The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
That—
(1) On Tuesday, 25 June 2024:
(a) the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills be put at 6 pm:
Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2023-2024Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2023-2024
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025;
(b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142;
(c) following the consideration of the bills, a message from the House of Representatives concerning the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 be reported, and:
(i) a minister may move immediately—That the Senate does not further insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has insisted on disagreeing, and
(ii) the question on that motion then be put immediately without amendment or debate;
(d) at the conclusion of the consideration of the message the routine of business be the consideration of the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024 (second reading speeches only);
(e) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm for the purposes of the matters listed in paragraphs (a) and (c) only; and
(f) the Senate adjourn without debate at the conclusion of the second reading debate or on the motion of a minister, whichever is earlier.
(2) On Wednesday, 26 June 2024:
(a) the questions on all remaining stages of the following bill be put at midday:
Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024;
(b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and
(c) divisions may take place between 12.15 pm and 1.30 pm until consideration of the bills has concluded.
The Senate divided. [12:11]
(The President—Senator Lines)
Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2023-2024
Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2023-2024
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025
… the Budget has thwarted the task of tightening the structural deficit.
It also undermines the Government's inflation forecast—which was lowered below the Reserve Bank's forecast and assumed to drop into the 2-3 per cent target band by the end of this year.
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate is of the view that:
(a) public money should not be used to support the new extraction and burning of coal and gas, while there is a climate crisis;
(b) the proportion of the $566 million for Geoscience Australia to map coal and gas reserves and providing this information to coal and gas corporations for free should be removed from the budget; and
(c) the $1.5 billion equity injection to facilitate the construction of the Middle Arm Gas and Petrochemical Hub should be removed from the Contingency Reserve."
My key test for the budget was that it not poke the inflationary bear. I don't think it's passed that test. I've consistently been saying for a long time that I didn't see a rate cut until the end of this year but that's starting to slip into next year.
This is the most irresponsible budget in recent memory. The government set itself a simple standard: not to make the Reserve Bank's job harder. Michele Bullock—
may just choke on her cornflakes.
And as I noted earlier, on average households have reduced their saving rate by more than we thought to support their spending. It's tough just to keep up with essentials—groceries, petrol, health, education, rents, insurance expenses, I could go on, they're all going up.
So, what does this all mean? Well, the recent data have been mixed but, overall, they reinforced the need to remain vigilant to the upside risks to inflation.
We need a lot to go our way if we are going to bring inflation back down to the 2-3 per cent target range. The Board does need to be confident that inflation is moving sustainably toward target and it will do what is necessary to achieve that outcome.
So, yes the Board did discuss the case for increasing interest rates at this meeting. In the end it decided that its current strategy of staying the course and trying to bring inflation back down by bringing supply back to demand was the right way to go.
So, yes the Board did discuss the case for increasing interest rates …
You mentioned that the case for a rate increase was discussed by the Board. Was a case for a cut considered and is the likelihood of an increase in rates increasing?
No, the case for a cut was not considered.
I can't tell them—
when they can expect some relief—
I can't tell them when they can expect some relief. What I can say to them is I am very conscious that the high interest rates are hurting particular sectors of the economy more than others. The interest rate is the only tool we have and it's a blunt instrument. I do understand it affects different people in different ways. It is our only tool to bring inflation down and, again, what I would say and I've said it a number of times before, is that interest rates are part of what's hurting them but inflation is really hurting them. Businesses are feeling it because all of their input costs are going up and if they can't pass it on that's obviously hurting them. Consumers are feeling it when they go to the supermarkets. So, again, I can't tell them when we will bring interest rates down, but I can say that my laser focus and the Board's laser focus is bringing inflation down and that will help them. That will really help them.
I don't tell [RBA governor Michele Bullock] how to do her job, and the governor doesn't tell me how to do my job.
… enough is enough. There's nothing to be served by the ongoing incarceration of Mr Assange. And we continue to work very closely to achieve that outcome.
That the Senate take note of answers by ministers to questions without notice asked by coalition senators today.
… the costs of reaching net zero with high shares of variable renewables are likely prohibitive.
… historical and recent experience show that under the right policy frameworks and a robust programmatic approach, nuclear power can be a low-carbon technology with rapid delivery times and with the highest rate of annual increase of electricity generation per capita …
The CSIRO—
estimates the cost of 90 per cent renewables, with firming, transmission, and integration costs included, at $109 per megawatt hour. Based on South Korean costs (roughly one-third of the US and Europe), a 60-year lifespan, a 60 per cent economic utilisation rate (as per coal today), and an eight-year build time (as per the global average), nuclear would cost $200 per megawatt hour—nearly double.
Its worth noting that, even at 93 per cent utilisation (the highest ever achieved in the US where nuclear is a small share of supply), nuclear is still 25 per cent more expensive than renewables. This is also where the opposition's claim that nuclear will ensure system reliability falls apart. For nuclear, the goals of reliability and viability are fundamentally opposed. To bring nuclear closer to economic viability, it must play a minor role in the system to consistently run at full capacity, with nothing more to give when called upon.
ANSTO is responsible for the planning, operation, application, management and leadership of nuclear facilities and technologies to ensure that the highest level of safety, security safeguards and sustainability are met to maximise utilisation, benefit and assurance for the people of Australia.
ANSTO is well-positioned to support Government and industry in catalysing Australia's energy transition towards net zero emissions … I expect ANSTO to be impartial with respect to the role of nuclear energy in Australia's pathway to net zero, and to use its expertise in climate science, materials science and environmental science to contribute to this objective.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the Great Barrier Reef.
We need to act on climate change. We need to protect our special places and the animals that call them home. And that is precisely what we are doing.
It's why my government legislated renewable energy and emissions targets that sets out a cleaner future that will strengthen our economy, create good jobs, and deliver strong climate change action.
That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 28 November 2024:
The Australian Government's responses to the wrongful detention of Australian citizens overseas, with particular reference to:
(a) how Australia can improve its policy framework to deter the practice of arbitrary detention for diplomatic leverage ('hostage diplomacy') and increase transparency and public awareness of the regimes which engage in the practice;
(b) Australia's foreign policy responses to regimes that wrongfully detain Australian citizens;
(c) Australia's current processes for categorising and declaring cases of wrongful detention;
(d) the management of cases of wrongful detention by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade;
(e) communications with and support for families of Australians being wrongfully detained overseas;
(f) communications with and support for Australians who have been released from wrongful detention; and
(g) any other related matters.
That consideration of the business before the Senate on Wednesday, 26 June 2024 be interrupted at approximately 6 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable Senator Hodgins-May to make her first speech (of approximately 20 minutes) without any question before the chair.
That the continuing order of the Senate of 17 October 2018 relating to quarterly updates of Australia's National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, be amended as follows:
(a) Paragraph (1), after "not later than", insert "11.30 am on the day"; and
(b) Omit paragraph (2), substitute:
(2) Once received by the Clerk or the President, documents returned and any correspondence responding to the order shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate, and publication of the documents is authorised.
For information — the amended order will read :
(1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by not later than 11.30 am on the day 5 calendar months after each:
(a) 31 March;
(b) 30 June;
(c) 30 September; and
(d) 31 December;
the quarterly update of Australia's National Greenhouse Gas Inventory.
(2) Once received by the Clerk or the President, documents returned and any correspondence responding to the order shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate, and publication of the documents is authorised.
(3) This order is of continuing effect.
That—
(a) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than Thursday, 4 July 2024, advice regarding alternative fuels to be used in Cement Australia's 'Railton Alternative Fuels Transformation' project received by the minister from the independent panel that assessed applications for the most recent round of Powering the Regions funding; and
(b) this order is restricted to advice regarding:
(i) the origins and quantities of wood fibre that will be used as alternative fuels, and
(ii) impacts of alternative fuels on the emissions profile of the Railton kiln and its supply chains.
Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to establish a commission of inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities, and for related purposes. Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 .
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today Australia faces its greatest threat to multiculturalism with the emergence of antisemitism.
In particular, the studied indifference to Jew hatred on our campuses.
Jewish staff and students are abandoned by those charged with creating a safe place for students to study and for staff to research, teach and work.
This is a tragedy for Australia which unlike almost anywhere else has been welcoming to the Jewish people.
From the days of the First Fleet when a dozen Jewish convicts stumbled ashore at Sydney Cove, Jewish people have had the opportunity to thrive free from discrimination and hatred.
With that freedom and opportunity, Jewish Australians have contributed to our country.
Our job in this place is to ensure that all Australians enjoy the right to education free of harassment and intimidation.
Our job is to ensure that the next generation of Jewish students are not discouraged from entering any field of Australian life.
There is a particular tragedy about campus antisemitism which seeks to exclude Jews from the intellectual life of the nation.
Because Jewish tradition values education as one of the highest virtues.
Jews are taught to have arguments for the sake of heaven—to arrive at truth through debate and discussion. This is the essence of a university.
At their best, universities are life changing places where people get an education and improve their opportunities in life.
It's where the next generation of leaders are formed.
That is why it is so important that antisemitism does not take hold. Its why students need to be taught about the evils of antisemitism. That is why it is always important to reject antisemitism however it manifests.
That it's not OK to be a bystander.
If we are not teaching this to the next generation then we are setting our society on a course for a future based in conspiracy not fact. On othering not personal responsibility. On social discord not social harmony.
It's for this reason that addressing antisemitism on campus is so important because what happens on campus today sets the tone for the Australia of tomorrow.
As a parent I want my children to have the same educational opportunities I did. But I am concerned about what today's Jewish students are telling me.
Today young Jewish Australians who are taking their first steps into the adult world are facing unprecedented levels of antisemitism.
The next generation of contributors are turning up to university open days, to lectures, to university lawns, and being met with a clear message: Jews are not welcome here.
Enough. We should not accept that in Australia.
History
The antisemitism we are seeing on Australian campuses is not new. It goes back years.
In August 2023—two months before the Hamas terrorist attacks—the Australian Jewish University Experience Survey revealed:
In 2022, the Member for Macnamama, the Member for Wentworth and I, as co-Chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, wrote to Australian universities to ask them to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
The IHRA definition of antisemitism should not be controversial. We emphasised that legitimate criticisms of the State of Israel do not amount to antisemitism under the definition.
The definition has multipartisan support.
Unfortunately, only 5 of our 39 universities have signed up.
Since October 7
And while antisemitism was already a problem before 7 October, since then it is off the charts.
We have seen encampments, where student chanting 'intifada' and "river to the sea" are deciding who should be allowed access to university buildings based on their religion.
And other stories which are deeply troubling.
Like the student living in on-campus accommodation who held a Shabbat dinner for Jewish and non-Jewish students at her college. It had nothing to do with the Israel-Hamas war—it was simply an opportunity to gather for a meal and to share her traditions.
But the following morning, that student woke up to find Palestinian flags shoved under their door.
At another university, a Jewish student wearing a kippah was walking through campus. He had to walk past a pro-Palestine gathering to get to where he was going. One of the people from the gathering approached him and asked, "do you support the murdering of babies and the genocide in the Middle East?"
There are multiples stories of Jewish students being spat on and taunted with swastikas.
It's happening to Jewish staff too.
In one incident, an ex-pat Israeli staff members' working area was urinated on and the word "resign" scribbled on their desk.
The message in all these stories is Jews are not welcome here.
It's not just students and outside activists propagating this stuff—it's professors and PhDs.
We have seen academics say Jews don't deserve cultural safety.
And last week we saw another academic deny that the rapes on 7 October even occurred.
Hamas deniers are no different than Holocaust deniers.
But for academics in places of learning and truth to deny the truth of human testimony and history is to make a mockery of their mission.
What we are seeing on Australian university campuses today is the next evolution of a hatred that has endured throughout human history.
The failure of universities
Long before October 7, universities were failing to take antisemitism seriously and to act to protect Jewish students in the way that they protect other minorities on campus. But now we see:
I don't believe university leaders are antisemitic. But I do believe that they are wilfully blind.
One chilling aspect of university wilful blindness is their failure to acknowledge the antisemitic nature of: "from the river to the sea".
Imagine if a terrorist group in our country committed terrible crimes and people started chanting: "From the Indian Ocean to the Pacific, Australia will be free of…" and insert the name of the religion, the political affiliation, the sexuality or any aspect of identity that terrorists might want to eradicate.
That's what the phrase "from the river to the sea" means.
It's a statement of intent to violently annihilate Jewish people from the land of Israel.
From the river to the sea is a line that sends a chill because it's spoken by murderers and parroted by people who know no better.
But the Vice Chancellors of our universities do know better—and that's why their complicity is such a problem.
That is why we need a judicial inquiry into their systemic failures on this issue.
We need a judicial inquiry
This Bill provides for the establishment of a Commission of inquiry with Royal Commission powers led by a current or former Judge to inquire into antisemitism on university campuses.
The inquiry will examine incidents of antisemitic activity on campus both before and after 7 October 2023.
It will consider whether the response of university leaders, regulators, representative organisations and others has been adequate.
Among other the things, it will examine whether the universities adequately define and recognise the modern manifestations of antisemitism and whether they have put in place appropriate policy responses to prevent, reject and deal with it.
It will examine university policies and their enforcement including complaints handling and disciplinary policies, security arrangements and university powers to expel people from campus for antisemitic activity.
It will examine what steps universities are taking to ensure course materials and what is delivered during lectures and tutorials do not include antisemitic content.
And it will make recommendations on institution specific and sector wide policy, regulatory and legislative changes including education programs, disciplinary sanctions, and ministerial intervention.
This Bill and its powers are based on the Bill which established the 2007 Equine Influenza Inquiry.
A judicial Inquiry is crucial to ensure that the rise of antisemitism on campus in Australia can be effectively investigated.
A judicial inquiry is the most authoritative form of inquiry.
Led by an independent, respected jurist with full investigatory powers, assisted by skilled cross-examiners, the inquiry could hear evidence confidentially without witnesses fearing reprisals.
Such an inquiry provides the best chance to ensure that antisemitism on campus—a long running cultural problem which is a serious concern for the social cohesion of Australia—is properly addressed.
The Government's proposal for an inquiry by the Australian Human Rights Commission into various forms of racism on campus is woefully inadequate. It has neither the independence, nor the powers, or personnel to deal with these matters.
The AHRC has proven itself to be unready and unwilling to respond to antisemitism in Australia despite the 738% rise in antisemitic incidents since October 7. The AHRC has sat on its hands or worse.
Jewish Australians simply do not have faith in an inquiry led by the AHRC.
This Bill by contrast has the support of the Jewish community.
Conclusion
It is tempting to think of antisemitism as the domain of the uneducated.
But history tells us that is not the case. History tells us that antisemitism also lives in the minds of society's best educated.
More than half of the people who attended the Wannsee Conference that developed the Final Solution were either doctors or had PhDs.
When antisemitism first came to the most cultured and sophisticated country in Europe it came not in a flood but in a trickle.
This ideology only took hold when people remained silent, preferring their comforts rather than defending the freedoms of a minority.
This Bill is part of ensuring we never get to that point.
It was Martin Luther King who said "in the end we remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends."
As Peter Dutton said:
Whenever and wherever the forces of antisemitism are on the march, there is a need for moral courage and moral clarity.
Today I call on the Government to show moral courage and clarity by adopting the Bill and allowing it to be brought on for debate.
National Housing and Homelessness Plan Bill 2024
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to require the preparation of a National Housing and Homelessness Plan, and for related purposes. National Housing and Homelessness Plan Bill 2024 .
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
We stand at a pivotal point in Australian history, grappling with a housing crisis that is impacting all aspects of our society. Economist Alan Kohler and numerous other experts agree: Australia's housing system is in a disastrous predicament. We have some of the world's most expensive housing, effectively locking more and more young people out of home ownership. Rising rental stress is pushing more renters into poverty, and homelessness is increasing, with growing numbers sleeping in their cars or living in tents.
These issues are not just statistics; they represent real people and families. Consider the women escaping domestic violence who must camp out at already full refuges because there are no affordable rental options. Think of those facing steep housing cost hikes because rent restrictions on their government-subsidised affordable rental home are expiring. Picture the young adults seeing their hopes of home ownership fade as property prices continue to outpace wages.
Our underperforming housing system isn't only a concern for those directly affected. The damaging impacts on growth and productivity make us all poorer. Over-expensive housing means Australia has one of the highest household debt rates in the world. This debt is mainly sunk into housing—an unproductive asset. Investment that could and should be creating more jobs and prosperity is instead tied up in real estate.
Many of our housing problems have escalated in the past couple of years, made worse by policy mistakes like the former government's HomeBuilder program. But housing stresses are hardly new for Australia. They've been building not just for years, but for decades.
This is obviously a complex area and there is no single solution or silver bullet. In a complex system, some solutions can have unintended consequences that may end up causing bigger problems than they solve. Only by pulling all the right policy levers in a coordinated way can we possibly address the problem. That's why housing is one of those areas where a strategic approach to policy making is desperately needed.
Under the Constitution, state and territory governments have direct responsibility for housing services and development. But it is the Commonwealth Government that retains control over key housing-related powers, including tax, social security, and migration. Only a national plan led by the Commonwealth can commit to actions related to these powers. Only the Commonwealth can coordinate nationally consistent approaches to housing regulation and funding.
This would not eliminate the need for complementary strategies at the state and territory level to reflect the diversity of housing policy challenges and opportunities across Australia. Rather, it sets out the national priorities that such documents should address.
The Albanese Government has pledged to develop a National Housing and Homelessness Plan and has been progressing this. But they declined to embed the Plan in law. Doing so would enhance its standing and durability. We must lock in the responsibility of the national government to maintain a sustained interest in Australia's housing future. The country can't afford to continue with the erratic level of engagement we've seen over recent decades. That's why we need legislation that will continue to bind future governments, irrespective of political complexion and priorities.
The debate on this Bill can enable Parliament to strengthen the Plan by defining its scope and ambition, as well as by identifying the housing policy challenges it needs to address. Another reason for tabling this Bill is my concern about the way the Government's Plan development process has been unfolding over the past year or so. It has been a low-profile exercise, based on an official Issues Paper that was highly inadequate in the scope and depth of its analysis.
This Bill takes its legal force from the Commonwealth Government's constitutional authority on external affairs. It will give effect to our international obligation to ensure access to adequate housing as a human right. This dates back to an international treaty Australia signed in 1966, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). There are precedents for this approach to legislating on housing at the Commonwealth level.
Numerous other OECD countries have formal national housing and/or homelessness strategies. The most directly relevant of these is Canada, which legislated its first-ever National Housing Strategy in 2019. The particular relevance of the Canadian example is that it involves a federal state with many governmental similarities to Australia. That's why the Australian legislation is directly influenced by the Canadian model.
Especially important aspects of Canada's approach that have inspired our own Bill are the Canadian oversight and accountability dimensions. The Australian Act will therefore create a National Housing Consumer Council and a National Housing and Homelessness Advocate. The Council will advise the Minister on the Plan's effectiveness from the perspective of tenants and homebuyers. This is an important counterweight to the powerful influence wielded by housing industry interests in Australia. The Advocate will monitor the Plan's implementation and conduct reviews of systemic housing issues to inform Plan evolution.
The Bill also designates Housing Australia as the lead agency for assisting the Minister in developing, implementing, and maintaining the Plan. This reflects the fact that there is no department of housing in the Commonwealth Government's administrative structure. It is therefore logical to task these Plan-related functions with the specialist agency already established in this area. Again, as a specialist national agency supporting housing policymaking, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) provides a relevant example for Australia.
This Act will provide a framework for the Plan, rather than the detail of its content. It is appropriate for that content to be developed within this framework by competent officials. That must be informed by consultation with interest groups, technical experts, and the public at large. The current government has already progressed a process of this kind, although only in a relatively low-profile way and, I would argue, without adequate underlying analysis of the problems the Plan should seek to address.
The Bill specifies Plan objectives as follows:
1. Ensuring everyone in Australia has an adequate home
2. Preventing and ending homelessness
3. Ensuring the social housing system meets needs and drives wider housing system performance
4. Improving choice in the housing system
5. Improving housing quality
6. Improving housing affordability
7. Improving housing supply
8. Improving the contribution of the housing system to wider economic performance
9. Improving the ability of people with disability to live in the community, with choices equal to others
10. Involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in developing, determining, and administering housing programs affecting them
These goals have been inspired by research published last year by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. They reflect what the researchers identified as housing policy objectives on which there is a high degree of expert and public consensus. The proposed goals also reflect expert consensus views on the range of housing problems currently affecting Australia, such as insufficient housing consumer choice and unsatisfactory housing energy performance.
The suggested objectives also indicate the Plan's intended scope; for example, addressing poor housing conditions as well as housing shortage and unaffordability. A legislated National Housing and Homelessness Plan cannot guarantee that Australia will squarely face up to its housing problems. It cannot ensure that resulting measures will decisively moderate the housing stress affecting growing numbers of Australians. But I believe it is an essential pre-condition for the more equitable and functional housing system the country badly needs.
Our housing system is in crisis, impacting individuals and families across Australia. The damaging effects on growth and productivity affect us all. Only a coordinated national plan, embedded in law, can address the complex and multifaceted nature of this crisis. The legislation I propose will ensure that we take a strategic and sustained approach to housing policy, benefiting current and future generations of Australians.
I thank the Member for North Sydney, Kylea Tink, for moving this Bill in the House of Representatives, and the Member for Indi, Dr. Helen Haines, for seconding it. I'd also like to thank Professor Hal Pawson and Dr. Chris Martin for their work and input into this Bill, as well as the 117 individuals and organizations, including leading academics, industry experts, economists, former politicians from both sides of politics, peak bodies, and advocates who have signed an open letter calling on the Housing Minister to legislate such a plan.
I commend this Bill to the Senate.
COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry Bill 2024
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to establish a commission of inquiry into Australia's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
The last few years have seen the biggest restrictions on the freedoms of Australians outside of wartime. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Australian governments have locked people in their homes, prevented them seeing their loved ones in their final moments, forced some to take medical treatments against their wishes and closed small businesses.
To ameliorate the economic impact of these harsh measures, governments spent more than $300 billion. The massive fiscal expansion has played a role in causing an inflation breakout that continues to hurt the standard of living of most Australians.
It seems obvious that a full and proper inquiry should be conducted into government policies of this scale and cost. Yet, to date, the Australian Government has refused to establish a proper and independent inquiry into the COVID-19 pandemic.
This is despite the Prime Minister promising Australians before the election that he would establish a COVID-19 inquiry "through a measure like a royal commission." The "Clayton's inquiry" that the Prime Minister has established is an insult to all of the Australians who suffered from the harsh COVID-19 measures that state and federal governments took.
The Prime Minister's inquiry is not even looking into the actions of State and Territory Governments even though the harshest of COVID-19 measures, such as lockdowns and most vaccine mandates, were decisions taken by these governments. 'Actions taken unilaterally by state and territory governments' have been explicitly excluded from the scope of his inquiry.'
Some of the Prime Minister's appointments to the review panel can hardly be described as "independent" either. For example, one inquiry panel member, Angela Jackson, a former deputy Chief-of-staff to former Labor Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner, in July 2021 said that Victoria needed "a hard lockdown and a dose of luck to get through this".
The conduct of the Prime Minister's inquiry also raises serious questions about whether it is serious. Despite being established last September; all the inquiry panel has done so far has accepted submissions and held some "closed door" invitation only 'key stakeholder' and 'focus group' roundtables. There have been no public hearings, no draft report and hardly any publicity. There is just three months until this inquiry is due to report in September yet there is no indication that it will deliver the proper accountability to government officials that the Australian people deserve.
We really should not need to go to the length of passing a Bill like this to establish a proper inquiry because it is so obvious that our government should do this by the stroke of a pen. Yet given our government seems to want to hide from accountability we have taken the step to introduce this Bill so that the Senate, and the Parliament, can do its job and hold the Executive Government to account.
The Parliament cannot establish a Royal Commission because only the Executive government can empower the "Royal" insignia towards an inquiry. However, the Parliament can establish a "Commission of Inquiry" with all the same powers and independence of a Royal Commission, and this is what this Bill would do.
This Bill is based on previous efforts such as those to establish a Commission of Inquiry into the banks in recent years. When it became obvious that the proposed Commission of Inquiry into the banks would pass the Parliament, the then Turnbull Government established its own Royal Commission. We would welcome the Government taking the same action in response to this Bill.
As an aside, this experience raises the question—why is the Australian Government happy to force an inquiry into the actions of third parties like the banks, but not an inquiry into its own actions which have been even more impactful on our economic and social life? This double standard only further erodes the collapsing trust that Australians have in their government institutions.
This Bill builds on the excellent work of the Senate inquiry into the terms of reference for a COVID-19 Royal Commission. We want to thank Senator Scarr for his involvement in this inquiry and the substantive report that he helped write. We commend other senators for their persistence in building support for the inquiry in the first place.
That inquiry clearly demonstrated the widespread support for the establishment of a COVID-19 royal commission. Of the 559 submissions received by the committee, only three did not support it. This bill incorporates the extensive terms or reference proposed by the committee in the final report of that inquiry.
The Commission of Inquiry would be tasked with investigating the response of the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments. The Commission's powers to summon witnesses from State Governments may be limited by restrictions on the Commonwealth's powers but the Bill creates the ability for the States to confer powers on the Commission if they so choose.
While the inquiry established by this Bill will mostly look at decisions made in the past, holding the inquiry is urgent because there are some still affected by COVID-19 decisions in the present, and we must learn the lessons of the last pandemic in case one occurs in the future.
Unbelievably some states continue to maintain vaccine mandates. For example, some firefighters in Victoria still cannot return their jobs because they have not got two vaccines and a booster.
Many people lost their livelihoods through the imposition of vaccine mandates. The Supreme Court of Queensland recently found that the manner in which vaccine mandates were imposed on police officers and health workers breached Queensland's Human Rights Act. Some people continue to be restricted from jobs (such as firefighters in Victoria) due to continuing vaccine mandates. These workers are now seeking compensation for the unlawful mandates which cost them their jobs.
Other Australians continue to live with the fallout of the pandemic response. At least part of the reason for elevated inflation is due to the massive fiscal stimulus unleashed during the pandemic.
In addition, Australia has recorded more than 20,000 extra (non-COVID related) deaths since the beginning of the pandemic. It is still unclear why our fatality rate has remained at historically high levels, but many have put the blame on the lingering impacts of medical restrictions during the pandemic, the health impacts of social isolation and side effects from coronavirus vaccines.
It is obvious that there should be a deep and comprehensive inquiry into the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Prime Minister has established an inquiry, but it is limited in scope, for example it is not looking at the response of State or Territory Governments, even though it was these governments that imposed the most stringent restrictions on civil liberties.
We propose this Bill in the spirit of forgiveness and understanding. We understand the anger that many feel about the decisions that upturned their lives and, in some cases, destroyed their lives. However, to put our society back together we must confront the difficult task to forgive mistakes. This does not absolve officials from accountability. If people broke the law in the response to the pandemic, then those officials should be accountable under the law. This Commission of Inquiry would have the powers to refer such matters to the appropriate authorities.
Equally, there is a need for the decision makers to genuinely subject themselves to examination and be willing to admit when mistakes were made. We all made mistakes of judgement. Early in the pandemic some of us supported lockdown measures that were too harsh. Some of us got the vaccine, a decision we may now regret given that we know that the vaccine was not very effective and caused many severe side effects, including death for some.
The officials who made decisions in response to the pandemic were all human and it is not surprising or shocking that mistakes were made. We exacerbate the harm caused by these mistakes, however, if we are not willing to admit error.
It also seems clear that some officials lied, even if well-intentioned, about some of the measures in the pandemic. For example, many decisions (such as mask mandates) were made on flimsy "behavioural science" grounds to maximise compliance with broader restrictions rather than their merit per se. The wisdom of knowingly telling lies to your own people, even if it does deliver a short-term gain, deserves a proper examination.
Australia now faces another pandemic of mistrust. Fewer Australians now trust medical or government officials. The take up rate of the flu vaccines is at historic lows. Trust will not be restored by governments hiding from accountability and hoping people forget.
We need a proper Commission of Inquiry to close what has been a painful period for many during the pandemic. Such an inquiry offers the only hope that we can heal these wounds and restore the harmonious and high trust society that Australia enjoyed before the pandemic.
The Senate divided. [15:45]
(The President—Senator Lines)
The Senate divided. [15:49]
(The President—Senator Lines)
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
Under the Albanese Government all aspects of energy generation are off track, with Labor's 82 per cent renewables by 2030 target way behind schedule and running at less than one third of the pace required last year, while gas prices are spiking following the energy regulators risk notice warning of gas shortages impacting Australians right throughout winter.
Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The need for the Senate to recognise the State of Palestine."
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The need for the Senate to recognise the State of Palestine.
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving an amendment to the motion.
That the question be now put.
The Senate divided. [16:42]
(The President—Senator Lines)
The Senate divided. [16:45]
(The President—Senator Lines)
At the end of the motion add, "as part of a peace process in support of a two-state solution and a just and enduring peace".
That the government amendment be amended as follows:
At the end of the government's amendment add: ", once the following preconditions have been met:
i. recognition by Palestinian representatives and the Palestinian Authority of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state;
ii. that there is no role for Hamas in a future Palestinian state;
iii. reform of the Palestinian Authority is achieved, including major security and governance reforms;
iv. agreed processes to resolve final status issues including agreed state borders and rights of return; and
v. appropriate security guarantees between parties to ensure peace and security within recognised borders."
The Senate divided. [16:57]
(The President—Senator Lines)
The Senate divided. [17:04]
(The President—Senator Lines)
The Senate divided. [17:08]
(The President—Senator Lines)
That the Senate take note of the report of the committee on Australia's human rights framework.
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—Joint Statutory Committee—Report—Integrity of Australia's border arrangements—Government response, dated April 2024.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1: The committee recommends that Australian Government law enforcement agencies develop, in consultation with ACLEI, a coordinated serious crime and corruption strategy with a particular focus on strategies and actions to enhance integrity and to identify, prevent and prosecute corruption at Australia's borders.
Response:
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 2: The committee recommends that the Department of Home Affairs portfolio agencies and Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment work together to ensure a consistent approach to the development and implementation of integrity and anti-corruption frameworks. In addition, that these agencies work together to develop agreed site-specific integrity and anti-corruption plans and procedures that take into account site-specific corruption vulnerabilities whilst aligning with the broader integrity and anti-corruption framework.
Response:
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 3: The committee recommends that the Australian Government review the overall administration of the ASIC and MSIC schemes to consider either a single issuing authority or a significantly reduced number of issuing bodies.
Response:
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 4: The committee recommends a central register of ASICs and MSICs be established that is updated on a regular or real-time basis to reflect, at a minimum:
Response:
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 5: The committee recommends that the Australian Government assess the capability of law enforcement agencies to appropriately and proportionately exercise powers to undertake their roles in preventing, disrupting and investigating criminal activity at Australia's ports and related facilities in the supply chain and consider how best to mitigate existing barriers to effective law enforcement at ports and along the supply chain.
Response:
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 6: The committee recommends that the Australian Government ensures there is a program of ongoing research on corruption activities at Australia's borders and within agencies operating at the border. This will assist to identify corruption risks and better inform anti-corruption measures that can be updated to meet the constantly evolving risk environment.
Response:
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
_____
Economics References Committee—Australia's sovereign naval shipbuilding capability—Future Submarine acquisition: A shambles—We don't think, we know—Second interim report—Government response
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 1
The Committee recommends that the Government reviews the size of the ADF in order to ensure a more sustainable and credible conventional force is available for future military operations, particularly sustained operations.
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate
Recommendation 2
That the Department of Defence provide in a manner suitable for publication:
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 3
With the aim of increasing its staff's awareness of their democratic responsibilities:
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
_____
Economics References Committee—Australia's sovereign naval shipbuilding capability—Future Submarine program: Ringing of bells, wringing of hands—Interim report—Government response
Recommendation 1
The Commonwealth Government and the Department of Defence report to the Parliament on what discussions were or are being undertaken with Saab/Kockums, or any other alternative submarine builder, about the provision of a Collins-class derivative boat, or any other design, as part of a 'Plan B' should the Naval Group agreement be cancelled.
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 2
That the Department of Defence provide the Senate Economics References Committee, on a confidential basis, an un-redacted version of the renegotiated Strategic Partnership Agreement with Naval Group for scrutiny.
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 3
With the aim of increasing its staff's awareness of their democratic responsibilities:
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 4
That the Department of Defence provides to the committee in un-redacted form all the documents requested under the Senate's Order of Production of Documents (General Business Motion, No. 786).
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
_____
Economics References Committee—Future of Australia's naval shipbuilding industry—Final report—Government response
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth and state governments work together to develop a national shipbuilding plan, incorporating the existing naval shipbuilding plan. A national shipbuilding plan should include the following:
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that in the absence of a national shipbuilding plan in the short term, reporting against the government's current naval shipbuilding plan and its four key enablers and three major continuous build programs be provided to the Commonwealth Parliament every six months.
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 3
The Committee recommends that the government prioritise finalising the future location of Collins Class sustainment activities and confirm plans for the future of the ASC and its employees.
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 4
The committee recommends that the funding announced in MYEFO expenditure of $29.4 million over three years from 2017-18 for ASC job retention scholarships be immediately released to the ASC to prevent further job losses from the strategically vital naval shipbuilding industry.
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 5
The committee recommends that the Naval Shipbuilding College establish structured consultations mechanisms with Industry Reference Committees associated with Naval Shipbuilding Occupations.
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 6
The committee recommends that the Australian Industry Skills Committee task the existing Industry Reference Committees, responsible for the development of training products associated with naval shipbuilding occupations, with establishing Technical Advisory Groups to ensure that skills gaps identified through their own industry consultations or by Naval Shipbuilding Colleges are integrated into existing training package development and maintenance work.
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 7
The committee recommends that the government provide clear definitions about what constitutes Australian involvement, content, and participation, and how this will be achieved in each project outlined in the government's naval shipbuilding plan. These definitions and requirements for Australian industry involvement are to be stipulated in each contract.
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 8
The committee recommends that Australian Industry Capability plans for new Defence naval projects are subject to examination by the Senate—conducted in a manner similar to international treaties. The committee further recommends that finalised Australian Industry Capability plans are subject to six monthly reviews against progress by the Senate.
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
_____
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—Expanding the membership of the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership—Report—Government response
Recommendation 1:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government continue to embrace an ambitious free trade agenda by working with other CPTPP members to expand the CPTPP to include new members that:
a) support an open, transparent and stable trading environment in the Indo- Pacific;
b) demonstrate an ability and willingness to meet the agreement's high standards including a commitment to deliver against its rules and norms; and
c) offer export potential through enhanced market access.
Response:
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 2:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government works with other CPTPP members to leverage the process that applied to the United Kingdom as the first aspiring economy to formally request accession as a template for future aspirant economies while also learning lessons from the United Kingdom experience including the:
a) benefits that accrue from negotiating a bilateral FTA with the United Kingdom while concurrently encouraging and facilitating its accession to the CPTPP;
b) importance of government-to-government engagement during the CPTPP accession process, including at the ministerial level;
c) value of clear guidance on the CPTPP accession process such as deal stages and related expectations.
Response:
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 3:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with other CPTPP members to encourage and facilitate the accession of the United Kingdom to the CPTPP.
Response:
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 4:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with other CPTPP members to encourage China to re-establish full trading relations including ending its coercive trade measures and reengaging in ministerial dialogue, and to demonstrate an ability and willingness to commit to the CPTPP's high standards, prior to supporting the commencement of an accession process.
Response:
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 5:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with other CPTPP members to encourage and facilitate the accession of Taiwan to the CPTPP and to consider negotiating a bilateral Taiwan-Australia FTA concurrently, noting the benefit of a similar approach taken with the United Kingdom.
Response:
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 6:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with other CPTPP members to support South Korea in submitting a formal request to accede to the CPTPP, and to provide encouragement and facilitation of its accession upon a formal request being submitted.
Response:
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 7:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with other CPTPP members to encourage the United States to renew its interest in the CPTPP.
Response:
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 8:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with other CPTPP members to encourage informal discussions with Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines and other economies which have expressed an interest in acceding to the CPTPP.
Response:
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
_____
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—One region, one family, one future: Deepening relations with the Pacific nations through trade—Report—Government response
Response to the recommendations
Recommendation 1:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government prioritises its support for the Pacific region to recover from COVID-19 by:
a) increasing its development assistance contributions to countries in the region to help them mitigate economic and health crises resulting from the pandemic (refer paragraphs 6.3, 6.5, 6.8—6.11, 6.17 & 6.22);
b) providing vaccine coverage for countries in the region including health workforce training and education campaigns (refer paragraphs 6.9—6.10 & 6.25)
Response:
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends that, given the evidence received, the Australian Government prioritises the activation of greater trade and investment with countries of the Pacific region by:
a) considering measures and reforms to the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER Plus) to address any gaps in key areas such as in rules of origin, customs, biosecurity measures, standards, trade in services and investment during the Agreement's implementation by Australia, New Zealand and Pacific island countries (refer paragraphs 4.5, 4.8, 4.10, 4.37, 4.40, 4.82, 4.91);
b) providing training, seed funding, and targeted support to allow Pacific islanders, including Pacific islander small business owners and Pacific exporters, to gain access to Australian markets and also meet the standards required (refer paragraphs 3.102—3.104, 4.88—4.89, 7.45 & 8.4);
c) supporting further research and evaluation of Australia-Pacific island trade and investment (refer paragraphs 3.49, 5.127 & 5.129);
d) focusing its Aid for Trade program in the Pacific on building human resource, educational and institutional capacity in the Pacific island countries to reform national economic and trade policies, improve trade facilitation processes and build trade-enhancing institutions (refer paragraphs 3.90, 3.91, 3.93 & 3.95—3.104);
e) supporting with technical assistance and expertise the establishment of National Standards Bodies in Pacific island countries with the ambition of developing a regional Pacific standard (refer paragraphs 7.26—7.38);
f) supporting the Pacific Quality Infrastructure Initiative and other bilateral, regional and multilateral projects involving Australia in the Pacific region aimed at delivering quality infrastructure (refer paragraph 7.39);
g) coordinating with interested super funds to support and promote pilot investor tours of Pacific island countries (refer paragraph 6.112);
h) assisting interested governments of Pacific island countries to join Australia's kava commercial importation pilot and for the pilot to consider the feasibility of classifying kava as a food under a joint food standard of Food Standards Australia New Zealand (refer paragraphs 8.13-8.33).
Response:
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 3
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government improves travel and mobility between Australia and the countries of the Pacific region by:
a) establishing a Pacific travel bubble between Australia and New Zealand that includes interested countries of the Pacific region, subject to health advice and the implementation of COVID-safe travel and quarantine arrangements (refer paragraphs 3.30—3.46);
b) investigating the potential for improving infrastructure and its maintenance to encourage and enable increased air and sea links between Australia and the Pacific (refer paragraphs 3.142, 3.145—3.146, 3.148, 3.157—3.158 & 3.160);
c) introducing a Pacific Business Travel Card, similar to the visa APEC Business Travel Card (refer paragraphs 6.44, 6.48—6.49 & 6.51—6.52);
d) reviewing existing labour mobility arrangements, including the Seasonal Worker Programme and the Pacific Labour Scheme, for workers from countries of the Pacific region with consideration for:
Response:
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 4
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government works towards deepening people-to-people ties between Australia and countries of the Pacific region through:
a) sport
b) Churches
c) media—by supporting the provision of more Pacific-related Australian media content on issues such as seasonal work opportunities or aid projects to Pacific nations while also assisting with the expansion and the quality of Pacific-focused business media services to the Pacific (refer paragraphs 6.113—6.115, 6.121—6.123, 6.127—6.130 & 8.35);
d) education—by offering a capped number of Commonwealth Supported Places, or equivalent, to prospective students from countries of the Pacific region, to attend Australian secondary schools, technical and further education institutes, and universities (refer paragraphs 2.92—2.93, 2.101, 3.88 & 7.59—7.61).
Response:
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 5
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government recognise the role played by Australian states and territories, in particular by Queensland, in Australia's relationship with countries of the Pacific by:
a) analysing the recommendations in this report within a Queensland context;
b) undertaking a feasibility study on expanding the services of a Pacificfocused office for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Queensland, resourced by senior departmental staff (refer paragraphs 3.151—3.152 & 3.162); and
c) engaging with the Queensland State Government and relevant local government authorities in Queensland on opportunities to work collaboratively on the recommendations in this report and other initiatives to further strengthen Australia's relationship with countries of the Pacific region.
Response:
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
_____
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Report—Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023 [Provisions]—Government response
Introduction
On 10 May 2023, the Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023 (the Bill) was introduced into the House of Representatives by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, the Hon Richard Maries MP.
On 11 May 2023, the Senate referred the provisions of the Bill to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee (the Committee) for inquiry and report by 9 June 2023. The Committee published 117 submissions, including those made by the Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, and ARPANSA.
The Bill was passed by Parliament on 22 June 2023 and received Royal Assent on 3 July 2023 as the
Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Act 2023.
Australian Government Response to the Report
The Australian Government thanks the Committee for its work. The Government agrees with the Committee's recommendation that the Bill be passed without delay, which subsequently occurred on 22 June 2023.
Response to additional comments by Coalition Senators
The Government welcomes the bipartisan support from Coalition Senators in relation to the passage of the Bill, but does not support lifting the moratorium on civil nuclear power. The removal of prohibitions on the use of nuclear energy is not necessary to support Australia's acquisition of conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines.
Response to the Dissenting Report by the Australian Greens
The Government does not agree with the Australian Greens' Dissenting Report and notes that accepting high level radioactive waste from other countries is not under consideration as part of Australia's nuclear-powered submarine program. No decision has been made regarding Australia joining the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) but the Government shares the Treaty's ambition of a world without nuclear weapons.
Contributing Departments and Agencies to the Government Response
Australian Submarine Agency Department of Defence
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
_____
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—Impact of Defence training activities and facilities on rural and regional communities—First interim report—Government response
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that Defence engage with the Office of the Industry Advocate to investigate opportunities for events or workshops which also include regional areas and local businesses.
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that Defence review its formal mechanisms for communication and coordination in the Upper Spencer Gulf region to ensure:
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that Defence hold a post exercise debrief with the local community representatives on a trial basis and then, in consultation, evaluate whether it would be useful for stakeholders on an ongoing basis.
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 4
The committee recommends that Defence review Defgram 218/2017 to clarify or issue supplementary guidance to staff that local purchases outside the Standing Offer Panel is also encouraged as required.
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 5
The committee recommends that Defence make information available to local communities about
Defence expenditure in the area. In consultation, with the local community, Defence should consider how best to present and disseminate this information.
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
_____
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—Impact of Defence training activities and facilities on rural and regional communities—Second interim report—Government response, dated May 2024.
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that, in consultation with the local councils, Defence review its mechanisms for communication and coordination in the Fitzroy and Townsville regions to ensure the most effective flow of information including plans which may generate potential business opportunities.
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that Defence make information available to local communities about Defence expenditure in the area.
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that Defence commission an independent economic impact assessment of the loss of rateable land which would result from the proposed expansions in these areas.
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 4
The committee recommends that Defence review its formal mechanisms for communication and coordination in the areas around the Shoalwater Bay Training Area to ensure that:
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate
_____
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—Impact of Defence training activities and facilities on rural and regional communities—Third interim report—Government response, dated May 2024.
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that Defence make information available to local communities about Defence expenditure in the area.
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that Defence review the evidence from the Ngaigu-Mulu Aboriginal Corporation at the Katherine public hearing and investigate the issues raised.
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate
_____
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—Impact of Defence training activities and facilities on rural and regional communities—Fourth interim report—Government response, dated May 2024.
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that Defence review the accessibility of military museums located within Defence bases and investigate options to improve access and increase visitor numbers.
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that Defence investigate the feasibility of introducing tailored security arrangements to facilitate streamlined access to the Puckapunyal Military Area in limited circumstances.
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that Defence, in consultation with local councils, reviews its existing regional communication mechanisms with a view to establish a regular forum to facilitate discussion about Defence activities and potential business opportunities in the region.
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 4 4.19
The committee recommends that Defence consider requiring, through an additional provision in Base Services contracts, Tier 1 contractors to use a payment system similar to the system currently used by Defence.
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
Recommendation 5
The committee recommends that Defence make information available to local communities about Defence expenditure in the respective area.
Response:
The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate
_____
Intelligence and Security—Joint Statutory Committee—Report—Annual report of committee activities 2021-22—Government response
Recommendation 1:
The Committee recommends the Department of Home Affairs notify the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in writing when terrorist group re-listings are not being sought or are being de-listed. This is to occur as soon as practicable after the event. Written notification is to be followed up by, if requested, an oral briefing to the Committee on the basis for the revocation or non-renewal of terrorist group listings
Response:
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate
Recommendation 2:
The Committee recommends that any Bill referrals are accompanied by a submission from the department(s) responsible for the Bill.
Response:
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate
Recommendation 3:
The Committee recommends that the appropriate Minister notify the Committee of any amendments to the Intelligence Services Act 2001 affecting the role or functions of the Committee, not contained in a Bill reviewed by the Committee or in a government response to a Committee report.
Response:
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate
Recommendation 4:
The Committee recommends the Australian Government refer Section 29 and Schedule 1 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for review and report at the commencement of the 47th Parliament.
Response:
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate
Recommendation 5:
The Committee recommends the Australian Government investigate, in consultation with the Presiding Officers of the Parliament, the Director-General of Security and the Director-General National Intelligence, the feasibility of additional classified meeting spaces within Parliament House for use by parliamentary committees, including the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
Response:
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate
_____
National Capital and External Territories—Joint Standing Committee—Inquiry into availability and access to enabling communications infrastructure in Australia's external territories—Interim report—Government response
Overview
The interim report on the Availability and Access to Enabling Communications Infrastructure in Australia's External Territories was tabled by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories (the Committee) on 28 February 2022. The Government's responses to the Report's recommendations is below.
Australian Government response
The Australian Government's response to the interim report on the Availability and Access to Enabling Communications Infrastructure in Australia's External Territories is set out in detail below.
Recommendation 1:
The Committee recommends that early in the 47th Parliament, a new Inquiry be referred to this Committee with terms of reference that are similar or comparable to the 'Inquiry into the availability and access to enabling communications infrastructure in Australia's external territories'
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
_____
National Capital and External Territories—Inquiry into economic, social and environmental sustainability in the Indian Ocean Territories—Interim report—Government response
Overview
The interim report into the Economic, Social and Environmental Sustainability in the Indian Ocean Territories (IOT) was tabled by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and the External Territories (the Committee) on 28 February 2022. The Government's responses to the Report's recommendations is below.
Australian Government response
The Australian Government's response to the interim report on the inquiry into economic, social and environmental sustainability in the Indian Ocean Territories is set out below.
Recommendation 1:
The Committee recommends that early in 47th Parliament, a new Inquiry be referred to this Committee with terms of reference that are comparable or similar to the 'Inquiry economic, social and environmental sustainability in the Indian Ocean Territories'.
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
_____
National Disability Insurance Scheme—Joint Standing Committee—Final report—NDIS workforce—Government response
Recommendations made by the Committee
1. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government facilitate the collection of data to support better understanding about new working models being employed in the National Disability Insurance Scheme, including online and platform-based services.
Noted
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
2. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government ensure that workers in the National Disability Insurance Scheme and their representatives, as well as other stakeholders, are consulted in all regular pricing review processes and processes to review the Cost Model for Disability Support Workers.
Noted
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
3. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, through co-design with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and organisations, develop and report on specific outcomes for initiatives in the NDIS National Workforce Plan 2021-2025 to support the growth and development of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander NDIS workforce.
Noted
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
4. The Committee recommends the Australian Government implement a targeted strategy to improve employment opportunities for people with disability within the NDIS workforce specifically, that is co-designed by people with disability and peak bodies.
Noted
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
5. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government address the funding and resource implications of any new training and upskilling initiatives, in relation to NDIS service providers and individual disability support workers within the sector.
Noted
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
6. The Committee recommends the Australian Government develop and implement a robust strategy to increase and improve opportunities for student placements in the NDIS workforce. The strategy should include strong partnerships with NDIS service providers, universities, TAFEs and other training institutions, and be co-designed by people with disability and peak bodies.
Noted
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
7. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation with NDIS participants and their advocates, the disability and allied health sectors, and NDIS workers and their representatives, develop and publish clear and measurable outcomes for each of the initiatives in the NDIS National Workforce Plan 2021-2025.
Noted
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
8. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government develop and publish a comprehensive consultation strategy for the implementation of measures under the NDIS National Workforce Plan 2021-2025.
Noted
The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.
_____
Public Accounts and Audit—Joint Statutory Committee—496th report—Inquiry into the Defence major projects report 2020-21 and 2021-22 and procurement of Hunter class frigates: Interim report on the 2020-21 and 2021-22 Defence major projects report—Government response
General Comments
Defence acknowledges the observations of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit ('the Committee') in Report 496 that specifically addresses the 2020-21 and 2021-22 Major Projects Reports (MPR). Defence agrees with all three recommendations the Committee has made, and has made improvements in policies and practice since the development of the last MPR.
Recommendation No: 1
The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence updates internal governance to require decisions for projects to enter the Projects of Interest or Projects of Concern list be actioned in a timely manner, taking no more than three months between decision and implementation.
Summary of response: Agreed
Supporting rationale:
Defence acknowledges the Committee's concern that projects must be elevated to Projects of Interest or Concern in a timely manner, as a result of the issues identified in the 2021-22 Major Projects Report regarding the Civil Military Air Traffic Management System project.
Defence has implemented reform measures announced on 10 October 2022 by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence Industry to strengthen and revitalise the Projects of Concern process. A revised policy on the performance reporting and the Projects and Products of Interest and Concern regime was introduced in February 2023.
The policy provides specific guidance on timeframes to action the advice and remediation planning for Project of Interest or Concern. Advice to the Group Head must be provided within one month of the need for consideration of elevation being identified. In the case of Projects of Interest, the Group Head is the decision-maker. Should the Group Head determine that the project should be elevated to a Project of Concern that advice is to be provided to the Minister for Defence Industry within two weeks. A remediation plan is to be in place within three months of the decision.
Recommendation No: 2
The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence provide a detailed update on the implementation of and compliance with internal policies for contingency funding and Lessons Learned for Major Projects.
Summary of response: Agreed
Supporting rationale:
Defence has been supporting its major project teams with additional guidance and assistance to improve their compliance with policies and processes associated with project management. Defence is seeing positive signs that the contingency funding and lessons learned policies are being adhered to across the MPR projects, and continues to assess compliance across all major projects.
Contingency funding
In accordance with the existing Defence contingency management policy, if a major project is unable to manage a contingency event within its approved budget allocation, it must enter a formal process to access contingency provisions. The Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group Risk Management Manual specifies the requirement for a major project to maintain a contingency budget log, an artefact required for the contingency application process.
The requirement for submission of the contingency log, to be assessed as part of the contingency application process, ensures that major projects maintain a record of management decisions relating to the emergence and realisation of contingent events. This enables the project to be able to access contingency.
An assessment of the projects in scope of the 2022-23 Major Project Report identified that all five projects that had used contingency had linked this to a risk in their respective logs, and followed the Defence policy. Defence continues to assess compliance for all major projects.
Lessons learned
Since the release of the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group (CASG) revised Lessons Program Policy in 2022 (with which all MPR projects must comply), Defence has continued to improve the way that lessons are captured and shared for major projects.
Observations, insights and lessons are captured within the Defence Lessons Repository. Under the CASG Lessons Program, major projects must develop a Lessons Collection and Management Plan, which draws on existing information in the Defence Lessons Repository relevant for their project planning and management. The Plan also requires the project to record their own observations, insights and lessons. This process supports the planning of future projects.
In addition to policy, there are a range of other ways that lessons information is shared and utilised. Lessons panels are held on specific projects, where the project team and their leaders provide insights and advice to an audience of senior leaders and project teams across CASG. Case studies are also developed to share knowledge more broadly. Additionally, systemic themes from the Defence Lessons Repository are analysed and fed back into policy and training.
Defence is undertaking specific action to record the lessons from previous exited Major Projects in the Defence Lessons Repository. This includes the issues identified regarding compliance with contingency management and lessons learned policies.
An assessment of the projects in scope of the 2022-23 Major Projects Report identified that all of the projects have related lessons information available within the Defence Lessons Repository. Defence has reinforced with its project teams the requirement for capturing lessons in the repository and is monitoring this and providing assistance to project teams to ensure this occurs.
Recommendation No: 3
The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence provide an update on the requirements and consideration process to close recommendations from the Australian National Audit Office and the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, including an explanation as to why Recommendation 4 of Report 489: Defence Major Projects Report 2019-20 has been closed without meeting its intended purpose.
Summary of Response: Agreed
Supporting Rationale:
With regard to Recommendation 4 of Report 489: Defence Major Projects Report 2019-20, Defence understood the Committee was seeking Defence to better define the declaration of operational capability milestones. Defence determined that, going forward, there would be only two authorised terms describing a delta or deviation from achievement of project milestones—'caveats' and 'deficiencies'. These were updated in Defence policy in December 2022.
Defence acknowledges that "the definition of the two terms does not meet the intention of the Committee's recommendation to clarify any term relating to a deviation from project milestones being achieved". Recommendation 4 of Report 489 was closed in accordance with Defence's recommendation closure policy and process, with Defence advising the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit of audit closure of Recommendation 4 of Report 489, via a tabling document on 1 June 2023.
Defence's intention in responding to Recommendation 4 was to identify to the Committee that there would only be two terms going forward. Defence intended to define any remaining legacy references in the 2022-23 Major Projects Report via its glossary and accepts that the response to the recommendation would have benefited from that clarification. There are three projects that use the legacy term 'exception' from 2021 in relation to achievement of project milestones in the 2022-23 Major Project Report. Definitions of 'exception', 'issue' and 'risk' were included in the 2022-23 Major Projects Report glossary.
All projects will adhere to the endorsed terms of 'caveats' and 'deficiencies' going forward.
With regard to the process to close recommendations from the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) and the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, Defence's Chief Audit Executive provides independent and objective assessment of evidence to show the requirements of the recommendation have been met to close recommendations. Once the Chief Audit Executive approves closure of the Parliamentary recommendation, Defence will provide a response back to the relevant committee.
The status of recommendations, including when they are considered implemented, is also reported regularly to the independent Defence Audit and Risk Committee. The ANAO are provided these updates on the status and closure of audit recommendations, as they are permanently invited guests to the Defence Audit and Risk Committee meetings.
In 2021, the ANAO conducted the Implementation of ANAO and Parliamentary Committee Recommendations Audit (Audit 34 of 2020-21) to examine whether the Department of Defence implemented a selection of agreed parliamentary committee and ANAO performance audit recommendations. One of the key criteria was to assess if Defence had appropriate governance arrangements in place to respond to, monitor and implement recommendations. The ANAO audit acknowledged Defence had appropriate governance arrangements for responding to, monitoring and implementing ANAO recommendations and partially appropriate governance arrangements for parliamentary recommendations.
In response, Defence reviewed its existing recommendations processes and revised them to establish a clear line of sight of the process, roles and responsibilities for responding to and implementing recommendations for internal and ANAO audits and parliamentary committee recommendations.
The ANAO does not require Government departments to provide advice on the status or closure of ANAO performance audit recommendations. Defence prepare a closure pack for the ANAO to assess the remediation of financial statement audit findings. In addition, as detailed above, the ANAO are permanently invited guests of the Defence Audit and Risk Committee meetings where the status and closure of ANAO and Parliamentary recommendations are discussed.
_____
Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—202nd report—Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement—Government response
Introduction
The Australian Government thanks the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties
(the Committee) for its expedited consideration of the Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement (ECTA).
The Government provides the following response to the Committee's recommendations.
Response to the recommendations
Recommendation 1
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government strongly pursues greater market access for the Australian wine industry in future Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement negotiations.
Response:
The Government accepts this recommendation.
Seeking additional market access for wine is a priority in negotiations for an Australia- India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement.
Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends the Australian Government implements the recommendations of Report 193: Strengthening the Trade Agreement and Treaty Making Process in Australia, particularly in relation to greater consultation and transparency, and in providing independent modelling and analysis of trade agreements.
Response:
The Government notes this recommendation and proposes to formally respond in the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth inquiry: Inquiry into the Australian Government's approach to negotiating trade and investment agreements.
The Government is improving its consultation and transparency in relation to the free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations process and endeavours to undertake economic modelling and/or analysis of trade agreements where appropriate.
The Government requested the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth inquire into the Government's approach to negotiating trade and investment agreements.
Identifying methods to strengthen stakeholder consolation and improve transparency was a key reason for this request.
The Government has also established a Trade 2040 Taskforce, which held its inaugural meeting on 2 November 2023 and brings together government, industry, unions and community representatives and serves as a consultative mechanism to further the Government's trade policy agenda. The Taskforce will help improve the consultative processes with stakeholders across the forward trade and investment agenda, including with business, unions and community representatives.
In addition, National Cabinet decided on 30 September 2022 to include a Ministerial Council on Trade and Investment in the Federal Relations Architecture. It held its second meeting on 20 October 2023 and is intended to increase coordination on international and national priorities related to trade and investment across Commonwealth, State and Territory jurisdictions, including in relation to trade agreements. More information can be found at: Communique—Second Meeting of the Ministerial Council on Trade and Investment | Minister for Trade and Tourism (trademinister.gov.au) DFAT sources information on opportunities and potential impacts of FTAs through extensive consultations and stakeholder engagement. DFAT undertakes appropriate economic modelling, both commissioned and in house, of individual FTAs on a case-by-case basis. Independent analysis on new and existing FTAs is also provided by stakeholders in submissions addressing impacts on the Australian economy as a whole or on certain sectors. These processes commence before the development of a mandate and continue throughout the negotiations and after entry into force.
Recommendation 3
The Committee supports the Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement and recommends that binding treaty action be taken.
Response:
The Government has implemented this recommendation.
The Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement entered into force on 29 December 2022.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That Senator Barbara Pocock be granted leave of absence for the period 24 June 2024 to 4 July 2024 inclusive.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation annual report 2023.
That the Senate take note of the report.
… the commission's model would enable the legislature to avoid taking responsibility for difficult public policy issues such as setting the limits on the manifestation of religious freedom.
The AHRC model should be scrapped altogether. It cannot be described as upholding human rights when it undermines so significantly key rights which are intended for Australians under international law.
This is a significant retrograde step for the protection of religious freedom. It replicates and reinforces one of the fundamental weaknesses of existing domestic bill of rights type legislation.
Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2023-2024
Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2023-2024
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025
The Senate divided. [18:04]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) the Independent Review of the National Legal Assistance Partnership 2020-2025 (NLAP) found that current funding is far below what is needed for critical legal assistance services to meet growing demand,
(ii) the NLAP made 39 recommendations for significantly increased funding for legal assistance services and changes to the way funding is delivered which the Government has not yet responded to,
(iii) the May budget allocated $41.4 million to legal assistance services, with just $15.4 million of that earmarked for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services sector, which was calling for $229 million in funding to meet increased demand and operational costs; and
(b) calls on the Government to provide the full amount of recommended urgent funding for legal assistance programs to provide lifesaving support services".
The Senate divided. [18:08]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)
Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023
That the Senate does not further insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has insisted on disagreeing.
The Senate divided. [18:14]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)
Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to:
(a) provide definitive and objective measures on what it considers constitutes the success or failure of this bill; and
(b) if these measures are not met, move to alternative regulatory models such as allowing vaping products to be sold in general retail".
It is incomprehensible that when confronted with these facts your party—
appears to want to gamble with people's—
Our children are being used as guinea pigs—guinea pigs to test what vaping might do to them in the future.
… be alert to any efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine or subvert tobacco control efforts …
… engage proactively on solutions to combat the rapidly growing unregulated nicotine market.
… likely to be influenced by the industry which seeks to continue to profit from ill health and nicotine addiction …
Mr Littleproud and the Nationals need to put the health of our children first and say 'no' to toxic vapes; 'no' to harming the health of Australian children; and 'no' to the shameful tactics of Big Tobacco.
The consequences of this ban have been disastrous, with nine out of 10 vapers having already rejected the prescription model and instead sourcing their products from the black market.
They simply allow them to charge more for their services and increase the profits available to organised crime.
… markets adapt, and supply goes underground, where it is even more difficult to police.
New Zealand has seen very little evidence of an organised illicit vape market … due to … competition from the legal marketplace.
The medical prescription requirement appears cumbersome and unlikely to be a workable option for people who smoke.
Regretfully, such reductions have not been observed in Australia and perhaps there are lessons to be learnt from these other countries with regards to strategies and policies which are effective in reducing the incidence of youth vaping.
In markets where a total ban applies to vaping products, it is inevitable that an illicit 'black market' will become a major problem for the government.
You just need to look at the numbers. Today there are anywhere from one to 1.7 million adults who are vaping … Unfortunately, their access point has been through unregulated illegal products, which are far more dangerous than regulated products.
The lobby group representing pharmacy owners said its members were "gobsmacked" by a deal between the Greens and Labor which will see vapes sold over-the-counter by pharmacists without a prescription, claiming they only heard the changes via media release after the deal was done.
A Bill is currently before Parliament to change the current medicines schedule for nicotine-containing vapes from Schedule 4 (Prescription Only) to Schedule 3 (Pharmacist Only).
The result of the proposed change is that nicotine-containing vapes could be available for purchase through a community pharmacy without the requirement for a valid prescription.
The Guild strongly opposes this proposal.
The pharmacist must:
(a) inform the patient, or a parent or a guardian of the patient, that the therapeutic good is not a listed good or registered good; and
(b) obtain informed consent from the patient, or a parent or a guardian of the patient, in relation to, and before, the supply of the therapeutic good; and
(c) supply the therapeutic good in accordance with good pharmacy practice; and
(d) provide professional advice to the patient on alternative cessation supports and therapies, appropriate dose and frequency depending on age, weight and severity of condition, length of treatment, suitable titration, and interactions with other medicines; and—
(e) provide contact details about smoking cessation support services to the patient; and
(f) if the pharmacist becomes aware that the patient has suffered an adverse event in relation to the therapeutic good—notify the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the sponsor of the therapeutic good about the adverse event in accordance with the reporting guidelines set out in the SAS Guidance; and—
(g) if the pharmacist becomes aware of a defect in the therapeutic good—notify the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the sponsor of the therapeutic good in accordance with the reporting guidelines set out in the SAS Guidance.
… provide professional advice to the patient on alternative cessation supports and therapies, appropriate dose and frequency depending on age, weight and severity of condition, length of treatment, suitable titration, and interactions with other medicines …