissioner in 2018. A year later, the government scrapped the role and replaced it with an inspector-general for the Murray-Darling Basin. That appointment was on an interim basis. It was supposed to be a statutory position. It was supposed to have powers attached to it. The role was supposed to be able to refer matters to a Commonwealth integrity commissioner. In fact, Mr Keelty spent his entire time in the role without any of these things happening. It is only now, years later, that the government has introduced legislation to do any of these things. Mr Keelty's replacement in the role of Inspector-General of Water Compliance is still performing his functions on an interim basis until this legislation is passed. This hasn't been an omission without consequences. It has meant that the regulator who is meant to be charged with protecting the basin has been without the powers needed to properly investigate water crimes. It has meant that prosecutions have depended on state bodies and authorities. And it has meant that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority has been left to 'mark its own homework', as the Productivity Commission put it in its review. So although Labor supports this bill, we are disappointed that it has taken eight years for this government to get to this point. This government has consistently failed to put in place the regulation needed to support the plan. It has failed to make the investments needed to make the plan work. The river, its communities and its ecosystems would be better off if the government were half as interested in delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan as the National Party under Mr Joyce is in turning it into a culture wars issue. Australia's longest river system deserves so much better. 10:57 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to contribute to this debate on the Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021. As I do, I want to say with a heavy heart how disappointed I am that, two days into Barnaby Joyce's appointment as Deputy Prime Minister, we have a new war being launched on South Australia and the Murray-Darling Basin by the National Party. Two days of Mr Joyce as Deputy Prime Minister, the deputy chief sheriff to the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, and they want to take water out of South Australia and off the Murray-Darling Basin and screw over the environment. Two days in, and the National Party have said to South Australia: 'Nup, nothing. You can be left at the bottom of the system with nothing.' Why is that? It's because they're more interested in looking after their big corporate irrigator mates up north. The last time Barnaby Joyce—Mr Barnaby Joyce—was in government as water minister, he told South Australians that if they wanted more water they should just move. This is a bloke who has never, ever supported the management, the fair management, the sustainable management of the Murray-Darling Basin. He has never supported a plan that would have this river system managed nationally, fairly and for the long term. He has never supported making sure that at the end of the system, where South Australians rely on a healthy river, we would be able to have access to the water to keep the river alive. In the midst of the millennium drought he snubbed South Australia, basically saying 'tough luck', while his big corporate mates were sucking and sucking the river dry. So forgive me if I stand here today thinking that this government is going to do anything that betters the management and the transparency and accountability of the management of the Murray-Darling Basin, because—boy!—the track record shows something different. The whole reason we need an inspector-general and a cop on the beat is blokes like Barnaby Joyce and his cotton-growing mates. That's why it is just absolutely appalling that, as I stand here this morning debating what is meant to be an accountability measure, we have the National Party in the Senate moving amendments that take water out of the river system and take water from the environment to give to the big corporate irrigators and leave South Australia running dry. So forgive me if I think, as many South Australians do, that this government will never ever be able to manage the Murray-Darling Basin properly, fairly and in a way that makes sure we look after the environment and the small users all the way throughout the system. Under this government we have had rorting, we have had water theft and we have had public money used as a slush fund for the mates of the National Party. The only reason we need a cop on the beat is that the National Party think the Murray-Darling Basin is a river of gold—for themselves. The amendments moved by the National Party today rip water out of the environment and cut water from the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which, let's remember, was designed because the Murray-Darling Basin had been mismanaged for decades. Too much water has been extracted and greed has dominated. If we want a future for our nation's food bowl, then we have to manage this water more sustainably. Of course, with the drying climate there's less water available all round, but the National Party don't care about that because they don't even believe in climate change. They don't give two hoots what the science says. It is just take, take, take. The whole point of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was to try and put in place a system where the river would be managed fairly and sustainably for the long term. That meant water needed to be returned to the river because too much water was being taken out. Now, nine years later, we see Mr Barnaby Joyce as Deputy Prime Minister and his supporters here in the Senate wanting to blow a hole in the plan, steal more water, thieve from the environment and leave downstream users and downstream states worse off. There are a few other elements. This legislation is meant to be about putting in place an Inspector -General of Water Compliance. Just imagine—if Barnaby Joyce makes himself the water minister again, who will he put in place in this job? You can't trust the National Party to manage the Murray-Darling Basin and you certainly can't trust the National Party to put in place a proper watchdog. This inspector-general bill has some good elements but some very worrying elements. There are some other amendments that have been moved today to try and fix the bill that we will be supporting. But we need to make sure that the integrity of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is kept intact. The whole purpose of returning water to the environment is to save the river from death, to ensure the survival of the Murray-Darling Basin, the nation's biggest river system, the life blood of our nation. We need to make sure that extra 450 gigalitres is protected and is delivered in time and in full. We need to make sure that if we need to return water to the environment that we can still do it through buybacks. It's the most efficient mechanism, environmentally, economically and socially, to return the water that the river needs. But, today, as we stand here debating what is meant to be an integrity measure, we have the laughable farce of the National Party wanting to undermine the whole damn thing. Mr Barnaby Joyce is in negotiations with the Prime Minister right now over ministries for the National Party and his new team. If the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, has any mettle, he will deny the water portfolio to the National Party. They have shown themselves over and over again to be inept, shady and tricky and to misuse and mismanage the water portfolio. There are serious questions about corruption. They can't be trusted with the water portfolio, and Mr Barnaby Joyce cannot be trusted to be in charge of the Murray-Darling Basin. I say to the Prime Minister directly today: be a proper national leader and strip the National Party of the water portfolio. Put it in the hands of someone who actually cares about the survival of our river and the sustainability of our environment and all of the communities that rely on a healthy river, from top to bottom. Don't allow the National Party to continue to use the Murray-Darling Basin and the billions of public dollars attached to the plan as their own personal slush fund. I tell you what, if Mr Scott Morrison, as Prime Minister, allows the National Party to keep hold of the water portfolio in today's negotiations, the Liberal Party are going to suffer in South Australia, and suffer hard. We've got two Liberal Party frontbenchers in this place: Senator Birmingham and Senator Ruston, both proud Liberals and South Australians. How are they going to fare going back home to South Australia after Barnaby Joyce, as Deputy Prime Minister, has just flipped the bird to SA? Today, in this place, they've moved an amendment to steal water from South Australia. When are the South Australian Liberals going to stand up to this nonsense? It's a challenge now to the Prime Minister, to Senator Birmingham and to Senator Ruston to stare down this wacky, crazy, untrustworthy mob and make sure they do not get their mitts on the portfolio, on the public money, or on any more of the water. Thank goodness South Australia has such a strong wedge of representation in this place from the crossbench, the Greens and members of the Labor Party. I call on our Liberal South Australian colleagues: do not let the National Party steal from our state again. If this piece of legislation today is going to go forward, it needs to be fixed. We need to make sure that the National Party don't get their mitts on any more water, any more money or any more power. South Australians are horrified at what's transpired over the last 48 hours. If you're a member of the voting public in Boothby, think about what you want to do with your vote at the next election. Would you really want to trust a member of the coalition when they are thumbing their nose at our state and our river and our environment, at the future survival of our state? Every South Australian gets to vote for who they want to represent them in the Senate. I'd be thinking pretty clearly, right now, that it is not worth your time, your faith, the future of our state, to be voting for this mob when the Deputy Prime Minister himself is prepared to sanction such an attack on South Australia, such an attack on our environment and our Murray-Darling Basin. You've got one job today, Prime Minister: tell the National Party to back off—hands off—and lay off attacking SA, stealing water from the river and cutting water to the environment. 11:12 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia This morning the Adelaide Advertiser printed—I'm glad Senator McKenzie has come in here. She can explain how much she doesn't support the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, how much she is acting against the interests of South Australia, and how much she is being permitted to do so by the man who has just been elected the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. The Deputy Prime Minister is allowing you, the Leader of the Nationals here, to attack South Australia. I'm very happy to have a debate with you on this, any time. In fact, why don't you come down to Adelaide and have a debate with us on water policy—you, me and Senator Birmingham? It would be quite interesting to see who is on which side. Anyway, I come back to this morning's paper. The Adelaide Advertiser printed a headline that said it was 'bad news' for the River Murray, that 'Barnaby's Nats won't back the Basin Plan'. And do you know what? That story sounded the alarm on what we already know, what every South Australian knows. The coalition, particularly with this new Deputy Prime Minister, cannot be trusted to deliver for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The fact that Barnaby Joyce—Mr Barnaby Joyce—and his Nationals don't support the plan is actually no surprise, because he never has. This is not news. This bloke has never supported the fundamental principles behind the Murray-Darling plan, which is that we have to return the river to health, that we have to return water to the river. There are a whole range of mechanisms, including buybacks, efficiency measures, changes to water rules, integrity measures and many other reforms, which are all about recognising what Malcolm Turnbull recognised and what John Howard recognised: that this river system is desperately in need of reform. They don't want to hear that down there, because all they're interested in is playing a bit of internal politics, a bit of power politics with the Liberal Party. And guess who loses out? South Australia. It's always South Australia, when it comes to Barnaby Joyce. Everyone in Adelaide and in the regions remembers what Mr Joyce said when he was last leader of the National Party. He said to South Australians, who were worried about the River Murray, 'Move to where the water is'! This is his great plan to resolve the environmental and economic challenge of the Murray-Darling Basin: you just tell South Australians to move—easy! Well, that went down really well. Despite this, this weak Liberal Party, who go to South Australia and pretend they care about the Murray-Darling, handed control of the water portfolio to Barnaby Joyce—unbelievable. The bloke who didn't support the plan got to deal with the plan, got to implement—or not implement—the plan. We see it again today, if anybody thinks there's been any change. We remember Mr Joyce, when Deputy Prime Minister, saying to South Australia, 'There's not a hope in Hades of getting the 450 gigalitres of water secured under the plan.' This is the bloke who was supposed to be implementing it, and then the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, saying to a state of the Commonwealth that something that the Commonwealth agreed to with every basin state had 'not a hope in Hades' of being delivered—as though he was proud of it! What sort of cabinet minister does that? I know we signed up, but 'not a hope in Hades'? Apart from anything, it is utterly disrespectful. If anybody thought that was an aberration, we have Senator McKenzie, today in the Adelaide Advertiser, saying, 'Labor has forgotten the 450 gigs was never guaranteed.' Oh, so we just agreed it, but it was never guaranteed—I mean, give us a break. Basically, you don't care about South Australia and you don't care about the downstream communities; you just care about upstream irrigators, and you always have. That is how you will always play this. Until the Liberal Party decide that they are going to stand up to this sort of vandalism, you will be condemned. The plan was supposed to end a century of infighting between basin states. It promised the equivalent of 3,200 gigalitres back to the basin. They were pretty critical of me, but I'm proud of securing, when I was water minister, nearly 1,000 gigs for the river, something— Senator McKenzie interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Oh, here we go. She didn't like that, did she? She's even interjecting as she's walking around the chamber. I mean, get a grip—seriously. Yes, I purchased almost 1,000 gigalitres, consistent with the plan, in order to help restore the basin. And do you know what? They're critical of it. They want to stop it. They don't want to do anything like that. They don't want to do any of that. They don't want to restore the basin to health; they just want to play to their constituencies in the upstream irrigation communities, and they want to lie to them. They want to pretend to them that things can be as they were. Well, they can't. John Howard knew that. Malcolm Turnbull knew that. Frankly, Liberal and Labor people in South Australia—people across the political divide—know that. We have to change. It's why Senator Ruston has been in here saying, 'We're committing to delivering the plan on time and in full,' and then the next day the Nationals Leader in the Senate comes out and moves amendments that are completely contrary to that. I would say this: we expect the National Party to be like this. We understand what they're like. We understand that this is all about the politics of a few seats upstream. It's all about the internals. It's all about Senator McKenzie getting her cabinet seat back. That's all this is about. It's not actually about what's right for the plan. But do you know who I am most critical of here? It's the Liberal Party of Australia, and their weakness. They know that Barnaby Joyce is no friend of South Australia. They know that his first priority as leader is shredding this once-in-a-generation plan. They know what the Nationals are like. Well, they have to stand up to them. So, this is a test today, not only on these amendments—which the Liberals are very embarrassed about—but for Scott Morrison. It's also a test for Steven Marshall, and I look forward to Premier Marshall, of the Liberal Party of South Australia, standing up today and calling on the Prime Minister to stop the vandalism from his coalition partner. I say to Mr Morrison: This is a test for you. There are three things you need to do. Firstly, strip the Nationals of the water portfolio. Secondly, give a clear commitment that you as Prime Minister will deliver the plan in full and on time. Thirdly, give a public commitment that there will be no change on water policy as part of the secret coalition agreement. That's where these deals get done. Senator McKenzie interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Then table the agreement. Go on! You stand in here telling me, 'It's very unlikely.' Apparently South Australia should be happy to take Senator McKenzie's statement, 'Don't worry, Penny; it will be very unlikely.' Senator McKenzie 207825 You don't want to hear— Senator WONG 00AOU No, you don't want to hear about your dishonesty. For years and years you've pretended to people that things did not have to change, and you knew they'd have to change. Senator McKenzie interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator McKenzie, your interjections are out of order! Senator WONG 00AOU You have fought and undermined water reform at every stage. It is the easiest thing in the world to go to communities and say: 'You don't have to change. It's all Penny Wong's fault. It's all Malcolm Turnbull's fault. It is all X, Y and Z's fault.' The reality is that it is unsustainable. The South Australian Liberal Party know that. Most of the Liberal cabinet know that. But you don't want to hear it. Mr Joyce just wants to play politics with it. The people who will suffer most are the people who elect me to come here, and that is the people of South Australia. We are the ones who will suffer most, and we always have, because of the interests of the upstream states. What I would say to Mr Morrison is: You have a test today. Are you going to do the right thing or not? Are you going to allow Barnaby Joyce to run your government or not? The choice of Mr Morrison is to either lead the nation or be led by the National Party. 11:21 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales It is absolutely clear that Labor and the Greens—and Rex Patrick, but he has always been honest about his position, so I applaud Rex Patrick—who sit there and purport to represent Australia are focused on only one state when it comes to water: the state of South Australia. We are not about stealing water from South Australia. We are not about stealing water from South Australian farmers, who I applaud. The farmers of the Renmark Irrigation Trust, the farmers of the Berri Irrigation Trust, the South Australian Murray Irrigators—I support all of them. That is why we have flagged amendments to legislate the social and economic test applied to the 450 gigalitres by all basin ministers, including the South Australian minister. The South Australian minister agreed to that because the impact on those very South Australian irrigation communities that I've just mentioned would be horrific if all of a sudden they woke up and a big chequebook was being waved under their noses supposedly in the name of their environment. When we are talking about the Basin Plan, apparently it's only the South Australian environment that matters, and not even the South Australian environment across the state. Only one environmental icon site do the Greens care about. Only one does the Labor Party care about. Well, I care about the Narran Lakes. I care about the forests. I care about the Chowilla floodplain. I care about the environmental sites within the Renmark Irrigation Trust. That company did a great deal with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder to ensure that you can get water to them and that the water doesn't just flow past their gates and out to sea at the expense of the environment throughout the rest of the basin. Senator Wong was absolutely right when she said she purchased 1,000 gigalitres of water. I remind people when that happened. She purchased 1,000 gigalitres of water in the middle of the millennium drought, when people were desperate, before we had a Basin Plan and before there was any indication of where the water needed to be used or where the water should come from. She purchased that water at a time when farmers were on their knees looking for help. She came to help them alright, with a massive chequebook. She closed the cotton gin at Bourke, sending hundreds of people into unemployment queues. Yes, the farmers got their money for the water, but nothing was done for the communities where those farmers supported local businesses. Senator Wong and Senator Hanson-Young say that we're doing this today because of Barnaby Joyce, because of our new leader. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x I will remind you, Senator, that you should be using the correct titles. Senator DAVEY 281697 Sorry: the member for New England. I just want to clarify that that is not why we're doing this today. We are doing this today because we have been listening to our communities. This was flagged at a Senate committee inquiry last year, on 23 September. When the New South Wales water minister, Minister Pavey sat down before the committee—the only state minister to front that committee, despite invitations being sent to all—she said that there were problems with this plan. We are all committed to a Basin Plan. We are all committed to our environment—the whole environment, not just one icon site but the whole environment. But we're not going to achieve the good environmental outcomes that we can achieve if all we're focused on is a number printed in black and white in a schedule of the Basin Plan. That is where we have all got lost over time. I was involved as a stakeholder, representing irrigation interests—I will put my hand up—back in 2010, when we were negotiating the Basin Plan. I applaud the then minister, Tony Burke, who at the time did listen. He came out to Deniliquin. He fronted 3,000 angry people. Let me put that into perspective. You might sit here and say: 'Three thousand people? That's nothing.' I'm talking about 3,000 in a town with a population of 6,000 or 7,000, in a regional area with a population of 30,000. Ten per cent of the whole regional population came together to front Tony Burke that day, and he stood there and he listened and he took on board what they said and he did make changes. Then, at the eleventh hour, then Prime Minister Gillard did a dodgy deal with South Australia for 450 gigalitres. I'm convinced that the then minister, Tony Burke, understood the ramifications of that. That is why, in the Basin Plan, there were tests set, and the 450 gigalitres could only be recovered on two provisos. The first was that it was voluntary, that farmers came forward offering their water. The second was that it had no negative social and economic impacts. Well, we have had report after report after report telling us that we've already seen negative social and economic impacts. We've already seen the demise of some of our most vulnerable irrigation communities. In my area I have seen dairy farmers walk off the land in droves because of the impact of buyback. Senator Hanson-Young says it's the most economic and the easiest form of water recovery. What a farce! If your economics is based on what is cheapest, then maybe. But what is the most effective and most efficient, with the least economic damage? It is not buyback. We need to get better and smarter about the way we manage our water. We have been accused here today of stealing water from the environment and stealing water from South Australia. We're not stealing anything. We are not proposing to take the water that is already allocated to them; we are not proposing to change the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement, which distributes the water between the states; and we are not proposing to take any of the water out of the accounts held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. What we are proposing is to stop and say: 'They have enough. Now let's look at how they manage it. Let's look at how they get the water to those environmental sites. Let's make sure the whole environment, from top to bottom, is taken care of.' We have heard, through the Senate Select Committee on the Multi-Jurisdictional Management and Execution of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan—and I note that Senator Hanson-Young, even though she is a member of that committee, has not attended any of the— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Senator, you are aware that it's not appropriate to reflect on a senator's attendance in here or in committees. Senator DAVEY 281697 I withdraw. Through that committee, we have travelled to basin communities in Moree, Goondiwindi, Shepparton and Deniliquin. My colleague on the other side, Senator Deb O'Neill, heard firsthand the pain of these communities. She heard from them that buyback has to stop and that the impact on the water market has affected their businesses. People who haven't even actively participated in the Basin Plan are being negatively impacted by the Basin Plan, just as innocent bystanders. That is poor public policy. In one of these hearings, it was put to us by a witness: 'Stop with the games and actually legislate what you tell us your policy is.' We have government statements saying, 'We don't want any more buyback; we will focus our water recovery off farm.' All our amendments today are doing is actually putting that into legislation. We know that the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council have agreed to a strong, robust social and economic test for the 450. All we are proposing is to put that test into legislation. We know that both the New South Wales and the Victorian water ministers have asked for flexibility with the sustainable-diversion-limit projects. That's what our amendments propose, so that those state governments have the capacity to make sure the projects they undertake will actually deliver the environmental benefits that they're meant to and that we want them to. I've been accused of being a climate denier today, but I am not. We know climate change is happening. We know there is an incredible risk of sea level rises, and we know that, while everyone is looking upstream and saying, 'Give me more water,' no-one is looking downstream and asking, 'What's going to happen when sea levels rise above the scope of the barrages?' Nobody is looking at how to manage that risk, and that is a significant risk. We have heard from scientists who have told us that, while, yes, the Lower Lakes are Ramsar listed, Ramsar is not for a fixed point in time; you can apply to adjust it in accordance with what's happening. We've heard from scientists that the ecology of the Lower Lakes in the Coorong is changing due to climate change. But, instead of looking at the Lower Lakes and what can be done to help save them, everyone is looking upstream and accusing farmers—the very people who produce your rice, wheat and potatoes—of being greedy. They are all painted as being greedy corporate irrigators. My husband works on a corporate farm. If it wasn't for some of those corporates, there would be people in rural and regional Australia without jobs. But I have also sat around the dinner table, the kitchen table and the coffee table with farmers at breaking point because they are so scared that the government is going to come out with another big cheque book, that their neighbours are going to sell out from under them, that their costs of doing business will continue to rise exponentially and that they will have no choice but to walk away from the job that they love and from the family homes that they've been in for generations. Enough is enough. We need to respect our people and our farmers. I don't care whether they're South Australian farmers or New South Wales farmers—from the north or the south. I don't care if they're irrigators or dry land. What I do care about is those farmers deserve the right to farm. They were given a property right and they have seen that being slowly undermined, because we are fixated on a number. I want to get back to the intent of the Basin Plan. Senator O'Neill interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Order! Senator DAVEY 281697 I will take the interjection, Senator O'Neill. We have been in government for eight years and the challenge was put to you. You can support us today, and we will get the change that our people want. Senator McKenzie interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Senator Davey, resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, stop the interjections. I note that you are listed as a contributor. You will have your opportunity to contribute. I ask that Senator Davey be heard in silence. Please continue, Senator Davey. Senator DAVEY 281697 Senator O'Neill, I take your interjection. We've been in government for eight years, and I welcome you supporting our amendments so we can get the change that you heard yourself from witnesses is needed to support our farmers and our communities that rely on farmers to buy their coffees, to get their hair done, to go to their shops and to support their towns. We can give those communities some certainty in to the future. I commend the inspector-general part of this bill, which I haven't had a chance to cover off on, because I've been addressing everything else. I commend our amendments. I would welcome the chance to take our amendments to a committee so that people can consider them thoroughly and understand where we're coming from here. This is not about blowing up the Basin Plan. This is about getting it right. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Senator Whish-Wilson, I have next Senator O'Neill, unless you are on a point of order? Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 I just want to foreshadow that Senator Hanson-Young will be moving a second reading amendment. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Thank you. Senator O'Neill. 11:37 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales After the contribution we have just heard from Senator Davey, I have no doubt about her passion for the community she lives in but I cannot believe the disingenuous nature of the way the National Party come into this place and act as if they're not a party of government. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 You will resume your seat. Senator McKenzie? Senator McKenzie 207825 Yes. There is a ruling about reflecting on senators, and I would seek you to consider what Senator O'Neill just said in calling Senator Davey, who actually lives in the basin and who has raised her family in the basin, disingenuous. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Senator McKenzie, please resume your seat. I didn't hear the comment but I— Senator McKenzie interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Don't argue with the chair. You have asked me to rule and I intend to. My rule stands, whether you like it or not. Senator O'Neill, I didn't hear the contribution, because I was seeking advice from the Clerk, but I would invite you, if you made a remark about Senator Davey, to withdraw it. Senator O'NEILL 140651 I would do so, if that was the case, but my comment was about the National Party. I, in fact, was quite complimentary of Senator Davey's passion because I know she lives in the community. I will withdraw, if it assists, but I do deny that it was directed at Senator Davey, and I think the record would show that. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Thank you, Senator O'Neill. I will take your invitation to withdraw, and I note the comments you have made, and I invite you to continue your contribution. Senator O'NEILL 140651 Thank you very much. I will state again that these comments from the National Party in here that 'we need to respect our farmers', farmers need to hear them in the context of eight years of those opposite being in government. If farmers are feeling disrespected, they're feeling disrespected because of this government, the Liberal-National Party government, which has left them hanging and abandoned. They failed to do their job. This piece of legislation is happening, because this government failed to do its job. I'm speaking on the Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021 and I welcome this legislation because it is long overdue. This is legislation for an investigation and penalties framework for malfeasance in the Murray-Darling Basin. If the government had got onto the job when they came into office instead of waiting until two minutes to midnight of seeking a fourth term of government to start bleating and moaning about what's happening in their communities, the people who are out in rural New South Wales and Queensland and Victoria and South Australia wouldn't feel as abandoned by the government as they currently do. It has taken far too long for this government to listen to the communities that it claims it represents and it has taken far too long for them to come to the table and legislate for this position of Inspector-General of Water Compliance. In fact, in terms of getting the timing wrong, the government were more than happy to give this job of inspector-general to a former New South Wales politician from the National Party—a minister in the New South Wales Liberal-National government from 2011 to 2019, when he was in parliament—and employ him on $200,000 a year, when his job didn't have any powers or official role. He's been in the role for six months. They got the guy in the job, they made the announcement, but they're only now bringing in the legislation, which the National Party is seeking to amend today. They're just lodging amendments today. That's how out of control and haphazard this government is. And the tension between the National Party and the Liberal Party is well and truly on show here. This is a government that has not stood up for Australians in the regions. They've played some sort of con job out there, but they haven't been doing the job here in Canberra. All we've seen from Mr Grant—and I do hope he can undertake this task with vigour and vim and integrity, and get on with it, because it's desperately needed—is him moving up and down the river. 'Travel up and down the basin' is what he declared. I wonder what bang for their buck the Australian people have got for the $100,000 already spent in the last six months on a man whose capacity to do the job will be seen in retrospect and who was placed in a position without any powers or authority, which is what this bill is seeking to introduce today, six months after he got the job. It's just not up to par, not for the government of a country. The bill just scratches the surface of the issues that are rolling through the waters and the communities of the Murray-Darling Basin. This gargantuan public policy has been mishandled and mismanaged by members of the coalition at state and federal level from the moment they took office. The rationale for the plan, which they agreed to—let's be clear about this; what Senator Davey was railing against is a bipartisan plan that her government voted for—remains. We must ensure that agriculture, the environment and the river communities are all able to be sustained in the basin, together. The communities could not have made that clearer in their comments to us on the Murray-Darling Basin committee, which is chaired by Senator Brockman—and Senator Patrick is also here in the chamber. We've been all over New South Wales and Victoria, and we're heading to South Australia in the coming weeks. As we approach the 2024 deadline for the Basin Plan, we must continue the great unfinished business that is before us. But, even though the government have been in office for eight years, one of the amendments that we've got on the table from Senator McKenzie is to push that date out to 2026. They've stuffed it up for eight years and now they're saying, 'Please, Miss, give me an extension.' That's what they're trying to do here today. It's a joke. It's an absolute joke. The people of the bush cannot continue to swallow the nonsense on water that this National Party are dishing out to them. Those people have very few champions in this place—and they're not in the National Party. Despite what they say, that they've been looking after you for eight years, how does it look out there? You're telling us it's not looking too good. Flood-plain harvesting, regulation of the water market and the achievement of water recovery projects in New South Wales: all of those issues are still not fixed. They need to be fixed to ensure that the Basin Plan works for all communities equally and that water use is sustainable and ecologically sound. The CSIRO data put some facts on the table. It now shows that there's been a huge fall in inflows over the past 20 years, nearly halving to around 4,820 gigalitres, which means less water for irrigators, less water for rural communities and less water for the precious ecosystems that depend on the flows. As the effects of climate change continue to creep up and further disrupt weather events in the basin, we need to examine further how that will affect flows for the environment and crops. We had evidence in Shepparton from the Victorian Farmers Federation, who said, 'Ten years ago, we didn't believe in climate change, and we weren't engaging with the Basin Plan through that lens, but now we absolutely do.' They are much clearer about their policy for sustainable business practice in the part of the country where they live, love and farm. They are much more committed to a fact based response than the National Party in this government. The ABC reported that ricegrowers have gone from receiving regular flows through the general security licence to years of low or no water. In fact, we received evidence that, in 2019, despite Australia's sense of how much rice we grow in the Riverina, we actually imported all our rice from overseas, because ricegrowers could not get their hands on water in Australia to provide high-quality rice for the Australian market and overseas. That's what it looks like in the Riverina after eight long years of multiple leadership under the Liberal-National government. That's what it looks like on the ground. It's a debacle out there. Over the summer of 2018, we all watched in horror as decades of old fish gasped their last breath in a mass death event that looked like it was written out of the Book of Revelation. Hundreds of thousands of fish suffocated to death as fluctuating weather, death of algae and lack of critical flows created a crisis situation. Water birds are also in long-term decline in the Menindee Lakes. Numbers have dropped every good wet year since 1985. The fact is that our environment isn't bouncing back. We have to look at better ways to manage the water to preserve our precious ecosystems and the communities that thrive and live along the river. Sadly, the concept of thriving is something that too many people who rely on the river are starting to fear may never happen again. We also need much greater scrutiny of the damage made by greedy humans to the Basin Plan. The plan's been rocked by scandals such as meter tampering in New South Wales; the debacle over floodplain regulations, which is called overland flow in Queensland and floodplain in New South Wales; the rorting of on-farm efficiency programs; and the countless inquiries that have documented these failures in the course of the eight years that the Liberal-National government have been in control of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and its implementation. They have a failed record on this important national asset. They cannot be trusted. They should never have been trusted, and their record reveals that they cannot be trusted into the future. People all up and down the basin have little or no faith that the plan is working for them. It's on this government's watch that that's become apparent. Through my involvement with the Select Committee on the Multi-Jurisdictional Management and Execution of the Murray Darling Basin Plan, I know that there's a great belief that the plan is rigged against ordinary farmers, and they've complained to the government who's failed to respond. Senator McKenzie interjecting— Senator O'NEILL 140651 You voted for a bipartisan piece of legislation that you've been responsible for managing over the last eight years. You are responsible for the management of the Murray-Darling Basin, Senator McKenzie. You know it. People in the know are making massive profits while long-held family farms are shuttered. In Moree, I heard from farmer John Gordon, who described the practical reality of the mismanagement under this government. The school bus from Bourke to Brewarrina used to be full. In the last year of his son going to school, that bus had only one child on it. There's been total decimation of farming communities on the watch of this Liberal-Nationals government. We've seen massive corporates like Webster flourishing in this new regime, while other communities have withered on the vine. The independent assessment of social and economic conditions in the basin released a draft report last year. It found that there is a growing sense of hopelessness within the communities across the Murray Darling-Basin. We heard from people caught in a one-way conversation—overconsulted and under listened-to. Overconsulted by who? The government of announcements. These people have been under listened-to and underserviced by the government that fails to deliver in every policy area. Here in Canberra we see it day in and day out. The people who sent the Nats here to stand up for them know they have been profoundly let down by this government and its representation through the National Party. The ACCC also released a report this year into the water markets, which noted: … there are very few rules governing the conduct of market participants, and there is no specific agency to oversee trading activities … And: … the complex nature of Basin water markets are best understood and leveraged by professional traders and large agribusinesses with the time and knowledge to analyse and navigate them We heard evidence of people who have such speedy capacity because of their access to a particular internet speed and their digital capacity to trade water ahead of farmers who are trying to move it from one part of their farm in one valley to another, taking the power and control from the farmers. The government have known about it. This Liberal-National government have known about this and had eight years to do something about it. They have failed on every measure. This area of water management, water access and the water market needs a significant and considered reform and it can't be delivered by a rolling litany of ministers going through the door, as the National Party tries to sort out who is in and who is out from time to time. No-one has proper care of this vital resource in the country. The Nats say it matters to them, but it only matters to them until it is politically expedient for it to not matter to them. That's why the people in regional New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia are poorly represented here by this National Party. They're just pawns in their political games, while, out there, people who live off the land, who live in those communities and who love the communities, First Nations people who have documented cultural flows and their importance to their cultural identity and the benefit to their nations and the entire basin community have been completely ignored by this government—deaf to the pleas of the constituents they claim they stand for. Currently in New South Wales, two-thirds of irrigators are non-compliant with new water-metering laws. This is now four years after a Four Corners report that found huge irrigators were tampering with their meters. They were dodgying it all up, pretending, reporting incorrect figures, turning meters off, turning meters on, turning meter dials back to indicate they had taken less. All of that was going on, the plundering of billions of litres from the Darling River, on the watch of the Liberal-National governments of New South Wales and of this government here in Australia. This was a massive eight-year failure, a log of failures by those who are not standing up for those in the regions of Australia. As a former manager of the Department of Primary Industries strategic investigations noted in that documentary: It was clear that not just one property was involved, that there was basically an entire river system that was seriously lacking accountability, and compliance with the water legislation of New South Wales. These issues have to be resolved. They cannot be resolved by this government. It has failed for eight years; there's nothing different now. 11:53 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I rise to speak about the Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021. There has been a total distraction in the chamber in respect of the purpose of this bill because of the actions of the National Party, because of the weakness of the Prime Minister to control the new National Party—the new Joyce National Party that is so against the river that it's incomprehensible. The government need to recognise exactly what is going on here and they best not support the Nationals' amendments. The Murray-Darling Basin is a national resource. It serves a number of states—Queensland, New South Wales, the ACT, Victoria and South Australia. It is a national river system; it does not belong to any particular state. For a very long time, in fact since the Federation debates, we've talked about the river system. South Australia is very aware of its importance. We know—I know, being a senator from South Australia—that much of the South Australian population relies on the river. The people of Adelaide use it for drinking water, and people throughout regional South Australia, all the way through to places like Whyalla and Pirie, all rely on the Murray-Darling to supply their water. The Murray-Darling resource must be managed effectively. It must be managed fairly. There are a number of stakeholders that have an interest in the river, including irrigators. I don't think anyone in this chamber is anti-irrigation. Stakeholders also include the environment, Indigenous people, tourism operators and a whole range of people who have an interest in the river. Everyone is appreciative of the balance and the need to assist all stakeholders, except the Nationals, who say this is only about irrigation. They cut their nose off in spite of their face by working to destroy a river. It's pretty simple: it's a river system that, if you extract too much from it, dries out and you don't have water flowing out of the Murray mouth. That causes all sorts of problems in terms of salt levels. And guess what? It's a pretty simple concept: rivers flow to the sea. This is just craziness. If we go back to the history of the plan and how we looked at it, it was supposed to be developed—in fact, the law requires it to be developed—on the basis of best available science. When the plan was first proposed and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority did its work, we knew that in order to make the river sustainable we needed to reduce the water take, and we needed to reduce it by somewhere between 3,900 gigalitres and 7,600 gigalitres. They were the scientific numbers. Immediately, when that best available science came out, so too did the political interference, predominantly from the National Party—and indeed, I might add, from Troy Grant, who at the time was a member of the National Party, working against the best available science. Of course, he's going to go on to become the Inspector-General. Everyone's alarm bells ought to be ringing now in relation to that. We're seeing what the Nationals are doing today, and we've got a National who is now the acting Inspector-General. All of the events of the last 48 hours have put fear into my spine in relation to what is happening. We were supposed to have between 3,900 and 7,600 gigalitres, but it got whittled down to 2,750 gigalitres, well below what was required for best available science. I know best available science is something that National parties aren't really interested in, but that's what happened: it went down to 2,750. As a result of that, in order for South Australia to protect its right and protect its people, agreement was reached for an additional 450 gigalitres of what is called upwater. If you look at the act, it specifically directs that, through section 86AA, at South Australian environmental sites. It's important. What we're seeing here is the Nationals, who are not represented in South Australia—and it's understandable why they're not—trying to make a play. Understand what this is all about—it's about politics; it's about what happened over the last 48 hours. Barnaby Joyce— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Senator Patrick, I remind you to refer to the member from the other place by his proper title. Senator PATRICK 144292 Mr Joyce, the now Deputy Prime Minister, committed a coup in this building. He's a person who has caused nothing but difficulty with the Basin Plan. He has actively stated that he doesn't believe we will ever get the 450, even though it was agreed. It was the compromise position between all of the stakeholders and between all of the states. That was what was agreed. We now have a Deputy Prime Minister in a government that purportedly supports the plan who doesn't actually support the plan. We're now seeing that getting played out. It is getting played out by the Nationals here who have self-interest and are manoeuvring themselves for positions in the cabinet. That's what's happening here. It's all about self-interest. It's about self-interest over national interest. That's what's happening here—no question. There is no sensible reason as to why the amendments of the Nationals should get any support at all—none whatsoever. There's no scientific basis. It's about the Nationals supporting not irrigators but big irrigators—alpha irrigators who think any drop of water that flows past their property is wasted water. I don't even understand why Senator Davey is standing up for this. She knows that in her community they are suffering. I share her concerns. They are suffering because they have to bear all of the load to get water to South Australia, because it's all being taken in the northern basin. And you allowed that to happen. Your minister allowed that to happen. That's the problem. We've got Victorian senators in here trying to break the plan when, in actual fact, what is going wrong is that there is just too much water being taken out of the river system in the northern basin, so none flows down the Darling River. That means the Victorians have to bear all the load. I feel a bit sorry for them, but the solution is not in the amendments that have been proposed by these Victorian Nationals. The remedy is in dealing with the overextraction in the northern basin. Senator McKenzie interjecting— Senator PATRICK 144292 It is absolutely true, Senator McKenzie, but you wouldn't know about science. I will go to Richard Beasley, who wrote a book recently on the river system. Let me read what he said: 'Several people involved in agriculture and in other basin states, and some of the politicians they support, consider any water that flows out of the Murray River to be an exercise in irrigating the Southern Ocean. These people are idiots.' I will let the Australian public make their own minds up about who these idiots are, but it's pretty obvious and it's pretty present. This is just complete stupidity. We have a plan. It's not the best plan for South Australia, but it's a compromise plan. It's a compromise between all of the different users of the plan. It's not perfect. It requires commitment from everyone. It requires sacrifice. But everyone understands that if the sacrifice occurs we will end up with a sustainable river system, or something that comes close to it—noting that already the numbers have been compromised. The original plan was 2,750. We went to an extra 450, which is owed to South Australia and was agreed by everyone, but the real number ought to have been somewhere between 3,900 gigalitres and 7,600 gigalitres. Senator McKenzie interjecting— Senator PATRICK 144292 I've got Senator McKenzie interjecting, suggesting that there was no science in those numbers. Absolutely there was. That was the finding of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority; it just didn't suit the politics of the Nationals. Every second week in New South Wales the Nationals threaten to leave the basin plan. New South Wales is a petulant child, with various Nationals ministers in control of the water system there. This is what they're like. They have no regard for sustainable agriculture. They're simply looking after big irrigators. That's all they are doing, and it's not acceptable. What has to happen here is the government needs to take charge. I know that with my fellow South Australians in this place—and I've had a talk to some of my parliamentary colleagues in the other place—if the government supports this there will be extreme difficulty. I can tell you, right now, I will block my phone from every minister in the federal government. I won't be talking to them about any legislation. They can play Russian roulette if they want. This amendment cannot go through. It cannot be supported by the government. Do you know what? If the government doesn't support it, that tells you something: there's a split in the coalition. When you've got a split, when you've got a party that is not complying with the policy position of the government, the last thing you can do is let their member be the minister. You can't have the Liberal Party saying, 'We support the plan but we're going to give the water portfolio to the Nationals,' when they don't support the plan. The evidence of that is clear. Previous statements that have been made by Barnaby Joyce and the amendment that's been circulated today by the Nationals tell you there's a split, and it can't be allowed to stand. The Nationals need to be stripped of the water portfolio. They cannot be trusted with the water portfolio, and it's inconsistent with coalition policy. It's quite unbelievable. Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister, now has to show leadership and remove the Nationals from the portfolio. Replace the water minister with someone from— An honourable senator: South Australia. Senator PATRICK 144292 the Liberal Party. I don't say it has to be a South Australian; it just has to be someone sensible. I can't believe what is going on. This is a disgrace. At the end of the day, I support the idea of an inspector-general, because that will give strength to the program. I note that we used to have a commission that looked after compliance. That was stripped by the Abbott government. Now it's coming back. That was a huge mistake they made. Throughout that process, where we didn't have that compliance, we had rorting and theft on the river. That does no-one any good, including other irrigators. That's the situation we find ourselves in. We've got to get back to the point where we do have an inspector-general. In terms of amendments, I have circulated one that does seek to remove authority or an overreach where the Murray-Darling Basin Authority is seeking extraordinary powers. I will also advise the chamber that I do not intend to move my second reading amendment. 12:08 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Today I rise very proudly in this place not just as the National Party Senate leader—and I do foreshadow second reading amendments, and I'll step the chamber through those—but as a Victorian senator who lives in a basin community and was raised in a basin community, and as a senator who was in this place when Penny Wong was water minister and when the Labor Party went into our communities, purchased buybacks during a millennial drought and devastated not just families and communities but also industries who are only just now recovering. What really galls National Party senators—you heard it from Senator Davey and you'll hear it from me—is those who choose to portray us as somehow not interested in a triple bottom line, not understanding how important ecosystems and environments are to the sustainability and health of the river and our communities. It is incredibly galling, because we live there and we know it. What you're seeing here today is a repeat of the debate that we had 10 years ago, and in the two years before that, as it was mooted, about a bald set of numbers that we know weren't based on science. We know that. The numbers were just picked out of the air. There was no modelling behind them. Really it was about winning city seats for the Labor Party, supported by the Greens. We knew the river needed work, and we were prepared to put in place a plan that would be adaptive and flexible, that would rely on the science and that would deliver great outcomes for everyone. You don't need to be a rocket scientist—and you've even heard it from Labor senators today—to know the trauma that the implementation of this plan has wrought right throughout the northern and southern basin communities. It is our job, as National Party senators and MPs, to do something about it. We know that the council of water ministers is responsible for the operation and management of water at a state level, but our communities have been ripped apart. It is Senator Davey who hears that, day out and day in. It is Senator McKenzie who holds the hands of farmers who have had to sell up because they cannot afford their water because of this plan. We are the ones who deal with the human and economic toll that this plan has wrought on our communities and on industry, and it is incumbent upon us to try to do something about it. Senator O'Neill interjecting— Senator McKENZIE 207825 I will take the interjection, Senator O'Neill. We are in government, and that is why we are moving amendments today, as the second party of government. I look forward to your support, Senator. I look forward to the Labor Party supporting these amendments. The plan was continually described as an adaptive plan. The Basin Plan was never to remain static. That is what our communities were told 10 years ago. It was supposed to adapt to new information as the science came in, because we knew we hadn't metered all the rivers. We didn't have the data available, as a Commonwealth and as states, to really map it out. So the plan was supposed to gather the science, gather the data and adapt along the way. Today is an example of the plan adapting, as we consider the establishment of the independent office of the Inspector-General of Water Compliance. I believe it's important to correct a number of falsehoods suggested by federal Labor and the Greens regarding water recoveries in the basin. They would have you believe the environment still needs more water. That's their primary argument. They say the environment needs more water, with volumes as high as 40,000 megalitres, because that was the figure quoted in the Basin Plan guide back in 2011. The guide's figures were just a guide, and that's a direct quote from the guide. They were based on a rule of thumb of the environmental requirement at predevelopment levels. There was no science behind these numbers. This was an unrealistic approach, given there were no plans to remove the many dams, weirs, locks and barrages that regulate the basin and have done so for 100 years. The MDBA modelling, reviewed by CSIRO in 2011, found that the 3,200-gigalitre plan delivered 'few additional benefits, relative to a 2,800-gigalitre option'. As I stand here today, the Basin Plan has recovered over 21,000 gigalitres for the environment. That is 21,000 gigalitres of water that is no longer used by agriculture to produce food and that is now flowing to the environment. We need to be proud of that. Given these numbers had no scientific basis, that is a hell of a lot of water. It has devastated the southern basin. Labor and Greens would have you believe the pain endured by these communities has been for nothing and that the Murray River is still dying. Well, it's not. Go check it out. I'm here to correct those falsehoods. The MDBA, in its 2020 evaluation, stated: The Basin Plan has enabled delivery of water for the environment to support the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth ecosystems through the drought, substantially avoiding the environmental degradation that occurred during the Millennium drought. It's not me saying that; it is the Murray-Darling Basin Authority saying it. The 2,100 gigalitres that have been recovered have done what they were supposed to do. It devastated our communities, but the actual environmental degradation that would have occurred through the last drought hasn't. Today I put forward a number of other adaptations required for the Basin Plan, incorporating the latest science and new information. The National Party have listened to rural communities and the pain caused by the plan and believe we are long overdue to be putting people back into the plan, front and centre. Our rural communities in the basin have been producing the bulk of the nation's food for home and overseas. Food production keeps people in jobs. It keeps our rural communities thriving. Just as our farmers adapt their practices based on new information, the Basin Plan has to adapt. It's required to ensure food production can continue with confidence and certainty. As I said, there are four key amendments that as National Party Senate leader I will be foreshadowing in this speech in the second reading debate. The first is to remove the 450-gigalitre water buybacks. It's to get them off the table and get out of the legislation the notion that government can just walk back into our communities and grab the 450. We know the socioeconomic detriment. That's No. 1. The second is we are going to put confidence back on the table for irrigators and remove the threat of buybacks. If the Labor Party have the water portfolio, they will be racing back into our communities to buy back water, decimating irrigation systems. They are proud of it. They can't wait to get their hands on the chequebook. The third one is to allow new 605 projects, to put flexibility in there for states so that they can meet those targets—because right now they can't. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan has them so wrapped tight in a quite legalistic interpretation of the plan that there is none of the flexibility required now that we have more science and more data. And no further water is to be taken from our communities when the Basin Plan is reviewed in 2024. So I say to those people that want to flag the 2024 review and say we are going to get basin plan No. 2, no, you're not. You will never, ever be able to come back into our communities and take water. We have the science and the data to ensure that the water we have right now, the 2,100 gigs I spoke about, is used better and to water environmental assets differently so that they get the environmental outcomes that they need and our communities continue to produce food. It's about being smarter, not using the blunt instrument of numbers alone to justify your commitment to the environment, which is what they're doing. The 450 was never guaranteed as Labor and the Greens would have you believe. It was always conditional on no negative socioeconomic impacts. When we actually did a review into the socioeconomic impacts of the plan on our communities it said, 'The need for change is pressing.' These are our own government reviews. The need to change this plan is pressing. So that's why we are here today. There is no point us as National Party senators drafting a private senator's bill to sit on the Notice Paper in some pious approach to actually dealing with the substantive issues. We have been waiting patiently not for a change of leader, as they would have you believe. We have been waiting patiently for the Water Act and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan to come before the Senate so we would have the opportunity to move the amendments our people have sent us here to make to save our industries and our communities from the devastating impacts of these plans. The science underpinning the requirement for the 450 for the Murray mouth and Lower Lakes in South Australia is flawed. We learnt in 2019 that Professor Gell's work in 2007 had been altered by other scientists in 2009 to support their claim that Lake Alexandrina was a freshwater system. However, recent scientific reviews have shown us that Lake Alexandrina was always an estuary, for over—wait for it—7,000 years. For 7,000 years it was an estuary. But here we are, decimating communities and families, for some purpose that's not even backed by science. It can only be defined as a freshwater system based on construction of the barrages in 1940. So, you're not returning the lake to its natural state; you're returning it to its wartime state. This led to an independent review of Lower Lakes science in April last year, which found: Without the barrages, the Lower Lakes would be seasonally estuarine with prolonged periods of high salinity during droughts. That's not me, not the National Party, but scientists. So it makes no sense to send all the fresh water from upstream that's being used to produce vital feed to South Australian Lower Lakes that will evaporate by over 800 gigs every single year. Wetland ecologist and associate professor at Charles Sturt University Max Finlayson is arguing for change—another scientist. I heard firsthand from him at our Senate hearing in Shepparton, along with local communities, about the devastation on our communities from the plan. The hard truth that science is telling is us that salty water entered the Lower Lakes over the top of the barrages. The 450 is not achievable, and therefore we are proposing that it's removed from the legislation. As Robbie Sefton's report into socioeconomic impacts says: Buybacks have also exacerbated the reductions in drier years, and this effect worsens the price impacts on irrigators and irrigator communities. The difficulty for local communities is where buyback leads to the long term loss of economic resources and community wherewithal and increased exposure to risks that are not offset by other compensatory gains. So the milk factory closes. The rice mill closes. The cotton gin closes. And then when you can afford water again you don't have the local infrastructure to employ people. So we are asking that water buybacks be removed; they must be removed. ABARES said in September that buybacks reduce the supply of water available for irrigators, so therefore increase allocation prices unless there is a proportional reduction in demand for irrigation water. Rural communities remain fearful that any shortfall in the plan will see water buybacks back on the table. We've heard it straight from the mouths of Labor Party MPs in the other place. They can't wait to get their hands on the chequebook and enter our communities and purchase that water. Flexibility: our third reform relates to the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism, and we want to see much more flexibility for that. Time and time again we've heard from rural communities that we need flexibility in these projects, and the legislation doesn't allow for that. We need a more common-sense approach that allows us to back the science. Certainty: our final amendment focuses on ensuring that farmers and communities have certainty about the plan. John Howard said, back in 2007, that these reforms were a once-off. So we cannot continually be going back into communities, reviewing the plan—mark 2, mark 3, mark 4. We've got the water. The assets are being watered appropriately. That's a triple bottom line. I'm committed to putting people back in the plan. That National Party is committed to putting people back in the plan, and I look forward to moving my amendments. (Time expired) 12:23 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Well, this is what an emboldened Nationals party looks like under the leadership of Mr Joyce. Here we have it. One of the very first acts of the Nationals, under Mr Joyce's leadership, was to vote, on Monday, against a motion calling on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan to be delivered in full and on time. The whole agenda is laid bare, isn't it? For eight years, they have obstructed, delayed, told falsehoods, misled their own communities and misled people in this place about their intentions in relation to the plan. But here it is, in here now, a bald-faced statement: 'We do not intend to deliver it. We are not interested in delivering it. We are going to destroy the architecture that has been created to deal with the very real problems in the Murray-Darling Basin.' A healthy working river does meet the needs of the ecological communities—the birds, plants and animals that depend on this river system—and it meets the needs of the rural communities that live and farm in those regions and it meets the needs of the Australian economy, but that is not what is being proposed by these people. The National Party simply want to destroy the basin. They want to pretend we can go on overextracting it without limit. That is simply false. There is no science that will support that and there is no reasonable person who, looking at the state of the Murray-Darling Basin today, will support that either. I indicate that Labor will move a second reading amendment in this place. I seek the advice of the Deputy President that I am in a position to do that at this point. I don't believe there are any other amendments before the chair. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Yes, you are. Senator McALLISTER 121628 I move the second reading amendment on sheet 1340 standing in my name: At the end of the motion, add: ", but: (a) the Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Act 2021 be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry upon Royal Assent to examine any potential further amendments to improve the operation of the Act, and any related matters; and (b) the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee: (i) present an interim report three months after the date of Royal Assent, and (ii) report six months after the date of Royal Assent". Thank you. 12:26 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia I rise to speak on the Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021. Those of you who were listening carefully to my maiden speech will recall that I raised the importance of the River Murray to each and every South Australian. Every South Australian is committed to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and its successful operation. This bill, which I am strongly in favour of, provides the compliance mechanisms that are much-needed to ensure that we all have surety that the plan is working, that everyone who relies and lives on the river has an opportunity that is not degraded and that each and every person in their interaction with the river is transparent and fair. We talk about environmental flows. I think the river itself should be seen as having been given a voice, and the 450 gigalitres is effectively its voice. South Australians have custody of the Coorong, one of the jewels of this country. The management of a river in the manner of the plan is not a new concept. Its management is unique, but it's not a new concept. Ancient rights always have been allocated to those living by a river or relying upon a river. They weren't just rights; they were obligations. Every community has rights and obligations, but so do the river and the environment. The river has to have a voice, and that is what the plan ensures. Senator Patrick interjecting— Senator McLACHLAN 287062 I'm going to ignore the interjections of my South Australian friend, whose passion for this river I share. As a lawyer, I take great comfort from the structure of this accountability mechanism, particularly the enforcement provisions. I think this is what has been lacking in the management of the river. There are many different views along the banks of this river, but I ask honourable senators to spare a thought for those of us who live at its end. It is the sole purpose of our community. It is our lifeblood. It is the representation of our aspirations. If it is sick, we are sick. If it thrives, we will thrive. We understand better than anyone the importance of responsible management of this river and the importance that the environment, the community, the wildlife and the biodiversity have to the health of the river and also the communities. I do not see them as being binary concepts. The development of this plan has had a long history. We've all invested, as South Australians, in the success of this plan. It is disheartening to ever hear, from any quarter, no matter where, that there is a lack of commitment elsewhere to the success of this plan. We do not want, as Australians collectively, to degrade one of our greatest national assets, which weaves across what are, in essence, artificial borders. This plan is underwriting the success of the Commonwealth itself. If this federal parliament, the Commonwealth, the collected states and territories, cannot agree on a plan that delivers a healthy river, then how can we expect to be credible in trying to help all Australians, no matter where they come from or what their issues are? The inspector-general replaces and assumes the independent assurance functions of the non-statutory interim inspector, and I thank the interim inspector for his work. But, like all positions, it needs the authority of statute and enforcement mechanisms. Importantly, the bill, if enacted, will create real deterrence around water theft and illegal water-trading offences by establishing criminal and civil offences. Compliance is at the heart of any water-sharing system. This will be a strong, independent regulator and give comfort to all those who see the river as important to their lives. A key priority for the inspector-general will be to encourage greater consistency in the guidelines and standards across the basin so that all water users are held to the same high bar. Consistent standards and guidelines will provide the inspector-general with a framework to evaluate the performance of basin jurisdictions, including the Commonwealth, in delivering the Basin Plan. I understand that the bill builds on many years of engagement with communities and stakeholders. All community members—and I emphasise 'all'—will have greater protection from water theft and water trading as a result of the passage of this bill. It is often said that sunlight is the great disinfectant. In this case, this is the necessary piece in the puzzle to support the future operation of this plan—and not just its operation but it success. Each and every South Australian is committed and tied to this river not only economically but emotionally as well. It is a sacred water path to us all. One only needs to spend time near Goolwa and on the Lower Lakes to see that its beauty should never be compromised. Our Indigenous people have a deep and abiding connection to this place. Practically, if the Murray mouth fails, salinisation will be a problem further up the river into Victoria and ultimately New South Wales. South Australia as a state is committed to every tool required to keep the health of this river. I return to the ancient and magical doctrine of common interest, which I first read about while studying law at the University of Edinburgh. This plan puts the skeleton and the flesh on that ancient concept—rights, yes, but also responsibilities. The people who live off the river are extremely important, but their livelihoods will not be secured if the river itself, as an entity, almost a living being, is abandoned for rank commercial interests. South Australia may never have been settled if it were not for this river. It is the one political issue that binds every South Australian, regardless of their political stripe. We will continue to advocate for this plan. For us, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was a compact for our future, a compact in which we could participate in this Commonwealth, this federation of states and territories, as an equal partner—not under the sword of Damocles, constantly under threat by the actions of others, further up the river, who would otherwise be self-interested. The problems faced by communities living off rivers that weave through countries are not new. We should show the world that you can come together as a community, as a Commonwealth, and deliver water justice for all. I implore all honourable senators, particularly those from upstream, to have regard for the fact that you have ancient obligations to the people of South Australia, not just legislative obligations but moral ones. Therefore, I would like my plea to the Senate to be seen not just as an endorsement of the legislation that underpins the plan—and this bill, which seeks to enforce it—but also as making the moral case for one community to show compassion and care for another. Otherwise, what is the point of the Commonwealth? What is the point of this parliament? What is the point of this Senate? I recommend this bill favourably to my honourable senators. 12:37 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant of the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to discuss not only an addition to this bill, which would give it some teeth, but also the current state of the Murray-Darling Basin, to understand the context in which the inspector will be working. I also want to discuss the causes and the core issue before providing an interim solution. Senator Sarah Hanson-Young says this legislation declares war on South Australia. Then she adds personal attacks. Why the continued lack of data and facts? Why the continued smears and personal attacks? Why the continued appeal to emotions? It's because she lacks data and lacks facts as a solid base for her position. The Water Act 2007 and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan are an attack on Australia. It's repeatedly specified throughout the Water Act, three or four times, that its aims include compliance with international agreements. Why are we specifying compliance with international agreements as an aim for a water act governing our country? I know of prominent Liberals who now regret voting in favour of the Water Act. The war on Australia, through the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, is based on lies and misinformation. South Australian drains are taking water straight out of the basin and dumping it into the great Southern Ocean. The Coorong, as a result, has become polluted. Lake Alexandrina is a mess because they have not maintained its natural state and have continued to abandon the science. It is devastating southern Queensland, southern New South Wales and northern Victoria. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan now appeases large corporate agriculture. It devastates the Barmah Choke and the Murray River itself. So much for giving life to the basin. We've travelled across the whole basin. We've flown over it and gone across it on the ground, listening to people in the south and in the north, in South Australia, Queensland and New South Wales. I have felt the frustration, the anger, the incredible hopelessness, the devastation and the stunned incredulity of people in southern New South Wales. In towns like Moulamein I was nearly brought to tears just listening to the people. In Dirranbandi, similar. In Wilcannia, people are feeling devastated, angry, frustrated, hurt and lonely. People are needing honesty, integrity, support, understanding, certainty, some security, some reassurance, some confidence, some competence—they cannot see the competence in the way it is governed—leadership, care, hope and respect. They want to be free to get on with their lives and have fulfilling livelihoods. Above all, the people right across the basin want to be heard and want to be treated with respect with objective data so that they can see what's coming. Farmers, families, communities and whole regions need this care. I want to thank the many people who turn up to community gatherings to voice their concerns to us and give us their ideas and solutions—hundreds of people at a time. Whole communities turn out, because we listen, and they know, through our actions in parliament, on social media and in person, that we care, we work and we take action. We thank the people across the Murray-Darling Basin for their support and their encouragement. Let's look for a minute at what others are doing in creating a bigger, deeper and messier mess. The Greens environmental vandalism is stealing more water and saying to frogs, 'this is environmental water' and 'this is farm water'. It gets into the environment, but it doesn't matter. They're just destroying livelihoods and causing environmental problems in South Australia and have been since 1864. Labor is seeking votes in South Australia, sacrificing our country in a grab for power. The Liberals are looking after their moneyed mates in corporate agriculture and around Lake Alexandrina. The Nationals are sleepily awakening after One Nation has exposed the Murray-Darling Basin Plan's flaws for five years. First of all the Nationals tried to ignore us then they tried to ridicule us then they tried to misrepresent what we exposed and then they pretended to address what we exposed in their sham actions, which we exposed again. All we do is keep on getting the facts. We keep on getting the facts. Now the Nationals are desperately trying to bring back in Barnaby Joyce, the counterproductive, to counter Mr Michael McCormack, the unproductive. The ultimate cause of this mess is decisions, policies and party positions based on ideology, emotion, state partisanship, grubbily and dishonestly grabbing votes and ignoring or contradicting the data. This lack of objectivity makes it ripe for divergence and misrepresentations. The core issue is atrocious governance. Let's look at Mr Barnaby Joyce's behaviour. You decide for yourself. Ask Queensland farmers what they think of him selling them out and being a circus performer to get media attention while a senator. He was the most colourful speaker, and I give him full credit for his words against the climate scam. But then he entered cabinet and let Malcolm Turnbull spend $400 million of taxpayer funds on wind turbines. He splashed them across his electorate to try and beat Tony Windsor. Then, when we entered the Senate, we called out the same person who has been a sceptic and then became a climate alarmist, and he eventually went quiet. Then he exited cabinet and now he's whispering messages implying he may be a sceptic again. Really? He's now indicating he may be thinking of standing up because One Nation is attracting people who put Australia first. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator Canavan, on a point of order? Senator Canavan 245212 On relevance. I know One Nation are incredibly worried about the return of Barnaby Joyce, Leader of The Nationals party, but I hardly see how his positions on climate change relate to this bill on the Murray-Darling. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator Canavan, it is a broad-ranging debate so far, so I think I will let Senator Roberts continue. Senator ROBERTS 266524 Thank you. I note I have the support of the Greens and Senator Lambie for my comments, because they are supporting the truth on this. It is my right to speak. Mr Barnaby Joyce is now indicating he may be thinking of standing up, because One Nation is attracting people who put Australia first, who put data first and who know that climate alarm is a UN con to control. Then we have his mate Senator Canavan, climate sceptic initially, climate alarmist, with a speech proclaiming that humans are hurting the climate. Senator Ian McDonald pointed it out to me. I hold Senator Canavan accountable. Now we've got whisperings from Senator Canavan implying that he's a climate sceptic again, talking up coal and pretending to support coal while voting for the Liberals' anti-coal policies. For years Mr Morrison has been talking about coal but putting in place policies that oppose it. So let's step back in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan to their predecessors, Mr John Anderson stealing— Debate interrupted. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 29 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Immigration Detention 29 12:45 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I want to talk about the Murugappan family from Biloela. Before I start, let me say this: I'm not a bleeding heart. The courts have decided that Priya and Nades aren't owed protection as refugees. They fled a civil war; that's no longer a civil war. Wrongly or rightly, that's what our system has found. They came to Australia without valid visas. They claimed asylum and were found not to be owed asylum, so they're without valid visas. If their youngest daughter isn't granted protection, none of the people in the family will have a legal claim to stay in Australia. That's what the law says, in black and white. The letter of the law is crystal clear here. But there's a part of that law that allows the minister for immigration to use his or her discretion when it comes to decisions like this. It's a power that, when there's a clash between what the law says and what common sense would tell you, the minister's got the chance to use some common sense. Surely now is one of those times, because, if you stick to the absolute letter of the law, you're threatening to send two little kids home to a country they've never been to. You're deporting two little kids from a country they've lived in all their lives to a country they've never even seen and telling them they're home. That's what the law would have you do. I had to resign from parliament in 2017 because I was found to have dual citizenship with Scotland. I've never been to Scotland, and, if you asked me to shut up shop here in Australia, ship off and live in Scotland and never come back, I'd be lost. I wouldn't know where to start. I'd feel like what was being asked of me wasn't fair. Here's a country I've lived in all my life, I've paid my taxes in, I've grown up in; I've served it in uniform and I've represented my state in its federal parliament, and now that country is telling me to go home—home to a country I've never called home. It wasn't my choice where my dad was born. For those two girls, it wasn't their choice either. You don't choose your parents. Those girls didn't choose their parents, and I don't know how you can look those two girls in the eye and say, 'Hey, sorry, sweethearts. It's nothing personal, it's not your fault, but there's no home here for you.' Priya and Nades are not owed our protection, but just because we don't owe them this little bit of mercy doesn't mean we can't offer it to them. When you give something away and it's not out of obligation, that's what you call generosity. That's the Australian way. We have the ability to be extremely generous here, not because we have to—just because it's the decent thing, it's the decent Australian thing, to do. And it's not going to restart the people-smuggling trade. That is absolute rubbish! God, if I hear that once more, look out! What kind of message are we frightened of sending—that, if we show a little bit of kindness, a little bit of the Australian way, to this family, then other people will look at that and go, 'I'll sign up for the same'? They'll all make the life-threatening trip across the ocean in a sinking boat. They'll all arrive in Australia, try and put down some roots, get put in detention and get put in detention in another place. They'll all sign up to be left there until their own child's blood turns to poison in their veins. Even if you believed that, even if all that were true and people were signing up to a deal just like that in droves, they'd still have to invent a time machine, or bring in Doctor Who and the TARDIS, and come here before 2013! An honourable senator interjecting— Senator LAMBIE 250026 I know; it annoys me—because since then we've had turn-backs, we've had offshore detention, we've had Operation Sovereign Borders, and it stopped the boats. The minister for immigration has announced that he's letting the Tamil family reunite in Perth under community detention. Good on him for doing that. But he's drawn the line at allowing them the chance for permanent resettlement. He's got the power, because parliament's given him the power, and he won't use it. He is saying he can't ever use it—full stop—because, if he does, it will create an incentive for people smugglers to start up again. I don't know what planet this minister is on but he may want to get some national security briefings because obviously he has been missing in action. Either that or he has no life experience and has no idea what he is yapping on about; I will be brutally honest there. Your power, Minister, is sitting there and is unable to be used. It creates false hope for families, it's unnecessary and by the way—here is a news press release for you—it is redundant. I would suggest you do something about that, Minister. I would suggest you use it or lose it, I reckon. The minister has told us that he can't use it—fine. If he doesn't want to use that power, if he doesn't have the courage to use it because he wants to play a noddy and think that's going to give him points out there for an election, once again, I don't know where you live, Minister, but you ain't living in the real world. So, in saying that, if you are not going to use that power, Minister, I have no problem in putting up an amendment to the Migration Act to take that power off you and trying my luck in here, just to see whether or not I can remove it. So either show some courage and show some mercy on these two young ladies and their family or try my patience because that is where we are at. I can assure you this act to these young ladies and their family would have to be one of the most un-Godliest things I am yet to see in this parliament. Show some mercy. Show some courage. You want to make a mark in this place and show some heart and show what Australia is really about? You want to show some values of our upbringing here? You have the perfect opportunity to make your mark right now. You have the perfect opportunity to do what is the right thing to do because, let's be honest, it is the right thing to do here. You cannot keep going around this circle. You have no other choice. I mean, you can keep going if you like and you can look the worst in the world and you can continue to do that. Good luck with that. But while you are doing that, I want you to think about those two girls, who have spent nearly every day of their lives in detention so far. I want you to think of the harm you have already brought those two ladies before they have even basically started school. You have a good think about that. Let me know how your conscience goes with that. I want you to stand in front of me and tell me how your conscience is next time you see me because, if you don't want to tell me, I intend on asking you. We will see who wins that debate one-on-one. Let's see how much courage you really do have. Let's see. But right now, if you are not going to use that power and use it as it should be used—for good or bad—I'm going to come after you and I'm going to try and take that power off you. I will try it. 12:53 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia Before I start, I concur with the comments from Senator Lambie. Senator Lambie, we can see your passion and everything you said makes sense. I want to reiterate too, the disgraceful comment that letting these children and their mum and dad here into Australia where there's plenty of room will open up the people smuggling; I don't know what goes through ministers' heads at night, where they think that's a really intelligent smart thing to say when they get in front of the cameras—disgraceful. Good on you, Senator Lambie. I have a couple of things I want to talk about today, but the first one I want to bring to the attention of the chamber. I think it's magnificent timing, because we have sat through this Senate in the last couple of weeks debating the transport amendment bill, and you have all heard my thoughts around shipping, foreign shipping and foreign flags of convenience. I was talking to my very good friend Mr Ian Bray from the ITF. Ian and I go back many years and—proudly, I say it in every forum I stand in—Ian is a mate; Ian is a comrade. We have stood together shoulder to shoulder in battles on the waterfront in Western Australia. He gave me some figures today, and I said that I wanted to put them to the Senate. The International Transport Workers Federation operate a global inspectorate that looks after the welfare of international seafarers. In 2020 the ITF globally managed to recover some US$45 million—let that sink in—in unpaid wages and entitlements of some of the world's most exploited and vulnerable workers, the seafarers. The world relies on seafarers, as we know as an island nation, to keep the global economy afloat—I ask to be excused for the pun—and this is how they are treated. The Australian inspectorate of the ITF operates with a team of five full-time employees. This team of five attempts to hold shipowners to account, particularly the shipowners that hide behind the flag-of-convenience nations. In 2022 the Australian inspectorate of the ITF conducted no fewer than 512 inspections around Australia and recovered US$2 million in stolen wages for international seafarers. In 2021, to date, the Australian inspectorate of the ITF has conducted no fewer than 211 inspections nationally and has already recovered US$2 million in stolen wages. Given that we are only halfway through the year, this is a terrible sign and further demonstrates that the exploitation of international seafarers is on the rise, which is something I've talked about in this building for many, many years. I am also informed that the ITF's Australian inspectorate has identified a further US$57 million in theft of wages and other entitlements that they are trying to resolve with three companies. These companies are all preferred charters of Alcoa. Whilst not all this wage theft has occurred in the Alcoa supply chain, a fair chunk of it has. Let it sink in: US$57 million. I will remind the Senate that Alcoa is the same company that used security guards to remove Australian seafarers from the MV Portland in 2016. I remember it vividly. They were dragged out of their bunks in the dark of night and marched down the gangplank to be replaced by exploited foreign seafarers—Alcoa. The MUA warned us that wage theft and exploitation would feature in the Alcoa supply chain going forward, and, given the figures reported from the ITF's Australian inspectorate, how right they were. These figures for wage theft are a national embarrassment, and this government—you mob over there—needs to stop supporting this shameful theft and exploitation. Companies like Alcoa need to take stock and re-employ Australian seafarers in coastal trade and, at the very, very least, take control of their supply chain and clean up this chronic exploitation and wage theft. On another note, I will bring to the attention of the Senate an infrastructure spend in Queensland. You know that two of my passions, in no particular order, are standing up for Australian seafarers and for Australia's road transport operators. Up in Gatton—that's in Queensland—the federal and state governments had a bit of money after the construction of the Toowoomba bypass. They had about $18 million left that they put towards building a decoupling facility, in the terminology of today's bureaucracy and governments. In my day we called them road train assembly areas. Anyway, let's call it a decoupling facility. It's called the Gatton Heavy Vehicle Decoupling Facility, and it is accessible from the Warrego Highway adjacent to Hausers Road in Gatton. Good on the two governments for getting together to provide these road train assembly areas—let's talk normal language, shall we?—so our truckies can get out there, chuck the second on the third—I don't know what they do out in Gatton. I don't know what's going in and out of there, but I know that this is where road trains are hooking up and unhooking and all that sort of stuff. They have told me there are about 30 truck-parking bays. It's not a very big one; it's quite small. What happens is that you have dog runners coming out from Brisbane and dropping out to Gatton where the other driver will follow. They hook up the dolly on the other trailer and off they go—choof, choof—heading east, which means we keep the road trains out of the metropolitan area, for obvious reasons. I want to congratulate the two governments for having the nous to do something like this. They would have done this because there would have been a fair bit of pressure not only from the community but also from the trucking industry. But, ladies and gentlemen, if you're going to spend $15 million of infrastructure to do the truckies a favour, as part of the favour wouldn't you consult the road transport industry and say, 'Hey, we're going to build this facility, and we'll tell the community it improves safety'? I'm not going to argue that it improves safety. You would say, 'We'll tell the community it increases capacity,' whatever that means, and 'We'll tell the community that it improves network efficiency and the road transport industry.' Right. Tickety-boo. No worries. You would say, 'It reduces travel time.' As an old truckie, that's absolutely magic. If it reduces travel time, you get home to see mum and the kids earlier; even better. You would say, 'It contributes to the economy.' You've got to expect that line to be thrown in. I don't know how, because the bigger the trucks get the more cheap freight we cart. Anyway, that's the world according to Sterle. And you would say, 'It contributes to regional growth.' Der! Okay, good. Fantastic. Now it's come to my attention that we have a campaign being led, over Facebook, by a Mr Wes Walker. I don't know Wes but I reckon he's a damn good bloke. Wes Walker is not a truckie but he has a lot of mates who are truckies. They've been talking to Wes. He's absolutely had a gutful. Do you know why? The government has spent $15 million in the best interests of our truckies but there's no toilet! Senators, in 2021—let that sink in—we have a road train assembly area, we've spent $15 million but no-one thought that the truckies might like a toilet. If they had one ounce of understanding of what us truckies do, they would have come and asked the truckies. But don't worry about that. If the milk's not on the shelf or the loaf of bread isn't there, they'll soon tell us what they think of us truckies. Anyway, the guys are here, they're uncoupling and they might even want to have a shower. I remember running the campaign back in the nineties to get the Wubin road train assembly area done in WA. We were pretty proud. We got a big hunk of dirt and put some bitumen on it and we put toilets and showers on it. God help us, we even put lighting in. We wanted our truckies to be able to come in, unhook, pull the air lines out, pull the light lead out, drop the leg on the drawbar and dolly—and you beauty. Three hours from home and I might even have a tub. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with expecting our truckies to want to have a shower? But something as basic as a toilet, we can't even get that. The best transport publication in this nation is Big Rigs. If you want to know what's going on in the trucking industry, just get hold of James Graham at Big Rigs. He'll tell you. They spoke to a female truck driver. God help us, I'm doing everything I can do get more women into the trucking industry. She's quoted in this article. She said that she went into the road train assembly area the other night. She was squatting down—this is disgraceful—and another truck came and shone his lights on her as he came around the corner. I mean, really, in 2021? Do I have to stand in this Senate to plead with someone with half a brain to go and talk to the truckies who are using these facilities, before you spend our taxpayer dollars, to get what they want? COVID-19: International Travel 32 13:03 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Last Sunday marked the 15-month anniversary of Australia's international border closure. In the first few months of the pandemic, the chaos and the lack of a plan were understandable. We were facing a once-in-a-generation pandemic, a scramble to keep Australia safe and get the pandemic under control. But here we are now, 15 months on, and still there's no plan from the government, no plan for how to reunite Australian citizens and permanent residents separated from their partners by the border closure. Loved ones remain separated because their relationships don't meet the right definition or they don't hold the right visa. While we welcome the Senate passing part of our motion yesterday, calling on the government to make holders of prospective marriage visas automatically exempt from the inbound travel ban, this partner visa class should never have been excluded in the first place. These 593 couples should never have been kept apart by this government. The reality is that our partner visa system is broken. Couples wait up to 22 months for their visas to be processed—and that was before the pandemic. Their pain and despair is palpable, with no end in sight. The government also has no plan for how to reunite children on temporary visas who are separated from one or both of their parents by the inbound travel ban. We don't even know how many children are separated under existing guidelines because, according to the government, providing that figure would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources. My office alone is aware of 70 children that are separated from one or both of their parents. Thirty of those children were living in Australia before the borders closed and 15 of these children were born in Australia. The onshore parents are already living and working in this country as skilled workers, professionals, tradies and students, contributing alongside everyone else to our society to our economy and to our COVID recovery. Labor and the government couldn't even bring themselves to support the second part of the Greens motion in the Senate yesterday which may have enabled those 70 children to be reunited with their parents. The government tells us that the parents in Australia separated from their children should pack up their homes, quit their jobs, give up on their futures in this country and leave Australia. That's what the government is telling them. Yet the government let 160 personnel, technicians and media into Australia for the Australian Open earlier this year, not to mention the 869 tennis players and eight family members of those players. And that's not to mention the wealthy people who hold investor visas in this country, who can come and go as they please due to being completely exempt from the inbound travel ban. The hypocrisy here is despicable. If you aren't rich, famous or a sports star, the government doesn't want you here. If you are rich, famous or a sports star, you can come and go as you please. So I ask the government: what are we doing to these vulnerable children and their parents? What harms are we inflicting on them now and into their futures? And what does this say about us as a nation? The government also has no plan for the parents of Australian citizens and permanent residents who are desperate to reunite with their children and grandchildren living in Australia. These are more heartbreaking stories of Australians suffering from severe life-threatening illness, mental health issues and post-partum depression, all needing the support of their parents. Last week, I tabled on behalf of the Greens a petition in the Senate signed by over 70,000 people calling on the government to make parents an exemption category. A third of Australians have parents living overseas, and their plight can no longer be ignored. Yet this government continues to ignore it. What about the thousands of other temporary visa holders stranded overseas and unable to return to Australia through no fault of their own? Again, the government has no plan for them, the 145 people stranded overseas who are waiting for their 887 permanent residency visas to be processed. If this government processed visas in a timely manner, these people would already be permanent residents and back in their homes with their families in Australia or have the right to come back here. The 8,463 people stranded overseas on 489 and 491 visas were meant to be Australia's next group of permanent residents, but their futures are now at risk because they might not be able to meet their permanent residency requirements. Years of hard work and planning are slipping away before their very eyes, thanks to the government. And the 3,835 people stranded overseas on expired bridging visa Bs who own businesses and have lived in Australia for many years while waiting for their substantive visas to be processed are locked out of Australia in a visa limbo. Then there are the 14,475 people on subclass 485 visas who've invested thousands of dollars studying in this country and who are begging the government to provide automatic extensions and visa reinstatements so they can return to Australia when the borders reopen. That is not to mention the 1,443 people on subclass 476 visas—recent engineering graduates Australia desperately needs to fill critical engineering skill shortages across a range of sectors. They are also begging for their visas to be extended. And we have international students, many of whom have worked their guts out to afford their degrees in Australia and contribute to the tertiary education sector. They too need visa extensions and a pathway to return. They too want a plan. So I ask the government, yet again, where is your plan to address the heartbreak of loved ones and immediate families separated by our border closure? Why won't the government extend people's visas and outline a plan for their return and a time frame within that plan? You were very quick, Minister, to roll out your plans for the rich, for the famous, for the sports stars and for the wealthy investors who can come and go as they please. But what about everyone else? Don't their lives count for you? Families should be together. I honestly think we can all agree on that. But we cannot continue to ignore their pain, and we should stop ignoring their pain. Australia's temporary visa holders have built lives, or want to build lives, in this country. So many of them have jobs here or run businesses here. Their kids go to school here, they pay their taxes here and they have a future here. They deserve so much better than the absolute disdain and lack of care and regard they have been shown throughout this crisis. I demand of the government, on behalf of all of those people I've mentioned here today: tell us—and tell them—what your plan is. Climate Change 33 13:12 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Australia is a nation that has a reputation of being true to its word—a nation that plays by the rules and a nation that seeks to ensure those rules are fair and enforceable. This is the case when it comes to emissions reductions. The facts are we are meeting and exceeding our international obligations, by reducing emissions by over 20 per cent based on 2005 levels. We are cutting emissions faster than similar nations, such as New Zealand and Canada. It's also true when it comes to free trade. Last week we celebrated signing the Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement. This wasn't always the case. After World War II, the world opened to a liberal free trade agenda to build prosperity and, importantly, to build peace after what had been a very traumatic start to the last century, with two horrific world wars. That framework was not initially in Australia's best interest or to our advantage, because it was being favoured, negotiated and constructed by large, already industrialised nations like the United States and the United Kingdom. Back then we were a relatively undeveloped economy. We actually became wealthy on the sheep's back. We did a lot of wool, we did a lot of butter, we did some lamb and that's about it. We did not have a manufacturing sector. My party—back then the Country Party—because of leaders like former trade minister John McEwen, made sure Australia's best interests were secured at international forums, ensuring trade relations had to be mutually beneficial. Fast-forward to today and Australia faces a not dissimilar challenge with regard to emissions reductions and the push to commit to net zero. We recently saw G7 member nations pledge their intent to accelerate plans to achieve net zero carbon dioxide emissions by no later than 2050. In light of this, we have seen plenty of calls, at home and abroad, for Australia to do the same. It is one thing for politicians to promise anything on the international stage about net zero in a far distant future, when none of us will be around to be accountable for that decision, and it's quite another to be able to deliver on that promise, especially when it ignores the reality that some of the world's biggest carbon dioxide emitters, like China, currently have a green light to increase their emissions for years—we don't hear much about that from the Greens—or that countries are setting more ambitious targets while failing to actually meet the pledges they made under Kyoto and getting nowhere near their targets on Paris. But here they've got these hyperambitious pieces going forward. I'm talking about countries like Canada. Rich industrialised nations may have the luxury to demand that others do more on emissions, but this ignores their competitive advantage—the fact that these countries have established low-emissions dispatchable technologies such as nuclear energy or large sources of hydro electricity, or both, and they can run that alongside intermittent technologies. For example, in 2019 France generated 72 per cent, the US 20 per cent and the UK 17 per cent of their electricity from nuclear power generation—affordable, reliable, zero-emissions electricity. It means you can have affordable electricity bills and feel good at the same time. It means you can have a manufacturing industry employing millions of people and also do your bit in lowering emissions. These are luxuries we cannot afford, especially when we continue the paradoxical practice of prohibiting nuclear energy while exporting uranium for others to generate zero-emissions electricity. That is why Australia must be wary of calls to set emissions targets which cannot be met without destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs—in the communities I represent, in agriculture, in mining and in manufacturing—and of those who seek to coerce us into setting targets by imposing carbon tariffs on the vitally important exports that underpin our national economy, like iron ore and coal. That's what Europe wants us to do. This is simply a non-tariff trade barrier by another name, one that my party will vehemently oppose. Let me be clear: it has been rural and regional Australia that has done the heavy lifting to date on reducing emissions and supporting energy transition. As the engine room of the Australian economy, regional and rural Australia will continue to shoulder the demands of any further emissions reduction commitments that may come in the future should anyone seek to have the conversation with the National Party. In the end, I've always been confident that technology will be the solution to reducing emissions without costing jobs. As each year passes, my confidence grows rather than diminishes. While some may believe in silver-bullet solutions, my party and I do not. We do believe that some bullets have a larger calibre than others when ensuring that Australia uses reliable and affordable energy and reduces emissions. That's why we support a range of technologies alongside intermittent renewables—nuclear, carbon capture and storage, high-efficiency low-emissions coal-fired. Nevertheless, my party and I are also realists. We recognise—not because we eat coal for breakfast but because the experts tell us—that coal and natural gas will continue to remain essential to Australia's energy needs for decades if we don't want to see blackouts. Why? Because coal and gas, but particularly coal, have provided decades of cheap, reliable energy for our industries and households and they remain our biggest exports and continue to underpin the prosperity that pays for our schools and hospitals. We also recognise that Australian energy resources continue to underpin the prosperity of our neighbours, the developing countries in Asia who need to lift their populations out of poverty through industrialising their economies and providing well-paying jobs. The International Energy Agency highlights that in the past 20 years South-East Asian energy demand has grown by more than six per cent per annum. Meanwhile, China continues to add 30 gigawatts of new coal capacity, or three per cent of its current electricity generation capacity. That's the equivalent of adding New South Wales's and Victoria's electricity capacity every year. This insatiable appetite for energy is expected to continue as they want to meet their energy demands and lift their own people out of poverty. The US Energy Information Administration, in their International Energy Outlook 2019, projects a nearly 50 per cent increase in world energy use by 2050. That's a fact. It's not going to be led by already industrialised rich nations like ours, Europe, the US and the UK; it will be led by Asia. Therefore, it would be absurd to turn our backs on the needs of our neighbours and others who want our high-calorific value coal, as some in this chamber would suggest. To do so would only see Australian coal substituted with dirtier, lower-quality alternatives from those who we compete against around the world. You know what? We'd end up increasing global emissions. If the goal is to lower global emissions because this is a global problem, then these are the things you have to think about before you churn out glib phrases about zero emissions by 2050. Some of the things you want to shut down in this country, actively contribute to lifting people from poverty and lowering emissions around the globe. It's how we account for it. Australia needs to ensure that the rules and methodologies that underpin this move by the globe are fair, are actually enforceable—so we don't have people promising the world and delivering nothing—are agreed and, importantly, are in our national interest. The post World War II free trade regime took an enormous amount of hard negotiations and unrelenting work. Any genuine transparent rules based system to reduce emissions will require the same effort from our nation. We must, therefore, deploy all of our diplomatic and trade resources to ensure Australia's interests are looked after. Failing to do so risks us sleepwalking into an international agreement that favours rich, industrialised nations that already have a competitive advantage in powering zero emission energy— (Time expired) Workplace Relations 34 13:22 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I want to take the opportunity to touch on a few subjects in this statement that are of great concern in my home state of Queensland. We've seen yet another week in parliament that was hijacked by the National Party's internal political games. We've seen yet another week in Canberra where the Nationals have spent the entire week focusing on their own jobs, not on the jobs of people in regional Queensland. At the same time that the National Party engaged in yet another game of musical chairs about their leadership, fighting each other in yet another petty schoolyard squabble about who gets the top job, coalminers across Queensland and New South Wales have been fighting just to get a decent day's wage and decent conditions in their jobs. At the same time as the Nationals have been fighting about who gets the big job, the big car and the big office, we've seen coalminers across Queensland and New South Wales fighting simply to hang on to their jobs and get a degree of job security. Why is that? The reason is that, over the eight long years of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government supported by a parade of National Party leaders that seem to change every day of the week, coalminers across Queensland and New South Wales have suffered from a total explosion of casualisation and labour hire, which this government has done nothing about and, in fact, has actively supported. Every National Party member and every LNP member in this chamber knows that under their government's watch, casualisation and labour hire have exploded across Queensland and New South Wales coalfields. What that means is that miners don't have job security. They never know whether they will be kept on from one day or one week to the next. In many cases, they actually end up getting paid less than the permanent workers who they work right alongside, even after they get a casual loading. The argument you always hear from the other side is that it's okay to be casual because you get paid a casual loading and that makes up for the loss of conditions. Well, I can tell you, anyone who thinks that hasn't spent any time in any coalfields across Queensland or New South Wales. Because if you did spend that time, you would know that people are actually getting paid less as well as not having permanent work, as well as not getting sick leave, not getting annual leave and not getting a whole range of other benefits that come with permanent work. So at the same time as we see the National Party caring only about their own jobs, we see coalminers across Queensland and New South Wales worrying about whether they will actually keep their job from one week to the next. Fortunately, not everyone in Canberra is focused on their own jobs. Some of us are actually focused on the jobs of the people we represent. Last night, I had the great pleasure of joining our leader, Anthony Albanese, in a virtual town hall with coalminers from around the country—from around Queensland, New South Wales and even some from WA. We took the opportunity to listen to them, unlike the government, who just roll into town dressed up like miners, who go and see the boss but who never talk to the workers to find out what they are going through. We took the opportunity to listen to what coalminers have to say and we learnt even more about the situation that they are experiencing—not having permanent work, not knowing from one day or one week to the next whether they are going to keep their job, about being too concerned about losing their job to not speak up about safety issues on site. We saw what happened there at the Grosvenor mine recently and the inquiry into the explosion which nearly cost five workers their lives. As well as listening to those workers, it was a great pleasure to actually have some solutions to put forward in the form of Labor's same job, same pay policy. For Labor, there is a very simple principle at stake, whether we are talking about the mining industry or any other industry right around this country. If you do the same job as someone who you are working alongside, you should get at least the same pay, none of this business of being engaged as a casual or through some shonky labour hire outfit, where you get paid less, where you get fewer benefits, where you get less job security, less sick leave, less annual leave. That has to stop and it should have stopped a long time ago because this government have known that this has been a problem for years. They don't know that because they don't take the trouble to actually go to the coalfields and meet with miners and meet with mining communities, who will raise this as the very first issue when you are in conversation with them. They certainly know, because we have been raising it in this chamber year after year after year and still we see no action from this government and we still see no action from their friends in One Nation, who also claim to represent coalminers. In fact, we saw the disgraceful situation, recently, where One Nation and the LNP ganged up to vote for legislation which was actually going to only entrench casualisation in the mining industry despite all their claims to be fixing it. So the regime we now have in place from this government, backed in by One Nation, basically leaves it up to the boss to decide whether or not you are a casual. It doesn't matter if you have long rosters or, week to week, the same rosters for years to come; if the boss says you are a casual, you will get paid as a casual and you will not get permanent employment. That's what the LNP and One Nation think of coalminers despite all their claims and all their grandstanding to the contrary. It's Labor who actually care about the rights of mining workers. It is Labor who actually have the policies to do something about this, especially our same job, same pay policy. And it's Labor, who, after the next election, will have the opportunity to implement those policies and actually show who really cares about mining jobs. People in mining communities have had an absolute gutful of the National Party in particular, but the Liberals and One Nation as well, arguing more about their own jobs rather than actually doing something about the jobs in mining communities. Labor's not like that. We are actually going to stand up for those communities, we are going to stand up for those workers, we will change the law and we will make sure that they get decent conditions at work and they get the job security that this government and One Nation have denied them. The other issue I want to touch on is the very drastic changes that are coming to Medicare on 1 July. We know very well that the Liberal and National parties don't believe in Medicare; they never have. When the Hawke government introduced Medicare in 1983, the Liberals and Nationals opposed it. Ever since, they have taken steps to try to cut Medicare, to undermine it, and eventually to abolish it. Let's look at what they tried to do immediately after being elected in 2013. I know Senator Stoker is sensitive about this. If I had spent my entire political career trying to kill Medicare, I would be pretty sensitive, as well. Let's look what they did straight after they were elected in 2013. They tried to introduce a co-payment to undermine the ability for any Australian who is sick to go into a doctor and get the best medical care in the world without having to pay for it. That is how Australia should be. That is what Australians love about Australia. Unlike the United States, which Senator Stoker and many of her colleagues want to model our health system on, you can get free medical care—the very best medical care—whether you are rich or poor, whether you live in the city or the country. Unfortunately, that is becoming harder for so many Australians, particularly in rural and regional Australia, because of the cuts this government has made to Medicare. Again, if you spend any time out in regional Queensland, as I do, you will know that the waiting lists to get in to see GPs are getting longer and longer, because of the policies and decisions of this government, and that people are paying more and more to go and see a doctor, because this government doesn't support having a free, universal health system called Medicare. Senator Stoker interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 I'll take the interjection from Senator Stoker, who wants to talk about bulk-billing rates. Day after day, Senator Stoker demonstrates how grossly out of touch she is with the Australian public. It might have done her own job a little bit of good to spend a bit more time outside inner-city Brisbane and travel around regional Queensland, which at least Senator McGrath has the decency to do. If Senator Stoker had done that, not only might she have won her preselection but she might also have realised that many Queenslanders don't have the benefit of bulk-billing, especially people in rural and regional Queensland, and that is because of the changes that this government has made. The problem is that the system is going to be become worse. On 1 July this government is sneaking in nearly 1,000 changes to Medicare in its latest attempt to it abolish Medicare—to undercut it and undermine it—and to make Australians pay more for their health care than ever before. They're particularly coming after surgeries. In the time I have left, I'll just mention one case. Two weeks ago, on the Gold Coast, I met with the Van Dam family—Richard, his son Damian and his daughter Jesse-Rose. These kids have a rare medical condition which means they have to have surgery on a regular basis. Because of these changes to Medicare on 1 July, they and many other Queenslanders are going to pay more. The Liberals will always try to undermine Medicare. Labor will always stand up for it. We will fight these changes. Banking and Financial Services, Nuclear Energy 36 13:32 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland To those watching and listening: you and I may not often think about the issue of debit payments, but it's an issue that affects just about every Australian every day. About 70 per cent of the six billion transactions made annually in Australia use debit cards. These are mainly made under a dual network, like Mastercard or Visa with EFTPOS. They're tapped when you go to your local supermarket, petrol station or pharmacy or when you're having a cheeky rum and coke down at the Pig 'N' Whistle. Every time a transaction occurs, through the magic of technology, the merchant pays—and by 'merchant' I mean a small business and, ultimately, the customer. With dual network cards, merchants theoretically can choose to use the lowest-cost payment network, which is usually EFTPOS. This is called least-cost routing. However, fewer than 10 per cent of all transactions are routed through the lowest-cost debit network because, more often than not, banks are tardy in proactively offering least-cost routing to merchants—that is, small businesses. But using the lowest-cost payment network saves hundreds of millions of dollars a year and delivers significant benefits for individual businesses. For example, an independent supermarket can probably save around $26,000 a year, a petrol station can save 12½ grand and a newsagent can save $3,000. That's a significant saving if you're running a small business. While these benefits do vary, users of least-cost routing report cost reductions of around 35 per cent. So it would make sense to set the lowest-cost payment network as the default for these dual network debit card transactions. It would make sense to ensure hundreds of thousands of businesses don't face the cost burden of higher transaction fees in store and online. But many small businesses who want to do so are refused by the banks. This is unacceptable. When will the banks wake up and stop ripping off people? Is it time for another royal commission or Senate inquiry? Worse, however, is that now some banks are withdrawing dual-network debit cards and EFTPOS, which eliminates choice and prevents merchants from accessing least-cost routing altogether. The first problem is that this will further increase merchants' transaction costs and force some to surcharge their customers. It will also affect the ability of consumers, of customers, to withdraw cash or have Medicare claims paid on the spot. The second problem is that least-cost routing is unavailable if a customer waves their mobile phone or device rather than tapping the actual physical debit card. This is because in Australia these devices are not provisioned to allow least-cost routing; they only use the international scheme. So again merchants, small businesses and, in the end, customers end up paying. As these payments become more common, merchants end up paying more and more, hitting the customer. The third issue is that the international schemes are putting in place new rules and fees that make it very hard, if not impossible, for businesses to use least-cost routing for online card-not-present transactions like monthly payments for memberships and subscriptions. Again small businesses have to incur these higher transaction fees, increasing their costs and making it harder to compete against the bigger operators. These issues should come as no surprise. The Reserve Bank, in its draft retail payments review consultation report last month, made clear these concerns. They said that 'a widespread shift towards SNDCs'—single-network debit cards—'could threaten the viability of LCR', and that if EFTPOS cannot compete 'its potential exit from the market would result in a significant lessening of competitive pressure in the debit market and would likely result in an increase in both interchange rates and scheme fees, impacting all merchants.' In other words, it's going to cost customers more and it's going to hurt small businesses. So small businesses cannot afford for these issues not to be fixed. Whilst I am strongly against red tape and I am strongly against additional regulation for the sake of regulation, I am for small business and I am for the customer. Unless banks are prepared to do this, to set the lowest cost payments network as the default, I will be calling upon my government to do something about it. This could include, firstly, making dual-network debit cards mandatory as part of every bank's social obligation to competition in Australia; secondly, setting least-cost routing as the default option for all merchants in all payment channels, including tap and go, mobile wallets and online transactions; and, thirdly, there being full transparency of all merchant fees. So I call upon banks and I call upon the Australian Banking Association to wake up and to help. Banks have huge profits, and if they don't help, then I will be asking the Treasurer, Mr Josh Frydenberg, and my government to support these changes. We in the Liberal and National parties must always be on the side of small and medium businesses, we must always be on the side of the owners and employees of small and medium businesses and we must always be on the side of customers. I would also like to touch upon the issue of nuclear technology and nuclear energy, which is back again in the news. I'm proud to say that I am someone who for some time has been pushing the case for a national conversation about the benefits of nuclear energy and nuclear technology for Australia. In Australia, we have a third of the world's uranium. We are a geologically stable country. With the advances in modular power units, I strongly believe that we should be looking at nuclear energy as part of our road map to zero emissions. If we want safe, reliable and affordable energy, then it is crazy for us to not have a public discussion and a public debate about the advantages of nuclear energy. I, for one, strongly think we should have nuclear energy in Australia. But I also understand that this will be a hard conversation to have if those on the left of politics in Australia, who are often the loudest in clambering for zero emissions are the same ones who refuse to allow an adult intellectual conversation about the one form of energy which actually does have extremely low emissions. I call upon those on the Left to have this conversation about nuclear energy in Australia. Let's start by lifting the ban on nuclear technology. We do have a third of the world's uranium. We are geologically stable. We are a stable liberal democracy. It goes against all reason for us to not lift the ban. It goes against all reason for us to not have that conversation and to not have nuclear technology and nuclear energy in Australia. Finally, I am sure you would be disappointed if I didn't mention my good friends at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I reiterate my calls for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, for there to be a review into the governing act and to the charter of the ABC. The ABC essentially is an analogue model operating in a digital age. We need to ensure that this taxpayer funded organisation with over a billion dollars a year is giving benefit and value to the Australian taxpayers who fund it. We should shift the staff out of the inner city offices. We should sell off triple J. We should allow ads to be on the ABC to help fund it. We should open up the staff recruitment process. The ABC doesn't have a God-given right to exist. It exists because the taxpayers of Australia pay for it, and, if the taxpayers of Australia, and those in Queensland who are increasingly upset with it, want to have value for money, then it's time for the ABC to wake up. Otherwise it is time for— (Time expired) COVID-19: Vaccination 37 13:42 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I rise to speak on vaccine related issues. Earlier this week the Morrison government announced what they describe as 'a complete refresh' for Australia's vaccine rollout. That review was revealed at the hearing of the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 on Monday evening. The Health department secretary, Brendan Murphy, and vaccination task force head, Lieutenant General Frewen, appeared before the committee. Lieutenant General Frewen is now 'completely reviewing the rollout strategy and the timeframes' in what was described as 'a complete refresh of the plan'. He told the committee this review was separate to the normal refinements and recalibrations carried out as medical advice changed over time. It's understandable that the government should wish to review what is the single biggest and most complex inoculation campaign in the nation's history. However, in this case, a root-and-branch review is absolutely vital, because Australia's COVID-19 vaccination plan has proved to be a shambles. As one leading expert in the field Professor Bill Bowtell from the Kirby Institute for infection immunity recently observed, there has been 'a great failure in procurement and supply'. It has indeed been a great failure. One would say it's one of the worst public policy implementation failures in the history of the Commonwealth. A debacle of colossal proportions. The Morrison government told us we would be 'at the front of the queue' and that we would be 'in the leading pack' when it came to vaccines. Instead, we're in the slow lane, lagging way behind many developed countries, including the United States, the UK and Canada. Yesterday, it was announced by the White House that the United States will likely just fall short of meeting President Joe Biden's goal of delivering at least one COVID-19 vaccine shot of 70 per cent of adults by 4 July. If only we had such a shortfall here. Although the Morrison government has had well over a year to get this right, there has been one shambles after another. At every turn there have been crippling problems, ranging from a failure to secure the widest range of vaccine supplies to delays in international delivery to local production issues—and just the delivery of vaccines within Australia. Despite efforts to broaden vaccine procurement, we still have seen far too much reliance on the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is now limited to a narrow cohort of Australians, aged above 60, and the government has had its reputation trashed, so much so that many people are reluctant to be immunised. The government announced more than a dozen target revisions, or updates, to the rollout timetable since the beginning of the year. The original long-term target was to fully vaccinate all 20 million adults by October. That plan was later scrapped and all targets were abandoned after medical advice recommended against AstraZeneca for under-50s. However, even before that decision, the government had missed every goal for the vaccination campaign. It fell drastically short of its target for February, delivering little more than half of the 63,000 doses allocated for the first week of the vaccination campaign. The government fell more than 3.3 million doses short in its target to deliver at least four million doses by the end of March—a goal later pushed back to early April and then to mid April. The last goal, before the revised AstraZeneca advice, committed to delivering some 2.5 million doses by 5 April. Australia had only one million doses on 8 April. There's the contrast. Now AstraZeneca is further restricted to those of us who are over 60 or, of course, those who've already had an AstraZeneca shot, such as me. Now, in the third week of June, some 6,700,000 doses of COVID vaccine have been delivered across Australia. It's been estimated that at our current pace of roughly 712,000 doses a week Australia would only reach the 40 million doses that are needed in order to fully vaccinate Australia's adult population in mid May 2022. Hopefully the government will pick up the pace, but far too much time has been lost—and all the while Australia remains vulnerable, exposed to the new, more-infectious variants of COVID-19 and subject to frequent restrictions and lockdowns, as no quarantine system is ever perfect in the case of such a ferociously infectious disease. If there's any doubt about the extent of the government's failure in all this, even the Australian has editorialised that: The federal government is losing credibility with its management of the vaccine rollout and its repeated claims that everything is on track. Things are pretty bad when the Australian points to a government failure. But it's very hard to miss this one, as the cost to the community, the cost to key industries like tourism and international education, is huge. One can only hope that this latest complete refresh of the vaccination program will deliver some results and see a radical acceleration of the vaccine rollout. But all the while the government's failure has been shrouded in secrecy. Indeed, as Professor Bottrell has observed and told A Current Affair, 'Our culture of secrecy has got us to where it is today.' Secrecy has been a characteristic of the government's policy—at every level secrecy, imposed by our so-called national cabinet, created by the Prime Minister, and secrecy imposed upon the Senate COVID-19 select committee, with officials pleading confidentiality at every turn, and secrecy imposed in relation to freedom of information. I've actually attempted an FOI request in relation to the vaccine. I wanted to see why a South Australian company with an impeccable track record in developing vaccines wasn't given an opportunity in relation to grants back in February and March last year. I FOI'd the award of a vaccine grant by the Medical Research Future Fund to the University of Queensland, which of course has ties with CSL. What did I get back? A volume of blank paper—30 or 40 documents completely redacted. I want to alert the chamber to something here. The MRFF is a $20 billion program. It's a program that I think everyone in here would support, but, let me tell you, no-one gets to see who makes applications for the hundreds and hundreds of grants that this program delivers, and no-one gets to see who makes the decisions on who gets awarded these grants and no-one gets to see the results. One would expect that, at least, if someone was awarded public funding then the assessment in relation to their grant would be made public. That is the case with the exact same program in the United States. NIH, the National Institutes of Health, which is their program, will generally release the following types of records pursuant to an FOI request: funded applications; funded progress reports, including award data; and final reports that have been transmitted to the recipient organisation of any audits, surveys, reviews or evaluations of recipient performance. So in the United States they name the people who are involved in making decisions. There are protections in place. You can't, as a grant applicant, ring them and harass them or complain to them, but at least you know who they are. And the successful applicant can expect to have their grant proposal scrutinised. That's exactly as it should be. Right now, we have an organisation—again, the chamber needs to be aware of this—that grants up to $20 billion of taxpayers' money in total secrecy. It's like sports rorts on steroids, run by a collective of people who make a grant to someone else knowing that the next time around a grant will come their way. That is totally unacceptable. It is a corruption incubator, and that has to change. We've got a vaccine rollout that needs to be re-examined and totally reorganised, but I alert you to the fact that the MRFF needs to adopt a position of transparency. I'm onto this task. Child Care 39 13:53 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I didn't intend to come into the chamber today and stand up to speak about child care, but after the disgusting and offensive reports about what went down in the government party room yesterday, how could I not come in here and speak about it? It is being widely reported that in that meeting a bloke or blokes in the Liberal-National party room, in a debate on desperately needed increased funding for child care, said that parents who are accessing child care were outsourcing parenting. How disgusting. What a stupid, hurtful, offensive statement, smearing every parent out there who is doing their best and every early educator who turns up to work each day and changes lives. Of course, it's not the first of these kind of statements from those opposite. We have had Senator Rennick, who in May 2019 suggested that Labor's childcare plan was a conspiracy, saying: The cynic in me suggests this is another attempt by Labor to strengthen the role the state has in raising a child at the expense of the parents. In June 2020, in a bizarre reference to the Wizard of Oz, he said: Dorothy didn't tap her shoes together and say, 'There's no place like child care.' She said, 'There's no place like home.' Senator Canavan made his views on child care abundantly clear when he questioned whether we should be providing assistance for parents with newborn babies. Now there is the reported comment, yesterday, from a member of the government in their party room saying that child care is 'outsourced parenting'. How vile and how disgusting. I don't know who said what in that meeting yesterday; I'm not a member of their party room, thank God. But it is abundantly clear that these views aren't just old-fashioned; they are medieval. What an offensive and ill-informed smear on the parents of Australia doing their best and on those in our community educating our children. I'm standing here to say I could not disagree with you more. It's disgusting. It is vile. And, to the parents of Australia who have their children in early learning who have made that decision for their families, I am standing here to say I stand with you. I say to the mums who are picking up their stethoscopes to head back to work on the front line of the COVID pandemic, I see you. I see you as you make the decision to have your child in care. I say to the dads working in our distribution centres to keep our economy moving, starting work often early in the morning before their little ones are up, who have their kids in child care, I see you. I see you dads as well. I say to the parents who are teachers returning to classrooms, who are returning to the office after having their children or to the factory floor, to drive the bus, to the aged-care homes, to the fire stations or to work on our check-outs, I see you. I see you and I feel your fury at those opposite who have dared to smear you, who have dared to smear your parenting choices. It's disgusting. Then there are the early childhood workers in our country, who go to work every single day to change lives and to teach our most precious citizens, my son included, and to help them grow, to learn and to develop healthily and happily in a circle of security that they are part of and which supports families, not competes with them, and who have been on the front line of this pandemic. Our early childhood workers and our essential workers have felt unseen and unvalued by this government. Is it any wonder when things like yesterday happened? These workers aren't paid a fraction of what they deserve for the life-changing work they are doing. To these workers I say, I see you, I value you and I will always fight for you in here against these disgusting and vile attacks from those opposite. I say to the parents working in the home, who have many joyful days, yes, and some really tough ones too, I'm sorry they've drawn you into this, some nonsense, stupid culture war which you didn't ask to be a part of. I'm sorry that they have tried to pit you against parents heading back into a different kind of work. I see that you're working, that we are all working and that as parents we are just trying to do our best. People like you, Senator Rennick, come to this place to smear parents. You come to this place to shame parents. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Rennick, on a point of order? Senator Rennick 283596 You are not supposed to mention other senators in the chamber. That's No. 1. And No. 2 is that no-one was smearing anyone yesterday in the party room. So don't come in here and— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Rennick! Resume your seat. Senator Ayres interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Seriously, Senator Ayres; if I raise my voice like that, I expect silence. I don't want to have to stand. Firstly, Senator Rennick, I gave you the call and I asked you to cease after I heard your point of order and you started debating the point. There is no rule against mentioning senators in the chamber. Comments, however, should be going through the chair. Senator Smith, I do believe that was a very unhelpful comment to direct at another senator, making a personal accusation and impugning their motives. I am going to ask you to withdraw that particular implication. Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 I withdraw it. The PRESIDENT I0Q Thank you, Senator Smith. We are about to head into question time. I appreciate there are very strong feelings, but that particular interaction across the chamber was not edifying for the Senate. There are places to debate strongly held feelings and that should be done here, but not through that means. So I ask people to respect my ruling when I ask them to come to order. Thank you, Senator Smith, for doing that for the operation of the chamber. Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 Australian parents deserve so much better than the smears we've seen reported. To say that they're outsourcing their parenting—how disgusting! I'm here standing for those parents. I'm here standing for the early educators looking after their children. I'm here standing for every Australian just trying to do their best each day. I see you parenting, I see you love your kids and I see the early educators who are there helping your family in that circle of security—together, side by side, with these families. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! The time for the debate has expired. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 40 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Murray-Darling Basin 40 14:00 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia My question is to Senator Birmingham, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Yesterday, when asked whether the Morrison government will commit to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full and on time, Senator Ruston said: There are many people who have made many comments … but that doesn't change the commitment of this government to remain absolutely focused on the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Given your coalition colleagues have today sought to prevent all water buybacks and block the return of the 450 gigalitres of water to our rivers, can the minister confirm that not all members of the coalition share that commitment? The PRESIDENT I0Q Before I call Senator Birmingham—on my right, I have asked repeatedly for silence during questions. There was murmuring across the chamber. I'd appreciate that not occurring during questions. 14:01 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia In this place, I speak representing the Prime Minister, representing the government. I don't pretend to speak for every single individual and their views. But I make very clear, in response to Senator Smith, that the government stands resolute in its support for the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan—for implementation, as we have said, in full and on time. We are proud as a government to have ensured that billions, thousands of billions, of litres of additional water entitlement have been secured to support environmental flows across the Murray-Darling Basin. The securing of those thousands of billions of litres of additional water entitlement is enabling the Commonwealth Environment Water Holder to undertake a range of activities in support of environmental assets across the Murray-Darling Basin, not just in your home state and my home state of South Australia, Senator Smith, but right across the Murray-Darling Basin—in the support and protection of Ramsar wetlands, internationally significant environmental assets, and of the overall sustainability of the river system. But, as has always been the case in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin, it is also crucial that the Basin Plan continues to be implemented in a way that seeks to ensure we have not only a sustainable river but sustainable and productive river communities who rely upon it, as well. That has been something our government has sought to work hard to achieve over the years in terms of prioritising investment in infrastructure across the river to secure those further water entitlements whilst helping those river communities to become more productive whilst returning water to the river to maintain that production of food and fibre that is essential to river economies whilst having that healthy river system. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Smith, a supplementary question? 14:03 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia South Australian Liberal water minister David Speirs has said: I have spoken with Minister Pitt today to express my disappointment in this stunt by the National Party. The Marshall … government categorically rejects the amendments put forward in the Senate. Does this minister reject the amendments from coalition senators? 14:03 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The answer to that is yes, Senator. Yes, it is. It is the case that, when those amendments come to a vote, I and the government will be voting against those amendments. That is the government position. And the government does so— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, on my left! Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Watt, Senator Wong! Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X clear in our position as I said to the primary question, Senator Smith, that we support the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat. Again— Senator Watt interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Watt! When I call senators by name, I expect them to heed it. I was calling senators on my left who were busy interjecting, Senator Wong. I expect them to heed it for at least a period. I don't want to have to shout to get the names through the wall of noise. Senator Birmingham to continue. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X It was a coalition government, the Howard government, that passed the Water Act in 2007. I am pleased that, throughout my time in this place—indeed, the Water Act was one of the first bills that I contributed to in this building—we have maintained a bipartisan position in relation to support for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It is my intention that that is preserved and that is continued, and that is why the government will continue to support the Basin Plan. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Smith, a final supplementary question? 14:04 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Given the Nationals demonstrated disdain for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, will the Prime Minister ensure that the Nationals do not retain the water portfolio or control of the Morrison government's water policy? 14:05 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia It's not for me to speculate in relation to ministerial arrangements. But I make clear, as I have, that the government's position in terms of support for the implementation of arrangements under the Water Act, including the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, remains. The government is determined to continue to support basin communities in the way in which that plan is implemented and to be mindful of the fact that there have been and are genuine concerns from people whose livelihoods and communities depend upon the basin and that we ought to be sympathetic and mindful of those concerns whilst ensuring implementation of a plan that guarantees all communities that rely upon the river system have a healthy and sustainable river system to support them, to support their communities, to support the productive growth of food and fibre that our economies depend upon, particularly across those river communities, and to support a healthy, sustainable system into the future. Energy 41 14:06 Senator SMALL 291406 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, Senator Seselja. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Morrison government's 'technology, not taxes' approach to emissions reduction is helping Australia not only meet but exceed our international obligations whilst standing up for Australia and supporting our economy without costing Australian jobs, costing the Australian industry and threatening Australia's energy security? 14:06 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory Thank you very much, Senator Small. Yes, I can. The Morrison government is taking practical action to reduce emissions through technology, not taxes, and our plan is working. I know that Labor and the Greens don't like to hear these facts, but emissions are now at the lowest level since records began in 1990—more than 20 per cent below 2005 levels. We are reducing them at about double the rate of the average across the OECD, and we'll absolutely meet and beat our 2030 Paris target. To keep this momentum going, we will invest $20 billion in new energy technologies by 2030, unlocking some $80 billion of public and private investment over the decade. Our Technology Investment Roadmap is about supporting a portfolio of technologies so that we can reduce emissions across every sector of the economy, so that we can create at least 160,000 jobs by 2030, so that we can deliver the cheap and reliable energy Australians deserve, so that we can keep the lights on without sending jobs offshore and so that we can secure Australia's future. But, just last night in this place, we saw firsthand the very real danger that those opposite, Labor and the Greens, would provide if they were ever back on the government benches. They voted against $192 million of investment in lower emissions technology, significant reforms that would have seen even lower emissions and created thousands of new jobs. Even the member for Hunter described Labor's decision last night as ideological craziness. In fact, he has said that, sadly, the hard Left—the 'excessive progressives', as I call them—are just on an ideological bender. Senator McAllister, we know that you fit very much in that camp. The excessive progressives are in charge. It's all about dogma and ideology rather than the policies that work—bringing down emissions, growing jobs and securing our future. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Small, a supplementary question? 14:08 Senator SMALL 291406 Western Australia Can the minister outline why this 'technology, not taxes' approach is important to supporting jobs in my home state of Western Australia but is particularly important in reducing emissions in intensive industries like manufacturing, agriculture, transport and resources? 14:09 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory Senator Small is right. These sectors keep the Western Australian economy moving. Critical to supporting jobs in these sectors is supporting the technology that allows them to offset or abate their emissions. Our changes to ARENA's mandate would have provided $192.5 million in new funding to back technologies like healthy soils, carbon capture and storage, reduced emissions for aluminium and steel, energy efficiency and clean hydrogen. One in 10 Western Australian jobs are in the mining industry. This makes the development of carbon capture and storage technology vital for WA. Yet those opposite voted against it. I know that 'each-way Albo' is heading to WA. He is heading to WA next week to hold a shadow cabinet meeting. This will be the test for him: will he be honest with the people of WA and the Pilbara and outline his plan to tax his way to net zero emissions and the impacts of that on the WA and Australian economies? The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Small, a final supplementary question? 14:10 Senator SMALL 291406 Western Australia In light of the minister's answer about how effective our 'technology, not taxes' approach has been, is the minister aware of any risks to our economy and to Australian jobs whilst we set about lowering emissions? 14:10 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory We saw, last night, some of those risks, with all those Labor senators voting with their Greens coalition partners to block a technology led approach to reducing emissions. They voted against their own policy platform. They voted to rip up $192 million of new funding for ARENA programs, which would have created 1,400 jobs. When it comes to reducing emissions, if it's not technology, it has to be taxes. They've shown which side they're on. They've stolen Jeremy Corbyn's slogan, and they've stolen some of his high-taxing policies. Taxes are in Labor's DNA. They are absolutely reckless. They've abandoned the 2.2 million Australians working in energy-intensive industries. They've sent a clear message to Western Australian families and families around Australia that Labor will always put politics above people and ideology above jobs. COVID-19: Vaccination 42 14:11 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. I refer to an article in the Australian Financial Review, entitled 'Just 30pc of aged care staff vaccinated against COVID-19'. The article goes on to state that this refers to at least a single dose. More than four months after the vaccine rollout started, how many aged-care workers have been fully vaccinated, with both shots, against COVID-19? 14:11 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania The article in the Financial Review is a little out of date. Thirty-three per cent of residential aged-care staff, or 85,272, have received a first dose of the vaccination, according to the latest data that I have. Of those 85,272, there are 40,354, or 15.6 per cent, who have received a second dose of the vaccination. We continue to work cooperatively with the states and territories on the rollout of the vaccine. As I've explained to the chamber before—and as the opposition aren't honest enough to acknowledge—we've had to reset the rollout of the vaccine to aged-care workers on a couple of occasions, based on health advice. Yes, it was our initial intention to vaccinate aged-care workers alongside aged-care residents, but we received health advice that that was not safe to do and so we didn't. We heeded that health advice. We then received advice with respect to the AstraZeneca vaccine, and we made some changes to the way the rollout was occurring in that context. We've opened up a number of channels to provide access for the aged-care workforce to receive a vaccination. They can go to their GP. They can go to a Commonwealth vaccination clinic. They can be supported through their provider. Quite a number of providers are actually providing their own vaccination services in house, as a part of a request for tender that remains open for aged-care providers to operate. They can go to a state vaccination clinic and have priority for that vaccination process. We continue to work cooperatively to ensure aged-care workers have access to vaccines. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Walsh, a supplementary question? 14:14 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria More than four months after the vaccine rollout started, how many home-care workers have been fully vaccinated, with both shots, against COVID-19? 14:14 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania At this point in time, based on the data that I have, 18.3 per cent of home-care workers have received a vaccine. Of that 18 per cent, 4.3 per cent have had a second dose. These are very early numbers because those numbers are being reported to us at this point in time voluntarily by home-care providers. That process will be made compulsory in coming weeks. We continue to provide access to all of those who are providing support to senior Australians through the various processes that I mentioned in my answer to the previous question. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Walsh, a final supplementary question? 14:15 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria The government's own aged-care workforce task force recommended in 2018 that a national registration system be implemented to track aged-care staff working across multiple facilities. Can the minister confirm this has still not been implemented despite around 70 per cent of aged-care workers remaining completely unprotected against COVID-19, with last year's COVID-19 outbreak in Victoria being sparked by aged-care workers working across multiple facilities? 14:15 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania As a part of our response to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety report, the government has announced a workforce registration program across all of the aged-care system as a part of the reforms that we announced in the budget, so we have acknowledged that that's required and we are working to ensure that that actually is the case. It is an important thing for us to understand. We have— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Colbeck, I have Senator Wong on a point of order. Senator Wong 00AOU My point of order is direct relevance. We didn't ask about the announcement; we asked about the implementation. The PRESIDENT I0Q You have reminded the minister of that part of the question. There were other parts after it, but it did all refer to that particular program. I don't believe I can rule the minister not being directly relevant when he's talking about the actual program. That goes to the content of the answer, which can be debated after question time. Senator Colbeck to continue. Senator COLBECK 00AOL Thank you, Mr President. We have conducted a number of processes and consultations with the aged-care sector to ensure that we have a system in place that is effective and has the attributes that we want. The royal commission made a recommendation with respect to a certain form of registration process. We didn't accept that recommendation. We are going to utilise a system that currently exists so that we can get it up and operational as quickly as possible. Women 43 14:17 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Payne. Can the minister please outline what the Liberals and Nationals in government are doing to support more women into leadership positions and further close the gender pay gap that Labor is always worried about, including through initiatives in the Women's Budget Statement? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I will call the minister when there is silence. The Minister for Women, Senator Payne. 14:17 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Davey for her question. The improvement of women's economic security and supporting more women into leadership positions are key priorities for the Morrison government. The 2021-22 Women's Budget Statement includes a $38.3 million expansion, for example, of the successful Women's Leadership and Development Program that is funding innovative projects across Australia that support women into leadership roles, including—as I know Senator Davey recognises the importance of—in regional Australia. In the Morrison-Joyce cabinet, seven women hold cabinet positions, the highest number ever, including three of my colleagues here in the Senate, sitting with me today. Four additional positions in the ministry or the assistant ministry are also held by women. Those cabinet and ministry members are all members of the cabinet task force on women's safety and economic security. We also support women's leadership in the public sector, including a 50 per cent target for women on Australian government board positions, and we are on track to meet those commitments. Our Women's Budget Statement also includes a $17 million investment to support world-class sporting events and development programs for women and girls in both football and basketball. We know that sport can be greatly beneficial to women's leadership—for players, for administrators, for coaches and for volunteers. We warmly welcome the FIFA Women's World Cup coming to Australia and New Zealand in 2023 and the Netball World Cup. Across Australia, I note, importantly, the gender pay gap is at a record low level of 13.4 per cent, and we are committed to driving that even lower. I particularly want to welcome the leadership of the director of the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, Mary Wooldridge. She will play a key role in that work in the coming months and years and she is highly regarded for her contribution in this area. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Davey, a supplementary question? 14:20 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Can the minister outline the support that is provided through the Women's Leadership and Development Program that you just mentioned? 14:20 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Across Australia over 60 organisations will receive support under the Women's Leadership and Development Program to deliver projects that improve women's leadership and development across five key areas: job creation, economic security, workforce participation, leadership and safety. The program funds projects including Women Building Australia, run by Master Builders Australia to support more women into building and construction. Then there's Tiddas in Business, in Mango Hill, in the Moreton Bay region, which supports Aboriginal women in urban, regional and remote locations in starting their own businesses. And there's the Tasmanian based Brave Foundation, which builds support and acceptance around expecting and parenting teens as they seek employment. I reviewed the electorates across Australia in which the WLDP program is supporting organisations like those I've already mentioned. It doesn't matter whether it's Bendigo or Durack, whether it is Grey or Lingiari, right across Australia we're supporting women's— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Davey, a final supplementary question? 14:21 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Can the minister please explain what our government is doing to promote women leaders through Australian government board positions and other key appointments? 14:21 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Senator Davey's question is a very important and timely one. We know that gender diversity on boards, for example, contributes to more effective and innovative decision-making and outcomes. In December of 2020 women held a record 49.5 per cent of Australian government board positions. We have strategies in place to meet the target of 50 per cent, and I'm personally committed to continuing to increase gender diversity and to reach that target. As a coalition government we've appointed a number of women to senior leadership positions, including the outgoing secretary of my own department, Frances Adamson. Secretary Adamson has done an exceptional job as the secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I want to acknowledge her leadership, her own commitment to diversity. What she has brought to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the change that she has overseen in the department over the 36 years of her role in DFAT, is exceptional. I attended her speech at the National Press Club today with Senator Birmingham, Senator Seselja and Senator Wong to acknowledge that leadership. Climate Change 44 14:22 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Birmingham. While the Liberal and National parties are squabbling over net zero by 2050, global leaders are focused on the main game of reducing pollution by 2030. This is the critical decade. If the Nationals agree to the Prime Minister's preference for net zero by 2050, won't that just confirm that delay is the new denial? 14:23 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I am slightly flabbergasted by that question that seems to insinuate that the Greens, who I thought argued very strongly and passionately for commitments to net zero by 2050, now seem to be deviating from that position. They now seem to be saying they have an alternate position. Indeed, the Prime Minister has said he wants to see net zero achieved as soon as is possible. In that sense, Senator Waters, if you're saying, 'Would before 2050 be preferable?' indeed—if it's possible to be achieved in a world in which we get that delivered through the type of technology-not-taxes approach that our government is outlining, through the type of cooperation around the world that we are seeking to strive and achieve in relation to investment in those technologies that are necessary to reduce emissions. In terms of the short term, Australia can hold its head high as being a nation that hasn't just made commitments, in relation to emissions reductions, but has met those commitments and exceeded those commitments. Often we have done so, in terms of meeting and exceeding those commitments, in a way far clearer, far stronger, than some of those countries that the Greens or others cite. Australia is a country that beat its Kyoto-era targets by 459 million tonnes. Our emissions are down by over 20 per cent in the period from 2005 to the end of last year, compared with 6.6 per cent across the OECD average. That's a track record that shows Australia has been making changes, and we've been able to do it and achieve it as a country whilst still growing our economy, through the growth in investment in technologies. That's precisely what our government is committed to continuing to pursue. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Waters, a supplementary question? 14:25 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland The coalition repealed the price on pollution before it was set to link to the European Union. Had you not done so, Australian farmers today could be earning $80 a tonne by storing carbon in the land. The coalition has already lost Australian farmers $1.4 billion of new export income and will cost another $11 billion before the end of the decade. Why are you and your coalition partners acting against the interests and profits of Australian farmers? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind senators again that I need silence during questions. There were interjections from both sides of the chamber during Senator Waters's question then. 14:25 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Indeed, this side of politics well and truly stand up for Australian farmers. We have made sure that we invest in the type of carbon capture in soil technologies that can help Australian farmers and help to achieve reductions in emissions. In achieving that reduction in emissions, we'll do it in a way without applying taxes that can hit Australian farmers, Australian businesses, Australian industry and Australian households. What was obvious in Senator Waters's question just then was that the Australian Greens want to see a tax come back. What was obvious from the voting record of the Greens last night was that they oppose investment in soil carbon. Apparently they oppose investment in hydrogen technologies as well. I find it astounding that the Australian Greens, having come into this chamber yesterday, along with the Labor Party, to vote against more investment in hydrogen technology and more investment in soil carbon, now come in here and are asking instead for us to go to a tax route. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Waters, a final supplementary question? 14:26 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland With Japan, our biggest customer for coal and gas, lifting their 2030 ambition to 46 per cent, and South Korea, our third-biggest customer, lifting theirs to 40 per cent yesterday, are you really going to give the climate-denying National Party the trade portfolio? 14:27 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Australia's 2030 targets will see our emissions per unit of GDP fall by some 70 per cent. Achieving our 2030 target will see emissions per capita fall by almost 50 per cent. That's the type of scale of activity that Australia is committed to and is taking, and, based on our track record, we'll meet and exceed our target yet again. But, under a coalition government, we'll meet and exceed it by investing in technology that helps farmers, like soil carbon, and by investing in technology that helps the energy regions of Australia—those whose jobs depend upon the energy sectors—through investment in areas like hydrogen. The actions taken by those opposite last night, so roundly criticised by Mr Fitzgibbon—as Senator Seselja outlined before—don't help to get regions to transform to a hydrogen economy. They don't help farmers to transform in terms of using soil carbon. All you've done is stand as a roadblock to the type of action you say should be occurring. You should all be ashamed of the votes you cast. Gas Industry 46 14:28 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia, Senator Ruston. The Beetaloo Basin has potentially enough gas to supply Australia's needs for decades, offering the chance to grow a vibrant manufacturing industry in northern Australia while lowering carbon emissions. Can the minister inform the Senate what the Liberal-Nationals government is doing to unlock the Beetaloo Basin's gas reserves to support our economic recovery while lowering emissions? 14:28 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I thank Senator McGrath, particularly for his interest in the benefits that can be generated for northern Australia by the extraction of the amazing resources that exist in the northern part of our country. One of the very, very important projects is the gas development in the $224 million Beetaloo Strategic Basin Plan. The plan will help to deliver on Australia's long-term gas supply and dramatically improve our energy security. The Beetaloo sub-basin is one of the largest undeveloped resources of onshore gas anywhere in the world. It's estimated that there is over 200,000 petajoules of shale gas in the sub-basin. If you want to put that into some sort of context, only 15 per cent of that amount would supply the entire market of eastern Australia for in excess of 15 years. So the sub-basin holds extraordinary potential for Australia because of the quantities of gas it has in reserve. Under this particular program, we will be able to accelerate a number of projects and to deliver approximately 10 exploration wells in the sub-basin in the next 12 months. The plan will bring, in addition, $150 million of private investment. This is a plan to support northern Australia. It also enables us to deliver things like strategic road corridors which will not only support 400 jobs but also support the northern part of Australia. We're also making sure that we deliver benefits for Indigenous owners, with Indigenous jobs, Indigenous businesses and Indigenous opportunities. Gas is essential for our manufacturing sector just as it is essential for our homes, for firing up our barbecues and for lowering emissions. That's exactly what the Beetaloo Basin can do for our nation. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator McGrath, a supplementary question? 14:31 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Can the minister outline more broadly how the development of gas is essential not only to supporting exports and domestic manufacturing but also to lowering emissions? 14:31 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Australia's resources and energy sectors not only are leading when it comes to developing new technologies but we are also leaders in making sure that we adopt cleaner production processes. This includes Australia's gas industry, which is well placed to meet the growing demand in our Asia-Pacific region. The government is absolutely committed to supporting innovative producers by embracing technologies such as carbon capture, use and storage to deliver on our emissions reduction targets, which we are absolutely committed to. We will continue to have not only a responsible approach but a pragmatic approach. We are absolutely committed to technology and innovation being the backbone of the delivery of our energy future and we are not going to tax the Australian economy out of existence on some ideological pretext. This government is absolutely committed to investing in things such as the carbon capture, use and storage projects— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McGrath, a final supplementary question? 14:32 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Can the minister advise the Senate on how a 'technology, not taxes' approach, including adopting nuclear technology, as mentioned in the government's Technology Investment Roadmap, could assist in lowering Australia's carbon emissions while growing our economy? 14:32 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Our Technology Investment Roadmap is designed to make sure that technology is at the core of everything we do going forward—making sure that we watch for international developments in technology so that Australian households, Australian businesses, all Australians, are able to exercise the choice to avail themselves of the latest technologies where it makes sense to do so. It's only sensible to evaluate and deploy any technology that can bring down emissions but at the same time deliver affordable, reliable and dispatchable energy for all Australians. This is because, as I said, we are committed to a technology delivery into the future. We are not going to tax our way to a clean energy future; we are going to innovate our way there. That is why we oppose those opposite in their attempts to destroy our technology facilitated energy future. Commonwealth Integrity Commission 47 14:33 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia My question is to the Attorney-General and concerns the government's failure to deliver on its 2019 election promise to legislate the national integrity commission. What is the Attorney's response to the open letter to the government from 59 eminent Australian jurists, including Mary Gaudron QC, former Justice of the High Court; Tony Fitzgerald QC, former Federal Court judge and head of the Fitzgerald inquiry; no fewer than 13 former state Supreme Court and appeal court justices; and others, including Nicholas Cowdery QC, former New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions, and Geoffrey Watson SC, former counsel assisting in the New South Wales ICAC, saying: Enough is enough. The establishment of a National Integrity Commission with teeth is long overdue. …   …   … … the Government has kept the Australian public waiting for 922 days, and has found time to tackle a great number of the Government's self-described priorities outside of the coronavirus response—but has yet to find time for this one. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I will call the minister when there is silence. The Attorney-General, Senator Cash. 14:35 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Patrick for his question. In the first instance, what I would say to Senator Patrick is that I disagree with the premise of the question. The Morrison government is delivering on our commitment to establish a Commonwealth integrity commission. The government has already put in place the funding required for when the Commonwealth Integrity Commission legislation is passed. Senator Patrick, you would be aware that in the 2019-20 budget the government committed $106.7 million of new money to the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. This was in addition to the $40.7 million in funding for the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, which will transfer to the commission. That is a total of $147.4 million. The government has already implemented phase 1 of the Commonwealth Integrity Commission by expanding the jurisdiction of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity to cover four additional agencies, those agencies being the Australian Taxation Office, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Senator Patrick, you may also be aware that in the interim the government has also allocated $54.4 million to support the expanded jurisdiction, which means that the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity staffing levels will increase from 64 to 110 ASL in the 2021-22 financial year to support its expanded work. The Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, including resources and staffing, will be subsumed by the Commonwealth Integrity Commission once it commences. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Patrick, a supplementary question? 14:37 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Madam Attorney, there are just seven sitting weeks of the Senate remaining this year. That's 28 sitting days. That's probably only nine gag motions from Senator Birmingham. Will the Attorney-General commit to introducing the government's integrity commission bill on the first day of the next sitting, on 3 August, for this important matter so that it can be subject to debate? 14:37 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Senator Patrick, a nationwide consultation process on the legislation to establish the commission has recently been completed. There were approximately 333 written submissions received and 46 consultations, meetings and roundtables that occurred during the consultation period. The government will carefully consider the feedback received through this extensive consultation process to inform further refinement of the draft legislation before it is introduced into the parliament. I would note that it is important not only due to the scale of the reform but so that Australians can have confidence that the commission will operate effectively. The purpose of the body is extremely serious and, as such, the government does need to consider the feedback that has been provided to it through the consultation— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Patrick, a final supplementary question? 14:38 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Madam Attorney, isn't it the case that the government has delayed a federal ICAC for so long to ensure that the commission will not be operational before the next federal election? Hasn't that been the government's plan all along? 14:39 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia No, Senator Patrick. I completely reject what you have stated in your question. I have already taken you through how the Morrison government is already delivering on its commitment to establish a Commonwealth integrity commission. I have advised you that a nationwide consultation process has just finished. It received over 333 written submissions. There were 46 consultations, meetings and roundtables during the consultation period. I think you would agree that this significant legislation is a piece of legislation that we have to get right. It is important not only due to the scale of the reform but so that Australians can have confidence that the commission will operate effectively. And, as I have said to you, the government will consider carefully the feedback received through this extensive consultation process to inform further refinement of the draft legislation before it's introduced into the parliament. COVID-19: Vaccination 48 14:40 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Colbeck. On Monday, the minister promised to provide the Senate with the government's document outlining how many vaccine doses will be provided across Australia, month by month until the end of 2021, saying: I am happy to provide that information to the chamber. I will come back to the chamber as soon as possible with that information … Why has the minister failed to provide the document to the Senate in line with his commitment and in direct contravention of yesterday's OPD, unanimously supported by the Senate, including by the government? 14:41 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania It's actually not correct to say that I've refused to provide the data. My letter to the Senate yesterday says the final data will be released once finalised by the coordinator-general over the coming days. There is a commitment from me and from the government to release the data. This data is the state's data. It's being managed. As I said in my letter yesterday, the coordinator-general of the vaccine rollout, Lieutenant General Frewen, is currently consulting with states and territories on the vaccine horizon information, including each jurisdiction's breakdown of allocated vaccines across the horizon allocation periods to the end of 2021. My advice is that information has been published now on the coordinator-general's website. I will provide it to the chamber at the end of question time. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question? 14:42 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Lieutenant General Frewen told the Select Committee on COVID-19 on Monday, with respect to the vaccine information, 'I've also provided these documents directly to the states and territories.' Given the Commonwealth provided its document to first ministers, why has the minister claimed in his inadequate response to the Senate's OPD, 'will be released once finalised', when the document requested by the Senate has already been handed over to the states? 14:42 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania The evidence given to the committee on Monday night talked about the consultation with the states with respect to the release of the data. My letter to the Senate indicates that process has been undertaken. The data is now available. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question? 14:43 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The Morrison government has broken its promise that all Australians would be fully vaccinated by October, that four million would be vaccinated by the end of March, that all of 1a would be vaccinated by Easter and that six million Australians would be vaccinated by 10 May. Is the government trying to keep this information secret? Will the government commit to the same information that was provided to the national cabinet on Monday being made publicly available through the Senate? 14:43 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania As I've indicated to the Senate, the data is now available. I will bring the documentation to the chamber and present it at the end of question time. The information is information that's been consulted on with the states to provide an indication of vaccine availability out to the end of 2021. It is important information for the Australian people to understand. Had Senator Gallagher listened to my previous answer, she would have understood that the information is now available. Aged Care 48 14:44 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia My question is to Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services, Senator Colbeck. How is the Morrison government ensuring more older Australians are receiving the support they need in aged care? 14:44 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I thank Senator McLachlan for his question. The Australian government is investing $272 million to support senior Australians to access the aged-care services that they need. We will deliver an investment in all Services Australia centres around the country to provide general information in person, face to face, about aged-care services available to them and assist people to use My Aged Care online channels from 31 October. The new face-to-face aged-care specialists will be available in 70 Services Australia centres in all states and territories and include mobile service centres to reach rural and regional areas. This service will help people with the end-to-end process of accessing aged-care services, including financial information support. We will also be linking up Services Australia and My Aged Care call centres so callers can easily be transferred between the two services. These simple but important measures are designed to make it easier for senior Australians to access the information they need to be in control and make their own choices as they age. We are investing $93 million to introduce a network of up to 500 local community care finders to improve engagement with vulnerable senior Australians, including people who are homeless. There will be $65 million to provide greater access to translating and interpreting services for culturally and linguistically diverse Australians. We have allocated $7 million to assist advocacy organisations provide better service. This government remains committed to providing senior Australians with the care they need and deserve as they grow older. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McLachlan, a supplementary question? 14:46 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia Can the minister advise what other measures the government is implementing to support independent advocacy and greater choice for senior Australians? 14:46 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania The Morrison government's investment in aged care includes $94 million for expanded independent advocacy. This funding will more than double the aged-care advocacy workforce to more than 150 advocates nationally, delivering around 15,000 more information and advocacy cases each year. This will improve access to face-to-face and virtual aged-care advocacy for senior Australians in outer metropolitan, rural, regional and remote areas of Australia as well as for home-care recipients and culturally and linguistically diverse Australians. This investment will also add more than 1,000 local network and education sessions to build the capacity for older people, their families and representatives to exercise greater choice and control. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McLachlan, a final supplementary question? 14:47 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia Can the minister outline the government's commitment to older Australians, with a record $17.7 billion investment in aged care? 14:48 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania The Australian government is delivering a once-in-a-generation change through our aged-care reform package, the largest ever investment in aged care and the largest ever response to a royal commission. The government listened to the experiences of Australians who gave evidence to the royal commission and is taking decisive action to implement the recommendations, with reforms to deliver vital services and improve quality care and viability in aged care. New home-care packages have increased from 60,308 under Labor in 2012-13 to more than 275,000 in 2024-25, an increase of 357 per cent. Residential aged-care funding is $15 billion, up from $9.2 billion in 2013. Every year under a coalition government, home-care packages are up, residential care places are up and aged-care funding is up. (Time expired) Child Care 49 14:49 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth, Senator Reynolds. I refer to reports that in yesterday's joint party room, chaired by newly re-elevated Deputy Prime Minister Joyce, coalition Senators Canavan and Rennick and MPs Mr Christensen and Mr Young spoke in opposition to the government's own childcare policy proposal, with Senator Canavan making clear he would vote against this legislation. How many coalition members oppose the government's childcare policy? 14:49 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I sincerely thank Senator Urquhart for that question, allowing me the opportunity to talk about our policy on child care—and of course I would never comment on deliberations within the party room— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU Yes, a point of order on direct relevance: the minister's refusal to be directly relevant is apparent in that first response. Senator Seselja interjecting— Senator Wong 00AOU Thank you—would you like her to speak, or do you want to give— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Seselja—please. Senator Wong, your point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU The question went to— Senator Seselja interjecting— Senator Wong 00AOU Would you like to finish, and— Senator Seselja interjecting— Senator Wong 00AOU You go right ahead. You stand up— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Interjections don't need to be made, and interjections don't need to be responded to. In raising points of order, interjections should not be made; they should not be responded to. Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU Direct relevance: the question went to how many coalition members opposed the government's childcare policy. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Birmingham, on the point of order? Senator Birmingham H6X On the point of order—and you can tell there's a camera in the chamber today!—the question from Senator Urquhart clearly went to matters that include the content of the government's childcare policy, and Senator Reynolds is entirely within orders to be responding in ways that address the content and the approach of those policies that Senator Urquhart was asking about. The PRESIDENT I0Q If I could rule on the point of order: Senator Wong, you reminded the minister of the conclusion of the question. The earlier part of the question asked the minister about reports regarding a party room discussion that, in my view, did go to the content of policy. I'm not in a position to ever rule on whether a minister's been directly relevant in eight seconds, in my view. So, I'll call the minister to continue. But to be directly relevant, in my view, the minister can go to the content of policy that may or may not have been, or was reported to have been, discussed in a coalition party room meeting, or to the second part of the question, which you mentioned. It was quite broad in that sense. Senator REYNOLDS 250216 As I said, I will certainly not be talking about the confidential deliberations of our party room. But I'm delighted to talk about the outcomes of that party room and the legislation that we bring into this chamber. Let me share with you some of the things we've been doing since we've been in government. We're spending 77 per cent more than Labor did in government on child care—a record $10.3 billion this year, including $9 billion to subsidise the fees set by childcare services. Today over 280,000 Australian children are in child care. And—wonderfully—women's workforce participation reached a record high of 61.8 per cent in March this year, up from 58.7 per cent. We overhauled the childcare system in 2018 to introduce one subsidy. The hourly fee cap we introduced is working to keep downward pressure on fees, with 87.5 per cent of services charging under that hourly cap rate in centre based day care. But we on this side of the chamber know what really matters to parents, and that is their out-of-pocket costs. We have kept our out-of-pocket costs low— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my left! I'm having trouble hearing the minister. Senator REYNOLDS 250216 still almost $1 an hour cheaper, on average, than before we introduced the package in 2018—down from $4.87 to $3.93 per hour. And in this budget we are providing an additional $1.7 billion to further help Australian families who have more than one child aged five or under—those years that we know are the toughest for working families to look after their children— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Urquhart, a supplementary question? 14:54 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania It is reported that one male MP angered some female members by suggesting that working women who use child care are 'outsourcing parenting'. How many male coalition members think women are 'outsourcing parenting'? 14:54 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I thank Senator Urquhart for another opportunity to talk about the wonderful record this government has and how we understand the aspirations and the desire for Australian parents— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Reynolds. Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU It's on direct relevance. The minister's clumsiness is demonstrating what she's doing. She saying, 'I'm going to ignore that question; it gives me an opportunity to talk about our policy.' The PRESIDENT I0Q I make the point again that, unlike the other place, I don't call ministers to order from the chair myself; I wait for a point of order to be raised. This question was about reports about a claimed statement, and then it was asked how many male members of the coalition supported that statement. It was the use of a reported phrase that is pejorative in nature. I'm going to give the minister some latitude. However, I will say that I do not think this is as broad as the previous question and allow the opportunity to provide an explanation of policy that was reported to be presented to the party room. I call the minister to continue. Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Again, I reiterate my thanks to Senator Urquhart for this question. It's something which is at the heart and passion of both parties in the coalition. As we saw demonstrated in the party room yesterday, we did have a robust debate on an important policy issue to Australian families, and that is what Australians expect. That is what marks the difference between this side and that side of the chamber. Let me tell you what we did discuss in relation to the legislation that is coming before the parliament. This is to provide an additional $1.7 billion to further help Australian families with more than one child aged five and under, the years that are the toughest for both parents to stay in the workforce. We discussed that, by increasing the subsidy for families with a second or third child aged five and under— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Urquhart, a final supplementary question? 14:56 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania It has been reported that Senator Hughes responded to the revolt by saying: 'Thank you, boys, for telling us how to best raise our children. Not all of us want to sit at home with our three-month-old watching Bluey.' Why are coalition members criticising women who work and trying to tell women how to raise their children? 14:57 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Can I say that I think we all love Bluey on this side of the chamber. It's a great Aussie classic. Again, I congratulate Senator Hughes and everybody else who participates in the debate on this side because we discuss the issues that count to Australian families. As I started to say, by increasing the subsidy for families, 250,000 Australian families will be better off, on average, by $2,260 per year. That is exactly what we discussed in the party room yesterday. We also discussed the issue where, under this plan, a family on $110,000 with two children in full-time care would be $120 better off per week. That is what this side of politics is all about. It is about providing choice and control for Australian families and for women to stay connected with the workforce. Employment 51 14:58 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Can I add that I did stay home and raise my children for four years, and they were the happiest days of my life being a stay-at-home parent. My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Morrison government's economic plan is delivering new jobs across Australia? 14:59 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Rennick for what is a fantastic question to take us home on this Wednesday at question time. In the first instance, I acknowledge Mayor David Goode from the City of Gosnells in our home state of Western Australia, for the Western Australian senators. He is someone who has been self-employed his entire life and absolutely believes in the value of good economic policy. It is great to see you here today, Mayor David Goode. The Morrison government's economic policies are seeing our economy rebound from what was a devastating 2020, with the COVID 19 pandemic. Just last month, in May, what we saw because of the economic policies we are putting in place was that the unemployment level in Australia fell to 5.1 per cent. That exceeded all market expectations. That didn't happen by accident. It happened because the businesses out there—the small businesses, medium businesses and large businesses—were able to lever off the policies that the Morrison government has put in place so as to prosper, grow and create more jobs for Australians. That is what we are now seeing. We now have around 130,000 more Australians in work than we did prior to when COVID-19 hit Australia. That is showing that the Morrison government's economic policy is working. We also know that the recovery plan that we are putting in place is putting confidence into Australians, who are putting up their hands and saying, 'I'm ready, willing and able to work.' We saw also in the month of May that the participation rate increased by 0.3 per cent to 66.2 per cent. So what we're seeing is that unemployment is now down to the lowest level since 2014. There's still more work to do, but the policies that we are putting in place are having a positive effect on the economy. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Rennick, a supplementary question? 15:01 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland How is the government's economic plan, including lower taxes, helping to support Australia's economic recovery from COVID? 15:01 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Lower taxes are in the DNA of those on the coalition side of parliament. If you recall the last election, colleagues, $387 billion in taxes on the Australian people was promised by the Labor Party. The Labor Party made a promise of $387 billion in additional taxes to the Australian people at the last election. All I can say is thank goodness the Australian people put their trust and their faith in the coalition government, because COVID-19 hit. Can you honestly imagine, colleagues, if those opposite had been elected to office and had imposed an additional $387 billion in taxes on the Australian people? It would have absolutely crippled businesses across Australia, particularly small and family businesses, and then they would have been hit with the COVID-19 pandemic. Lowering taxes, whether it's for business or for Australians, is in our DNA. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Cash. Senator Rennick, a final supplementary question? 15:02 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland How has the government's skilling and jobs agenda helped Australians by supporting job creation to deliver economic opportunity? 15:02 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The Morrison government is all about opportunity for Australians. That is reflected in the employment figures for the month of May, when we saw employment absolutely exceed the creation of market expectations. In vocational education and training, in the skills part of the portfolio, we have provided an additional $2.7 billion to extend the Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements subsidy. We want to see another 170,000 new apprentices and trainees brought onboard by Australian businesses. We have extended that policy until March 2022 because we understand that businesses out there need our assistance, and this is a way of assisting them to bring a new apprentice or a new trainee into their business. Encouragingly, we've seen since we announced this policy that 157,700 new apprentices, colleagues, have been brought on—new apprentices, 157,700 have been brought on. (Time expired) Senator Birmingham H6X Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on notice. DOCUMENTS 52 DOCUMENTS COVID-19 Vaccination Certificates 52 Tabling 52 15:03 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I present COVID vaccination allocations horizons provided to state and territory health CEOs by the coordinator-general of the national vaccine taskforce on 19 June 2021. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 52 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS COVID-19: Vaccination 52 15:04 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services (Senator Colbeck) to questions without notice asked by Senators Gallagher and Walsh today relating to COVID-19 vaccination. We've been asking for information which I understand the minister just tabled at the end of question time. We've been after this information since Monday. The Senate actually passed an OPD to require the minister to table it, which was not followed, and then we had a series of letters, and now it has been tabled. Obviously we will have to take our time to read this, but I would hope that this information is the information that we were seeking and hasn't been modified by the government in any way at all. We will take our time to have a look at that. I note that our focus on the vaccine has been around the commitments the government has given and then failed to meet, so this is an important document to make sure that we are getting the amount of vaccine supplied, particularly over the winter months, to ensure that everybody who needs to be vaccinated is vaccinated. We already know there are still people in category 1a who remain unvaccinated and there are still people in category 1b who remain unvaccinated because the Commonwealth has failed to roll out this vaccine program efficiently and effectively. I have no idea why the government decided to hold so much back and ensure that they were responsible for rolling it out, because it's clear the states and territories have the infrastructure and ability to roll out the vaccine in a much more efficient way than the Commonwealth has been proven to do. This has meant that particularly vulnerable groups—people who live in residential aged care, people who receive home care packages, people in disability group homes, those staff who work in those homes, the families who visit people who live in those homes—are now exposed to much more significant risk from the outbreaks that will come across the country because of a number of failures—not just the vaccination failure but the failure to put in place a national quarantine system that allows travelling Australians to quarantine safely and not pass the virus on; we've had a number of outbreaks from quarantine. Our concern has been the failure of the Commonwealth to meet its own targets. Remember, these targets were not set by anyone but the government itself. The government went out and said: 'We will vaccinate four million by the end of March. We will fully vaccinate all Australians—two shots—by the end of October. We will do residential aged care and the workers who work in it in six weeks, by Easter. There will be six million Australians vaccinated by early May.' None of that has been met. None of it. None of those targets the government set itself have been met. Now they've brought in military leadership essentially to take the responsibility away from the Department of Health. The Department of Health, who have been guiding this in the pandemic, have basically been told to stand aside and let Lieutenant General Frewen take over even strategic communications. We've seen a very diminished role for Health because the Commonwealth failed to plan and execute a rollout strategy that kept Australians safe—particularly vulnerable Australians, older Australians, Australians living in aged care, workers in those sectors and people over the age of 50. All the data from serious outbreaks overseas shows that these are the groups that need to be protected. This is the vulnerability we face going into winter. The hospitals in Australia are already full, and they're not even at their busiest point in time yet. I think hospital activity peaks in September. We can only hope that as many people as possible roll up their sleeves and get the vaccine in the next three months. We must hope the government numbers, if they are to be believed, actually do get supply to the states and territories so that they can run the program and so that we reduce some of the risks that Australians face going into this winter period. I imagine this is an extremely scary time for many Australians who are hoping not to catch COVID, hoping to be kept safe and hoping to get a vaccine. These are important numbers. I hope the government has released everything that they've provided to the states and territories. We will look at these closely, because transparency is key to holding the government to account to deliver for Australians when it comes to the vaccine rollout. 15:09 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia After 20-odd years in the military, one thing I have learnt is that the old saying that no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy is true. You can plan. You make your plan on the basis of your analysis of the situation and assumptions. But, when facts change, the person who is going to win the battle is the person who is prepared to be flexible and use the basis of that planning as the basis for new plans to respond to situations. And so it is globally, as we look at the changing situation with COVID, that the very best laid plans will have to change as the facts on the ground change. With ATAGI being the independent expert group in Australia who advises the government and national cabinet—so, governments of our states and territories as well—about the efficacy of vaccines, there are those considerations, coupled with supply considerations, that at times are outside the control of the Australian government. So, we look at some of the well-advertised situations where supply has been limited in terms of exports from Europe and other places. Those are factors that will impact on a plan. A good military, a good government and a good deliverer of an outcome in a global pandemic not seen for 100 years is one that can adapt to the circumstances and the facts as they arise—as opposed to sticking rigidly with a plan or being unwilling or afraid to articulate a plan upfront. The whole concept of delivery means looking at the circumstances, making a plan based on the information available and then using that information to adapt and move forward. The information that is considered by national cabinet includes those supply constraints, includes the information from ATAGI about effectiveness, and then provides the best available information to people who are delivering services in the interests of the Australian people. The Coordinator General of Operation COVID Shield is Lieutenant General Frewen. I believe part of the reason the military play a critical role in times of national disasters like floods, fires and pandemics is that they are good at planning, adapting and delivering. General Frewen has updated the planning projections for Pfizer and AstraZeneca doses for the jurisdictions for the remainder of 2021. As delivered, that information is valid. But the reality of life is that it may change. It is important that, rather than complain that the facts have changed, people know how to adapt and how to optimise available resources. General Frewen has indicated that the Commonwealth is fast-tracking plans to expand the number of access points for Pfizer. By the end of July, all 136 Commonwealth vaccination clinics and around 1,300 GPs will be administering Prizer, and many more primary care providers will be offered the chance to administer the mRNA vaccines as the supply of Prizer significantly increases and the first supplies of Moderna arrive in September and October. General Frewen was able to indicate that with the adaptation that has occurred, using that basis of planning to respond to the new facts on the ground, Australia is still on track with the expected supply picture to offer every eligible person in Australia a first dose of a COVID vaccine by the end of 2021. It's important to understand that. It's also important to understand that many vaccines have already been delivered. Last Monday was a record for vaccines. We've had 63,000, and then 119,000—these are the kinds of figures we're now getting—and the figure of 128,000 on this most recent Monday shows that Australians are taking up the vaccine. That's a really important thing, because it means that more than 65 per cent of over-70s are protected, more than 45 per cent of over-50s are protected and more than one in four of the eligible population aged over 16 years are protected. So, facts will change, but good planning means you can adapt to the new facts and continue to deliver the outcome that Australians need. (Time expired) 15:14 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I do really want to believe Senator Fawcett, and perhaps, if he was representing the minister for health and he was managing the portfolio instead of the hapless Minister Colbeck, Australians might indeed have a degree of confidence. But what we've seen today in question time, in answers to questions from my colleagues Senator Walsh and Senator Gallagher, is once again this pattern of game-playing—playing with information in a game that is about people's lives. We saw the game-playing from this government and the false premise upon which they proceeded, and their failures to implement and deliver proper processes to protect Australians has cost hundreds of lives in Victoria. As I stand and speak here as a senator for New South Wales, our state is going into another very challenging period, with potential lockdowns and, certainly, changes to our practices because this virus remains. Senator Colbeck, in his responses to questions from Senator Walsh, seemed to be very proud of these figures—that 33 per cent of aged-care workers have had their first dose. It's better than zero, but it's a long, long way from where it needs to be, and it's a huge distance from where this government promised Australians they would be. Only 15 per cent of the people who are working in aged care across Australia have had their second dose. Now, I can only hope that, in New South Wales, the delta variant which is out in our community and causing so much concern doesn't end up in an aged-care worker in an aged-care setting, or we're in all sorts of problems. And the reason that we're in this situation is because this government isn't telling the truth—it isn't telling the truth to the Australian people; it isn't coming in here and telling the truth—and it isn't doing the work that needs to be done to provide the necessary protection for the Australian people. If you're in Sydney and you've got somebody going to the home of someone you love—a home-care worker—you want to be really hoping that, on the watch of this government that is responsible for rolling out the vaccine to home-care workers and aged-care workers, that delta variant doesn't get into that home-care situation, because only 4.3 per cent of all home-care workers have had their second dose. That's the bit of the job that this government was supposed to do. That's the bit of the job where the government stand up and say, 'Yes, we're responsible for that; we're responsible for aged care,' and they promised—they promised—they would do this job properly, but they didn't. In response to a question from his own side today, Minister Colbeck pretended once again that they've accepted the aged-care royal commission recommendations. But that is at odds with what he said in response to a question from Senator Walsh, because, when she asked what was going on with the registration of people who are working across multiple sites, he had to tell the truth, and the truth is that the government rejected the recommendation to set up a system to monitor who is working where—just like they didn't know who was vaccinated amongst aged-care workers. They've got no idea how many people are working across what sites. And then he faffed on for ages, trying to pretend that they've got some system in place. 'It is required,' he said. 'We are doing consultations. We are going to use'—notice the future tense, not even the present tense and certainly not the past tense; they have not established anything—'a system already in place to get that up and running.' Well, there is an absolute failure of responsibility. The government had one major job this year, and that was to effectively roll out the vaccine. They had a particular responsibility in the aged-care sector. They have failed and it has cost lives. I fear that the complacency of this government, who thought it wasn't a race against this deadly disease, is going to cost more lives, especially with the delta strain out and active. We lag behind countries like Fiji, Azerbaijan and Panama, just to name a few. They've got better vaccination rates than Australia. This is hurting our economy, it's hurting our families and it's hurting our aged care. It's time the government did their job and told the truth. 15:19 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Once again, we rise to speak on the vaccination rollout in this place and once again we have those opposite attempting to play politics with what is a very complex, very important multijurisdictional rollout of vaccination across Australia using different varieties of vaccines in an environment where the health advice has changed a number of times—and that is exactly what those opposite do not want to talk about. The health advice has changed to a significant degree on a number of occasions, including just last week, when, once again, the advice on the AstraZeneca vaccine changed the age recommendation for Australians. I said in this place before that I was booked in for the AstraZeneca vaccine. I had chosen to do it at the start of our winter recess so that, if there were any side effects—I'm not worried about an adverse reaction—I wouldn't be travelling to Canberra in the imminent near future. As a result of the changed health recommendation, that booking has since been changed to a Pfizer vaccine and it's going to be slightly later. Obviously, when the health advice changes, the rollout is going to change. Those opposite playing politics on this is not only unhelpful but plays into the hands of those who wish to raise doubt about the vaccine efficacy. I think those opposite should take that into account when they do play these political games. Obviously, when ATAGI came to the government with its changed recommendation on AstraZeneca—that it was now recommended only for people aged 60 and over—things needed to change. The experts at ATAGI have made it clear that, for those Australians who have had their first dose of AstraZeneca, it's strongly recommended they do have their second dose of AstraZeneca, given the risks from the second shot of the vaccine are much, much smaller. On receiving the advice of the change of age, the government acted quickly—very quickly. Within half an hour, in fact, of receiving that advice, the government announced it publicly. and then that flowed on through the various jurisdictions to ensure changes were made to the vaccine rollout and people were informed if their particular circumstances changed, as mine did, Obviously, there are other outcomes from the national cabinet meeting. The Coordinator-General of Operation COVID Shield, Lieutenant General Frewen, provided each state and territory government with applications for Pfizer and AstraZeneca doses for their jurisdiction over the remainder of 2021. This will allow the state jurisdictions to plan their individual rollouts. The coordinator-general confirmed the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine allocations are provided on a proportional population basis. The coordinator-general confirmed the Commonwealth delivers all first-dose allocations to states and territories, with matching second-dose allocations delivered three weeks after first doses are administered. This is important. This ensures that states and territories have control over first- and second-dose administration based on their supply schedules. National cabinet also noted the Commonwealth is fast-tracking plans to expand the number of access points for Pfizer by the end of July, and 136 Commonwealth vaccination clinics, 40 ACCHSs and 1,300 GPs will be administering Pfizer. Many more primary care providers will be offered the chance to administer mRNA vaccines as the supply of Pfizer significantly increases and the first supplies of Moderna arrive in September and October. The coordinator-general also confirmed that, based on expected supplies, Australia remains on track to offer every eligible person in Australia a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by the end of 2021. Once again, the government's and my message to all Australians is to make sure you are booked in for your first shot; make sure you are vaccinated. That is the best way to protect our loved ones and protect our community in this pandemic and to return to normal. 15:24 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia This is, I think, the third time in recent weeks I've taken note on similar topics around the rollout of vaccines in aged care, in response this time to questions from Senators Walsh and Gallagher. It's frustrating me that I'm doing that. It's a sign that we still have so many unanswered questions on our side about what's happening with the vaccination rollout, about what's happening in aged care and about how it impacts residents and workers in aged care. The government has two jobs when it comes to this pandemic: quarantine and the vaccination rollout. On both jobs we are seeing failure after failure, delay after delay and excuse after excuse. Today in question time we saw Senator Colbeck again try to blame the states for a failure to provide data at the time requested by the Senate. It's not the first time he's blamed the states and territories for his errors, for his failures and for the failures of the Morrison government when it comes to the vaccine rollout and when it comes to quarantine. The impact of this is very serious. Just look at what's happening in New South Wales. I echo Senator O'Neill's comments and concerns around what's happening in New South Wales at the moment. People are scared. People are worried, particularly the families of those in residential aged care, the workers who want to keep the residents they care for safe, the in-home-care workers and the workers in our disability sector. This is dangerous, and because the government is botching it people are feeling more scared than they should have to. We've heard today that only 15.6 per cent of residential aged-care workers have received their second dose, meaning that only 15.6 per cent of residential aged-care workers are fully vaccinated. This is the front line. We saw what happened in 2020 in aged care. Australians watched in absolute horror as COVID rampaged through aged-care homes—in Victoria, especially, where over 600 Australians died. They were horrific scenes, which shook all of us, and the lessons learned should be that we cannot wait, that we cannot delay. This is a race. The Prime Minister says it is not a race, but it is a race. It's a race and Australians want it to be happening quicker, happening faster and happening effectively. They want the implementation going better. We ask questions about the numbers and about the data over and over again because this matters. How can you possibly track the implementation of something so important if you can't even answer basic questions about who's had the jab and who hasn't, if you can't even have basic delineations between what you're responsible for and what the states and territories are responsible for and if you can't even come into this and say, 'Yep, I'll cop that; my bad. I've made a mistake. I'm going to take responsibility now'? Australians are worried that on your two jobs—quarantine and vaccination rollout—you're failing and it's costing them. It's costing our country. It's costing our future. It's going to impact how we come through this pandemic, without a doubt, and Australians are right to be worried. I join Senator Brockman in my absolute support for making sure that we take these vaccinations. As soon as I'm eligible I'm getting vaccinated, and I really look forward to the opportunity to do that. More Australians want to be vaccinated, but we want to get this rollout right so that they can be. We need to get this rollout right so that the people who are the most vulnerable in this pandemic, those in our aged-care homes, those working there and those in disability care are safe and can keep those around them safe. That's what Australians want, but they need the government to step up to the plate on their jobs. Question agreed to. Climate Change 56 15:29 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Birmingham) to a question without notice asked by Senator Waters today relating to climate change. I asked about climate ambition, and I asked why there is all the fuss, squabbling over 2050—whether it's 'preferably' or not—between this Liberal government and its coalition partners in the National Party, when all of the science says that that is a distraction and an excuse for inaction and that delay is the new denial. The year 2030 is the year we should all be talking about. That's what the science says needs to happen. That's what most of the world is talking about. The G7 made recommendations last week about taking serious action in this coming decade, including phasing out fossil fuel subsidies and including, importantly, seriously increasing participant countries' 2030 targets. Many of them were doubled. Our government didn't double its pathetic 2030 targets, and the opposition doesn't even have any 2030 targets. This whole phoney war between the Liberals and the Nationals, as they squabble over the new division of ministerial responsibilities, with their new leader at the helm, is a massive distraction. It is letting down anyone who cares deeply about delivering a safe climate for current and future generations, and it is letting down anyone who cares about creating a prosperous economy with all of the jobs that will flow from a clean economy. Naturally, I didn't get an answer to that question. I certainly got a whole lot of words, but I don't think you could describe them as an answer to the question about 2050 and the fact that talk of delay is the new denial. I then asked about the impact on farmers of the repeal of the carbon price. This government loves to champion the fact that it repealed the carbon price, but we've had the numbers crunched. As people would know, the carbon price was set to link to the EU scheme before it was repealed. If it hadn't been repealed, Australian farmers would be bringing in an absolute motza. They could be earning $80 a tonne, in today's prices, by storing carbon on the land. So the coalition has already lost Australian farmers $1.4 billion of export income, by getting rid of the price on pollution, and it's going to cost them another $11 billion by the end of the decade. Again, this is nonsense from the National Party, who used to claim to represent farmers but now clearly prioritise the interests of coal and gas companies over everybody else—and there's no denying that anymore. The National Party once represented the interests of Australian farmers, but they are actually denying farmers the opportunity of an additional revenue stream. Their continued denial and inaction on the climate is imperilling farmers' ability to keep producing food and fibre for us and for the rest of the world. I don't understand how we can still have climate denial in a chamber of parliament in 2021, particularly from a party whose members often live in rural and regional Australia, and particularly when many farming groups keep saying to them: 'We can see the impacts of the climate crisis on our land and on our productivity. We want something done. We want the option to be paid for sequestering carbon on our land.' I don't understand why the government, particularly the National Party, aren't listening to the people they purport to represent. Again, I didn't get a real answer to that question. It was the usual talking-point stuff and a whole lot of new slogans, which the focus groups have said work. But rural and regional Australians are not going to be duped by this assemblage of word salad. They want action on the climate crisis. They can see what it's doing to their farms already and they can see the opportunities for international carbon markets, but they're not getting any representation from the Liberal and National parties. The last point that I made was that, whilst this squabble is happening about who's going to be in charge of what ministry under the new leadership of Barnaby Joyce, most of our trading partners are taking serious action and making serious commitments to increase their carbon pollution reduction targets. Japan have announced that, by 2030, they want a 46 per cent reduction, and South Korea, who's our third-biggest energy customer, yesterday lifted their targets to 40 per cent. It's rumoured that the trade portfolio might go to the Nats, in some sort of deal to make them go quiet on 2050. Do you really want climate deniers holding the trade portfolio when our closest energy trading partners are taking this issue seriously and increasing their 2030 targets? It's not a game, folks. This isn't just about sloganeering and power-mongering. This is about the world's climate, agricultural productivity, the future of the reef and our nation's health. There is so much at stake here, and for this issue to continue to be politicised is absolutely woeful. Question agreed to. NOTICES 57 NOTICES Presentation 57 15:35 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: the COVID-19 Disaster Payment (Funding Arrangements) Bill 2021, the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 2021, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020, and the Treasury Laws Amendment (COVID-19 Economic Response) Bill 2021. I also table statements of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statements incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The state ment s read as follows— COVID-19 DISASTER PAYMENT (FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS) BILL Purpose of the Bill The purpose of the bill is to introduce a special appropriation for the COVID-19 Disaster Payment, which has recently been established as a program under Schedule 1AB of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Regulations 1997. The bill also requires the National Resilience and Recovery Agency, who will be responsible for disaster recovery from 1 July 2021, to include information in its annual report relating to the COVID-19 Disaster Payment for each financial year. Reasons for Urgency The bill requires urgent passage in the 2021 Winter sittings for the special appropriation for the COVID-19 Disaster Payment to be available on 1 July 2021 for the entire 2021-22 financial year. The payment is currently being paid as part of annual appropriations, but a special appropriation is the most suitable mechanism to fund the payment as it is a demand driven program where an entitlement to a payment is triggered by meeting qualification criteria. There is uncertainty as to when this one-off and time-limited payment may be required into the future as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, meaning that the expenditure associated with the COVID-19 Disaster Payment cannot be reliably approximated for the purpose of an annual appropriation. Introducing a special appropriation means that the Commonwealth Government has secure funding for all persons who qualify for the COVID 19 Disaster Payment. HAZARDOUS WASTE (REGULATION OF EXPORTS AND IMPORTS) AMENDMENT BILL 2021 Purpose of the Bill The Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 2021 (Bill) would amend the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989 (Hazardous Waste Act) to implement amendments to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Basel Convention). The amendments to the Basel Convention strengthen transboundary controls of unsorted plastic wastes and plastic wastes containing hazardous substances. The Bill would also update and modernise the Act, including the compliance and enforcement framework, to reduce complexity and improve its operation, while ensuring the standard of environmental protection remains high. Reasons for Urgency The amendments to the Basel Convention, which strengthen the controls of unsorted plastic wastes and plastic wastes containing hazardous substances, came into force for Australia on 1 January 2021. Passage of the Bill is necessary to meet Australia's international obligations to control these plastics in accordance with the Basel Convention. In addition, these changes have been implemented by Australia's major trading partners. Therefore, Australian exporters of plastic waste are currently subject to different regulatory requirements than those in importing countries. Passage of the Bill is necessary to ensure consistent regulation with trading partners, which will reduce confusion for Australian exporters and their suppliers and minimise illegal exports of hazardous waste. THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTION ORDERS) BILL 2021 Purpose of the Bill The Bill creates an international production order (IPO) framework to enable Australian law enforcement agencies and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) to obtain electronic data directly from communications service providers in foreign countries, and to permit Australian communications service providers to disclose electronic data to a foreign countries, where there is a designated international agreement in place. Reasons for urgency The Bill requires urgent passage in the 2021 Winter sittings to enable Australia to finalise and implement a bilateral cross-border access to data agreement with the United States (commonly referred to as the AUS-US CLOUD Act Agreement). An AUS-US CLOUD Act Agreement will significantly reduce the time it takes for Australia's law enforcement agencies and ASIO to access electronic data held by designated communication providers in the United States, which is critical to their ability to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute serious crime, including terrorism. The Bill will give effect to this agreement as well as other future bilateral and multilateral agreements, and contains the amendments required to Australia's domestic legislation to comply with the requirements under the United States' CLOUD Act. The United States Government has advised that it will not be in a position to sign a CLOUD Act Agreement with Australia until these legislative amendments are passed. Passage of the Bill during the Winter Sittings would enable the CLOUD Act Agreement to be signed by the end of the year and become operational in 2022. TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (COVID-19 ECONOMIC RESPONSE) BILL Purpose of the Bill The purpose of the Bill is to: • extend the income tax exemption for eligible State and Territory COVID-19 economic recovery grant programs to the grant payments also received in the 2021-22 financial year; and • make amendments to tax secrecy provisions to allow tax information to be disclosed to Services Australia for the purposes of administering the COVID-19 Disaster Payment. Reasons for Urgency Introduction and passage of the Bill as soon as possible is required to provide certainty to businesses affected by COVID-19 and enhance integrity of the COVID 19 disaster recovery payment. 15:36 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I give notice, in general terms, under standing order 76(6) of my intention to give a notice of motion for the next day of sitting relating to the resetting of formal business processes, in accordance with the note circulated to senators today. Presentation 58 Postponement 62 15:37 The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, we will continue. COMMITTEES 63 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications Legislation Committee 63 Reporting Date 63 BUSINESS 63 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 63 15:37 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Henderson today for personal reasons. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 63 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications References Committee 63 Reference 63 15:38 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, before asking that it be taken as a formal motion, in the terms that have been circulated in the chamber. Leave granted. Senator WATERS 192970 I move the motion as amended: That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by interim report by Tuesday, 3 August 2021 with the final report due by the first sitting Tuesday of March 2022: Oil and gas exploration and production in the Beetaloo Basin, with particular reference to: (a) the Industry Research and Development (Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program) Instrument 2021, which provides public money for oil and gas corporations; 15:39 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 It is unnecessary for this matter to be referred to the committee. The Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program has been carefully considered. It is a key plank of our plan to bring on new gas supply to help address domestic shortfall, maintain affordability and continue to grow a strong economy. The Northern Territory's Beetaloo Sub-basin is one of the largest undeveloped onshore gas resources in the world. Development has the potential to create 6,000 jobs by 2040, transform the Northern Territory's economy and supply gas into domestic markets for decades to come. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is the motion moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:44]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 28 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Ciccone, R Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson, P Hanson-Young, SC Lambie, J Lines, S McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Rice, J Roberts, M Sheldon, A Siewert, R Steele-John, J Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 24 NOES Birmingham, SJ Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Canavan, MJ Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Hume, J McDonald, S McKenzie, B McLachlan, A O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Payne, MA Rennick, G Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA (teller) 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 64 Reference 64 15:46 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I move: That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 2 December 2021: The adequacy and efficacy of Australia's anti-money laundering and counter- terrorism financing (AML/CTF) regime, with particular reference to: (a) the extent to which the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre: (i) responds to and relies upon reporting by designated services, and (ii) identifies emerging problems based on this reporting; (b) the extent to which Australia's AML/CTF regulatory arrangements could be strengthened to: (i) address governance and risk-management weaknesses within designated services, and (ii) identify weaknesses before systemic or large-scale AML/CTF breaches occur; (c) the effectiveness of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (the Act) to prevent money laundering outside the banking sector; (d) the attractiveness of Australia as a destination for proceeds of foreign crime and corruption, including evidence of such proceeds in the Australian real estate and other markets since the enactment of the Act; (e) Australia's compliance with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommendations and the Commonwealth Government's response to: (i) applicable recommendations in applicable FATF reports, and (ii) the April 2016 Report on the statutory review of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 and associated rules and regulations; (f) the extent to which adherence with FATF recommendations prevents systemic and reputational risks to Australia, the Australian economy, and Australia's capacity to access international capital; (g) the regulatory impact, costs and benefits of extending AML/CTF reporting obligations to designated non-financial businesses and professions (DNFBPs or 'gatekeeper professions'), often referred to as 'Tranche two' legislation; (h) the extent to which: (i) DNFBPs take account of money laundering and terrorism financing risks, and (ii) the existing professional obligations on DNFBPs are compatible with AML/CTF reporting obligations; and (i) any other related matter. 15:46 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 AUSTRAC is a world-leading financial intelligence agency and regulator of anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing. In the past five years AUSTRAC enforcement action has resulted in more than $2 billion in civil penalties from Tabcorp, CBA and Westpac. In addition, total tax liabilities raised by using AUSTRAC information in the past decade come to more than $2.6 billion. The government has provided AUSTRAC with an additional $104.9 million over four years to uplift its capability, meaning that more noncompliance can be detected, investigated and addressed. Recently AUSTRAC commenced enforcement investigations against several casino operators and the National Australia Bank. AUSTRAC is continuing to innovate and leverage its domestic and international partnerships to get the best results to detect, prevent and disrupt AML/CTF and other serious crime. Question agreed to. Finance and Public Administration References Committee 65 Reference 65 15:47 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: (1) That the Senate notes that: (a) the Prime Minister's Statement of Ministerial Standards of 30 August 2018, at paragraph 1.3(iv), states that '[Ministers] will be required to answer for the consequences of their decisions and actions' and they 'must ensure that... their conduct in a private capacity upholds the laws of Australia, and demonstrates appropriately high standards of personal integrity'; (b) it is the Prime Minister's responsibility to uphold the Ministerial Standards; and (c) it does not appear that the Prime Minister has taken any significant action to assess whether Minister Porter meets the criteria set by paragraph 1.3(iv) of the Ministerial Standards. (2) That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 10 August 2021: (a) the extent to which the presumption of innocence conflicts with the Prime Minister's responsibility to maintain public confidence in the executive, and how the Prime Minister should seek to resolve that conflict; (b) whether a minister's obligation to uphold high standards of personal integrity in their private conduct extends to conduct engaged in prior to their commission as a minister; (c) the adequacy of the Prime Minister's actions to assess whether Minister Porter meets the requirements of the Prime Minister's Statement of Ministerial Standards of 30 August 2018, including paragraph 1.3(iv); and (d) any related matters. 15:48 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator WATERS 192970 Over the past fortnight the Greens have proposed a robust, independent mechanism to look into Minister Porter's suitability to hold a ministerial position. Our commission would have allowed issues surrounding allegations of Minister Porter's behaviour and any implications for compliance with the ministerial standards to be considered at arm's length from politicians by a former judge who has expertise in managing evidence, the presumption of innocence, conflicts of interest and confidentiality. But government senators, One Nation senators and Senator Lambie blocked even the introduction of that proposal. This referral proposed by Senator Lambie will send those same questions to a Senate committee made up of partisan politicians dominated by government members. It is not a great forum for this important issue, but it would be better than nothing. On that basis alone, we will be supporting this referral. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the motion moved by Senator Lambie be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:50]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 26 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Ciccone, R Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson-Young, SC Lambie, J Lines, S McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Rice, J Sheldon, A Siewert, R Steele-John, J Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 26 NOES Birmingham, SJ Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Canavan, MJ Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Hanson, P Hume, J McDonald, S McKenzie, B McLachlan, A O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Payne, MA Rennick, G Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA (teller) 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 NOTICES 66 NOTICES Postponement 66 15:52 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I seek leave to postpone business of the Senate notice of motion No. 4 standing in my name for today, relating to the reference of a matter to the Economic References Committee, until the next day of sitting. Leave granted. BILLS 66 BILLS Ministerial Suitability Commission of Inquiry Bill 2021 66

Ministerial Suitability Commission of Inquiry Bill 2021

Reference to Committee 66 15:52 The PRESIDENT I0Q I notified senators yesterday that at some point I would be declaring the substantive part of this motion to be the reference, not simply the date, and that changing the date would not allow it to be continually brought back before the Senate. I'm giving senators notice now that I will consider a further date change to this motion to be putting forward the same question, because this will be the third time it has been dealt with. I just thought I should advise senators of that before this vote. 15:53 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Thank you, President. I shall take that under consideration for future days. I move: That the Ministerial Suitability Commission of Inquiry Bill 2021 be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 August 2021. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the motion moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:54]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 25 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Ciccone, R Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson-Young, SC Lines, S McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Rice, J Sheldon, A Siewert, R Steele-John, J Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 27 NOES Birmingham, SJ Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Canavan, MJ Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Hanson, P Hume, J Lambie, J McDonald, S McKenzie, B McLachlan, A O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Payne, MA Rennick, G Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA (teller) 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 67

Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021

First Reading 67 15:56 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to courts and tribunals, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator DUNIAM 263418 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 67 15:57 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— COURTS AND TRIBUNALS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (2021 MEASURES NO.1) BILL 2021 SECOND READING SPEECH The Government is committed to ensuring the ongoing improvement of Australia's federal courts and tribunals. It is with pleasure that I introduce the Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No.1) Bill 2021 (the Bill), which primarily seeks to improve the administration of the federal courts and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The Bill does not introduce fundamental changes to the way our legal system operates. Rather, it represents some incremental changes that will streamline and clarify existing processes in the federal courts and the AAT. In particular, this Bill amends the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Administration Act 1999, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Admiralty Act 1988, the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1989, the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1962, the Family Law Act 1975, the Federal Circuit Court Act 1999, the Federal Circuit and Family Court Act 2021, the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985, the Judiciary Act 1903, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010, andthe Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. The Bill would also repeal the Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act 1976. The Government aims to make merits review through the AAT accessible, fair, just, economical, informal and quick. To this end, this Bill will amend the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Administration Act, the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, the Paid Parental Leave Act, the Social Security (Administration) Act, and the Student Assistance Act to streamline and harmonise the practices and processes of divisions within the AAT. Amendments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act will also address minor technical and administrative issues within the existing Act. Amendments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act will require consequential amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The Bill will also make minor and technical amendments to the Judiciary Act, which will amend inconsistencies in terminology between the Judiciary Act and the High Court Rules, and to prescribe forms by practice direction rather than retaining them in the High Court Rules. The Bill will also amend the Federal Court of Australia Act to produce significant efficiencies in the Federal Court's management of appeals in civil proceedings. Amendments to the Federal Court of Australia Act will allow the Federal Court to give reasons in short form for a decision dismissing an appeal if the Court is unanimously of the opinion that the appeal does not raise any question of general principle. This amendment would reflect similar practices already in place in the High Court of Australia, the Family Court of Australia, and the NSW Court of Appeal. This measure will reduce delays in the Federal Court's hearing of matters without limiting the Court's ability to provide comprehensive reasons when required. The Bill makes minor amendments to the Federal Court of Australia Act, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act, the Family Law Act and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act to clarify that hearings conducted remotely using videoconferencing technology are exercised in 'open court'. The Bill also amends the Judiciary Act to clarify that a court shall be taken to be exercising federal jurisdiction in a proceeding in the State or Territory in which the proceedings commenced. These amendments are appropriate to remove any doubt as to the validity of hearings across the federal courts being undertaken remotely, particularly since the broader use of remote hearings since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Bill makes amendments to the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (FSI Act). Under international law, foreign States are entitled to immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts of other countries in certain circumstances. In Australia, this immunity is governed by the FSI Act. These amendments clarify the application of the FSI Act to ex parte proceedings following the High Court's consideration of the issue in Firebird Global Master Fund II Ltd v Republic of Nauru in 2015. In Firebird, the Court held that the provision in the FSI Act relating to judgments in default of appearance does not apply to ex parte proceedings. The Bill clarifies the application of the FSI Act to ex parte proceedings to ensure that foreign States are afforded appropriate procedural immunities, and reduces the risk that an Australian court could register a foreign judgment against a foreign State in circumstances where Australia is obliged to afford that foreign State immunity under international law. Furthermore, the Bill similarly extends these procedural protections to proceedings relating to the recognition or enforcement of a foreign award against a foreign State pursuant to the International Arbitration Act 1974. This Bill will also clarify that the Admiralty Rules 1988 are rules of court and apply certain provisions of the Legislation Act 2003 so as to exempt the Rules from sunsetting, but require that they be registered and published. This aligns the treatment of the Admiralty Rules with the rules of the federal courts. The Bill would repeal the Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act. The Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act was enacted to give effect to the Agreement between the Australian Government and the Government of the Republic of Nauru for appeals to the High Court of Australia from certain classes of decisions of the Supreme Court of Nauru. This Agreement was terminated on 13 March 2018 while still providing for appeals and applications for leave instituted before the date the Agreement was terminated to be heard. All relevant appeals and applications for leave instituted before the Agreement's termination have concluded. Accordingly, it is appropriate for the Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act to now be repealed. The introduction of this Bill represents the Government's enduring commitment to ensuring that our legal system is fit for purpose. In particular, the Bill will improve the efficiency and operation of our federal courts and the AAT. Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111. MOTIONS 68 MOTIONS Australian Broadcasting Corporation 68 15:58 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that, under the leadership of Chair Ms Ita Buttrose, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has risen to the number 1 online news source for Australians and is the most trusted media organisation in Australia; (b) condemns the personal attacks and bullying levelled at Ms Buttrose by members of the Liberal Party; and (c) calls on the Morrison Government to reiterate their support for Ms Buttrose as ABC Chair. 15:58 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The Australian government recognises the importance of the ABC. Further, the government recognises that the ABC has content and operational independence which is enshrined in legislation. To support the ABC, the government provides more than $1 billion in funding to the ABC, which increases each year over the current triennium. The government appointed Ms Buttrose as chair of the ABC and continues to support her in that role. The government recognises the importance of the ABC serving all Australians and welcomes the recent decision from the ABC to move up to 300 staff to Parramatta in line with our advocacy. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is motion 1134, moved by Senator Hanson-Young, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:03]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 26 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Ciccone, R Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson-Young, SC Lines, S McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Rice, J Sheldon, A Siewert, R Steele-John, J Sterle, G Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 29 NOES Antic, A Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Hanson, P Hughes, H Hume, J Lambie, J McDonald, S McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Rennick, G Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BUSINESS 69 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 69 16:05 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That if by 12 August 2021 the government business order of the day relating to the consideration of the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020 has not been finally considered, the order of the day be discharged from the Notice Paper. 16:05 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator HANSON BK6 I want to make it clear that One Nation is 100 per cent opposed to the changes to the responsible lending laws proposed in the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, and I am on the public record in that regard. One Nation has made it clear to the Greens that we had forwarded instructions, and, in fact, have now received the first extensive draft amendments which delete any reference in the bill excluding banks from their current statutory or regulatory obligations. We do recognise that there are other provisions of the bill which we, in part, have also proposed to amend to enhance the protection for consumers. One Nation has advised the Greens accordingly, and requested they defer this notice pending the circulation of our draft amendments to the bill. For the above reasons, One Nation will not support this motion. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is the motion moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

The Senate Divided. [16:07]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 27 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Ciccone, R Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson-Young, SC Lambie, J Lines, S McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Rice, J Sheldon, A Siewert, R Steele-John, J Sterle, G Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 27 NOES Antic, A Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Hanson, P Hughes, H Hume, J McDonald, S McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Rennick, G Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 MOTIONS 70 MOTIONS Charitable Organisations 70 16:09 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that the Government's proposed changes to Governance Standard 3 in the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Regulation 2013 have been labelled as unnecessary, counterproductive and counter to the objects of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act; (b) recognises that the proposed changes will have a chilling effect on lawful policy advocacy by charities, bury charities in red tape and stop charities from working to improve the lives of all Australians; (c) acknowledges that adding summary offences as a prohibited conduct for charities is an overreach inconsistent with the rule of law; (d) condemns the Government for targeting charities and not-for-profit organisations that do vital work advocating for the most vulnerable in our community; and (e) calls on the Federal Government to abandon its proposed changes to Governance Standard 3 and repeal this standard in line with recommendations of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission legislation review 2018 expert panel. 16:10 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The proposed changes to governance standard 3 seek to redefine the standard to capture offences of trespass, vandalism, theft, assault and intimidation. This will empower the ACNC commissioner to investigate such breaches of the law by charities and take enforcement action if warranted. Charities will still be able to undertake advocacy actions consistent with their charitable purposes, provided it is conducted lawfully. Registered charities that act lawfully and do not use their resources to promote others to engage in unlawful activities are already complying with the proposed changes. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 71 DOCUMENTS Energy 71 Order for the Production of Documents 71 16:10 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of Senator Watt, I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1162 be taken as a formal motion. The PRESIDENT I0Q Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? An honourable senator: Yes. The PRESIDENT I0Q There is an objection. MOTIONS 71 MOTIONS Discrimination 71 16:11 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) Investigation Arista by the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) found that: (A) the Queensland Police Service (QPS) engaged in 'corrupt manipulation' and 'discriminatory' practices to achieve a 50% female hiring target, (B) the discriminatory practices saw different standards applied to female and male applicants, with females selected in preference to the male applicants who had performed to a higher standard across entry assessments, (C) some female applicants were approved for entry despite failing the cognitive, physical, or psychological assessment, and (D) if the discriminatory practices had not been implemented, the CCC estimates 200 more meritorious male applicants who had passed the assessments would have been successful in joining the QPS, and (ii) the use of discriminatory recruitment practices devalues the achievements of both females and males who achieve the required application standards; and (b) further notes that: (i) policies that discriminate based on gender are sexist, (ii) policies that discriminate based on race are racist, and (iii) judgements should only be made based on the merit of the individual and not other characteristics. 16:11 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator WATERS 192970 Australia is in a national domestic and family violence crisis, and yet stories of inadequate policing responses and terrible treatment of victims survivors persist. On at least two occasions already this year women in Queensland have been murdered after repeatedly seeking police help. There is a clear need to improve gender balance in organisations responding to DV incidents. The Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act and the federal Sex Discrimination Act confirm that affirmative action policies can be a legitimate way to address gender imbalance. However, as the most recent WGEA Gender equality insights 2021 report highlights, setting gender equality targets is not enough without cultural change to attract and retain women. Without genuine efforts to change the culture within the Queensland Police Service and give women confidence it is a workplace that will respect them and those who come to them for help, gender equality will not be achieved. 16:12 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Recruitment arrangements are a matter for each individual organisation and employer to determine. The Morrison government maintains that workplaces are responsible for complying with relevant state and territory and Commonwealth laws in relation to recruitment and employment practices. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the motion moved by Senator Roberts be agreed to.

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

 3 AYES Hanson, P Lambie, J Roberts, M (teller) 35 NOES Bragg, AJ Carr, KJ Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Faruqi, M Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson-Young, SC Hughes, H Hume, J McDonald, S McKenzie, B McKim, NJ McLachlan, A O'Sullivan, MA Patrick, RL Rennick, G Reynolds, L Rice, J Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Siewert, R Small, B Smith, DA Steele-John, J Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE (teller) Van, D Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Western Australia: Korean Community 72 16:16 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1165, relating to the Korean community in Western Australia, be taken as formal. The PRESIDENT I0Q Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? An honourable senator: Yes. The PRESIDENT I0Q There is an objection. Queensland: Coal Industry 72 16:16 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I ask that my name and also those of Senators Rennick, Stoker, McGrath and McDonald be added to the motion standing in the name of Senator Canavan. I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1166, relating to the Acland mine, be taken as formal. The PRESIDENT I0Q Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? An honourable senator: Yes. The PRESIDENT I0Q There is an objection. Immigration Detention 73 16:16 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Before moving general business notice of motion No. 1168, I inform the Senate that Senators Keneally and McCarthy will also sponsor the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators Thorpe, Keneally and McCarthy, move: That the Senate agrees that the Murugappan family should be allowed to return to their home in Biloela. 16:17 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 As is the case with all migration matters, it's not appropriate for the Senate to deliberate on individual migration cases. This is irrespective of the case or the profile of any individual or family in question. Furthermore, senators would be asked to vote about a case without the full facts in front of them and, as is the case in this circumstance, where there are matters currently before the courts. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the motion moved by Senator McKim and others be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:22]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 27 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Ciccone, R Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson-Young, SC Lambie, J Lines, S McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Rice, J Sheldon, A Siewert, R Steele-John, J Sterle, G Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 27 NOES Antic, A Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Hanson, P Hughes, H Hume, J McDonald, S McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Rennick, G Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 DOCUMENTS 74 DOCUMENTS Energy 74 Order for the Production of Documents 74 16:23 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Pursuant to contingent notice of motion No. 3 standing in the name of Senator Wong, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent motion No. 1162 in the name of Senator Watt relating to the order for production of documents—Collinsville coal-fired power station feasibility study, being moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:25]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 51 AYES Abetz, E Antic, A Ayres, T Birmingham, SJ Bragg, AJ Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chandler, C Ciccone, R Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Farrell, D Faruqi, M Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson-Young, SC Hughes, H Hume, J Lines, S McCarthy, M McGrath, J McKenzie, B McKim, NJ McLachlan, A O'Neill, D O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Polley, H Reynolds, L Rice, J Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Sheldon, A Siewert, R Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Steele-John, J Sterle, G Stoker, AJ Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE Van, D Walsh, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 2 NOES Lambie, J Patrick, RL (teller) 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 16:28 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move general business notice of motion No. 1162: (1) That the Senate notes that: (a) in March 2019 the Morrison Government committed $3.3 million in public funds to Shine Energy Pty Ltd to conduct a feasibility study into a new coal-fired power station in Collinsville; (b) on 3 June 2021, in an interview with Minister Taylor, ABC Capricornia stated it had been informed by Senator Canavan that the feasibility study has been sitting on Minister Taylor's desk; and (c) Minister Taylor's response was that he had not 'seen the outcome of the study yet'. (2) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, by no later than 9.30 am on Thursday, 24 June 2021, the feasibility study undertaken by Shine Energy Pty Ltd into a new coal-fired power station in Collinsville, as a publicly funded study should be available to public scrutiny. 16:28 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I present the government's statement on this motion. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that motion No. 1162 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:30]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 27 AYES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Ciccone, R Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson-Young, SC Lambie, J Lines, S McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Rice, J Sheldon, A Siewert, R Steele-John, J Sterle, G Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 27 NOES Antic, A Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Hanson, P Hughes, H Hume, J McDonald, S McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Rennick, G Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Western Australia: Korean Community, Queensland: Coal Mining 75 16:32 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to move general business notices of motion Nos 1165 and 1166 together and that they be determined without amendment or debate. Leave not granted. 16:32 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent general business notices of motion Nos 1165 and 1166 being moved together immediately and determined without amendment or debate. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is the motion to suspend standing orders moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:34]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 54 AYES Abetz, E Antic, A Ayres, T Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Brown, CL Carr, KJ Cash, MC Chandler, C Ciccone, R Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Farrell, D Faruqi, M Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson-Young, SC Hughes, H Hume, J Lines, S McCarthy, M McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McKim, NJ McLachlan, A McMahon, S O'Neill, D O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Polley, H Rennick, G Reynolds, L Rice, J Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Sheldon, A Siewert, R Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Steele-John, J Sterle, G Stoker, AJ Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE Van, D Walsh, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 2 NOES Lambie, J (teller) Patrick, RL 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 16:37 The PRESIDENT I0Q I have had multiple requests to have the motions dealt with separately, and they will be. Western Australia: Korean Community 76 Western Australia: Korean Community 76 16:36 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move: That the Senate— (a) acknowledges that 2021 marks the 60th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Australia and the Republic of Korea; (b) recognises that, since the signing of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement in 2014, South Korea has become Australia's fourth largest trading partner; (c) notes that: (i) South Korea was Western Australia's fourth largest export market ($10.2 billion) in 2020, (ii) South Korea placed third for Western Australian iron ore exports and fourth for petroleum exports, (iii) Western Australia is ranked South Korea's fourteenth largest import market in 2020, and (iv) approximately 13,000 South Koreans visited Western Australia in 2019; and (d) further notes that: (i) Australia deployed over 17,000 defence personnel to defend South Korean territory during the Korean War, and (ii) the Korean community in Western Australia has expanded to more than 8,300 people, with members of the community spread across the electorates of Curtin, Perth, Swan and Tangney. Question agreed to. Queensland: Coal Mining 76 16:37 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania At the request of Senator Scarr, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes: (i) coal mining at Acland has been a big employer for 92 years and helped support the town of Oakey over that time, (ii) the Acland mine has been seeking approval to extend the mine and guarantee work for 500 coal miners for 14 years, (iii) while the mine has received all of its federal and state government environmental approvals, these are set aside due to court processes and Queensland Government delays, (iv) if stage 3 of the mine proceeds the mine would provide secure employment for 481 full time employees, (v) the Queensland state government is refusing to issue a mining lease or water licence for the Acland mine extension until court cases are resolved, a test they have not applied for other coal mines in Queensland, (vi) already more than 200 coal miners have lost their jobs thanks to Queensland Government delays, and more face the sack at the end of July as the mine is forced into care and maintenance, and (vii) businesses in Oakey are struggling because of the reduced economic activity at the mine; and (b) calls on the Queensland Government to issue the mining lease and water licence, consistent with precedent, to save jobs and protect the future of the town of Oakey. 16:37 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland by leave—I table a one-minute statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that motion No. 1166 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:39]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

26 AYES Antic, A Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Cash, MC Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Hughes, H Hume, J McDonald, S McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Rennick, G Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Small, B Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ 25 NOES Ayres, T Brown, CL Carr, KJ Ciccone, R Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson-Young, SC Lines, S McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Polley, H Rice, J Sheldon, A Siewert, R Steele-John, J Sterle, G Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE (teller) Walsh, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 16:41 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Mr President, it has been brought to my attention that Senator Rennick was taking a photograph of opposition senators during that division. I understand that is not permitted. The PRESIDENT I0Q I didn't see anything. No photos are permitted to be taken in the Senate chamber by senators. There are rules for the taking of photos and their publication, which are available on the parliamentary website. If anyone has taken a photo, I would encourage them to delete it immediately. Senator Rennick, did you take a photo in the chamber with your phone? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Whenever a question is asked of a senator when it comes to a matter of conduct in the chamber, the chair always defers to the answer given by the senator. If a photo was taken, it is out of order. Senator WATT 245759 I'm sorry, but I have no confidence that Senator Rennick is going to observe your ruling. I trust that you will follow that up. The PRESIDENT I0Q If a photo is published in the chamber, then that would be a breach of order. I take every senator at their word. When I am asked to address a senator on conduct inside the chamber, I always take a senator at their word, as have previous chairs. There is footage of the chamber that can otherwise be used. I think many senators have taken advantage of it, but photos can't be taken by senators on the floor of the chamber. 16:43 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory My understanding on the guidelines and procedures around that is that it's the possession of the photo as opposed to the publication of the photo that might be relevant here, in which case— The PRESIDENT I0Q I think it's the publication, off the top of my head. I would have to check the rules. Senator GALLAGHER ING Could you have a look at the difference between the two? The PRESIDENT I0Q Yes. I believe the rules go to the publication of photos, primarily. I'm going to look at the Clerk. Yes. I might say that it wouldn't be the first time I've seen senators pull out a phone in a way that might make me suspect they've taken a photo. The rules, in my view, have always related to the publication of such photos, whether that be on social media or otherwise. If I'm wrong, I'll come back to the chamber. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 78 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Morrison Government 78 16:44 The PRESIDENT I0Q I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 today, 27 proposals were received. In accordance with standing order 75, the question of which would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter was received from Senator Dodson: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The division and dysfunction within the Morrison Government, with the Prime Minister's preference for net-zero emissions by 2050 countered by the statement of Nationals leader Mr Barnaby Joyce that: " ... the Nationals have always been opposed to a net-zero target. ... If the Nationals supported net-zero emissions we would cease to be a party that could credibly represent farmers." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The PRESIDENT I0Q 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 shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly. 16:44 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales What a week it has been! While this place has been focused internally, as it always is, and the National Party has been focused on itself, we've seen a couple of themes emerge from the self-absorbed, self-indulgent, self-interested fracas inside the National Party. The only uniting theme that these characters can design that explains their behaviour is their opposition to the Prime Minister's crab-walking towards the most basic of commitments on climate change, emissions, energy and jobs. The capacity of those opposite to develop a policy framework is so weak, so poor, that they have had 19 different energy policy frameworks over the course of the last eight years. According to the movie review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the worst movie that ever got a sequel was the 1999 flop Baby Geniuses. It's a favourite of Senator McGrath's, I'm told. The critics' consensus reads: Flat direction and actors who look embarrassed to be onscreen make Baby Geniuses worse than the premise suggests. Not dissuaded from their Rotten Tomatoes score of two per cent, they released Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2 in 2004, which received a zero per cent score. The critics' consensus reads: A startling lack of taste pervades Superbabies, a sequel offering further proof that bad jokes still aren't funny when coming from the mouths of babes. And so we turn to the modern National Party and 'Re-Joycing Barnaby mark 2'. This week has seen the return, unheralded and unwanted— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Senator Ayres, it was a fairly difficult reference, but you were referring to a member of the other place. Senator AYRES 16913 Yes. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 In your contribution, from here on in, I expect you to refer to them in the proper way. Senator AYRES 16913 Mr Joyce, the member for New England, is who I was referring to. If that assists, I will absolutely do that. This week has seen Mr Joyce's return. The first—the original—was bad. What will the sequel bring? Today's MPI debate is about the new-and-old Deputy Prime Minister's position on the target of net zero by 2050. The Prime Minister has been experimenting with his climate rhetoric this year. I say 'experimenting' because nobody knows quite what the Prime Minister means. The Prime Minister of Britain and the Liberal backbench certainly think that he means one thing; the National Party believes another. Surely ordinary Australian people, who overwhelmingly demand a sensible approach on climate, emissions, jobs and energy, have no chance at all of understanding what on earth it is that the Prime Minister is talking about. When the Prime Minister says it is his preference to get to net zero by 2050, what on earth does he mean? When he says 'new energy economy', what are the real-world policy consequences for people? The Prime Minister is so tied up in his own spin that nobody knows what he means, least of all himself. But the former and future leader of the National Party has had some interesting observations about a net zero emissions target. Last month he published an opinion piece in the Northern Daily Leader, outlining his thoughts—the thought leader of the National Party. Given that the Prime Minister will have to sit down and negotiate a fresh iteration of the secret coalition agreement, it's worth some close examination. The title of this opinion piece? 'Climate socialism will trump private rights'. Unfortunately, it takes about half of the op-ed to get to climate change. Firstly we get what passes for amateur philosophy from the member for New England. He says: The cornerstone of a modern franchise of freedom relies on the state to protect private ownership. Without private ownership you are merely an article of the state … The disenfranchisement of freedom relies on the state imposing on your ability to act independently. It's got the kind of overheated quality of someone trying to prove that they'd done that week's reading. Then he goes on to say: COVID itself has been brilliant at the disenfranchisement of personal freedoms. You can't travel from one place of no disease to another of no disease because of the dictates of the state. What on earth does this bloke mean? What on earth does he mean? It's the kind of febrile stuff that's out there in those funny old chat rooms—the ultra Right chatrooms. Then he goes on to say: The conservative side of politics has to be the champion of private ownership … The power of the state deadens the dynamics of the individual which paradoxically makes the nation weaker than it would be if it was freer. What on earth is this rubbish from this bloke? This is what passes for ideology for the bloke who wants to be the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. Remember the Weatherboard and Iron podcast from Mr Joyce and Senator Canavan? You'd all be on it! We never know which one's weatherboard and which one's iron. We do know that this podcast, even for young right wingers, the kinds of characters who sit in their basements listening to this stuff—even for them it puts the bored into weatherboard. I was informed by my staff that Weatherboard and Iron is 40 minutes of this kind of rubbish. Finally, he begins to ramp up on a point: The discussions about the proposed 2050 zero emissions target will impose on the individual the next raft of caveats. Once again, it will stand next to the moralistic framed existential crisis of global warming … This impossible journey to zero emissions can only be embarked on with a whole new raft of impositions on private assets. Really! Not even Senator Rennick understand what that is all about. It must be a surprise to the National Farmers Federation, who've endorsed a net-zero-by-2050 target. It would have to be a surprise to Meat & Livestock Australia, who have planned to achieve net zero by the end of the decade. It goes on: Climate socialism will trump private rights long before it would or could have any effect on the mercury. This is like some sort of free-form hallucinogenic trip that Mr Joyce is unfolding here. He says: The state will look to you for thanks that you can now go to Anzac Day or church. Net zero emissions, according to Mr Joyce, are going to take Anzac Day away. How one earth can the Prime Minister come to agreement with a man who thinks that net zero emissions are the equivalent of the villain from Braveheart? How can the Prime Minister hammer out a deal with a man who thinks net zero emissions are going to steal Christmas? Mr Joyce doesn't represent farmers. He doesn't fight for country communities. He only stands up for one person: Mr Joyce will only ever stand up for Mr Joyce. I find the Deputy Prime Minister's rhetoric particularly unusual, considering his track record as agriculture minister. He's very exercised about property rights when he's in the local paper, but he's much more flexible about property rights when it comes to the National Party's role in the Murray-Darling Basin. When Four Corners exposed that billions of litres of water had been stolen from the Bowen-Darling, the then Minister for Agriculture, who's responsible for this scheme, was entirely unconcerned. He said, 'It's an issue overwhelmingly for New South Wales'—an echo of the Prime Minister's approach to vaccine delivery or quarantine. But, to an audience of irrigators that night, he told the truth. He said: We have taken water, put it back into agriculture, so we could look after you and make sure we don't have the greenies running the show. Well, it wasn't put back into agriculture; it was put back into mates of the National Party. Some bits of agriculture got the benefit of that very loose approach to water allocations. Is it any surprise that it barely took a week since his return for the National Party to start undermining the agreement that shares our nation's rivers? Their surprise amendments in the Senate bring the $13 billion Murray-Darling Basin Plan to the brink of destruction, pitting farmer against farmer and state against state. It's a self-indulgent display from a self-indulgent party led by a self-indulgent man. His paranoid vision—a personal freedom—comes at great cost to country Australians, to Australian agriculture and, ultimately, to all of us. 16:55 Senator SMALL 291406 Western Australia Like something from Sesame Street, today's MPI seems to be brought to us by the No. 2050 and the letter D. The letter D is for division and dysfunction over there on the Labor benches. The Labor Party will do anything, it seems, to paint over their own internal divisions, whether it's on coal, on gas, on energy or on emissions reductions, and the investments that this government seeks to make and that they stand between. Labor talk a big game about a climate emergency but, in the same breath, they vote against solutions and the necessary steps that we seek to take. Not 24 hours ago, in this chamber, the Labor Party sided with the Greens to vote against $192.5 million in additional funding for ARENA—and that's investment in Australian innovation. They voted against more EV and hydrogen charging stations. They voted against more energy efficiency and a competitive heavy industry in Australia. They voted against carbon capture and storage. And they voted against their own national policy platform, which they adopted not even 90 days ago at their federal conference. Meanwhile, we are seeking to take real and practical action to deliver lower emissions whilst we protect our economy, our jobs and our investment in Australian businesses. We have strong targets. We have an enviable track record and a clear plan. Our approach is driven by technology, not taxes. So we are not divided. We are very unified that our plan will deliver lower emissions, protect Australian industry and protect Australian jobs, and the only thing that stands between that and realising it is the Labor Party. Emissions are at their lowest level since 1990, when records began. But that hasn't been brought about by a massive increase in the power prices that Australians pay. Indeed, wholesale power prices are at their lowest level in nine years, following 19 straight months of falls from the introduction of the big-stick legislation that this government introduced. Household retail prices are 11.2 per cent lower than they were a year ago, and we are delivering the needed investment, through Snowy 2.0 and the Kurri Kurri gas-fired power station, to ensure that Australians pay affordable energy prices today and tomorrow. This is a government that recognises that, whilst ambition is important, achievement and outcomes are actually what matter. We are one of a handful of countries in the world to have beaten our Kyoto-era commitments. We beat our 2020 target by some 459 million tonnes. Not only that, our emissions have fallen faster than the G20 average, faster than the OECD average and much faster than similar developed economies like Canada and New Zealand. So, again, this is a government that is unified with a strong track record and a plan that the Labor Party oppose. On a per-person basis, our 2030 target is more ambitious than the targets of France, Germany, Canada, New Zealand or Japan. We have an ambitious target. We have a proactive policy agenda. That is an ambition but not a cap. We want to meet and exceed those targets. The latest emissions projections published as recently as December 2020 show that we are on track to do exactly that. As the Prime Minister has said, we are a nation that wants to get to net zero—and preferably by 2050—but we're committed to doing that through technology and not taxes. That's the approach that's yielded results so far, and it hasn't sacrificed jobs and industries on the altar of Labor vanity. Instead, this government is focused on the how, and that how is breakthroughs in technology that will be needed to make net zero emissions possible here and around the world. Updated forecasts with respect to our 2030 Paris targets show that we are improving our baseline position by some 639 million tonnes, which, as I told the chamber yesterday, is equivalent to taking Australia's 14.7 million cars—that's every car in the nation—off the road for some 15 years. But not only that—focused on the present, we have an impressive plan. We've got momentum leading into Australia's Technology Investment Roadmap, and our commitment is clear. We're going to keep electricity prices low, we're going to keep the lights on and we're going to be doing our bit to reduce global emissions without wrecking the economy. These are the results we're seeing thus far, and this is the plan we have. Advancing that next generation of low-emissions technologies is crucial to fully realising our plan under the Paris Agreement. But that's exactly what was voted against by both Labor and the Greens yesterday. Not only did they vote against $192.5 million in investment in renewables and technology; they also voted against 1,400 green jobs here in Australia. Australia's experience has been that, where new technologies are economically competitive, Australians take them up at a great rate. That's why, here in Australia, we're seeing the adoption of renewable energy at 10 times the global average, and four times faster than China, Japan, the US and Europe as a whole. Australia now has the highest solar capacity of any country in the world. That's where we can go with our technology road map—that comprehensive plan to ensure not only that we realise the benefits of the technologies today but also that we continue to realise those benefits tomorrow. Accelerating technologies like hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, carbon-soil measurement, low-carbon materials in steel and aluminium, and long-duration energy storage are the sorts of innovations that will unlock emissions reduction into the future. That's exactly what was opposed in this chamber last night by those who seem to have forgotten it, with this fallacious MPI today. Australian electricity prices are coming down. Emissions are coming down. Jobs are secure. Industry is developing. Technology is developing. And we're futureproofing our energy markets with a gas fired recovery as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. Our competitive advantage as a nation has always been premised on cheap, reliable energy, and gas is fundamental to that as we move through a transition to a net neutral future, preferably by 2050. Our comprehensive plan of 13 measures in the gas market to establish an open and competitive hub model, based on the Henry hub, will unlock supply, ensure efficient transportation and, importantly, empower consumers. This is an industry that employs more 900,000 Australians, and we will not risk their jobs and their economic security with a big-taxing, big-government agenda like that of those opposite. Labor are completely divided by this issue, and this motion is yet another attempt on their part to paper over the cracks over there, to distract from their complete lack of energy and climate policy action where it counts. They're all talk about targets and ambitions, but they have no plan to get there. The contrast with this government—with a strong track record, a world-beating story to tell and a plan to take us to a net neutral future—couldn't be starker. Labor can't tell you by how much their policies will reduce emissions. They can't tell you how many jobs it will cost. They can't tell you how many more electric vehicles we'll have on our roads or indeed whether we'll have carbon capture and storage at all. But yesterday, in this place, they all lined up over there to vote against $192.5 million of investment and 1,400 jobs in this important space. That is something that reflects the fact that the Labor Party are all at sea when it comes to energy policy and when it comes to being net neutral, preferably by 2050. The Labor Party oppose our Kurri Kurri gas fired project. They voted against our ARENA investments. Yet they've got no plan and no story to tell. I think Australians can be very confident that it's the Morrison government that will protect their jobs, that will keep power prices low, that will keep their jobs safe and that will deliver the sort of future that our children would want to see. 17:04 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Mr Acting Deputy President Brockman, you're from a very proud farming background. My father was a farmer. I was even a farmer myself for nearly 15 years. Farmers grow things; farmers understand that one of the most critical variables for their success is the climate, the weather. There's something going on with the climate. It's called climate change. Some people call it global warming. There are a lot of names for it. It's a scientific fact that the planet is warming, and, as the planet warms, we get more extremes in our weather, which presents more risk for farmers. If you ask a farmer what one of the biggest risks is to their enterprises, they'll probably say different things in different parts of the country. Certainly, in large parts of the country, it's drought, it's lack of rainfall. There are no disputes around that. In other parts of the country, some may say it's pests and diseases or biosecurity risks; some may say it's heatwaves; some may say it's flooding and so on and so forth. Even fire is a severe risk now to many agricultural enterprises. All these things are linked to our changing climate. Yes, they've been there throughout our history, but the science is indisputable and undeniable. The variability is changing. Our ecosystems and habitats are changing. So farmers have to adapt. For a party, the National Party, in coalition with the Liberal Party, to claim that they represent farmers in this place and not have a clue on climate change—in fact, I take that back. They actually do have a clue on climate change. They don't believe it's real. They don't believe it's man-made. They don't believe that we need to act. That is a total betrayal of the Australian farming community. Farmers want climate action. It's been great to see, in recent days, the farming community calling out the Liberal-National government on this duplicity. I believe taking action on climate change is a significant opportunity for farmers. I found it very interesting this morning when I read—and, of course, this is all hearsay in the media—that Mr Barnaby Joyce is interested in doing a deal with Mr Morrison, provided farmers get paid for taking climate action. So I would like to talk about an initiative that the Greens and the Labor government brought in. When the carbon price was established in 2011, an offset market was simultaneously established called the Carbon Farming Initiative, which allowed land managers to secure carbon on their land and sell those permits to the polluting entities liable to pay the carbon price. It was a way to encourage and incentivise farmers to reduce Australia's emissions through financial rewards because agriculture wasn't covered by the carbon price. In 2012 the Labor-Green government agreed to amend the package to enable Australia's carbon market to link with the European Union's carbon market commencing from 1 July 2015. Had this proceeded, it would have enabled Australian farmers to turn their marginal land into more productive, income-generating assets for a change to agricultural practices and revegetation to earn carbon credits. During the two years of the scheme, Australian farmers and land managers produced 1.9 million tonnes of abatement worth as much as $43 million, assuming a $23 carbon price. However, once the Abbott LNP government pulled the package and cancelled climate action, as they did right across the board, the opportunity for export revenue was removed. We did an analysis, and the actual total cost to farmers had this Carbon Farming Initiative proceeded would have been approximately $12.4 billion over the last five years. We know that the EU has put this back on the table in our negotiations, and the US administration is talking about potentially penalising Australia because of our lack of carbon initiatives. Of course, if ex-senator Joyce—Mr Barnaby Joyce in the other place—our Deputy Prime Minister, wants a good scheme and wants a good initiative, he has to look no further than this Carbon Farming Initiative, because we could easily bring it back. In fact, that's something we should do, and then maybe we can have this debate about how we can turn climate action into a significant opportunity for farmers. I think it's also worth talking about the costs of political inaction. Every environmental problem we encounter is first and foremost a political problem. It might come from a business activity. It might come from a business decision. It can come from a whole range of things. But it is the role of government— Senator Scarr interjecting— Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 It shows just how much you don't understand, Senator Scarr. If the natural events are linked to climate change and rising emissions, that has come from a business activity. A natural event such as an extreme weather event has come from rising emissions. It's called global warming, which comes from a business activity, just to reinforce that for your benefit. Governments have a role to price externalities. Governments have a role to regulate business decisions that cause environmental problems. I challenge you to find one that doesn't have its source in economic or business activity. And if it's a government's role to solve these problems, then that's what we need to do, but that's not what we're doing. This government has been in place now for nine years, and it has had no policy on climate change, no policy at all, and it shows. As we saw with UNESCO yesterday, it has been recognised by the world that Australia has a lot more to contribute in the global leadership arena of climate change, acting on emissions, acting on stopping fossil fuel projects, acting on having binding targets not only for 2050, weak 2050 targets, but for 2030. Coming up with unicorn technologies, delaying tactics and distracting tactics is not going to get the job done. It's what we've seen for the last decade. It's simply unacceptable to go down this road. The people who will suffer the most are farmers. 17:12 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I rise to make a contribution on this MPI debate. I will go back a couple of steps to a couple of weeks ago when the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, was off to visit the Queen in London and he was on his world tour and he was doing some G7 stuff. Off he went, and he got to London. We saw that he had a large entourage of media, a huge media contingent, following him. There was one big blank space on the diary where no-one knew what he was doing. We found out because the local Cornwall Bugle news leaked the story. None of the Aussie media was supposed to know about it, but that is typical of our Prime Minister, who continually likes to keep things secret. We know that from when Australia was on fire and we as a nation were trying to find our leader, the Prime Minister—'Where is he?'—when he was holidaying in Hawaii. Holidaying in Hawaii isn't a problem, but whoever thought it was a great idea to holiday in Hawaii while the nation was on fire and then tell everyone to keep it quiet—I don't know where his political radar is. His lack of political radar—I'm talking about the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison—popped up again in Cornwall, where he was off to visit some gravesites. A lot of families in Australia would love the opportunity to go overseas not only to visit gravesites, like Mr Morrison, who was finding his 37th removed great-grandfather or something—I don't quite know. I'm led to believe he didn't find anything, so he went looking for a long lost cousin who died at birth or something—I'm not quite sure. Lo and behold, the Cornwall Bugle news took a photo of the Prime Minister popping into the local Cornwall pub, having a watercress sandwich and a pint. There's nothing wrong with having a pint of beer—everyone's got to eat—but, once again, what sort of image does that send back to Australia? Even we humble senators, let alone the Prime Minister, would wonder how it was smart to think we could do this. Our nation has been in lockdown. Our nation has closed off overseas—well, it's closed off most people going overseas and most people coming back, depending on who you are. Some people seem to get out alright and some people seem to get back in, and if you're playing sport—say, tennis or something like that—then you can run around. That doesn't matter. That's another story. What message did that send to the Australian public? There's our Prime Minister, with his watercress sandwich and his pint, wandering around a graveyard and making sure none of the Australian media knew about it. Who thought that was a good idea? We have thousands of stranded Australians desperate to get back home—Australian citizens. They can't get back here. There are many relatives who are desperate to come back and see family. We all know someone. All of us senators and the mob in the other place have been written to, on many occasions, about families being separated and not being able to get back. But there was our tactless, radar-less Prime Minister! God almighty! I don't know whether his advisers were pulling their hair out or whether they were kept in the dark too. I think they're probably good people, but he told them to shut up and not say a word. Where in the hell does this all come from? He's the leader of our nation! We shouldn't be surprised, although it did raise an eyebrow for me. Acting Deputy President, you and I have been through a lot of shenanigans in this building. Not you and me personally—and, if we did, I wouldn't tell anyone anyway—but we have witnessed many shenanigans, disruptions, knives after dark, backstabbing, leaders falling, others rising up and careers being destroyed. We've seen many of these things, but I did raise my eyebrows when I saw the Prime Minister in London visiting the Queen and some rocks or something and, at the same time, tweeting out he was going to meet with the US president. I'd be pretty proud if I were the prime minister who got to have a one-on-one with the US president. Lo and behold, that didn't even happen. He ended up in a threesome—we know that—and that looked a little bit awkward. That's when it all started to unfold, when, all of a sudden, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Mr Johnson, and Mr Biden were congratulating Mr Morrison on heading towards net zero emissions by 2050. Didn't the hand grenades go off back here! Goodness me, didn't they go off! I woke up to Phil Coorey's story in the Fin Review on Saturday, and it was on. Here we go again! Even I thought we were over this, at least for a couple of years, but, no, it was on again. We've got a couple of civil wars going on in this building. We've got a civil war going on between the Nats and the Libs. That's always been going on. We have a civil war going on between the Nats and the Nats. Senator Canavan interjecting— Senator STERLE e68 Senator Canavan, I really want to hear this. What? There's no civil war going on in the Nats at the moment? No? That's not why there are dead men walking? I think that was the story. Then we see the rise to the top again of Mr Joyce. He's back. Mr Joyce is back—Mr Joyce, the champion of farmers. Where do I start? We know very clearly where the Nats are on Mr Morrison's view of net zero carbon emissions by 2050. They've made it quite clear. We've had all the lieutenants out there. There was Mr Pitt and Senator McKenzie, who was on the after-dark stuff on Sky, sending one hell of a kaboom to the Prime Minister when he was offshore. But I must ask this question. I have been on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee for 16 years. My anniversary comes up next week. I've been the chair of that committee for 13 years, and I've talked to a few farmers. I don't pretend that I'm a farmer; I'm not. But, last Friday, I was doing a dairy inquiry, and the red meat industry were all there talking about how we've got to get to net zero. We know the National Farmers Federation's stance on net zero. This is the National Farmers Federation, who were joined at the hip with the Nats. Well, they were until I heard the latest. I just want to share something with the Senate if I can, please, Mr Acting Deputy President. You've forgotten more about farming than I'll ever know; I give you that. This is the NFF's media release of 20 August 2020, which is titled 'NFF calls for net carbon zero by 2050': Australia's peak farm body has thrown its weight behind an aspirational economy-wide target of net carbon zero by 2050 (NCZ2050). Members of the National Farmers' Federation (NFF) have voted in favour of the landmark policy—which includes strict caveats regarding fair implementation and economic viability—at an online meeting this month. NFF President Fiona Simson said the strengthening of the NFF's climate goals was a strong reminder of the role farmers already played in tackling emissions. She says: "Australia's farm sector continues to be a leader in reducing greenhouse gas emissions … Ms Simson goes on to say: "In the past decade, agriculture has consistently reduced its emissions intensity and net emissions within the Australian economy. The red meat sector, for example, has a target of being carbon neutral by 2030 and is already making great headway on research and new technologies that will enable that transformation." The NFF media release went on to say: However, despite progress in the farm sector, Ms Simson warned the goal of NCZ2050— the call for net carbon zero— would be just an aspiration without ongoing innovation and policy support. "We need to equip farmers with far better tools for evaluating and reporting on individual business emissions," Ms Simson said. "This will require new investment in research and development, so we have more robust baseline information, new pathways to reduce emissions, and fewer barriers to participation in carbon markets." Action on climate change is a central part of the NFF's 2030 Roadmap which sets a vision for agriculture to reach $100 billion in farm gate output by 2030. Her last statement is this: There is a huge potential for Australia to be a global leader in low-emissions agriculture. I would love to hear the Nats explain this to the Senate and to the people of Australia: if you represent farmers and rural and regional Australia, you are joined at the hip—well, you're joined at the hip with a couple. You've got the National Farmers Federation glued to this side and you've got the Australian Trucking Association—which I'm not part of—glued to the other side of your hip, because that's been the dumping ground for failed Nats for years. How do you explain the absolute difference in opinions on net zero by 2020? I'm dying to see the Nats and the Libs go to the election with two completely different climate policies. 17:22 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I thank Senator Sterle very much for that dorothy dixer! I will have about 10 minutes to explain why net zero emissions would be a very bad deal for our nation's farmers and especially for our rural communities. Those conclusions that I make are just from very simple calculations and estimates from bodies like the CSIRO and from other respected economic modelling. I want to start with the fact that often with these motions, when there is a quote from somebody, you could almost guarantee that it's a misleading quote, or at least a quote with a lot of detail left off. I know that in this case because, while the motion identifies the culprit as Barnaby Joyce with this quote, in fact the words were jointly authored by me and Barnaby in an opinion piece in February this year in the Australian. We did say that the Nationals have always been against a net zero emissions target—I stress: a target is what we've always been against—and that we could not credibly represent farmers if we were to adopt such a target. The paragraph in our opinion piece just preceding that quote, which wasn't included in the motion for reasons that will become obvious, said: The problem is that cows and sheep have a tendency to burp and fart large amounts of methane, a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Every cow emits about 2,300kg of carbon dioxide equivalent gases a year. The CSIRO estimated last year that to reach net zero we would need to start with a carbon price of $30 a tonne now. Even a relatively small cattle producer runs about 1,000 head. So they would be up for a $70,000 a year cost under a net-zero policy. Those that do advocate net zero emissions often do so quite glibly. There is a lot of hand-waving. 'It's got great benefits; there are going to be lots of jobs.' There is not a lot of detail about exactly what net zero emissions means or how we're going to get there, but 'It's all going to be fantastic, just believe me!' The pitch from those pushing net zero emissions is the policy equivalent of the steak-knife salesman on late-night TV. There's always more; it's always fantastic. It's so good it can hardly be true, because it's not true. Those figures I quoted are just the facts. How will farmers pay the 2.3 tonnes per head per year that their cows emit right now? How will they pay for that? What we didn't quote in that op-ed is that in the CSIRO's modelling it starts at $30 a tonne and grows to $250 a tonne by the end of 2050. Senator Sterle over there spent 10 minutes saying, 'We'll get to net zero emissions by 2050. The NFF says it's fine.' I don't think he knows these things. He said he wasn't a farmer. He doesn't know how much a cow emits. He doesn't know that if you charge someone over $200 a tonne, for the methane that comes out the front and end of a cow, you are then going to be up for $1,000 a head. That cattle farmer will be up for $400,000 a year. What are they going to do, Senator Sterle? How's that going to work? Who's going to pay for that? It will be paid for at the self-service check-out at Woolies when you swipe your rump steak. When it comes up, you'll have to put your PIN in because it's going to be over 100 bucks. Every shop you do will be over $100. You won't be getting any free transaction approved. That's what will happen to Australian consumers, if this comes off. That's on the CSIRO's own figures. Worse than this, that's the impact on farming. Of course, such a policy to get rid of emissions from our economy, from our coal industries, from our gas industries, from our factories—we want to get more back; we want to get manufacturing back, don't we?—means they're all going to be paying for it. There's been absolutely no detailed economic modelling put before the Australian people about those costs. The CSIRO did some costs on what the carbon prices would be but it did no proper modelling on what the impact on jobs and wages would be to the Australian economy. In fairness, the New Zealand government did do such modelling. They did computable general equilibrium modelling, which has flaws but gives you a broad estimate. They did some modelling on what it would mean to the New Zealand economy if they were to reach net zero emissions by 2050. They made some pretty outlandish assumptions about some technology being able to halve methane emissions from sheep and, I think, half the freight fleet was going to be electric. Anyway, they made some pretty generous assumptions. But even with those assumptions, the modelling showed that by 2050 the New Zealand economy would be 10 to 20 per cent smaller—a fifth, potentially, smaller—than today. There would be a two to four per cent loss of jobs in New Zealand as a result of net zero emissions. If you translate that to Australia, that four per cent loss in employment, that would be 400,000 people. So before we glibly roll off the talking points—that all of you get in your morning inbox—that net zero emissions will create jobs and it's going to be great, just remember that the respectable detailed modelling that's been done would show that half-a-million-odd Australians would lose their jobs. Guess what? After that modelling was conducted, the New Zealand government exempted agriculture from their target—and in New Zealand half their emissions come from agriculture, so their net zero emissions target is literally half pregnant! Half of it doesn't exist, because they're not even going to try to reduce emissions in half their economy. That's why this is all a marketing pitch. It's not real. It's not pragmatic. If there's one thing I know about people in the bush and the country it's that they hate people with spin. They can see through this from a million miles away. Senator Sterle interjecting— Senator CANAVAN 245212 You're much better than this, Senator Sterle. This is all slick marketing spin from corporate offices in Sydney, because the people who will really make money out of net zero emissions are those bankers in Sydney. They're loving it! The AustralianFinancial Review had five stories on Tuesday morning bemoaning the fact that Barnaby Joyce was back, bemoaning the fact that net zero emissions might not come in. Why would the Financial Review be upset about that? Because our financial executives stand to make a lot of money out of net zero emissions, because you have to define 'net zero'. You have to create certificates. You have to trade them. That's where the bankers make a lot of money. Good luck to them. It's a career. But that's not what I want for our country. What I want for our country is that we bring back manufacturing jobs, that we stop getting ripped off by China and signing up to deals that they don't comply with, but we do. The thing speakers that contribute to this debate need to answer is, if we do sign up to this—the whole intent of this is to lower emissions across the world. It doesn't matter what we do, except if the rest of the world is doing things we have to be a good contributor. The whole point is for the rest of the world to act as well. It won't mean anything if they don't. Senator Sterle put a question to the Senate. Answer this question: if we can't trust China to comply and cooperate with the health inspectors investigating coronavirus, how do you think we can trust them to cooperate with the climate cops that will have to enforce any net zero emissions deal? Is that real? Are people really thinking that the Chinese Communist Party can be trusted when they say they are going to achieve net zero emissions by 2060? Is that a real position that people are putting? Do you really believe the Chinese Communist Party when they say that? Do you really believe them, when last year they installed 38 gigawatts of new coal-fired power stations in China—38 gigawatts, double our coal fleet in one year. When Xi Jinping goes to Davos, he will say, 'I have subscribed to net zero emissions,' and all these bankers who want to make money out of it will lap it up. How great is it that China has come and seen the light? What a load of rot. We have to make sure we are not naive as a country right now; we cannot afford it. Maybe in previous eras we could, but, unfortunately, the next generation of Australians may face a tougher time of it than what we have all grown accustomed to in our relatively prosperous and peaceful era. We can see the threats in our region, the aggression in our region and we need to make sure we adopt policies as a country that are made here in Australia, not made in international agreements overseas for a class of people who want to make money off trading. We need to make policies here in Australia that will bring back manufacturing jobs to this country, that will make sure we are a country that defend ourselves, support ourselves and not be beholden to agreements that are worked out in overseas capitals that betray the interests of the average working men and women of this country. That is what we need as a nation. And that is what, I know, Barnaby Joyce is focused on, the Nationals are focused on, because we will always put Australia first. In this chamber, there are flags that represent this country, Australia. In this chamber here, we should pass laws that represent that flag and this country, not the interests of those around the rest of the world. 17:32 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland If we are going to talk about division and dysfunction, let's talk about the real cause—climate change ideology. It is an appalling, unaccountable ideology. It's an ideology which insists on reducing emissions at any cost up to and including the demise of Australia's manufacturing, resource and agricultural sectors. It's the ideology which is based on little more than computer models which have, time and time again, never panned out in reality. It's an ideology which has empowered other countries to demonise Australia, threaten its economy and threaten its very sovereignty. And it's the ideology which has stalked the coalition and Labor, who have allowed themselves to be led by the nose to abandon the farmers, the miners and the businesses of our nation. The Nationals have once again been hopelessly compromised by this ideology. Memories appear to be very short in this place. In 2019 Queensland voters were decisive in delivering the coalition another term and they sent a clear message the Nationals, in particular, will ignore at their peril. Queensland voters rejected climate change ideology. Queensland voters rejected the instability and dysfunction it has caused in Australian governments. They're sick of the major parties playing politics with this ideology, so they're not going to look kindly on this wishy-washy, will-they-or-won't-they approach by the Nationals to net zero by 2050. 'Never say never,' says the minister for agriculture about net zero. Different eyes?—the returning of Barnaby Joyce. Farmers need a commitment. They need the Nationals to come clean, not after a new coalition agreement but right now. The Nationals in support of paying farmers to not farm? What's the point of the Nationals if farmers aren't farming? They are abandoning their traditional base for a few cushy ministerial jobs. Farmers aren't going to tolerate this much longer. It's not just their livelihoods but the life they and their families choose which are at risk. The Nationals have failed them on water reform in the Murray-Darling Basin. The Nationals failed to support the dairy industry in its crisis and this is supposedly the party of farmers. Farmers' livelihoods and our food security must not be risked. The world's population is growing. Australia can and should play a leading role in feeding it. Our farmers are among the world's best. Yet here are the Nationals looking to tie the farmers' hands behind their backs by paying lip-service to net zero. We need to let farmers do what they do best—growing quality food, looking after their land and injecting hard-earned export dollars into our economy and our rural communities. It so pleased me to hear Senator Canavan say, 'We need to get manufacturing going.' That's been my saying for the last 25 years. 17:35 Senator LINES 112096 Western Australia Well, there you have it. We've just heard from two senators who are both climate deniers. One of them is a senator from a party in government; the other is from a party that clings to the Liberal-Nationals coalition like a barnacle on a ship. What we've seen since the return of Mr Barnaby Joyce is chaos and dysfunction, and nothing but looking internally. We saw a disgraceful debate in this place this morning on water. We saw the Nationals cross the floor about water yesterday. They've all been out regurgitating how they don't believe in the science of climate change. I'm not interested in talking about the Nationals, but I do want to highlight the damage that the Morrison government is doing to this country by refusing to commit to targets and by refusing to put a date on when we will have a proper carbon policy. One of the things that I as a senator do for Western Australia is actually talk to farmers. I talk to farmers; I go out and listen to what they tell me. I want to talk about a group of farmers and primary producers in Western Australia and professional and other organisations associated with primary production who are on the land and who have a view about what's happening. They came together to form a group they've called AgZero2030. These are real farmers, not pretend farmers like senators that we see in here who somehow claim to speak for farmers. These are real farmers, real primary producers, and professionals associated with primary production: AgZero2030. Look it up. They came together because of what they want to see, and these are their aims: Support our industry and communities to proudly and successfully adapt and thrive into the future while protecting and preserving our land and climate. Help WA play its part in global efforts to limit global heating to 1.5C. Meet consumer preference. Retain market access. Retain access to capital investment. This is what farmers in Western Australia are saying, not the rubbish you hear from those opposite—not the rubbish you hear, sadly, from the government. Let me just repeat those last two: retain market access and retain access to capital investment. I just heard a government senator talk about 400,000 jobs that were going to be lost. Here are farmers saying, 'Actually, what we want to do, through having a target for zero carbon emissions, is retain our markets, protect our land and retain access to capital investment.' So I'm not quite sure who the Morrison government and, in particular, the Nationals claim to represent, but it's certainly not these farmers or primary producers in Western Australia. The National Farmers Federation want to see action on carbon. They want zero carbon, and they've put a date on it. But I don't know why the Morrison government is allowing a handful of Nationals senators, who are clearly out of touch with what farmers and primary producers want, to control the agenda. We've heard the awful sorts of comments that they've made. Just recently, Mr Keith Pitt—and I heard this myself—said he didn't think the Nationals would support a net zero plan. He said he thought they'd be very 'unsupportive'. That was on Monday. I'm sure that the farmers whom I've visited in Western Australia—in the central Wheatbelt, in the Great Southern and in the Esperance area—are appalled. I know they're appalled when they hear that. They are out there working hard, as farmers do, day in, day out, looking for support from the federal government. They're looking for some hope that their land and the work they do is valued and that there will be real action on climate change. They tell me over and over again how disappointed they are. I learned from them that WA lost its barley market because of the shenanigans of the Morrison government. That's what farmers have told me. We have got farmers in Western Australia saying, 'Please, do something on climate change.' Well, it will not come from the Morrison government. 17:40 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Senator Lines must be speaking to different farmers than the ones I'm speaking to. I must say my good friend Mr Keith Pitt is himself a farmer, so there you go—a real-life farmer with a view on what is responsible climate change policy. Senator Ayres made the first contribution to this debate by talking about movies, and, can I tell you, listening to this debate, I can see a sequel coming. I can see a sequel of the 2019 federal election coming. That's the movie I see coming down the road—a sequel. Let me tell you what happened in the 2019 election in my good state of Queensland. This is how the workers voted in my good state of Queensland. In the seat of Flynn, which includes Gladstone, home of the Boyne Island smelter and a lot of other hardcore manufacturing industries that are emissions intensive, Labor got 21.5 per cent of the Senate vote. That's how well the policies of the Labor Party resonated with the workers in what used to be a traditional Labor Party seat, based around Gladstone, in the electorate of Flynn—21.5 per cent. Let's go north to the seat of Dawson. Again, that used to be a traditional Labor Party seat. The Labor Party got 19.5 per cent of the Senate vote in what was a blue-collar heartland, in Mackay et cetera. It was 19.5 per cent of the primary vote. That's what your workers think of the modern day Labor Party, which has walked away from their interests. Then we go to another traditional Labor heartland—or it used to be—the electorate of Capricornia, based around Rockhampton. Their Labor Party Senate vote was 22.4 per cent. That's what the workers in North Queensland and Central Queensland think of the Labor Party's policies with respect to climate change. They're more interested in their jobs, in the welfare and future of their towns and in their families. When Senator Ayres talks about movies, I can see a sequel coming. I've been listening to the remarks from those opposite, the guffawing et cetera about Barnaby Joyce, and I can tell you his message resonates. It resonates with the workers in North Queensland, in Central Queensland and in areas like where my Senate office is based, in the federal seat of Blair, which is home to many ex-coalmine workers and ex-railway-workshops workers. They're proud people, blue-collar workers. A lot of those workers don't identify with the modern day Labor Party, and they're right not to identify with the modern day Labor Party. I'd love to hear what Acting Deputy President Sterle says behind closed doors in Labor Party meetings. There was a lot of discussion about what happened in my party's party room earlier today. I would love to be a fly on the wall when Senator Sterle no doubt speaks a lot of common sense behind closed doors about how important it is that the Labor Party stay true to its worker heritage, but it has started to move away from that heritage. The person who is prepared to come out and speak publicly, of course, is Joel Fitzgibbon, in the Hunter electorate. What did he say yesterday in relation to the Labor Party last night voting against a number of sensible reforms which would allow money to be spent on clean technology, including capture and storage et cetera? This is what Joel Fitzgibbon said. I quote from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 23 June by David Crowe: "We shouldn't be picky. It's not just about windmills and solar panels," he told radio station 2GB. "It's about all sorts of other innovation, including electric vehicle charging station roll outs, and improving the efficiency of heavy vehicles and capturing the carbon so that we can use gas and coal to generate energy without polluting the atmosphere." "All these things will make a contribution. And we shouldn't be fighting about which innovations we choose, we should be using as many of them as we can." I want to give the last word in this debate to Mr Joel Fitzgibbon of the Labor Party, of the great Hunter region of this country. He said: … it was "ideological craziness" for Labor to oppose the changes. (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 The time for the discussion has expired. DOCUMENTS 88 DOCUMENTS Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020, Minister's Priority List 2021-22 88 Consideration 88 17:46 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the document. Just before we broke for Christmas last year, in the very last week, the government brought forward legislation called the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill. It was heralded as being the biggest reform to the waste and recycling sector in a decade. The Greens put up two significant amendments to that bill, which were backed in by millions of Australians, to ban problematic single-use plastics and to set binding targets for industry in packaging to meet by 2025. The packaging targets under the Australian Packaging Covenant are voluntary, and, as was pointed out in this place by many speakers, the Packaging Covenant in its previous iterations had never met these targets. They were happy to say to the committee in evidence that they believed they would meet their 2025 targets, so we wanted to mandate those targets in here. Sadly the Senate was tied. One Nation, as they often do, flipped at the last minute, and we weren't able to amend that bill and send it back to the other place. I just want to highlight that, while I was pleased that problematic and unnecessary single-use plastics have been added to the minister's priority list, this is still a voluntary agreement. The architecture, the framework, that we're dealing with here is that the minister is essentially giving notice that this is a priority packaging list that they would like to see dealt with by the industry. They would like to see, for example, in this case, if you look at the actions recommended, a nationally coordinated industry phase-out in place by June-December 2022 for the listed problematic and unnecessary single-use plastics, through elimination, redesign, replacement and innovation. I won't go through them in detail, but there is polystyrene; EPS loose packaging; packaging that is not certified compostable, including landfill, degradable or other claimed degradable plastics; EPS consumer food and beverage service containers; and polyvinyl chloride, PVC. This is a great start if this is a genuine attempt, in collaboration with the packaging industry, to phase out these single-use plastics. The thing about these problematic plastics is that no-one wants them. The recycling industry don't want them because they can't do anything with them and they contaminate waste streams and make things inefficient and uneconomic. The industry don't necessarily want to produce them. They're good for nothing, really. We don't need them. So it would be great to see them phased out. Acting Deputy President Sterle, your state is one of the many states that have done the right thing and introduced state based laws to phase out single-use plastics. Sadly, my state, Tasmania—the so-called clean, green and clever state—hasn't done that, but other states have. South Australia is very advanced in this. Queensland is well underway. New South Wales is looking at phasing out certain single-use plastics. That's a good start. It may well be that the states beat the Commonwealth to this game. I have just a little bit of cynicism. I'm trying to be very optimistic and positive here. This has appeared after the states have done a lot of the groundwork, but, nevertheless, it is good to see that the federal government is elevating the priority of phasing out single-use plastics. They are, without a doubt, the biggest scourge in our oceans. These kinds of products are what we find when we clean beaches and what we find in our rivers and streams. They very quickly break down into microplastics, which we're finding all through the ocean, including in seafood. It doesn't matter what your political colour, what age or your demographic is, everyone wants to get rid of this rubbish. It's not doing anyone any good, and we can do better. There are better alternatives out there. That's more jobs in research and development to produce properly biodegradable and compostable products. They might be a little bit more expensive at the moment, but once they're mass-produced they'll be a lot cheaper. I always say to Australians, try to refuse plastics in the first place and try to reuse them as much as you can before you buy any of these kinds of things. Congratulations to the government for elevating the removal of some single-use plastics. There are many others we deem necessary to remove that aren't on this list, especially the ones we find in the oceans, but this is a good start. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 89 COMMITTEES Community Affairs References Committee 89 Additional Information 89 17:52 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I present additional information received by the Community Affairs References Committee on its inquiry into foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Scrutiny of Bills Committee 89 Scrutiny Digest 89 17:52 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria On behalf of Senator Polley, I present Scrutiny Digest No. 9 of 2021 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee 89 Additional Information 89 17:52 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales On behalf of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, Senator Abetz, I present additional information received by the committee in its inquiry into the Customs Amendment (Banning Goods Produced by Uyghur Forced Labour) Bill 2020. Law Enforcement Committee 89 Report 89 17:53 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the report of the committee on COVID-19, criminal activity and law enforcement, together with the Hansard record of proceedings, additional information and submissions. Public Works Committee 89 Report 89 17:53 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's third report of 2021, concerning the North Queensland Mid-Term Refresh Program. Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee 89 Report 89 17:53 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I present the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation's annual report for 2020 and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator DAVEY 281697 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Delegated Legislation Monitor 89 17:53 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales On behalf of the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I present the Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 9 of 2021 and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator DAVEY 281697 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 90 DOCUMENTS Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines, COVID-19: Vaccination 90 Tabling 90 17:54 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning the Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines and concerning COVID-19 vaccine allocations. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 90 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission 90 17:54 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I table a response to a question taken on notice during question time on 21 June 2021, asked by Senator Siewert, relating to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission and seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— Senator the Hon Scott Ryan President of the Senate Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Mr President I write with regard to a question I took on notice from Senator Siewert during Question Time on Monday 21 June 2021, on the matter of the Australian Charities and Not-for- profits Commission (ACNC). I can advise that Governance Standard Three as currently defined in the law, prevents the ACNC Commissioner from investigating potentially serious breaches of the law by a charity because the unlawful conduct is deemed a summary offence in some jurisdictions. This compromises the ACNC's capacity to be an effective regulator, potentially undermining public trust and confidence in the charity sector. The proposed changes to Governance Standard Three seeks to redefine the standard to capture the offences of trespass, vandalism, theft, assault and intimidation (regardless of whether they are indictable or summary offences in State criminal codes). This will empower the ACNC Commissioner to investigate such breaches of the law by charities and take enforcement action if warranted. Charities will still be able to undertake advocacy activities consistent with their charitable purpose, provided it is conducted lawfully. Registered charities that act lawfully and do not use their resources to promote others to engage in unlawful activities are already complying with the proposed changes. The ACNC Commissioner will take a proportionate approach to enforcement, with the objective of giving the public trust and confidence and protecting the assets of registered charities. The proposed changes implement the Government's response to recommendation 20 of the Strengthening for Purpose: Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Legislation Review 2018. Recommendation 20 states that test case funding should be made available to develop the law in matters of public interest. In response to this recommendation, the Government stated it would explore legislative options to address uncertainty in the law. The proposed changes clarify uncertainty about the scope of unlawful activities prohibited under governance standard three and resolve the complexity of the law to make it easier and less costly for registered charities to understand their obligations. The ACNC's governance standards, including Standard Five, are a set of core, minimum standards that deal with how a charity is run. These governance standards require a charity to remain charitable, operate lawfully, and be run in an accountable and responsible way. The proposed changes to Governance Standard Three reaffirm that compliance with Australian laws sets a minimum benchmark by which all charities should govern themselves. Acting lawfully protects a charity's assets, reputation, and the people it works with. I have copied this letter to the Treasurer, the Assistant Treasurer and Senator Siewert. Yours sincerely Simon Birmingham Minister for Finance 22 June 2021 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 91 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission 91 17:55 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 91 COMMITTEES Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee 91 Delegated Legislation Monitor 91 17:55 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales by leave—I will speak first to the Delegated Legislation Monitor 9 of 2021. This monitor includes details of the committee's scrutiny concerns regarding instruments across a number of portfolios, including instruments relating to paid parental leave, the regulation of bankruptcies and the provision of funding to airlines to enable them to offer discounted fares in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These are significant issues which very much represent the work that the committee undertakes every day. In this context, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Senate for agreeing last week to the adoption of three vital recommendations made as part of the committee's inquiry into the exemption of delegated legislation from parliamentary oversight. The Senate's action in this regard is timely. Delegated legislation now constitutes about half the law of the Commonwealth by volume. There are over 31,000 legislative instruments currently in force, making up the law on minor and substantial matters in every field. Delegated legislation does not only deal with matters that are technical and administrative; it is increasingly used to legislate matters of policy significance. While there may be good reasons to delegate legislative power to the executive, there are very few good reasons to exempt such legislation from disallowance. The resolutions agreed to last week go to the heart of the role of the parliament in a constitutional democracy. The Constitution vests Commonwealth legislative power in the federal parliament. Parliament's fundamental role is to legislate on behalf of the people. Our system of representative and responsible government established by the Constitution requires the parliament to hold the executive government to account. In light of this, allowing for legislative powers to be delegated to the executive would seem to be a violation of the principle of the separation of powers. This principle is preserved, however, by the disallowance mechanism. Disallowance is not just a technical process. It is the means by which this chamber retains oversight of delegated legislative power and thus fulfils its role under the Constitution. It is important to emphasise that an exemption from disallowance means the parliament does not have the opportunity to scrutinise the laws once they are made by the executive. It also means the parliament does not have the power to prevent legislative power being exercised in a manner not foreseen or not provided for in the primary legislation or in a way that might be considered undesirable. With this background in mind, resolution 1, agreed to last week in the Senate, sends a strong message to ministers and the bureaucracy that there are only very limited circumstances in which it might be appropriate to exempt an instrument from disallowance. Any claims to exceptional circumstances cannot be accepted at face value or rely on provisions in regulation. The committee considers that there must be rigorous scrutiny of these claims and that such claims will only be justified in rare cases. Resolution 2 requires the Attorney-General to table a statement setting out the rationale for current exemptions from disallowance. In its final inquiry report, the committee discussed grounds upon which it might be appropriate to exempt delegated legislation from disallowance. The committee provided guidance to the effect that exemptions from disallowance can only be justified in exceptional circumstances and for the purpose of technical or administrative matters. But, even if an instrument satisfies these categories, it must also not adversely affect rights, liberties duties and obligations, and should only be exempt if there is an alternative form of accountability. When presenting the final report to the Senate, I remarked that the grounds upon which exemptions from disallowance may be acceptable are vanishingly small. The view of the committee has certainly not changed. In coming to this conclusion, the committee considered a range of rationales that have previously been permitted by the parliament when it has passed bills exempting delegated legislation from disallowance. The final report found the majority could not be supported and should not continue to be accepted by the parliament. Of particular concern to the committee is the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015, which I will refer to as the 2015 regulation. This regulation exempts vast amounts of delegated legislation from disallowance, regardless of whether there are grounds or even a clear need for such an exemption. The 2015 regulation itself not only is an instrument that is exempt from sunsetting—hence the parliament will not have the opportunity to reconsider its content—but is also an exemplar of the failure of the parliament to take seriously scrutiny functions over many years. During the inquiry, the committee heard from many eminent constitutional scholars. The Centre For Comparative Constitutional Studies argued that delegated legislation exempted from disallowance through the 2015 regulation is unconstitutional, because the parliament is no longer making legislation; it has abdicated rather than exercised its legislative power. The government has previously acknowledged that exemptions from disallowance should only be made in very limited circumstances. The continued use of the 2015 regulation to provide for a wide range of exemptions from disallowance is, therefore, inconsistent with the government's expressed view. The committee has provided clear guidance on the very limited grounds upon which an exemption from disallowance may be justified. Resolution 2 requiring the Attorney-General to table a statement setting out the rationale for current exemptions from disallowance will allow the parliament to consider whether there are genuinely exceptional circumstances to justify the significant number of current exemptions. I now turn to resolution 3. Without disallowance, the only way the parliament can cease an instrument is by repealing or amending the enabling legislation. However, having the ability to overturn the enabling legislation is not sufficient. We must not only retain control over the legislative power we delegate to the government but also be in a position to supervise the exercise of this delegated power in order to effectively exercise this control. As acknowledged by Professor Anne Twomey, the only systemic way for delegated legislation to be scrutinised is through parliamentary committees. If delegated legislation is not scrutinised, the parliament may be abdicating its power, because it simply does not know how legislative power is being exercised. This is totally unacceptable. The parliament must be informed, and to be informed we must retain a level of supervision over the exercise of legislative power delegated to the executive. Since its establishment in 1932, the committee has been limited by the standing orders to scrutinise disallowable legislative instruments. Accordingly, the committee recommended that standing order 23 be amended to allow the committee to scrutinise legislative instruments exempt from disallowance. These amendments to the standing orders agreed to last week will go some way to ensuring the parliament can continue to fulfil its constitutionally mandated function. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank our secretary, Glenn Ryall, and all his team as well as our legal advisor, Professor Andrew Edgar, for all their hard work. Can I also acknowledge and thank committee members—Deputy Chair Kim Carr and Senators Raffaele Ciccone, Perin Davey, Nita Green and Paul Scarr—for their support and commitment to our role as parliamentarians. I place on record my thanks to the former chair, John 'Wacka' Williams, and senators who served on the committee with him and started this journey quite some years ago. When we sit in place we are not just politicians; we are parliamentarians. We are responsible to our constituents to scrutinise all legislation that comes before us. If we fail to recognise this responsibility and act accordingly, we undermine the compact upon which representative democracy rests for its legitimacy. With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated legislation monitor 9 of 2021 to the Senate. Report 92 18:04 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales by leave—I also wish to speak on the tabling of the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee annual report 2020. For almost 90 years, the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee has operated on a genuinely non-partisan basis to scrutinise delegated legislation against the technical scrutiny principles set out in standing order 23. In doing so, the committee plays an essential role in ensuring, on behalf of the Senate, that executive-made laws comply with the fundamental principles of the separation of powers and the rule of law. The 2020 annual report documents a significant year in the committee's history. In 2020, the committee began examining instruments in accordance with new scrutiny principles as agreed by the Senate in December 2019. As part of its regular scrutiny work, the committee examined 1,194 disallowable legislative instruments and 14 delegated legislation monitors. Approximately 20 per cent of these instruments raised technical scrutiny concerns. In line with the committee's new work practices, the committee secretariat has begun seeking information directly from agencies in order to assist the committee in determining whether it is necessary to address the issue with the relevant minister. This two-streamed approach has enabled the committee to focus its attention on the most significant scrutiny issues raised at the ministerial level, while allowing other issues to be efficiently resolved at the agency level. The majority of the concerns raised by the committee at the ministerial level related to matters more appropriate for parliamentary enactment and restrictions on parliamentary oversight. These instruments often modified the operation of or provided an exemption to primary legislation. The committee has a longstanding concern that such significant matters should be included in primary legislation, which is subject to a greater level of parliamentary oversight, rather than in delegated legislation. In particular, since October 2020, the committee has been engaging with the Treasurer in relation to the significant number of Treasury portfolio instruments, particularly instruments made by ASIC, which modify or exempt persons or entities from the operation of primary legislation. I acknowledge that the Treasurer is engaging with the committee on an ongoing basis to resolve the committee's concerns. I note also that this is a systemic concern that the committee will continue to raise in the future. In addition to its regular scrutiny work, the annual report highlights the committee's inquiry into the exemption of delegated legislation from parliamentary oversight. The committee's decision to undertake this inquiry was based on three principal factors: the committee's 2019 inquiry into parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation; the increasing proportion of delegated legislation exempt from disallowance; and the use of delegated legislation to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Increasing amounts of delegated legislation which are exempt from disallowance have been made in recent years. For example, in 2020, 17.4 per cent of delegated legislation was exempt from disallowance. The committee will continue to monitor this concerning issue into the future, particularly under its new power to examine instruments which are exempt from disallowance. The committee made 18 recommendations in its interim report, which was tabled in December 2020. These recommendations are aimed at improving parliamentary oversight of delegated legislation in times of emergency. In making these recommendations, the committee noted that its concerns about parliamentary oversight of delegated legislation made during emergencies are not limited to the COVID-19 emergency or to the actions of any particular government. Rather, the committee considers that parliament and governments of all political persuasions have contributed to a system of laws, procedures and practices which diminish parliament's capacity to oversee executive lawmaking. The committee continued this important work into 2021, tabling its final inquiry report earlier this year. That report will be discussed in the 2021 annual report. I take this opportunity to draw to the chamber's attention the fact that the government's response to the interim report is now overdue by several months. The committee is concerned that this is contrary to Senate procedural resolution 44, which requires the government to table a response to committee reports within three months. I now turn to another aspect of the committee's new practices: the conduct of private briefings with ministers and officials. In 2020 this proved to be a particularly effective means of resolving the committee's technical scrutiny concerns. On 5 March 2020 the committee met with senior officials from the Australian Taxation Office and Treasury to discuss the committee's concerns about the availability of independent merits review of decisions made by the Commissioner of Taxation. Following this meeting the government undertook to progress amendments to the Taxation Administration Act to extend the availability of merits review to decisions made under instruments other than regulations. I am pleased to report that this undertaking was implemented when the Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Bill 2020 received royal assent on 17 December 2020. I thank officials and the government for their constructive engagement with the committee on this matter. Finally, noting the committee's longstanding practice of undertaking its scrutiny in a non-partisan and consensual way, I would again like to take this opportunity to thank my current and former scrutiny committee colleagues for their commitment to the committee's important work. With these comments, I commend the committee's annual report 2020 to the Senate. Question agreed to. BILLS 93 BILLS COVID-19 Disaster Payment (Funding Arrangements) Bill 2021, Treasury Laws Amendment (COVID-19 Economic Response) Bill 2021 93

COVID-19 Disaster Payment (Funding Arrangements) Bill 2021

Treasury Laws Amendment (COVID-19 Economic Response) Bill 2021

First Reading 93 18:11 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Senator STOKER 237920 by leave—I move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to these bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings. Question agreed to. Second Reading 94 18:12 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— COVID-19 DISASTER PAYMENT (FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS) BILL 2021 This Bill seeks to appropriate from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purposes of making the COVID-19 Disaster Payment in the 2021-22 financial year. Recurring outbreaks of COVID-19 and subsequent state government 'lockdowns' have meant that many people have not been able to get to work and earn an income due to stay at home orders. The Government is committed to supporting Australians impacted economically by COVID-19. The COVID-19 Disaster Payment is a one-off, time limited payment for eligible individuals who are unable to work and earn an income in an area under a state public health order for a 'lockdown' that lasts longer than seven days and that has also been determined to be a Commonwealth hotspot. The payment is delivered by Services Australia. The granted claims for the payment are currently being paid out of an annual appropriation. This bill seeks to make a special appropriation available to pay eligible claims for the payment. A special appropriation is the most suitable mechanism to fund the payment as it is a demand driven program where it is difficult to quantify how many people will be eligible as a person's unique circumstances will determine if they meet the criteria. While the situation in Melbourne continues to improve and they are thankfully no longer in lockdown, there is no knowing when Victoria or another state might need to use lockdown measures in the future. This means that expenditure associated with the COVID-19 Disaster Payment cannot be reliably predicted for the purpose of an annual appropriation. Introducing a special appropriation means that the Government has secure funding for all people who qualify for the COVID-19 Disaster Payment should we need to use it. The Bill also provides that the National Recovery and Resilience Agency will report on the COVID-19 Disaster Payment in their annual report. Australians are resilient and will do what needs to be done in terms of abiding by public health orders. Sometimes that comes at a personal financial cost and the COVID-19 Disaster Payment, and the Pandemic Leave Disaster Payment, are there to support those who need it the most. I commend the Bill to the chamber. TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (COVID-19 ECONOMIC RESPONSE) BILL 2021 Schedule 1 to the Bill extends the existing power in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 that allows the Treasurer to declare eligible state and territory COVID-19 business support grant program payments to be free from income tax. This legislation will extend eligibility to grants provided in the 2021-22 financial year. Under the existing measure, payments received by small and medium businesses under eligible state and territory grant programs are free from income tax. As this treatment can only apply to payments received in the 2020-21 financial year it is necessary to extend this to the 2021-22 financial year so it can apply to future payments. These changes are consistent with the Government's broader commitment to support those businesses and individuals impacted by the public health directives put in place to curb the spread of COVID-19. All states and territories are eligible to apply for the same tax treatment where they have grant programs focused on supporting small and medium businesses facing exceptional circumstances in relation to COVID-19. Schedule 2 to the Bill amends the tax secrecy provisions in the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to allow the ATO to share protected taxpayer information with Services Australia to assist Services Australia with administering the COVID-19 Disaster Payment. To minimise the number of ineligible applicants receiving payments, Services Australia will conduct integrity checks on applications for Disaster Payments using data provided by the ATO. This amendment will help ensure that only those eligible for COVID-19 Disaster Recovery Payments receive them, and that COVID-19 Disaster Payments are appropriately targeted. Full details of the measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour. Ordered that the bills be listed as separate orders of the day. Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 1) Bill 2021 95

Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 1) Bill 2021

First Reading 95 18:13 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 95 18:13 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— Today I am proud to introduce the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response Bill No. 1) 2021 which introduces a number of urgent amendments to ensure senior Australians receive the high quality and safe aged care services they deserve. It responds to Recommendation 17, as well as supporting Recommendations 118 and 27 of the Royal Commissions final report. The Australian Government is committed to generational reform of the aged care system to deliver a system that respects senior Australians and their families, provides care that promotes dignity, and responds to the needs of the individual through tailored approaches. This Bill delivers the first stage of aged care reform developed in response to the Royal Commission. The Government has heard the calls to strengthen restrictive practice regulation, tighten requirements for the use of restrictive practices by aged care providers and include better protections for recipients of aged care. The Bill clarifies the requirements approved providers must meet in relation to the use of restrictive practices. Through these tighter requirements, approved providers will only be able to apply restrictive practices: as a last resort to prevent harm after alternative best practice strategies have been explored, applied and documented, except in an emergency after considering the likely impact of the use of the practice on the care recipient to the extent necessary and proportionate to the risk of harm to the aged care recipient or other persons where the restrictive practice is the least restrictive form, and for the shortest time necessary to prevent harm to the care recipient or other persons if informed consent to the use of the practice is given in accordance with the Charter of Rights and the Aged Care Quality Standards if care recipients are monitored whilst the restrictive practice is in use and the use and effectiveness is documented. Further and more specific details of the strengthened obligations on approved providers will be prescribed by the Quality of Care Principles 2014. This Bill and the amended Principles will provide a framework to minimise the use of restrictive practices. The amendments do not authorise the use of restrictive practices where it is otherwise unlawful. The powers of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner will be expanded to include the ability to give a written notice if a provider does not comply with its responsibilities relating to the use of restrictive practices. The Commissioner also has the ability to apply for a civil penalty order against a provider if they do not comply with the written notice. We are delivering on our commitment to provide senior Australians with affordable, value for money home care, and will directly support senior Australians to remain in their own homes for as long as possible by establishing an annual program of risk-based assurance reviews of home care providers. The Bill gives the Secretary of the Department of Health the power to require approved home care providers and their employees to provide information for the purposes of program assurance. The Secretary will also be able to prepare and publish reports on assurance reviews, dealing with findings, conclusions or recommendations made as a result of the reviews. This builds on our existing work to improve transparency of the aged care sector and fosters community confidence in the costs of the care they receive. The Bill also repeals the requirement for the Minister to establish the Aged Care Financing Authority (ACFA). ACFA was established in 2012 to provide advice to the Government and the aged care sector concerning funding and financing of the aged care sector. This advice included eight annual reports. The Government has agreed to establish an advisory group to replace ACFA which will commence operations from July 2021 to ensure the Government continues to receive advice on financing issues of the aged care sector. This Bill is the first step in the Government's five year - five pillar aged care reform plan addressing home care, residential aged care services and sustainability, residential aged care quality and safety, workforce and governance. The health, safety and wellbeing of senior Australians is of the utmost importance to the Government, and is driving our plan for generational change of the aged care sector. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour. National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Selection, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 96

National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Selection, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020

Returned from the House of Representatives 96 Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021 96

Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021

Second Reading 96 18:15 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland To understand the Nationals' confused, contradictory and weak behaviour over many years, let's step back to their predecessors, specifically former Leader of the Nationals and Deputy Prime Minister Mr John Anderson. He was presiding when the Water Act was passed in 2007, appeasing the globalists. He was presiding when the coalition government stole farmers' property rights and went around the Constitution to do so, appeasing the globalists and stealing from the farmers. He was presiding when the carbon trading scheme was first put out as a policy by the Liberal and National parties—the first policy for a carbon tax—appeasing the globalists. He was in power when the Renewable Energy Target was introduced, when the National Electricity Market was introduced and when the privatisation of electricity assets was stimulated—all to appease the globalists. He was in place when they introduced carbon farming, which increased neighbouring farmers' costs because of feral animals and weeds, appeasing the globalists. Basically to appease the globalists, they destroyed agriculture and the regions. The common factor in all of these is a contradiction between the policy and the empirical scientific data. It's a contradiction of science, a contradiction of reality and a contradiction of the truth. Look at coal, for example, which is very important to the regions. We took the lead. Senator Hanson and I were the first to support Adani. We went to them to ask why they were being delayed. We were the first to push coal-fired power stations. The first to raise Collinsville. While we were doing that, recently we saw the Western Australian Liberal leader, now defunct, going to put policies that were more green than the Greens and more destructive than those of the Greens. I put it simply: many Liberals in this place are simply Greens who favour not taxing multinationals. That's the distinction with the Greens. The Nationals use One Nation words and policies, yet support Trent Zimmerman's globalist policies. They follow the globalists. They follow the Liberals. Senator Hanson and I have exposed the Nationals' dishonesty and gutlessness. The core message from Mr Barnaby Joyce's leadership vote is that Australia—cities and regions—needs more One Nation MPs to continue pressuring the Nats. Without us, they kowtow to the globalist Liberals. There's been five years of our presence and at last they're starting to change. Remember Senator Mathias Cormann? When I repeatedly sought the basis for his climate and energy policies, he never replied with data but always with the term 'fulfilling global commitments'. Now he's head of the globalist institute called the OECD. The core issue in this debacle that has become the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is shoddy governance and dishonest governance that is not in the national interest. That's the ultimate reality and the core. Good governance needs data and teeth. Let's talk about this bill specifically, now that we have the context. Specifically this legislation creates the office of the inspector-general who will be responsible for policing, among other things, water trading. How can this office police water trading without a register of water trades? Well, he can't. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is being blamed for environmental damage to the Murray and Goulburn rivers caused by sending water through for water trades at times when the river would not normally host such high flows. The Barwon-Darling system is perpetually dry, when local First Nations people reliably tell us that the river carried flows eight years out of every 10, so only dry in two years out of every 10. Recent critically important data shows that water inflows into the basin are only down by less than 10 per cent over the last 20 years. It's entirely natural. The culprit here is not climate variability; it is much more simple. The culprit here is water mismanagement by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. The culprit is terrible governance. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority tried to blame the environmental damage on a sand slug, sedimentation from gold mining 150 years ago, making its way lazily down the river and reducing capacity. This ludicrous sand slug theory is suggesting normal volumes of water is causing massive damage, because the sand slug is making the river more shallow, increasing water velocity and causing scouring of the banks. The information that we need to make better decisions is not available, so how the inspector-general is going to do his job properly is beyond me. We don't have data on how much water is being taken in illegal flood-plain harvesting in northern New South Wales. It seems to be hidden. We do not have volumetric data on all the inflows into the basin or at the critical outflow point of the barrages in South Australia. We don't know how much water is being diverted away from the Coorong and Lake Albert in South Australia by the man-made drains built for that purpose. Restoring natural inflows of both surface and groundwater into the Lower Lakes is probably enough to complete the plan. We don't know how many water trades are conducted. We don't know how much water is transferred from one zone to another without any accuracy. Today, I will be introducing an amendment to implement a requirement of the Water Act to maintain a transparent register of water trades. This provision of the Water Act has been there for 14 years. The council of water ministers approved a water trading register in 2008. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority made an attempt to introduce such a register in 2009. By 2012, they had spent $30 million, and still no water trading register. Then they gave up. What a perfect example of the poor performance we have seen out of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority under both the Liberal-Nationals and Labor. I hope the inspector-general can shine a light on the criminal behaviour, self-interest and cronyism that has reduced the Basin Plan to a nonsense, a nonsense that is destroying people, communities and farming. We must get the bad players out of the basin so that those 99 per cent of honest and decent farmers, irrigators, administrators and water authority staff can get on with fixing this mess. So I welcome the government's legislation, which my amendment makes better and gives the inspector-general data and teeth. I've talked in the past about the seven steps that we'll be taking to fix the Murray-Darling Basin. But we're giving notice that in the next couple of months, we'll be introducing a comprehensive water policy based upon weeks of flying over the Murray-Darling Basin followed by trips on the ground to listen to people at mass community gatherings. The water register is needed. We need to give the inspector-general and people across the basin data. A key step to restoring sovereignty and good governance in this country is this water register. So we will be supporting this bill and then moving the amendment. 18:22 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland The Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021 is about implementing the Basin Plan. There's been a lot of talk about what is and isn't the Basin Plan and what is or isn't included in a very important document for our country. It's an issue that has been of interest to Australia for as long as Australia has been around. There's section 100 of our Constitution, which is basically there because of debates at the constitutional conventions around the Murray-Darling. That particular section of our Constitution gives the states the rights to manage their own water resources. They really did manage their own water resources in an independent and uncoordinated way until this process was kicked off by the Howard government in 2007. It took many years to finalise a plan for the basin. There's a lot of talk about what that is and how that came about. But I was somewhat involved at the time the plan went through. At that time, I was working as the chief of staff to the then Senator Barnaby Joyce, who was the shadow water minister. For all the talk over these last couple of days about former Senator Joyce and now Deputy Prime Minister Joyce, he voted for the Basin Plan. The Liberal-Nationals government largely voted for it. The member for Riverina, Michael McCormack, did vote against it. But it was voted for and supported because of some key promises that were given at the time the plan was created. There was a lot of controversy at that time, especially when a draft of the Basin Plan proposed to take away more than 6,000 gigalitres of water from our nation's farmers. Senator Patrick interjecting— Senator CANAVAN 245212 Yes, it was, Senator Patrick. I will take that interjection. Senator Patrick said it was science. Yes, apparently it was. I'm not a scientist myself but that brings up a really important point here. Science is an input into the Basin Plan. It's important that the plan is based on good science, but it can't make the whole decision here, because this plan is about people too. This plan is about how we produce food as a nation. This plan is about how communities grow and thrive with their own economic prosperity not just at one end of the basin, not just in the north, not just in the south but right through our country. All of those things must be balanced, so the science is a very important input. But what happened with that draft plan—Senator Patrick is right—was it was science on steroids and science unconstrained from any concept of what its impact would be on our nation's people and on our nation's ability to grow food. What I have said just then is not a distortion; it is what the Murray-Darling Basin Authority said to Senate estimates. They said they had to develop a plan that just prioritised the environment, that put the environment first and that didn't worry about the economic or social conditions of people. It didn't worry about the almond growers in South Australia's Riverland. It didn't worry about the fruit growers in Berri and Renmark; the plan ignored them. It didn't worry about the dairy farmers around the Lower Lakes; it ignored them. Senator Patrick interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Order! Senator Canavan, resume your seat. Senator Patrick, when you speak in this place you are generally given the courtesy of not being interrupted. I would ask you to extend the same courtesy to Senator Canavan. You may disagree with him but you will have an opportunity to put your point of view. Senator CANAVAN 245212 Mr Acting Deputy President, don't silence him on my behalf; he is only inspiring me further. There are people in Senator Patrick's state of South Australia who rely on the use of water for their livelihoods, for their jobs. The town of Berri would not be there but for the irrigation that comes from the Murray-Darling. I know Senator Ruston, from Renmark, is one of the few senators in this place who lives in and has an office in a very remote and rural part of this country. She knows how important irrigation, that use of water, is. And we can't have a plan that is only based on what's important for the environment alone, because people surely have to be part of our considerations. So after that misstep, after that draft plan was distributed, it became pretty clear quickly that it was not going to be accepted by the Australian people. The Labor Party had to bring Simon Crean in to fix up the mess that, I think, Mr Tony Burke at the time presided over. Mr Crean came in and he promised everybody that there would be a triple bottom line. At the time Mr Crean promised that the economy, the society and the environment would all be considered as part of this triple bottom line, that we would balance all of these factors. That was the promise that was made to the Australian people. That was what the then Liberal and National government, the Labor Party and others voted for. The Greens weren't happy. I think they might have voted against it. They wanted the 6,700, but sensible people in this place realised that we had to have a balance and that's why we came up with the plan. There is a controversy about what exactly that meant. Since that time, a lot of water has been recovered and that's come at a great cost to many communities in the Murray-Darling Basin. We have to recognise that cost. We have to recognise that there are towns and communities in our country that have suffered greatly from the taking back of water from their towns and communities. Over 10,000 agricultural jobs have been lost as a result of the implementation of the plan—over 5,000 have been lost in Victoria, over 3,000 lost in New South Wales and a little over 2,000 in South Australia alone. It's good that the government buys back the water. There have been other processes where governments sometimes just take rights back from people. We know that; Senator McDonald knows that. We had property rights just taken off people through government regulation. But at least, to give government its due, it has paid for the water it has taken back from farmers. The problem, though, is that the farmer who sells his water gets paid a commercial rate. Some do very well out of the sales, but once they take out the agricultural production, once they're no longer growing the fruit in Berry or the cotton in Dirranbandi or the rice in Coleambally, suddenly there are no jobs for tractor drivers anymore. Suddenly the local feed supplier and seed shop don't have the business they had before. Suddenly the tyre shop doesn't have the business anymore. Suddenly the cafes and restaurants and hotels don't have the business they had before. That's when you lose all of these jobs in communities and you have that real human impact—sometimes people in this place gloss over or don't want to confront that—and they're the people I know we have to put front and centre when we consider balancing all of these interests. We have to make sure that we don't lose, unnecessarily, more jobs for the sake of meeting some mythical plan that never existed. I want to pay tribute to my colleagues. While I have some history in the Basin Plan I now live in Central Queensland, a fair way from the Murray-Darling, and have not been as involved in recent years. I want to pay tribute to my colleagues who live and work this issue every day of the week. In the other place, Mr Damian Drum and Dr Anne Webster have been working very hard on behalf of their communities in northern Victoria to develop a better plan, to make sure we stay true to those triple-bottom-line economic, social and environmental principles that were established as part of the plan. Along with colleagues here in this place, including Senator McKenzie and Senator Davey, they have developed sensible ideas to amend the Water Act to give effect to that initial promise to the Australian people and, especially, to the people of the Murray-Darling Basin. Centred around the controversy here in the current implementation of the Basin Plan is a so-called 450 gigalitres. Let's be very clear, here, that this 450-gigalitre figure was not science. There was certainly no science behind it, as Senator Patrick liked to say before. There was absolutely none. What happened after the Murray-Darling Basin Authority first picked 6,750—it was around that figure—was that, the reaction was clear, it wasn't going to fly. It was going to destroy our ability to grow food and destroy jobs and families and farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin. Senator Patrick is indicating he wants to still go to the 6,000 gigalitres figure, just for the record. That wasn't going to work, so the Murray-Darling Basin Authority came back with a figure that was their estimate, their science—their estimate of a scientific balance of economic, social and environmental figures—of 2,750. That was the amount to be recovered. That was the one accepted by the then federal Labor government and the one they took to the ministerial council to seek agreement on. Where did this 450 come from, then? It didn't come from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. It didn't come from the scientists, Senator Patrick. There was no science behind it. Where did the 450 come from? Well, when they took the 2,750 gigalitres to the ministerial council the South Australian government would not support it. They had to do a deal, and we ended up with this figure of 450 gigalitres. There was some science involved in that, Senator Patrick. It is called political science. That's what led to this figure here. It was a politically scientific figure, that was come to, to get the agreement and acceptance of the South Australian government. In fairness to the then Labor government, the extra amount of water that was flagged to be taken back from farmers, taken out of food production, was always predicated on the idea that there would be no economic or social detriment to Murray-Darling Basin communities. So it was incumbent on—effectively, South Australia—those implementing the plan to show and prove that if this 450 gigalitres extra was to be acquired it had to have no social or economic impacts on basin communities. Clearly, they haven't been able to do that. As I said before, the work of agencies in this area has shown that 10,000 agricultural jobs, not just all jobs, have been lost as part of the plan, as part of getting back not all but most of the water to get to the 2,750. So the test has not been met. The Basin Plan said, if you want the extra 450 gigs, you have to show you can do it in a way where there is no social and economic impact. Well, there has been a social and an economic impact. There will be more of an impact if we go for this 450 gigalitres. So we should not proceed with the 450 gigalitres. Anyone who is seeking to implement the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full should not be seeking this extra 450 gigalitres, because it fails the very tests and conditions that were imposed on the establishment of the Basin Plan itself. The Basin Plan is incredibly complex, of course, but there are other things that were in the plan that are still to be done and require some extra work. Alongside the 450 gigalitres—excuse all of the figures here—there was the view that, instead of getting to the 2,750 figure with more buybacks and/or even more infrastructure projects, which cost a lot of money, what we would seek to do is, through improvements, get 650 of the 2,750 gigalitres from greater efficiencies—from so-called works and measures. At the time, there were about 2,100 gigalitres that would be recovered when the Basin Plan went through. The idea was that, to get the extra 650, we'd become more efficient at environmental watering. That made a lot of sense, because, throughout the Basin Plan process, there's been a lot of criticism about farmers being inefficient and a lot of undue criticism about rice and cotton being an inefficient use of water. I don't have time to rebut that particularly ridiculous claim right here. There was always this idea that farmers had to be more efficient to give more water back to the environment. That's fair enough, but if farmers are expected to be efficient so should the irrigators of environmental assets. We shouldn't just be wasting water by sending it down the river to hit an appropriate environmental target. Just as you can water a cotton paddock or a rice field better, you can water the lakes, wetlands and rivers much more efficiently through modern technologies. So the 650 gigalitres was to come through investments in better environmental watering. There have been 36 projects identified across the basin states, but they're not giving the water that we first thought they would. Senator Patrick 144292 There's been total mismanagement! Senator CANAVAN 245212 Senator Patrick is right. There has no doubt been mismanagement of the environmental water. I don't know enough about the details, Senator Patrick, but I'm sure there's been some mismanagement in the bureaucracy as well. All my colleagues' amendments would do is give more time and flexibility for more projects and ideas to be brought forward. To those opposed to this amendment: why would you be afraid of more ideas? Why would you oppose more ideas to more efficiently improve environmental watering? What is the problem with trying to become more efficient at watering our environment? If farmers are expected to be efficient, so should the bureaucrats. Those who would oppose the Nationals amendments are effectively saying that the bureaucrats should be a protected species and should not have the same requirements imposed on them as our nation's farmers. I think we should defend our nation's farmers. We should defend our ability to grow food. That's why I fully support the sensible amendments brought by my Nationals colleagues. 18:38 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I also rise to speak on this bill, the Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021, and these amendments. There is probably no other topic more important in Australia than water and water management. It doesn't matter whether it's in the Murray-Darling Basin or the north of Australia, water is the thing that we all have the most interest in. But water management is a very different thing when you're on the ground in those communities, compared to when you're sitting in an office in Canberra or possibly even trading water, where it becomes an economic asset that is a very highly valuable product. It can drive communities that rely on water assets to the very brink. Senator Canavan has already touched on the removal of farmers and agricultural workers from the Murray-Darling following the buybacks of water. This is devastating to those communities. It was always a central tenet of the development of the Basin Plan that there would be a measurement of the socioeconomic impacts on Australians. There has to be a balance on these things. As we know, the best environmental outcomes are only achieved when communities are thriving and successful. The buybacks, particularly in the kind of patchwork way that they have happened, the piecemeal way that they have happened, mean there are some farming communities that are no longer viable or are struggling to put together the infrastructure and support that is necessary to support industries—cotton gins, farming processing, the kinds of repairs and maintenance that are needed for tractors and heavy machinery as they operate in those systems. So the practical result of the discussion that we're having is enormous impacts on farmers. It is devastating to hear the impact on dairy farmers who have not been able— Senator Patrick interjecting— Senator McDONALD 123072 Senator Patrick, I will take that interjection, because you are not interested in farmers. You are only interested on focusing on certain parts of the community, so I'm here to talk about the people who have the least voice of all, who are the people in the agricultural industries and the farmers who grow the food and fibre, who keep our communities vibrant. Senator Patrick interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Senator Patrick, could you please stop interjecting, thank you. Senator McDONALD 123072 Thank you very much for that assistance. It is important that somebody speaks for those with the least voice. They are doing the job that is the most important, not just for Australians but for a good part of the world, which is growing food and fibre in the most sustainable way. I would ask you to reflect on what has happened in the cotton industry, in grains, in dairy, in the beef industry, where we are seeing the kind of innovation in the practical development of crops and animal production that uses less water and that is highly efficient and sustainable, and we should be proud of that. We should encourage that, rather than taking away the very resource that makes it possible for them to operate in this land. Talking to dairy farmers who have been pushed out by the increasing competition for water is just heartbreaking. It is heartbreaking to hear of those people who, over generations, have developed herds that have had to be sold off for replacement crops, mostly almonds, which make delicious nut juice. That is one of the products that has now come out of the competition for water. During estimates, we had a whole day on water, particularly on the Murray-Darling Basin. There was a lot of talk about on-farm efficiency programs, and again I would ask people to reflect on the very practical result of being on-farm and what this means. There are not just measures about usage on-farm but better efficiencies of flows—making sure that streams are clear of weeds and obstacles, making sure that water be allowed to run efficiently to the next point—because these are the sort of very practical measures Australian farmers are able to deliver. It is enormously frustrating to hear people talk from offices a long way away about what is the best decision to make, when it is farmers who, with their hands in our Australian soil, make the decisions to grow the crops that we all rely on. The government has made a series of buybacks over many years. I know that when Senator Wong talks about purchasing 1,000 gigalitres from farmers, this was water purchased during the millennium drought, when farmers and communities were at their lowest. Farmers who sold their water at that time , in sheer desperation, were told it was the worst decision that they had ever made. How tragic for those people and their families to have to look back at a decision, at a negotiation that they had with their own government, and consider that it was the worst decision that they had ever made—because it is practical efficiency, practical work for on-farm decisions that end up with the best environmental outcomes that we can have. I reflect on the work that's happened in the reef catchments, where it is the government's signals and messages, the provision of practical programs, that have allowed Queensland farmers to improve the way water runs off their land, how they apply fertilisers and how they operate on their farms. In fact, that's been so efficient that it has resulted in a 25 per cent reduction in nitrogen run-off. It has resulted in the latest reef water quality report card of an A for improvement in water quality. I think that is extraordinary. I have been disappointed that, for all the rhetoric and all the discussion about water use and water quality, there has not been one acknowledgement from those opposite of the work of farmers and the stress and heartache from making significant changes at significant cost to themselves. When those changes to land management have resulted in better outcomes, better water efficiency and cleaner water, there has not been any acknowledgement. It's no wonder at all that farmers are really wondering what the point is of them getting up and doing the work they do. They feel that Australians no longer care and no longer even want them to be farmers. I know as I travel around Queensland the number of times that farmers have ended up in tears because they believe that nobody believes in what they do any more. Who's going to provide the nut juice for coffees? Who's going to provide the plant matter for vegan food? Who is going to provide the excellent vegetables, fruits and meat that Australian farmers grow? Without the managed and balanced Basin Plan that we are trying provide in these amendments, who is going to do that? Farmers are certainly not. They are broken. They have been broken by the crazy costs of water and the crazy lack of understanding from some parts of our community. These amendments will achieve environmental outcomes as if the 450 gigalitres was in place. But the outcomes will not be measured by the use of water. They will be measured by practical, on-farm, on-land management changes. We are now seeing this need for a holistic approach, a broader approach, to managing the environment. A great example is where you can have an environmental watering event that may see the growing of a rare native grass. That grass is required by rare native birds to lay their eggs. But unfortunately the eggs will all be eaten by wild pests and animals if we don't fence off the grass and provide a safe nesting habitat for the birds. So we are widening the scope to fund fencing required to protect the vital bird-breeding events. I'm seeing this kind of fencing approach create incredible outcomes in Queensland, where wild dog exclusions have meant that there are koalas returning to parts of south-west Queensland. Previously the decrease in koalas was blamed on tree clearing, despite there being little or no tree clearing in those regions. It was blamed on tree clearing when the actual culprit was the incredible number of wild dogs that were out hunting off the land and eating native animals. These dogs exploded in numbers because of the number of watering points that graziers and farmers had introduced right across western Queensland. On what were previously arid and semi-arid lands there are now watering points to provide for small kangaroos. There is now such a number of roos, such a plague of roos, that anybody who has ever driven in the west after dark knows it's not safe to do so in a vehicle without a bull bar and some protection, because they are a threat to life and limb. The sort of projects we're seeing are practical ones that allow for native animals to rebound. One farmer in western Queensland told me that the previous year he had only had 300 lambs survive. He would go out night after night and see lambs torn apart by dogs hunting not for food and not for survival but for the sheer pleasure of it. After the introduction of the exclusion fencing and the removal of wild dogs hunting purely for pleasure in packs, he was able to mark 4½ thousand lambs. What an extraordinary change. This is the same farmer who tells me that he now sees koalas. He hasn't seen koalas there in his generation. There are many ways to achieve environmental and other outcomes in the Murray-Darling Basin than just buying back water from farmers. There is efficiency of water flows. There are on-farm practices and there are other ways to achieve the kind of environmental outcomes that everybody wants to see. The disappointing part about this debate is that some would like to see the world in black and white. They would like to see farmers and agriculturalists as bad. Farmers and agriculturalists couldn't possibly want to see good environmental outcomes! They couldn't possibly want to see better outcomes in the place that they live, the place where they raise their own children, the place where they may have lived for generations! That couldn't be possible, could it? Instead you would rather paint those people as terrible, terrible people. That lack of understanding is shocking and distressing. I say to Senator Patrick and others here that I do speak for farmers. I do speak for people in the regions who don't have enough voices in this place. That kind of balance is what we are trying to achieve through this debate. If we truly believe in democracy and truly believe in good outcomes, we know that good outcomes are achieved when there are a lot of voices and there are a lot of different points of view so we can provide balance to the sort of science that some people refer to, because saying science over and over again does not actually make it real— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator McDONALD 123072 They're saying science over and over again. I can hear the Greens and Senator Patrick talking about science. They rarely refer to it back to a point. They refer to some mythical number. A mythical kind of magical cloud of science that's going to support their particular potentially uneducated and useful view. So I do stand to speak on this. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator McDONALD 123072 I barely feel like I need to go on with the discussion that is going on in the chamber, but how healthy to see this kind of debate happening at a grassroots level. I never interrupt Senator Patrick when he speaks, but somehow my voice is less important than his. It is very discourteous. I ask you not to do that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 247512 Senator McDonald, one moment. I think you make a good point. Senator Patrick, could you please stop interjecting. It's not that hard. Thank you. Senator McDONALD 123072 I'll just finish on this note. It is the exchange of good ideas, the exchange of different points of view, that gives us the best outcomes for Australians right across this country. It gives us the best results not just for the environment, but also for the very important people, Australians, who live in regional places. 18:53 Senator McMAHON 282728 Northern Territory I rise to speak on the Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021. Today has been a big day for water but an even bigger day for the basin communities. Water is a shared responsibility and water in the Murray-Darling Basin is a finite resource. It's not only a finite resource but a fluctuating resource. We understand that well. We, on this side of the chamber, in the National Party and the Country Liberal Party that I represent, understand water as a resource extremely well. Water is essential for the health and general wellbeing of the basin's 2.2 million regional and rural people. That is a lot of people who rely on this part of the world for their lives, their livelihoods, their lifestyles and the water that enables them to carry on their activities. But it's not just the people who live there who are reliant on the water; water is essential to support our national economy. The basin contributes $24 billion in agricultural earnings and around $8 billion in tourism in a normal year. That is absolutely huge. It supports so many jobs, so many people. The people who live there and rely on water for their existence also understand the ecology of the basin. They want the basin to remain healthy, because, when it is healthy, their lifestyles, their livelihoods and their production are enhanced and they are able to continue. The people who live there and rely on the water do not want this compromised. We know that the water is essential for the natural environment in the basin, including for the 16 internationally significant wetlands and the endangered species that inhabit this area. We know this in the National Party. That is why we are fighting for a fair plan that will protect the environment and also protect the livelihoods of the people who live there and the production, the jobs and the economy. To ensure a healthy working basin, water management is, as I've said, a shared responsibility between the Commonwealth and the basin states. We all have a part to play in the management of the water in the basin. That's why we have a Basin Plan, which is an agreement between all basin jurisdictions that we will manage this finite resource in a sustainable way so that it will last well into the future and we can protect this very valuable resource. In developing this bill, the Australian government has worked closely with basin states to ensure that the bill will have their support before it commences. A really important factor is that we have worked and consulted widely with the states that this will involve. It was in September 2020 that the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia, the Hon. Keith Pitt, announced the government's intention to create the role of Inspector-General of Water Compliance. This bill will implement the government's commitment to strengthen the compliance and enforcement powers in the Murray-Darling Basin. There is absolutely no point in having a plan and having water allocations and water rights if this is not complied with and if there is no mechanism to actually enforce the details of the plan. This is a fundamental reason that we have police in Australia. There is no point in making laws if you can't enforce them. If you set a speed limit but there is no mechanism for ensuring compliance and enforcement, then there is absolutely no point in setting the speed limit in the first place. You might as well say, 'Go out and do whatever you want to do.' That is why we have committed to strengthen compliance and enforcement powers. This will give communities the assurance they deserve, regarding water management, in exactly the same way that road users are assured of the acts of other— Senator Thorpe interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 247512 Senator McMahon, just one moment. Senator Thorpe, you can be quiet as well, thank you. Do not interject. Senator McMAHON 282728 Thank you. From announcement to parliament, the government has delivered this bill in just eight months. We've listened to what the states, the users and the communities have said and we have come up with a bill in just eight months. This is testimony to constructive engagement with the states and opposition to deliver the accountability and integrity that communities expect from their governments. This bill responds to recommendations in recent reports and reviews concerning water management in the basin, through both the Productivity Commission's 2018 Murray-Darling Basin Plan: five-year assessment inquiry report and the 2017 Murray-Darling Basin water compliance review conducted by the MDBA and an independent panel on this review. Compliance is at the heart of a fair water-sharing system. There is absolutely no point in having a system in place if we don't ensure that those that take part in it comply with it. This bill will establish a strong independent regulator at the basin scale and strengthen the compliance system. This bill creates a real deterrence around water theft and illegal water-trading offences by establishing criminal and civil offences and strong penalties. Water theft, much like stock theft, is not a small crime. It is a large crime and it deeply affects those who suffer at the hands of this crime. I know, for example, that in the Northern Territory people often refer to stock theft as poddy-dodging, as though it's some kind of sport. But it is not a sport. It is theft—and theft is theft, no matter what you are stealing. If someone steals your car, you suffer. If someone steals your livestock, you suffer. If someone steals your water, you suffer. This is why there need to be penalties in place that will not only deter people from committing this crime but also penalise those who do. Importantly, this bill recognises that the states are the primary and frontline managers for water compliance, but they are sometimes unable or unwilling to act. The Commonwealth will now have appropriate powers to step in and take enforcement action on water theft. The inspector-general will be able to work across the whole basin to strengthen compliance, increase transparency and improve trust. Trust is a very important thing that people need to have in this plan and in the regulators and the compliance and enforcement process. A key priority for the inspector-general will be to encourage greater consistency in the guidelines and standards across the basin, so that all water users are held to the same high bar. This role will combine compliance and enforcement powers currently held by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority with the assurance role of the current interim inspector-general. In this role, the inspector-general will listen to the concerns of basin communities to ensure that their voices are heard when it comes to water compliance. The inspector-general will also undertake audits, inquiries and reports in a transparent manner. This gives communities and users confidence in the system. The inspector-general will also work with other basin states to develop more consistent standards and guidelines. As I said, compliance is at the heart of a fair water-sharing system. All participants need to know that they are being held to the same standards and that they are playing by the same rules. Consistent standards and guidelines will provide the inspector-general with a framework to evaluate the performance of basin jurisdictions, including the Commonwealth, in delivering the Basin Plan. This bill builds on many years of engagement with Murray-Darling Basin communities and stakeholders. The basin's 2.2 million rural and regional water users will now have the assurance they deserve through stronger compliance, greater accountability and strengthened integrity around basin water management. 19:06 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I endorse the bill to the chamber. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator McAllister, on sheet 1340, be agreed to. Question agreed to. 19:06 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move the Greens amendment on sheet 1339: At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate calls for the 450 gigalitres promised in the Murray Darling Basin Plan for South Australia to be delivered on time and in full". The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung— Senator Hanson-Young I0U Mr President, I'll withdraw the division. Question negatived. The PRESIDENT I0Q I will note the Australian Greens voted for that amendment. 19:07 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia by leave—I'd like to be recorded as voting for that amendment. 19:07 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales by leave—Similarly, I would like to have the Labor Party's support for Senator Hanson-Young's amendment recorded. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question now is that the bill be read a second time. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill read a second time. BUSINESS 104 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 104 19:09 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia by leave—I move: That— (a) the hours of meeting be 9.30 am till adjournment; (b) the Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021 be called on immediately and have precedence over all other business till determined; (c) if by 7.30 pm consideration of the bill has not concluded the questions on all remaining stages be put; (d) paragraph (c) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and (e) the question for the adjournment be proposed after consideration of the bill concludes. Question agreed to. BILLS 104 BILLS Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021 104

Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021

In Committee 104 19:09 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet QL183 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 78, page 61 (line 15), after "person", insert "that is an agency of the Commonwealth or an agency of a State". (2) Schedule 1, item 78, page 62 (lines 1 to 6), omit subsection 222D(3). 19:11 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I have one question in relation to these amendments, which, I understand, provide a power to compel documents from the states. I just want to get an assurance from the minister that there is no intention that these powers would ever be used to pursue a whistleblower. 19:11 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia There is no intention for these powers to be used for that purpose. The sole and express purpose of these compelling powers is to ensure that states and territories provide information to the Commonwealth in relation to the implementation and delivery of their requirements under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. 19:12 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I would just like to indicate that I think these are good amendments, given that clarification. The last thing we want is whistleblowers and those who are working tirelessly for transparency and the improved management of the Murray-Darling Basin to be intimidated or working in fear. I think it is absolutely important for states and territories to hand over this information, but it should be limited to that. So I thank the government for putting forward these amendments. 19:12 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Just for the ease of the chamber, division-wise, on a similar basis to Senator Hanson-Young, I will support these amendments. Question agreed to. 19:13 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1297 together: (1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 9), after item 1, insert: 1A Subsection 19(5) Omit "at least every 10 years (or sooner if the Minister or all the Basin States request)", substitute "during 2026 and at such other times as agreed by the Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council". 1B Subsections 50(1) to (4) Repeal the subsections, substitute: (1) The Authority must: (a) review the Basin Plan during 2026, unless the Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council agrees otherwise; and (b) review the Basin Plan at such other times as agreed by the Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council. 1C Paragraph 50(5)(a) Omit "or (2)". 1D Subsection 50(6) Omit "subsection (1)", substitute "paragraph (1)(a)". 1E Section 52 Before "If", insert "(1)". 1F Section 52 After "section 45", insert "but subject to subsection (2) of this section". 1G At the end of section 52 Add: (2) However: (a) the Authority must not prepare an amendment of the Basin Plan as mentioned in this section unless the Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council agrees; and (b) an amendment of the Basin Plan prepared as mentioned in this section must not provide for a reduction in the long term average sustainable diversion limit. (2) Schedule 1, Part 1, page 15 (after line 29), at the end of the Part, add: 2A Division 5 of Part 2 (heading) Omit "1,500 gigalitre", substitute "1,229 gigalitre". 2B Section 85B Omit "1,500 gigalitre", substitute "1,229 gigalitre". 2C Section 85C (heading) Omit "1,500 gigalitre", substitute "1,229 gigalitre". 2D Subsection 85C(1) Omit "1,500 gigalitres", substitute "1,229 gigalitres". 2E Subsection 85C(2) Repeal the subsection. (3) Schedule 1, Part 1, page 15, at the end of the Part (after proposed item 2E), add: 2F Subsection 86AA(1) Omit "(1)". 2G Subsections 86AA(2) and (3) Repeal the subsections. 2H At the end of paragraph 86AD(2)(a) Add: (vii) investing in complementary measures to enhance environmental outcomes in relation to the Murray Darling Basin; 2J Paragraph 86AD(2)(b) Repeal the paragraph. 2K Subparagraph 86AD(2)(c)(ii) Omit "associated with a project or purchase referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) or subparagraph (c)(i)", substitute "associated with a project referred to in paragraph (a) or subparagraph (c)(i), or any previous purchase of water access rights paid for with amounts debited from the Water for the Environment Special Account,". 2L Subsection 86AD(2) (notes 1 and 2) Repeal the notes. 2M Subsection 86AD(4) Repeal the subsection. 2N Paragraph 86AI(2)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) achievements against those objectives and priorities; 2P Subsection 86AJ(1) Omit all the words after "is sufficient to", substitute "achieve the object of this Part by 30 June 2024". 2Q Paragraph 86AJ(3)(b) Repeal the paragraph. 19:13 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I want to place on record how ridiculous this is. This is what it looks like under the leadership of the new Deputy Prime Minister. We've got the National Party in here moving amendments to gut the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, against the will of their coalition partners. The amendments before us this evening do things like take all of the science out of the part of the act that governs a $1.7 billion fund. How disgraceful. It essentially creates the circumstance where that fund can be used for any purchase in rural Australia. This is exactly the kind of pork-barrelling that we have seen again and again from these people. We are in a position now where we have to gag these people, because they are wasting the Senate's time, bringing on amendments that are immensely complex to an immensely complex agreement with no notice. It is disgraceful and we will not be supporting the National Party amendments. 19:14 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Well, the Greens won't be supporting this amendment either. This is a full-blown attack on the Murray-Darling Basin, on South Australia and on anyone in this country who cares about the survival of our nation's greatest river. This is an attack from the water terrorists of the coalition, who sit right here and want to blow everything up. Under the leadership of Barnaby Joyce—Mr Joyce—as Deputy Prime Minister, this is what this government looks like. It's being hamstrung and blackmailed by the terrorists in the National Party. We will not be supporting this. 19:15 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I've got a couple of quick questions. Clearly I'm not going to support this full frontal attack on the Basin Plan, but I just want to confirm with the minister, Senator Ruston, that the position that's been adopted by the Nationals in the chamber today—the amendments that are being moved—are not supported by Minister Pitt, noting that he's a cabinet member. 19:16 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The position of the government remains the same in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. As I said, in many contributions I've made in this place over time, this was an extraordinarily ambitious plan. I think everybody in this chamber can be extremely proud of the fact that everybody voted to make sure we had a sustainable river system going into the future that not just supported the environment but also supported the river communities that rely on that environment—supported our food and fibre producers but made sure that it was going to be sustainable for everybody into the future. It was an extraordinarily ambitious plan. It still is an extraordinarily ambitious plan. We have already committed much and have achieved much in the delivery of this plan, but we still have some way to go. We still have a period of time. This plan is not due to be completed until 2024. The position of the government and the position of the minister remains that we will work tirelessly between now and 2024 so we can achieve the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We will not give up. We will not stop trying, because we are committed to the delivery of the plan. 19:17 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Noting that it's the position of the government to fully support the Basin Plan, to fully support the 450 in section 86AA of the Water Act: if the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Joyce, was to make a statement to the contrary—noting the principles of cabinet solidarity and cabinet responsibility in relation to a member of the cabinet disagreeing with the cabinet's decisions—will the Prime Minister remove him from the cabinet? 19:18 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Obviously the protocols and conventions that run the government remain in place, and I don't think anybody's deviating from those. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 247512 The question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1297 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [19:22]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Neill)

 7 AYES Canavan, MJ Davey, P (teller) Hanson, P McDonald, S McKenzie, B McMahon, S Roberts, M 42 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Birmingham, SJ Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Cash, MC Chandler, C Colbeck, R Dodson, P Duniam, J Faruqi, M Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson-Young, SC Hughes, H Hume, J Lambie, J McAllister, J McCarthy, M (teller) McGrath, J McKim, NJ McLachlan, A O'Neill, D O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Patrick, RL Rennick, G Rice, J Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Siewert, R Small, B Smith, DA Steele-John, J Stoker, AJ Thorpe, LA Van, D Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 19:25 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Noting the amendment moved by the government, I indicate that I don't intend to move my amendments on sheet 1336. 19:25 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria by leave—I move the Nationals amendments on sheet 1300 together: (1) Schedule 2, page 105 (before line 5), before item 1, insert: 1A Subsection 1.05(1) (table item dealing with Schedule 5) Repeal the item. (2) Schedule 2, page 105 (after line 30), after item 6, insert: 6A Chapter 7 (note to Chapter heading, paragraph beginning "Under Part 2") Omit "that will come into operation by 30 June 2024". 6B Chapter 7 (note to Chapter heading, paragraph beginning "An 'efficiency measure' is") Omit "makes savings in the amount of water required for consumptive purposes. Examples include investment in more efficient irrigation infrastructure", substitute "operates to improve environmental outcomes in relation to the Murray Darling Basin (to give effect to Part 2AA of the Act)". 6C Section 7.02 (definition of additional efficiency measure ) Omit "a measure", substitute "an efficiency measure". 6D Section 7.02 Insert: additional supply measure means a supply measure that has been notified under subsection 7.12(2A). 6E Section 7.02 (definition of affected unit ) After "notified measure", insert ", additional supply measure". 6F Section 7.04 Repeal the section, substitute: 7.04 Meaning of efficiency measure An efficiency measure is a measure that operates to improve environmental outcomes in relation to the Murray Darling Basin, to give effect to the object of Part 2AA of the Act (see section 86AA of the Act) and the purposes of the Water for the Environment Special Account in section 86AD of the Act. 6G Paragraph 7.09(d) Omit "variability; and", substitute "variability." 6H Paragraph 7.09(e) Repeal the paragraph. 6J Section 7.09 (notes 1 and 2) Repeal the notes. 6K Subsection 7.11(1) Before "additional efficiency measures", insert "additional supply measures and". 6L Paragraph 7.11(1)(a) Before "additional efficiency measures", insert "additional supply measures and". 6M Subsection 7.11(1) (note 2) Before "additional efficiency measure", insert "additional supply measure or". 6N After subsection 7.12(2) Insert: Notification of additional supply measures (2A) The person (the Basin State or Commonwealth) funding or undertaking a supply measure may, after the day this subsection commences but on or before 31 December 2023, notify the Authority of 1 or more supply measures that, in the view of the person, should be taken into account in proposing adjustments under section 7.11. 6P Paragraph 7.12(3)(a) Repeal the paragraph. 6Q Subsection 7.12(6) Repeal the subsection. 6R Subsection 7.12(7) Omit "Subsections (5) and (6) do", substitute "Subsection (5) does". 6S Section 7.13 Repeal the section, substitute: 7.13 Register of measures (1) The Authority must maintain a register of notified measures, additional supply measures and additional efficiency measures. (2) The Authority must publish the register on its website. 6T Section 7.14 After "notified measures", insert ", additional supply measures". 6U Subsection 7.15(1) Omit "the notified measures is the total increase in the SDLs for all the units affected by notified supply measures", substitute "the notified measures and additional supply measures is the total increase in the SDLs for all the units affected by notified supply measures and additional supply measures". 6V Subparagraph 7.15(1)(b)(i) After "notified supply measures", insert "and additional supply measures". 6W Subsection 7.15(2) (paragraph (b) of the definition of applicable method ) Omit "Basin Officials Committee", substitute "Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council". 6X Subsection 7.16(2) Omit all the words after "for each affected unit is", substitute "the amount calculated in accordance with the method determined by the Minister for the purposes of this subsection". 6Y After subsection 7.16(2) Insert: (2A) The Minister may, on the advice of the Authority and the Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council, determine by legislative instrument a method for the purposes of subsection (2). 6Z Paragraph 7.17(2)(b) Repeal the paragraph (including the heading), substitute: Neutral or improved socio economic outcomes and improved environmental outcomes (b) The efficiency contributions to the proposed adjustments achieve neutral or improved socio economic outcomes and improved environmental outcomes compared with the outcomes under benchmark conditions of development as evidenced by the socio economic criteria agreed to by the Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council at the meeting of the Council in December 2018. Note: The socio economic criteria could in 2021 be viewed on the Authority's website (http://www.mdba.gov.au) in the communique of the Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council meeting published on 14 December 2018. (3) Schedule 2, page 107 (after line 4), at the end of the Schedule, add: 21 Schedule 5 Repeal the Schedule. 22 Transitional rules (1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules prescribing matters of a transitional nature (including prescribing any saving or application provisions) relating to the amendments or repeals made by this Schedule. (2) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following: (a) create an offence or civil penalty; (b) provide powers of: (i) arrest or detention; or (ii) entry, search or seizure; (c) impose a tax; (d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Act or an Act amended by this Act; (e) directly amend the text of this Act or an Act amended by this Act. 19:26 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I just wonder whether Senator McKenzie will confirm, noting her position, that— Senator Davey interjecting— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Davey, could you return to your seat. I don't believe I was able to understand the gist of the statement, because it wasn't finished. I might come to you in a moment. Senator PATRICK 144292 I would like to understand, in relation to the amendments moved by Senator McKenzie, and noting that the amendments moved by the National Party tonight are inconsistent with the views of the cabinet: is this an indication that Senator McKenzie will not be taking any cabinet position in the Morrison-Joyce government? The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Patrick, as much as I am interested in the question you're asking, I don't believe it is actually a point of order. The TEMPORARY CHAIR (19:31): The time allotted for debate on the Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021 has expired. In accordance with the resolution agreed to this evening, I will now put the questions on the remaining stages of the Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021.

The Committee divided. [19:29]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator O'Neill)

 7 AYES Canavan, MJ Davey, P (teller) Hanson, P McDonald, S McKenzie, B McMahon, S Roberts, M 41 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Birmingham, SJ Bragg, AJ Brockman, S Chandler, C Colbeck, R Dodson, P Duniam, J Faruqi, M Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson-Young, SC Hughes, H Hume, J Lambie, J McAllister, J McCarthy, M (teller) McGrath, J McKim, NJ McLachlan, A O'Neill, D O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Patrick, RL Rennick, G Rice, J Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Siewert, R Small, B Smith, DA Steele-John, J Stoker, AJ Thorpe, LA Van, D Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 19:32 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments moved to this bill. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I'll now deal with the amendments circulated by Pauline Hanson's One Nation. The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1200 revised be agreed to. One Nation's circulated amendments— (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table), omit the table, substitute: (2) Page 109 (after line 17), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 4—Water register Water Act 2007 1 Subclause 4(3) of Schedule 3 Repeal the subclause, substitute: (3) All trades must be recorded on a water register as soon as practicable but no later than 30 days after the trade occurs. (3A) For the purposes of subclause (3), a water register must: (a) include water trades from all Basin States; and (b) be published on a publicly available website; and (c) record information on a whole of catchment basis; and (d) record the following information in relation to each trade:    (i) the date of the trade;    (ii) the amount paid, if any, in relation to the trade;    (iii) nature of the tradeable water right that was the subject of the trade;    (iv) the originating river valley and destination river valley of water that was the subject of the trade;    (v) the amount of water that was the subject of the trade, rounded to the nearest megalitre; and (e) otherwise—be consistent with the National Water Initiative. (3B) For the purposes of subparagraph (3A) (d) (iv), river valley has the same meaning as set out in Appendix 2 of Schedule E to the Agreement. 2 Application provision Implementation (1) This item applies in relation to the water register as referred to in clause 4 of Schedule 3 to the Water Act 2007 as amended by item 1 of this Schedule. (2) The Minister and the Authority must, immediately after the commencement of this Schedule, commence the implementation of the water register. Progress report (3) The Minister and the Authority must prepare jointly a report on the implementation of the water register. (4) The Authority must, no later than 30 September 2021, publish a copy of the report on the website of the Authority. (5) The Minister must table in each House of Parliament, on the next sitting day of that House after 30 September 2021, a copy of the report. The CHAIR: The question is that the amendments on sheet 1200 revised, circulated and moved by Senator Hanson, be agreed to. The CHAIR: Can I confirm with you, Senator Patrick, that it's your intention not to proceed with your amendments? Senator Patrick 144292 That's correct. The CHAIR: Pursuant to order, I shall report the bill. The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time.

The committee divided. [19:37]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)

 32 AYES Brown, CL Ciccone, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson, P Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Kitching, K Lambie, J Lines, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M (teller) McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Rice, J Roberts, M Sheldon, A Siewert, R Steele-John, J Sterle, G Thorpe, LA Urquhart, AE Walsh, J Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 27 NOES Birmingham, SJ Bragg, AJ Brockman, S (teller) Canavan, MJ Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Hughes, H Hume, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McLachlan, A McMahon, S O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Rennick, G Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Small, B Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 ADJOURNMENT 112 ADJOURNMENT Energy 112 19:41 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Australia has the potential to be a renewable energy superpower not only generating renewable energy but also manufacturing the components to ensure that we are world leaders in renewable energy production, creating thousands of jobs in the process. But right now Keppel Prince workers are outside in Portland, Victoria, where cheap, imported wind towers are currently being unloaded to be used in the federal government's Snowy Hydro 2.0 project. These wind towers will be used to generate energy for Snowy 2.0, and yet the wind turbines have been brought in from overseas to the only town in Australia that actually manufactures wind towers. How ridiculous is that? Cheap overseas wind towers are being brought in and delivered through the port in the town that already makes Australian made wind towers. What an absolute disgrace. Keppel Prince has already said that 150 jobs are on the line at its Portland factory unless the federal government brings in new laws to force companies to use local products when building new wind farms. At the very least the government should be stepping in to ensure that these wind farms that will be used to generate energy for the Snowy Hydro support local manufacturing. Keppel Prince have already sacked 15 per cent of their workforce due to this decision. These workers are standing out in the cold right now, fighting to protect their jobs and their livelihoods. The Morrison government had the opportunity to support local manufacturing workers in renewables and they didn't. It's not that they can't do something to stop this. It is that they won't do anything to help these workers. I asked these questions directly to the officials responsible for Snowy Hydro, and do you know what they said during estimates? The CEO and managing director, Mr Broad, said: I feel for those workers. I feel very much for them. …   …   … It breaks my heart to think that they can't be competitive, but I'm sure they're not after a handout. Supporting local Australian manufacturing is not a handout. These workers don't want a handout. They want to be supported by a government that backs them. Snowy Hydro is a government owned entity. Its executives earn millions of dollars in bonuses and salaries every year, and yet they can't lift a finger to help Australian workers. There are a lot of corporate buzzwords in the Snowy Hydro supplier code of conduct. There are words like 'teamwork', 'decency' and 'courage', but not a single word in that code directs any company that supplies energy to Snowy Hydro to buy any of their content locally, and that is shameful. Labor won't stand by while these towers are paraded through Portland past the very workers who have lost their jobs, because of this government's actions. There's a wind farm in Far North Queensland with 53 wind turbines. Every single one of them was manufactured overseas, because this government is failing to support renewable energy. Instead of being driven through the regional towns on big trucks, these wind turbines should be being built in the regions by Aussie workers. Over the eight long, tired years of the Liberal-National government, they have turned their backs on regional manufacturing. This week we know that real jobs are being lost while the Nationals, who supposedly support the regions, are fighting amongst themselves like children. Regional Queenslanders will never forget that it was the LNP that sent Queensland trains to be built overseas in India. It was the Labor government that brought them back to Maryborough. Regional Queenslanders will never forget that it was the Liberal and National parties that challenged the Australian car manufacturing industry to leave, to go offshore, and let the industry die under their watch. Regional Queenslanders will never forget that the Morrison government vetoed a wind farm in Far North Queensland that would have created 250 jobs, and neither the minister, Mr Pitt, nor the local member, Mr Entsch, or anybody lifted a finger to make sure that these jobs would be created. Australians will never forget that it is the Liberals and Nationals who are choosing right now to let wind towers from overseas drive past Australian workers in Portland. These workers from Keppel Prince deserve the support of their government. The government has continually sold out manufacturing workers. Only a Labor government will deliver manufacturing for local workers to make sure that we build the renewable energy components to make us a world— (Time expired) Middle East 113 19:46 Senator ABETZ N26 Tasmania This month Queensland Labor passed a fact-devoid resolution falsely accusing Israel of ethnic cleansing. This follows a resolution by federal Labor in March to foolishly seek unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state. In May, the Melbourne university Labor club posted a photograph of Ms Kearney, a Labor member and shadow assistant minister, taking part in a pro-Palestine rally in Melbourne. The post was taglined, 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.' In other words: no room for Israel. It was extreme, ugly rhetoric which needs to be called out. Labor's ugly positioning pales compared to that of its proxy GetUp. Queensland Labor's resolution unsurprisingly echoed a video posted by GetUp board member and Australia Palestine Advocacy Network, APAN, activist, Sara Saleh. Sara Saleh's emotive, biased, ideologically blinded, one-sided video used the false ethnic cleansing claim and even charged Australia, bizarrely, with being directly complicit. Make no mistake, this 5½ minute video of vitriol was defended by none other than GetUp's national director. There is a horrible story to this. In January 2009, Antony Loewenstein, in a post entitled 'GetUp! takes on Israel/Palestine' blogged how he 'was contacted last week by Get Up! to begin an online debate about this subject, as a way for the group to dip its toe into the problem. If, or when, the organisation decides to pressure the Labor government over this, the Prime Minister should be worried.' In February 2016, Palestinian activist, Sara Saleh, joined the board of GetUp, which we know is a self-selecting undemocratic club whose directors are its only real members. Saleh had endorsed many of the racist Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions actions against Israel. In 2011 she signed an open letter supporting Marrickville council's endorsement of the ugly global BDS campaign, and in 2014 she criticised Kmart for stocking SodaStream, a BDS target. Joining GetUp's board did not deter Saleh's anti-Israel BDS activity, which she has continued while simultaneously promoting her position at GetUp. At a speech to an Australians for Palestine symposium the month after her appointment to the GetUp board, Saleh proclaimed, 'We must force Israel into a perennial state of existential anxiety.' Really? This is truly unacceptable, horrible, racist and, yes, sadly indicative of GetUp. The same year Sara Saleh joined GetUp she fronted APAN's I Vote Palestine campaign. This campaign ended up rating the Greens the best of all the parties on Palestinian issues. Saleh was involved in canvassing candidates as part of this campaign, but Saleh actually went further than APAN's I Vote Palestine campaign, by contributing to and promoting a how-to-vote guide for culturally and linguistically diverse communities which compared parties specifically on their support for BDS. This guide noted that, unlike Labor and the coalition, the Greens supported a limited BDS. This was at odds with the Greens' public position, because the Greens then leader, Richard Di Natale, knew the electoral poison that such a position would be and so he asserted that the Greens did not support BDS. The freelance guide was compiled by Sara Saleh along with a Zaahir Edries. It was posted on an anonymous webpage registered to Zaahir Edries. Could this be the same Zaahir Edries who is now GetUp's legal counsel and an apologist for GetUp's disgusting bird-dogging activities harassing female candidates? So we can see that GetUp's anti-Israel stance has been in the works for a long time. Israel is the only true democratic country in the Middle East. She has stood with us. We have stood with her. Against all the odds, Israel recently celebrated its 73rd anniversary of independence. (Time expired) Australian Senate 114 19:51 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I have some bad news for people tonight. It turns out that the pandemic didn't kill the so-called culture wars, which are being manufactured again by the far Right in this chamber. There are a bunch of senators who will go to any lengths to appeal to the Sky News crowd, with frantic race-baiting and attacks on minorities, including trans people, and many other invented threats. It seems that nothing is beyond the pale for these senators. The playbook is straightforward: pick an issue of basic human rights or social justice and twist it to make it sound as terrifying as possible; create fear and division; paint the people's movements for black lives or antiracism or LGBTQI+ rights as some sort of apocalyptic threat. This isn't just a bunch of rowdy right-wingers jumping up and down on the back bench. Just last week, government ministers in here voted for an extremely hateful One Nation motion that targeted transgender children. We should make no mistake: this was a calculated approach to rustle up anti-trans sentiment. Twenty-one Liberals and Nationals, disgracefully, sat with One Nation and supported this attack on trans people. What strikes me about the culture wars is how frequently they are directly imported from overseas, and specifically from the United States. You can draw a straight line from the right-wing establishment in the US directly to this chamber. Fox News aired 86 segments about trans people between January and March, with 15 of those stories targeting health care for trans young people. According to the US based Human Rights Campaign, more than 250 anti-LGBTQI bills have been introduced into state legislatures this year alone. They have said this is the worst year for LGBTQI rights in the United States, with many of those bills targeting trans people—brought to you in Australia courtesy of One Nation and their LNP mates. Another obsession of the Right has been critical race theory, which is a study of systemic racism. The government teaming up with One Nation this week to pass a motion to reject critical race theory in the curriculum was an absolute disgrace. It's been only a few short months since the openly racist former President Trump signed an executive order targeting critical race theory and diversity training. Legislators in at least 15 US states have introduced measures this year that will prohibit the teaching of critical race theory or related concepts in school. By one count, in just the last 3½ months, Fox News has mentioned critical race theory 1,300 times. It is no coincidence that Senator Hanson put up a motion to ban critical race theory in Australian schools. It is no coincidence that we saw Senator Stoker attempt to use her new position as Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General to interfere in the Human Rights Commission's antiracism campaign. We, of course, know that there's nothing new about this trend. The Liberals and Nationals have been borrowing heavily from the US right-wing playbook for decades, especially since former Prime Minister Howard started using migrants and refugees as scapegoats for political ends. We should not be complacent. These hysterics, however ridiculous, do not come without consequence. The imaginary enemies you and the Murdoch media create out of vulnerable people, minorities and their movement for justice are real people with real lives and human rights. The division you foster in this chamber becomes racist hate on the streets. The fear that you invent in your questions, notices and speeches becomes a physical assault on a gay person. The Murdoch media rhetoric you repeat in here becomes a bullying attack on a trans kid in the playground. You should be ashamed. Everyone has the right to be respected and safe. If you've got a moment to look away from Fox News and its local outpost of cranks, Sky News, I've got a news flash for you: we're not going anywhere. Our antiracism movement is only growing. We will continue to fight against racism. We will continue to stand up for trans kids. Your petty attacks will not stop us. National Education Standards 114 19:56 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia We need to talk about our national curriculum. Students right across Australia are currently leaving school with lower comprehension of basic skills than their contemporaries had only a decade ago. We are also seeing a decline in Australia's educational standings on an international level. In the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment, known as PISA, Australia used to be one of the top 10 countries. We haven't been in the top 10 since 2009. We are currently ranked 29th for maths, 15th for science and 16th for reading. We are now in long-term decline and are lagging behind countries like Poland, Portugal and Slovenia—countries that we used to outrank. The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority published their proposed new national curriculum in April. The news should have been met with positive media coverage and support from federal, state and territory education ministers, academics and teachers, praising the inclusion of particular concepts and methodologies. Unfortunately, this couldn't be further from the truth. Indeed, much of the media coverage highlighted concerning key elements of the proposed curriculum. We saw the removal of Australia's history, which used to describe our nation as a secular, multifaith society with a Christian heritage. Instead, it states that Australia is a 'culturally diverse, multifaith, secular and pluralistic society with diverse communities, such as the distinct communities of First Nations Australians'. Minister Tudge, along with the state education ministers in New South Wales, South Australia and even in my home state of Western Australia, went on to criticise elements of the review. One of their key criticisms was the exclusion of direct instruction, a method of teaching with over five decades of evidence proving its effectiveness. Instead, the proposed curriculum is still influenced by the constructivism theory, which promotes student led inquiry learning over explicit learning. Earlier this month we saw more than 40 people, including maths professors and teachers, warn ACARA in an open letter that the draft plan to fix the unambitious national maths curriculum will make it worse and that further elimination and weakening of fundamental skills will contribute to the root cause of Australian students slipping in international comparisons. 'The students end up knowing less mathematics,' they said. Although ACARA has said that the draft curriculum borrowed from the Singapore curriculum, one of the letter's signatories, maths teacher and University of New South Wales PhD candidate Greg Ashman, noted that students in Singapore learn times tables in year 2 or 3. The Institute of Public Affairs recently published polling which also shows that the proposed national curriculum is not supported by everyday Australians. Many parents are worried that their kids are being indoctrinated and taught to apologise for and be ashamed of who they are. In March this year, a school in Victoria forced boys to stand at assembly as a symbolic gesture of apology for the behaviours of their gender. These aren't small-fry concerns. These aren't lone criticisms from fringe commentators. These are some of our best and brightest in the field of education telling us that something is dangerously wrong. There are clear indicators of a larger problem within the proposed curriculum. Our education system should not become captive to social issues that aren't related to the core purpose; nor should it be reliant on the ability of teachers to instil historical narratives through their own relative lens. We need to get back to the core purpose of education. Education should be about preparing children to contribute to our community by leading a good and productive life. We should not sacrifice our children to the woke agenda—to the detriment of their ability to think critically, to analyse the world and to grasp and apply concepts. This curriculum review is an opportunity for us to work on improving what our children learn and how best for them to learn. I urge anyone who is concerned about our kids' education and what they have been taught in schools to make a submission to the review. It's as easy as sending an email. It's time to get back to basics and stop the— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator O'Sullivan. Lester, Ms Kunmanara 115 20:01 Senator DODSON SR5 Western Australia Until last night, I wanted to use this time to record the tragic death last month of Kunmanara Lester, a Yankunytjatjara Anangu woman who was an esteemed antinuclear campaigner. I phoned Kunmanara's sister, Karina, last evening to talk about the address, only to learn that their mother, Mrs Lester, had just died—a double tragedy. I've known the Lester family for many years. Mrs Lester was a wonderful, strong woman, and I very much mourn her passing. Her husband, Kunmanara's father, was Yami Lester. He was a much respected antinuclear campaigner who went blind as a child after the British nuclear tests at Maralinga and Emu Junction in the 1950s. Yami fought for the McClelland royal commission into the testings, which eventuated in 1985. He died four years ago. His late daughter, whom I will call Kunmanara, out of respect, was an ambassador of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. The organisation was born in Melbourne in 2006 and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017. Kunmanara had two siblings—her sister, Karina, who I spoke to last night, and her brother, Leroy. Kunmanara grew up in Alice Springs and then at Mimili community in the APY Lands, where she developed her renowned horseriding and cattle-handling skills. In the early nineties, she returned with family to their traditional country at Walatina Station in the far north of South Australia and managed the cattle project there, with the support and encouragement of her father, Yami. An ominous black mist rolled across Walatina after the British atmospheric nuclear explosions back in October 1953. Kunmanara always believed that lingering contamination led to her acquiring a rare autoimmune disease, which was diagnosed in 2005. That diagnosis forced her to leave Walatina and move to Adelaide. For many years before, Kunmanara had acted as an interpreter for other Aboriginal people with disabilities, illness, cancer, and organ failure, which she believed were legacies of the British testing. She continued work as an interpreter in Adelaide and was stirred to action in early 2015, when South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill established the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. Fearing that the government was moving to develop a dump in South Australia for international high-level nuclear waste, Kunmanara was instrumental and influential in the formation of the No Dump Alliance. Kunmanara's illness drove her commitment to the anti-nuclear cause. Her campaigning required extensive travel, including to the APY lands. She was certainly effective. Her sister Karina, in The Sydney Morning Herald profile in June 2017, described her as 'ambitious, passionate, strong-minded and sometimes pig-headed'. The international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons, ICAN, has lauded the work and advocacy of Kunmanara. The organisation says she was a voice for nuclear justice, a carrier of stories and a powerful advocate for a world free from nuclear weapons. She maintained her drive even as her health deteriorated. In 2016, with a suitcase of medical equipment, she joined her sister Karina and others on the Black Mist, White Rain speaking tour in Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane. Kunmanara was a fighter to the end. Her funeral will be held at Walatina Station on Friday. It will be a doubly sad occasion, and I extend my sincere condolences to the family. Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area 116 20:06 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania If the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, the world's highest rated World Heritage wilderness, continues to be mistreated, disrespected, privatised and developed, it could join the Great Barrier Reef with a UNESCO recommendation for an 'in danger' listing. Both these unique, magnificent, enchanting wonders of our natural world are equally affected and suffering from the ravages of global warming, under the watch of this climate-denying government. On the same day UNESCO declared the Great Barrier Reef in danger—yesterday—the committee also delivered a hefty blow to the Tasmanian Liberal government's dodgy expression-of-interest process for the development of the World Heritage area. While our environment minister, in extraordinary displays of dummy spitting and tantrums in the last couple of days, has claimed that she was blindsided by UNESCO's 'in danger' listing, there is going to be no excuse now that she's been put on notice by UNESCO for her and her government's ignorance on what has been happening in the Tasmanian World Heritage area. In recent days, just looking at the significant ramping up of rhetoric against UNESCO, it seems this government will go to extreme lengths to shun the IUCN recommendation process and the World Heritage 'in danger' process. This is because UNESCO has been one of the only organisations capable of holding our federal government to account and embarrassing them on the international stage for their blatant disrespect of what makes our country and, indeed, our world so special. The Tasmanian World Heritage area meets every single natural criteria for World Heritage listing. It is the tied leader for satisfying the most criteria possible—seven out of 10. It shares the lead with Mt Tian Shan in China for its World Heritage values. But, in a mind-blowing display of audacity, that didn't stop this federal government from attempting to delist 74,000 hectares of this Tasmanian World Heritage area for logging. This is some of the most magnificent, carbon-rich mixed species rainforest on the planet. That was before UNESCO called the state government out and humiliated them. UNESCO has been raising concerns about the lack of strict criteria underpinning the state government's dodgy expression-of-interest process for tourism developments inside the Tasmania World Heritage area since 2016. It's clear the World Heritage Committee's concerns about the EOI process have not been eased by the Tasmanian government's tourism master plan, which once again UNESCO essentially had to hassle the Tasmanian government to deliver—in fact, far from it. They had to call on the state government to speed up the plan, which, despite first being requested in 2015, was only released just last month. It's the blatant mismanagement of our wild places like this that has now forced UNESCO to request any development that impacts upon the Tasmanian World Heritage area's outstanding universal values be referred to them for review. That's a rebuke. Our government, it seems, simply cannot be trusted. It's simply not acceptable for the Liberal Party and the National Party, at both the state and the federal level, to pay lip service to UNESCO's demands. While we may be the custodian and the manager, these areas are owned by all the people on this planet. It's not acceptable for the government to push on with exploiting these precious areas simply for a few developers—a few special interests—to profit from and make a buck. Tasmania's wilderness areas are globally significant and need the highest level of protection from threats such as inappropriate tourism development. The Greens will continue to stand in the Australian Senate and in the Tasmanian parliament and fight for the communities that don't want to see these areas ruined and exploited. Coalition Government 116 20:11 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria This week the government has been focused on the numbers—the numbers in the Nationals party room, numbers that have delivered a reheated, rehashed Deputy Prime Minister in Barnaby Joyce. But Australians are focused on the numbers that really matter. They are focused on the basic equations that matter to them, and they are asking themselves: 'Am I better off now than eight years ago, when this Liberal government first came into office? Are my wages going up enough to cover the rising cost of everything? Are my wages even going up at all?' After eight years, three terms, three prime ministers and three deputy prime ministers, what does this government actually add up to for the Australian people? According to the Productivity Commission last week, it adds up to a country facing the worst decade for living standards in over a half a century. It adds up to the worst wages growth on record. Just today, the McKell Institute reports that working Australians would be earning $250 a week more if wage growth had continued at the rate of the last Labor government. Australian workers are $250 a week worse off under this eight-year Liberal government. What else does this tired, eight-year government add up to? A record number of people are working two jobs or three jobs to make ends meet. Almost a million Australians have to work two jobs or three jobs to make ends meet under this government. Job insecurity is eating away at Australian families. It is the big conversation that people are having right now, today. These are the numbers that Australians really care about. These are the numbers that Australians want their government to focus on. And these are the numbers that matter to Australians today. Here's the real equation of this eight-year Liberal government: living standards going backwards, wages frozen and going backwards, massive job insecurity and a government that is focused not on those numbers but on the numbers in its own party rooms. But members of this government come in here slapping themselves on the back. They come in here telling each other what a great job they are doing. 'How good are we?' they ask; 'Aren't we doing a great job!' Well, let me tell you, it is the Australian people who are doing a great job right now. It is the essential workers of Australia who are keeping us safe and keeping this country running who are doing a great job right now. It is Australia's people, who are doing everything that is asked of them to fight this virus, who are doing a great job right now—all while the government completely stuffs up on its main responsibilities, all while this government stuffs up the two major jobs that Australians need it to do. This government has completely stuffed up the two things the Australian people really need the federal government to take responsibility for right now. They have stuffed up the vaccine rollout and they have stuffed up building quarantine facilities—the two things Australians really need so they can feel safe, so they can feel secure, so they can feel confident about the future. Australians, after the year they have had, deserve to feel confident about the future. Australians deserve to feel confident that there is a plan for their future. Australians should be able to count on one secure job in order to get by, not two, three or even four insecure jobs. Australians should be able to count on their wages going up. Australians should be able to count on their living standards going forwards, not going backwards more than half a century. While this tired eight-year-old government pats itself on the back, while those opposite focus on knifing each other in the back, on the Labor side we are focusing on the future. Labor will put good, secure jobs at the heart of our recovery, because we know what really matters to Australians: their jobs, their wages, their living standards and their future. Senate adjourned at 20:16