by leave—I move:

That the Aged Care Act 1997—Independent review of legislative provisions governing the use of restraints in residential aged care—Final report, dated December 2020, and the Aged Care Quality and Safety—Royal Commission—Final report: Care, dignity and respect, be restored to the Notice Paper to be considered on Thursday afternoon.

Question agreed to.

I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021. I welcome the opportunity to lead for the Labor Party on this bill, which we very strongly oppose in its totality. This bill is dangerous and it's unfair. Rather than doing what its title says, it will in fact hurt workers, cut their pay and conditions and make jobs less secure, not more secure. Ultimately it will hurt the Australian economy. It's nothing more than a cynical and opportunistic attack on workers' rights and conditions at work, all under the guise of the COVID-19 pandemic.

It could have all been so different if only the government had been genuine in its rhetoric about wanting to improve our industrial relations laws in ways that would create jobs and leave no worker worse off. But, as always, the government talked the big game and made the big announcements but, in a so utterly predictable manner, failed to deliver anything like it. We've seen it so many times with this government—all announcement and no delivery. But, when they do deliver, of course, it's pork-barrelling and rorts or just delivering for their mates.

As our country and the world have grappled with the enormous health and economic challenges presented by COVID-19, Labor has provided the government with all the necessary cooperation to ensure financial assistance reached businesses, workers and families as quickly as possible, to help them get through this terrible pandemic. The measure Morrison and Frydenberg so loudly proclaim as their big success—the wage subsidy, or JobKeeper, as it has been branded—was originally put forward by Labor and the unions but rejected out of hand by this government. The Prime Minister actually said it would be 'dangerous' to implement what became JobKeeper.

We put forward the idea, and when the government finally decided to do it we supported it, even though it left a million casual workers behind; ignored university workers, people in the arts and entertainment industry, the sporting industry and of course the tourism industry, which I've been familiar with; and left loyal aviation workers completely out in the cold. Nevertheless, we were constructive. Similarly, the union movement worked with employers and the Fair Work Commission to ensure that changes to awards could be made quickly to allow businesses to keep operating in the most difficult and unique of circumstances. If anything, what was achieved showed that the current system was already flexible enough to respond to and manage unforeseen issues. And despite the fact that Labor was not invited to the negotiating table, when Scott Morrison announced his industrial relations working groups we were prepared to considered agreed measures that came from those groups. The unions were invited and were involved with that process, and they were represented in every working group. So, if there was agreement coming out of that process, we would be open and willing to consider those changes.

But what we have before us is not the result of anything that came out of those working groups—and this is an important point. We cannot be deceived by employer groups or media reports that the legislation represents consensus from any of the Attorney-General's working groups, because it does not. Even the wage theft provisions in the bill, which at least contain some positive measures, override existing stronger legislation in both Queensland and Victoria. This was not supported by unions, so it's fair to say that there was virtually nothing to show for the 32 working group meetings over a period of 10 weeks, taking up around 150 hours. When the working group process was gradually announced by the Prime Minister back in May last year, it was all about breaking away from the old arguments and finding new ways for employers and unions to work together to come to an agreement around improving our industrial relations system. The Prime Minister tried to portray himself as a Bob Hawke of the day, forging a new way forward. Well, I knew Bob Hawke, and Scott Morrison is no Bob Hawke.

But nobody bought the idea. As my colleague the shadow minister for industrial relations pointed out, when Hawke negotiated the first prices and incomes accord with the trade union movement he brought universal health cover to the table. Scott Morrison, on the other hand, simply brought the table. There was never going to be any give in this, only take. And that's what we're left with in this legislation. Just ask the union movement, who, in good faith and in the spirit of cooperation, participated fully in every one of those 32 meetings. But, I'm afraid to say, it was all for nothing. With what we have before us here in this legislation, it is actually as if the union movement were not even in the room. I'll say that again, Madam Deputy President, because I know you're surprised, but it's as if the union movement were not even in the room.

Just read the opening summary to the ACTU's submission to the Senate inquiry on the bill:

This Bill, if enacted will cut the wages, conditions and rights of Australian workers. Working people have either been the essential workers supporting the country during the pandemic or have already suffered the most from the economic impacts of Covid19. Punishing them with cuts to their rights should not be acceptable to this Parliament.

But that is the outcome of the Prime Minister's and the Attorney-General's working groups: a complete failure or, as was expressed in so many other submissions, a lost opportunity. We shouldn't pretend that there's any balance in this legislation so far as the workers are concerned. What we need to understand is that the temptation to use the COVID crisis to drive through a long-wished-for group of antiworker measures was just too great for this government. They simply returned to what they always do; it's in their DNA. That DNA gave us Work Choices over a decade ago. Remember that? Howard finally got his chance, his dream, to implement his own industrial relations provisions called 'Work Choices'—of course it was nothing like work choices—over a decade ago. It was comprehensively rejected by the Australian people in the 2007 election.

Even in the absence of consensus from the working groups on industrial relations reform, Labor set a very simple test as to whether we would support the legislation: would it deliver secure jobs with decent pay? It's a simple question: would it deliver secure jobs with decent pay? The answer to this piece of legislation is an outstanding no. It simply does not deliver secure jobs with decent pay. When we first saw this bill last December, which contained even more extreme provisions relating to a two-year suspension of the better off overall test, we said no. The bill represented an attack on the rights of workers who got us through COVID, the heroes of the pandemic. I will say that again, Deputy President, because I know you're interested in this point: the bill represented an attack on the rights of workers who got us through COVID, the very workers who managed to hold the fort while lots of us didn't turn up for parliament. These workers, like shop assistants, turned up for work every day, serving customers, risking their own health. What reward do they get from this government? They get a piece of legislation that kicks them right in the guts. Their thanks for—

Senator McCarthy interjecting—

It is a shame, Senator McCarthy. You've hit the nail on the head there. Here we have a group of workers—I'm familiar with retail workers and that wonderful union, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association, which represents them—who worked through this crisis when heaps and heaps of people in this chamber did not turn up to work. They were working; they were serving customers. They were ensuring that the one thing that people who might have been in lockdown could do was get food on their tables at home to feed their kids and feed their families. What does this government do to them? In what way does this government thank those workers for sticking their necks out, turning up for work every single day—unlike what we were doing here—providing a service to our community in the worst pandemic in 100 years? What reward do they get from this government? They get a kick in the guts. There's no other way to describe this piece of legislation. In fact, those people opposite ought to be ashamed when they come to vote for this piece of legislation, because of the way they want to reward those brave workers. I've just picked out the retail workers because I'm familiar with them, but there are lots of others: there are the hospitality workers that you'd be familiar with, Deputy President, and the people who work in hospitals—nurses and doctors. All of those people who stuck their necks out during the pandemic and continued to go to work, treating or dealing with people who might have had COVID or did have COVID. The way these people opposite, the government, say thank you to them is to reduce their terms and conditions, their bargaining power and their ability to get a wage rise.

When was the last time any of these workers got a wage rise? People in this chamber have had a wage rise more recently than most Australian workers. Have a look at the figures on what's happening with wages, Madam Deputy President; I know you are familiar with this already, but I will tell you again. Basically wages are stagnant in this country. Wages are not rising. So what does this government do? It proposes to set in place a piece of legislation that's going to make it even more difficult for workers to try and recover what they've lost.

It's a disgrace!

It is a disgrace; I can't agree with you more there, Senator McCarthy. It's a disgrace what this government is proposing to do.

Just think about who they're trying to target with this bill. It's not professionals. It's not the top end of town. It's those people who jobs are most vulnerable. Their jobs are already under threat with JobKeeper ending. I know about this. I was up in Far North Queensland only a couple of weeks ago talking to some of the people who face an economic cliff in two weeks time because of the removal of the JobKeeper provisions. The people who have continued to work, like casual shop assistants, turning up for three-hour shifts or whatever they might be, are the most vulnerable in our community right now. They've done the right thing. They've continued to work through the whole COVID pandemic to serve the community. And how does this government thank them? How does this government reward them? This government takes away their basic terms and conditions that might give them an opportunity to try and improve their wages as we go forward.

This bill goes backwards. What we should have had by now is a bill that goes forwards, that says to these workers: 'Thank you. We appreciate what you have done during this pandemic, and we are going to reward you—maybe even with a wage rise, some extra hours, some better leave provisions, some pandemic leave provisions.' No—none of that. This government only wants to go backwards. Labor will oppose this legislation.

I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020. I can tell you that, unlike the title of it, there is absolutely nothing fair about this bill. This bill seeks to suppress wages and erode working conditions for all workers, especially those who are the lowest paid, through a suite of measures designed to further shift the balance of power from workers to business. The Morrison government's clear agenda in putting this bill—the biggest attack on workers' rights since John Howard's Work Choices—is entrenching insecure work to the overwhelming benefit of big business and to the enormous detriment of workers and communities.

One of the most noxious provisions of this bill is its redefinition of 'casual employee'. The new definition will give employers all the power to determine whether a worker is casual, and will allow businesses to classify workers as casual at the start of their employment regardless of the hours they end up working. Not only does this new definition do nothing to prevent misclassification of permanent workers as casual; it actually facilitates it by allowing businesses to hire workers as casuals and give them full-time hours, without requiring businesses to pay entitlements or provide any job security.

This bill will rob part-time workers of hours and income security by allowing businesses to effectively treat them like casuals, with the power to increase and decrease workers' hours. Part-time workers in industries that have been hardest hit by the pandemic such as hospitality and retail would be employed on contracts that offer a guarantee of only 16 hours a week, with their employer able to increase their hours without paying any overtime. Workers will be forced into a false choice: accept a contract with minimal guaranteed hours and agree to additional hours at lower pay; or risk losing the job offer or additional hours to one of the over two million people who are currently unemployed or underemployed. This push from the government turns what should be secure well-paid jobs into insecure work, with no guarantee of regular hours or take-home pay.

Despite the removal of the changes to the better off overall test, the government has snuck in changes that could have the very same effect: a suite of changes proposed in this bill would significantly erode workers' rights and undermine the role of unions in the enterprise-bargaining process. The Fair Work Commission won't be required to satisfy itself that an agreement doesn't exclude the minimum National Employment Standards set out in the Fair Work Act. Instead, the bill replaces the safety net with a yet-to-be-seen regulation that will allow employers to provide a model NES interaction term—which will supposedly assure Fair Work that minimum standards are not excluded.

Additionally, employer obligations to provide workers with important information and all documents relating to the agreement are significantly weakened and employers are no longer required to notify workers that they have a right to be represented by their union in negotiations until a month after they begin. This means that workers may not have all the information necessary to make a decision about an agreement, and might not even know that they have access to support until it's too late. The bill also requires the Fair Work Commission to approve agreements within 21 days, a provision which has raised significant concern about pressure to approve or reject agreements without proper scrutiny, resulting in low-quality agreements which actually harm workers.

As if this catalogue of unfairness were not enough, the government has included provisions that prevent unions which haven't been involved in negotiations from making submissions to the Fair Work Commission. This means that unions—the experts in industrial relations—will not be able to scrutinise non-union agreements and work towards improving them.

During the inquiry into this bill, we heard from unions about the working group process up to the bill. Ms Lori-Anne Sharp, assistant federal secretary of the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Foundation, summed it up pretty well when she said:

I was involved in that five-month process, during the lockdown in Melbourne, and we entered it all in very good faith. How disappointed we were to see this legislation, … It seems that the government has gone straight to the hands of the big corporations.

And that is exactly right. The government, as always, has gone straight into the hands of the big corporations.

It appears that while plenty of proposals from business lobbies have made their way into this bill, the recommendations of unions and other labour law experts were summarily dismissed by the government. It's not hard to imagine why. We know why: reforms that would improve workplace entitlements and benefits for workers are not part of the Liberal-National-big-business agenda. I don't think they ever were. Time and time again we have seen big businesses act in their own self-interest at the expense of workers' wages and conditions. However, the government is removing the safety net checks and balances that are designed to protect workers and asking them to trust businesses to do the right thing. This is not a government which has any interest—any interest whatsoever—in supporting good jobs for anyone but the wealthy or the kind of economic recovery which would make life better for everyone in our society. Their interest is in propping up dying industries like coal and gas at the behest of their donors and in securing jobs for themselves—the board directorships and senior executive positions that await them at the other side of their term in this parliament. This government's only true constituency is big business, and this bill is a gift to the corporate interests that bought the Liberal and National parties a long time ago.

A casualised workforce, effectively at the mercy of bosses' wishes to hire and fire, is exactly what corporations and this government are looking for, and that is what this bill will deliver—an insecure workforce with no income security and reduced capacity to organise collectively. It will deliver a more easily exploitable workforce, one which has no choice but to accept bad jobs with bad pay and bad conditions so that people can just get by. The explosion in casual work before and during the pandemic has been a recipe for greater inequality and more stress and angst amongst people and communities.

The pandemic has highlighted the inequality that has been allowed to flourish as a result of insecure work in Australia, and it has supercharged it. Not only is this bill antiworker; it is also racist and sexist. A bill which increases the precarity of casual and part-time workers, reduces collective bargaining power and suppresses wages will be yet another blow to women and migrants, compounding the harm of this government's gendered, racialised and exclusionary responses to the pandemic so far. Just as women and migrant workers have borne the brunt of this pandemic, so too will they suffer because of the provisions of this bill. Already overly represented in the casual and part-time workforce, women and migrant workers are also overrepresented in the lowest-paid sectors of the economy. During the pandemic, women lost their jobs twice as fast as men did, withdrew from higher education at greater rates than men did, were even further loaded with unpaid caring work and, after a brief period of free child care, had that ripped from under them too. Thousands and thousands of migrant workers have been locked out of JobKeeper and JobSeeker due to eligibility requirements. Migrant workers were already vulnerable to exploitation and wage theft. Without the ability to access income support, their situation has become even more precarious. Many have been forced to rely on charity or to try to make ends meet in the gig economy. The danger of unregulated gig work was brought home by the deaths of delivery riders on the job. This bill will only make things worse for the most vulnerable workers in our society.

Before the pandemic, wage growth for all workers was stagnant. Jobs were increasingly insecure and wage theft was rife. Since COVID reared its head, things have only gotten worse. Casual workers were the hardest hit during the pandemic, accounting for two-thirds of people who lost their jobs in early 2020. Casuals who still had a job were amongst the lowest paid and least secure workers, with no access to paid leave entitlements. The labour share of national income has fallen below 50 per cent for the first time since 1959, and corporate profits have soared. Wage growth has fallen to record lows during COVID, and wages have declined in real terms. As lockdowns have ended and businesses have begun to reopen, the proportion of insecure jobs has exploded. Sixty per cent of all jobs that have been created as the economy has started to open up again are casual jobs. Nearly two-thirds of new jobs are part time. Where those part-time jobs are permanent, the government is effectively opening the door to casualising them.

It is impossible to deny the extreme danger to public health posed by insecure work, in the form of both the direct threat to public health in the context of a pandemic and the negative effect on people's psychological, social and economic wellbeing. As we know, the lack of paid leave for casual workers forced people to choose between their health and their income. This government forced people to make an impossible choice between risking contracting COVID by going to work or losing their income and staying home, like we were all instructed to do to keep ourselves and each other safe.

An economic recovery measured solely in terms of how well business is doing will be no recovery at all. An economy is not just numbers cleverly arranged on a spreadsheet. It is not just a series of balance sheets. It is not just the fantasy world of financial markets. The economy is fundamentally about the way our society is organised: how resources, power and the productive and caring work that sustains us are distributed and how that work is compensated. An economy cannot be healthy if it isn't fair and inclusive. If people don't have their basic human needs and rights met, if work isn't meaningful and safe, if people aren't able to be creative and social, because they don't have time or can't afford it, an economy is not functional. The Greens reject the fantasy world the Morrison government lives in, a world where money and price are realistic representations of value and sufficient signifiers of the health of an economy. We recognise the vital importance of social labour and care and the fundamental necessity of making sure everyone's economic and social needs are met. We deserve to have a government determined to help the country grow out of this public health and economic crisis with a more inclusive, safer, secure economy where every worker can honestly look forward to a brighter future.

We should be reducing insecure work, not entrenching it. We need a genuine process for ensuring casual workers have the opportunity to convert to permanent employment if their work is regular and if they would like to, to avoid catastrophes like we have seen throughout the pandemic. At the very least we must ensure casual workers have access to paid pandemic leave, we must ensure that gig economy workers receive the same wages and conditions as any other workers and we must wind back union-busting laws and guarantee the right to strike. We need to shift the balance of power back towards the workers, not more in favour of billionaires.

The Greens want minimum wages, terms and conditions in the Fair Work Act; modern awards or enterprise agreements to apply to gig economy workers; and legislated security of work. Instead, the Morrison government want to take us further down the path of extreme wealth inequality and disempowerment of labour because, like all the neoliberal zealots that came before them, they have no abiding belief in society or community. If the Senate passes this bill, it will be buttressing a nihilistic ideology that sees workers not as people but as wage bills to be minimised and units to be shuffled around to fill shifts and then be discarded. It will send a message to every worker in this country that their lives, their families and their communities aren't important to this chamber. Workers deserve much better than that. The Greens reject this bill and the Greens reject this government.

The Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021 is an important piece of legislation in the life of this parliament. When we come to the topic of industrial relations it's an opportunity to hear about the parallel universes that exist around this chamber. We hear all sorts of smearing and basically the inference of corruption, which we heard from the Greens just then. That is such a degrading way to start a debate.

I understand that people have different views on these matters, but the reality is that these are important issues for working people and for Australians. The way that we calibrate our labour laws and the way that we set up our tax policies are very important to the lives of people who elect us to these chambers. I would like to think that we could have a more mature debate than have people come in here and read out talking points that haven't even been written in this building. It is quite clear that vested interests are writing these talking points for members and senators. I think they're just coming in here and reading them out.

When it comes down to the basic elements, we have a country that has been very successful. We're the 12th-largest economy on earth. We have a small domestic population. We have relied upon foreign capital and have relied upon trying to get good migrants. We've got an outward disposition. We have to be competitive because we're competing for investment. We haven't got enough capital to develop our own country. That is the Australian problem. Capital has been diverted to superannuation people and others, so we have a major issue with our competitive position. That is the starting point for me, because how competitive you are determines how much investment you will get and then how many jobs you'll be able to create on the back of that investment. It's pretty simple. So labour laws are critical. Labour laws have to be competitive. No-one owes this country a favour, so you have to be competitive. You have to create the conditions where organisations, people and businesses are going to invest in this country and create more jobs. When you look at the things that hold back the economy—and I accept that they're politically difficult to change—tax, the way you tax, tax rates and labour laws are really important things. So I welcome the fact that our government is pursuing these industrial relations changes. They have come out of a process held in good faith by our government and key stakeholders, employers, unions and third parties.

On this question of unions, a lot has been said. This side is not wanting to be hostile towards organised trade unions, but we are concerned about the tendency of organised trade unions to operate for the benefit of themselves and not for the benefit of their stated constituents, the workers. There has been a tradition of financial schemes, boondoggles, super funds, industry super funds—whatever—bringing together money taken from workers and spending it on themselves. That is a major concern. We want to see good trade unions representing the interests of workers.

We want to see the same thing on the business side. We want to see good, organised business operations representing the interests of business focused on the national interest. This is the challenge we have in this area. It's the same on labour laws and it's the same on superannuation. It's hard to find organisations that will argue what the best thing is for the nation right now. I'm not interested in trying to find the best thing for capital or labour; I'm interested in trying to find the best thing for the country as we come out of this economic shock. That is very important. So I wish that more would come with clean hands.

On the elements that have come out of this process, perhaps the major one deals with casuals. There has been enormous confusion after the Rossato case. A court decision said that casuals, paid a higher rate of pay, can effectively double dip and get the same protections as full-time workers. We have no problem with flexible work. We have no problem with full-time work. We have no problem with people having legal statutory protections. But we don't want to see double dipping. The implications for people coming into this place and arguing against these changes really are quite grave.

The way the Rossato case has been determined by the courts has meant there is $39 billion of liability sitting on the balance sheets of these organisations, businesses, in Australia, so we have to tidy this up. We have to give certainty about what a casual worker is. Australian Mines and Metals Association CEO Steve Knott, last year, said:

The precedent set by the Federal Court in both the Rossato and Skene decisions overturned decades of common understanding about casual employment and suggested casuals could have two bites of the cherry—higher hourly pay rates and entitlements reserved for permanent employees.

This is something we should fix, and this bill offers a pathway.

This bill gives casual workers a pathway to permanent employment. That's what it does. It clarifies exactly what a casual worker is and what a full-time worker is so that businesses can employ people knowing what the laws are. Quite an important precondition for investment is understanding the world in which you're entitled to make an investment. Labour costs, quite rightly, in many sectors are quite high. So clarifying this and giving a clear path to conversion is a welcome reform.

Award flexibility is another element. We want to see the extension of the coronavirus settings that allow workers and businesses to agree on more flexibility. This whole idea that we've got to be trapped and straddled to this Fair Work Commission archaeology forever is going to send Australia to the Dark Ages. I think the idea that workers and businesses are banned and can't actually agree on providing more flexibility which suits them is very, very troubling. You have to wonder: why would parties come into this place and want to deny individual workplace agency? Perhaps we'll find out. At the end of the day, we also want to improve underemployment by providing more avenues for people to get more work, which could be delivered through the question of more flexibility. Thirty per cent of retail workers say they want access to more work. Forty per cent of food and accommodation workers say they want access to more work. The flexibility proposed in this bill could deliver that.

When we turn to enterprise agreements, this has to be one of the biggest failings of the industrial architecture known as the Fair Work Commission framework. The whole idea is that you've got basic conditions guaranteed in law, the employment standards, and then you've got the award. That is supposed to be a baseline; that is supposed to provide Australian workers with certainty and protection. The whole system is premised on the basis that there would be enterprise bargaining, there would be the opportunity for workers, individually or represented by unions, to bargain with their workplaces, with their employers, to go above and beyond to get a better deal at the workplace level. That system is dead. Enterprise bargaining in Australia is dead. It has died and, if you don't believe me, I give you the view of a former Fair Work Commission senior deputy president, Peter Richards—it's had so many presidents, it's hard to keep up with all the presidents in this constitutional monarchy. He said:

Ironically, collective agreements have become bundles of individual contracts, and are simply too transaction-rich for employers to bother about.

But interestingly, we've got a view from the Australian Council of Trade Unions secretary, Sally McManus, who has quite rightly said in relation to the bargaining system:

We cannot allow workers' pay or conditions to go backwards through bargaining—

Agreed, because bargaining has got to be a better deal; it can't be a worse deal. Ms McManus went on to say:

We need to fix the bargaining system to give workers more power to win pay rises and improve conditions, not give employers even more options to cut wages—

Agreed, agreed, agreed. My former boss Jennifer Westcott has said that the BOOT and the enterprise bargaining system, which is dead, were 'a productivity killer'. So there you go: the ACTU and the Business Council of Australia are both saying this enterprise bargaining system is dead. That means that workers can't get a better deal.

Our bill puts forward a proposition that you can get enterprise agreements, EAs, done in 21 days, not three years or 14 decades, which this Fair Work Commission takes to deal with things. A less technical test would revise enterprise bargaining in Australia, and that would be a good thing for Australian workers. That would be a good thing for business, which ultimately provides 80 per cent or 90 per cent of the workforce in Australia. We can't all work for the government in this country; most people work in the real world and they want to get pay rises, they want to get a better deal than the awards. Enterprise bargaining being dead is hurting workers, so we need to bring enterprise bargaining back to life. This bill is the only option in town. This is the only chance to bring enterprise bargaining back from the dead, from the crypt. You can knock off an enterprise agreement in 21 days, if this bill were to pass. The Fair Work Commission thinks it has the powers of some sort of an emperor over the economy. I tell you what, no-one elected those people and we need to legislate to provide that the Fair Work Commission needs to deal with these things swiftly, and it needs to take a sensible approach, a principles based approach, in making its assessments about whether workers are better off or not. That's a pretty simple test. It will go to their pay and their conditions. It's a pretty simple test, but we need to clarify it because enterprise bargaining is dead and it is hurting workers.

This bill will also deal with longer-term agreements. It will provide that there can be eight-year greenfield agreements when the agreement exceeds an investment of $250 million. I remind the chamber that, yes, we have this problem in this country that we don't have enough money to fund our own projects and so we rely upon foreign investment. Actually having longer-term agreements means we might get more foreign investment and we might have more jobs. So that is another important reform. I would say to the Senate that there are serious projects which would benefit from having longer tenure. In my home state of New South Wales, we're currently building the second Sydney airport. I've got no doubt that projects associated with the aerotropolis, soon to be known as the suburb of Bradfield, named after the great engineer who designed the Harbour Bridge, would have benefited from these longer term agreements.

Finally, I come back to underpayments. This will turn on much stronger laws in Australia. You're looking at four years jail if you underpay your workers and a $1 million fine for individuals. So we are taking this very seriously. It actually addresses a lot of the issues that have been raised in the Senate inquiry conducted through the Senate references committee.

In summary, the whole point here is that we want workers to get a better deal and we want more investment in Australia. These are sensible, incremental changes which are not based on ideology. They are based on solving problems. They will mean that there will be more jobs as we recover from this pandemic. We will be a more attractive investment destination because people will have certainty that they can employ casual workers, they can have longer deals and they can get an enterprise bargaining agreement through our system. That is a good thing for Australian workers.

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021. This bill represents the Morrison government's latest industrial relations reform package and their latest attempt to erode the rights of workers and suppress wage growth. Labor have said from the outset that we will only support legislation which not only protects the pay and conditions of workers but enhances it and ensures secure jobs with decent pay. Christian Porter may have removed the most extreme part of this bill—the suspension of the BOOT for two years—but there is no doubt in my mind that the bill before us makes work less secure and cuts pay. It's also self-defeating because, without measures to create more secure jobs with the prospect of wage rises, workers will have less capacity and confidence to spend, which will in turn suppress demand and hurt the domestic economy.

This bill is being introduced at an unprecedented moment in Australian history. Before COVID-19 hit our shores, wage growth was at its lowest level since the 1930s depression. Now it's exacerbated by COVID-19. The recession has seen wages standing still, growing at a mere 0.6 per cent in the December quarter. The CPI rose by 0.9 per cent in this quarter as well. So any growth has been negligible. There is also a wide consensus amongst academics, unionists, economists and the Reserve Bank that wage growth must be incremental in ensuring that we are able to fuel our economic recovery. But this bill will do the opposite.

In its briefing note prepared following the introduction of the legislation, the ACTU said:

The Bill fails the Government's own test: workers will be worse off.

…   …   …

The Government's changes will make jobs less secure; they will make it easier for employers to casualise permanent jobs and allow employers to pay workers less than the award safety net. This is the opposite of what the country needs.

The working group process was a great idea. Getting employers, unions and government officials around the table is productive. But, as indicated in these comments from the ACTU, it is clear that the bill does not represent a consensus outcome from the working group process. The government has, ultimately, reverted to type and bowed to the demands of employer groups, using the COVID crisis as leverage. As said repeatedly in the public hearings, this is a big-business-lobby wish list, and it will come at the expense of working men and women.

Despite the government's and employer groups' fear campaign around the impact of the recent Federal Court decision on employers hiring casuals, the bounce back in employment numbers has seen casual jobs accounting for around 60 per cent of all wage jobs created since May, according to the Centre for Future Work. We know that casualisation is alive and well in Australia, a country that is becoming increasingly split between the haves and the have-nots because of the Morrison government—because of their policies and because they want to undermine working Australians. They want to cut their wages and their conditions. That analysis found that between May and November 2020 casual employment grew by 400,000, by far the biggest expansion of casual employment in Australia's history. That's what's happening right now in this country.

The permanent addition of flexible work directions is proof that changes to the Fair Work Act introduced temporarily by the Liberal government are never that. This measure was originally introduced as part of the JobKeeper program and limited to employees receiving the wage subsidy. However, since then, it has continued to be expanded in its application, well beyond its original intent. That's why you always have to read the fine print in anything proposed by this government. But now the bill creates a new definition of a casual employee. Extraordinarily, the government has ignored years of common law and overturned the recent Federal Court decision that upheld the common law definition of what a casual is. The designation of an employee as a casual at the start of their employment determines their ongoing status, regardless of their actual work pattern. Under the government's own figures, this involves cancelling an estimated $18 billion to $39 billion in back pay that would have been otherwise owed to casuals.

Over the past seven years, and under the nose of the Morrison government, there has been a notable trend of increasing use of subcontractors and labour hire firms. This has been favoured by big multinational companies as the means by which they can cut wages and weaken workers' bargaining positions. It also makes it very easy for companies to shift blame and it has established a permanent casual rort—and we know the word 'rort' is so heavily associated with this government. There has been an epidemic of casualisation and underemployment in this country, from the mining industry through to retail and hospitality. This bill goes directly against the common law definition of a casual, undoing 20 years of very careful consideration by court authority. It supports big businesses and labour hire companies, and if this bill does pass it will allow the legitimisation of the permanent casual. The problems of being a permanent casual are widely recognised: absence of paid leave and job security make it difficult for employees to go on holidays and, more importantly, to obtain a mortgage to buy a house. And it also affects those who are trying to rent a home. Housing affordability is already a problem in this country, in particular in my home state of Tasmania. This bill will make it harder for working families to obtain a mortgage and to get their foot in the door.

What else is wrong with the plan? Employers must make a written offer of conversion to casual employees after 12 months if, for the previous six months, there has been a regular pattern of work. However, the employer does not have to make the offer if there are reasonable grounds not to. Do you remember that I said you've got to watch the fine print from this government? This is another example of it. An example would be if the employer had reasonable grounds to think the job might not be there in 12 months. The gap is so wide that it allows employers to not convert.

As we've seen from an analysis of the actual nature of casual employment, very little is about flexibility in most cases. Rather, the decision to engage workers as casuals is about creating precarious employment for its own sake. There is no arbitration of disputes other than by agreement. An employee who wants to dispute the decision can only do so by applying to the Federal Court. The bill introduces a new simplified additional hours agreement. The provision will be initially applied to 12 modern awards. These represent permanent changes and are effectively a reduction in the award safety net and are not temporary COVID-19 measures. This is an agreement between an employer and a part-time employee for the employee to work additional hours with little or no notice without being paid overtime. The new provision applies to employees who work an average 16 hours per week on a roster arrangement or, simply, 16 hours per week. The longer-term potential impact, or the risk of this arrangement becoming normalised, is that future part-time jobs will become a standard 16-hours commitment, with simplified additional hours being used to top up on an as-needs basis. This reduces job security and effectively casualises part-time work.

Of particular concern to me is the aged-care workforce. Eighty-eight per cent of aged-care workers are employed part time or casually, and roughly the same percentage are women, and the Liberal Party's agenda is a real kick in the guts for all the hard work that they, as a frontline workers, did throughout the pandemic. There is already chronic understaffing in this sector and this reform will only make it worse. It is hard enough to attract people into the aged-care and disability service industry. This bill will disincentivise workers from coming and working in aged care. As it is, workers need to put their lives on hold to make themselves available for that extra work and, if they can't, there is usually retribution. But things like child care are hard to organise at short notice. It's hard to enjoy your life if you are potentially waiting anxiously to get a call for an extra shift.

The Liberals' policy will entrench the permanent casual rort already rampant in this country under their watch. Those sitting opposite have held, and rushed, a truncated inquiry to try to push through the legislation by stealth. A major theme of the hearing was that this bill will erode job security in this country. People want certainty in their lives, and certainty comes with a permanent job. The Morrison government is doing all that it can to undermine work in this country and to undermine workers, and we on this side will always stand up for Australian workers.

This omnibus bill also includes flexible work directions that allow an employer to give directions to an employee about their duties and their location of work. This is a two-year provision based on the original JobKeeper stand-down directions that were introduced on the basis that they would be temporary and only connected to employees in receipt of JobKeeper. Since then, the provision has been extended to the so-called legacy employers. Now they apply to the 12 modern awards, but the minister has the authority to expand the list, thereby exposing all workers. This means that, for workplaces covered by identified awards, the special flexibility will be available to every employer who seeks to revive their business, even if they never qualified for JobKeeper.

In its analysis of this legislation the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, which I chair, has highlighted its concerns about the amount of significant matters in the bill that are set out in delegated legislation. This legislative instrument is not subject to the full range of parliamentary scrutiny, and we questioned why the government is doing this—and it's a habit with legislation after legislation of this government. We need to be able to scrutinise legislation. Regarding the changes in definition of casual employment, the committee has also expressed longstanding scrutiny concerns about provisions that have the effect of applying retrospectively, as it challenges a basic value of the rule of law that, in general, laws should only operate prospectively. The committee has a particular concern that the legislation will or might have a detrimental impact on individuals.

In essence, the bill will casualise permanent employment, restrict unions to intervening for workers who have no representation, reduce scrutiny of enterprise agreements, and completely undo the common law definition of a casual employee. It will also shift most of the risk in employer-employee relationships onto the employee. If workers have to bear all the risk, that makes it hard to get certainty. If workers don't have certainty, they cannot afford to contribute to our economy and they will not support Australia's jobs and economic recovery.

The government has rushed this inquiry. It's rushing this legislation. The minister responsible for this bill is on indefinite leave. We must question the need for this bill. A plethora of expert opinion has warned against it—and warned against it for good reason: it is all about undermining Australian workers and casualising the workforce in this country, and it deserves to be defeated.

It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the important reforms under this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia’s Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021. As the Morrison government has demonstrated throughout this pandemic, this government is determined to implement measures that will help business to regrow jobs—and they are coming back strongly, with more than 93 per cent of the jobs lost with this once-in-a-century pandemic already being filled by hardworking Australians. We are about boosting wages, enhancing productivity and implementing measures that benefit both employers and employees.

Before I go through the reforms in detail, it's worth reflecting on what we've heard from the contributions so far, which I've been listening to very carefully. Thus far, I've heard from those opposite on the Labor benches that they didn't turn up to work during the pandemic, when over here on the government benches the Morrison government was all about protecting lives and livelihoods through a once-in-a-century pandemic. We've also heard hyperbole, unsubstantiated misrepresentation and a misconstruing of basic statistics. Senator Polley referred to the December quarter growth figures. It is worth reflecting that as Josh Frydenberg, the federal Treasurer, has very pleasingly been able to announce to the Australian people in recent days, the December quarter was the second consecutive quarter, for the first time since 1959, that the Australian economy achieved a growth rate of more than three per cent—the first time since 1959.

The government's modest, sensible, non-ideological and incremental changes that are being contemplated here today are reflective of the cooperative spirit that we so successfully embraced in this nation's approach to the pandemic. The fair work amendments address known problems with Labor's Fair Work Act that are currently stifling job creation and wages growth in this country. The changes made will provide certainty for both businesses and employees, clearly defining casual employment and giving casual employees a statutory pathway for converting their employment to permanent full-time or permanent part-time employment should they so choose. I find it staggering that those opposite have suggested here today that defining the nature of employment at the start, with clarity for both the employer and the employee, is somehow unfair. Nothing could be father from the truth. At the same time, the Morrison government is for the first time providing every worker in Australia who works under a casual employment arrangement a clear, consistent and defined pathway to convert that employment to permanency.

I've also heard claims today about legitimising permanent casual arrangements. I find it staggeringly arrogant and so typical of those opposite that they would seek to tell those Australians who instead choose to work under casual arrangements on an ongoing basis that they can't. In fact, it reflects the recent rhetoric out of the Labor Party that they would seek to impose a $153-a-week pay cut for those Australians who would lose the 25 per cent casual loading on their earnings. Indeed, we would extend our successful JobKeeper flexibilities around duties and location of work to businesses in the retail and hospitality sectors that were so terribly hit during the course of the pandemic.

We give employers greater confidence to offer secure, part-time employment, facilitating additional hours of work for part-time employees in the retail and hospitality sectors who want more hours, and for the first time those hours, under these flexibility arrangements, would include the leave entitlements and workplace entitlements with regard to unfair dismissal protections that are currently declined to them. Those hours are currently filled by casuals. So, basically, Labor and the Greens are entrenching casualisation in the Australian economy by opposing these very sensible reforms.

These amendments are the result of thorough and extensive consultation with unions, employers and industry. Sadly, Labor has decided to oppose every single one of these modest, incremental and non-ideological changes. Have we heard yet today a single element of reform that could be improved with a suggestion from those opposite? No, we have not. We have heard mistruths. We have heard misrepresentations and hyperbole. Those on the government benches are actually focused on delivering outcomes that put more money into the pockets of Australian workers and take less tax from them. It is Labor and the Greens who currently stand in the way of these needed reforms, because who do these reforms most impact? Who are Labor and the Greens currently blocking from more wages in their pockets? It's those casual workers who need flexibility; younger Australians who were hit hardest by the job losses at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic; those Australians who are crying out for the ability to work extra hours under flexible arrangements, who desire having for the first time the right to convert casual employment to full-time or permanent part-time work.

So apparently it is too much to ask that the Labor Party adopt a mature approach to industrial relations and focus on the needs of Australians rather than keep their union masters happy. We don't live in the fantasy world of the Greens. We live in the real world, where pennies are actually earned here rather than raining down from heaven. We're a healthy and wealthy society, and that enables us to focus on the needs of those who are most disadvantaged in our communities. Indeed, for those workers in the gig economy that the Greens seem particularly focused on when we talk of a minimum wage or a floor, imposing those sorts of arrangements imposes a cap on their maximum earning potential.

With regard to casual employees, we are fixing Labor's failure to define 'casual employees' more than a decade ago now. We are introducing that clear definition of what it means. It provides certainty around when a person is a casual employee and certainty to both them and their employer as to the rights and obligations that accompany that.

The government firmly believes that all employees should be classified and paid correctly. Wage theft and exploitation are never acceptable, and we'll turn to the improvements and enhancements that the government seeks to make with respect to enforcement provisions in a little while. The ability for some employees to double dip on their entitlements, by being paid a casual loading as compensation for not receiving leave entitlements and then being paid those leave entitlements on top of that, is grossly unfair, and I think any objective assessment in the mind of the average Australian would certainly agree.

In the event that an ongoing employee is misclassified as casual, the bill will ensure that casual loading amounts paid to that employee can offset against claims for leave and other entitlements, eliminating any potential for double dipping. This potential for double dipping represents a $39 billion liability for Australian business. We're not just talking about big business and corporations here; we're talking about small and medium-sized enterprises across Australia that are the backbone of the Australian economy.

By opposing these changes, Labor has decided that it is standing in the way of casual employees who want to become full-time employees for the first time. We've heard claims today about an explosion in the level of casual employment across the Australian economy. That is simply false. Since the early 1990s casual employment arrangements have applied to approximately 25 per cent of the Australian workforce. So let's not cherrypick from the December quarter just a few months ago; let's look at the statistics that are borne out over the course of decades.

We've heard claims that these reforms are racist and sexist. Frankly, those sorts of claims have no place in a debate that's focused on putting more money into the pockets of hardworking Australians. Has Labor actually read this bill? I wonder, because earlier today we heard claims that employees would have no right to arbitration in anything other than pursuing action through the Federal Court, when, instead, employees have protections around the right to convert at section 66L and have the detail surrounding the dispute process—including that initiation from a discussion with the employer the whole way through the process—at section 66M, and the Fair Work Commission have the arbitration process to prevent employers abusing any limitations on the conversion right, described at section 66H.

Under schedule 2 of the proposed reforms, the government's greater flexibility will improve the opportunities for Australians to work more hours in the hardest-hit sectors post-COVID. The bill allows those workers in those sectors, who together employ more than one-third of casual employees, to work together to agree on additional hours for part-time employees who want them. This will increase working hours and wages and encourage employers to offer more permanent secure roles with benefits paid, including sick leave, over more traditionally flexible arrangements like casual roles. That is what this government is about. Those opposite, by standing between these reforms and those Australian workers who want them, seek to show their true cause.

With respect to enterprise agreements, these enterprise agreements encourage job creation, wage increases and productivity growth. We know this because enterprise agreements, on average, put 69 per cent extra earnings in the pockets of Australians when compared to the awards that would apply in other cases. We have seen reports suggesting that Labor sees those employees wanting those higher wages provided by enterprise agreements as merely collateral damage in this fallacious and unsubstantiated war. So much for Labor being on your side—not if you want higher wages, higher productivity, higher flexibility and more control in your own life.

To assert that the Fair Work Commission needs to approve these agreements in 21 days, in a tick-and-flick exercise, is patently false. The Fair Work Commission very clearly has the ability to extend that approval process where the merits of the application bear that out. But make no mistake: these reforms don't allow the Fair Work Commission to stand between Australian workers who desire more money in their pockets and an expedited agreement-making process. There's no automatic union involvement in that, but it's not precluded in any way. Should any single Australian entering into a negotiation process appoint a union, then so be it; they're at the bargaining table. When nine per cent of the Australian private sector is covered by unions, why on earth would we listen to those opposite and tell the other 90 per cent of Australians that they need to have a union between them and their employer? It's not borne out by the choices that Australians make every day when they choose to keep their hard-earned money in their pocket or spend it on their families, rather than giving it to the union movement, who keep our colleagues over there on the opposition benches in check.

From the Western Australian perspective, the greenfields agreements changes are essential for securing the ongoing massive infrastructure investment in the resources and energy sectors that we desperately need as we recover from COVID-19. The maximum period of time that an agreement can run for is eight years. It's not automatically eight years; it is a maximum of eight years, and only when it includes a mandated increase in salary annually. What prevents that sort of very positive arrangement that facilitates investment in massive projects, generates jobs and drives taxation revenue that pays for the sorts of things that keep the Greens in this chamber? It is the opposition to these sorts of reforms.

We talked about compliance and enforcement before. The changes in schedule 5 introduce stronger protections for employees through measures that not only include tougher penalties and orders to deter noncompliance but, when noncompliance occurs, get wages underpayments recovered and into e pockets sooner. What stands between employees and that money that they would have in their pockets sooner? Again, it is the opposition and the Greens who stand between us and very sensible, incremental and non-ideological reforms. The Morrison government is about jobs and more money in the pockets of Australians. I commend these reforms to the Senate.

I'm very pleased to talk on the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia’s Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021. Before I do that, Senator Small, I appreciate that you've given an outline of what's happening in the gig economy, but I'd like to give an outline from this morning at 11.30. After a series of strikes by Hungry Panda workers—the first strike was because they were not getting paid the minimum wage and the company effectively had taken a third of their income from them—the company's response was to terminate a number of people who had held meetings to talk about the abuse they were receiving at the hands of the company. They had no commission to go to and they had no workers comp arrangements for when they were injured—and a number of their colleagues had been killed or injured. You're saying that somehow these people have a capacity under our system to earn a higher income and, by having regulation, we're holding them back. No, your proposal is killing them. I say this quite clearly in opposing the bill, with the rest of my colleagues.

Since the beginning of this pandemic, Labor has set a consistent test for legislation proposed by this government: will it create good, secure, well-paying jobs? It was to protect these jobs that Labor supported the JobKeeper wage subsidy, a program intended to keep workers connected to their employers. But, cruelly, the government's implementation of the program excluded thousands of workers at dnata and did nothing to stop Qantas outsourcing thousands of others. Despite this bill's title, the bill includes not a single provision that would create secure jobs, increase wages or enable Australia to recover from the economic consequences of COVID-19. Instead, this bill will prolong the worst, most debilitating aspects of Australia's economic landscape by further entrenching insecure work. It will cripple already sluggish wage growth and, by watering down existing laws in Victoria and Queensland, it will fail to deter rampant wage theft.

The economics of this bill are simply bad, which makes this bill so exceptional, because the economics of recovery are abundantly clear. We know that the labour market is the foundation of the economy. When the foundation is weak and insecure, so too is the economy. When workers are underpaid, they spend less, and demand goes down. When they have no choice but insecure employment, they don't spend. When they have few rights and are forced to accept lower pay and lower conditions, consumer confidence is undermined. Instead, what we need are quality jobs, secure employment and fair pay. These are the conditions of a strong labour market, one that provides consumers the confidence to consume and invest. You cannot bet Australia's economic recovery on a pay cut. You cannot rebuild our labour market on more insecure work. A good economy doesn't drive good jobs; good jobs drive a good economy.

We cannot ignore that this bill sits, in the time line of government policy, 12 days from the end of JobKeeper and with no policy of support in sight. As a Labor dissenting report correctly points out, the government says the economy is doing well enough that business no longer needs JobKeeper. Then they say the economy is doing so badly that they need to cut the pay of workers. They can't have it both ways. COVID-19 should have been a wake-up call for Australia's policymakers.

Since the 1980s casual employment has doubled to a quarter of all workers. It has become an industrial norm with grave consequences. Most notably, insecure employment has become a feature of our aged-care industry. There's a lack of sick leave. Workers have been forced to work across multiple centres. It was a recipe for disaster at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Miss Sherree Clarke, an aged care worker for more than 20 years, told her story to the inquiry into this bill. She said:

Because most of my work is so insecure, I can only plan to live on my minimum contracted hours, and a contract of 16 hours per fortnight is not enough to live on. This impacts all aspects of my lifestyle, including health. My budget does not allow me to choose healthy options and I often miss meals. Paying my car registration or visiting my dentist is a day-to-day decision for me.

Workers in the gig economy are in a similar position. Without sick leave to fall back on, without entitlements to use, workers in the gig economy couldn't afford to isolate and couldn't afford to socially distance. A recent survey of gig workers conducted by the Transport Workers Union of Australia found that they were paid as little as $10 an hour; 90 per cent had seen their pay decrease over time and 70 per cent were struggling to pay their bills and buy food.

Any government would have seen these issues, heard these stories and said, 'Enough is enough.' But, no, the Attorney-General, the Minister for Workplace Relations, said, 'It's all too complicated to pay people a minimum wage.' Senator Small just reconfirmed this government's view about exploitation. Let it rip, let it keep going and now they have a bill to encourage it. They could have chosen to reset the trend, fostering a labour market rich in well-paying secure jobs that give workers confidence and freedom to isolate when needed, to raise a family and to get by. Instead, this government looks at insecure work and calls it 'flexibility'. I can tell you, it's not flexibility when a worker has their wages stolen. It's certainly not flexibility when you have no ability or rights to negotiate a liveable wage. It's certainly not flexibility when you're forced to take a second or third job in order to make ends meet.

We cannot forget that this bill is just the second act in the government's attack on working people. First was their failed ensuring integrity bill, a bill to attack working people and their representatives to undermine their ability to argue for higher wages. Fresh from their defeat in the Senate, this government declared a new compact, a new accord, with working people. They established, they said, industrial relations working groups for unions and businesses to come together and form genuine proposals for reform.

In the context of COVID-19, the ACTU and its affiliates took this offer seriously. They sat down. They laid out issues that needed to be addressed. They even found an area of compromise. The ACTU and the Business Council of Australia hashed out some areas of reform only to have the other business groups boycott the meetings and the Liberals just abandon the whole process. This bill is the response, a bill to deliver an ideological industrial relations agenda on behalf of the most reactionary of the employer groups. It's one that paves the way for employers to cut the wages and conditions of workers like Sherree. How do we know this? Because not a single employer group that appeared at the hearings into the bill could give a guarantee that employees would not be left worse off under this bill. When asked, the representative of the National Retail Association said, 'I cannot give you that guarantee.' The Australian Hotels Association, when asked, replied no. The representative of the Australian Retailers Association replied, 'I don't think we can make any guarantees about reductions.' Of course, the Australian mines and metals association replied, 'It's very hard to answer complex relations matters with a yes or no.'

There should be nothing complex about whether or not the legislation will leave workers better off. If the industry and business community are so uncertain about the effect on workers then why were they so supportive of this in the first place? Maybe because they know what will happen under these laws. We know employers like to talk about complexity—well, some employers, certainly the ones that have been caught for wage theft—and say it's all too hard. They don't seem to have a problem with the complexity of this bill, do they? They operate under the same false assumption that you can get economic growth going only when wages are lower—when workers are cheaper and profits are higher. We recognise this for what it is: a lie.

It's the same lie that was told by this government when it sought to remove penalty rates. It made claims that this would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. That noise is still ringing in my ears. It claimed that employers unburdened with paying their workers extra for shifts would suddenly take on new staff. What happened? Nothing. The cut in penalty rates resulted in no more jobs, not a single one. No industry group, employer group or government has been able to demonstrate that any jobs at all have been created. Instead, according to the McKell Institute, some $2.87 billion in income was ripped from the pay slips of workers, further undermining consumption, confidence and demand.

This bill will entrench casual employment as a permanent feature of our industrial relations landscape, one in which a worker is a casual not because of the nature of their employment but because of a word inserted in the terms of their contract. Those employees that want to do the right thing will be left to the mercy of those who do the wrong thing. Those who want to do the right thing will not be able to bargain when they're trying to win contracts because of the undermining by those employers who do the wrong thing—and the new norm begins. It ignores the reality of modern work, assumes that employers will never use this definition to exploit workers, and seems primarily concerned with overturning the recent WorkPac decision. A myth promoted by this government is that the recent decision will see workers double dipping with entitlements and casual loading. This bill's new definition of casual is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The WorkPac case, from the outset, said: any back pay of annual leave entitlements against any casual loading that was paid. The problem was that the company was calling him a casual employee and not paying him any casual loading.

A number of labour lawyers raised this point during the hearings. The bill proposes a new definition of casual employment that would create a pathway for employers to declare a worker a casual on day one and then ignore those conditions for the length of their employment. As Per Capita outlined, at its worst interpretation the new definition and conversion clause could encourage employers to offer casual employment to all new employees, giving all employees a year of 'try before you buy' employment regardless of the eventual hours worked. It's said there are mechanisms to ensure an employer genuinely holds this view and will rectify it if it turns out to be incorrect. There's no mechanism. Under this legislation there is no right to arbitration unless the employer agrees. So here we have the exploitative employer having to agree that they can turn around and take the matter to arbitration. My goodness, is that the rule of law?

As the Law Council of Australia has rightly pointed out, without defined arbitration clauses there is no absolute power for the Fair Work Commission to settle disputes over the provisions of the bill. Instead, workers have to rely on the ability of the commission to remediate a dispute and, if the employer doesn't agree, well, then, tough luck.

There is no point having a right unless you have the power to enforce it. This bill's casual conversion rights are just that: rights in name only. The bill will make it easier for employers to cut the pay and conditions for their employees through amending a number of existing modern awards, adding new, simplified additional agreements to 11 awards, covering everything from pharmacies to restaurants, the meat industry and vehicle repair. Of course there's minimal parliamentary oversight. The minister responsible, the Attorney-General, can just increase the number of awards to be covered by these provisions. Of course, it doesn't stop there. The cat's already out of the bag. Business SA has proposed another 11 awards to be amended as such.

It's not just awards they're undercutting. It's the entire process of bargaining and agreements and the use of the Fair Work Commission as the rule of law. This bill will shift the burden of proof onto unions when seeking to strike an agreement. They will now have to make the argument that better pay and conditions for workers won't stand in the way of the employers' profits. This bill will also certainly prevent unions from intervening in the proposal of agreements to meet the better off overall test. One only needs to look at A1 Earthworx Mining & Civil, which, had the CFMMEU not sought leave to intervene and prevent its approval, would have seen workers paid as much as $180 a week less than the award. The striking of the approval agreement should play a fundamental role. This bill would seem to make this much harder. The effect of this will lower wages, and worse conditions and more wage theft will exist.

I'm very pleased to rise today to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021. This bill has been developed with input from a range of stakeholders, including unions and employers, to ensure that reforms are appropriately balanced, providing flexibility and certainty to businesses and important protections for employees. This bill is not ideological. It's not some experiment in economic theory. Rather, it's designed to tear down the barriers to creating jobs.

If I were to boil down my aims in coming into this place and being a senator for Western Australia, they could be summarised in this way. I want to see as many Australians as possible get a job and stay in a job for as long as they can and earn as much as possible while being in that job. This is key, whether it's in the metro areas, the regional areas or even our remote areas. This is key to as many Australians achieving as high a standard of living as possible.

I've seen firsthand how jobs can change lives. Many on this side of the chamber have experience in creating jobs across all sectors of the economy. We see that as a good thing, not as some form of exploitation. I've seen the difference firsthand in countless numbers of lives when people have been able to get a job, many of them for the very first time. Many of you know, as I've spoken about this previously here in the Senate, that prior to coming into parliament I was involved in an organisation called Generation One that worked across Australia to create jobs for Indigenous people, whether in remote locations, in regional areas or in our cities. Through the work that I was doing, I saw over 28,000 long-term unemployed Indigenous jobseekers take up sustainable work.

But that wouldn't be possible if those jobs were not there. It wouldn't be possible if we didn't have an environment in which to create jobs. I want to see more of these opportunities created. I want to see more of these opportunities able to transform and change lives. Employment won't change everything, but, without it, nothing will change. If we're going to truly deal with the systemic issue of entrenched welfare dependency, we have to have an environment where the jobs are there so that people can take up those opportunities, so that they can be fulfilled by engaging in a meaningful career, so that they can see the benefit of work not only for themselves but for their families and, in many cases, their whole community. But it's only possible if the jobs are there. The government engaged with employers as part of this process. We also engaged with the unions, to hear about how we could create the flexibility that is required, create the right environment that is required, create more jobs and ensure that those jobs are sustainable.

This is one of many bills which the government is strengthening and which are hastening our economic recovery from COVID. At the height of the pandemic, 1.3 million Australians lost their jobs or were stood down on zero hours. Just think about the impact of that. It's a big number, 1.3 million, but it actually represents the lives of individuals and families. This government has been singly focused on doing everything that is possible to ensure that those jobs are returned. We've seen remarkable figures throughout these last 12 months, in both the decreases in unemployment and the increases in economic activity. In fact, the Treasurer has told us that over 90 per cent of the jobs that were lost due to COVID have been returned. This is due in large part to the underlying strength of our economy before we even went into the pandemic, but it's also due to the support of the economy with measures such as JobKeeper, temporary or targeted increases to JobSeeker, small-business cash-flow support and the HomeBuilder program. It's also due, in large part, to our handling of the health aspects of this pandemic.

Australia was the first country in the world to close its international borders, to stem the flow of the virus. The second most important factor in the health area was procuring our own sovereign production of a vaccine, to help us get out from this situation that we find ourselves in. We have managed our way through this, but part of the recovery out of this is to ensure that we create the right environment for more and better-paid jobs. That has always been the imperative of this government, since we were first elected. As more people return to work, our accelerated tax cuts will also have an increasing effect of economic stimulus. Over $2 billion a month in extra take-home pay is flowing into the economy due to our accelerated tax cuts. These were implemented long before the pandemic even hit, and thank goodness they were, because they're now having a real impact on the economy and its ability to recover.

There is so much more to the economic recovery and reform than just stimulus and tax. One factor which has remained largely untouched is industrial relations. It's a dangerous area for a Liberal government to attempt to reform, some would say, but courage is required to keep this country on a road of continuous employment. I commend the Minister for Industrial Relations for all his work on this bill, as well as his partners in consultation, including the unions, employer groups and experts in the field. The breadth of cooperation achieved is one of the lasting silver linings—if there are any—from COVID. Long may this spirit endure, and may the mortal combat that has long been present in this sector end.

It's extremely disappointing, I've got to say, to hear that the Labor Party is opposing this bill, after such rigorous consultation was undertaken—consultation that was undertaken in good faith. The changes contained within this bill build upon the same cooperative spirit the country so successfully embraced during our approach to the pandemic. We've heard some very dramatic language from the Labor Party, harking back to the Labor Party of old, with a worker-versus-employer mentality. This dramatic language just does not fit with the reality of this bill, which is not extreme in any way and in no way represents a drastic departure from the current industrial relations regime—which, it must be said, was implemented by the Labor Party when they were last in government. Work Choices this not.

We also heard from Senator Faruqi of the Greens describing the unions as experts in industrial relations. That would be akin to describing the Greens as experts in economics! We had hoped that 2021 would see the Labor leader, Mr Albanese, adopt a more mature approach to industrial relations. Sadly, the Labor Party's opposition to all of the government's industrial relations reforms shows that they remain fixated not on solving problems but on playing politics and turning workplaces into battlegrounds. This is unacceptable. This bill will support the government's commitment to Australian jobs and our continuing economic recovery by providing certainty to businesses and employees in relation to casual employment; by giving regular casual employees a statutory pathway to ongoing employment by including a casual conversion entitlement in the National Employment Standards—a very important reform; by extending temporary JobKeeper flexibilities; by giving employers the confidence to offer part-time employment and additional hours to employees; by streamlining and improving the enterprise-agreement-making and approval processes; and by ensuring that industrial instruments do not transfer when an employee transfers between associated entities at the employer's initiative, and I could go on.

It provides greater certainty for investors, employers and employees by allowing the nominal life of greenfield agreements made in relation to the construction of major projects to be extended and it strengthens the Fair Work Act compliance and enforcement framework to address wage underpayments. Wage underpayment—we hear those opposite point out, rightly, the need to address the issues of wage theft in this country. They rightly point that out, and here's an opportunity to actually do something about it; but because of the ideology of those opposite, they stand against it. Businesses must have the confidence to hire and ensure that employees receive their correct entitlements. And this bill also seeks to introduce measures to support more efficient Fair Work Commission processes. This is important as well.

As we've shown throughout the pandemic, the government is determined to implement measures that will regrow jobs, boost wages, enhance productivity and benefit both employers and employees by providing the best possible outcomes for all. Let's hear from some of the stakeholders, shall we? In the Master Grocers Association's submission to the inquiry on this bill, they said:

… unless these reform measures are implemented our economy will continue to stagnate. Reform of the industrial relations system is imperative.

The jobs in that industry—in retail and grocery—are, for many, the first jobs that they may get. There are great careers working in that sector, but there are also great first jobs. If we don't create the environment or the flexibility—particularly for young people, something that I know you're also very committed to seeing, Madam Deputy President Chandler: young people being given the opportunity to get ahead—if we don't have the right environment and support, then how can these opportunities be made?

We heard from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia, my home state, in their submission on this bill:

Modern awards failed to provide the flexibility to facilitate alternative work arrangements necessary to accommodate government restrictions, with limited capacity to obtain timely and meaningful variations through the Fair Work Commission (FWC).

The efficiencies in this bill mean that the commission can respond in a timely and efficient way and are absolutely essential. This bill goes to remedy that problem.

The Fair Work Ombudsman welcomed the funding announced by the government in this bill. It will provide support to the ombudsman's role in achieving better workplace compliance. The Australian Industry Group pointed out in its submission to the bill that over 80 per cent of casuals do not work for large corporations. This is the beloved bogeyman of those opposite—that the large employers are evil people. The reality is that over 80 per cent of these jobs are with small and medium enterprises. They submit that the current cost risks are threatening to drive many small businesses into insolvency and threatening to destroy the livelihood of a large number of small business owners.

Let's not forget that much of this bill would not be necessary were it not for Labor's complete failure to legislate competently in this space. We are fixing Labor's mess and their inability to define 'casual employees' a decade ago. We're introducing a clear definition of what it means to be a casual employee. The lack of wage growth bemoaned by many years is in fact occurring under an industrial relations regime that those opposite put in place. It really beggars belief.

Before I close I want to touch on the provision in this bill relating to compliance and enforcement. By introducing tougher penalties, this bill will better protect employees from wage theft and it will deter dishonest employers from undercutting their competitors. It will facilitate more efficient recovery of wage underpayments and encourage businesses to identify and address underpayments more quickly. But we're seeing Labor oppose this. What a shame. What a travesty. So much for being the party of workers. They gave that up decades ago. We will introduce stronger protections for employees through measures, including tougher penalties and orders to deter noncompliance.

This bill will put downward pressure on unemployment. It will work to simplify awards and make it easier to recover unpaid wages. It will codify a pathway for casuals to transition to permanent employment. All of these things will benefit the Australian economy and Australian workers, despite those opposite pontificating. I commend this bill to the Senate. (Time expired)

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021. To be frank, I find profoundly offensive the use of the phrase 'supporting Australia's jobs and economic recovery' in relation to this bill, which is a deep and hypocritical betrayal of working Australians. This bill does nothing to support secure jobs and it does nothing to support the long-term economy. More than ever, working Australians know that you can't trust Scott Morrison, the Liberals and the Nationals with their wages and conditions.

During COVID-19 we witnessed extraordinary service and sacrifice from our essential workers, coupled with a realisation that an essential worker extends beyond those who protect our health and rescue us from natural disasters. They are cleaners, truck drivers, security guards, aged-care workers, public servants and workers in our ports. They deliver food, they care for us, they protect our borders, they make sure we get our support payments, they unload ships, they stack shelves and they keep us safe, all the while taking risks with their own safety. Yet, as we emerge from this pandemic, our essential workers are being rewarded for their dedication and sacrifice with a deep betrayal from the Morrison government with this bill, which purports to support Australia's job and economic recovery but which is absolutely intent on reigniting the industrial relations wars that Australians are so very tired of.

Hundreds of thousands of workers experienced the brutal reality of insecure work during the worst of this pandemic. They were stood down or lost their jobs without compensation. Others struggled without income in self-isolation or in quarantine with no paid leave. Aged-care workers, cleaners, hospital staff and security workers who were holding down multiple casual jobs to make ends meet faced extreme pressure to restrict themselves to one workplace, with little or no financial compensation. That's not to mention the travel agents who help bring people home, help them get their money back and assist them in so many ways. The whole experience taught us a great deal about the value of having a secure job. We know now more than ever that we need more jobs, not fewer.

In April 2020 Prime Minister Scott Morrison declared, 'We're all in this together and we've got to put down the weapons.' It is now quite clear that he has picked up those weapons in the form of this industrial relations bill, claiming it is necessary to support economic recovery. That claim is rubbish. We need only remember the disaster of the Howard government's Work Choices experiment back in 2006 and 2007 to hear alarm bells ringing. The Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill scraped through the House of Representatives and is now with us in this place and we are faced with all its ugliness and naked ideology. It is a grubby sellout that will not protect workers or provide secure jobs. It will not lead to economic recovery. It creates a pathway for employers to cut pay. It wipes out back pay claims for misclassified casuals and proposes new so-called flexibility for part-time workers to pick up shifts without overtime rates.

This bill will allow part-time employees covered by awards in the retail, food and accommodation industries to work extra shifts at ordinary rates. This has been referred to as part-time flexibility, but in truth it's casual employment by another name and allowing extra work without paid overtime that will cut take-home pay. Basically, it will allow employers to use part-time workers as yet another form of casual labour. What about creating secure full-time jobs? Why would anyone hire an employee in a full-time secure job when they can hire them as a part-time worker for, say, 16 hours a week and then just demand that they work extra hours on a business-needs basis at no extra cost or penalty to the business? Under this bill, any job can be casual so long as a worker is desperate enough to accept it. This will feed the further spread of insecure employment without paid leave entitlements.

In terms of the pandemic, a significant group of public health experts from the Australian National University have called these IR exchanges an 'immediate threat to public health', a significant threat to public health. I urge every member to let that sink in for a moment. Casuals with no sick leave have already borne the brunt of this pandemic, and now the government is shamelessly attempting to legislate to have as many casual workers as possible. In reality the changes in both part-time and casual employment rules will discourage new hiring. If existing employees can be flexibly required to cover overtime shifts without costing employers any extra, why would they hire anyone else?

This IR bill has been spruiked by two hollow men, our Prime Minister and his Attorney-General, Christian Porter. It's being sold to us as a trigger for post-pandemic job creation. This claim is as hollow as they are. This government cannot accept that the best way to ensure economic recovery is by making sure that workers have a secure job, a regular pay packet, paid leave and fair superannuation to allow them dignity in retirement. Our economy will be buoyed by workers spending their pay, taking holidays and getting home loans, not by cutting wages and job security. The Liberal government is back to its old ways, once again declaring war on working people and using the pandemic as an excuse to scapegoat unions, casualise more jobs, drive down wages and fatten profits. To add insult to injury, they are now attempting to freeze the next rise in the superannuation levy. ACTU secretary Sally McManus pretty much summed it up when she said, 'You can't heal the economy by hurting working people'.

Since the Prime Minister won't listen to sound economic arguments, perhaps we could get Jenny to talk to him about it. Let us just consider the possible working life of a young person moving into work in 2021. Their first job in their teenage years is usually a casual one, and casual at that time in life is probably what suits them best as they juggle study and all the changes and decisions of those formative years. But this government would have that worker look forward to a lifetime of casual work. This bill entrenches casualisation. It makes it easier for employers to make you a casual worker when you don't want to be and gives you no effective right to challenge an employer's decision to block your conversion to permanent work.

A few years later, when this worker is keen to buy their first house, there is no home loan, because banks don't like lending money to casuals. So there they are, stuck in a rent cycle in a world of escalating rents and house prices. If a pandemic or an economic disaster hits, their casual job is most likely to disappear. Maybe then they decide that they're ready to start a family. What's the prospect of them having a decent amount of paid parental leave as a casual worker? Well, it would be very, very low. After that, maybe they decide to return to work on a part-time basis, to balance family and caring responsibilities. Well, under the changes that this bill proposes, they can be pressured to work endless amounts of overtime without being paid overtime rates.

Let's say they end up in a workplace where there's an enterprise agreement. Under this bill their employer won't have to tell them that they have started bargaining that agreement for a whole month and won't have to give the worker a comprehensive explanation of the agreement they will be voting on. If that worker is younger, has lower-level English skills or is unrepresented, their employer will no longer have to explain that agreement to them. To add insult to injury, unions will not be allowed to assist the Fair Work Commission in assessing non-union agreements, and the commission will be forced to tick and flick agreements, under severe time pressure.

There is no reasonable argument that this bill is good for economic recovery, job creation or economic growth. We do not know—but will know very soon—how each member of the crossbench will vote on this bill. However, I understand that it is highly likely that the future security and prosperity of every Australian worker will soon rest on the shoulders of one senator, one member of the crossbench. I hope every member of this chamber is thinking right now of the millions of Australian working people this bill will affect, possibly for their whole working lives.

We live in a democracy, and if we live in a democracy then the abiding interests of those working Australians and their families, their children, must be our guiding light. This government has absolutely no mandate from the Australian people to make these changes. It hasn't taken these profound life-changing reforms to an election. It hasn't commissioned rigorous economic modelling—or, if it has, it hasn't shown it to us. And it hasn't consulted as an honest broker with working Australians. No: it has slithered through the past seven years keeping its precious workplace reforms close to its chest, waiting for its moment, swearing black and blue that there will be no return to Work Choices and waiting until we're in a pandemic, waiting until people are desperately worried about their economic future, to quietly lay out the same old playing cards on the table.

There is simply no case, no substantive argument, to change the nature of casual work, to steal overtime from part-time workers and to undermine the enterprise bargaining process so that workers can be left completely in the dark about the agreement they are to be employed under at critical times in the negotiation process. There is no case for these grubby changes. But it's what the Liberals always do. Cutting Australians' pay is in their DNA. Their vision for Australia is one where millions of Australians struggle to pay the bills and to take care of their families, where millions of Australians are left behind. The idea that these Australians are beholden to any one man or woman, one Australian among millions, sitting on a very comfortable senator's salary with excellent superannuation, to negotiate on this grubby agenda—to think that making such a profound decision about the future of work in Australia should rest on one individual set of shoulders—should be untenable. The only way a person in that position can go is to say: 'No, it is not my place. I do not represent the millions of Australian workers now and into the future whom this will affect. I cannot possibly own a decision that affects so many for so little reason.'

Labor understands that Australians want jobs they can rely on, jobs they can buy a house on, jobs they can raise a family on, jobs that pay the bills, jobs that don't disappear overnight when disease breaks out. I urge all members of this chamber to think deeply on that, to pause and reflect very deeply on the weight that may well be sitting on one set of shoulders—an inappropriate weight, a decision that should not be one person's to make, a weight that should be and must be cast aside. Australians who work at their jobs should be rewarded, not have their pay and hours cut. Australians work hard at their jobs.

Debate interrupted.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Colbeck. This morning, speaking about COVID vaccines, Senator Canavan called for the Morrison government to 'suspend the rollout here in Australia'. Does Senator Canavan's position represent the government's position?

I thank the senator for his question. Senator Canavan's position does not represent the government's position. I acknowledge the comments from Senator Canavan, and I acknowledge his right to have a perspective, to have a view on these things. I acknowledge his perspective. But, as we have done all the way through this pandemic, we are taking the health advice with respect to the vaccine rollout.

Over recent days, with respect to the concerns that have been raised and the suspension of the vaccination rollout in a number of countries in Europe, our health agencies, particularly the TGA, have been in close contact with those agencies in Europe to understand what is occurring, and also to assure ourselves that the vaccination rollout is safe to continue with. The TGA has issued a statement to that effect, to indicate that the vaccination rollout is safe to continue with. ATAGI has issued a statement, with respect to the rollout, that it is safe to continue with, as has the Chief Medical Officer, who has issued a statement in relation to the safety of the rollout. So we will continue to the act on the health advice— (Time expired)

Senator Watt, a supplementary question?

This morning the Treasurer rejected Senator Canavan's calls to suspend the rollout, saying:

They have not found any causal link between the vaccine itself and blood clots.

Yet 10 minutes ago Senator Canavan doubled down on his comments in a tweet. Who are the Australian people supposed to believe: Treasurer Frydenberg or Senator Canavan?

I would urge the Australian people to follow the advice that has been given to us by our world-leading health agencies and the TGA, one of the best agencies of its kind in the world. I would urge the Australian people to follow that advice. I would urge the Australian people to follow the advice of the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Kelly. And I would urge the Australian people to follow the advice of ATAGI. All of these agencies, including the Chief Medical Officer, have issued a statement saying no causal link has been found between blood clotting and the vaccine, and that it is safe to continue with the rollout. All of those agencies are in close contact with their sister agencies in Europe. (Time expired)

Senator Watt, a final supplementary question?

Senator Canavan's comments risk undermining confidence in Australia's health regulators—

Senator Abetz interjecting—

It would appear Senator Abetz might agree—and in the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccination program. Has this minister, the minister for health or the Prime Minister addressed Senator Canavan on the comments he made this morning? If not, why not?

I am aware of a conversation between the Prime Minister and the health minister and Senator Canavan during a forum this morning where this matter was debated. So the views of the Prime Minister and the health minister are well known to Senator Canavan. I would urge the Australian people to take the world-leading advice of the TGA, ATAGI and the CMO. I would urge the Australian people to follow that advice. In fact, I would urge all my colleagues to follow that advice because that is the thing that will retain confidence in the rollout of the vaccine in this country, which is so important to us from a health perspective and is so important to us from an economic perspective—that we continue to safely roll out the vaccine in this country, in the support of all Australians.

Order! I would like to draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of the Ambassador of Japan to Australia, His Excellency Mr Yamagami Shingo. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to the parliament and, in particular, to the Senate.

Honourable senators: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. Can the minister update the Senate on Australia's participation in the Quad leaders summit?

I thank Senator Paterson for his question. It is timely, indeed, that His Excellency is in the gallery today for this question. On Saturday I was pleased to join the Prime Minister for the first Quad leaders meeting, which followed the third Quad foreign ministers meeting in February. The Quad brings together four like-minded democracies—Australia, India, Japan and the United States—united by a shared vision for a free, open, inclusive and resilient Indo-Pacific region.

The leaders summit was an historic moment that reinforces our support for a sovereign, resilient and stable Indo-Pacific. President Biden and prime ministers Morrison, Modi and Suga have set an ambitious, practical and positive agenda for key regional priorities. As the Prime Minister said at the beginning of the summit, history teaches us that when nations engage together in a partnership of strategic trust, of common hope and shared values, much can be achieved. This supports Australia's strategic interests, reflecting our belief in a region governed by rules not by power.

Through the Quad, Australia works with our close partners to support a region based on sovereignty and respect for international law. The Quad complements Australia's engagement in ASEAN-led, ASEAN-centred architecture and other bilateral, regional and multilateral groupings. All four Quad countries are strongly committed to ASEAN centrality, as well as the ASEAN outlook on the Indo-Pacific, and to working with regional partners to ensure a prosperous and secure region. Australia looks to our friends in achieving these goals but we don't leave it to our friends. As our response to COVID-19 demonstrates, Australia will do our share of the lifting. (Time expired)

Senator Paterson, a supplementary question?

Minister, how is Australia working with our key partners to secure and distribute COVID-19 vaccines in the Pacific and South-East Asia?

In the spirit, indeed, of our important response to the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami, Quad leaders launched a landmark partnership on Saturday to support our region's recovery from COVID-19. Together we're taking action to expand safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing and delivery in 2021. Reflecting our respective strengths and investments will ramp up vaccine manufacturing capacity, fund the procurement and distribution of vaccines, and provide last-mile delivery support.

Building on the government's existing commitment of a $523 million regional vaccine access and health security program, Australia has pledged an additional $100 million to be allocated in consultation between Quad partners. Wherever possible, Quad partners will take opportunities to implement joint or closely coordinated programs of support for our partner countries in the Indo-Pacific, with a particular focus on South-East Asia.

Order, Senator Payne! Senator Paterson, a final supplementary question?

Minister, how will the Quad framework assist to deepen Australia's cooperation with India, Japan and the US on key emerging issues in our region?

I want to note that Quad leaders in particular underscored that climate change is a global priority and, of course, a risk to Indo-Pacific resilience. We have established a new Quad climate working group to strengthen climate action and advance the low-emissions technology required to achieve net zero emissions as soon as possible. We have also established a critical and emerging technology working group, recognising that a free, open, inclusive and resilient Indo-Pacific requires that critical technology is governed according to shared values.

That builds on the Quad's existing agenda agreed by foreign ministers at our own meeting in Tokyo last October. That agenda includes cooperation on maritime security, on infrastructure, on supply chain resilience, on counterterrorism, on cyber and on counter- and disinformation. I particularly look forward to taking forward this important work with my counterparts: Indian external affairs minister, Minister Jaishankar; Japanese foreign minister, Minister Motegi; and US Secretary of State— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Payne. On the treatment of women in the parliament, the Minister for Women has said, 'The only way it will change is if we, as parliamentarians, own the problems, own the failings and make the necessary changes.' Attorney-General Porter has sat on the Respect@work report for a year, responding to only three of the 55 recommendations. Will the Minister for Women call on the Attorney-General to own his failings and make the necessary changes to implement the remaining 52 recommendations one year on?

The government has taken a number of steps to address a component of the recommendations addressed to the Commonwealth. Those recommendations were outlined in the Women's Economic Security Statement process through the budget, and the government is actively considering the remaining recommendations in detail, with a view to continuing to implement that response as soon as possible this year. I want to acknowledge the work that's being done by Senator Stoker, the new Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General, in that regard. Additionally, Safe Work Australia has been doing very important work in this space, including by releasing its sexual harassment in the workplace guidance earlier this year.

I would also refer to the Sex Discrimination Commissioner's words in relation to the report, acknowledging as I did, in fact, in a question asked of me recently, that COVID, along with a number of matters before government at the time, did have an impact on this process. A number of the key recommendations have been funded, in particular looking at the next survey, getting together the Workplace Sexual Harassment Council and some education and training resources.

Those opposite seek to ignore this, but I do think it is actually important to acknowledge that as a report about workplaces the report's recommendations are not limited to government alone. While the government naturally has had to direct its resources to immediate priorities, I think the commissioner has also been encouraged by the level of influence she has seen the report have in workplaces, the main subject of concern over the past year. I said in response to a question last week or the week before—and I am not sure from whom that question came—that the report also involves other governments, plus business in particular and a number of agencies, including Safe Work, as I have already referred to, and Fair Work Australia. It is not an entirely government— (Time expired)

Senator McAllister, a supplementary question?

Does the Minister for Women consider it appropriate that the Attorney-General, Mr Porter, remain the cabinet minister responsible for the Respect@work report?

The Attorney-General is currently on a period of leave. The acting Attorney-General, Minister Cash, is here in this chamber. The Attorney-General has outlined very clearly his position in relation to the issues to which Senator McAllister alludes. This country operates on the basis of the rule of law and the presumption of innocence. It is not possible to be selective about to whom that should and should not apply.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senators Keneally and Pratt; Senators O'Neill and Watt.

The Attorney-General has initiated certain proceedings of his own motion in relation to a number of these matters. I would also note, as I have said in this chamber previously and as I have made clear again today, that, in relation to the Respect@work report, work is being carried out by the newly appointed assistant minister, Senator the Hon. Amanda Stoker.

Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question?

In both of her answers to date and previously when asked about this report, this minister has deferred responsibility to the junior assisting minister, Senator Stoker. Will the Minister for Women listen to Australian women, step up and take responsibility for doing her bit to ensure that the 55 recommendations are finally implemented?

There are a number of issues that have been raised, including through the terms of the petition presented to the parliament yesterday. They do support the adoption of the 55 recommendations in the Human Rights Commission's Respect@work report. I've already indicated that those are being considered through the appropriate portfolio minister, actually, and, in terms of recommendations that I was able to address, those recommendations were addressed, including with funding, in the Women's Economic Security Statement in October last year. So the full response, as I said, will be brought forward by the Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General, Senator Stoker. But there are a number of recommendations—for example, the ratification of the ILO's convention on eliminating violence and harassment in the world of work—

Senator Keneally interjecting—

Well, if you knew anything about the implementation of such matters, Senator Keneally, then you would know that the government's approach to ratifying treaties is now consistent— (Time expired)

Order! I was struggling to hear the minister during that answer.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Yesterday marked the two-year anniversary of the far-right terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, when an Australian man killed 51 innocent Muslims. On 9 December 2020, following the publication of the New Zealand royal commission report, I asked you, Minister, whether the Prime Minister had read the report and how the government intended to respond to it. You gave me a commitment that the government would examine the report thoroughly—all 44 of its recommendations—engage with the New Zealand government on how it is implementing the recommendations and consider any and all implications for the operation of our own counterterrorism policies and practices. More than three months have past. Has the Prime Minister read the report? Have the government spoken with their New Zealand counterparts about it? And when will the Australian government respond to the report?

The very important work that Senator Faruqi identifies in terms of the response to right-wing extremism and to extremism in all its forms where it poses a threat to the safety or social cohesion of Australia is an ongoing piece of work that our government has taken seriously for many years and continues to take very seriously, including in relation to learning the lessons from the tragic Christchurch massacre and learning from the elements of the New Zealand report and investigations that are relevant to Australia. Our government agencies, in relation to their responses and the advice that they will provide as to what further or additional steps need to be taken in Australia, will absolutely draw upon that work, as we draw upon all expert evidence in relation to such important matters.

Just in the last budget, our government provided a further $571 million over the next five years to our security agencies to keep Australians safe. These are the security agencies that Senator Faruqi rightly quotes in terms of having identified areas of rise in right-wing extremism that we need to confront, as well as having identified other areas of extremism that we need to confront. Of these agencies, ASIO in particular has the highest level of funding in its 70-year history. In this year's budget, our government has invested, and continues to invest, some $300 million to enhance the AFP's capacity to respond to emerging threats. There's no place in our community for any group or individual who seeks to promote disharmony.

Order! Senator Birmingham, we have Senator Faruqi on a point of order.

My point of order is to relevance. I asked specifically about the New Zealand royal commission report. Has the Prime Minister read it and when will the government respond?

That was definitely the final part of your question, Senator Faruqi. It was a long question, and I've allowed you to remind the minister of that. The minister has 14 seconds remaining.

The New Zealand report was not a report to the Australian government, but it is valued input in terms of an additional source of information that will inform the continued investment and policymaking our government makes in relation to these important issues.

Senator Faruqi, a supplementary question?

Minister, government MPs have repeatedly sought to draw false equivalence between right-wing and left-wing extremism. In its recent submission to the PJCIS inquiry into extremism, ASIO stated that the threat from extreme right-wing groups has increased, with groups being more organised and sophisticated than before. Conversely, on left-wing extremism ASIO stated that it is not currently prominent in Australia. Will government MPs stop drawing false equivalence between extreme right-wing and left-wing groups? (Time expired)

The laws, policy, funding and operation of our security agencies are ideologically agnostic. Whether extremism is right-wing extremism, whether it is religiously motivated extremism or whatever the cause of such extremism, we focus very clearly on dealing with those threats—dealing with the potential criminality and dealing with the risks to Australia. Prevention and initiatives that are supported across the country in terms of tackling areas of extremist ideology—

Senator Keneally interjecting—

I'll take Senator Keneally's interjection. The ideology matters in relation to dealing with the threats and seeking to minimise them, but there's not a singular ideology which poses a threat to Australia. If you sit down and ask our security agencies they will tell you that, Senator Keneally. The threats of religious extremism and the threats of right-wing extremism remain very real, very significant and have— (Time expired)

Senator Faruqi, a final supplementary question?

Minister, will the government condemn far-right extremism without equivocation—yes or no?

As I have done before in this chamber, I condemn right-wing extremism, without any qualification. I condemn religious extremism, without any qualification. I condemn all forms of extremism that pose threat or violence, or which undermine safety, without any form of qualification.

I acknowledge absolutely the work of ASIO, as I have done in this chamber before. And it is as a result of the record funding, investment and legislative approaches that this government has put in place that agencies like ASIO have been in a position to identify those threats and to work to respond to those threats. And we will continue to support them, without any qualification and without any bias towards the threats that oppose Australia, to make sure that they are empowered to continue to do so.

My question is to Minister Hume, representing the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts. The pandemic crisis has been a time of heightened stress, anxiety and depression, and has worsened gambling addiction in vulnerable Australians. Online bookies have made a killing during the pandemic. In Australia, credit cards can be used when gambling online but credit cards cannot be used offline in a licensed gambling venue or casino. The UK banned the use of credit cards for both online and offline betting in April last year, recognising that this will significantly reduce the extent of harm to vulnerable people. Why does the Morrison government still allow online betting with credit cards and not legislate to ban the practice, as the UK has done?

Thank you, Senator Griff, for your question and for your ongoing commitment to vulnerable Australians, particularly in the area of problem gambling.

You're correct: last year the UK banned gamblers from using credit cards to pay for bets, and that was for both online and offline gambling. It also applies to e-wallets, a new pattern which we're seeing emerge in paying for online betting. In the name of consumer protection, that's particularly because of evidence and anecdotes of online gambling increasing throughout the period of coronavirus in the UK. There is also anecdotal evidence of that occurring in Australia.

As you'd know, regulation of gambling and gaming is predominantly a state based responsibility. However, the government is always interested to learn what's being done in other jurisdictions to protect vulnerable communities, and there is no doubt that digital technologies like e-wallets are rapidly changing the way that people choose to gamble. In November 2018 the coalition government, in conjunction with state and territory governments, launched the National Consumer Protection Framework for Online Wagering in Australia, to provide much stronger consumer protections for Australians who are gambling online. They include things like prohibition of online wagering services from providing credit to people who gamble on their site or on an app and things like prohibition of the use of payday lenders for online betting. They include customer verification requirements, restrictions on inducement and account closures, including voluntary opt-out precommitment schemes, activity statements and consistent gambling messages, as well as staff training and the National Self-Exclusion Register. The Commonwealth will be responsible for implementing measures such as this new online National Self-Exclusion Register, which allows people to self-exclude from all online wagering sites and apps in one go. (Time expired)

Senator Griff, a supplementary question?

Minister, you are correct about gambling falling under the states, but credit cards fall under federal, so that's why it's appropriate that it's dealt with here. Last year I introduced legislation to ban the use of credit cards for online gambling. I wrote to the minister for communications on the issue, and his response was: 'The implementation of a ban on the use of credit cards to deposit funds into online wagering accounts is not currently within the scope of the Morrison government's online gambling reforms.' Why is such a reform not within the scope—

Order, Senator Griff. Senator Hume.

Again, thank you, Senator Griff. I can say to you that, in December 2019, the Australian Banking Association, the ABA, released a consultation paper seeking the views of the public on exactly this issue, the use of credit cards in gambling. Submissions to that process closed in March last year. Minister Fletcher and Minister Ruston, as the relevant ministers, are due to meet with the ABA on this very issue in the coming weeks. As I said before, the state and territory governments have the primary responsibility for the regulation and licensing of providers and the premises in which gambling products are available. The government will continue to monitor this issue to determine whether government intervention is required. However, in the meantime, the National Self-Exclusion Register is just one measure of the national framework for which the Commonwealth government is responsible. Self-exclusion is a consumer protection tool aimed at individuals who are at risk of or who are already experiencing significant levels of harm from online wagering.

Senator Griff, a final supplementary question?

Coalition MP Andrew Wallace has recently advocated for a ban on the use of credit cards for online bets and met with major banks, who are all apparently 'in furious agreement' that action is needed. In fact, in a story of a week ago, the ANZ bank is quoted as being 100 per cent in agreement. Has the government met with any particular bank on this issue—you did state that you were also meeting with the ABA—and what action has been taken?

I personally haven't met with any bank on this particular issue, but, as we said, Minister Fletcher and Minister Ruston will be meeting with the ABA, who represent the banks collectively, and will be discussing this issue further. In the meantime, the National Self-Exclusion Register, as I said, is only one measure. In 2019 legislation passed, in this very place, to enable the establishment of that register, and the register will allow those who are experiencing gambling harm to immediately exclude themselves from the services that are offered by all interactive wagering service providers, with the click of one button. The implementation of this register is very much on track. The request for tender is currently underway to select an organisation to operate that register. Although many individual Australian interactive gambling providers currently offer consumers the option to exclude themselves from opening an account with that particular provider, there is no national self-exclusion system available that applies to all providers, so this is a significant leap forward.

My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Payne. In reflecting on the tens of thousands of women who marched for justice across the country, the Prime Minister said, 'Not far from here, such marches, even now, are being met with bullets.' This morning the Minister for Women said the observation was 'an important one'. Is the Minister for Women really endorsing the Prime Minister when he tells Australian women they should feel lucky that they weren't shot?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I'll call the minister when I have the opportunity to hear her. Order, across the chamber! Reset the clock.

In a democracy like Australia, there are a number of rights, responsibilities and privileges that I think many, many Australians overwhelmingly treasure and value. One of those is the opportunity to protest and have peaceful demonstrations and peaceful exercises like the one that was undertaken yesterday. Unfortunately, there are too many countries around the world where those privileges, rights and democratic values that underpin our democratic system—

Senator Keneally interjecting—

Senator Pratt interjecting—

are not extended to many, many people.

Order! Senator Payne, I'm going to ask you to cease. I'm going to ask senators, when I do use their names, to at least have some break before they start breaching standing orders again.

Those democratic values are not extended to their populations, and in that regard Australia is a fortunate country. Not very far from here, and in a number of places around the world where we have seen recent activities of protest and demonstration, we have seen those met by violence from authorities. In that case, the values of the Australian democracy should be at the forefront of all our minds.

Senator Keneally, a supplementary question?

Even Senator Rennick, on the minister's own side, said that the Minister for Women should have attended yesterday's March 4 Justice. Is Senator Rennick wrong? Does the Minister for Women stand by her decision not to attend the March 4 Justice yesterday?

I answered that question in here yesterday. I answered that question again last night and I answered it again this morning. Frankly, I want to reiterate the offer of the Prime Minister, that still stands, to meet with the organisers of yesterday's protest and rally. It's an offer the Prime Minister continues to extend.

Senator Keneally, on a point of order?

It's on relevance. With respect, I'm not sure how the minister can claim she answered a question yesterday on an event that only happened today—that is, that Senator Rennick said today she should have attended the event. Is Senator Rennick wrong?

The question also asked whether the minister stood by the decision they made and, I think, with respect, the minister has been directly relevant to that. Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question?

I guess we won't know if Senator Rennick is wrong. Political reporter Brett Worthington said this morning:

But for the tens of thousands who rallied around the nation, they were looking for signs the nation's leaders were listening.

What they heard was a Prime Minister who said they should be thankful they weren't shot.

When will the Morrison government start listening to women, stop telling them they should feel lucky that they aren't shot and start taking their concerns seriously?

A number of issues in recent weeks in this parliament and elsewhere, including, may I say, some of the very impactful speeches made by people like Australian of the Year Grace Tame and speeches made at yesterday's rally, have led to a very significant debate in this country about matters that go to the core of a number of fundamental issues for Australian women. In that context we as a parliament have taken a number of steps. For a period, those opposite engaged constructively and positively with the Minister for Finance and the Special Minister of State in his efforts to ensure that this parliament is provided with an independent review to be carried out by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister advise on how the Liberal-National government's economic recovery plan is working to support families, households, businesses and jobs as our economy recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic?

I thank Senator Abetz for his question. I know he's championed endlessly for the opportunities for job creation for Australians in Tasmania and right across our land. Indeed, as Australia continues to recover from the biggest economic shock since the Great Depression, we can be buoyed by the continuing progress that is being made, particularly by the strength of consumer and business confidence. The NAB's measure of business confidence in February remained well above its long-run average level. All elements of Westpac's Consumer Sentiment Index have improved over the last year, and consumer confidence is up some 21.6 per cent over the year, close to a 10-year high. The latest OECD Economic Outlook suggests that the Australian economy declined by only 2½ per cent in 2020, a significant improvement on the IMF's October forecast and a vastly better outcome than, for example, the US, at a 3½ per cent decline, the euro area, at a 6½ per cent decline, or the UK, at effectively a 10 per cent decline.

In our recovery we were showing great strength through the final two quarters of last year and in the December quarter real GDP increased by 3.1 per cent, leading the OECD to upgrade its forecast for Australia's economic growth in 2021 to 4½ per cent, a significant lift from their forecast back in December. Australia is one of just nine countries to have a AAA credit rating from all three of the ratings agencies, and all of this strength in our recovery is translating most crucially into jobs. These jobs for Australians are seeing employment growth, unemployment decreasing to 6.4 per cent, 94 per cent of the jobs lost at the start of the pandemic having come back and more than half of the jobs created in the last eight months pleasingly going to women across Australia. (Time expired)

Senator Abetz, a supplementary question?

I thank the minister for that good news, especially on the jobs front, and I ask: can the minister also update the Senate on how the government's plan for lower taxes is putting money back into the pockets of our fellow Australians and helping to boost the nation's economic recovery?

Indeed, our income tax reforms as a government are a crucial part of the economic recovery that is occurring and the ongoing support that will be there for Australian households, not just this month or next month but ongoing into the future. Our income tax cuts have already put some $9 billion back into the pockets of around 8.8 million Australians, supporting economic recovery and driving consumer and business confidence. The stage 2 tax cuts brought forward in last year's budget will deliver a further $12 billion boost to hardworking Australian taxpayers over the period from now through to September 2021. This means that someone earning around $60,000 will be paying more than $2,100 less tax compared to 2017-18. That's more money in their household to support spending, to support investment and to continue to drive the economic recovery forward. (Time expired)

Senator Abetz, a final supplementary question?

Can the minister outline how the government's other measures will further support the transition to the next phase of our economic recovery and any risks that Australia faces on our road to recovery?

Our direct economic and health support since the start of the pandemic now stands at some $267 billion. We've outlined the next targeted steps of investment to support parts of Australia, regional parts of Australia, industries in Australia, that continue to face difficulties in relation to the pandemic. We have ongoing measures in place, but we are shifting in terms of the temporary and targeted nature to make sure we stick to those principles of proportionality outlined at the beginning.

Can I welcome, in fact, the statement of the Leader of the Opposition today, where he said:

We obviously do need to shift away. These mechanisms won't be in place forever.

That, indeed, is very correct.

The Leader of the Opposition's comments stand in contrast to those of the member for Maribyrnong, who happened to be out in the media this morning. The former Leader of the Opposition said, 'What's the point of tax cuts?' What's the point of tax cuts! Those on this side understand very clearly that tax cuts put more money into the pockets of Australians, give them more capability to support, to invest— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Minister Colbeck. Spain, Germany, France, Cyprus, Italy, Portugal, the Netherlands and Ireland have hit pause on the AstraZeneca rollout while they look into its potential links to blood clots. Your colleague Senator Canavan said today that Australia should follow suit. Why is the minister for health telling Australians there's no need to worry when health officials in eight different countries are putting on the brakes?

Thanks, Senator Lambie, for the question. As I said earlier in question time today, the government continues to follow the advice of Australia's world-leading Therapeutic Goods Administration and of the other health authorities that advise us and have advised us so successfully through the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this circumstance, ATAGI, who provide advice to us, has put out a statement noting the suspension of the AstraZeneca rollout in other countries, but it has also noted, as part of that statement, that the rates of thrombotic events are not higher in the vaccine recipients than the expected background rate. These events are an issue that health authorities keep an eye on as part of the process, and our authorities here in Australia maintain and continue close contact with authorities in Europe, particularly the EMA, and the UK authority, the MHRA, where over 11 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine have been dispensed without seeing an incidence of increase of these sorts of events.

We maintain close contact with those authorities, and the government continues to act on the advice of the TGA, ATAGI and the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Kelly, in continuing a safe rollout of this vaccine across the country, which we all acknowledge is extremely important for not only the health of the Australian community but also the economic recovery of the Australian economy from the COVID-19 virus. We continue to act on that professional advice, and that's the advice that we will follow as the rollout continues. The government believes that that's the appropriate process to follow.

Senator Lambie, a supplementary question?

This isn't just about science; this is about trust. Australians didn't trust the minister for health enough to sign up to the COVIDSafe app. He spent $14 million on that app, and half of that was on advertising. A year later, it's only found a handful of COVID contacts. If Australians didn't trust the health minister enough to put an app on their phones, why would they trust him enough to put a vaccine in their arms?

Senator Lambie—through you, Mr President—in my answer to the last question, my reference with respect to who Australians should listen to and trust with respect to this vaccine was to the government—but via the advice that we receive, that we have all received, from the TGA, ATAGI and people like the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Kelly, ably assisted by and led through the Department of Health by Professor Murphy, the secretary of the department and who has been leading the process of the vaccination rollout.

Senator Lambie is quite correct: this is a very important process for us. We need to maintain trust in the process, which is why we continue to rely on the advice of ATAGI, the TGA and the CMO— (Time expired)

Senator Lambie, a final supplementary question?

People in this building can deny it until they're blue in the face, but the reality is that, out there, there's growing lack of trust in the vaccine. People are saying that they're losing confidence that the vaccines we have in Australia are safe and effective. Why have we tied the fate of our economic recovery to the success of the AstraZeneca vaccine to the point where we're all forced to say everything is fine, while the vaccine itself is starting to roll off the rails?

I thank Senator Lambie for the question, but I don't agree with the assertion she placed at the end of her question. The vaccination process in this country is continuing to ramp up. We are continuing to receive supplies of both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines. Other vaccines may come online to support the vaccination of Australians as the approval process continues, as we get access, say, through the Covax mechanism, where we do have capacity coming online.

Australians can be confident. I have to say that, in my experience and in the feedback that I've been getting, for example, from aged-care facilities, there is significant confidence and significant demand. There is significant demand from senior Australians for the vaccination process—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I am struggling to hear the minister.

Currently over 40,000 Australians in over 500 aged-care facilities have been vaccinated, so in my experience there is strong demand for the vaccination. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Payne. The government promised new school teaching materials on consent and respectful relationships back in the 2015 plan for women's safety but the education minister announced the rollout in classrooms only last week—a six-year delay. A student could have started and finished primary school in that time. Has the Minister for Women taken any action to find out why these important materials have been so delayed?

I don't have details with me of the education aspects of that matter. I am aware that the minister for education in his remarks last week made reference to these issues and to the bravery of the young women in particular who had come forward as a result of the discussion of these very difficult issues in Australia, including sexual assault and rape, to disclose their own experiences.

As I understand it, we have education materials in relation to the teaching of primary and secondary students about ethical behaviour, consent and respectful relationships through what is known as the Respect Matters program. That material will be freely available for use in all Australian schools in the coming weeks. The program for foundation to year 6 is focused on relationships and friendships, and managing these through changes and challenges. That is about providing building blocks for later content. The program for years 7 to 9 focuses on moving from preteen to adolescence and looks at relationships and power, and bullying and bystander action. Further, the program for years 10 to 12 focuses on personal and intimate relationships and that includes understanding consent, decision-making and consent laws and rights.

The government understands that this is a much broader issue than just schools and significant funding has been allocated since 2013 by governments—federal, state and territory, but $1 billion from the Commonwealth—to prevent and respond to violence against women and their children— (Time expired)

Senator McCarthy, a supplementary question?

Can the Minister for Women confirm that she has failed to implement the recommendations in the 2016 COAG report on reducing violence against women and their children and the 2018 statement from delegates at the COAG Summit on Reducing Violence Against Women and Their Children? If yes, why?

As the senator would be aware, we as a government, like previous governments—in fact, commencing in 2010 with what I would say was strong multipartisan support—have been supporters of, engaged in and leading on the National Action Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Their Children. Part of that is underpinned by the engagement of women's safety ministers from the states and territories with the Commonwealth ministers, who are at this point in time Minister Ruston and me. That is the framework under which the Commonwealth and the states and territories work on all of these issues. In relation to those individual reports, if I have anything further to add, I will bring further information to the chamber.

Senator McCarthy, a final supplementary question?

The CEO of Community Legal Centres Australia has warned that the government's move to abolish the specialist Family Court model risks 'exposing survivors of family violence to unnecessary risk'. What action did the Minister for Women take to protect women and children from the risk of Attorney-General Porter's move to abolish the Family Court?

As senators would be aware, there was very extensive consultation on the introduction of the reforms to the courts that Senator McCarthy has alluded to. This is a very important priority for the government within the family law system. I understand there's also been a report released this week in relation to matters affecting the court system, specifically in relation to family law. A number of initiatives which were part of the Women's Economic Security Statement in October of last year in the context of the budget also went to these issues, in the context at the time overwhelmingly of COVID-19.

Yesterday in discussions with a number of community organisation representatives, including Ms Lynch from the Women's Legal Service Queensland, a number of these matters were— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, Senator Cash. Regional communities rely on aviation services to support small business, tourism and the residents who live there to access employment opportunities as well as vital services, such as medical treatment and education. Virgin has previously withdrawn services from regional areas and, in the last week of February, Rex Airlines announced plans to cut some of its regional services. This has concerned many rural and regional Australians reliant on these vital services. Can the minister please outline how the Liberal and National government is supporting regional aviation to maintain as many of these essential air services as possible not only for tourism but also for the viability of our communities in rural and regional Australia?

I thank Senator Davey for her question. Without a doubt, 2020 presented the domestic aviation network with the greatest challenges it has ever faced. The Morrison-McCormack government were proud to support the domestic aviation network through these challenges. That was actually demonstrated again last week when we announced a $1.2 billion package to support the tourism sector and to encourage more Australians to have a holiday domestically but in particular in regional Australia.

When the pandemic first hit, aviation without a doubt was hit, and it was hit hard. The government at that time put in place key supports to keep essential services running throughout the pandemic not only to support regional airlines but also to ensure that they could keep as many jobs as possible that are actually supported by our regions. Currently there are around 12 commercial regional airlines which operate regular scheduled passenger services across Australia.

It's almost one year to the day since the government announced its initial package to assist regional airlines to support critical air services to regional and rural communities, securing access to critical medical supplies and testing, securing freight and securing transport of essential personnel through the regional aviation support program. The government provided an additional $100 million in funding to directly support the smaller regional airlines if they needed it. The reason we did this is that those regional airlines are critical supports for regional communities, providing critical aeromedical services and links to capital and metropolitan areas for medical appointments, medical freight and locum doctors. Certainly, we are committed to ensuring that these services continue.

Senator Davey, a supplementary question?

The $31.2 billion Tourism Aviation Network Support program, or TANS, as my leader likes to call it, announced last week will initially service 13 key tourism regions, but can the minister please outline the future measures that our government will undertake to promote tourism and the maintenance of key air services in the regions not currently included in that program?

Prior to COVID-19, Australians spent approximately $65 billion on overseas travel in 2019. This now presents enormous opportunities for our regions—that $65 billion on overseas travel in 2019.

What we're doing as a government is supporting more Australians to back our regions and supporting Australians to holiday at home this year. As you would know, Mr President, last week we announced the half-price ticket program. This will operate initially in over 13 key regions, with the potential for more regions to be added on the basis of consumer demand, consultation and the success of the program.

In addition to this, the vital domestic aviation policies that are supporting our regional airlines, regional health systems and regional jobs will continue for six months from the end of March to the end of September 2021. Again, as a government, we will always back our regions. (Time expired)

Senator Davey, final supplementary question?

Can the minister please outline how Australians living in regional areas, and not just the holiday-makers who live in our capital cities, will be able to access the subsidised airline tickets under the program?

All Australians will have access to these fares through airline websites and booking agents in the coming weeks for flight bookings from 1 April. The discounts will be offered on tens of thousands of fares per week across an initial 13 key tourism regions, and the government is working with airlines to increase the number of flights to these tourism areas.

Not only will regional Australians benefit but regional airlines; regional accommodation providers, regional restaurants and bars and regional tourism operators will all benefit from the policy put in place by the government. In particular, I would encourage all Australians who are considering taking advantage of the discount fare to book through a travel agent. Book through a travel agent not just to support the local business but also to ensure that you can actually make the most of your travel and experience in terms of what all of our regions have to offer. Obviously, doing this will support those local travel agent businesses. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. I refer to reports that key components of the job of the Attorney-General, Christian Porter, will be delegated to others upon his return from leave on 31 March. Are the reports correct? What responsibilities will be delegated? Why are these regarded as areas in which Mr Porter will face a conflict of interest? And who will be assisting Mr Porter?

I thank the senator for her question. As the Attorney-General announced yesterday, he is exercising the same rights as any other Australian when they believe they have been defamed to initiate legal proceedings against certain organisations and individuals. To ensure appropriate handling whilst the Attorney-General initiates such proceedings, the government has sought legal advice in relation to any issues that may arise as a result of the Attorney-General filing such proceedings.

As an interim measure until that advice is received, the Attorney-General's office will have no engagement with the Federal Court, which I understand would be expected to hear the proceedings, or involvement with matters involving the Federal Court or the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The Attorney-General's Department has similarly been told not to engage with the Attorney-General or the Attorney-General's office in respect of matters involving the Federal Court or the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?

The next meeting of the attorneys-general will be on 31 March, the day Mr Porter returns from leave, at which it will discuss two of its priorities: 'family violence—national information sharing framework' and 'model defamation reform'. Will Mr Porter attend the meeting, and, if so, how will he manage his clear conflict of interest on two of the meeting's three identified priorities?

I'm not aware of what Mr Porter's commitments will be on 31 March and I'll take that on notice.

Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question?

It's reported that the Attorney-General's portfolio will be restructured to ensure Mr Porter is able to return to the role while he pursues defamation action. How long will a junior Attorney-General be required to assist Mr Porter to remain in cabinet while questions remain over whether he is a fit and proper person to resume full responsibility?

As I said in relation to the primary question, the Attorney-General is exercising the same rights as any Australian in relation to initiating defamation proceedings in the belief that he has been defamed. Out of an abundance of caution, the government has sought legal advice in relation to the Attorney-General's work. As an interim measure, until that advice has been received, the steps that I outlined in relation to the primary question will be undertaken. Once that advice is received, if there's any further information to add I'll make sure that it's brought to the chamber.

Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

Under standing order 74(5)(a), I seek an explanation from the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham, as to why 108 questions—108 questions!—taken on notice since October 2019 remain unanswered.

Senator Keneally, do you have a list of the questions? Other senators have been reading them out, but if you haven't—

I do not have a full list but I think the government would know the 108.

I understand Senator Keneally is seeking this explanation under standing order 74(5), which clearly states that the senator may ask, if questions the senator has asked have not been responded to, for an explanation for such. I am advised that Senator Keneally does not have any questions on notice through the estimates process that have not been responded to.

Thank you, Minister. Senator Keneally.

I am here today representing—

Senator Keneally, just a moment. Could you take your seat. Minister?

Senator Keneally was not in order in the question that she asked and the explanation that she sought. She has no questions that are outstanding in relation to estimates procedures, so, Deputy President, I ask you to rule that Senator Keneally's attempt to now take note of an explanation to a question that ought not have been asked is out of order.

Thank you, Minister. So, as I understand—sorry, are you seeking the call, Senator Wong?

Madam Deputy President, I can give an indication and I can get a senator down here, because we have in excess of a hundred questions.

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Would you like me to seek leave to make a short statement, Eric? I'm happy to do that. I'm speaking to the point of order.

Senator Abetz interjecting—

I know that. I'm making this point: I think that the Leader of the Government in the Senate may be technically correct, because we asked Senator Keneally, as the deputy leader, to make a contribution in relation to in excess of 100—and I'm hoping that someone is going to provide me with a schedule soon, as per my request—questions which have been asked by Labor senators but not answered, for estimates. We are seeking that she make this contribution as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. I would take advice from the Clerk. I can't recall whether or not 'on behalf of Labor senators' has been permitted in the standing orders. If the ruling is different, I'm happy to indicate we have Senators Polley, Gallagher, McCarthy, Green, Kitching—I can go through this—myself and many others. If the government want to use a technicality to avoid a discussion about the extent to which they are avoiding parliamentary scrutiny, the Leader of the Government in the Senate can take that debating point. The point is that the government is failing—

Senator Birmingham interjecting—

Well, the standing orders also require you—

You're speaking to a point of order.

I'm responding to your interjection. I know you're grumpy today! I'm responding to your interjection. The standing orders also require you to respond to questions on notice, and you are refusing to.

Senator Wong, please resume your seat. I was going to respond to the point of order raised by the minister and inform the Senate that, in fact, Senator Keneally may ask in response to questions she believes haven't been answered in the required time, and she can ask on behalf of other Labor senators, but she needs to be clear in what she is requesting.

Under standing order 74(5)(c), I move:

That the Senate take note of the minister's failure to provide answers to the 108 questions asked by Labor senators on notice.

Here we stand today, in this chamber, and this government is trying to argue technicalities about standing orders. Well, understand this: standing orders require the government to answer questions on notice and to answer them in a certain time frame. It is not a technicality to avoid accountability. It is your responsibility as a government to be answerable to this chamber. It is the responsibility of the government to be accountable to the questions posed by senators, and it is your responsibility as a government to conform to the standing orders. The standing orders require the government to answer questions posed by senators, including on notice.

There are 108 questions sitting unanswered by this government since October 2019. I hope that everyone watching this broadcast today understands that Senator Birmingham and the government he represents in this chamber have left 108 questions unanswered. They are turning their backs on accountability. As a government they are turning their backs on their accountability to the Senate, they are turning their backs on their responsibility and they are turning their backs on the Australian people.

We are just days away from another week of estimates, where no doubt this list I have in my hand of 108 questions that are unanswered by this government—this government, led in this chamber by Senator Birmingham, are turning their backs on their responsibility and arguing a technicality to try and keep me from making this contribution. It is a technicality they say is in the standing orders. It's not a technicality for Senator Birmingham and his colleagues to answer the questions put to them on notice.

A fish rots from the head down. It is no surprise that apathy towards accountability, a willingness to turn your back on accountability, plagues the Morrison government. It starts with the Prime Minister's office. 'I don't hold a hose, mate,' said the Prime Minister. He doesn't hold an inquiry when serious allegations of rape are levelled at his Attorney-General. And he doesn't hold out any hope for this chamber that questions will be answered. What do we have here today? A government that is turning its back on accountability—a government that has turned around and said: 'No, we don't hold the hose. We don't hold responsibility. We don't hold seriously our accountability.'

There are 108 unanswered questions, some dating back to October 2019. The Prime Minister is the worst offender. The minister who Senator Birmingham represents in this chamber is the worst offender in not answering questions on notice. It was Senator Birmingham who just moments ago tried to argue a technicality so that I couldn't speak to this and it is Senator Birmingham who is turning his back on his responsibility to ensure that the minister he represents in this chamber, the Prime Minister, answers the questions on notice put to him by senators.

As I said, we are days away from estimates. No doubt this list of 108 questions is going to grow. But it doesn't stop with the Prime Minister. There are another 47 answers overdue from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, which is led by the Deputy Prime Minister himself. There are another 25 answers overdue from Minister Rushton, who is also Manager of Government Business in this place. We have the Prime Minister. We have the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Birmingham. We have the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. We have the Minister for Families and Social Services in this chamber, Senator Ruston. These are the three biggest offenders in not answering questions on notice and turning their backs on accountability.

We have seen this government turn its back in recent days and weeks—in fact, years. Over seven years, this government has turned its back on the Australian people. They have left the Australian people behind and they are leaving behind their responsibility to be accountable to this parliament and, through this parliament, to the Australian people. Understand this: a government that doesn't think it has a responsibility to answer questions under the standing orders is a government that no longer thinks it is accountable to this parliament or to the Australian people.

Unfortunately, we don't just have the evidence of 108 unanswered questions since October 2019. We also have the evidence of a government that has delivered a dodgy NBN and that has paid $30 million for airport land in Western Sydney that was worth only $3 million. We have evidence of a government that has presided over sports rorts, handing out taxpayer money as if it were Liberal Party money to marginal seats on colour coded spreadsheets. We have a government that is willing to take the Safer Communities Fund and disregard and reject the legitimate safety needs of communities across Australia and instead put that money into marginal and Liberal seats to make them safer for the Liberal Party. That is a government that has turned its back on the Australian people. That is a government that has turned its back on parliamentary responsibility.

This is a government that promised a national integrity commission. Where is it? It hasn't been delivered by the Attorney-General, Christian Porter. It remains in draft legislation because this government does not believe it needs to be held accountable. They continue to turn their back on the scandals, on the incompetence, on the corruption. This is a government that can't even answer questions on notice much less set up a national integrity commission to ensure that we don't have regional road rorts, safer communities rorts, sports rorts, dodgy land deals and a dodgy NBN.

Distressingly, this week we've also seen that this government has turned its back on the Australian people, particularly Australian women. Australian women were out in force here in Canberra and in locations across the country. One hundred and ten thousand women, and men, marched to say, 'Enough is enough,' because they want answers from this government. Where is the Respect@work report and its 55 recommendations seeking to establish greater equality for Australian women? Where does it sit? It sits as work undone, unanswered by this government. As with the 108 unanswered questions, the government don't think they're accountable for the Respect@work report. They don't think they're responsible for that. We even heard the Minister for Women, Senator Payne, today talk about the private sector. Is there nothing this government won't outsource to the private sector? Her claim: she didn't really have to get progressing; she didn't have to encourage the Attorney-General to get going on that, because the private sector had a lot of responsibility here. There are 55 recommendations to the government. Only three of them have been implemented—only three! So again we have a government turning its back on its responsibilities.

During the last sitting period, the Senate ordered the production of answers to 631 overdue questions on notice from estimates hearings, dating back to 2019—631! Even when compelled by the Senate to finally answer these questions, there are ministers in this government, members of this very chamber, who just plainly refuse to do their jobs, who just turn their back on their responsibilities. I know that senators who have their back turned on me right now can hear me. They should face their responsibilities, as leaders, as frontbenchers, and be accountable to the parliament. The fact that the Prime Minister is the No. 1 offender when it comes to not answering questions on notice—

No surprise.

is not a surprise. This is a Prime Minister who thinks his job is political management—not management of the parliament, not management of policy, not management of good outcomes for the Australian people, but management of his own political fortunes. So maybe we shouldn't be surprised—as Senator Pratt interjects—that a Prime Minister who is all about marketing and spin and headline and announcement and photo op couldn't be bothered to answer questions posed by the Senate, because that's what he's about. He's about the management of his marketing brand, not about the management of the economy, the management of our community, delivering good policy that ensures that women can be safe at work—even when their workplace is the Australian parliament. This is a Prime Minister who offered to meet women behind closed doors rather than go out and cross the street to hear from thousands of women who had gathered here to say, 'Enough is enough.' Perhaps none of us should have been surprised that the Prime Minister wouldn't cross the road. The Prime Minister won't even do his basic day job of answering questions on notice from the Senate, from the parliament.

I never thought we would one day long for the leading heights of ministerial accountability under Malcolm Turnbull, but, frankly, I say bring them back. Bring them back, because what we saw from the last Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet was that Dr Parkinson took his role seriously. He thought the minister should be accountable for a portfolio. No doubt his boss, Malcolm Turnbull, impressed that upon him. Dr Parkinson thought the Australian people deserved transparency and oversight from the government they elected. This starts at the top—a commitment to accountability, a commitment to transparency, a commitment to just do your basic job.

What I want to say, as we head into estimates week, is a message not just to the ministers in this government—because I think we've made our point here: the ministers in this government have turned their back on their accountability; they have turned their back on this parliament; and they're turning their back on the Australian people. What I would like to say to any department secretaries who are appearing before estimates next week is it is the practice of Labor senators and frontbenchers to give notice to departments on the questions we want to ask, on the officials we would like to be there, on the matters we wish to explore. We do that as a courtesy so that they may come prepared. What I would like to say to the department secretaries is to remind them of something I believe they know, that they are accountable to this parliament.

While ministers in the Morrison government may disregard and may feel that they are not accountable to the Australian people—they may turn their back on their responsibilities—next week in estimates we expect answers to questions, not for our sake but for the sake of the parliamentary accountability, for the sake of the standing orders, for the sake of the Australian people, because governments in a democracy are accountable to the people.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by Senator Payne to the questions asked by Senators McAllister, Keneally and McCarthy today.

I rise to take note of the failure of this government to take substantive action against sexual harassment of women in the workplace and their failure to take real action against the violence and threat of violence women face every single day. They cannot even roll out a school program about respectful relationships in a reasonable time frame, not here in this country.

These are the words of the Prime Minister yesterday in response to the thousands of women who rallied around Australia in protest against violence and harassment, to say enough is enough, to call for national leadership on this issue, which should be a turning point for gendered violence issues in this country. Instead, we get told we should be lucky—grateful, even—that we aren't shot when we take to the streets to protest this, that we should be grateful our cries of protest against violence aren't met with violence. Not good enough. Not nearly good enough. We have a history of meeting pleas from women to stop the violence with violence. Women know this. First Nations women, in particular, know this. I'm not going to talk about the statistics, because I want to talk about the women, the people who, in their own words, aren't just numbers.

Some of you may remember a group of First Nations women from Central Australia who came to Canberra three years ago to bring us their message about combatting family violence and calling for support. These women were from the Tangentyere Women's Family Safety Group. They spent days here in Parliament House, meeting with senators, meeting with government ministers, telling all about the work they do on the frontline of family violence in Alice Springs. These women, in 2017, organised the largest women's march in Central Australia to protest against and draw attention to violence against First Nations women.

It was sparked by anger and frustration when one of the friends of the family was badly injured by an intimate partner, yet her near death garnered no headlines, no comment, no outrage. However, more than 300 people joined in the Alice Springs action to highlight Aboriginal women and children and families who are living with, have been injured by or are dying from violence. They made the decision to bring their message here to Canberra and to show First Nations women all over the country that we can stand up and be heard, that we do have the solutions and need to be part of the decision-making. These remarkable and strong women came to Canberra and they made an impact.

One of these women, a core member of the group, was a woman who was dedicated to changing lives and to working to combat violence against women. Well, I attended her funeral on Friday. She was killed earlier this year after being run down by a car allegedly driven by her partner. She was killed outside the Alice Springs Hospital, a place where people go to seek help and healing. She was killed, despite her work advocating that the voices of First Nations women need to be heard. When she came to Canberra and asked us to listen and stand with her and the other women who flew all that way—and for many of them it was their first time out of Alice Springs—they wanted us to hear their solutions, acknowledge their experience and recognise the important work that is being done at a community level to deal with issues of domestic and family violence. She urged the government to listen to a wide range of First Nations voices regarding family and domestic violence issues and commit to genuine collaboration and partnerships with women at the community level when making family and domestic violence policies.

So yesterday, when hundreds of thousands of men and women marched across this country, thinking and reflecting on their own experiences and those of people that they know and love, I remembered her, knowing that she came here three years ago to ask this government to act. And three years later we still have a government that won't listen, that won't act and that turns its back, just like we saw today.

I rise to take note of answers. I am going to find it hard to get through this take note debate today because we, as women of the coalition, are a part of women of Australia and we all share in the distress, the anguish and the horror of sexual assaults right across this land. Yesterday, I was scheduled to speak here in the chamber and was not able to be there for the start of the march. I committed to going down to lend my presence to the issue of sexual assault in workplaces right across this land. I listened to the words spoken by Senator McCarthy. I too am frustrated and horrified by the ongoing assaults, particularly in Indigenous communities but right across my part of the world in Northern Queensland.

I spend time with the women's centre, with Yumba-Meta, in Townsville, understanding their challenges and the role that they play in supporting victims, both men and women. Yet I find myself today somehow not quite good enough a woman. Somehow I find myself today not woman enough to be included by the opposition. You would think that our shared experiences would in some way bind us. But, instead, I again find part of my voice being taken away and the people I represent being taken away. I weep that, in somehow holding up people—individuals—who have had no part in these assaults, we are politicising an issue that should never be in this chamber. We are good men, and good women, yet we have to be lectured on not being women enough.

I do stand with the victims of these assaults. I am horrified and outraged that this should happen, that this should still be happening in this land. And it is not just in parliament. It is in workplaces, communities, homes, hospitals and retirement villages. Yet, instead of standing together, instead of this being a bipartisan event to try to stamp this out, to educate and to provide resources, we are going to turn this into another way of dividing us.

I am disappointed beyond words, because when I go and speak to communities, women's centres and men's centres, this is not the story I want to take back—that we are not united, that there is not a deep desire to see sexual assaults in this land finish. This government has committed funding to centres, has spoken on this, has provided resources in every state and territory. And the next person who seeks to politicise this by making it somehow the responsibility of some people who are not the right sort, not the right gender, not the right colour, not the right party or not from the right region should be ashamed, because they perpetuate this attack on the very people we should be working together with.

I acknowledge Senator McDonald's attendance, as well as others from the other side, because where the apology really should be going is to the fact that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Women didn't attend the rally. That's where the politicisation has occurred. What I'm saying is that this is bipartisan support for making sure that the voice of women and the serious matters we're dealing with right now in this place are dealt with appropriately. As we've seen over the past eight years, the government has once again failed to rise to the occasion that is before it. Yesterday hundreds of thousands of courageous Australian women around the country embarked on the historic March 4 Justice. In stark contrast to the limp excuses put forward by those opposite in recent weeks, we heard powerful, brilliant speeches by incredible women, like Brittany Higgins and Grace Tame. And for the 12 million Australian men: your job is to listen—our job is to listen—whether you joined the protests in the streets around the country or not. For those cowering in this building, as the Prime Minister chose to do: you need to listen.

Men and women in the Morrison government: you have the power to do so much more. But instead of rising to the occasion, instead of seizing this opportunity to take a stand against the pandemic of sexual harassment in this country and in this building, the Prime Minister has proactively obstructed and undermined those seeking long-overdue justice. The Prime Minister refused to meet the rally just outside these doors. The Deputy Prime Minister refused to meet the rally just outside these doors. The Minister for Women refused to meet the rally just outside these doors. Instead, the Prime Minister declared it a triumph that these courageous women were not 'met with bullets'.

The Prime Minister believes that the women of Australia should be content that they can protest without being murdered in the streets and that they should be satisfied with that. What lofty ambition the Prime Minister of Australia has for the women of this country! It's hardly surprising when the same Prime Minister announced he could only sympathise with Brittany Higgins because he is a father. No-one will ever say it better than Grace Tame, Australian of the Year, did at the National Press Club:

It shouldn't take having children to have a conscience. And, actually, on top of that, having children doesn't guarantee a conscience.

Indeed, it does not.

This is a government which sends senior cabinet ministers on indefinite paid leave, hoping that the scandals will blow over. One such minister is the Minister for Defence, who failed her duty of care to her staff member, who mishandled the most serious claim of misconduct, of sexual assault, which has ever taken place in this building, who called Brittany Higgins—who has displayed such incredible courage in coming forward not just for herself but for victims of sexual assault around Australia—a 'lying cow'. The minister only apologised for that remark upon threat of a defamation lawsuit. This is conduct unbecoming any manager or employer, let alone a federal cabinet minister.

Speaking of lawsuits, we have the Attorney-General, who announced yesterday, while on indefinite paid leave at the time, that he was suing the ABC journalist who revealed the allegations made against him, rather than being accountable and doing the right thing, rather than standing down pending an independent inquiry. Of course, the government, instead, is attacking the media. The only legal action the Morrison government is taking on these rape allegations is not against the Attorney-General. The only legal action being taken is against a female journalist, for having the audacity to do her job. This is a disgraceful approach but one which is consistent with the Morrison government's attitude towards women.

In 2003, when the then Governor-General, Peter Hollingworth, was accused of rape, the then Prime Minister stood him down pending an investigation. What's happening with the Attorney-General? (Time expired)

People listening in to this debate will see a great distinction between the contribution of Senator McDonald and those from the other side. Senator McDonald's contribution was poignant, considered and oozing with wise counsel. It was very, very considered, not seeking to play the cheap political card. The issues that we are dealing with are sensitive. Peoples' lives are at stake—women's lives and the lives of those who are accused. We always have to keep that in balance and in mind.

When Senator Sheldon made his contribution about the Attorney-General, of course he did not reflect on his former leader, who was similarly accused. We on this side have accepted the fact that it was investigated and the appropriate authorities determined not to proceed with it. The same standard ought to be applying to the Attorney-General. Indeed, if it is asserted by those opposite that somehow, because the police haven't proceeded, there should be a judicial inquiry into alleged behaviour when the Attorney was still a minor, why not have a similar inquiry into the behaviour of the member for Maribyrnong? There's no answer to that from the opposition, is there, because they seek to play politics with this very, very important issue.

As somebody who has volunteered his services to help establish a women's shelter—I was on the inaugural committee; I was the honorary legal adviser for many years; and I still have an interest in this area—I know the pain and the suffering that is inflicted upon the womenfolk of this country. I sought to do something about it from my own resources and my own capacities, along with a group of wonderfully dedicated individuals, both male and, especially, female.

Violence toward each other should be condemned, full stop. Violence by physically stronger people against physically weaker people is abhorrent—and so it is usually violence by men against women—and it needs to be condemned outright. Indeed, I've said before and I'll say again that talking about domestic violence I think demeans that which actually goes on. Domestic violence is actually assault. It's a crime. It should be treated as a crime and not dressed up as something that is somewhat a bit different to assault because it happened to occur at home.

These things need to be considered very carefully and very maturely. Senator McCarthy, very disappointingly, in her contribution sought to condemn the federal government as though the Northern Territory Labor government had no legislative responsibility or capacity in this area. It does. We know it does. Why only seek to blame the federal Liberal government for insufficient activity when the problem may well lie with the Northern Territory government? I don't seek to do that. I say to everybody in this chamber and Australia that trying to blame a Liberal government, a Labor government, this person or that person is playing cheap politics with a very important issue. It demeans those who seek to do it.

In concluding I rely again on the very wise words of my friend and colleague Senator Susan McDonald, who was able to express her point of view and her disappointment at the way that she herself has been handled in this debate and many other good men and women. Let's all work together to achieve an outcome to ensure that everybody in our community is safe, especially our womenfolk.

What the questions and answers in question time really revealed was the entire absence and invisibility of the Minister for Women, not just over the last three or four weeks but over the last two years she has been in that position. There are enormous challenges that Australian women face. More women than men lost jobs during the COVID-19 period. The new jobs that have been created, which the government celebrates so much, have largely been casual and low-wage jobs—mostly women's jobs. So not only have Australian women had the biggest hit from COVID-19 in terms of losing their jobs but the jobs that have been created have been low-quality jobs. The gender wage gap persists. There have been nearly 900 deaths since 2008 caused by domestic and family violence. I am not convinced that the scourge of violence against women and children has got any better over that period, and there is much to suggest that it's getting worse. Just lately there have been revelations of an alleged rape not very far from the Prime Minister's office. Misogyny exists in some quarters of this parliament. Parliament should be the exemplar for Australian people, not one of the worst workplaces for Australian women.

The unequal position of women in this country diminishes all of us. I absolutely reject the mean-spirited values that underpin the Prime Minister's statement that he was all for equality, just as long as men didn't have to go backwards in the process. The great irony of that statement is that the only reason that the gender wage gap has shrunk by a tiny amount is that the Prime Minister's industrial relations policies have driven the wages of blue-collar men down over the last couple of years.

Violence diminishes us all. Unequal pay diminishes us all. Disrespect at work diminishes us all. Misogyny diminishes us all, and where on earth, amidst all of this, is the invisible Minister for Women? Yesterday 10,000 women and thousands of men gathered outside this parliament. I acknowledge those coalition members and senators who came out as well. Where was the Minister for Women? She was hiding in this chamber, invisible to the outside world, with a confected excuse for staying in here. How can she possibly rationalise the decision to stay away from that rally? She is supposed to be the Minister for Women. She is supposed to be an advocate for change. She is supposed to be finding ways, through policy and politics in this place, to lift the status of women. But where was she? Nowhere, and there's been plenty of opportunity. The Respect@work report, more than 12 months ago, had basic steps to elevate the position of Australian women and protect them at work. There was an almost zero—three out of 55—response from this government.

The events over the course of the last three or four weeks have laid bare just how weak the government's response is when faced with the kinds of allegations that Ms Higgins has brought forward, that others have brought forward, that have been brought forward against the Attorney-General. The government's response has been entirely about political management, not protecting the interests of women, not dealing with issues on their merits—an entirely political response. Where has the Minister for Women been? She's been entirely invisible. In terms of ministers for women in this place, we had two years of Tony Abbott as the minister for women, two years of Senator Cash as the Minister for Women, two years of Kelly O'Dwyer as the Minister for Women and now we've had two long years of Minister Payne. I am not convinced about which of those two-year periods has been the worst, characterised by the least action, characterised by the total invisibility of this minister.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Birmingham) to a question without notice asked by Senator Faruqi today regarding the Christchurch massacre.

Two years ago yesterday an Australian man walked into two mosques in Christchurch, Aotearoa New Zealand, and killed 51 innocent Muslims. This was an attack that the New Zealand royal commission ended up confirming was driven by an extreme right-wing Islamophobic ideology. I remember exactly where I was that day, just as I'm pretty sure every Muslim in this part of the world remembers exactly where they were. It was shattering. Our hearts broke as we came to understand the enormity of the hate filled massacre. In June 2019, just a few months after the mosque attacks, I travelled to Christchurch to visit the Al Noor Mosque and meet with communities and families.

Two years on, how far have we come to ensure this will never happen again? Not nearly far enough. In fact, we have arguably gone further down the wrong path. Open racism and Islamophobia continue to be tolerated and even encouraged in politics and media. Neo-Nazis and far-right white nationalists organise online, their toxic hatred seeping into mainstream public discussions. Muslims continue to experience racism wherever we go. I have pushed hard against this, as have many advocates, but Australia's lack of progress remains deeply concerning to me. I worry that, without substantial political change, the next Christchurch attack will not be a matter of if, but when. I have been disturbed to read the initial submissions to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security inquiry into extremism. All key government agencies, including ASIO, the AFP and Home Affairs, have indicated in their initial submissions to the inquiry that the threat of far-right extremism is growing. However, substantial policy change and political action are nowhere to be seen.

The unanimity of federal authorities on the growing threat of far-right extremism stands in sharp contrast to the dismissive rhetoric of government MPs. We heard in the response to my questions earlier much of the same rhetoric, refusing to target far-right extremism squarely. When I put to the minister a very simple yes-or-no question about whether the government would condemn far-right extremism without equivocation I did not receive a yes-or-no response. Senator Birmingham responded by saying that he would condemn far-right and religious extremism and all forms of extremism without qualification. The minister would not condemn far-right extremism in isolation.

This is the extremism which drove the massacre in Christchurch and it needs to be condemned. As I said earlier in my question to the minister, ASIO stated in its submission to the PJCIS inquiry that the threat from extreme right-wing groups has increased, with groups being more organised and sophisticated than before. Conversely, on left-wing extremism, ASIO stated that it is not currently prominent in Australia. But there is no acknowledgement of this clear contrast from the government. In fact, MPs continue to promote false equivalence. The Liberals have completely failed here, not just in their rhetoric but also in their actions. Laws on extremist hatred must be strengthened and enforced. There are still no dedicated programs for tackling far-right extremism in the community and no commitment to an antiracism strategy or campaign.

When MPs have their heads in the sand, or even tacitly endorse far-right ideas, it totally undermines the government's response to this threat. The government has been dragged kicking and screaming into the PJCIS inquiry, and it even deflected a clear-eyed focus on far-right extremism and white supremacy. Now, since they have received submissions from our security agencies, they continue to deflect and deny. They have no choice but to look at the evidence and respond accordingly. Thousands of Muslims in Australia and other targeted communities of colour are counting on them—are begging them—to take this seriously.

This week we remember the 51 lives lost in Christchurch, the many injured and the families whose worlds were changed forever in March 2019. We work to ensure that their passing was not in vain.

Question agreed to.

I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes the Attorney-General has instituted legal proceedings against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC); and

(b) calls on the Prime Minister to recuse the Attorney-General from any cabinet deliberations in relation to the ABC including funding.

I remind senators that the question may be put at the request of any senator. If not, we shall proceed.

I seek leave to amend government business notice of motion No. 1 before seeking to have the motion taken as formal.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:

Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Early Childhood Education and Care Coronavirus Response and Other Measures) Bill 2021

Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Bill 2020 Industrial Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2020

   Industrial Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2020

Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (General) Bill 2020

Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (Customs) Bill 2020

Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management (Register) Charge (Excise) Bill 2020

Industry Research and Development Amendment (Industry Innovation and Science Australia) Bill 2021

National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Supporting Economic Recovery) Bill 2020

Online Safety Bill 2021

Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021

Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Age of Dependants) Bill 2021

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021

Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2021 Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021

Work Health and Safety Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2021.

Question agreed to.

I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1060, relating to Landcare Australia, be taken as a formal motion.

Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?

An honourable senator: Yes.

There is.

On indulgence, could we revert back to the first motion? The Greens were seeking to move an amendment to remove—

Government business notice of motion No. 1?

Yes, thank you very much. We are seeking to remove the Online Safety Bill from the cut-off order exemption motion. My apologies for being a minute behind.

I can only do it by leave, unless a formal recommitment is moved. I'm looking at the Clerk. I am seeking leave to put the question with respect to the bill you just outlined. I can only do it by leave, unless there is a formal recommitment motion. Is leave granted? Or would you like me to come back to it? I will come back to it; I will let the government deal with that.

I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1061 be taken as a formal motion.

Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?

An honourable senator: Yes.

There is.

At the request of Senator Gallacher, I move:

That—

(1) The Senate notes:

(a) the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No.1) Bill 2021 was introduced in the House of Representatives and read a first time on 17 February 2021;

(b) on 18 February 2021, the Senate referred the provisions of the bill to the Economics Legislation Committee (the committee) for inquiry and report by 12 March 2021;

(c) on 25 February 2021, the Senate extended the reporting date to 30 June 2021;

(d) despite the decision of the Senate on 25 February 2021, the committee tabled its report on the bill on 12 March 2021, with many interested parties unable to make submissions to the shorter inquiry; and

(2) The provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 2021.

(3) Notwithstanding any earlier committee report on the bill, following introduction in the Senate debate on the bill be adjourned until the first sitting day in August 2021.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The bill extends the expiry date of existing temporary relief, allowing companies and their officers to meet regulatory requirements in respect of, amongst other things, document execution and virtual meetings using digital technologies, to 15 September 2021 and makes permanent the temporary changes made to continuous disclosure laws in May 2020, which are due to expire on 22 March this year. The government consulted extensively on these measures, including via submissions, reports and stakeholder meetings on the temporary reforms, hearings as part of the Senate Select Committee on Financial Technology and Regulatory Technology and a consultation on exposure draft legislation.

The question is that business of the Senate matter No. 1 be agreed to.

I move:

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on Makarrata, be established to inquire into and report on the truth telling and treaty making elements of Makarrata as called for in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, with particular reference to:

(a) the history of First Nations advocacy for treaty and truth-telling in Australia;

(b) the progress of treaty making and truth-telling with First Nations in the states and territories;

(c) international developments in treaty making and truth-telling with First Nations;

(d) legal issues relevant to treaty making and truth-telling at the national level;

(e) the representation of First Nations parties in treaty making and truth telling processes at the national level;

(f) the role of a First Nations Voice to Parliament; and

(g) any other matters relevant to the feasibility of options for national processes for treaty making and truth-telling with First Nations.

(2) That the committee present an interim report on the last sitting day in June 2021, and a final report on or before the last sitting day in November 2021.

(3) That the committee consist of 6 senators and 6 members of the House of Representatives, as follows:

(a) 3 members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Government Whip or Whips;

(b) 2 members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips;

(c) 1 member of the House of Representatives nominated by minor party and independent members;

(d) 3 senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;

(e) 2 senators nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;

(f) 1 senator nominated by minor party and independent senators.

(4) That:

(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Government Whip in the House of Representatives, the Opposition Whip in the House of Representatives, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator or member of the House of Representatives; and

(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee.

(5) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that one is a member nominated by the Government Whip or Whips or the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and the other is a member nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

(6) That every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

(7) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until the presentation of the committee's final report or until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier.

(8) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

(9) That:

(a) the committee elect two of its members to be joint chairs, one being a member nominated by the Government Whip or Whips or the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and the other being a member nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, provided that the joint chairs are not members of the same House;

(b) committee meetings shall be chaired by the joint chairs on an alternating basis, commencing with the joint chair nominated by the Government Whip or Whips or the Leader of the Government in the Senate;

(c) a joint chair shall take the chair whenever the other joint chair is not present;

(d) each of the joint chairs shall have a deliberative vote only, regardless of who is chairing the meeting;

(10) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 2 or more of its members, provided that one is a member nominated by the Government Whip or Whips or the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and the other is a member nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.

(11) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.

(12) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

(13) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the former Joint Select Committees on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples appointed during the 44th and 45th Parliaments.

(14) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.

(15) That the committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

(16) That a message be sent to the House of Representatives seeking its concurrence in this resolution.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The committee being proposed would begin the long journey to collect data and identify issues and challenges that may arise at the national level with truth-telling and agreement-making—issues and challenges that presently we all speculate and even hold fears about. It would review what has been happening internationally and identify what legal issues and challenges there may be at a national level if we go down the makarrata pathway. The aim of this exercise is to send a message to those who are focused solely on a voice to the parliament or to the government, but there are other aspects of the Uluru Statement that are not lost on the parliament. The committee would be taking an initial step to help parliamentarians and the community more generally to become aware of what some of the key elements in truth-telling and treaty-making might be at the national level.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The Morrison government does support a process of local truth-telling. However, the matters referred to are matters best dealt with by the state and territory governments and therefore we don't support the establishment of a select committee on these matters.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

This country was invaded over 200 years ago, and there has never, ever in the history of this nation been an agreement with the colonisers and the First People of these lands.

An honourable senator interjecting—

You can roll your eyes at that, but that is the truth that you are in denial of, and that we need peace in this country. And the only way we are going to get peace and equality is to go down the treaty path. Treaty is about truth-telling. Treaty is about acknowledging our past roles. It's not about blame. It's not about taking your backyard. It's nothing to fear. It's about creating a new nation that we can all be a part of so that we don't have the haves and the have-nots anymore. It's about protecting each other as a community and protecting our culture, our country and our water. It's time for a treaty, and it's time to wake up.

The question is that motion No. 943 in the name of Senator Dodson be agreed to.

I seek leave to amend paragraph 2 of general business notice of motion No. 1054 standing in my name by omitting '30 December 2022' and substituting '30 November 2021'.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Big Tech Influence in Australia, be established to inquire into and report on activity by major international and domestic technology companies (Big Tech) with reference to the management of:

(a) disinformation, misinformation and malinformation, including 'shadow banning', 'de-platforming', 'no platforming' and 'demonetisation';

(b) fake accounts and bots that engage in online campaigns;

(c) terms of service, including user privacy settings and use of user data by Big Tech and third parties;

(d) the extent of compliance with Australian laws; and

(e) any related matters.

(2) That the committee present its final report on or before 30 November 2021.

(3) That the committee consist of six senators, as follows:

(a) three nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;

(b) two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; and

(c) one nominated by minor party and independent senators.

(4) That:

(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator; and

(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee.

(5) If a member of the committee is unable to attend a meeting of the committee, that member may in writing to the chair of the committee appoint a participating member to act as a substitute member of the committee at that meeting, and if the member is incapacitated or unavailable, a letter to the chair of the committee appointing a participating member to act as a substitute member of the committee may be signed on behalf of the member by the leader or whip of the party or group on whose nomination the member was appointed to the committee.

(6) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

(7) That the committee elect as chair one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and as deputy chair one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

(8) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.

(9) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee.

(10) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.

(11) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.

(12) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.

(13) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President of the Senate.

(14) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The opposition won't be supporting this select committee. Normally we do work collaboratively with all senators in this place around the establishment of committees and referrals to committees. We were advised by the government that they are concerned at the number of select committees that are currently operating in the Senate and at the level of work that references committees have—that select committees are perhaps filling part of the role that references committees had in the past—only to be given this motion on the Notice Paper. So we won't be supporting this today, based on the government's own advice that there are too many select committees at this point in time.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

I draw senators' attention to page 485 of Odgers, which says that back in 2009:

… the Procedure Committee recommended an understanding that there should be no more than three select committees in existence at any time.

There are currently nine select committees. If this motion is agreed to today, there will be 10.

I would point out also that there is a stipend, paid by the public, in relation to these committees. A chair receives $23,240 of additional payment and a deputy chair receives $11,620, so this is a cost to the taxpayer of $34,000. At the same time, we are paying a stipend for the references committee chairs and deputy chairs, and they seem to be underutilised. I won't be supporting the appointment of this select committee. I would support it if it were a references committee.

I seek leave to make a one-minute statement.

Leave is granted.

There is no doubt that we do need an inquiry into the influence of big tech in this country, particularly its impact on our democracy and our media and the way that big tech has allowed for the proliferation of far-right extremism on digital platforms in Australia. However, this motion contains language which concerns the Greens. It is language which is used overwhelmingly by the far right, including terms like shadowbanning and deplatforming. While we won't be supporting this motion today, we do remain open minded and of the view that we need to have a look at some of the impacts of the big tech sector on those areas I mentioned earlier.

The question is that motion No. 1054, as amended, be agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) our fundamental biology and relationships are represented through the following descriptors - mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister, boy, girl, grandmother, grandfather, aunt, uncle, female, male, man, woman, lady, gentleman, Mr, Mrs, Ms, sir, madam, dad, mum, husband, wife,

(ii) broad scale genuine inclusion cannot be achieved through distortions of biological and relational descriptors,

(iii) an individual's right to choose their descriptors and pronouns for personal use must not dehumanise the human race and undermine gender,

(iv) Dr Lyons from Logan (Queensland) reports incidences of young children feeling stressed and panicked about whether it is okay to use the words boy and girl, and

(v) pushing gender-neutral language is no replacement for appropriate emotional and psychological support for children while growing up; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) reject the use of distorted language such as gestational/non-gestational parent, chest-feeding, human milk, lactating parent, menstruators, birthing/non-birthing parent, and

(ii) ensure all federal government and federal government funded agencies do not include these terms in their material, including legislation, websites, employee documentation and training materials.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government supports the rights of individuals to make use of any pronouns or descriptors they prefer while encouraging respect for the preferences of others. The government will use language in communications that is appropriate for the purpose of those communications and respectful of its audiences.

The question is that motion No. 1055 be agreed to.

I seek leave to make a short statement about the motion just passed.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on Temporary Migration be extended to 29 October 2021.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1056 be agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the World Health Organization has acknowledged climate change to be the greatest threat to health this century;

(b) recognises that acting on climate change is the greatest opportunity to improve health;

(c) also recognises the Australian Government, as a signatory to the Paris Agreement, has an obligation to consider health in its climate change response;

(d) applauds the growing calls from the health sector to act on climate to protect our health, including the 30 health leaders in Parliament today meeting with representatives to discuss climate change and health; and

(e) calls on the Government to urgently develop a 'National Strategy on Climate Change, Health and Well-being', which is supported by more than 50 health, social welfare and conservation groups.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government already has a plan. The Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, AHPPC, has identified climate change as a health protection priority and asked the Environmental Health Standing Committee and the National Health Emergency Standing Committee to undertake that work. Further, the government's draft of the national preventive health strategy recognises the environmental detriments to health of climate change and extreme weather events.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

We oppose this motion. According to this motion, the World Health Organization is now an expert on climate. That's not a surprise, because Swedish high school dropouts are now experts on climate. Solar minimum is upon us. According to the University of Alabama in Huntsville and NASA satellite data, world temperatures in February 2021 were just 0.2 degrees above the long-term satellite average and well within natural variation and falling. The Northern Hemisphere is setting temperature records for cold and snow. The Thames has frozen over, as it did in the temperature minimum from 1790 to 1820. It's called climate variability. There's no proof that natural weather variations are related to human activity. Climate change can have a health impact—in fact, a mental health impact—due to the terrorism of the fear that is misrepresented on climate.

Question agreed to.

I ask that the name of Senator Steele-John be added to the motion. At the request of Senator Bilyk and Senator Steele-John, I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1058 be taken as a formal motion.

Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?

Yes.

There is an objection.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 15 March 2019 an Australian man walked into two mosques in Christchurch, Aotearoa New Zealand, and killed 51 innocent Muslims,

(ii) the New Zealand Royal Commission inquiry into the attacks confirmed that the massacre was driven by an 'extreme right-wing Islamophobic ideology',

(iii) two years on, Australia has grappled neither with being the country that raised the Christchurch killer, nor with the resurgent threat of far- right extremism and neo-fascism,

(iv) this month marks 30 years since the publication of the 1991 landmark National Inquiry into Racist Violence, which found that 'racist attitudes and practices (conscious and unconscious) pervade our institutions, both public and private', and that 'on the whole, public authorities do not respond effectively to reports of racist violence', and

(v) racism and Islamophobia continue to pervade our institutions in 2021, and public authorities have failed to stem the scourge of racist violence and hate crimes; and

(b) that the Senate acknowledges the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on 21 March, and calls on the Australian Government to reject and challenge racism in all its forms.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted: minute.

Australia stands in solidarity and mourning with New Zealand on the two-year anniversary of the attack on two mosques in Christchurch. We continue to work through all our agencies with the New Zealand government to protect all people. Australians overwhelmingly reject all forms of racism and extremism. Our strength and resilience comes from our unity as Australians, regardless of faith or cultural background. The government is strongly committed to maintaining social cohesion. The government announced $62.8 million in funding over five years in the 2020-21 budget to strengthen Australia's social cohesion and community resilience in the COVID-19 recovery period. The 2020 Scanlon report showed strong support for Australian multiculturalism, at 84 per cent, up from 80 per cent in 2019.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1062.

Leave granted.

I, and on behalf of Senator Waters, move the motion as amended:

(1) That the Senate—

(a) notes that allegations of rape have been made against the Attorney-General; and

(b) calls on the Prime Minister to establish an independent inquiry under his ministerial standards into whether the Attorney-General is fit to remain in that role.

(2) That this resolution be transmitted to the House of Representatives for its concurrence.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move:

That—

(a) a message from the House of Representatives relating to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021 be reported immediately after it has been received but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking;

(b) after the message is reported, consideration of the bill have precedence over all other government business until determined;

(c) if by 1.30 pm on Thursday, 18 March 2021, consideration of the bill has not been completed, the questions on all remaining stages be put without debate; and

(d) paragraph (c) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142.

The question is that motion No. 1063 be agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) the launch of Parliamentary Friends of Landcare tonight at Parliament House, and

(ii) the group will provide a non-partisan forum for parliamentarians to meet and interact with members of the Landcare community and to support their efforts to promote sustainable agriculture and management of our natural resources; and

(b) commends the work of Landcare organisations across Australia, including Landcare Australia and the National Landcare Network, for their work in conserving and preserving our precious land resources.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to move motions Nos 1058 and 1061 together and that they be determined without amendment or debate.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent motion nos 1058 and 1061 being moved together immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.

I move general business notices of motion Nos 1058 and 1061 together:

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1058

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the Australian Government proposes to introduce 'independent assessments' for access and planning decisions for the National Disability Insurance Scheme's (NDIS) 400,000 participants;

(b) recognises that:

(i) people with disability, their families, carers, service providers and their representative organisations were not consulted on independent assessments before they were announced by the Government,

(ii) independent assessments will provide a one-size-fits-all approach to access and planning while adding bureaucratic hoops for participants to jump through, and

(iii) neither the Productivity Commission report, nor the review conducted by David Tune AO PSM, support the introduction of independent assessments in the form proposed; and

(c) expresses its concern that, as the Government only returned $1.5 billion of the

$4.6 billion it cut from the NDIS, independent assessments are just another way to take support from Australians with disability by restricting access to the scheme and limiting plan funding; and

(d) calls on the Government to:

(i) immediately pause the rollout of independent assessments,

(ii) hold a genuine, transparent consultation process, and

(iii) work with participants, families, carers and the sector to co-design the best solution to address the issues of consistency and fairness in NDIS access and planning identified by the Tune Review.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1061

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the number of people diagnosed with dementia in Australia is projected to grow from 472,000 to over one million by 2058,

(ii) over half of people living in residential aged care have a diagnosis of dementia, with the actual prevalence likely to be as high as 70%,

(iii) the final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety found that the quality of aged care that people living with dementia receive is 'abysmal',

(iv) the overuse of medication is rampant and not enough emphasis is put on preventative care and other treatments,

(v) staff do not receive adequate training and do not have a full understanding of the symptoms and needs of people living with dementia,

(vi) the report signalled out dementia care as one of four priority areas for immediate action, and

(vii) despite the complicated needs of people living with dementia and the disproportionate impact COVID-19 had on them and their families, dementia was not even mentioned in the Government's National COVID-19 Aged Care Plan; and

(b) calls on the Government to urgently address their years of neglect of the aged care system, which is a national disgrace, including the experience of hundreds of thousands of Australians with dementia.

I have had a request to put the motions separately, so I will put the question about motion No. 1058 first. The question is that motion No. 1058 be agreed to.

The final matter is No. 1061, in the name of Senator Polley.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I table government statements relating to general business notices of motion Nos 1058 and 1061.

With the leave of the Senate—and I understand it's been agreed between the whips—I am going to recommit government business matter No. 1, the matter listing the bills exempt from the cut-off order. Senator Siewert has a request.

I request that the question on the Online Safety Bill 2021 and the Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 be put separately.

That motion was amended in terms circulated in the chamber. So the question is that the motion, as amended, and not including those two bills just mentioned by Senator Siewert, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question now is to include in that motion and in that list of business bills exempt the Online Safety Bill 2021 and the Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021.

Question agreed to.

by leave—Mr President, under the standing orders I ask that the opposition of the Greens to the motion be recorded.

The opposition of the Greens to those two bills being exempt from the cut-off order is noted, but the motion is carried in the terms as circulated and amended in the chamber.

I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am today 28 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the letter from Senator Rice proposing a matter of urgency was chosen:

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 urgent need for the Morrison Government to respect the thousands of Australians who marched in the Women's March 4 Justice yesterday, take urgent action to end gendered violence and sexual harassment, and establish an independent inquiry into the Attorney-General's fitness to hold that position."

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

At the request of Senator Rice, I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The urgent need for the Morrison Government to respect the thousands of Australians who marched in the Women's March 4 Justice yesterday, take urgent action to end gendered violence and sexual harassment, and establish an independent inquiry into the Attorney-General's fitness to hold that position.

I rise to speak on the matter of public urgency, which is the urgent need for the Morrison government to respect the thousands of Australians who marched in the Women's March 4 Justice yesterday to take urgent action to end gendered violence and sexual harassment and to establish an independent inquiry into the Attorney-General's fitness to hold that position.

It's been a rough few weeks in this place. It's been a rough few weeks for women right around the country. It's been a rough few centuries, frankly, but these matters have been brought to a head in this workplace with the rape of a staffer and with allegations of a historical rape of a young woman by the Attorney-General. Now, sadly, we know this happens far too much, far too often in many workplaces, in many homes and on the streets, but the nation's attention is now on this matter, and there is a building momentum for justice and for equality and safety for all women.

That was on display so powerfully yesterday. Like some of the people in this chamber, I went down to the Women's March 4 Justice. I was one of the 100,000 people across the country who did that. I felt rage, but I felt strength and I felt hope that so many people wanted action on this most crucial issue of women's safety and our rights to equality and to freedom from violence and abuse. I think every member of parliament should have been there yesterday, and I was extremely disappointed that the Prime Minister didn't make the effort to walk out of this building for a few minutes and do some listening. Women are hurting, and all we see is this government trying to silence us, trying to ignore us and trying to distract from the political attention with other announcements that it's so desperate to talk about because it doesn't want to talk about women and rapists in its own ranks.

Women are not going to be placated. We are angry and we are not going anywhere. It was a really stark contrast yesterday, with women hitting the streets. There were young women, old women, men who support women's rights for safety and equality—a whole spectrum of people, including lots of really strong women of colour on the speakers' podium, lots of survivors and lots of support. But in this place, in these halls of power, the patriarchy just wanted to protect itself. The status quo just wanted to protect itself. That was very disappointing.

We saw when the rape allegations of Ms Brittany Higgins were first made that the Prime Minister didn't know that rape was bad until he spoke to his wife and she had to say, 'What if this was our daughters?' To that I say women have value irrespective of our relationship to a man. The fact that the Prime Minister needed to be reminded of that and didn't intuitively know it was really the start of a national heartbreak that this guy is in charge and just doesn't get it—so deeply doesn't get it. It's just gotten worse since then, because he had a little chat with Minister Porter, took his word that it was all totes okay, didn't even bother to read the dossier from the woman who alleged that she was raped by Christian Porter as a teenager and who has now taken her own life. And now, of course, the police can't keep the investigation open, because she's not with us anymore and didn't sign her extensive statement prior to taking her own life. The system let her down, and now the system is protecting itself rather than delivering justice. For shame.

That's why women marched yesterday. I was proud to receive two petitions, and I will be moving a motion tomorrow giving voice to those petitions. They really articulate what women want right now. It's an inquiry not just into the rapes that have happened here in Parliament House but into rapes that happen everywhere. I want to remind people of the stark statistics, because often we hear from men: 'Why didn't she go to the police straightaway? She must be making it up, because she didn't go to the cops straightaway.' It shows absolutely no understanding of the psychology of rape and it particularly shows no understanding of the fact that the justice system lets women down at almost every turn. We know that only about 10 per cent of sexual assaults are reported, because women fear they won't be believed, they know they will be retraumatised and they will be discouraged from pursuing it. Of that 10 per cent, we know about 10 per cent, so one per cent of the total, actually progresses to a conviction. So one per cent of rapes and sexual assaults lead to a conviction. Is it any wonder that women don't seek justice more often? They know it's not going to be delivered.

We should be fixing that, but instead the Prime Minister is victim blaming and is taking the word of alleged perpetrators and not even giving victims and survivors the dignity of reading their words. He is trying to get off this issue as quickly as possible. It's not going away, Prime Minister. I'm so pleased that some of the members of the coalition attended yesterday's march. I'm really pleased that folk from many other parties attended as well. But the Prime Minister wasn't there and the Minister for Women wasn't there. They should have been there, because those speeches were incredibly powerful. They called for justice for sexual assault survivors. They called for action on those recommendations in the Respect@work report, which was tabled 14 months ago and has barely seen the light of day. I asked yesterday how many recommendations had been acted upon. I got told 'a number'. Today we hear it's three of 55 that some action has been exerted on. Well, fine. But do better. Three is not 55. Please action all of them.

I am pleased that there is now a particular report into sexual harassment and the culture of Parliament House that's been established and that the Sex Discrimination Commissioner will lead that and that it will cover every worker in this building, not just the staff members but the people who work in the press gallery, the people who look after the kids in the early childhood education centre and the people who make coffee at Aussie's. I think that culture review is going to be explosive. But what I want to see is a commitment from this government, or the next, that those recommendations will be acted upon, because the last ones have been tantamount to ignored and it's not good enough.

So women are hitting the streets. We are raising these issues. We won't accept a Prime Minister that ignores us, that doesn't get these issues and that just closes ranks and stands with his privileged white men to keep their power entrenched. It's not going to fly with the electorate. I know the Prime Minister doesn't want to listen to women, but maybe he will listen to Newspoll, and that's already showing that his support and support for his party is dropping. I suspect this is one of the reasons. Women vote, Prime Minister. If that's all you care about, at least you could reflect on that. We marched for justice yesterday. We will fight for justice every day. Women belong in this building. We deserve safety. We deserve safety no matter what place we are in. We stand united to deliver that outcome.

I want to assure all Australians today that the Morrison government absolutely respects the thousands of Australians who yesterday attended the March 4 Justice. We respect their right to protest. In particular, I want to acknowledge the bravery of survivors of family, domestic and sexual violence who shared their personal stories. My sincere hope is that the words that have been spoken by the survivors of sexual violence will create a real and lasting change to ensure that every woman, young or old, not only is safe but feels safe, whether it be in their home, in their school or in their workplace. My commitment to these women, survivors and all Australians is that I will put every effort into doing my job in here, in this place, because I know that I have an incredibly privileged position to be able to effect change.

More than 11 years ago, the first National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children commenced. It was a world-leading plan, and I acknowledge those members who were part of the creation of that plan. Today, along with the Minister for Women, I have carriage of delivery of the Fourth Action Plan under the national plan, which seeks to end gendered violence. And we're seeing a seismic change in the discourse around the issues of family, domestic and sexual violence. This is not a conversation we could have had 11 years ago, but we are able to have it today. As a society, we know that our attitudes are changing, and this has been evidenced by evaluation and statistics as well as by the March 4 Justice that occurred around the country yesterday. But there is still so much more to do. In joining with the Minister for Women, we are saying, 'We are listening, we are acting and we are looking to the future—a future free of violence.'

One woman is killed by a current or former partner every nine days. One in six women has experienced physical violence by a current or former partner since the age of 15. This figure increases to nearly one in four women when violence by boyfriends, girlfriends and dates is included. Of concern is the fact that one in four young people are prepared to excuse violence from a partner. Since 2013 more than $1 billion has been invested directly to support the Fourth Action Plan of the national plan. The Fourth Action Plan develops on the work done over the previous three plans; $68.3 million, or 20 per cent of the total funding, has gone to primary prevention strategies to improve attitudes towards gender equality and to stop violence before it begins.

I'm incredibly proud today to be able to tell you about the $18.8 million Stop it at the Start third tranche of the campaign, which was launched over the weekend. It's a campaign that challenges disrespectful attitudes learned in childhood that, if left unchecked, can escalate to violence. It's a campaign that we know is having a real and tangible impact, with research revealing that the first two phases prompted 42 per cent of all adults to take action to challenge disrespectful attitudes towards women. Primary prevention must be a focus of the next national plan, but we know we can't do this standing alone. Under the Fourth Action Plan we committed $82 million to targeting frontline services, $78 million to keeping victims safe in safe places and in their own homes and $7.8 million to working with male victims and perpetrators in family law matters. Also, in response to COVID-19, we quickly allocated $130 million in additional funding for frontline services as well as $20 million to boost the Commonwealth initiatives, including 1800RESPECT, our national 24/7 hotline, and the men's line, and to promote our Help is Here campaign.

The way I'm choosing to stand up for women is by putting every effort into rolling out significant government investment in primary prevention, early intervention, frontline services and education. Action should unite us all, not divide us, and it must be above political pointscoring. Now is a pivotal time for all Australians, as a nation, as we publicly discuss and deal with issues around sexual violence and disrespect towards women. Only yesterday I met with the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, to discuss these very issues. We are already implementing much of the work Kate has undertaken with the Respect@Work program, including making sure that the 1800RESPECT number is permanently funded into the future. The next national plan will commence in mid-2022, and we are focusing on all the new and emerging issues that weren't in existence when we commenced our first plan 11 years ago. We must have a prevention focus and look towards building the fence at the top of the cliff rather than being the ambulance at the bottom. We must look to what survivors are saying and at what we can do to prevent violence and disrespect at the very start.

Finally, I want to put on the record that I do not support an independent inquiry into the allegations of a criminal nature. Politicians, like all Australians, have the right to the presumption of innocence. We cannot support a dangerous precedent to stand down an individual merely on the basis of an allegation.

This urgency motion does a couple of things, and it's important to recognise that it calls on the government to act to end gendered violence, It also calls on the government to establish an independent inquiry into the Attorney-General's fitness to hold the position of the first law officer in this country. Seventeen per cent of women in Australia have experienced sexual violence. Sixteen per cent of women have experienced sexual violence from a man they know. Eight women have died this year alone—it's March—from violence. But it's not good enough to stand here and read out statistics as the minister just did then. It's about action and it's about leadership. That is why this parliament is calling on the Prime Minister to show leadership in this space.

On the issue of whether we need an independent investigation, let's be clear about what we are asking for. We have heard the Prime Minister—and even the minister, just now, and I suspect some senators who will speak after me—say words like, 'That's a matter for the police and for the courts; let's leave it for the proper processes.' They try to use legal terms, saying to people, 'You wouldn't really understand; this is a really complicated legal issue.' Members of the public understand, wholeheartedly, that police investigations in criminal court proceedings are the best way—in fact, the only way—to determine whether a person should be convicted of a crime and deprived of their liberty. That is the way to do it, to make that decision, to have that test. That is the rule of law that the Prime Minister has referred to on so many occasions. That is the proper process for a criminal conviction. But the rule of law does not prevent the Prime Minister holding an independent investigation into the fitness of the Attorney-General to hold office. That is a different test. It does not determine if the Attorney-General should be criminally convicted. That is not the independent investigation that members on this side of the house have been calling for, and to confuse the two issues does a real disservice to this very important issue and to the importance of the role that the Attorney-General plays in our legal system in this country.

The Prime Minister must give himself and Australians confidence that Christian Porter is a fit and proper person to hold ministerial office—not just ministerial office but as the first law officer of this country. He hasn't even read the allegations that have been made against the Attorney-General, so how could he possibly decide that there is nothing to be investigated? We know that this just won't go away. This isn't something this government can ride out. What the marches showed yesterday is that women will not let this go. We're not talking about one particular case; we are talking about systemic gendered violence taking place in our country.

I've seen people on the other side of politics try to say that the allegations of the Attorney-General are being used to somehow play out the other allegations, other cases, other instances of violence, that have been made against men in this country. That is conflating two very separate issues, but it is important to understand why that is insulting to victims in this country when the Prime Minister gets up there and says things like, 'Let the courts deal with it; let the proper processes deal with this issue.'

Victims in this country know that the court processes don't deliver many convictions. Victims in this country know that court processes eliminate certain evidence, that there is a different test for a criminal conviction. That is why there are low reporting rates. It is why we have low conviction rates. It is why cases of sexual assault through the courts can take up to 40 weeks to be heard. And when the government goes out there and says that the rule of law should be the only way to determine whether an allegation is truthful or not, when it comes to the Attorney-General, when it comes to ministerial responsibility, it dismisses the lived experiences of victims.

This has brought up so many issues for women in this country, so much anger and so many memories of things that people have been through. When I was younger, my friend and I were at a pub and we saw a friend of her boyfriend. This man had a girlfriend of his own. He was well known and well liked. When I walked past him, he grabbed me in a way that made it seem like it was a big joke. But I had to push him off me.

He followed us home and asked if he could sleep on the couch instead of catching a cab. I gave him a blanket and closed the door. My friend went to sleep in one room and I went to sleep in another. I woke up to a sound at my door and this man was half naked in the hallway. He came into my bedroom. I asked him to stop. He did stop but not because I asked him to. He stopped because we'd heard a sound outside in the hallway. It was my friend. She was crying. She was vomiting. She was crying and vomiting because before he came into my room he had gone into her room. She woke up mid-rape.

He left. I called the police. I sat with her until they arrived. I told her she could not have a shower. I gave evidence in court to support my friend. Mutual friends said things like, 'We will let the courts decide whose side we're on.' Parts of my statement were ruled inadmissible because they were prejudicial to the defendant. It was prejudicial to the defence against the charges that he had raped one woman and that he may have tried to rape another. I know what happened because I was there, and I know that sometimes the criminal court system does not find people guilty—even if victims believe the truth of what happened to them. So when the Prime Minister goes out there and says that we will let the courts decide on a matter where a victim is just asking to be believed, then victims all across this country know that they have heard these words before.

Language really matters. It really matters to victims. Words matter. Words matter like the words of Ms Higgins: 'I woke up mid-rape, essentially. I told him to stop.' That's what Ms Higgins said. It was dismissed. It was played down. She said, 'I was made to feel like it was my problem. I was failed, repeatedly, but now I have my voice.' Some words will never leave the victims of sexual assault, the words that they said to try to make it stop, the words that they couldn't get out of their mouths. These words are burned into their brains forever.

They can hear when blame gets shifted. They can hear when accountability is avoided and they can hear when people in this place say one thing but they really mean another. The victims of sexual assault are listening very closely to the language being used in this place, and they have very trained ears. So far, this is what they have heard from the Prime Minister of this country and the Morrison government. The marches were not met with bullets. Liberal politicians are playing politics with this issue. A rape victim was referred to as a 'lying cow'.

How our parliament responds to these allegations is under scrutiny right now. Our words are being dissected, so let's not leave any words unsaid. Let's just not say sorry to victims of sexual assault. Let's not just read statistics out in this chamber. We need to find a way to say to these victims, 'This will never, ever happen to you again.

As a servant to the women, the men and the children of Queensland and Australia, I say violence is never okay. The absence of mutual respect creates space for all forms of violence to appear. At every turn, in our families, in our workplaces and in society, we can all be champions for mutual respect and self-respect, looking out for others and doing to others as we would want them to do to us. An approach that singles out only one aspect of the problem of violence will, firstly, never fix the problem and, secondly, make the work to remedy the problem divisive. There's always just a perpetrator and a victim, rather than recognising the problem is much more complex than that. These are critical relationships and the people involved need support to find a better way of doing things.

I reject Senator Rice's attempt to link gendered violence and sexual harassment to the call for an independent inquiry into the Attorney-General. Both issues must be dealt with separately. It's a desperate effort from Senator Rice to address violence by latching on to the current media furore, hoping that somehow that's the way to fix the problem of violence and harassment in our community. It's clutching at straws and greatly diminishes the genuine issues around violence, be it in the workplace, in our community or at home. We need reminding that parliament makes the laws, police enforce the laws and judges adjudicate on the law. Parliament therefore has no legitimate position to establish an independent inquiry into whether the Attorney-General ought to hold that position. That's the scope of the police, not parliamentarians.

One Nation rejects violence in any form in relationships, in families and in the workplace. We need a realistic, intelligent, determined and firm approach to addressing the violence we all know exists. We will, though, never keep the women and children safe by focusing just on them and the transgressions against them. They will become safe when we have the courage and the intelligence to deal with the whole package and all the players. These are often intimate relationships. There's much more than the violence at stake here. We will never keep the men safe, either, just by focusing on them and the abuse they suffer. We need even more courage to look beyond our biases and the stereotypes of the nurturing roles we give to women and to be honest because one in three men also suffers abuse and violence. They too deserve protection. It's a fact that we will never keep the men safe by vilifying the women and we will never keep the women safe by vilifying only the men.

It's not just up to the government to address the violence in our family units and workplaces. It's up to all of us to take responsibility for the violence and unacceptable behaviours around us. How we as parents model respectful relationships to our children is the starting point. From there, are we doing what we can when our friends are being ill-treated in relationships? In the workplace, are we standing up against those we work with when they have gone too far? How are we supporting those colleagues who have been the recipient of bad behaviour? And for those who behave badly, while it is totally unacceptable, they need support to be better versions of themselves. When we alienate the person because of their unacceptable behaviour, we give up any real opportunity to remediate the situation and we run the risk of entrenching the violence and harassment. Expecting the Prime Minister or government to fix gendered violence and sexual harassment by latching on to the current media furore is an abdication of responsibility that we all have towards each other. It's a cheap and ineffective way to address the gravely serious issue of family and workplace violence and makes things worse.

This motion moved by Senator Waters and the Australian Greens clearly raises a number of very important issues, as other contributors to this discussion have referred to. I also do not agree with or support joining the matters raised in relation to the Attorney-General in this motion as I do think that it diminishes addressing the other issues. I want to talk this afternoon about the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-22. It is our key strategic policy and response framework, which was established to build better coordination of long-term effort to reduce violence, including efforts to address the underlying drivers of gender based violence. We know that violence against women affects the whole community and requires a focus on primary prevention, early intervention, crisis response and recovery.

Having been in this place in 2010, when the government of then Prime Minister Julia Gillard introduced the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-22 in conjunction with the states and territories, my strong recollection of that period of time is a degree of—I won't say bipartisanship but I will say—non-partisanship across the parliament, across both chambers, across all parties and involving all members. It seems to me that a degree of that non-partisanship is diminishing in this place. As part of that national plan, since 2013 the Australian government has invested more than a billion dollars to prevent and respond to violence against women and their children. The national plan itself has a strong focus on primary prevention, stopping violence before it starts. Commonwealth direct investment in the fourth action plan, which runs until 2022, is of the sum of $340 million. It's about funding to improve frontline services to keep women and children safe, and about funding in support of prevention measures for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in particular.

We know that primary prevention works, but we also know that it takes time. It is important that it's coupled with well-coordinated responses by the Commonwealth, the states and the territories for those who have experienced violence. The funding for operations like 1800RESPECT and MensLine is providing crucial support to women and their children who are experiencing family, domestic and sexual violence, and to perpetrators who want to, and must, change their behaviour.

In the last 12 months the National Federation Reform Council has agreed on terms of reference for the Women's Safety Taskforce, under the auspices of the National Federation Reform Council. Prior to that, women's safety ministers were meeting in the context of COAG, as many will recall. Those terms of reference for the task force on women's safety, as agreed by the National Federation Reform Council, are very instructive for the way in which we work together in this country, as the states, the territories and the Commonwealth do, and usually across political divides, to address these crucial issues in reducing violence against women and their children.

The task force's work will encompass but not be limited to:

That was raised with me yesterday in this place by representatives of domestic violence prevention organisations—

I'm sure Senator Ruston made reference to the Commonwealth's, states' and territories' work together, and the funding for that, during 2020; and—

I am looking forward to the development of that national summit. It is something in which many of the stakeholders have a strong interest. We will be discussing those plans and the work of all the jurisdictions at the next meeting of women's safety ministers. Briefly, I can also advise the chamber, as I did in question time, that the government is addressing a number of the measures called for— (Time expired)

I listened with great interest to the contributions from Senator Payne and Senator Ruston. What was going through my mind was that they're in a fairly invidious position. They both have a level of professionalism and competency, demonstrated over a number of years in this parliament.

The first part of this urgency motion is:

The urgent need for the Morrison Government to respect the thousands of Australians who marched in the Women's March 4 Justice yesterday—

I think that's where the Morrison government has really let itself down. The Prime Minister's responses following this procession of very ugly revelations coming to light have been, in my view, quite bizarre. If I had to go back and ask my wife about a set of circumstances I'd heard about in my workplace, I'd probably end up with a thick ear. It is quite bizarre that he could come out and say publicly, 'I asked Jen, and she said, "What about our daughters?"' That is a very bizarre statement.

It doesn't get much better. The Minister for Defence had an extremely unfortunate series of explanations, equivocations and denials. Ultimately, her own office said, 'Enough is enough,' and started leaking on her. The 'lying cow' stuff is unforgivable. It is unforgivable that you run an office where that is able to happen, but it is doubly unforgivable that you can't handle it and you blame the victim. There are many good offices in this place. There are many places where people are treated with respect, where there are proper rules and where harassment in any way, shape or form is not permitted. To have the minister's office, where this person has been employed, exploit situations with vulnerable workers is a failure of leadership. It is a failure of leadership in that ministerial office.

The Prime Minister's failure to recognise it is also quite unfathomable. He has the great honour of leading this great nation. Over the years many prime ministers have been capable of it. John Howard stood in front of people and said, 'You're going to lose your guns,' because he knew it was right. Here we have a Prime Minister who says: 'The rule of law will take care of all of this. By the bye, some other thing is going to happen, and I'm not going to investigate it.' For the general public, this is very bizarre behaviour from the person they elected to lead them, to lead the nation and to show empathy and courage when it's required.

I don't think the Prime Minister has shown any empathy. He certainly hasn't shown any courage. It might have been traumatic for him to go out on the steps of parliament for the March 4 Justice. People may have heckled him. That doesn't matter. He's the Prime Minister. It's his job to lead from the front with empathy and with courage, to state the programs he has put in place and to defend his government's position. You don't say, 'You can have a private meeting with me and I'll get you a cup of earl grey tea and we'll put it all to bed,' because it's not going to bed.

This parliament is going to change. On any side of the chamber, plenty of offices with really good high standards exist. Those who transgressed should be rooted out and dispatched from this place. If you cannot provide a safe working environment for your staff, you shouldn't be here. If you need training on that, I don't know how the hell you got here. The first bit of training I had on equal opportunity and sexual harassment was at a course in 1988. This is not new stuff. You know that, if you have vulnerable employees, you need to be watchful and give guidance. You need to make sure that they're looked after. There has been a complete failure in the Minister for Defence's area to look after her workers. That is unfathomable to me. I really do think that the parliament will change for the better. The sooner it happens the better.

I rise to contribute to the discussion of this matter of incredible public importance and urgency—the safety of our women in this country. I think that's pretty important. Yesterday across the country thousands of women marched for justice. We marched outside this place, demanding change and accountability from this government, from this parliament and from this nation. We want accountability from all of the self-congratulating men who look at themselves in the mirror and tell themselves that they're good people, while defending rapists in their offices and workplaces. Yesterday we demanded the Prime Minister come out, see us, hear us all and act. Instead, he told us that we should be grateful that we weren't getting shot. Women of this country heard this. You can get raped in this very building, but the Prime Minister says that at least you won't be shot protesting about it.

The Prime Minister is wrong again. Ms Joyce Clarke, a 29-year-old mother of one and a proud Aboriginal woman, was shot in the stomach while having a mental health episode by a Western Australia police officer who is now charged with her murder. Ms Dhu died in a Western Australian police cell. One of the last things she heard as she was dying was a police sergeant, Rick Bond, whispering in her ear, 'You're a effing junkie.' Aunty Tanya Day died in a police cell in Victoria because they refused to give her the medical care she needed after Victoria Police targeted her for having a couple of drinks and then falling asleep on a train. Ms Veronica Nelson Walker cried out for help 12 times, but was ignored. She died in her cell, alone.

The list of black women who die at the hands of the state in police or prison custody just goes on and on and on. And the lists will grow longer. Despite this being the 30th anniversary of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, more and more of us are being targeted and imprisoned. Women who live with disabilities also need to be heard. Where is their voice, given that there is actually no data on our sisters experiencing violence?

And can you believe that the Victorian Labor government wants a treaty with our people, despite it being open season on our bodies? Our women are being locked up more than any other person right now in Victoria—treaty with that! Black women move through the world with two great big targets on our backs. Not only do we have to deal with the never-ending sexism as we move through the world, or even as we move through this very house; black women also have to wade through the never-ending cesspool of systemic racism. The patriarchy hates us much more, not just because we're women but because we're black women—the most underappreciated, undervalued, disrespected, neglected and targeted people in this country. And still we rise; we are strong and we are powerful. We have always been here and we'll always be here.

Yesterday was so uplifting, to see so many thousands of people, largely women, come together, united in our message that rape, sexism, violence and misogyny are not women's issues; these are issues for our entire society to reckon with. The Black Lives Matter movement is no different. We need all of us who are outraged by the continuing hurt and trauma inflicted on the First Nations people of this country—especially black women—to be part of this change. I looked out on the march yesterday and saw so many people from all walks of life who had never marched in or gone to a rally before.

We're all in this together, and I look forward to welcoming all of the thousands of women and allies who marched yesterday to our own Black Lives Matter rallies. We show up with you and we ask that you show up with us. If you'd scanned the crowd yesterday you would have seen plenty of deadly black women leading the charge. I was there with my colleagues, proud Yamatji Noongar woman Dorinda Cox and proud Wakka Wakka Wulli Wulli woman Dr Tjanara Goreng Goreng. I was also very happy to see the deadly Senator McCarthy and the member for Barton, Ms Burney, holding up our flag at the rally. Black women—we show up and we speak out! We're on the front lines of all the marches and we are some of the first to turn up for our sisters and allies. Hopefully, the Prime Minister will keep his promise and we won't get shot in the streets!

In conclusion: the biggest irony of the parliament of this country is that it is lawless. Despite the laws coming from this place, the parliament itself is absolutely lawless. The thousands of men in skinny ties and pointy shoes and their bosses who crowd these corridors act as if the rules don't apply to them. They act as if they have full permission over our bodies. If the Prime Minister was serious he would immediately, without any delay whatsoever, implement the full recommendations of the Respect@workreport by Commissioner Jenkins, not just three out of 55 recommendations—WTF, for those young people who understand what I'm talking about. I invite all of those who marched yesterday to join us at the next Black Lives Matter protests around this country, because: we fight with you; come fight with us.

The issue of violence against women and their children is persistent, it's real and it's deeply troubling. It goes to the heart of how many women in our community experience life. Women must be safe at work, at home and in their community from abuse by others. It's understandably emotional. I can see why people get distressed about it. But I want to make a sincere commitment here today to women who are dealing right now with the pain of scars—physical, mental, emotional. We hear you. We value you. And we are working to make things better for you.

There's been a lot of politicking on this issue, and I think that's wrong. No party in this place has a perfect record on this most important of issues. Instead of thinking politics, we should be thinking about humanity. After all, those in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones. But this motion talks about yesterday's march and, in a way, it shows every reservation I had about it. It draws a connection between the march and the desire, quite well held, by good people, to see an end to sexual violence and then tries to use it as an excuse to string up the Attorney-General in circumstances where he wouldn't get any of the protections we would expect—indeed demand—for any other member of our community: basic evidence, the rule of law, the presumption of innocence. These are not small things.

Senator Rice's motion calls for the Prime Minister to listen and to respect those people who marched yesterday. Well, the Prime Minister offered to meet with and listen to a delegation from the march. That invitation was refused. Minister Payne also offered to discuss the issues. That offer was refused. The Prime Minister and Minister Payne offered to sit down and engage constructively with the organisers of the march, to truly understand the issues they came to talk about and start working on solutions. Attending a march outside, with all the yelling, the cheers and the chants, wouldn't have resulted in a productive conversation. I think everyone who's serious about what we do in this place knows that's true. There is more than one way to listen, to care and to act than to go to a rally, and I have nothing but confidence in this government's sincerity to assist women dealing with this difficulty.

The motion calls for 'urgent action', so I really want to outline some of the key actions we've taken of late. Since 2013, this government has invested more than $1 billion to prevent and respond to violence against women and their children. An independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces is underway, led by Kate Jenkins, our Sex Discrimination Commissioner, and will report by November of this year. We've established 24/7 support services for staff, past or present, in any area, for any party. Stephanie Foster, the Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, is working with the Prime Minister right now on making sure we can drive cultural change.

There's been a lot of talk about the Respect@work report, and I'm proud to say that's become my responsibility. Already this government has acted upon nine—some people in this place say three, but it's nine—recommendations of the Respect@work report, including, I'm proud to say, the establishment of the Respect@Work Council, and it has its first meeting this Friday. It will be leading the implementation of this report. We've funded the establishment of online platforms, training and education resources to provide the materials that are needed for employers and employees to know how to get the justice, safety and respect that they should have in their workplaces. We are working through every single one of the remaining recommendations diligently, in partnership with government, in partnership with the private sector, to make sure we leave no stone unturned. And we took an active role in developing and ratifying the ILO's convention on eliminating violence and harassment. (Time expired)

It was indeed an honour to join the thousands of people—strong girls and women—yesterday who gathered outside this building, along with the tens of thousands who marched throughout Australia. But I'm tired, like so many others, of the fact that we are still marching, and I'm tired of the fact that women in Australia still need to call for justice. I listened to the contribution of the previous speaker, and it's with great disappointment that I remind her that Mr Morrison is our Prime Minister—he is the Prime Minister of every single one of those people that marched for justice, and they deserved for him to come out and join them and listen to what they had to say.

These are sad stories and bravely told, but, for every one of these stories, can you imagine how many stories are still deep down inside people who have not yet found a way forward to tell their stories? They're deep down and they never go away. It catches you at a moment when you are unaware. It just springs up on you. It comes back, and again you have to start that long journey to put it behind you and try to go on, keep going, because that's what we need to do. That's what women and girls need to do. We can't be beaten by this.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has taken a wrong turn here. He has set a path for himself that is absolutely the wrong way to go, and so has the Minister for Women. I truly do not know why they couldn't go out and just listen. That's what people were asking for. We're talking about people who have had some of the most horrific assaults made against them—in their workplaces, out in the community, in their schools, in their homes. All they were asking was for their representatives—the Prime Minister is their representative; the Minister for Women is their representative—to come out and listen, to respect their voices.

I heard one of the coalition members who did actually go to the rally say it was really, really exciting to meet the Prime Minister. Well, I can tell her that thousands of people were out there willing to meet the Prime Minister but he didn't show up. He didn't show up! All those girls, women and all their supporters out there were willing for this Prime Minister to show the way forward, because we all know language means everything. His actions mean everything. The way the community enter this debate is based on the way they see their Prime Minister. We know that. But what do we get? We get: 'At least you can do it without being threatened by bullets.' We get: 'The offer still stands.' If only they could hear what they're actually saying to people. Enough is enough! (Time expired)

I rise today to add my voice in relation to the matters raised by Senator Rice following yesterday's March 4 Justice. Senator Rice's motion covers a number of issues, so I intend to respond to each separately to ensure these important topics are not confused.

I'll start with respecting the thousands of Australians who participated in March 4 Justice, both here in Canberra and around the country. I attended yesterday's rally, along with a number of my coalition colleagues, as I believe everyone deserves to feel safe and supported in their workplace. That includes right here in our workplace, Parliament House. I also firmly support everyone's right to be heard and to protest against injustice. I must admit, however, that I have been disappointed with the way the important issue of workplace safety has been conflated with other matters. Minister Payne stated yesterday that March 4 Justice was an exercise in open democracy. That is true and it is something we can confidently and faithfully do here in Australia, and I acknowledge everyone who joined the events across the country to have their say. All Australian workplaces, including Parliament House, should be safe for all who work in them. This should not be politicised, and it must be the responsibility of all who work there, regardless of gender, to work together to provide that safety.

As you're aware, Madam Acting Deputy President O'Neill, and as mentioned earlier by Senator Stoker, over recent weeks the government has taken a number of steps to address the concerns raised by current and former staff and by parliamentarians. These include the establishment of an independent and confidential 24/7 telephone service to support current and former Commonwealth ministerial, parliamentary and electorate office staff and those who have experienced serious incidents in any Commonwealth parliamentary workplace and the announcement of an independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces, to be led by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins. The Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Stephanie Foster, will assist and advise the Prime Minister on how to improve processes to support people, in particular staff, when serious incidents arise.

On the matter of ending gendered violence and sexual harassment, you'll recall that I asked the Minister for Families and Social Services about this topic in Senate question time yesterday. As part of the national plan outlined earlier by the Minister for Women, the third stage of the Australian government's Stop it at the Start campaign was launched last week to coincide with International Women's Day. Stop it at the Start aims to prevent family and domestic violence against women and their children. Ads for the third phase of the campaign began airing on national television on Sunday night. This is one of the several measures we have introduced to ensure members of the public have the tools and the confidence to call out disrespectful behaviour when they see it. Stop it at the Start challenges disrespectful attitudes and behaviours that can often be learnt in childhood and can escalate into violence if such behaviours are left unchecked. We're asking Australians to speak up if they see disrespectful behaviour. We want people to unmute themselves. Do not ignore disrespectful behaviour and definitely do not excuse it. Speak up and call out disrespectful behaviour.

Research shows that four out of five Australians agree that violence against women is driven by disrespectful behaviour. We all have a role to play in making sure that every one of us feels safe. This can be achieved by taking small steps and showing respect whenever we have the opportunity. As Senator Ruston said yesterday, we know that not all disrespectful behaviour results in violence, but all violence has started with disrespectful behaviour. Early intervention is key to making sure that all Australians feel safe in their own homes, their workplaces, their communities and online.

In relation to the Attorney-General, it has already been noted that it would not be appropriate to hold an inquiry because New South Wales police have closed the matter. Australian law enforcement agencies are responsible for investigating criminal matters. Under our rule of law, the presumption of innocence applies to all of us, regardless of the position we hold. It is up to law enforcement agencies and courts to determine such issues, not the parliament.

Finally, as we have dealt with matters relating to domestic violence, sexual assault and situations where people feel unsafe, I think it pertinent to end this debate with this: if anyone listening to the contributions today is impacted by sexual assault or by domestic or family violence, please call 1800RESPECT on 1800737732 or visit 1800respect.org.au. It is so important to reach out. We all deserve to feel comfortable and safe at work, at home and within our community. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

by leave—I table a non-conforming petition relating to the coup in Burma, which I have circulated to the whips.

I present the government's response to the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on its inquiry into the Regulator of Medical Cannabis Bill 2014. I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

Government Response to the Report on the Inquiry into the Regulator of Medicinal Cannabis Bill 2014

Preamble

The Regulator of Medicinal Cannabis Bill 2014 (the RMC Bill) was introduced into Parliament on 27 November 2014. It was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee (the Senate Committee) on 12 February 2015 and the Committee produced a report on 11 August 2015. The RMC Bill lapsed at prorogation of Parliament on 17 April 2016 ahead of the July 2016 election.

On 17 October 2015, the Australian Government announced its intention to amend the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 (ND Act) to enable the cultivation of cannabis for medicinal and scientific purposes, consistent with Australia's international obligations relating to narcotic drugs. The changes were enacted on 29 February 2016 and commenced operation on

29 October 2016. These amendments provided a national licensing scheme allowing for the controlled cultivation of cannabis for medicinal and scientific purposes while also allowing the Government to enable a sustainable supply of safe medicinal cannabis products to Australian patients.

The amendments to the ND Act did not govern patient access to medicinal cannabis products as access to all therapeutic goods remain regulated through the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (TG Act). The lead-up to the 2016 amendments included extensive and targeted consultation with the states and territories, including through the Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs. This was seen to be important to ensure that patient access to cannabis-derived products for medicinal use was consistent around Australia, and that there were no gaps in oversight of the supply chain that could be exploited, for example by organised criminal groups.

Recommendations - Report on the Inquiry into the Regulator of Medicinal Cannabis Bill 2014

In its Report on the Inquiry into the RMC Bill, the Senate Committee made six recommendations. These are set out below, followed by a short summary of the Australian Government's response.

Recommendation 1

The committee supports, in principle, the access to products derived from cannabis for use in relation to particular medical conditions where the use of those products has been proven to be safe and effective.

Government response - AGREED

Access to cannabis products for therapeutic purposes is possible principally under the pathways in the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (TG Act), including registration of products in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG), and access under the 'unapproved' medicines pathways which include the Special Access Scheme, Authorised Prescriber Scheme and through clinical trials.

Recommendation Z

The committee recommends that the Bill is amended, if necessary, to establish mechanisms by which scientific evidence about medicinal cannabis products can be assessed to determine their suitability for use in the treatment of particular medical conditions.

Government response - Not required

Registration of medicinal cannabis products in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) provides a mechanism by which the scientific evidence around efficacy of medicinal cannabis products in particular medical conditions can be thoroughly evaluated. In addition, the Commonwealth Department of Health, in conjunction with state and territory governments and with the involvement of leading clinical and patient groups, developed clinical guidance documents in 2017 which reviewed the clinical evidence for the use of medicinal cannabis published in refereed medical journals since 1980 for treating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, chronic non­ cancer pain and palliative care, as well as an overview document.

Additionally, on 6 October 2019, the Minister for Health, the Hon Greg Hunt MP, announced

$3 million from the Medical Research Future Fund to examine the benefits of medicinal cannabis for pain, symptom and side effect management for cancer patients.

Recommendation 3

The committee recommends that the Bill is amended to address issues raised about its interaction with the existing Commonwealth regulatory framework for medicinal products, including the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, the Narcotics Drug Act 1967 and relevant customs legislation.

Government response- Not required

Interactions between existing Commonwealth regulatory framework were addressed in the 2016 amendments to the ND Act.

Recommendation 4

The committee recommends that the Bill is amended to ensure that medicinal cannabis products can be made available in Australia consistent with Australia's international obligations, including under Articles 23 and 28 of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961).

Government response - Not required

The 2016 amendments to the ND Act are consistent with Australia's international obligations, including under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, as amended.

Recommendation 5

The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government consult with its state and territory counterparts about the interrelationship of relevant laws to ensure a consistent approach to accessing medicinal cannabis and to facilitate compliance with any such access scheme and Australia's international obligations.

Government response - AGREED

State and territory counterparts were consulted in relation to the 2016 ND Act amendments.

The Department of Health coordinates Medicinal Cannabis Access Working Group meetings, held 1-2 times annually as required with representatives from each of the state and territory health departments to promote collaboration across jurisdictions on issues relating to patient access to medicinal cannabis.

Recommendation 6

5.18 Subject to the preceding recommendations, the committee recommends that the Bill be passed.

Government response - Not required to achieve policy aim.

The 2016 amendments to the ND Act and existing provisions within the TG Act provide a scheme allowing for the controlled supply of cannabis for medicinal and scientific purposes.

Patients are accessing medicinal cannabis products in a timely manner via the current access schemes, with over 60,000 prescriptions estimated to have been written for medicinal cannabis by over 2,500 medical practitioners as of 31 August 2020.

On behalf of the Chair of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into provisions of the Aged Care Amendment (Aged Care Recipient Classification) Bill 2020.

On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the 194th report of the committee.

I present the report of Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation on the exemption of delegated legislation from parliamentary oversight and I move:

That consideration of recommendations 8 to 10 of the report be made a business of the Senate order of the day for 16 June 2021.

I indicate to senators that, after the question on this motion is put, I will then move a motion to take note of the report.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I rise to speak to the tabling of the final report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation inquiry into the exemption of delegated legislation from parliamentary oversight. Last year, 299 pieces of delegated legislation were exempt from disallowance. This means the parliament was prevented from scrutinising and having the opportunity to veto 299 laws made by the executive. This is problematic not only because it undermines the ability of the parliament to fulfil its constitutionally mandated role as lawmaker-in-chief; it is also problematic because delegated legislation, which constitutes about half of the law of the Commonwealth by volume, has the capacity to affect the daily lives of Australians in profound ways. For example, last year the parliament was unable to scrutinise laws that imposed international travel bans on Australian citizens, laws which increased the federal government's debt ceiling to $1.2 trillion and laws that changed Australian content obligations that apply to commercial television broadcasters—just a very random example.

In theory, delegated legislation should only deal with purely technical or administrative matters, but this is no longer the case. In practice, delegated legislation now often deals with matters of policy significance. An already unsatisfactory situation is becoming intolerable. The committee's interim report tabled in December last year focused on the exemption of delegated legislation made during times of emergency from parliamentary oversight and used the Biosecurity Act 2015 as a case study. The interim report also examined some of the systemic factors that contribute to the exemption of emergency delegated legislation from parliamentary oversight. The report made 18 recommendations, whose implementation are necessary to ensure appropriate parliamentary oversight of delegated legislation in times of emergency. The final report that I have just tabled broadens the discussion beyond times of emergency and examines the framework for the exemption of delegated legislation from disallowance. It makes 11 recommendations that when implemented will ensure appropriate scrutiny and oversight of delegated legislation.

The functioning of the disallowance mechanism is ultimately about the role and responsibilities of the parliament and the substance of a parliamentary democracy. It is through debate and scrutiny that the principles of accountability and transparency are manifest. Whether exemptions from disallowance are constitutional—and there are certainly differing opinions discussed in the report—the practice certainly challenges the constitutional principle of executive accountability to the parliament. Over time the parliament has, whether intentionally or not, accepted a range of rationales for exemptions from disallowance. It has done this by passing primary legislation that provides for instruments to be exempted from disallowance. The parliament has even passed legislation that allows a regulation to exempt other pieces of delegated legislation from disallowance. The committee considers that this is totally unacceptable. The committee's final report examines a number of rationales for exemption and finds the majority cannot be supported and should not be accepted by the parliament.

I speak now to one particular rationale: that the making of laws has to be separated from the political process. This type of pejorative framing of politics suggests the parliament is not a representative forum and that the people's voice expressed through their representatives should not be heard. This is contrary to constitutional principle and offends the very substance of representative democracy. It cannot be accepted as a rationale to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. It is worth noting the alternative to politics is unaccountable governance and this is fundamentally at odds with democratic principles. Should the executive be concerned about the potential for parliamentary disallowance? It should be assured it is not the disallowance mechanism that might frustrate legislative plans. It is, rather, poorly conceived legislative instruments that do not adhere to the committee's scrutiny principles, that undermine the constitutional role of the parliament or that are not in accordance with the intent of the enabling legislation or the parliament that will frustrate legislative plans.

Around 1,500 pieces of delegated legislation are tabled in the parliament each year. Because scrutiny on the floor is limited to disallowing the legislation, it is the scrutiny of delegated legislation committee that assists parliamentarians in their examination of this legislation. The committee examines all disallowable delegated legislation against 11 technical scrutiny principles and brings any concerns to the attention of the Senate. Over time, the committee's work has established important precedents that have improved the quality of delegated legislation put before the parliament. Ministers and agencies regularly agree to amend legislative instruments and their explanatory statements to ensure that they comply with the committee's scrutiny principles.

However, the committee is not currently able to undertake this essential scrutiny on instruments that are exempt from disallowance. The committee must have the ability to scrutinise delegated legislation that is exempt from disallowance, because without this ability the parliament is not informed, and if not informed it cannot meet the constitutional requirement that it remain the ultimate lawmaking authority. As such, the committee recommends changes to the standing orders to allow the scrutiny of delegated legislation to be exempt from disallowance and to add an additional two scrutiny principles.

The final report provides very clear guidance to departments and agencies on the grounds that might justify an exemption from disallowance. These are vanishingly small.

In summary, the committee considers that delegated legislation should be subject to disallowance and sunsetting to permit appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and oversight, unless there are truly exceptional circumstances. And any claim that circumstances justify exemption from disallowance and sunsetting will be subject to rigorous scrutiny, with the expectation that the claim will be justified only in rare cases. I stress that point: only be justified in rare cases.

When we sit in this place, we are not just politicians; we are also parliamentarians, constitutionally responsible for the laws that are made to benefit all Australians. Insisting that the role of the parliament is respected is not a judgement on the content of any piece of legislation or the legislative agenda of any government. It is, rather, the application of the rule of law to the role of the parliament in a constitutional democracy. Without the ability to scrutinise, the parliament cannot make policy or even technical judgements on proposed laws. With these comments, I commend the committee's report to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the Chair of the Standing Committee of Senators' Interests, Senator Bilyk, I present the committee's first report of 2021.

I present the second interim report of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System and move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

When Labor leader Gough Whitlam introduced the Family Law Bill in 1974, its purpose was to eliminate, as best as possible, the high costs, delays and indignities experienced by so many divorced couples under the existing Matrimonial Causes Act. The bill was passed by parliament and became known as the Family Law Act 1975. For anyone who has been through the divorce court since, the Family Law Act is regarded as a failed piece of legislation that has destroyed too many lives, separated children from their parents and allowed lawyers to feed off the bones of families like vultures. The countless inquiries that have previously been conducted all agree the system does not meet the needs and expectations of many of those who go through it.

Over a period of 46 years, the Family Law Act has been amended more than 110 times, yet, rather than make it better each time, the changes have only made it more complicated. The current family law system has created a lottery of winners and losers. When someone loses their family, their children and everything they have worked so hard for, it brings about enormous suffering and an increase in suicide numbers among those people who are victims of the family law gamble. For the past 25 years, I have advocated for change to this unjust system.

The Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System received over 1,450 confidential submissions. The evidence received was nothing short of heartbreaking. Many participants knew there was nothing the committee could do to help their past cases, but I want to thank those people, because their focus was to ensure that no other family or child would feel the same pain.

There was also a wealth of evidence given regarding domestic violence. Let me make it very clear: domestic violence is unacceptable and won't ever be tolerated. But this inquiry has convinced me domestic violence must be broken down into three categories. I have suggested that those categories include domestic harassment, domestic threat and domestic violence. As the definition of domestic violence stands, it carries unintended consequences for separated parents, blue card holders, police, military and the livelihoods of anyone requiring a gun licence. The current definition differs between states and territories, and simply stating that you are 'in fear' can constitute domestic or family violence. Such allegations are increasing adversarial hostilities in our courtrooms and fuelling a greater divide between non-custodial parents and their children. The committee is of the view the Council of Attorneys General should review the definitions of 'domestic violence' at Commonwealth, state and territory levels to bring about a uniform definition.

That brings me to another point made evident by inquiry participants: domestic violence allegations are increasingly used as a means to avoid the legal requirement for mediation. I'm very strong in my belief children have a right to see both parents unless a parent has demonstrated violent or abusive behaviour towards the child. Children must not be the collateral damage of marriage breakdowns. Parents must look past self-interest, pain and vindictiveness. I am fed up with feminists and organisations pushing their agenda that paints men as the only ones capable of domestic violence. I accept that men account for 75 per cent of this behaviour, but we cannot ignore the 25 per cent of domestic violence committed by women. The truth is domestic violence should not be tolerated by either sex.

The same applies to filicide. For those unaware of the term, it is the name given to the killing of a child by their parents. Again, there can be no excuse for heartless action taken by parents who murder their own innocent kids. The government's website relating to filicide statistics shows that, between 2001 and 2012, 76 per cent of the 284 children were killed by a parent. Forty-six per cent were by the custodial mother, 29 per cent by the custodial father, 14 per cent by a step-parent and 10 per cent by a non-custodian. We need to stop demonising men, because perpetrators come in the form of women and men.

The plight of grandparents mustn't be overlooked. The rights of the child must also be considered when addressing regular contact with extended families. I've recommended that grandparents be granted a mandatory five hours a month in personal contact, or at least contact via Skype or phone, with their grandchildren.

On the subject of legal cost, submissions throughout the whole inquiry were scathing of lawyers' fees. One case reported 5½ years in the court and a legal bill above $700,000. Another was $635,000. Another was $950,000. This is ridiculous. Many legal costs were around $50,000 to $100,000. The evidence stated a belief that lawyers are dragging cases out and stinging clients with exorbitant fees. When the New South Wales Bar Association was questioned they stated legal costs vary between $8,000 and $20,000 a day. My reply to them was, 'I'm on pretty good money, but I couldn't afford you.'

Disappointment fees were another contentious issue raised many times throughout the inquiry. This is the fee charged by some lawyers if they put the day or the time aside for the client and the case doesn't proceed. The committee recommends the prohibition of the use of disappointment fees in all family law matters. Also, the committee believes the courts should better case-manage and encourage the resolution of matters to avoid excessive legal costs. This includes a provision setting the maximum costs and disbursements at $50,000 or 10 per cent of the combined value of the parties' property and superannuation, whichever is the higher.

We also heard evidence of perjury, false allegations and a lack of avenues to fight it. The law states perjury is an offence, but only one case has been brought against a person who perjured themselves in family law. Former Chief Justice Diana Bryant believes people don't commit perjury. Instead, she is convinced witnesses believe what they are saying. On the other hand, retired judge of 14 years in the Parramatta family court David Collier said: 'Allegations of child sexual abuse are becoming increasingly invented by mothers to stop fathers from seeing their children. The worst are those mothers who direct false allegations of abuse against former partners.' Proven false allegations and statements must be dealt with. Allowing false allegations to go unchecked destroys our justice system. People must have faith in the courts.

Hence my recommendation and belief that the government should set up an independent judicial tribunal where people can take complaints of perjury and not wait and hope that the courts will report it to police. The panel could also take complaints about judges. In my office, I have had eight individual complaints and allegations about one judge. They have fallen on deaf ears, from the Chief Justice to the Attorney-General. Under the Australian Constitution, judges in the Federal Court are appointed until 70 years of age. No other profession is guaranteed a job for life. A judge can only be sacked by both houses of parliament. If the authorities won't deal with rogue judges then let the people have their say through the review tribunal.

Due to COVID-19, the committee was set back in its efforts to bring down recommendations on the child support system. We are hopeful to address this by 30 June. It is my opinion that the system is failing many parents. We must develop a fairer system. I believe it should be based on a standard 38-hour working week, not including overtime or a second job, and based on a person's net wage. People should have incentives to move forward in life and, in some cases, build new lives for themselves and their families. If the cost of raising children was better shared we would see fewer people withholding children from the other partner for financial gain through child support. I also believe more parents would work instead of opting for the dole to avoid paying child support.

I encourage all Australians to work out their differences without the heartache of family law proceedings. No-one wins, especially the children. Many have said they would not wish their experience on their worst enemy. Others have lost their lives by way of murder or their own hand, only to leave confused and grieving families and children behind. I am grateful for the opportunity to spearhead this inquiry. The committee's recommendations are far more than what I have mentioned here today, but in truth the Family Law Act has been band-aided too much and in my opinion it needs to be thrown out and replaced by a simpler act.

I rise to speak on the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System second interim report, Improvements in family law proceedings. I do so after we received 1,700 submissions to this inquiry. We had, I think, 12 public hearings and 13 in-camera hearings. This report makes 29 recommendations to the government to improve the family law system in Australia, 29 recommendations which I urge them to take seriously. The Family Law Act 1975, since its inception, and the family law system have been the subject of ongoing review and reform. In fact, almost 70 reviews of the family law system have been undertaken since 1974. These reviews reflect the growing diversity of family structures and changing views in contemporary Australia.

The work of this committee has followed two recent and extensive inquiries into the family law system: the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into how the Australian family law system can better support and protect those affected by family violence, which tabled its report in 2017, and the inquiry of the Australian Law Reform Commission, which delivered 60 recommendations and was tabled in 2019. Two years on and the government has not responded to the Australian Law Reform Commission's 2019 report, despite it being one of the most comprehensive reviews of Australia's family law system since the commencement of the Family Law Act. Instead of responding to the report, they established this review with a political agenda and as a cynical pay-off for support of a legislative program. This government has a complete lack of regard for expert opinion and, despite the immense efforts of the current inquiry—where we received over 1,700 submissions—I question their propensity to respond to this report.

As was clearly demonstrated just weeks earlier, they rushed through legislation, before the release of this report, to merge the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, ignoring expert opinion, in pursuit of their own agenda. The Attorney-General continues to cite the findings of a six-week desktop review of data from two PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants as ample evidence for progressing the merger. This Liberal government has made the most radical change to the family law system in over 40 years based on a short desktop review by two accountants—a review that has been widely panned and thoroughly discredited.

What is clear from this inquiry and the plethora of information from previous reviews is that the family law system does not meet the needs and expectations of many who use it. What we uncovered, not exclusive to this review, is that the costs are too high, the extensive delays in the court system cause undue harm and stress, and the adversarial nature of the family law courts is not suitable. The role of family consultants, expert witnesses and independent children's lawyers also need to be evaluated.

Another important issue that needs to be further evaluated is the impact that family violence is having on proceedings and also the interaction of the family law and family violence jurisdictions. It is clear that this system needs overhaul and that the very appropriateness of the legal framework must be assessed. The Morrison government's standard response is to set up inquiry after inquiry—when they've had the family law commission's reports—and do nothing in relation to those matters and the recommendations.

The issue of delays in the Family Court is not new. As highlighted in the Australian Law Reform Commission's first interim report, one of the key themes emerging from its inquiry into the family law system was that it was too slow. Access to courts and services were so delayed that people told us they had to wait excessive amounts of time to receive assistance or take steps towards resolving their dispute. Many felt frustrated by this and some said that their dispute escalated and/or they were left in situations that were unsafe for themselves and their children while awaiting access to courts.

The key reasons for delays are the lack of resources for the courts; matters simply cannot be transitioned through the court process in a timely manner. This has occurred due to chronic underfunding of the family law system by consecutive Liberal governments and failure to make timely appointments of judicial officers and registrars. This has created a backlog of cases, produced delays and frustrated the proper management of the resources that the courts have.

The government has given itself a big pat on the back by announcing four newly budgeted jurisdictional positions on the Family Circuit Court, but they haven't filled these positions. Disgracefully, the Morrison government won't even invest the resources that it has committed. Right now in my home state of Tasmania there is only one judge to preside over family law matters—one judge! The Morrison government has failed to appoint another judge to hear family law cases. This is causing delays across the whole state and exacerbating the anguish and frustration of families, who are already in very difficult circumstances. Now we have the situation where that one judge is doing the work of three, and this just should not be accepted—it's unacceptable. The acting Attorney-General, Michaelia Cash, would not even say when the replacement of both judges would be appointed, or if the government will do anything at all to alleviate the pressure on the sole remaining judge.

These courts are dealing with parents, parental arrangements and financial settlements, and the delays are putting more and more stress on people's lives. And at the centre of this are always the children who are involved. We have heard gut-wrenching evidence about the impact that going through family breakdown has on children and on those individuals. But when there's delay after delay through Family Court circumstances then there's an absolutely devastating effect on the mental health of these young children. We know that, nationally, there are five vacancies in the Federal Circuit Court—five empty chairs that the Morrison government is either too lazy or too callous to fill.

Allegations of family violence are present in most matters that reach the Family Court. This inquiry was set up because there were grumblings from some members and senators—they said that claims of violence were not always true. Although there are problems with family violence orders, their value in providing protection should not be underestimated. We found that there is no empirical evidence to support notions that false allegations are widespread in the family law system. That has to be emphasised: there is no evidence to say that women go to court and lie about family violence. If anything at all, women are hesitant to raise domestic violence and family violence. Research shows that false allegations are much, much rarer than the issue of victims and survivors not reporting abuse—minimising and denying abuse by men who use violence. That's the reality of the circumstances, as addressed in this final report. It's about the delays in the Family Court proceedings. If these are not addressed, we'll see drawn-out procedures and more devastated families—children who will continue to self-harm because of these outrageous delays and the lack of funding there to support these families going through these breakdowns.

We've had enough reports and we've had enough recommendations; it's actually time this government acted. This is no longer about photo opportunities and a Prime Minister who is full of spin. We want to see a properly funded court system that can deal with these family circumstances as quickly as possible, and for that system to be resourced to have the registrars and the expert judges who can sit in deliberation about these important issues. To provide that is a responsibility of the federal government. We're calling on them to act on this report. Don't allow it to gather dust like the other reports. The family law deserves so much more. (Time expired)

I too rise to speak on the second interim report from the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System.

The Greens opposed this inquiry from the outset, not because we don't acknowledge that there are problems in the family law system but because these problems have been the subject of numerous comprehensive inquiries in the past and no action has yet been taken to act on or implement any of those reforms. This politically motivated inquiry sought to relitigate those issues. It sought to delay implementation of previous recommendations. It emboldened—in my view—domestic violence offenders. And it retraumatised victims-survivors and their children. Experts and service providers opposed this inquiry. They noted that survivors would not feel safe, given the predetermined views expressed by the deputy chair and tacitly supported by the government. The Law Council withdrew its initial support for the inquiry, following early hearings. The then president, Pauline Wright, said:

We are now concerned the inquiry is being used for political purposes to undermine domestic violence claims made by women and thereby putting vulnerable families at further risk by inciting hatred and excusing domestic violence.

The government should have prioritised evidence based strategies to make family law safer for victims and survivors of family violence rather than allowing this compromised inquiry to proceed.

I want to place on record our strong disagreement with recommendation 12 of the committee report, regarding perjury. The idea that women routinely weaponise the family law system against their ex-partners and concoct or exaggerate domestic and family violence was the explicit basis on which this inquiry was formed. The tacit acceptance of this idea by the government is incredibly dangerous. It sends a message to victims-survivors that they won't be believed. It emboldens abusers and it can lead women to agree to inappropriate parenting arrangements to avoid the risk and the trauma of a court hearing. Many submissions, and the bulk of relevant expert evidence to this committee, contradicted the prevalence of false allegations in family law proceedings and noted that women often under-report violence because of concerns that disclosures of violence will disadvantage their case and jeopardise the safety of their children. No to Violence, an organisation focused on men's behaviour change, said to the committee:

There is an often-broadcast belief that mothers in the family law court fabricate allegations of family violence to help their family law cases. However, the evidence shows that this is not the case and that women are disinclined to raise family violence allegations due to a fear of not being believed. The research shows that false allegations are much rarer than the issue of victim survivors not reporting abuse and the minimisation and denial of abuse by men who use violence.

The Queensland Law Society held a similar view. So rather than supporting the need for tougher responses to perjury, as we see from the deputy chair and from the committee report, these observations demonstrate the importance of ensuring that family law matters are actually heard by experienced, specialised judicial officers with actual understanding and training in the dynamics of family violence.

Of course, this specialisation is what's at risk with the now-passed-through-this-chamber merger of the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court. We strongly opposed that merger, which is essentially just an abolition of the specialist Family Court. We heard evidence during the inquiry that increased efficiencies between the Federal Circuit Court and the Family Court were already being achieved through administrative processes and practices, such as harmonising the rules, without the need for a full merger. In fact, the formal merger of the courts would simply divert resources from the implementation of those efficiency practices and other reforms recommended by previous inquiries. But, crucially, the merger will also reduce specialisation in a court that relies on specialist expertise to navigate complex matters and to ensure the safety of children. While a number of the judges on the Federal Circuit Court have some family law experience, they don't have the detailed expertise, the jurisprudential experience or family violence training to preside over complex family law matters. That's why the first recommendation in our additional comments to this report is that the merger be unwound. We will continue to oppose that merger.

Funding and resources were the next crucial issue, which I think we all knew about before this inquiry was even begun—and government still seems to wilfully not listen. The significant delays experienced in the Family Court system are due to the complexity and prevalence of family violence matters in the Family Court, and the under-resourcing and understaffing of those courts. Review after review has confirmed that the entire family law ecosystem is overstretched and under-resourced. This was echoed in so many submissions and evidence to this inquiry.

I want to note that we are broadly supportive of the committee report's recommendation for more registrars, but it is crucial that those registrars have the necessary family violence training and practical experience to identify risks and that the resources for additional registrars not come at the expense of specialist judicial appointments. Many family law matters simply can't be resolved in a way that ensures the safety of children without a judicial hearing. There are limits to what a registrar can achieve.

We strongly support the appointment of more Family Court judges and a clear process to quickly fill future vacancies with appropriately qualified judges, to maintain the specialist expertise needed for these complex family law matters. Judicial resources should be directed to registries based on need, not based on special deals with the crossbench to pass a law that will result in reduced access to justice for many women and children. We acknowledge that there are currently nine vacancies and more than 10 additional upcoming retirements, so the government needs to get its skates on.

On the question of funding, we need to ensure that legal aid and community legal centres are properly funded. We welcome a small amount of increased funding through the National Legal Assistance Partnership, but more and secure funding is essential to meet existing demand, let alone predicted demand. We need adequate resources for family consultants, report writers and independent children's lawyers to support the court's work in finalising matters, and we need significant capital investment in the courts so that they have the appropriate infrastructure—hearing rooms, meeting rooms, staff spaces—to not only meet demand but also ensure there is sufficient space for safety.

We made a number of recommendations calling for the urgent appointment of specialist family law judges to fill current vacancies, and to add five more. We need extra judicial capacity. We want those future vacancies to be filled in a timely matter. We recommended that there be additional resources for the appointment and retention of experienced registrars, family consultants and other staff to provide culturally safe, wraparound, responsive support to parties in the court. We called for at least $310 million a year in funding for legal assistance; that is what the Law Council has said we need in order to make up for the cuts that have been brought down on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services and other community legal centres. We're calling for $12 billion over 12 years—that is $1 billion a year—under the upcoming national action plan to reduce violence against women and their children, to fund proper prevention programs and to fully fund frontline response services.

We particularly support the recommendations in the committee report about accreditation and ongoing professional development for family law professionals, for judges, for registrars, for family consultants and for report writers, particularly in regard to family law report writers; there needs to be decent accreditation and oversight and ongoing training, given the influential role they play in the system, the delivery of justice and keeping children safe.

Just one final point: we support the committee recommendation for a harmonised definition of 'domestic and family violence', and that must have regard to the growing understanding that coercive control and coercive behaviour—we should have that harmonised approach nationally. But we strongly oppose the proposal not by the committee, thankfully, but by Senator Hanson that domestic violence somehow be categorised into levels of seriousness. The evidence shows that coercive control which is nonphysical violence leads most likely to lethal outcomes more so than physical violence. We strongly reject that assertion. Thank goodness this thing is finished. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I won't take a long time, but I want to respond to the government response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee 2020 inquiry into the current barriers to patient access to medicinal cannabis in Australia. We had a hearing in Melbourne on 29 January 2020. I want to focus on one recommendation in one area of this. I'm hoping that when Senator Siewert is finished she will seek leave to continue her remarks later, because I may want to come back at some other time. We heard evidence about Tasmania's nonparticipation in the scheme that was designed to streamline access to medicinal cannabis in appropriate circumstances. That evidence was from the President of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. He stated that the college found it 'odd' that, in Tasmania, GPs were not able to prescribe medicinal cannabis as GPs were in other jurisdictions. In fact, in Tasmania only specialists can prescribe medicinal cannabis. The report was tabled in March 2020.

At that same hearing Adjunct Professor John Skerritt stated that federal health minister Greg Hunt had committed to making access to safe medicinal cannabis medications available via those mechanisms to all Australians, but that Tasmania, unlike other states, had not signed onto the scheme at a COAG meeting of health ministers. Following that hearing, Senator Bilyk, who was also on the inquiry with me, and I wrote to the Tasmanian health minister, Sarah Courtney MP, in relation to our concerns around this issue. That letter was sent on 31 January 2020, a couple of days after we had the hearing in Melbourne. Nothing was received from Minister Courtney—no acknowledgement of receipt of the letter, nothing. On 14 July 2020 I sent a copy of the same letter to Minister Courtney, reminding her of the letter and requesting a response. At that time—I think it was the same day or the day after—I did get at least recognition that they had received the correspondence. But here we are in March 2021, and we still have no solid response to that correspondence.

Now we have the federal government response to the recommendations contained in the inquiry report. There were 20 recommendations in that report. Of those 20 recommendations, eight were noted, six were accepted, one was not accepted and five were accepted in part. The one I want to refer to here today is recommendation 11. That recommendation says:

The committee recommends that the Tasmanian Government immediately join all other jurisdictions in participating in the Therapeutic Goods Administration's single national online application pathway for accessing unregistered medicinal cannabis and reducing state-based requirements for medicinal cannabis approval.

That was the recommendation. The government response noted the recommendation and said:

The Commonwealth has a standing offer for Tasmania to join the online scheme, subject to Tasmania agreeing to process applications within a 48 hour time period. This condition was outlined to all jurisdictions upon the creation of the online portal in 2018. All jurisdictions currently participating in the online scheme agreed to this requirement prior to joining. Participating jurisdictions have been processing applications in a timely fashion, in some cases in a matter of hours.

The decision whether or not to take part in the national scheme is ultimately one for the Tasmanian government to make. The Commonwealth stands ready to work with the Tasmanian Government on joining the online scheme, subject to the condition outlined above.

On 9 March 2021—so just a few days ago—I wrote again to Minister Courtney regarding this and have requested an urgent response to my correspondence, given that it has now been well over 12 months since I initially wrote to her and have had no substantive correspondence. This is not the only piece of correspondence over a number of issues that I have written to Minister Courtney on and have not had the courtesy of a response.

While I've been waiting for the response from Minister Courtney many Tasmanians have been waiting for the relief that medicinal cannabis might bring to them. It seemed like at that time Minister Courtney didn't care about the suffering of Tasmanians. They had to go to a specialist to get a prescription for medicinal cannabis. The cost of that was out of the realms of those individuals, let alone getting a specialist appointment to do it. Well, finally today, guess what? The Premier of Tasmania, in a state of the state address, has announced that GPs in Tasmania will be allowed to prescribe medicinal cannabis.

I now look forward to getting a response from Minister Courtney; maybe she'll get to work and respond to me by writing a letter outlining the details of the scheme, which I understand will commence on 1 July this year. I am pleased that that is now happening in Tasmania, but I am very disappointed that many, many Tasmanians have had to wait for a very long time. I like to think that the numerous letters and prompts that I have sent to Minister Courtney may have had some effect and brought about some action on this matter.

I rise to make a contribution on the government's response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee report on barriers to patient access to medicinal cannabis. I chaired this inquiry and was quite frankly shocked by some of the evidence that we received and the impact of these barriers on Australians' access to medicinal cannabis. I'm pleased that the government has finally handed down its response, because this report made a number of what I consider to be very important recommendations that will help to improve the lives of many Australians hoping to be able to use medicinal cannabis to address their very significant health issues.

Throughout the inquiry the committee received evidence of inequitable access to medicinal cannabis across jurisdictions, with patients in rural and remote communities finding it particularly difficult to access medicinal cannabis in their areas, particularly if their local health professional is unwilling to consider prescribing it or does not have sufficient knowledge of it. The committee also received significant evidence from patients who were unable to meet the costs of travelling into cities to access health services or had to relocate to other regions in order to access medicinal cannabis. The lack of patient access is having a detrimental impact on the mental and physical wellbeing of patients and their families. This is a postcode lottery for many Australians, who shouldn't have to go through this in Australia. There are many barriers to access to medicinal cannabis, despite the fact that there is now supposed to be better access.

I was disappointed to see that the government only noted a number of important recommendations, including recommendations 1, 2 and 3 on training and accreditation processes for doctors. Recommendation 1 recommended the department develop targeted education and public awareness campaigns to reduce stigma around medicinal cannabis within the community. Globally and here in Australia COVID-19 has shown us that working through digital innovation has achieved positive outcomes by providing access to education, training and service delivery via telehealth and other platforms which are cost effective and efficient in connecting Australians, regardless of geographical distances. The government has no excuse not to look at how we can develop training programs to ensure that doctors are equipped to prescribe medicinal cannabis. One of the significant issues that we heard about was that doctors either are reluctant to prescribe medicinal cannabis or have a lack of understanding of medicinal cannabis, particularly as some doctors were trained before medicinal cannabis became known for its medicinal purposes and/or are sceptical about the evidence and they certainly need to understand better the evidence around medicinal cannabis.

Under recommendation 3, the committee recommended that the Australian Medical Council make mandatory the inclusion of modules on the endocannabinoid system and medicinal cannabis in curriculums delivered in medical schools, again because we need to ensure that doctors have training in and awareness of medicinal cannabis. Doctor education is critically important, both for medical students during their studies and for practising doctors seeking more information and training, and we believe that the government should be supporting this. I am particularly disappointed to see that the government did not accept recommendation 5, which stated that if the TGA failed to address barriers to regulation then a new independent regulator should be considered. The TGA has not fixed the barriers to regulation. It's still a hotchpotch in this country. It is clear that we haven't fixed the issues around regulation. Patients still rely on the black market to get access to this essential medicine. I'm calling on the government to either fix this mess pronto or overhaul the system and put in place an independent regulator immediately. Patients can't wait any longer.

We heard a lot of evidence—we had a day of hearings, as Senator Urquhart just said—and we got a number of submissions that articulated very clearly the problems on access and the fact that the current system makes access so expensive that people have to go to the black market. People don't want to go to the black market but they are suffering. People on low incomes in particular are not able to access medicinal cannabis easily, and it's very costly if they can. We heard a great deal of evidence about that.

This needs fixing. The government's response to this is inadequate because they fail to see the urgency of the need to fix access to medicinal cannabis. The regulations across the country are hotchpotch and they're nonsensical in many areas, including where fences are required for particular plants according to whether they're for medicinal cannabis purposes or for other purposes—same plant, different sized fences. Those sorts of things are just ridiculous. We need an independent regulator immediately.

Another recommendation that was only noted was recommendation 18, which recommended the implementation of a compassionate pricing model for patients facing significant financial hardship in accessing medicinal cannabis products to treat their health conditions. That goes to the point that I was just making: so many people cannot afford medicinal cannabis and they have to go to the black market. People were very distressed about having to do that and, of course, about the consequences for doing it. Cost is a hugely prohibitive factor for many, many patients. We heard from parents who talked about their son's or daughter's access to medicinal cannabis and the fact that they were having to go to the black market, which is appalling. We need readily available legal medicinal cannabis products through a regulated system, and government needs to ensure this happens.

There is a lot of concern in the community about the fact that this hasn't been fixed and the fact that the government need to do better. They have it in their remit to do it. I urge the government to, in particular, look again at recommendation 5, which talks about the need for an independent regulator. The Greens will continue to pursue this matter because it is urgent. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I table documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning aged-care cases of COVID-19.

I table responses to questions taken on notice during question time on 4 February 2021, asked by Senator Green, relating to the tourism industry. I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

Dear President

In Question Time on 4 February 2021, I took two questions on notice from Senator Green regarding the tourism industry.

Responses to these questions are enclosed.

I trust that this addresses Senator Green's concerns.

Yours sincerely

MARISE PAYNE

JobKeeper Payment: Tourism

Senator GREEN (14:14): Tourism operators in Cairns have warned the Morrison government that thousands of jobs will be lost if JobKeeper isn't extended ... Treasury data shows that 3,600 businesses in Cairns are relying on JobKeeper, more than in any other postcode in Queensland. How many jobs will be lost in Cairns when JobKeeper ends in March?

Response:

The JobKeeper Payment has provided unprecedented support to millions of Australians. However, JobKeeper was always intended to be emergency temporary support and is just one part of the Government's economic response to support Australians during the impacts of the COVID-19 crisis. JobKeeper was designed to deliver support quickly and at scale and it has achieved its objective of keeping business in business and Australians in jobs. The next phase of the recovery is to create incentives for businesses to hire. The Treasury closely monitors the labour market' as a matter of course, and employment outcomes have been stronger than expected in the months since the most recent forecasts were published. This includes a steady reduction in the number of people working reduced hours for economic reasons. Analysis of the labour market to-date shows a very large proportion of employees who rolled off JobKeeper support in September have remained employed. In the region of Cairns, specifically, the most recent data shows that the number of people relying on JobKeeper has fallen by 55 per cent.

COVID-19: Tourism

Senator GREEN (14:15}; / do have another question. Minister, out of the $659 million [in funding provided for tourism related programs] that you spruiked on Tuesday, how much of that financial support has actually been received by affected businesses?

Response:

Tourism Australia Funding-$231 million: these funds are provided to Tourism Australia for marketing purposes and are not intended to be allocated to businesses.

Consumer Travel Support-$128 million: as at 11 March 2021, $88 million in grant funding has been paid. 2,531 travel agents have received payments under the program and another 516 are being processed.

Recovery for Regional Tourism-$50 million: the full $50 million has been allocated to tourism regions across Australia with applications for funding open until 30 September 2021.

Business Events Grants-$50 million: As at 12 March 2021, almost $8 million has been approved, with $3.2 million paid. On 11 March 2021 the Government announced an extension to the program, to support events held until 31 March 2022, to allow events that were postponed in early 2021 to benefit from this assistance.

Building Better Regions Tourism Infrastructure Round-$100 million: as indicated on the grant website, announcement of decisions in relation to Round 5 applications are expected in mid-2021.

Regional Recovery Partnerships-$100 million: Consultations with state and local governments, industry, local development and community organisations on proposed priority projects for funding under the Partnerships have begun. Implementation workshops in each of the Partnerships regions will be held in early 2021 to bring together Commonwealth, state and local government representatives and industry and community organisations to identify clear implementation plans and desired outcomes for the selected projects funded under the Regional Recovery Partnerships.

The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees.

by leave—I move:

That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:

Community Affairs Legislation and References Committees—

Discharged—Senator McCarthy

Appointed—Senator Green

Participating member: Senator McCarthy

Economics Legislation Committee—

Discharged—Senator McAllister

Appointed—Senator Walsh

Participating member: Senator McAllister

Road Safety—Joint Select Committee—

Appointed—Senator Small

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—

Discharged—Senator Green

Appointed—Senator McCarthy

Participating member: Senator Green

Substitute member: Senator Sheldon to replace Senator McCarthy for the committee's inquiry into Australia's general aviation industry

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—

Discharged—Senator Green

Appointed—Senator McCarthy

Participating member: Senator Green

Question agreed to.

I move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows

This Bill amends the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (the Credit Act) to support the timely flow of credit to the Australian economy and introduce additional protections for consumers accessing high-cost credit.

The importance of credit to households and businesses makes timely access to credit vital to Australia's economic success, particularly as the economy recovers from the COVID-19 crisis.

To improve the flow of credit to the economy, the Bill amends the Credit Act so the existing responsible lending obligations apply only to small amount credit contracts (SACCs) and consumer leases.

This Bill will replace the prescriptive "one-size-fits-all" approach that has evolved in relation to the interpretation of responsible lending and provide flexibility for lenders to assess each applicant for credit on a case-by-case basis. However, this flexibility will not diminish the consumer protections in place and for some products, enhances these protections.

The Bill provides the Minister with the power to determine new lending standards. The new regime will apply to non-bank lenders, as banks will continue to be regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority.

The new lending standards for non-bank lenders will align with the APRA standards. They will ensure lenders have sound credit assessment and approval processes to assess consumers' capacity to repay debts without substantial hardship.

The new framework will allow all lenders to streamline and improve their credit assessment processes and rely on information provided by consumers unless there are reasonable grounds to believe the information is unreliable.

These changes maintains strong consumer protections. Lenders that fail to comply with the credit assessment processes they have put in place will breach their standards, giving borrowers access to AFCA for free dispute resolution and restitution.

Protections are being increased on services offered by credit assistance providers, with the Bill expanding the best interests obligations - already scheduled to be applied to mortgage brokers from 1 January 2021 - to other credit assistance providers. This will ensure credit assistance providers act in consumers' best interests and place consumers' interests before their own.

The Bill also improves consumer outcomes through the introduction of new obligations for providers of SACCs and consumer leases.

While these products can be useful for consumers in certain circumstances, repeat borrowing can lead to debt spirals where repayments consume a greater portion of income, becoming increasingly unaffordable.

To limit the harm that has been associated with these products, Schedules 2 to 6 of the Bill limit the fees SACC and consumer lease providers can charge. Specifically, the Bill prohibits SACC providers charging monthly fees that are incurred after a SACC is discharged and requires SACCs to have equal repayments and equal repayment intervals. The Bill also introduces a cap on costs for consumer leases, bringing the regulation of consumer leases in line with other credit products regulated under the Credit Act.

The Bill also requires SACCs and consumer leases to comply with Regulations that will limit the proportion of income consumers can devote to SACCs and consumer lease repayments. In particular, the Regulations will prohibit SACCs and consumer lease providers from providing a SACC or lease that would result in:

These 'protected earnings amounts' will maintain access to credit while ensuring enhanced protection for the most vulnerable consumers. Unsolicited SACC invitations to current and former customers, as well as door-to-door selling of consumer leases are also prohibited under the new regime.

To ensure the benefits of the Government's reforms flow through to the economy as quickly as possible, changes to the responsible lending obligations will commence 1 March 2021.

The SACC and consumer lease reforms and the extension of the best interests obligations will commence six months following Royal Assent. However, the Bill's anti-avoidance provisions will commence immediately to ensure firms do not opportunistically restructure their business to avoid the Government's reforms.

Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.

On behalf of the Chair of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, I present the report of the committee on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) Bill 2020, together with documents presented to the committee.

In the very short time that I have left, I would like to finish off my contribution with some words from some real people out there who were listening earlier when I spoke about the effect of the bill that is before us today on casual workers. Some of the comments I have received through tweets have included: 'I have nothing but painful memories of labour hire: nearly two years unable to get a house loan, a car loan through shonks, a wife and two little ones depending on me. The boss said he'd love to put me permanent, but only if another permanent leaves.' Another comment was: 'Laid off at Christmas for two weeks—turned into two months. Nobody chooses labour hire.' Another one that I got was: 'I don't qualify for a home loan on a disability pension even though I have an impeccable record. The irony is my rent is more than my son's mortgage—or even a smaller loan for a car, even with an excellent credit record.' Another tweet from a person out in the real world: 'Overcasualisation of the workforce has created inequality and is tearing at the social fabric of Australia.' Another one: 'The amount of evidence and information I had to provide to get pre-approved for a home loan this year, as a freelancer, was ridiculous. I can only imagine how much harder it would be for casual workers.' The last one I'll read out is: 'Thank you for pointing out how impossible it is for casual workers to get home loans. The IR omnibus bill will entrench this injustice.' Those are messages from people out there that I think Prime Minister Scott Morrison should have spoken to. As I said earlier in my contribution, he should have got a remit from the Australian people before he put this legislation to parliament. (Time expired)

I'm very pleased that Senator Urquhart spoke about labour hire before I rose to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2021, because it triggered a few memories in my mind with respect to the tradition of labour hire companies donating to members of the Labor Party. I'd like, at the outset, to read from an article dated 8 July 2015, from The Sydney Morning Herald. The title of this article is 'Bill Shorten failed to disclose $40,000 donation from labour hire company Unibilt to his 2007 election campaign'.

Senator Farrell interjecting—

Oh, he's done it now? He forgot! Senator Farrell says he's done it now. How long did it take him, Senator Farrell? I'll continue to quote from The Sydney Morning Herald article. Senator Farrell has shown his keen interest in reliving these memories, and I'm happy to accommodate him, so I'll continue to quote:

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten failed to declare a political donation of about—

'About'—a thousand here, a thousand there—

$40,000 from a labour hire company he received in the lead up to the 2007 election campaign.

In his much anticipated appearance before the royal commission into trade unions on Wednesday, Mr Shorten admitted the donation was only declared to the Australian Electoral Commission in recent days.

Now, Senator Farrell, this news article was dated 8 July 2015, and this donation of 'about $40,000' was made in the lead-up to the 2007 election. By my figuring, that's about an eight-year delay.

I'm sure, Senator Farrell—knowing you as I do, from being in this chamber over the past year and a half—that you would not, I am absolutely sure, omit to make such a declaration. I'm absolutely sure. But Bill Shorten, the opposition leader at the time, did. Well, he forgot. The article continues in relation to a few other matters, including, of course:

Mr Shorten also faced questions about his knowledge of the pay and conditions of workers at Melbourne cleaning firm Cleanevent, and how the firm's employees became members of the AWU.

Now, if I were in the position of one of those workers, I would much rather be represented by Senator Farrell, in his previous days, or Senator Ciccone, from the shoppies union. I would much rather be represented by Senator Farrell or Senator Ciccone. And I should note that I did admire, in my teenage days, the fact that the shoppies union reached out to the solidarity movement in Poland and formed a bridge from the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern Hemisphere and supported the solidarity movement. So I admire that. I admire far less Bill Shorten, then opposition leader, in his failing to disclose an about $40,000 donation from a labour hire company. There you go.

In speaking on this legislation I'd like to make some preliminary remarks with respect to the reform process generally, and I think it is a shame in this country today that when we see a reasonably modest and sensible proposed bill containing some amendments to Australia's current industrial relations system there is such resistance from those opposite. It is a shame, because this is not a bill that is being presented on any ideological basis whatsoever. One of the speakers opposite, I think it was Senator Urquhart, in her earlier contribution—and I think Senator Farrell commented on this, too—said that this reform was coming out of the government's seeking to take advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic. That is simply untrue.

The reason I can say that with some authority is that so many of the elements contained in this amending piece of legislation were referred to by the Productivity Commission in its report in 2015. A lot of the issues that are addressed in this bill were referred to in the Productivity Commission's report in 2015. So it is really base politics to try and characterise the elements of this bill as some sort of ideological warfare. It's absolutely far removed from that. It is simply a modest suite of principles and proposed changes to Australia's industrial relations system to take into account real inefficiencies.

I would like to walk through a number of elements of the changes. The first deals with casual employees. Just to provide some context to this, the fact of the matter is that in certain circumstances where there is genuine uncertainty with respect to the pattern of work and the hours which an employee is going to be able to be given in a workplace it is appropriate for that employee to be considered a casual employee. So the first element of the suite of amendments introduced in this legislation deals with providing a definition of 'casual employee'. You would not have thought that this would be an earth-shattering proposal—that we should actually have a definition of what it means to be a casual employee. That was something that those sitting opposite failed to provide when they introduced the current provisions. How earth-shattering is our definition of casual employee that is proposed? The bill says:

(a) an offer of employment made by the employer to the person is made on the basis that the employer makes no firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work according to an agreed pattern of work for the person …

I fail to see anything controversial in relation to that definition.

Then there is a proposal contained in the bill that would actually clean up an issue that has arisen with respect to the legal system determining that someone was not a casual employee when the employer, in good faith, considered that they had hired someone not on a permanent basis. There was a court decision in the Workpac case which provided that an employee could effectively double-dip in that situation. So the employee has been hired on the basis that the employee was a casual employee.

Senator Farrell interjecting—

They were being paid on the basis they were a casual employee. They were given loading to cover the entitlements which Senator Farrell is referring to. Then it was determined that they were not a casual employee, so they could keep the casual loading but also get the benefit of the entitlements. You can't have it both ways. You can't have the double-dipping, because the impact of that is that now there are thousands of Australian employers across this country who have had to provide for contingent liability in an amount estimated to be $39 billion because of the uncertainty which is now in the system. It needs to be addressed, and this bill achieves that.

The next issue I'd like to move to is with respect to the modest proposals in relation to the award system. There's no doubt that, with the COVID pandemic, there still needs to be some flexibility provided in the retail and hospitality sectors. The bill provides again for some relatively modest proposals in that respect. Again, these proposals are only intended to continue for a further temporary period of two years, and that is certainly in keeping with the temporary, targeted and proportionate approach the federal government has taken with respect to all of its measures.

There's also a proposal that would allow employers and part-time employees to agree that a part-time employee would undertake further work at their relevant rate without attracting overtime rates. The whole purpose of that is to avoid a distortion, which is occurring where employers are not able to provide those further hours to part-time employees because of the higher rates. So those part-time employees are losing out on those hours.

The whole gist of this bill is to provide situations where employers and employees can come to an agreement that is in their mutual best interests so that the part-time employee can get the benefit of additional hours. There are also a number of checks and balances, safeguards, to protect employees. They include a maximum number of continuous days of work, the part-time employee has to be working at least 16 hours a week, and protections with respect to employees under the age of 18. That's clearly appropriate.

The third area I'll speak to is that of enterprise agreements. This country needs more enterprise agreements, not fewer, so that employers and employees taking into account the specific circumstances of a relevant enterprise and can come to a mutually beneficial agreement that maximises their collective positions. The current law, as it has been interpreted, is driving employers away from negotiating enterprise agreements and that is against the best interests of both employers and employees, and against the best interests of Australia as a nation. Enterprise agreements pay, on average, 69 per cent, or $542 per week, more than award wages. Why would we have a system that drives employers back to the award when enterprise agreements, on average, provide 69 per cent per week more than award wages? There's something wrong with the system if it's driving employers away from negotiating enterprise agreements with their employees.

There are a number of modest proposals that would address some of those issues and that I believe would lead to better outcomes for both employers and employees. Schedule 4 of the bill deals with greenfield agreements and provides that they could last for a term of up to eight years as opposed to four years. Coming from the mining industry, I used to conduct due diligence with respect to prospective investments all over the world, on five continents—I counted them before this speech. I looked at industrial relations systems on five continents when the company I was working for was trying to determine whether to invest a capital dollar in this country or Botswana, or Chile, or Laos or wherever.

One of the issues that was always apparent with the Australian industrial relations system was the uncertainty created by enterprise agreements that only lasted for four years if the time to construct a major project extended beyond that four-year term. If we've learned anything over the last few years, we know that if lawless unions—I don't talk about the SDA here, but particularly the construction division of the CFMMEU—have any leverage they will use that leverage and hold a gun to the heads of those who are trying to get a major project built on time and within budget.

This notion that in some way the interests of employers and employees have to be out of alignment is simply incorrect. If you're building a major project, you are absolutely incentivised to keep the employees who started working on the project with the project for the duration of the project. That's the first point: you want that continuity of employment. Secondly, you want the project finished within budget and on time, and you will be prepared to incentivise the employees who are working on the project. With that concluding comment, I commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate interrupted.

I rise tonight to make a brief contribution to acknowledge the extraordinary outcome for Australia of former senator Mathias Cormann being chosen as Secretary-General of the OECD. Many of us in this place know Mathias well, and I know him—I won't say 'more than anyone'—as well as anyone, having worked for him both in his electoral office, in opposition, and in his ministerial office, and having served with him, albeit for only a relatively short while, in this place.

It really is an extraordinary achievement not only for Mathias personally to achieve this outcome; perhaps more importantly, for all of us in this place, it's an extraordinary achievement for Australia. It's recognition of the fact that we, to use the proverbial phrase, punch above our weight in international affairs. I thank those opposite for their support—

Opposition senators interjecting—

No, not all those opposite! Occasionally it was grudging, we must admit, but we thank those opposite for their support—not you, Senator Ciccone, and not you, Senator Farrell! As Australia we have achieved an extraordinary outcome, and I can think of literally no better person than Mathias to take on this role. He has that combination of policy and politics that will enable him to lead the OECD with distinction.

The union of the free market democracies of the world has never been more important than it is today. We enter very uncertain geopolitical times and very uncertain economic times, thanks to the impact of a once-in-a-100-year global pandemic. Being able to take that highly technical knowledge of international arrangements to do with the economics of the globe and combine that with a very astute and deep understanding of the personalities and the politics involved in international decision-making forums gives Mathias a unique position and a unique opportunity to make a real difference not only for Australia but also for the wider union of Western capitalist democracies.

It's good to see support for the decision right across the globe—not only from the US, who is one of our key allies, but also from countries like Turkey and OECD members throughout South-East Asia who have welcomed the appointment of former Senator Cormann to this role. I think it is a remarkable outcome for this country, and I thank Foreign Minister Payne and the Prime Minister for the work that they put in to secure this exceptional outcome. I wish Mathias all the best in his future role.

The announcement of Grace Tame as Australian of the Year prompted the beginning of a movement across Australia. Her powerful rendition and the harrowing details of the grooming and repeated rape by her history teacher outraged Australians. Potentially unbeknown to her, her raw recount and her courage in giving a voice to the voiceless empowered women across Australia.

Women have been coming forward, we know, with their stories over the past few weeks, and whispers and stories are emerging of inappropriate behaviour in workplaces—not only this place; it is reverberating right across our country. It has boiled to a point where Australian women have said, 'Enough is enough.' Yesterday was an important moment in time, when women said, 'No more.'

We can't fix a problem that we don't discuss. Mr Morrison and his government seem completely tone deaf in not acknowledging that there is a problem. I joined the march, with many of my colleagues, to campaign for change. Unfortunately, Scott Morrison just doesn't get it; he didn't even show up. The Minister for Women didn't even show up. These scandals have dominated the headlines for almost a month now and I've found myself entering different stages of rage, disbelief, sadness and outright anger over how this has been allowed to happen.

What have we seen as a response from the Prime Minister? Cover-ups and deflections—not wanting to take responsibility for the behaviour of his members and staff, and not even making the time to attend yesterday's rally. What sort of message is he sending to Australians? There has been constant rhetoric that we must leave this up to the legal process, but this is a cultural problem. This is a problem: so much power is used, with enormous pressure placed on individuals to stay silent. It seems that Mr Morrison is happy with brushing these issues under the rug and burying them at all costs—ignoring women across the country who have legitimate grievances. He is one of the most powerful people within our democracy and he wouldn't even pay them the courtesy of meeting them on the lawns of Parliament House. What message does this send to the women and girls within our communities?

These scandals are coming at a time when Australians' satisfaction with democracy is at an all-time low. In 2019 just one in four voters trusted that people in government would do the right thing. This is a likely result of the increasing amount of scandals and rorts pouring out of this Liberal government. There has been an erosion of trust and confidence, and this has implications for our democracy. We need change, but it requires a collective input—not just from the top down. It needs to be a cultural shift. The process of transformation needs to be inclusive and all-encompassing, with a wide-sweeping reform agenda. It shouldn't just be about people feeling safe in instituting respect and a common level of behaviour. Accusations should not be stifled for fear of limiting one's career or having a political future sabotaged. Victims should feel safe to speak out and seek support without any negative repercussions.

Women in this building and elsewhere should not be looked at or viewed as prey. Every woman deserves respect and dignity, whether they're at home, in the workplace, in schools or on our streets. We need social change, and women are saying that enough is enough. There needs to be change. I am sick and tired of hearing about how brave these women who are telling their stories are; they shouldn't have to be brave. We should have a system where women are respected and where there are processes to protect them. The laws need to be changed. We need these women to come forward so that they can be helped with their trauma. Enough is enough.

It's not too much to ask for our Prime Minister to lead by demonstration that women deserve to be respected. They need to have dignity and to be safe. No more harassment, no more abuse and no more violence against women. Enough is enough.

This government treats people on income support and people who are looking for work with disdain and contempt. It implements policies which make their lives as difficult as possible, and it has invented a punitive employment provider system that prioritises compliance over genuine assistance. It has just come up with its next brilliant scheme for the next punitive approach, which is of course 'dob in a jobseeker', or, as it's now called, 'the DobSeeker line'. Also, it now intends to look at people's job applications, to see if they are appropriate and genuine.

Now, when there's one job for every nine people, jobseekers know that they are told to embark on a process that is a waste of their time through a system that is not meeting their needs. Of course I am talking about the jobactive employment service process and the disability employment services system. It's no use complaining through the official system, because they don't get adequate responses, and so people don't complain through the official system, but I tell you what: they certainly complain to us politicians and certainly to me as spokesperson for the Greens. I have for the last number of adjournments been reading out people's lived experience to try to get through to the government that this system fails jobseekers and people in the disability employment system. So tonight I'm going to let people know of people's lived experience yet again so, hopefully, we can get the message through to the government that the system doesn't work and it needs reform.

One person that wrote to me said: 'In the 18 months I have been engaged with a DSP employment service, I have never been offered a job, including employers with which they have professional relationships'. Another person has written to us: 'Job service providers are of no use to jobseekers. They are just an income stream for them. I had my payments suspended because I didn't turn up for an appointment on 4 January, although I did and the office was closed. A 150-kilometre round trip. I was able to secure a job on my own after doing a TAFE course which I paid for myself—again a 150-kilometre round trip to attend TAFE. When I did get a job, they threw money at me for petrol, work clothes et cetera.'

Another person said: 'They had me at full capacity despite my multiple disabilities and refused to help me organise a work capacity assessment. I only ever had one appointment, when I needed to sign a new mutual agreement, and my regular appointments consisted of a group where they would just go through the mutual agreements and tell us to check their job board (which never got updated). They keep pushing me to apply for manual labour despite me having my disabilities on my file and repeatedly telling them that I can't do manual labour.'

Another person said: 'I'm a social researcher with a bachelor's degree in social sciences. I needed professional help for writing selection criteria so I could be more successful when applying for a position. They were not able to provide professional assistance. They were also sending me advertisements and wanted me to apply for jobs unrelated to my qualifications for which I would not even be considered such as a psychologist, occupational therapist, solicitor and similar. They have suggested I go from organisation to organisation and give my resume in person, yet that approach is obsolete as all applications are required to be submitted online. My personal impression is that they are not adequately qualified and trained on how to provide meaningful support.' That is what I hear very regularly.

This person goes on to say, 'It seems they do not have up-to-date knowledge of the job market functioning but they are well instructed on how to impose punishments for noncompliance.' That's what this system is about. It is about punishments, compliance, and demonising and stigmatising people. It has to be reformed.

I rise this evening to speak in relation to the urgent need to stamp out the ever-present, corrosive and divisive scourge known as identity politics. Identity politics is the phenomenon of basing one's own world view as the oppressed group and then constructing one's identity around a supposed membership of this group. The cult of identity politics preaches universal and common interests between a group of persons based on ethnicity, race, culture or sexual orientation, and the absurdity of this ideology calls for Australia to be recast not as a nation united but rather as a confederation of identity groups divided by loose connections of sameness.

Identity politics is the dastardly love child of political correctness and postmodernism and it's the bane of good decision-making. It walks in lock step with its equally cancerous cousin, gesture politics. Fuelled by instant social media adulation and a desire to prove their worth, many politicians have become focused on gestures rather than outcomes, pandering to the woke mob in the process. Straight from the Marxist playbook, identity politics showcases a manipulated conflict between the oppressor and the oppressed. It seeks to manufacture conflict where there is none.

Pursuant to this world view, people must be victimised by the system and the system needs to be dismantled. Personal responsibility is not required here. The unreasonable, unrelenting and unfettered criticism of our institutions, such as family and the church, make it easier to tear them down and replace them with the dystopian and oppressive bleak world that those who prosecute this claim want. So why do we continue to indulge it? Why do we continue to allow it and why haven't we woken up? Why have we allowed our precious tax dollars to be squandered at the altar of identity politics? Our universities have fallen to this curse. They have become obsessed with that which divides us, rather than that which unites us. A 2017 survey of the titles and descriptions of 746 history courses offered across 35 Australian universities revealed that there are significantly higher occurrences of gender, environment, identity and sexuality in courses than there are enlightenment or reformation.

But the prize for the worst exponent of using public moneys on left-wing identity politics must surely go to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The ABC harbours the most virulent haven of taxpayer funded identity based dialogue in this country. It's become little more than an identitarian taxpayer funded left-wing activist group at war with mainstream Australian values. It's segmenting our community into small groups and it's doing so with your money. It's a complete joke. Most of the left-wing identitarians are not champions of the working class. They are not themselves living in low socio-economic conditions. They are simply those revelling in a liberator complex. But what will these socialists do when the revolutionaries come for their champagne? Standing up to the ideologues of divisive identity politics appears hard because the voices are loud. It appears hard because many of your institutions have done nothing but wave the white flag. It appears hard because politics has shown little more than jelly backed weakness in the face of the onslaught. People have a right to feel let down. It's now up to everyday people, people who are frustrated by the political class, to fill the void. The only thing more powerful than speaking the truth is speaking the truth in numbers with like-minded friends. So let's all start speaking the truth and let's start pushing back at those who seek to divide us.

Australians are appalled at what they're seeing happening here in Parliament House. Women and men around this country were shocked when they heard the incredibly brave account from Brittany Higgins of her story of being raped in this building, in her workplace, just metres from the Prime Minister's office. Following Brittany's story, the extremely serious allegations that have been made against the Attorney-General, Christian Porter, have rocked the nation. I received the dossier of evidence and the account of the accusations put forward by the woman at the centre, alleging that Christian Porter had raped a 16-year-old girl when he was 17. Tragically, that woman has now taken her own life. Women across Australia have had enough. We've had enough of the violence, enough of the harassment, enough of the excuses and enough of the boys' club.

Yesterday, across Australia, more than 100,000 women and decent men rallied to call for an end to violence against women, an end to harassment, sexism and abuse. The Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, refused to join the rally, refused to come and listen, refused to witness the rally right here on the steps of Parliament House, as thousands of women called to be heard and for action. The Prime Minister has even refused to read the brief of evidence that he too was sent by the friends of the woman who alleges that she was raped by Christian Porter. The Prime Minister has refused to listen to her, to read her own words and to hear her story.

A collective voice is now growing to call out those who refuse to listen, to call out those who refuse to take seriously incidents of sexual harassment, assault and abuse. This collective voice is calling for action, calling for accountability and calling for an independent inquiry into the allegations about whether the Attorney-General is a fit and proper person to hold that position here in the Australian parliament. I've been asked many times in the last two weeks whether I would detail the allegations made by the woman at the centre of the incident she alleged happened at the hands of the Attorney-General. I won't be doing that here tonight, but what I have pledged to do is to put on the record the names of Australians who want to see change, who want to see accountability upheld in the highest offices of this land, by the Attorney-General and, of course, the Prime Minister—names like Karina Natt, Tammy-Jo Sutton, Rebecca Bayliss, Emily Haren, Bonnie Keates, Jasmine Matz, Josie Stockdill, Josie Presch, Aaron Tepe, Aaron Wilson, Abbey Belton, Abbey Brown, Abbi Fenton, Abbie Hay, Abbie Steele, Abdul Aleem, Adam Abdul Razak, Adam Dartnell, Adam Tatana, Adela Brent, Adele Field, Adele Hamlyn, Adele van der Winden, Adriana Garcia, Adrienne Beck, Adrienne Paley, Adrienne Price, Adrienne Woodhouse, Aemelia Hopley, Afra Feeney, Agnes Cusay, Aidan Offe, Aiden Parisi, Aileen Walsh, Ailsa Drent, Ainsley Ewart, Ainslie Ashton, Ainslie Vaka, Alexis Nicholas, Alexis Simmonds, Ali Bowen, Ali Cairns, Ali Jansen, Ali Mitchell, Ali Roush, Alice Goulter, Alice Handsaker—

Senator Hanson-Young, your time has expired.

I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my remarks into Hansard.

Leave not granted.

One of the things I feel really strongly about is making sure that women like me—the working mums who are juggling all the competing demands of getting their work done, paying the bills, getting kids to school and to swimming, making sure homework gets done, making sure appointments are attended—have the confidence that, while they are occupied with making sure their family is getting ahead, they have, here in Canberra and throughout the country, a Liberal-National government with the values that mean we've got their back through all of the challenges of their every day. I know, because I've got girls of my own but also because of all the people I speak to in our community, that, on a day-to-day basis, families aren't thinking about what goes on in this place. They're thinking about how they are going to get through the day's work without an attack of the mother guilt. They're thinking about how they are going to make sure that their child gets the help they need, either with speech pathology or with a bit of occupational therapy, or how they are going to help make sure they're learning to swim in a way that keeps them safe as summertime approaches. These are the things that occupy the minds of our families, but they need to know we've got their back. It was really good on this International Women's Day and the week that followed it to talk to, appreciate and really showcase some of the great women we're backing as they do their very best to improve the lives of others.

Jo Mason from WorkHaven is an incredible lady. She is a senior marketing professional. She found herself shocked to be in a domestic violence situation. She has used living through that terrible experience to develop new ways to break the cycle of domestic and family violence. She has produced a tool that allows women emerging from that experience to be supported, assisted and encouraged for a three-year period following that traumatic event. It gives them all the information and tools—on everything from their legal situation to safety, housing and health—that will help them keep moving forward even once the crisis resources are no longer with them. It's about helping to keep these women in work and getting them back into work if they have fallen out, because we know that that economic security is really important to help vulnerable women move forward. I was so impressed by Jo and the work that she's doing that it was only a matter of moments before I knew I had to connect them with the Attorney-General's Department to find ways to help them to scale their service delivery so that they can help more women get ahead.

Another great woman I've been working with recently is Selena Gomersall. Ten years ago Selena was a Brisbane based psychologist. She was invited to provide intensive support to a group of women and children in Far North Queensland. Ever since then she has been working tirelessly with bush communities to develop a unique model that empowers people in the bush to take control of their physical and, even more so, their mental health. Out of that experience Outback Futures was born. It is delivering results that break the mould of what we expect for rural health. It helps people in remote communities to understand the services available to them, to seek them out and to advocate for their own mental health. Outback Futures works with people in the bush to help them understand the services they need, make sure that they're available and tailor programs that work to the needs of that individual and their families. Their model is so effective that the councils of every western Queensland community they have worked in are so enthusiastic that they have given their endorsement, and all the neighbouring councils are begging them to come to town to help. The evidence based impact of what they're doing is massively changing the lives of all people, particularly women and children throughout rural Queensland. She's no stranger to my office, and I've loved bringing her down to Canberra this week so that she can share her great work for Queenslanders with this entire nation, its women and its children.

Aviation has a special place in the national psyche of Australians. It's the Royal Flying Doctor Service touching down on a red dirt airstrip. It's the iconic flying kangaroo adorning the world's safest airline. Our unique remoteness to our regional communities, between our major cities and to the rest of the world means that aviation is embodied in our national character. Yet aviation was one of the industries hardest hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. In recent months I served on the Senate inquiry into the future of aviation in Australia. We heard hours of harrowing evidence on the toll this pandemic has taken on the health of workers behind this iconic sector and the toll it has taken on their families and their futures.

Not only have they faced a global pandemic but they have also been confronted with a government that has abandoned them in their time of greatest need. Flight attendants are existing on a diet of instant noodles so that they can pay their rent. Ground handlers have been hospitalised after suffering massive panic attacks. Workers have been forced to draw down their super to pay the bills. Workers feel that they will never financially or emotionally recover. Through the hopelessness, the anxiety, the depression and the loneliness, most striking is the pride that people in aviation take in their work and their genuine passion for aviation.

They aren't, as the government suggests, looking for a handout. These are skilled, experienced, proud aviation workers who want to get back on the tools—workers like Damien Pollard, who has worked as a Qantas baggage handler for 12 years. His wife is a hardworking nurse, and he has two sons. He has spent the last year fighting against Qantas as it tried to outsource his job and the jobs of dozens of his workmates, in the middle of this pandemic. Despite all that, here is what he had to say: 'I'm really proud of my family, and I'm really, really proud that I work for a company like Qantas. I was going to stay with Qantas. That was the plan. I've worked seven out of nine Christmases, but I've spent them with my work family. That is what Qantas was.' Damien has every reason to be resentful, but what he demonstrated at the public hearing was pride in his work and concern for how the loss of skilled workers with decades of experience could result in a safety catastrophe.

This pandemic has hit the aviation sector harder over the last year, and there is still a very long way to go. But what is driving the real long-term damage to this sector is the indifference of the Morrison government and the greed of executives like Alan Joyce, Australia's highest-paid CEO. The aviation sector has historically offered its skilled and experienced workers secure work and fair pay. This is the reason we have the safest aviation sector in the world. But the Prime Minister and Alan Joyce have a clear vision for the future of aviation: outsourced work, less pay, less security and worse conditions. And when the Prime Minister cuts the parachute for aviation workers when JobKeeper ends in 12 days, he is finishing the job that Alan Joyce started. Workers with decades of experience will be lost to this sector forever. In their place will be the churn-and-burn workforce that the government is spreading like wildfire across all sectors of the economy. You lose their skills, you lose their experience and you lose that safety record. It's that simple.

So, I want to remind the Prime Minister that Qantas is not Alan Joyce. Our aviation sector is not the CEO's. Nor do the banks and fund managers own it. It belongs to the pilots, flight attendants, baggage handlers, engineers, cleaners, catering staff and thousands of other workers who have dedicated their careers to aviation in Australia. It will be a sad day for us all when the government abandons these workers, their families and their communities on 28 March.

I recently had the great pleasure of travelling to the south of Adelaide and visiting a great South Australian success story. REDARC Electronics is a remarkable organisation which has had an incredible journey of growth, not just in size but also, importantly, in its capability to deliver increasingly advanced and sophisticated products that are now desired by our defence sector. It is a credit not only to the vision of Anthony and Michele Kittel, who purchased the business in its early days, but also to their unrelenting commitment to excellence as well as their desire to invest in and develop their staff.

REDARC Electronics was founded in 1979 and named after the red arc spark, developed in the first ignition system it manufactured. In 1997 they operated out of a tin shed with only eight staff. Since then, the company has become a world-class advanced electronics manufacturer, serving domestic and international markets, having now grown to 275 employees across three locations in Australia. Anthony and Michele Kittel bought into the business in 1997 before purchasing 100 per cent of the business in 2002. The firm is engaged in the research, design, development and manufacture of a range of electronic equipment for vehicles such as voltage converters, battery chargers and brake controllers. In other words, their products are attached to any vehicle that uses a battery.

In more recent times, REDARC launched its defence systems arm, which has grown and now proudly supports many of our nation's defence partners, including working on the Hunter class frigates as well as a number of land projects. The great work being carried out by the REDARC staff has meant that the company has been awarded almost $400,000 from the Advanced Manufacturing Growth Centre Fund for its Smart Factory project and is receiving a $150,000 Defence Global Competitiveness Grant to support REDARC's export capability.

I had the privilege of being guided on my tour by Anthony Kittel and the defence general manager Mike Hartis. It was great to see how the Commonwealth funding can transform businesses and, in turn, create amazing job opportunities for our graduates. REDARC has taken on 60 new staff within the last two months alone. The company—or, should I say, community, because that is what it feels like when you walk the floors and engage with staff—has a unique team culture. Employees are inspired and celebrated, and their skills are recognised and nurtured. The result is that the average length of service of employees is almost six years, and that's credited to REDARC's overall vision and values, which include integrity, quality, innovation and respect for the environment.

I was also incredibly impressed by REDARC's substantial and long-term commitment to supporting local community organisations such as Catherine House and the Red Cross blood service, as well as a number of southern sporting teams. REDARC has been recognised with multiple awards for their innovation, culture and success. These awards include being named Telstra Australian Business of the Year in 2014 and being named Australian manufacturer of the year in 2015, 2017 and 2019.

As a South Australian, I think it is critically important to bring to prominence these organisations which are providing opportunities for our youth. They partner with all of our key educational institutions. It is because of the innovation and success of companies such as REDARC, coupled with crucial support from the Morrison Liberal government, that South Australia's place as our nation's defence state remains secure. The next frontier for the company is the space sector. I wish them every success. REDARC's mission is to ensure that REDARC product and service is the benchmark by which the competition is measured. The company is achieving its mission.

I rise tonight in the Australian parliament to condemn in the loudest of terms the military coup that is taking place in Myanmar and to add my voice to the voices of many people in Australia and around the world who are disappointed, frustrated and angry that Myanmar's path to democracy has been so forcibly interrupted by the ruthless actions of the military regime. Tonight I want to assure Burmese people in Myanmar, in Australia and around the world that their protests are not in vain, that here in Australia, especially, we stand united with their aspirations, with the aspirations of all people in Myanmar and with their pursuit of justice, freedom and the restoration of democracy.

In Australia, we have been a strong and consistent champion of democracy in Myanmar, and in these challenging times we remain more committed, not less, more determined, not less, more willing, not less, to championing for Burmese people the rights and freedoms that are enjoyed by so many people around the world: the right to elect your own government, the right to be protected by the rule of law and the right to protest without fear. The United Nations reports that as many as 120 people, including many women and children, have already lost their lives. This brutality demands a resolute response from Australia, from our ASEAN neighbours and, indeed, from the world—a resolute response that can be sustained for as long as it is necessary.

I'm proud of the position the Australian government has taken thus far. The decision by Australia to suspend our limited bilateral defence cooperation with Myanmar is important. The decision to redirect Australia's development program to address the humanitarian needs of the poorest and most vulnerable is critical. The decision to prioritise the most pressing humanitarian and emerging needs and to continue to ensure our humanitarian engagement remains with and through non-government organisations and multilateral partners is very, very welcome. And maintaining autonomous sanctions on Myanmar, including a longstanding arms embargo, and targeted sanctions on a number of senior military officers, which have been in place since 2018, is an important feature of Australia's response thus far.

But let me be very clear: this must be Australia's first response, not its final response. In this parliament and in this government I will continue to make the case for more targeted responses that don't harm or imperil the Burmese people, but which instead are aimed and targeted at the military, their families and their supporters.

Today, in this Australian parliament, I was pleased to present petitions on behalf of many Burmese people in Western Australia—a petition that called for the support and immediate unconditional release of State Councillor Aung San Suu Kyi and the elected representatives and political activists detained by the military; a petition which called for support for reconvening the democratically elected Burmese parliament in accordance with its constitution, and to abide by the rules of law and principles of democracy; a petition which called for recognition, respect and acknowledgement of the result of the 2020 general election; and a petition that urged foreign governments and international organisations, like the United Nations, the United States, China, the European Union, Japan and Singapore, to refuse to recognise the military self-appointed government or to legitimise its representatives.

Now is the moment—the moment to demonstrate our commitment to democracy in the region and our commitment to repel military force and brutality so that we can again nurture and support Myanmar's path to full democracy.

We know that workers all over Australia are doing it tough right now. Tonight I'd like to speak in particular about the circumstances confronting around 150 workers in Portland, whose jobs are teetering on the brink in my home state of Victoria.

We often hear a lot in this place, and in places like it all throughout the country, of the great virtues of renewable energy. Wherever you might stand on the question of Australia's future energy mix, should it be coal or gas, solar or—dare I even suggest it—nuclear, it is not my intention to debate that topic tonight. But I would hope that those on both sides of this chamber would agree, regardless of what method of electricity generation we are talking about, that the importance of ensuring there are opportunities for Australian workers in this industry is paramount.

As we speak, workers at Keppel Prince in Portland in my home state of Victoria are facing a terribly uncertain future. For those unfamiliar with it, Keppel Prince is Victoria's only manufacturer of towers for wind turbines. Down at the plant, they use Australian steel from BlueScope to build towers upon which a wind turbine sits. One might think, given their line of work, that it would be boom times for a company like Keppel Prince. Alas, it is not. Whilst many may celebrate the seemingly endless fields of wind farms being built across Victoria and Australia, I'm afraid to say that very few consider where these turbines are actually made. The truth of the matter is that often Australian wind turbines are hardly Australian at all, with the tower, the blades and the steel within them coming from overseas. It is the port in Portland where many of these items land, carted off the foreign ships that haul them here. These items are almost ceremoniously paraded through the town on their way to the wind farm they are destined for. Workers at Keppel Prince—Australian workers—make a fine product from Australian materials and they have to suffer the injustice and humiliation of seeing the trucks roll through their town, loaded to the brim with the very same product that they are making at their factory just a few minutes down the street.

This situation is simply not good enough, and it's something that is entirely within the purview of this government to fix. Many of these turbines are being constructed at a brand-new $360 million wind farm of which over half of the electricity to be generated will go to the government's own Snowy Hydro scheme. As the wind farm's single largest customer, it is entirely within the capacity of the government to mandate the use of Australian made materials in the build. Yet the government has done absolutely nothing about it. Whilst Australian producers of all types languish, locked out of the Chinese market, in Australia the government continues to roll out the red carpet to discount steel made by overseas workers on lower wages and with substandard conditions. Ultimately those who will pay the price are the 150 workers at Keppel Prince whose jobs are at risk tonight. I can also tell the Senate tonight that 12 workers have lost their jobs this evening and that a further 26 will be made redundant this coming Thursday. It's not just them. It's the scores of other Australian workers who find themselves in this situation all over the country. This isn't good enough and it needs to stop. That's why I'm standing on the side of these workers and their representatives at the AWU and the AMWU, and it is why I'm calling on this government to mandate the use of local materials in projects such as these. Putting Australian workers first is surely the very least that they can do?

Just on another subject matter this evening, I want to briefly acknowledge quite a few people who attended the inaugural meeting of the Parliamentary Friends of Landcare. Senator Perin Davey and I are honoured to be the co-chairs of this parliamentary friendship group and to have hosted here this evening outside in the gardens of Parliament House. I want to acknowledge Uncle Wally Bell, a traditional custodian of the Ngunawal lands on which we meet. He is also a great member, a fond member, of ACT Landcare. I must say it was a very touching welcome to country by Uncle Wally. I really want to acknowledge him formally in the chamber this evening and to thank him very much for his contribution at tonight's event.

We also had in attendance Minister Littleproud and Minister Ley, as well as shadow ministers Ms Collins and Ms Butler, along with the Chair of the National Landcare Network, Patrick O'Connor, and the CEO, Jim Adams, as well as the chair of Landcare Australia, Doug Humann AM, and CEO Shane Norrish. There were many members of boards of many Landcare networks and groups that attended this evening, mainly from the ACT but also from New South Wales and Victoria. I really wanted to say thank you to the Landcare networkers that came from Victoria to enjoy the event and to get to know the other networkers in the friendship group. I'm sure there will be many, many more events to come.

Landcare in Australia is a very proud legacy of Bob Hawke, who established it with the purpose of bringing environmentalists and landholders together to improve biodiversity, build resilience in Australia's food and farming systems and create stronger regional communities. As a senator for Victoria, I also want to acknowledge the important place that my home state has in the Landcare story, with Landcare first evolving in Victoria through an initiative of a former premier, the late Joan Kirner, who was then Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands, and Heather Mitchell AM, the first female president of the Victorian Farmers Federation. I also want to acknowledge Tony Mahar from the National Farmers Federation, who was in attendance tonight. I know that he and the NFF are great supporters of Landcare.

In fact, before the Hawke Labor government established Landcare nationally, the very first Landcare group was launched in a very small town in central Victoria in 1986 through a collaboration between government, farmers and environmentalists which continues to endure to this day. Over the past 30 years, Landcare has developed into one of Australia's largest volunteer movements, with over 6,000 groups and 100,000 volunteers. That is just amazing. Well done to everyone involved in Landcare.

The Landcare model has been so successful it has been adopted in over 20 countries around the world. Nonetheless, Landcare's greatest asset has always been its people—members of local groups throughout Australia who freely give up their time to advance the objectives of the movement. It's these people we are here today to celebrate, and I especially want to acknowledge the members of the many Landcare groups who have been able to join us this evening. What makes Landcare so special is the way it has been able to bring together stakeholders from all places—landholders, farmers, environmentalists, conservationists, scientists, those in industry and government, and, of course, our traditional custodians of the land. It is this unity which will be central to the movement, meeting the challenges that lay ahead of us all. I want to again thank Senator Davey for her friendship and for asking me to join her in establishing the friendship group.

I rise this evening to pay tribute to Mr Peter Zhuang, who was the Liberal National Party candidate for the seat of Stretton in the Queensland election held on 31 October 2020. People might be questioning why it is that, at this hour, I'm rising to pay tribute to Mr Zhuang, given the state election in Queensland was held some months ago. The reason is this: last weekend the Daily Mail Australia published an apology to him over an article it published on 28 October 2020, and I think it extraordinarily important that we place this apology on the record.

I'm not going to read the content of the article that appeared in the Daily MailAustralia on 28 October 2020 only a few days prior to the state election. I do query who provided the information and briefing to the Daily Mail Australia for the article, but I don't want to give it any more currency. I note that it was shared some 12,000 times, so I'm not prepared to share the article this evening. What I will share is the apology to Peter Zhuang that was published by Daily Mail Australia on 13 March 2021. I note it has 64 shares, not the 12,000 shares the original article had. The apology says:

On 28 October 2020, we published two articles about Peter Zhuang, who was a Liberal National party candidate in last year's Queensland State election. We acknowledge the articles were potentially damaging to Mr Zhuang. Further, some readers may have inferred from the article that Mr Zhuang was influenced by and associated with the Chinese Communist party, is pro-Beijing and supports an aggressive expansionist China.

We have been asked to make clear the post referred to in the article was a satire piece posted on Mr Zhuang's social media platform written by the well-known Chinese comedian, Brother Sway. The piece was sarcastic and highly critical of the Chinese Communist Party and China's aggressive expansion.

We accept that Mr Zhuang has not been influenced by and is not associated with the Chinese Communist party, he is not pro-Beijing. He supports any country in dealing with policies in a peaceful way. We apologise to Mr Zhuang for any suggestion that the articles may have conveyed to the contrary.

That's the apology that appeared in the Daily Mail Australia to Mr Peter Zhuang, a candidate for the Liberal National Party in the seat of Stretton at the Queensland election held on 31 October 2020. He is a loyal Australian of Chinese heritage who put his hand up to participate in our democratic processes.

He had to go through months of legal proceedings to establish and procure an apology when his loyalty to this country and his views were questioned. It grieves me. We should be encouraging all Australians of all backgrounds, whether they be of First Nation's heritage, following in the great footsteps of some like Senator Dodson and others who are in this place; or whether they are new Australians, like Mr Peter Zhuang, who moved here from mainland China, established a business in this country, built and raised a family in this country and participated in community affairs, bringing people together in his community. We should be encouraging people like that, not trying to drag them down.

In my home state of Queensland, the Chinese have had a great connection with our state through the whole gamut of its history. Out in the town of St George there's a memorial to the Chinese shepherds who came out from mainland China in the 1850s. They were promised the world and lured to come out to Queensland to act as shepherds. None of them made their way back home—not a single one of them. They came to this country and they forged relationships. Many of them actually formed relationships with First Nations people because they belonged to another group that was ostracised by some of the European settlements at that point in time. But they made their homes here and they're as Australian as anyone in this place.

There's a memorial at the Sunnybank RSL which commemorates the contribution of Australians of Chinese heritage who fought for our nation in war, all the way back from the Boer War to the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean War and the Vietnam war. They have paid the ultimate sacrifice for their country. That should be celebrated. When people of any ethnic heritage decide to put their hand up to participate in our democratic processes they should be celebrated and they should be congratulated. They should not be torn down for base political motives.

What happened to Mr Peter Zhuang was an absolute disgrace, in my view. There were those who were behind the briefing of the Daily Mail Australia in this regard—Daily Mail Australia wouldn't have got the idea to publish its article back in October 2020 off its own bat; it would have been briefed to write that article about Mr Peter Zhuang, the Liberal-National Party candidate who stood at the state election. It would have been briefed by someone. I say to those people: you should hang your heads in collective shame, because it sends such a negative message to Australians of Chinese heritage. The message is that when you put up your hand after you've built a life in this country—you've made a life for yourself, raised a family here and you want to contribute to our democratic processes, so you make that commitment to nominate for parliament, local government or whatever it is—you're liable to be attacked on the basis of heritage, and that's absolutely disgraceful. I think everyone in this Senate should unite against that sort of attack.

Instead of attacking people of ethnic heritage who run for Australian parliament we should celebrate them, because that's what this country is all about. When I was sworn in as a senator in this place I couldn't help but reflect how remarkable Australia is by virtue of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader of the Government in the Senate at the time were both born overseas and had come to this country. They ultimately stood for the Senate, were elected and then elevated to two of the highest leadership positions in this country. That should be celebrated—absolutely celebrated.

So I congratulate Mr Peter Zhuang and I congratulate all Australians of Chinese heritage who choose to participate in the democratic process, regardless of which party they stand for. I congratulate each and every one of them. And I say to young Australians of Chinese heritage: do not be discouraged, because the vast majority of Australians want to support you and celebrate you if you decide to make that great contribution to the Australian community by seeking election to this place.

Finally, I would like to place on the record my tribute to Mr Peter Zhuang's family. Whenever any of us seeks election in this place, it can be quite a brutal process. Mr Peter Zhuang went through a terribly brutal process, terribly unfairly. I pay tribute to his family. I also pay tribute to all the members of the LNP who stood by Mr Peter Zhuang when he went through this. I say to them: I'm really proud to be a member of a party which has such great members like you, who stood by Mr Peter Zhuang through this—his close friend Mr James Zhuang, and Mr Paul Shih. Also, I place on the record my tribute to Mr Danny Williams and Mr Michael Rooms, who were manning prepoll when confronted with TV cameras seeking to make a story out of Mr Peter Zhuang. I pay tribute to them because, in my view, they represent all that is good about Australia.

In September 1881 a 260-metre-long petition was tabled in the Victorian parliament. The petition, which was glued to fabric backing and secured with cardboard spools, recorded 30,000 signatures of women from all walks of life; that was equivalent to one per cent of the population at the time. Every single pen to paper was a separate call for the right for women to vote on equal terms with men. A document of such size, both in significance and in physical form, is a testament to the enormous change that was spurred from collective effort. It was four years before South Australia gave the first woman the right to vote, and it was not until 1902 that non-Indigenous women across Australia were granted equal voting rights with men.

The gender equality time line is marked by events of immense passion, collective determination and, often, gruellingly slow change. This is the reality that we are faced with—historical moments, petitions, uprisings, marches and speeches. These moments ignite the flame of progress. But from there it's a slow and steady burn to reform. The weighty mechanics of our society and of our institutions do not change overnight, but continuous and united efforts spark incremental change that leads to transformative outcomes.

In 2021 we marked the centennial of Edith Cowan's election to the Western Australian Legislative Assembly. Her influence is still felt in the House today. In dark and uncharted waters she is the light that has guided the women who have worked tirelessly under this roof for the last 100 years, and her legacy remains strong. Today there are more women in parliament than ever before. All of these women play vital roles in the mechanics of government, and many are leading our most critical portfolios. Ministers like Marise Payne, Linda Reynolds, Anne Ruston, Karen Andrews and Michaelia Cash, among others, have been at the coalface of this government's successful response to the unprecedented challenges brought on by COVID-19. Time and time again we have borne witness to great government policy and politics depending on both men and women being at the table.

In the 2019 federal election 50 per cent of the coalition members and senators newly elected to join the Morrison government were women. In September 2019 the Senate overall achieved gender balance. Yet, on the 100-year anniversary of Edith Cowan's election, we are in a climate of heightened focus on inequality, and we are reminded that although we have come so far there is still so much more to do. Today, men still make up 141 of our 227 seats, which is just over 62 per cent of our federal parliament. In 2021 Australia's gender pay gap is 13.4 per cent, and men earn on average around $243 a week more than women. One in five women have been sexually assaulted in their adult lives. In 2018, 97 per cent of incidences of sexual assault were committed by men.

Data forms a hard and empirical foundation to galvanise rational policy developments and reform. In Parliament House my friend and colleague Minister Reynolds has quietly tracked the progress of women in government. Her data mine tracks the progress of all Australian political parties over many years. It tracks seniority and promotion time lines and pipelines. It tracks the gender pay gap. It tracks our position compared to that of our international counterparts—where we have gone right and where we have fallen short. Minister Reynolds compiles this data to provide frameworks for reform—data and facts that feed and signal priorities. Minister Reynolds does this because she is and has always been a fierce advocate for women, for women's rights and for women's progress.

These critical moments in history, like those we have seen in recent weeks, are diluted by political agendas. Sexual assault is not a political issue. Throwing stones at parliamentary figures does not address the rot. Gender inequality, sexual abuse—these are societal issues. As Brittany Higgins bravely said yesterday, these are human issues. The collective momentum that we see today is the same momentum that led to women gaining the rights to attend university and to vote. In 1962 we righted the wrong of excluding Indigenous women, indeed all Indigenous Australians, from the right to vote. That same momentum carried us to 1972, when a million Australian women were granted equal pay. In 1976 decades of marches and protests led to states across Australia beginning to criminalise rape in marriage. In 1994 the introduction of the Sex Discrimination Act, in 1999 the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act, in 2011 the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children—the list goes on. In 2018 the Women's Economic Security Statement—the inaugural women's economic security statement—provided more than $100 million dedicated to practical measures to support women's economic empowerment. And in 2019 this government delivered $340 million in funding to the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children.

These are issues that have been fought by brave women collectively. The changes we have seen in this country have been at the hands of different governments, different leaders, different organisations, different community groups—different ideologies but one clear direction forward. This government and all of its ministers stand with Australians to make change, to continue the momentum that we have witnessed across history and to make Australia an equal place for women.

Thank you, Senator Urquhart, for letting me go before you. You're going to love this, trust me. It's all about Premier Gutwein, and I know you're going to love it because I know you and I have those Spirits up our end.

The Tasmanian government had a bit of a whoopsy moment yesterday—would you believe it! After keeping us all waiting for eight months in Tasmania to hear what's happening with the new ships to replace the Spirits, they announced their decision to go back to square one and have them built oversees. You've got to hand it to the Tassie Liberals. It's not often that we see a government announce a major project, have a contract fall through and have to find a new shipbuilder, delay getting starting for eight months to consider its options, set up a task force that it completely ignores, backflip to the original plan and upset a world-class industry leader all in one go. How about that! COVID must be over. The pressure's on for the Libs.

Full credit to the Tasmanian government: it's not every day that you're able to claim the full bingo card of bureaucratic stuff-ups. You'd better be happy because, while you've been stuffing around, businesses and councils have been waiting to hear what's going to happen with jobs in their communities. New businesses have put off opening their doors while the owners wait to see if the new ships—and the tourists they're meant to bring—will ever actually arrive.

The Premier could run a review into the ships that doesn't include the input of the company that runs the ships. After eight months and spending more than a hundred thousand bucks—yes, a hundred thousand bucks—he's now decided he doesn't actually want to listen to what the review says. He's just going to do what the company planned to do in the first place. How about that! What's the point? Where's the sense in what has been going on in the last 12 months? There is absolutely none.

Now, I want to be clear: the instinct to try to build the ships in Australia was the right one. The Tasmanian government were probably trying to do the right thing here, and it does take time to do an honest job of finding out if it's possible to build them here in Australia. Fair is fair; I'll give the Premier that much. The heart was in the right place—no problems. But how do you set out to do the right thing and end up getting it so, so wrong and upsetting so many people? How did it take so long to figure out what to do? The indecision and toing and froing creates uncertainty for tourism businesses in Tasmania right when the industry is suffering the most—as if they haven't been through enough with COVID, and not to mention that they're about to get their JobKeeper cut off. Yay!

Instead of knowing the new ships will be coming next year, those businesses are now going to have to wait until the middle of 2023 for them to arrive. I have to say that I don't hold much hope of that happening either, given the way this has been playing out. There has been a whole year of lost opportunities for our struggling businesses and communities, and, once again, I'd just about put a whole month of my own wages on their not being done by 2023. They will not be done. In the meantime, it could cost our state's economy $350 million that we as a little state certainly do not have. We're not Western Australia with all those resources, I can tell you that much. How many cafe owners, family owned businesses, regional tourism operators, farmers and producers will miss out because the Premier couldn't make up his mind on this project?

If all of this weren't bad enough, here's the cherry on the top: the Tasmanian government has alienated a world-class industry leader right here in our very own backyard in Tasmania. Incat make world-class catamarans that are used across the globe and founder Bob Clifford employs 500 people in Tasmania. That's the kind of person we want to have stick around, not have them think they should bugger off overseas because they're not appreciated here, which, by the way, is exactly how he's feeling right now. The Tasmanian government say that they want to support Incat, even though they didn't back them on this project. Well, someone should probably grab a dictionary and teach them what 'support' means, because this is not support. This is not what 'support' means.

I was doubtful about this project the moment it was announced in 2017. It seemed like a cheap pre-election promise and nothing more. Four years on and it's pretty clear that the Tasmanian Liberals never really knew what they were doing with this one. Frankly, they've wasted a lot of time and taxpayers' money on it in the meantime. And that taxpayers' money is scarce is Tasmania. Let's hope they can get these negotiations with the overseas shipbuilder wrapped up by their deadline in 30 days. Once again, I reckon it'll need a magic wand and an absolute miracle, otherwise they'll be going back to the drawing board again, and I don't think that's going to be good, it being 12 months out from an election. If that happens, who knows, it will take another four years to get that underway. I think I speak for Tasmanian taxpayers when I say I hope it would not. But I can tell you it has wasted a lot of time and it is very disappointing. Something that should have been so simple has not been done and they've had more than enough time.

I now want to talk about nuclear power. Are the energy wars getting you down yet? I wouldn't blame you. I'm tired of them too. For as long as I've been up here, people in this chamber have been bickering about whether climate change exists and what we should do about it. Some of them reckon Australia should run 100 per cent off sun and wind. They want to see coal gone in a matter of years and they don't like gas, and don't you dare mention carbon capture and storage. Others see coal as the Holy Grail of the Australian economy, capable of keeping any number of regional workers in a decent job. For them, any move to wind back our reliance on coal is as welcome as a slap across the face. But once you leave the politics behind, the reality is that our coal-fired power stations are on the way out, and we have to be honest about that. The reality is that renewables aren't up to the task of replacing them yet, so we're going to have a gap. This is where we're at. While we're all here fighting over yet another Greens motion to lock people up for the crime of wanting to open a coalmine or yet another Nationals motion to start a raffle where the winner gets a free coalmining licence, there are workers out there who are wondering where they're going to go when their power station closes, and I think we're forgetting that. They're at the coalface, literally.

We saw it just this week when Energy Australia told us that they're pulling out of La Trobe Valley earlier than they had planned. Those workers don't need a motion; they need action, they need compromise, they need big ideas, they need jobs to go to. Here's something I've been thinking about: maybe Australia should look at investing in nuclear power. Nuclear energy has almost zero emissions, so it would help us meet our climate change goals. It's really efficient. One kilo of uranium gets out as much power as two million kilos of coal, and we have heaps of it here in Australia—what do you know! It's one of our resources; we have 28 per cent of it. Actually, Senator Patrick, I believe that 28 per cent of it is in your home state of South Australia. How about that? It would give those coal workers something to move into and open up new horizons for the mining industry in our country.

I know there are some drawbacks to this idea. Nuclear costs a pretty penny—although, to be sure, it's cheaper than building a whole new coal fired power station. But if I were to be honest, it's more expensive, but not by that much. It would also take us a while to be able to make the switch from coal to nuclear. If we were to start today, it would still take at least 20 years to replace all our coal fired power stations with nuclear reactors. Of course, the other thing people worry about is whether it's safe. We'd have to figure out where we'd put the waste and reactors, which would become important points for our national security. No-one wants to chance a nuclear meltdown. But, on these issues, Australia is well placed. We have the sort of country that makes storing waste much safer than it is in places where they get earthquakes, and that also means we're much less likely to see a meltdown caused by a natural disaster. At the moment nuclear power is banned by federal law, so we'd need to get changes through parliament to make it happen.

I'm not wedded to the idea, but I think it's worth talking about and we need to talk about it more. Maybe it's a way through the energy wars that would be a win-win for both sides. But we need to start talking about it. I'd like to know what you guys think. I've got a survey on my website, where you can tell me what you reckon. Jump online and tell me what you think, because we're not getting anywhere by not talking about it, so I really want you guys to start talking about nuclear. Like I said, when we've got 28 per cent of the world's uranium in South Australia, we're not using it but we're exporting it to other countries for them to use for probably not the right things but for nuclear weapons instead of power then we really need to start talking about this. This is not an evil thing. Nuclear power is in our own backyard. I've told you, I'm sick and tired of wasting our resources. Uranium is sitting in front of us, in our ground. Let's start using it, guys.

I rise to talk about a scandal in relation to water purchases. I will reveal what the government has recently found out, but which it has not yet made public: that the government paid $13 million more for a water purchase than it was advised to by way of independent valuation. Senators, one 30c phone call could have saved the taxpayer $13 million. How? Let me explain. Back in February 2016 Eastern Australia Agriculture offered to sell water from their property at Clyde for a cost of $2,200 per megalitre. The person they wrote to was Ms Mary Colreavy, an assistant secretary in the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. Following that offer, an independent valuation was commissioned, properly, to establish what a reasonable price might be for the water at Eastern Australia Agriculture's properties at Clyde and Kiora. If those names ring a bell, it's because they should. They are the properties at the centre of the Angus Taylor watergate scandal.

The government required a valuation which provided a single-point value and a value range. The valuation was delivered to the department in September 2016. In December 2016 a brief was presented to the then minister, Mr Barnaby Joyce, by Ms Colreavy, to propose the purchase of 15,000 megalitres. Approval was given to explore the purchase. The valuation that was received was invalid after three months, so a further valuation was sought some time in the new year, in 2017. It was received by the government in March 2017. Mr Joyce was briefed, a few days later, by Ms Colreavy initially requesting the purchase of 14,000 megalitres of water. The minister placed conditions on the approval and asked that final approval be sought once conditional approvals had been met.

In May 2017, two months later, Ms Colreavy engaged with Eastern Australia Agriculture and put a further proposal to the minister, this time for 28,700 megalitres. An offer was made to Eastern Australia Agriculture in June 2017. A more senior official, Mr Paul Morris, relying on the work of Ms Colreavy, signed off on the purchases in July 2017. A contract was signed and the water was purchased at $2,745 per megalitre. Remember that number.

We're blind to what happened behind the scenes. The reason we know what happened is that on my second day in the Senate, 16 November 2017, I sought an order for production of documents relating to strategic water purchases. A significant number of documents were provided, including valuations, but valuations were redacted. I challenged those redactions, both privately with ministers and publicly through estimates. How could water valuations for water already purchased by the department be considered commercial in confidence? How could water valuations that were invalid three months after issue be considered commercial in confidence?

In response to a question on notice, in May 2018, at estimates I was given this answer about the price paid: 'In August 2017 the price paid for 28.7 gigalitres of overland flow entitlements in the Condamine-Balonne was $2,745 per megalitre.' In this case, the price paid by the department was above the estimated standard market value range but below the maximum price the independent valuer advised we should expect to pay. The valuation advice stated that the department should be prepared to pay 10 to 30 per cent above the standard market rate for 'properties of a high standard that have achieved above-average levels of water use efficiency in this region'. The agreed price was 'within this wider range and reflects the well-developed nature of the property from which it was purchased'.

Unsatisfied with the lack of transparency of the valuation, I did what I always do: I got the valuations through freedom of information. The department refused to give me the data. That's standard practice; no surprises. I appealed it to the Information Commissioner. In the meantime, I had a discussion with Ms Colreavy at estimates in March last year. I said to Ms Colreavy:

I want to go back to a statement you made about the water gate purchases. In your own words, you said 'it's a dynamic market' and 'prices change all the time'. You said that you had disclosed a whole bunch of information by way of OPD. One of the things that you didn't disclose in that OPD was the valuation range—the nominal valuation by the valuers, Colliers, and, indeed, the valuation range by Colliers—on the basis that it was commercially sensitive. In your own words, you have just said that the pricing is dynamic and it changes from year to year. Can I ask you to provide me with the nominal valuation and, indeed, the valuation rage, noting what you've just said?

Ms Colreavy replied:

I can refer you to my answer in Hansard and questions on notice previously that those values were redacted for commercial reasons.

I went on to caution Ms Colreavy. I said:

… I think, in some sense, you are withholding information from the Senate and I foreshadow, if the Information Commissioner agrees with me—I'm pretty sure I'm on fairly solid ground—I will seek a referral to the Privileges Committee for contempt, because I think you are being overly secret on information which should be in the public domain.

On 12 July, in a parallel process, the auditor completed an audit into the water purchases. He stated, of Kia Ora and Clyde and others: 'These purchases achieved value for money with the price being paid at or below the maximum price identified by the independent market valuations.' So there we have it: even the auditors agree that everything is in order.

However, on 13 August, before the Information Commissioner made her FOI decision on my review, the department released the documents to me. They revealed the truth: a point value of $1,500 per megalitre and a valuation range of $1,100 to $2,300. That was the maximum price to be paid—$2,300—yet we paid $2,745 for the water. So on 3 November last year I wrote to the Auditor-General seeking an explanation. How did the department and audit come to the conclusion that the price paid was within the range? It was clearly $475 per megalitre above the maximum price. I got my response last week from the Auditor-General, and here it comes. The Auditor-General has advised me that: 'Subsequently the valuer has advised the ANAO that he does not consider the application of the premium referred to in the valuation report to the range provided as reasonable.' The valuer has said it was not reasonable for them to pay the price they did. The Auditor-General has now discussed this with the department and they're reviewing the material that led them to believe it was okay to pay $13 million above the independent valuer's maximum price.

I don't need them to tell them what the cause of the error was. I know what the error was—incompetence. It was incompetence on behalf of Ms Colreavy. She had carriage of this sale from start to finish. How she came to the conclusion that $2,745 per megalitre was an okay price to pay when the valuer had clearly stated the maximum was $2,300 per megalitre is beyond comprehension. If she had just made a 30c phone call to discuss the valuation report with the valuer, taxpayers would have an extra $13 million to spend on useful things. We can't have these sorts of mistakes just being brushed over, saying, 'Oh, well.' We can't have officials thinking, 'It doesn't matter; it's only taxpayers' money.' It does matter, and people serving in senior positions must be held accountable for their mistakes. Ms Colreavy must resign. If she does not, she must be fired. She has demonstrated incompetence beyond her post, to the tune of $13 million. If her departmental secretary, Mr Andrew Metcalfe, does not see that she is removed then he should go as well because the standard you walk past is the standard you accept, and this sort of incompetence is quite unacceptable.

The Australian Greens believe that universal human rights are fundamental and that they must be respected in all countries, in all regions and for all people. That's why it's so important that we use this platform that we've got here in the parliament to highlight the attacks on human rights that are occurring both here in Australia and around the world. We must call out those attacks on human rights and highlight the incredible work of activists, campaigners and those who are fighting for justice in every country.

I want to start tonight here in Australia. Australia is currently undergoing its universal periodic review through the UN Human Rights Council. Last time I spoke on human rights in this place, I mentioned the campaign to raise the age of legal responsibility. Another crucial issue that I want to touch on tonight is the protection that Australia offers to LGBTIQ+ communities. Commenting on the recommendations that Australia received in the current universal periodic review, Equality Australia said:

The UN has praised Australia for delivering on marriage equality but heeded our call that no LGBTIQ+ person be left behind. Amidst a review into its overall human rights record, Australian Governments have been told to lift their game on equality for LGBTIQ+ people, particularly for trans and intersex Australians.

Among the recommendations that Australia received were recommendations to: end harmful practices, including forced and coercive medical interventions, to ensure the bodily integrity of children with intersex variations; ensure free and timely access to appropriate health care for all, including LGBTIQ+ people, children and adolescents where the young person has sufficient maturity to provide informed consent; and ensure that, in gender reassignment cases, appropriate measures are taken regarding identity documents.

It's very appropriate that tonight I draw attention to these because of the shameful motion that was passed through this Senate today which was an attack on the human rights and the very identity of trans people. It was the sort of garbage that I would expect from some senators in this place, but I did not expect the government to support it. It was appalling, that condoning of trans-phobic and completely unsupportive language. It was just an appalling attack that I think this government should be ashamed of for supporting with that motion today.

It was particularly tragic that it happened on the day when we also had a gathering of the Parliamentary Friendship Group for LGBTIQ Australians, which was a wonderful gathering this evening. It had politicians from right across the political spectrum and was our first gathering in over a year. It would have been so lovely to have been at that gathering this evening without the pall of the appalling motion that passed through the Senate this afternoon hanging over us.

I now want to move on to the human rights situation in Cambodia, which has been devastating for human rights and democratic freedoms. Sadly, the dictatorship in Cambodia has taken advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic to tighten its grip on power and not to care for the populace. Human Rights Watch said in their recent summary of the situation there that Cambodian authorities filed unsubstantiated charges of incitement, conspiracy and other offences to enforce its crackdown, and that activists, union leaders, online critics and others face escalating intimidation, threats and arbitrary arrests. Over 30 opposition activists were detained as of November 2020, while between July and September at least 14 youth and environmental activists were charged with baseless incitement charges for peaceful protest activities.

I want to use tonight to call on the Cambodian authorities to abandon their repression of public and democratic voices and to stop attacking peaceful opposition parties. The Cambodian government should be working for the welfare of its citizens, including doing everything possible to vaccinate as many citizens as safely as possible. If the Cambodian government is receiving international assistance to address this crisis then those international aid organisations, as well as the government, must assure that that assistance goes towards responding to the pandemic and is not diverted inappropriately.

I now want to move on to the situation in Bangladesh. I had the privilege recently of meeting with members of the Bangladeshi diaspora community here in Australia, and they were incredibly concerned about the human rights situation in Bangladesh. Again, Human Rights Watch summarised that Bangladeshi authorities are arbitrarily arresting government critics under their draconian Digital Security Act, stifling civil society, independent media and human rights activists. There are serious and numerous allegations of torture, extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances by security forces, which continue to operate with near-complete impunity.

I want to call on the Bangladesh government to respect and protect its citizens and residents and their human rights. Again, it must support democratic debate, not stifle it with arbitrary arrests and torture. In turn, here in Australia there is action that we can take. We must progress swiftly our proposed Magnitsky legislation so that we can create a human-rights-based sanctions regime with clear implications for those who are undermining human rights, including financial asset freezes and travel bans, as appropriate.

And now I want to move to the Philippines. In my role as the Australian Greens foreign affairs spokesperson, it has been a great privilege over the last few months to have participated in a project called the 'Investigate PH' project. It's an initiative of people from all over the world who are concerned about the state of human rights in the Philippines. We have held independent investigations into human rights violations in the country, to further substantiate the landmark 2020 report of the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights on the Philippines. I have been a commissioner overseeing this project, and tonight I met with other commissioners on the project and with members of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet Jeria. The first report of the Investigate PH project is being launched tonight at midnight.

This report highlights three areas of concern: that political repression by state forces has actually intensified and become more brazen since the UN report of June last year; that the newly passed Anti-Terrorism Act, which was enacted in July last year, as well as the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict, which was established by executive order in December 2018, have provided institutional mechanisms that facilitate these human rights violations; and that domestic remedies and mechanisms to address violations continue to be lacking.

Tonight I just want to share with you one story from the report, amongst the many which have been meticulously documented by researchers talking to people affected by the extrajudicial killings and arrests, including families and survivors. This is the story of Zara Alvarez. She was a human rights defender. She was a paralegal for Karapatan, a human rights organisation, and a research and advocacy officer for the Negros Island Health Integrated Program. Her work involved assisting with legal cases of political prisoners and documenting rights violations in impoverished communities. She was arrested on trumped-up charges and imprisoned from October 2012 to July 2014. Eventually the charges were dismissed for lack of evidence, in March 2020. After her release, she continued her human rights work, but in 2018 she was tagged as a terrorist on a list of 649 names, in a court petition to designate individuals as terrorists. On the list were many human rights defenders, including a UN special rapporteur. Alvarez's name and all except two others were eventually removed from this list, but afterwards she continued to experience threats and intimidation. Then her name appeared on a police hit list in 2018. Four others on the list were then murdered. Because of these threats, in 2019 she applied for a court protection order, which was denied by the Court of Appeals. Then, on 17 August last year, she was shot and killed by an unidentified assailant, who fled by motorbike. She became the fifth person on the hit list murdered and the 13th human rights worker of Karapatan slain under President Duterte. Minutes after her death, the regional secretary general of Karapatan received a text message from an unknown number saying, 'Don't worry; you're next.'

This is what's going on in the Philippines at the moment. I really want to thank Peter Murphy, the chair of Investigate PH; my fellow commissioners; and all of the researchers who contributed to this work. I want to say to the people of the Philippines: we see you, we hear you and we share your pain. We will not give up on you. I will continue to use my platform in this place to highlight the extraordinarily awful situation currently in the Philippines.

I rise to speak about the current wave of COVID-19 infections and deaths amongst the Palestinian people and to implore the state of Israel to do more and do better when it comes to the health and wellbeing of Palestinians. Two days ago, Palestine recorded 2,142 new coronavirus cases in the previous 24 hours, 15 deaths and 2,169 recoveries. That was according to the daily update by the Palestinian Ministry of Health. To date, so far as we can ascertain, amongst Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza there have been 209,304 confirmed COVID cases and 2,268 deaths. With the number of people falling ill, the number of hospitalisations and the number of deaths increasing on a daily basis in February and early March, Palestinian authorities were forced to take unprecedented measures. In February a new lockdown was imposed across the West Bank as Palestinians faced this fresh surge of coronavirus cases and continued to wait for a proper vaccine rollout.

World Health Organization data shows that, among Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, the case fatality rate is 1.1 per cent. That's the proportion of reported infections which result in a person dying. In Israel it is far below that, at 0.7 per cent. The Reuters news agency reports that Palestinian hospitals are overfull and intensive care units are operating at 100 per cent capacity with coronavirus patients in some areas of the Israel-occupied West Bank. The Palestinian Prime Minister blamed the lockdown on the struggle to get vaccines delivered to the territory. To date, Palestinians in the West Bank have received 10,000 doses of Russia's Sputnik vaccine. A separate delivery of 20,000 Russian vaccines has been delivered to the other Palestinian territory, Gaza. The international Covax scheme—the global initiative backed by the World Health Organization to get vaccines to poorer nations—should cover up to 20 per cent of vaccine requirements for the Palestinians, but it has yet to provide any. Delivery is expected soon.

None of these efforts at vaccination are going to come anywhere near vaccinating the Palestinian population, estimated at around six million. Palestinian leaders say that they can't afford either the Pfizer or the Moderna vaccines. As Palestinian hospitals fill up, in Israel the bars and restaurants have reopened. With four million of its almost seven million adult population fully vaccinated and another one million awaiting their second dose, media outlets have described Israelis in Tel Aviv as 'immersed in a carnival of post-pandemic rebirth that has left its citizens giddy with their new freedoms'. Restaurants are fully booked, bars are packed and traffic has returned to its infamous snail pace. Life, dreary and frightening for a year, is back to normal because Israel has one of the world's fastest vaccination campaigns.

Indeed, Israel right now has the highest proportion of vaccinations in the world. As at 22 December it had administered the first dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to 83 citizens out of every 10,000. By 14 March it had fully vaccinated 46.5 per cent of its population and 57 per cent had received at least one dose. Almost 90 per cent of Israelis over the age of 50 have been fully vaccinated. The program has inoculated more than 4.6 million people with at least the first injection—the fastest per capita pace of any country. It's an extraordinary undertaking. The Israeli government has acted with swift determination to curb the serious wave of disease and death and the stubbornly high infection rates—a determination that puts the Australian government to shame. So much for us being at the head of the queue.

Infection rates and hospitalisation rates in Israel have plummeted. One study has found a 41 per cent drop in new COVID cases among those over 60. Hospital administrators have confirmed that fewer elderly people are flooding into COVID wards. The number of COVID patients in one facility has declined by two-thirds in two months. But, in the midst of this extraordinary effort, Israel has distributed a tiny 7,000 vaccine doses to Palestinians living under Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza. This is one per cent of people.

A further 10,000 doses arrived from Russia, but Israel delayed them getting into Gaza, holding them up for days at the border. In coordination with Egypt, Israel maintains a strict blockade on Gaza. In mid-February, during debate in the Knesset, some Israeli lawmakers said that the government should only allow vaccines into Gaza in return for concessions from Hamas. Ahmad Tibi, a parliamentarian from Israel's Arab minority, said: 'Even discussion about withholding vaccines from people who needed them was shocking. Your children will be ashamed.' That is what he is reported to have said.

In Palestinian territories captured by Israel in the 1967 war the vast majority of the population has yet to be inoculated, and Israel has faced criticism at home and abroad for not providing more vaccines. In the last few weeks, under pressure, it has begun vaccinating Palestinians working in Israel, workers that are needed to maintain the Israeli economy, but not their families. After international pressure, Israel agreed just recently to transfer just 5,000 Moderna vaccine doses to Palestinian medical workers in the West Bank. It's not enough and it is tragic. A report by the World Bank says that Palestinians will need more financial and logistical help in order to cover 60 per cent of the population.

In recent weeks the Israeli government has faced criticism from the UN Human Rights Council, US Democrats, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty for failing to meet its obligations as an occupying power. The United Nations human rights body has released a statement saying that it's Israel's responsibility to provide equitable access to COVID-19 vaccinations for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. The fourth Geneva convention states that an occupying power has responsibility for 'public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventative measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious disease and epidemics'. The UN body says that differential access is morally and legally unacceptable under international law laid out in the Geneva conventions on the regulation of occupied territories.

Members of the Israeli government point to the 1993 and 1995 Oslo accords, which Israel signed with the Palestine Liberation Organization. They say that these accords give the Palestinian Authority oversight of public health under the principles of self-determination. And the Palestinian authorities point to another part of those accords, which says:

Israel and the Palestinian side shall exchange information regarding epidemics and contagious diseases, shall co-operate in combating them and shall develop methods for exchange of medical files and documents.

But international law takes priority over these accords. Despite Israel's position on the issue, the Fourth Geneva Convention is specific about the duty of the occupying power to provide health care.

There are around six million Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank—six million people who face the continued tyranny and death from a pandemic, and many of them live or work literally metres from vaccinated Israeli citizens. They should not have to wait. I've said many times in this place, and I'll say it again today, that Australia has been a friend of Israel since its creation. As a friend, we must respectfully tell our friends when their actions are wrong. They must not stand idly by. We must help them find a different path. And as a friend we must not allow the last chances of a long-term peaceful resolution to be lost. Such a resolution requires a clear affirmation that Palestinians must have equal rights to Israelis, and equal rights means equal rights to vaccination in the midst of a pandemic.

Israel has a surplus of COVID vaccines—so much of a surplus that its Prime Minister seriously floated the idea of sending that surplus to countries that have moved or will move embassies or offices to Jerusalem, Guatemala, Honduras, the Czech Republic or Hungary, literally giving it away to friendly countries while Palestinians go without. It is my hope that Israel will understand that it has a clear obligation to send vaccines to the Palestinian Authority. Differential access is morally and legally unacceptable under international law. So, today I urge Israel to donate to the Palestinians the extra doses it has ordered but does not need, and I urge them do that with speed and efficiency. Beyond that, I urge Israel to work with Palestinian authorities to ensure the vaccination of the Palestinian population with the same determination, resources and expertise that they've demonstrated to the world with the Israeli population.

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, my comments relate to the February 2021 review of the National Water Initiative, which forms the basis of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. This is the second five-year review. The first review did nothing to improve the Basin Plan, and this version will continue that tradition. The many deficiencies and injustices of the plan are simply ignored in this Productivity Commission report. Surely the essence of good government is to accept when you have made a mistake and then put things right. This report does the opposite. The bureaucrats have dug in deeper than a sand slug in the Murray River's Barmah Choke—and for listeners who are wondering about the relevance of sand slugs, stay tuned!

Last month I met with Peter Millington, Order of Australia recipient and the last commissioner of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission before the Basin Plan started in 2012. This meeting confirmed that the 2012 Basin Plan was flawed from the start. Senator Hanson and I have come to the same conclusion, based on our extensive consultation during five tours of the Murray-Darling Basin over the past five years. We've spoken to farmers, to local businesses, to local Aboriginal peoples and to water irrigation authorities. And when One Nation consults, we actually listen, check and research and then act on the data and on what we're told. After watching the Morrison government in action for 18 months, it's clear to us that the only reason this government listens is to fine-tune their marketing pitch. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan cannot be saved by lies and spin, even from formerly robust organisations like the Productivity Commission. This Productivity Commission report refers to the recent drought as unprecedented. Has the authority not read the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre's report dated June 2016, commonly called the 'ice dome core reconstruction'? That report found that Australia has had eight droughts across the last 1,000 years that were more serious than the recent drought. The 1920-1940 drought was far more serious and much, much longer. Global warming did not cause the last eight droughts and it did not cause the recent one.

The formal assumption behind the need for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is flawed. The plan is not needed to counter falling water inflows caused by climate change. Inflows are moving back to their long-term average following the end of the recent, far shorter drought. A plan, though, is needed to manage cyclical water flows and to fairly balance the competing interests in the basin. By ignoring the need for cyclical flow management, the Basin Plan has gone off in the wrong direction and caused great harm to our rural communities and to the agricultural industry.

The most important element of cyclical water management is suitable water storage. New dams are something we will never see under the Morrison Liberal-National government, who have signed on to the whole global warming scam, hook, line and sinker. There will be no new dams, or power stations for that matter, under a Liberal-National or Labor-Greens government—not real ones anyway. The hastily announced raising of the Wyangala Dam wall has stalled in the face of a cost blowout to $1.5 billion before construction has even started. The new Dungowan Dam has moved forward. A year after the announcement, the government now knows where it's going to go. Big deal; they actually site the dam! At a cost of $500 million for an additional 16 gigalitres, the money being spent on Dungowan could be better used building weirs to provide water security in rural communities. Many of these communities almost ran out of water in the last drought. Stanthorpe in Queensland did run out. That's inexcusable in a developed country like ours.

One Nation's weirs for life project will expand weirs in country towns to provide five years water security for town water in regional areas. One Nation will fund the business case for an 800-gigalitre dam on Mount Buffalo, known as the 'big buffalo expansion'. Outside of the Murray-Darling Basin, One Nation will fund the business case for the Bradfield dam system, including Hells Gate Dam. We will renew the dam wall to original storage levels at Paradise Dam and ensure construction of Urannah and Emu Swamp dams. Only One Nation has the courage to stand up for rural and regional Australia and build the dams we need to provide certainty for our agricultural sector.

Artificial water scarcity has allowed water trading to turn into water speculation. This report ignores the scourge of water speculation. According to Peter Millington, prior to the Basin Plan there were rules that prevented more than 10 per cent of local water being transferred from one valley to another within the basin. The new Howard-Turnbull Basin Plan in 2007 eliminated that restriction and allowed unfettered, free-for-all water trading. This led to water licences being transferred from above natural constraints like the Barmah Choke and the lower Goulburn to areas further downriver. Water has to be forced through these natural constraints to meet irrigation and environmental demands downstream. The erosion this has caused is stripping out the banks and silting up the river. For hundreds of kilometres, the Murray and Goulburn banks have been eroded back several metres on each side. The Barmah Choke has suffered a reduction in capacity from 10 gigalitres a day to seven gigalitres a day as a result of this damage—one-third lost.

The Productivity Commission report waxes lyrical on how well the system is working. What? Did the Productivity Commission even leave its office in Barton, just nearby, to see what is really happening along the river? Can I ask residents of the basin: when was the last time you saw someone from the Productivity Commission in your area getting the facts for themselves? Never, I suspect. To the Productivity Commission, the only measure of success is how much money can be created out of thin air through water speculation. There's no concern for the family farms that water speculation is sending broke, the destroyed lives, the country towns that are emptying out. None of this matters to the Productivity Commission. The natural environment matters. Rural and regional communities matter and people matter. The environmental and social damage caused by water speculation must be factored into the cost-benefit analysis of the Basin Plan. If it were, then the need to stop inter-valley trades and water speculation would be so obvious.

Schedule 3(3) of the Water Act 2007 calls for a transparent water register to record water trades. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority tried to implement a water register in 2012 and, after spending $30 million, gave up. They just gave up. One Nation will shortly be introducing a legislative amendment to remind the government that they have had 14 years to introduce the water register required by the Water Act and to indicate a date by which that implementation must be completed.

I did promise to discuss sand slugs. A sand slug is a plume of sand caused by human activity, like mining, that is washed into a river, where it slowly travels down until building up over time at a constraint like the Barmah Choke. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority is claiming, with a perfectly straight face, that the sand blocking the Barmah Choke came from gold mining 150 years ago in areas like Beechworth and Mitta Mitta. The authority is seriously asking us to believe that sand from gold mining has taken 150 years to work its way down to the choke, and the authority is asking us to believe that the sand being ripped out of the river banks right now is clearing the choke and heading out to sea but sand from gold mining 150 years ago is building up in the river bends. Look at where Mitta Mitta and Beechworth are on a map, upstream of the Yarrawonga dam wall. The authority must answer this simple question: why didn't the weir at Yarrawonga stop the sand slug? That dam has been there since 1939. Would we not have noticed sand building up behind the wall for 80 years? I call on the minister for agriculture to withdraw the sand slug report and apologise for insulting the intelligence of the basin community and disrespecting it.

The federal government does not have the power to legislate agriculture, water or land use, despite the fact that it has stolen land rights. As a result, the Water Act 2007 relies on a combination of referred powers and external affairs powers to cobble together legislation that never contained the triple guarantee that we pretend is there. The triple guarantee is protection for agriculture, rural communities and the environment. The moment guarantees are written in for agriculture and for rural communities, the Water Act becomes unconstitutional. It is a lie. Instead of rubber stamping the injustice and misery the plan has caused for the last 10 years, we should be working out how to replace the Basin Plan with something that can produce a true triple bottom line. The office of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder is making things worse, not better. When the Basin Plan was brought in, states had substantial amounts of water allocated to the environment. The Commonwealth has no land of its own. The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder is watering state land with federal water and, in many cases, duplicating watering by the states, all stolen from farmers. Consideration should be given to closing the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and giving that water back to the states for the environment or for farming before more damage is done.

Finally, I note that the data used in this progress report ends at 2019. It's now 2021. What happened to the 2019-20 water year? Was it because there was too much water to sustain the drought narrative? According to the Bureau of Meteorology, as at 30 January 2021, 100 per cent of the Murray-Darling Basin is not in water deficit, which is the latest nonsense way of saying that it's not in a drought. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority website clearly states that the Basin Plan was created in response to the drought. Well, the drought is over, so farmers can have their water back. (Time expired)

On 10 July 2020, I made a 52-page submission to the royal commission on aged care based on two key premises: ensuring older Australians have the care they need when they need it and wherever they need it and that people want to stay home for as long as they can. My submission specifically addressed the systemic problems identified in the interim report, offering solutions for now and for the future. The royal commissioners agree on a majority of the recommendations, especially two key points: the need for a thorough redesign of the system, with new, robust governance arrangements, and for a new aged-care levy to deal with the inadequacy of funding. Their findings that 'aged care has often been treated by the Australian government as a lower order priority' and that 'the Australian government has been the dominant funder of aged-care services, but it has not funded the system adequately' are correct. But they differ on the institutional form of the respective governance arrangements and how that levy is determined, and this divergence has implications for the changes each is advocating.

I'm very pleased they pick up on many of the suggestions that I made in my submission. Both commissioners were critical, as I was, of aged care not being in cabinet and they said that the name of the department should include 'aged care'. At least Scott Morrison has rectified this by naming Greg Hunt as Minister for Health and Aged Care. I suggested a full integration of the health and ageing systems under one Medicare umbrella. Australians understand the operation of the Medicare system, including co-contributions. Recommendations include an expansion of Medicare services available in aged care. Co-payments, which are a feature of Medicare, need to remain a live option for long-term sustainability of the system. Recommendations also include: a new aged-care act founded on a needs based system, with a universal entitlement to aged care when required; reconfiguring the system as one of entitlement of care to deliberately mirror Medicare entitlements; a rights based approach reflecting our international obligations; and a general non-delegable statutory duty on approved aged-care providers to ensure that the nursing and personal care they provide is safe and of high quality, so far as is reasonable.

I also suggested that accrediting aged-care facilities to provide more services would not only add to their viability but also effectively allow them to become aged-care hubs, or one-stop shops for all aged-care services. I'm especially pleased that the recommendation for the approval of providers for particular kinds of services, or general approval for all kinds of aged-care services attracting government funding, goes a long way to facilitating my suggested hub model. This, combined with changes to aged-care areas to reflect local area networks and the expansion of allied health services for aged care, will further facilitate those local providers who are already plugged into local networks. The push for smaller, lower-density, low-congregate living arrangements for people with dementia reflects my suggestions for care similar to that which we were able to acquire for my dad, who had dementia.

The recommendations also pick up my suggestions about the need for greater medical services in aged care, recognising the need to alleviate the critical intersection between health and aged care, including greater usage of technology, real-time reporting and the use of outreach services and aged-care-accredited medical practices. I was especially pleased to see that many of my suggestions regarding workforce issues, including staff ratios, addressing pay gaps, and better training and career progression—including abolishing the ACFI—were picked up. This will go a long way to addressing the paper war in aged care, and return staff to doing what they should be doing and what they prefer to be doing—that is, taking care of our older Australians.

My submission advocated for a five-year agreement, a partnership between the government and the sector, to tackle the necessary reform. It would be a consensus based process depoliticising the important process of reform, given that both sides of politics have shied away from reform for fear of criticism. A five-year agreement would straddle different governments. It would be akin to the pharmacy agreement approach. This is about the method of achieving reform, and I sincerely hope that the government will adopt this approach.

Tonight I would like to focus on the important issue of funding. Commissioner Pagone advocated an independent commission model, arguing that if you continue with the same failed system you will get the same results. He advocates for a hypothecated aged-care levy, a dedicated fund within consolidated revenue to be used only for aged care. Parliament would set the levy based on Productivity Commission advice and assessments of all aged-care costs over 30 years. In short, under the Pagone model, contribution to the aged-care system would be according to one's income, with the more financially fortunate paying a greater share.

Commissioner Briggs, with her strong public service background, advocates for a government leadership model with greater independence in certain areas like quality regulation and pricing. She believes it is better to reform existing institutions, the argument being that the Commonwealth is the primary funder of aged care, and, therefore, only it can run the system and ensure ministerial accountability and greater integration with the states and territories. She advocates a non-hypothecated earmarked levy, an aged-care improvement levy. Like the Medicare levy, it would be paid into consolidated revenue. However, with notionally earmarked funds the government is not legally obliged to spend them on the identified purpose. She suggests one per cent of taxable personal income. Whilst this would fund a substantial part of improvements to the system, the government would need to meet the shortfall.

The commissioners were critical of the 1997 act and the Department of Finance cabinet memorandum, which was:

… not primarily concerned with the quality of care or with ensuring that older people can access the care that they need, but identifies the 'billions' in savings that had been achieved to that time by 'capping service provision' and the 'risks' to the Government's budgetary position presented by the new arrangements which might, if not carefully managed, undo some of the longstanding fiscal constraints that were operating in aged care.

The commissioners were also critical of the decisions made by the government to apply an efficiency dividend to aged-care funding and to ration care, concluding that aged-care spending was 22.4 per cent lower than it would have been if the efficiency dividend had not been applied. On top of this, they estimated that the rationing of places has further reduced expenditure by the government on aged care by 25.7 per cent from what it would have been if demand had been met by an unrationed supply of places. The commissioners concluded that collective decisions by successive governments had cut more than $9.8 billion from the budget for aged care in 2018-19, the last prepared by Scott Morrison as Treasurer.

In the many reports in recent decades, the most important one was the 2011 Productivity Commission report, Caring for older Australians, upon which I based my blueprint. It was an important reference point for the royal commission. Funding is not about how much we spend but about how we spend it. The Productivity Commission said that it was important to unpack a combination for everyday living, health and personal care costs in designing future funding for aged care. The PC said that older Australians don't want to be passive recipients of services, dependent on funded providers, but preferred to be independent and able to choose where they live, which provider they use, the way in which services are delivered and whether to purchase additional services and/or a higher standard of accommodation. Australians own their own homes or rent, hence critical to any reform is the need to be up-front about the principle of personal responsibility for accommodation and personal needs. Just because you get old does not mean that suddenly the Australian taxpayer must pay for those personal expenses.

The PC said that Australians will have to pay more for the care of older Australians as our population ages. Finding the right balance between public funding and private funding is a sensitive and complex task, and we need to be up-front with the Australian public about this. In the end, the Productivity Commission concluded that a pay-as-you-go tax finance system, supplemented by higher co-contributions and a lifetime stop-loss mechanism was the best approach. Any reform must also be undertaken against the background of two circumstances: baby boomers are more financially able to contribute to care and, for them, choice is very important. Also, the dependency ratio is relevant—that is, the people of working age, 15 to 64 years, for every person aged 65 years and over. In 1978 it was seven and today it's 4.2, and by 2058 it will be down to 3.1. It's against this background that it's now time for the government to have the political fortitude to fix aged care. We owe it to all Australians.

Paradise Dam is Australia's greatest—or, indeed, worst—infrastructure fail. I think the word 'fail' does not do justice to the scandal that is Paradise Dam. It's a stuff-up. If buggering up dams were a criminal offence then the former Labor government in Queensland, led by Peter Beattie, would certainly be serving time behind bars. The failure to build Paradise Dam properly and then the failure of the current Labor administration in Queensland to adequately deal with Paradise Dam is a blight not just on public administration in Australia, but a huge blight on the farmers of the Wide Bay-Burnett. These are farmers who have invested millions of dollars in building one of Australia's greatest food bowls and who are now in the fight of their lives. They are fighting for their very existence because of the failure of the Labor government in Queensland.

The farmers are working to raise money for a class action, and I'd like to commend Marland Law, who are based in Bundaberg, for the work that they are doing to bring farmers, the business community and the community across the broader Wide Bay-Burnett together to fight for justice and to fight this Labor government, which just doesn't seem to care. For those who might be listening at home, I would encourage you to go onto Facebook and to go to 'Paradise Dam Class Action' to get involved with what Marland Law are trying to do.

What I would like to do is thank a number of businesses and supporters who have already put money into the class action: Wilson's Industrial Sales, Adds Up Engineering, J&R McCracken, Ag-Culture Enterprises, EE Muir & Sons, Lindsay Australia, Ag Plus Consultancy, Suncoast Gold Macadamias, Vanderfield, DBM, Farmgate Backpackers Childers, Mason Ag, Zadco, Nowa Power Products, Sunfam CRT, Agreco, Total Grower Services, A1 Realty Wide Bay Burnett and First National Real Estate Childers. It's important I read those businesses out because they are businesses who know the importance of Paradise Dam for the broader Wide Bay and Burnett area and they know that this class action is probably the last thing left to them because of the failure of the state Labor in Queensland.

Without significant rainfall, Paradise Dam is projected to be empty, with zero capacity, within months and possibly weeks. That's very serious. This is a food bowl that depends on water to irrigate the crops that feed Australia and also are exported to the world. What we're facing with these farmers is that the government are tearing down parts of this dam wall. They gave the community next to no notice. They refuse to acknowledge expert advice and they are refusing to tell the farmers whose livelihoods depend on access to water when or how they will restore the dam. They've also failed to produce their own construction reports to their own inquiry, and farmers are being drip-fed quite inadequate information as to the plans the state Labor government may have for the future of Paradise Dam. I don't even think it's a dam anymore. It's more like a paradise hole. It's this massive emptiness. It's a paradise black hole that once led the way for the growth of this food bowl but now just leads the way to economic ruin for an area that should be able to do so much more for Australia.

Farmers and their representatives have been advised that one alternative water source is Fred Haigh Dam. It is a bulk capacity share scheme with two subaccounts. One is for the Kolan subscheme and one is for the Burnett River subscheme. However, details of the inflow distribution show that just 15 per cent of the water share from Fred Haigh Dam is available to customers of the Burnett subscheme. Sunwater has indicated it has no intention to make an amendment to the bulk capacity share rules for Fred Haigh Dam. So the Queensland Labor government are again failing our farmers terribly, hurting those who have invested in the region, who have decided to risk all to help grow their communities so they can employ people, so they can sell food to Australians and so they can sell food overseas to help Australia grow. But you know who doesn't have their backs? The state Labor government doesn't have their backs.

So my message is a begging message to Premier Palaszczuk: you have a 3½-year term ahead of you and I would ask that you, please, give the farmers and the communities of Wide Bay and Burnett the answers they deserve. Please rebuild the dam wall and restore this dam. We know Labor won't deliver. We know Labor don't care much about regional Queensland because they're so focused on Green preferences to help them stay in power. I would encourage those listening to get in touch with Marland Law or to go on Facebook and get involved and put some money into this class action so we can hold this state Labor government to account.

Senate adjourned at 21 : 34