Kim Carr's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Kitching, Senator Kimberley Jane Elizabeth | Condolences | Senate debates
() (): The incorporated speech read as follows— For the second time in the life of this 46th Parliament, we mourn the death of a senator in office. It is also the second time in my...
() (): The incorporated speech read as follows— For the second time in the life of this 46th Parliament, we mourn the death of a senator in office. It is also the second time in my parliamentary career that I have had to mourn the death in office of a Victorian Labor senator. The first was the late Olive Zakharov, who died in 1995. I begin by saying about our former colleague Kimberley Kitching what I said about our former colleague Alex Gallacher: "The longer I serve in this place, the more I appreciate how you can come to see people differently . "A life in politics can be very isolating. You have many acquaintances but few friends." I was privileged to call both Kimberley and Alex friends. Kimberley was also a neighbour. She and her husband Andrew lived in my home suburb of Pascoe Vale in Melbourne. We spoke often. Kimberley and I, like Alex and I, came from different parts of the Labor Party. But that didn't matter. We shared a conviction that the role of the Labor Party is to build a fairer and more prosperous Australia. And we shared an understanding about the importance of the Senate in holding executive government to account, especially through the committee system. Unlike Alex, Kimberley served only a single term in this place. And her untimely death has made her a media sensation in a way that he never was. The spate of media stories continues. Some of those stories have been driven by malice, because some commentators have taken a position on what they imagine to be happening within the Labor Party. But their comments have indicated that they are not well informed, about either the Labor Party or about Kimberley. I have been mentioned in some of those comments, because speculation about my future in this place became intertwined with speculation about hers. It would not be appropriate to engage further with that commentary here. I will say only what I have already said ina committee hearing, which happened to be the first Senate proceeding after her tragic death from a suspected heart attack. I am sure that the stresses of this this job must have at least contributed to her death. Anyone interested in industrial matters knows that workplace stress affects health. I have been a senator for 29 years now, and I have seen how people here and in the other place have to cope with stress, sometimes in extreme circumstances. Some level of stress is, of course, inseparable from the job. It is part of representing the people who elect us, which is no easy burden if we are doing the job properly. But many people do not realise just how tough a life in politics can be. It is not enough to say that you just have to cop whatever is served up to you. How we treat each other in this place matters, and we need to understand that our words and actions can affect people deeply. The isolation sometimes forced upon people can do more damage than we know. We should all bear that in mind in our interactions with each other. The circumstances of Kimberley's death have taught that lesson, if any of us needed to learn it, in a harsh and tragic way. But it is not only the tragedy of someone being taken too soon that we acknowledge here. We record our appreciation of a colleague who was bright, well-informed, determined and hardworking. Those qualities were evident before she entered the Parliament, especially in her work as a trade union official. She pursued her commitment to this country in a highly effective manner. It is a great loss to Australia that she cannot continue to do so. You don't have to share all of Kimberley's views to recognise that. She and I certainly did not agree on everything, but that did not prevent me admiring her talent, her sincerity and her integrity. In that regard, I want to note that one of the things that has been said about Kimberley is the number of friendships she made across the aisle. In some quarters that has been used as a reproach. It should not be. We all have friends outside our own parties. That is how it should be if we are using our time here fruitfully. And I have no doubt that Kimberley's passing is not only mourned by her Labor and trade union colleagues. I offer my deepest condolences to her husband Andrew and their family. Rest in peace, Kimberley.
Macintyre, Professor Stuart, AO | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
I'd like to speak about the passing of Emeritus laureate Professor Stuart Macintyre. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend his funeral, which was held in Melbourne yesterday. On 22 November...
I'd like to speak about the passing of Emeritus laureate Professor Stuart Macintyre. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend his funeral, which was held in Melbourne yesterday. On 22 November Australia lost one of its greatest and most prodigious historians and public intellectuals. Stuart Macintyre, who died of cancer at the age of 74, was pre-eminently a historian of the left but, as the tributes to him from colleagues of all political persuasions testify, his scholarship was academically rigorous and never merely partisan in its approach. That did not stop him being a target in the so-called history wars because he defended the discipline of history as an inquiry into truth, an inquiry into the events and attitudes of the past that have made us the people we are today, an inquiry that must be conducted without shrinking from those aspects of our past that cannot be raised. Conservative critics derided this as the black armband view of Australian history. Stuart was not intimidated by such a label; instead, he pointed to what those who used this term were actually doing. In his book, The History Wars, he wrote: 'In submitting history to a loyalty test, they are debasing it.' In his lectures to the generations of students and the numerous articles and books, Stuart taught that acknowledging the truth about the past is the first and most necessary step in building a better future. Graeme Davison, another celebrated historian, was quoted in an obituary in the Australian recently saying: Macintyre was first and foremost a scholar with a deep devotion to his craft. He read constantly and widely. He resisted dogma, political or intellectual. His friendships transcended political alignments and intellectual fashion. He dressed respectably and spoke courteously, weighing his words carefully. He wrote elegantly and with as much sympathy and insight about Victorian liberals as he did about communist trade unionists. Another obituarist, Michael Lazarus, who wrote in the Jacobin magazine, said: Macintyre was more than a writer and researcher. His encyclopaedic knowledge of Australian and working-class history was equalled only by his generosity as a teacher. He gave his time freely and magnanimously, and his dedication to imparting his knowledge and advice reflected the best traditions of the twentieth-century left. I can testify to the truth of those by personal experience. I found him to be an inspiring teacher. I was one of Stuart's students at the University of Melbourne and he supervised my masters thesis on the factional mobilisation in the 1930s of the Victorian Labor Party. He was a mentor who became a lifelong friend. Stuart was an intellectual activist. He dedicated his time unselfishly outside of the university's duties, whether it be serving on the Victorian and national libraries, the Academy of the Humanities, the Heritage Council of Victoria or as President of the Historic Association or reviewing the history and civics curriculum or as an editor. He was a willing participant in political campaigns to defend democratic values. He was chair of the 'bias is bad news' committee during the time of the Kirner government in Victoria and, more recently, was chair of the International Brigade memorial committee. The long list of Stuart's books include several that can deservedly be called landmarks. Some would say his greatest work is the two-volume history of the Communist Party of Australia. His first volume, The Reds: The Communist Party of Australia from Origins to Illegality, is regarded as the definitive text on the CPA. It's not a dry narrative of branch meetings and party congresses, of speeches and resolutions carried and lost; above all else, it is a history of people who were, who became, communists. It tells us their individual stories, illuminating their life experiences that led them to make their political choices. Stuart was a member of the Communist Party for many years, which he joined as an undergraduate. When he returned from his postgraduate studies at Cambridge he joined the Labor Party. The second volume of his history on Australian communism, The Party—The Communist Party of Australia from heyday to reckoning, willbe published in February next year. When it appears, I have no doubt, it will be widely read amongst his peers in the history profession. It will be both earnestly and appreciatively criticised by some of them. Stuart will have expected no less, and his judgement on the history of the CPA will be amongst his greatest work, and that claim will probably stand the test of time. For me, another of his books was his contribution to the understanding of Australia's national story. Australia's Boldest Experiment: War and Reconstruction in the 1940s is the history of the country in the 1940s. Specifically, it tells how the Curtin and Chifley governments set out to build a nation that was both more equal and more prosperous than the one that had gone to war in 1939. The Department of Post-War Reconstruction was created in 1942 when the end of the Pacific war was not even in sight. Most people criticised the government's decision to begin work on reconstruction at the time when the country was in such immediate danger, but the decision was vindicated by the policies that led to the public investment in manufacturing, housing, social activity, in universities and in the social agencies. Australia was transformed by the vision and achievements of the Curtin and Chifley governments, which stand us in good stead today. Stuart wrote many books, but here I want to make note of one more: A Concise History of Australia. It's a short book, but it runs to five editions, the most recent in 2020. It lays bare the national story, its triumphs and its failures. Above all, it's told in a lucid and elegant prose, which cannot be said of every work of academic history. Stuart's socialism drew him into the course of Australian history, rather than separating him from that history. He lived the view that history is a never-ending dialogue between the past and the present. Stuart Macintyre, I believe, can aptly be compared with Manning Clark. Both had a prodigiously extensive knowledge of Australian history. Both wrote with erudition and wore their erudition lightly. Stuart's writing was in the tradition of the great British historiography of the Whig or liberal historians such as George Trevalyan and Thomas McAulay, even EH Carr. He shared the socialist historian Eric Hobsbawn's view that history cannot be subdivided into narrow, specialist fields that lose sight of the great narratives of social development. Great historians write in a way that readily appeals to a wider readership, even in the works that are addressed to academic peers. I repeat: in this regard, Stuart was one such great historian. With the passing of Stuart Macintyre, we have lost a great Australian. I extend my condolences to his wife, Martha; to his daughters, Mary and Jessie; and to all those who knew and loved him.
Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee; Delegated Legislation Monitor | Committees | Senate debates
I would like to speak in support of the remarks of Senator Fierravanti-Wells, who is chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation. I emphasise to the chamber:...
I would like to speak in support of the remarks of Senator Fierravanti-Wells, who is chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation. I emphasise to the chamber: this is a committee that operates on a bipartisan basis. In my direct experience it has demonstrated a commitment to working through issues carefully and in a considered way. There has been—along with the other scrutiny committees of this chamber—a renewed emphasis on providing proper transparency and accountability to the work of this parliament through this committee's leadership. I can draw the attention of the chamber to the fact that the committee, after careful study and review—there have been a number of inquiries, changes to the standing orders and a number of mechanisms put in place to engage the executive on these questions—has advanced a bipartisan proposition that the biosecurity legislation should be amended by this chamber. There is a particular bill coming up, the Biosecurity Amendment (Enhanced Risk Management) Bill, that will provide the opportunity for that matter to be prosecuted. These are the simple facts: from April last year there have been—I've mentioned figures of this type before—some 591 decrees issued around biosecurity and the Biosecurity Act. In particular, because of the nature of the act, under sections 477 and 476 there is a set of circumstances where this act overrides all other law in the Commonwealth. It has the effect of being able to change all other law in Australia. You might question how it could be that such legislation was put in place? As Senator Fierravanti-Wells has pointed out, we did so after only five hours of discussion in this chamber back in 2015, in circumstances where the word 'pandemic' wasn't used. It was a bill we were led to believe was about flora and fauna, not about changing the law—any law—should a minister decree it. As I have outlined, there have been some 591 occasions where decrees have been issued, most of which are not able to be amended or effected through this chamber through a disallowable instrument. It strikes me that we have to emphasise that it's not about the right of government to act in an urgent way—and committee deliberations have always emphasised the fact that governments should have the right to act, particularly in terms of national health emergencies—but that any government's actions should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. That's the substance of this conversation: should a government's actions in times of emergency be subject to parliamentary scrutiny? It goes further than the actions of this parliament. These measures have been replicated in every other parliament across the Commonwealth—all the state parliaments. And while people are very anxious about what happens in the state parliaments, at least in the state of Victoria there is a requirement for parliamentary approval for an extension of a state of emergency. That does not occur here. It has now happened six times, effectively by the issuing of a press release by the Governor-General. These are measures that have the capacity to override, for instance, the telecommunications laws in this country, to track people using mobile phone towers. The next bill we'll see has the capacity to forcibly take body samples from people, infringing in the most basic way on civil liberties that we have expected to be upheld in this country and never questioned. There has been the issue about the right of travel and various other things. It may well be these matters are necessary in times of emergency. The question remains: should not the parliament make a judgement as to how long they should continue and under what circumstances they continue? The proposition that's put is that ruling by decree is right because there are scientific and technical matters that we're all too stupid to understand—that's the inference that has been put to us—in circumstances whereby the balance between the technical and scientific issues invariably involves the question about restrictions on liberty. There's always a crossover. The question should legitimately be asked: 'Is that crossover appropriate in the circumstances, and does it continue to be appropriate in the circumstances?' The other argument that is put is about how business needs certainty. Our largest trading partner, the People's Republic of China, does not provide the certainty that many people speak of, yet there doesn't seem to be any shortage of people wanting to do trade where the People's Republic of China. The idea that business is somehow or another so phased by the prospect that parliamentary democracy should impinge upon their right to trade strikes me as fallacious. What this is about is providing certainty for public servants to provide their decisions without parliamentary scrutiny. Then there's the argument about whether or not there was a deliberative act by the parliament in setting these mechanisms in train. Clearly, that did not happen, yet it is presented to us as if it did happen. This is part of this regime. We now have a situation where the reports have come down from the committee, the government has responded in a completely contemptuous way once again, saying: 'We don't have to deal with these matters. We can continue on because it's custom and practice for us to act in this way.' We have a situation where delegated legislation 30 years ago was occurring about 800 times a year and now it's up to 1,500 or 1,600 times a year, doubling over that period. This is increasingly becoming a major problem, because we have allowed it to become a major problem. Given that the overseas experience has been that we should have proper transparency and accountability, particularly in times of emergency—particularly in those circumstances—it strikes me that the recommendations of this committee are entitled to be supported. I'll be urging the chamber to do so, particularly given that these recommendations have been presented on all occasions in a bipartisan manner and it now seems that there is—from what I see in a media report—an attempt by some elements of the government to, essentially, maintain a control mechanism, not an engagement mechanism where there would be proper discussion about making sure that the fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy are actually upheld.
Selection of Bills Committee; Report | Committees | Senate debates
I'd like to say a few words on this matter, since I am the deputy chair of the committee and there has been no consultation with the committee—none! I'm not known as a person who does not...
I'd like to say a few words on this matter, since I am the deputy chair of the committee and there has been no consultation with the committee—none! I'm not known as a person who does not commit fully to my job. I believe that my record throughout this last year of the pandemic has been equal to anyone's in terms of my attendance. This committee has a very heavy workload and we have, I believe, fulfilled it conscientiously and not sought to duck our responsibilities to this chamber. Now we're being told, without consultation, that irrespective of what we're doing at the moment we can do this bill over the Christmas break. It would seem that everyone else in this place, in this building, is entitled to spend some time with their families and is entitled to enjoy some respite from the hurly-burly of this place apart from the members of this committee, who haven't been spoken to. If anyone were to suggest that this was a simple matter, that this was legislation that can be dismissed with the papers, they would be sorely mistaken. Given that the government has taken the better part of three years, and many attempts, to get it into some sort of shape, I would have thought that they would at least have the courtesy of talking to the people who are now expected to actually undertake the parliamentary review of it on behalf of the chamber. An opposition senator interjecting— No, I haven't started on that! In the last two days that the documents have been available there has been a flurry of information being provided concerned with this bill. That's because it's not just a question of the rights of the religious it's also a question of the secular community, and we're discovering that there are different points of view about that. And what would we expect if we're going to start to prioritise human rights—if we're going to say that some people have rights at the expense of others? Of course there's going to be a major dispute about that! Do those opposite think they can just sweep that under the carpet—just slide that away over the Christmas holidays and that no-one will notice? Well, think again! It is a gross abuse of this chamber and of the processes of this chamber to try to pull a swiftie like this. I expect nothing less, I suppose, in some sense, that a controversial matter like this has taken so long to resolve within the Liberal Party or the National Party. And yet they expect us all to sign up to it. That's not going to happen! There has to be a proper process to allow people in this community to have a view about things and express them properly. And we have to have time for members of this committee to be able to make an assessment of those views and report back to this chamber in a proper manner. They're saying 1 February: they're treating this parliament with contempt to suggest that that's going to be an adequate time to examine the complexity of this issue. In my own state, there are going to be views expressed about whether or not these matters are in fact legal. I have read numerous reports in the press today as to whether or not this matter should be subject to a High Court challenge. There are varying views within religious communities about these matters. But the government expect us to just tick and flick a matter of this importance over the Christmas holidays? That is the contempt at the heart of this—the contempt for everybody in this place. Those who think there's a quick, easy settlement here are buying themselves so much trouble that they don't begin to imagine and that couldn't begin to be fixed by a sleazy, slimy little arrangement like this. That's what it is. (Time expired)
This, as I say, has allowed the minister for health to change any other piece of legislation within this Commonwealth. The minister is seeking now to extend the powers of the human biosecurity...
This, as I say, has allowed the minister for health to change any other piece of legislation within this Commonwealth. The minister is seeking now to extend the powers of the human biosecurity emergency declaration for a sixth time, notionally ending on 17 December 2021. I don't think we know if that is the last time that he will be seeking that. If it isn't, there's nothing this chamber can do about that, given that these instruments are not disallowable. The committee has previously raised significant concerns about the exemption from disallowance of legislative instruments made under the Biosecurity Act. The committee has suggested: … amendments should be moved to the Biosecurity Amendment (Enhanced Risk Management) Bill 2021 to amend section 476 of the Biosecurity Act to provide that any future variations to extend a human biosecurity emergency period will be subject to disallowance— that is, subject to this chamber or the House of Representatives actually being able to address that matter. In correspondence with the committee, the minister replied that he thought there had been extensive and robust debate through both houses of parliament when the bill was introduced in 2015 and that therefore the possibility of disallowance was not necessary. That bill, as debated in 2015, was essentially about fauna and flora, not about pandemics. Neither the bill nor the explanatory memorandum even mentioned the word 'pandemic', so it's hardly received the extensive debate that the minister contended. The House of Representatives and the Senate both spent about five hours considering that bill, a bill which has fundamentally changed the regulatory regime in this country and had the effect of changing the way in which the states and territories have dealt with that issue, right across the Commonwealth. With only minor amendments, the bill passed both houses of parliament on 14 May 2015. As Senator Smith has pointed out in the chamber in a tabled statement, we're seeing more and more examples of coercive powers being bestowed upon a minister without parliamentary oversight. These include provisions where individuals are required to take medical examinations and provide body samples through that coercive power. Time and time again, in the correspondence from ministers, this action is taken in the name of so-called administrative flexibility. The committee has been told that it's being subject to disallowance would only undermine the government's ability to respond to emergency threats. The committee acknowledges there are genuine emergencies and that there should be exemptions in specific cases, but there should not a blanket principle of exemption or disallowance in all circumstances, which is the way in which this position is being put so often in the correspondence from ministerial officers. It is unfortunate that we are seeing a contemptuous tone grow from the executive about the concerns that this committee and its sister committee have raised. For the first time in its history, the committee took the unprecedented step in 2020 of holding public hearings into the exemption of delegated legislation from parliamentary oversight, making 11 recommendations that, as the chair of the committee has already indicated, have not yet been responded to by the government. I note that the committee has moved a motion tonight to gain a commitment from the executive, and I'm advised by other members of the government that the government will respond. I look forward to that. Parliament and the public should be able to rely upon proper public administration, but it should also be able to rely upon proper parliamentary scrutiny of that legislation. At the start of the pandemic, when a human biosecurity emergency was declared, the committee chose to facilitate public scrutiny of COVID-19-related delegated legislation. A table on the committee's website lists all the delegated legislation registered on the Federal Register of Legislation since 18 March 2020. As of 15 October 2021, 578 legislative instruments had been made in response to COVID-19. The committee has long stressed its concern about the growth of disallowable instruments and, of course, the issue of the way in which the executive is ruling by decree as a result of this fundamental change in the way in which legislation is moved through this parliament. In March, the committee's inquiry reported that the volume of delegated legislation made each year had increased over time. From an average in the mid-1980s of around 850 disallowable instruments tabled each year, it currently sits at around 1,500 each year. This is not a trend we should be proud of, particularly when we consider the number of these instruments which cannot in any way be overturned through the processes of the parliament. That, to me, is a matter of deep concern. Senators, if we do not do our duty and take up our responsibilities to correct this dangerous state of affairs, we may rightly and properly be accused of negligence, and so we should be. I commend the report to the chamber. Question agreed to.
I ask colleagues in the corner there if they could, perhaps, reduce it to a loud shout.
I would like to say a few words in support of the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation; I am the deputy chair of the committee. This is a committee...
I would like to say a few words in support of the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation; I am the deputy chair of the committee. This is a committee with a long history in this place. Throughout its 90 years of work, the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation has played an essential role in ensuring that there is effective parliamentary scrutiny of executive-made laws. It's a role that all of us in this chamber have a constitutional obligation to undertake. We are, of course, to quote Odgers, a 'house of review and reflection'. It is in this tradition that this committee has conducted its work on a bipartisan basis, with a focus on holding the executive's exercise of lawmaking powers to account. In its 90-year history, the committee has never taken the unprecedented action that we are seeing before the Senate today, in concurrence with a statement that's been made by the Deputy Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills about matters rising from the Biosecurity Act 2015. Senator Dean Smith, as the acting chair of that committee, had a statement to the chamber incorporated into Hansard shortly before these remarks. Parliament's role in overseeing the delegated legislation made in response to COVID-19 has unquestionably been constrained since the beginning of the pandemic. The powers of the Biosecurity Act have been the government's main legislative vehicle, and this has allowed the minister for health to make a human biosecurity emergency declaration, with its provisions to take effect despite any other law.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee; Reference | Committees | Senate debates
Before moving business of the Senate notice of motion No. 4, proposing a reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, I wish to inform the Senate that Senator Hanson...
Before moving business of the Senate notice of motion No. 4, proposing a reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, I wish to inform the Senate that Senator Hanson will co-sponsor the motion, and I ask that the name of Senator Hanson be added to the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senator Hanson, move: That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 March 2022: The performance and integrity of Australia's administrative review system, with particular reference to: (a) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, including the selection process for members; (b) the importance of transparency and parliamentary accountability in the context of Australia's administrative review system; (c) whether the Administrative Review Council, which was discontinued in 2015, ought to be re-established; and (d) any related matter. Question agreed to.
Temporary Migration Select Committee; Report | Committees | Senate debates
I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Fabian, Mr Garry, Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
We should be deeply concerned about the growth in right-wing extremism, in Europe and in this country. ASIO tells us that 50 per cent of its time is now spent dealing with the threat of fascist...
We should be deeply concerned about the growth in right-wing extremism, in Europe and in this country. ASIO tells us that 50 per cent of its time is now spent dealing with the threat of fascist groups. For me, this is a personal issue. Today I want to pay tribute to a great Australian, Mr Garry Fabian, who has recently been awarded the German Order of Merit by the Minister-President of Baden-Wurttemberg, Herr Winfried Kretschmann. Garry is a German-born Holocaust survivor who has been an Australian citizen for the past 70 years. I am proud to be his son-in-law. Like millions of European Jews, other minorities and opponents of Germany's fascist regime during the dark years from 1933 to 1945, Garry was deprived of citizenship. His human rights were routinely violated, and his boyhood was spent in a concentration camp. But, unlike the millions who died in the camps, Garry was fortunate to survive and to start a new life on the other side of the world. Since then he has worked tirelessly to rebuild understanding and to promote reconciliation with the people of his birth country. Born Gerhard Fabian in Stuttgart, Germany, on 11 January 1934, Garry's early years were spent moving from place to place with his family to avoid persecution under the Nuremberg Laws. In 1935 the family moved to Bodenbach, in Czechoslovakia, and later to Prague, after the German invasion in 1938. Like so many other refugees, they carried false documents and had to move every few weeks to avoid detection. Life was hard, but the worst was yet to come. In November 1942, Garry and his family were deported to the Theresienstadt ghetto. Although called a ghetto, it was actually a concentration camp. Theresienstadt was not officially a death camp, like Auschwitz. But there was plenty of death as infectious diseases such as typhoid spread rapidly through the overcrowded barracks. The prisoners suffered malnutrition, exhaustion from harsh working conditions, and brutal treatment by the guards. Most of the inmates were sent on to death camps. As a small child in these unsanitary conditions, Garry endured, in succession, measles, chickenpox and whooping cough but somehow recovered from them all. Both his parents also survived, but his grandparents and numerous other relatives were murdered. In May 1945, Theresienstadt was liberated by the Soviet Army. Of the 150,000 children who entered that ghetto, Garry was one of the 150 who survived. By Garry's account, luck played a large part in the family's survival. Garry's father was in charge of the medical supply store and was classified as an essential worker. But other 'essential' workers were sent to death camps, despite their classification. In 1947, the Fabians were able to leave the horrors of Europe behind and they emigrated to Australia. Despite huge gaps in his education, and with minimal English, Garry attended school. He gained a junior technical certificate and undertook an electrical apprenticeship. In 1952, Garry, having officially changed his name from Gerhard, became an Australian citizen, and in 1956 he joined the Royal Australian Navy to complete his national service. Now 87, Garry has contributed much to his adopted home as a proud Australian. As well as working in electrical sales services, he fulfilled his dream of tertiary education by returning to study in his 50s. He gained both a Bachelor of Arts and a Master of Arts. He has always been active in his community. He has spent countless hours on school councils and on the committees of service organisations, like the Jewish social service organisation B'nai B'rith. He continues to work as a volunteer guide at the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne, and he lectures at the University of the Third Age. He has two daughters and five grandchildren; this is particularly significant to me because I married his daughter Carole. Garry's story of resilience and of rebuilding a once-shattered life is familiar among the migrant stories that make up our national narrative. What makes Garry unusual is his commitment to reconciliation. Despite the trauma that he suffered under the Nazis, he has returned to Germany several times in the past 30 years. His early trips were not comfortable for him, but over time he has met many new generations of Germans who have a strong commitment to understanding their history. Garry has developed a relationship with a foundation in his birth town of Stuttgart known as the Geisserstrasse 7, or 7 Geisser Street. The foundation is dedicated to raising awareness of the dangers of racism and fascism. Its name comes from the address of a hostel for refugees that was burnt down in an arson attack. This foundation has helped highlight Garry's personal story. He has appeared in a film about his experience on German public television, and he's appeared in German newspapers. His autobiography, A Look Back Over My Shoulder, was translated into German. He has been on speaking tours to schools, colleges and community groups. In fact, I've had the great pleasure of being with Garry at one of his town hall meetings. In Braunschweig, he met history professor Dr Herbert Scheibe, a former trade union official and SPD political activist with an interest in the treatment of unionists and socialists under the Nazi regime. This has led to more speaking engagements. Garry has spared no detail in sharing the story of his experiences with his—mostly young—German audiences. His message has always been very clear: I don't blame your generation for the crimes of another. This could have happened anywhere if the conditions were right. We are all responsible for ensuring that hatred, racism and discrimination at its most deadly are not allowed to flourish ever again. In 2011, Garry applied to have his German citizenship restored. That happened within weeks. It is significant that German Jews are now accepting citizenship that was so infamously stripped from them, starting from 1933. Garry's message of acceptance for all races, religions and creeds and his willingness to return to a land that had treated him so badly have led to the award that he has now received. Garry's story is not only about the past. It is vital for all of us today. It is a warning about what can happen when the foundations of both liberal democracy and social democracy falter. In 1930s Germany, Jews and communists were blamed for all of society's ills. Now, populist leaders around the world target immigrants, Muslims and others in the same way. Garry Fabian, I congratulate you on receiving this prestigious award. It honours you, your family and all who are willing to learn from the past to avoid repeating it. I wish to thank Garry's grandson, Seamus Carr, for his assistance in preparing these speaking notes.
Australian Research Council | Statements | Senate debates
The Australian Research Council has an absurd new rule prohibiting the citing of preprints in grant applications. A preprint is a research paper that has been submitted to an academic journal...
The Australian Research Council has an absurd new rule prohibiting the citing of preprints in grant applications. A preprint is a research paper that has been submitted to an academic journal that has not yet been peer reviewed for publication. Preprints are stored on servers to make the latest research accessible to researchers around the world. But for some obscure reason the Australian Research Council has decided that citing a preprint is enough to make an application ineligible. More than 20 applications for this year's Discovery Early Career Research Awards have been excluded. The ARC did not inform applicants directly. Its claim that an appeal is possible is sophistry, because many are on the second application for their project and can't apply again. This rule change is a fiasco. It shows that the ARC is out of touch with international best practice and also domestic best practice, given that the National Health and Medical Research Council accepts preprints. As the President of the Academy of Science, Professor John Shine, said in a letter to Minister Tudge, the rule change will have a 'major impact' on Australia's research potential. Professor Shine wrote: It could easily be argued that a researcher not referencing material found in preprints is not using the full range of contemporary knowledge in a discipline. This is an integrity issue. If grant applications cannot cite all the information they have used, they risk being accused of plagiarism for treating the research of others as their own. The ARC needs to explain itself and fix this mess quickly.
Customs Amendment (Banning Goods Produced By Forced Labour) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
That would be correct, on the basis of what has been indicated on the floor of the chamber.
by leave—On the basis of what's just been indicated to the chamber, it was clear that this division would be lost by the opposition. So long as our position in terms of the motion is...
by leave—On the basis of what's just been indicated to the chamber, it was clear that this division would be lost by the opposition. So long as our position in terms of the motion is recorded, I think it would be acceptable to proceed without a formal division on this particular question.
Economics References Committee; Reference | Committees | Senate debates
At one level this is a very simple proposition that seeks to refer to the economics committee a proposal on how we can improve the scientific advice to this parliament. So I was somewhat...
At one level this is a very simple proposition that seeks to refer to the economics committee a proposal on how we can improve the scientific advice to this parliament. So I was somewhat surprised when I was advised that the government is going to vote against this proposition. I was surprised because I have represented the Labor Party on scientific matters for many, many years, and it's a matter of deep concern to me that we have not had an adequate level of investment and understanding of the importance of scientific advice to this parliament. As a consequence I've long held the view that the British model—followed by the American model, in terms of their advice to their Congress—is a model that we could adopt in this country. As a consequence we did look at this issue in the Senate inquiry into nationhood, national identity and democracy. That committee 'recommended that the Australian Government establish a Parliamentary Office of Science, modelled on the United Kingdom Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, to provide independent, impartial scientific advice, evidence and data to the Parliament, and all members and senators'. It was recommendation 14, and I chaired that inquiry. It was a recommendation that was bipartisan. So I'm particularly concerned that the government now finds this proposition dangerous, that it says that there's adequate advice and we don't need to have this reference. Somehow or other, this has suddenly become a contentious issue. If members and senators are going to debate and pass laws that govern Australians, they do need access to reliable and impartial information. They don't need to have ideologically loaded information. I acknowledge there will be differences of opinion about the nature of that information, but they do need access to the very best information. You simply can't rely upon the department to provide that on their own. It's possible that even fine organisations like our scientific agencies are able to present information which is contestable. We hear, on a regular basis, 'It is contestable.' I take the view that it is important that the institutions and processes of parliamentary democracy would not be possible without that debate or access. The proposed science office would in fact enhance democracy in this country. It would enhance our understanding of how this country is actually faring and of the fact, for instance, that the IPCC report has highlighted the challenges this country faces. The arguments about how we deal with those challenges are inherent in the political process. We don't have to agree about the mechanism by which we address those challenges, but we do have to address those challenges, and the pursuit of that advice through proper scientific analysis is critical to that solution. What we've got is an example of the government opposing this motion because inherent within this government is a fundamental hostility to scientific inquiry. A war on science has been the hallmark of this government throughout its life. We are now debating whether or not an office would be useful and whether or not creating such an office would enhance our work as members of parliament. That's an extraordinary proposition. The debate is about whether or not it would enable us to better serve the people of this country, who actually pay our wages, who, of course, we are supposed to serve and who look to us to provide advice. What's the argument about the establishment of a parliamentary office of science? They say there's sufficient advice already available through the Office of the Chief Scientist and other advisory bodies to the government. No-one's disputing the fact that we do have quality advice available, but is anyone realistically going to say that that's adequate? Is anyone realistically going to be able to argue a case that it's sufficient? Is anyone really going to be able to maintain a proposition that it's appropriate and that we have enough advice in terms of the way in which the challenges facing this country are being addressed? There's already an available model for the provision of independent advice: the Parliamentary Budget Office. Is anyone going to say suddenly that the Treasury is being usurped because there's an independent Parliamentary Budget Office? Does anyone suggest that the authority of the Treasury is now so fundamentally challenged that we can't function? It's a complete nonsense. Public servants in the Treasury department and the Department of Finance do provide advice to the government of the day, but there needs to be an independent source of advice to the parliament. That's why a proposition such as this provides us with a vehicle to ensure that that can happen. It's important that the parliament has its own source of advice on fiscal questions. We've accepted that, but we don't accept it in regard to scientific questions. The parliamentary office of science would be able to provide that same level of advice that the Parliamentary Budget Office does. It would provide the information we need to be able to do our jobs properly as members of parliament. It's about our job to hold governments to account and, above all, to serve the people who send us here. That's what I find quite extraordinary. It's not the first time that we've heard this argument from the government: 'Just trust us.' By taking that attitude, the government is really saying: 'We want to maintain control. We want to maintain access. We want to be able to provide that vital resource, the information that allows us to tell you what's good for you.' Well, that's not satisfactory. That's no way to exercise parliamentary accountability. What we have to have is access to independent, reliable information on matters that require scientific expertise. The message running throughout the recommendations in the nationhood inquiry was that we build trust within the public, within the nation, if we can provide the proper levels of communication about these questions and if we can debate these questions on the basis of sound knowledge, not just prejudice. If this parliament is to do its job properly, we have to restore public confidence in the work we undertake. It's a fundamental principle of the way in which democracy ought to function. The lesson of the pandemic is that the public is wide open to the proposition that you can trust scientific advice, but it needs to be presented properly. It needs to be presented on the basis that it is contestable. There's no magic formula; there are no Ten Commandments. There has to be a debate about these things based on sound advice. That's the way citizens respond positively to medical emergencies and fundamental questions of public health. Unfortunately, ill-informed comments have all too often been heard throughout our political system. Former Chief Scientist Professor Ian Chubb proposed that the Australian government set up a formal relationship between parliament and the scientific community. The formal relationship would define what it means to provide scientific advice to the parliament and the government. That relationship does exist within the United Kingdom, where the parliament has signed an agreement setting out the roles and responsibilities of the two parties. I have advanced before the proposition of a charter between the parliament and the scientific community. Professor Chubb argued the case that we need to have an agreement that includes such things as scientists having an obligation to provide free, frank advice that is as good as they could possibly offer, given the advice that was available to them in their own expertise and their own work, and, on the other side, the parliament having a commitment to make that advice public. This process of course led to the creation of POST, the UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, which the nationhood inquiry, as I've indicated, recommended as a model for this country. POST works well because both houses of the UK parliament are involved and describe the job as 'helping to bridge the gap between research and policy by providing parliamentarians with up-to-date research evidence and expertise to inform legislation and scrutiny'. This gets captured by scientists. POST—and I've read its material for many years—is balanced, is actually in plain English and acknowledges the importance of social considerations as well as the purely scientific. It has proved its worth. It has existed since 1989. It was established under the Thatcher government—that great radical Margaret Thatcher. For this reactionary mob here it's far too dangerous to be able to undertake something like that. No-one in the United Kingdom argued that somehow or other it usurped the role of the government's own advisers. POST is jointly funded by the houses of parliament in the United Kingdom. It's overseen by a board made up of 10 members of the House of Commons and four members of the House of Lords. They are chosen on the basis that they reflect the balance of the parties in the parliament. Researchers are chosen by learned academies, representing the breadth of scientific disciplines, and representatives of the research and information committees of the parliament. There's no reason why a similar model couldn't apply here. This reference would provide us with a vehicle to check all of those things out. We should be conscious of how damage has been done in terms of democracies with uninformed opinion and the breakdown of trust in public institutions. The establishment of a formal relationship between a nation's scientists and the parliament is important to restore trust and is important to re-establish confidence in the parliamentary system itself. It would also work to overcome the toxic effect of the scurrilous attacks on science and scientists—attacks promoted by members of this parliament, who should know better. Of course they've done it for very partisan reasons. They think there's a vote in it. They think that building on prejudice and building upon popular reactionary nationalist emotions is going to somehow or other produce a political dividend for them. We've heard various elements suggest that this is somehow or other about defending Western civilisation. Strangely, these are the same people who don't usually have any science in mind when they talk about Western civilisation being under threat. Modern science is one of the finest achievements of Western civilisation. It is the flowering of the enlightenment values of organised rational inquiry—inquiry into the nature of the world around us and inquiry into humanity's place in the world. Science has transformed life for the better for people all over the world, yet in our time we have come to witness attacks on science by people who want to spread mistrust. This is a time of anxiety. People are inciting fear about the consequences of new developments in science and technology because of the impact of these developments on the future of work, because of concern about changes in the climate, because of the threat of the spread of disease and because of fears for our international strategic situation. Since the government's election in 2013, it's allowed the fearmongers in its ranks to influence public policy to an extent way beyond their intellectual capacities. We've seen cuts to the public science agencies, we've seen the failure to fund our university research agencies and we've seen a war on science which has undermined our capacity to deal with the really big problems facing our society. We simply can't turn our backs on the enlightenment. This is a big problem for this government. They have yet to come to terms with the enlightenment. We should be standing with science and we should take advice from the scientific community. We should defend those who elect us, rebuild public confidence and rebuild confidence in parliamentary democracies by ensuring that people understand that we are acting for the future of humanity and we should be trying to build hope rather than extinguishing it. By investing in science, by demonstrating our trust in science, we are in fact strengthening democracy. Democracy only thrives when we have a respect for the truth. (Time expired)
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021, Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
There are many fees and charges that universities strike against students. Show me where in this bill it says that any of these charges the government is now levying cannot be passed on to students.
It's a very simple question. Show me which clause in the bill will prevent a university or a tertiary institution from passing on any fee increases to students.
I thank the minister for her outline. I'm a member of the committee that she spoke of, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I think she's probably been a little generous in her interpretation of the...
I thank the minister for her outline. I'm a member of the committee that she spoke of, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I think she's probably been a little generous in her interpretation of the committee's response. The nature of this committee is that it is concerned—and had repeatedly expressed its concern—at the growing amount of legislation that now contains material that effectively allows the detail of policy questions to be left to subordinate legislation by way of these regulations. That was the thrust of the correspondence to the minister and the reason the questions were asked as to why these matters can't be contained in the primary legislation, to which the minister has responded, as is so often the case, that this is just an administrative matter and doesn't require a substantive amendment to the legislation. The committee has thanked the minister for his response because there has been some movement in the government's position—namely, to adjust the explanatory memorandum to explain the circumstances. But that's not to say that the committee is satisfied with the minister's response. The Labor Party is opposing this legislation, and we'll express our disappointment in the government's position in that vote. But it should not in any way be put to the Senate that the position that's been outlined is an acceptance of the government's position. When the committee says, 'We'll draw these matters to the attention of the Senate and leave it to the Senate to make a judgement call on it,' that's simply a mechanism by which the committee says, 'We're not happy with what's happened, but we acknowledge that there has been some movement by the government.' But it's not satisfactory because these are questions that should have been answered in the primary legislation, and it should have outlined clear guidance on the mechanism by which exemptions will be raised in the future for the direction to policy officers in the department as to the way in which they administer this legislation. It's just not good enough to say, 'Look, we need the flexibility because we don't know what's going to happen in the future'—that's an age-old excuse within the Commonwealth Public Service these days—and to take away the responsibility of the parliament to make decisions about what is appropriate and what is not, particularly on policy questions. I've raised particular concerns about the way TEQSA is functioning at the moment, especially in regard to standards. I've indicated that I intend to pursue this with some vigour at the next round of estimates. I think the way we are seeing a number of private colleges now being moved into the category of university requires furthers explanation. When we have a series of Bible colleges being promoted as universities, we're entitled to know under what circumstances those decisions have been made and against what criteria they have been made. This is the sort of thing that I think we're entitled to pursue, and we certainly will at estimates. When it comes to the question of charges, this bill will contain increases in charges of up to 700 per cent for some categories. These are charges which will inevitably be passed on to students. There are two questions that concern me about this bill. It's not just the issue of fee recovery; it's the effect of the increased charges and the cost to students, given the way in which, inevitably, these charges will be passed on. My concern goes to the question of standards, particularly research standards, given that we passed legislation only in February that now seems to have led to circumstances where a series of private colleges have been shunted into the category of university in a manner which I think requires further explanation. So there are two questions: fee rises and standards, and the mechanisms by which they occur. For the minister to say, 'We've done the right thing; we've made a statement in regard to the explanatory memorandum,' doesn't go anywhere near far enough. As I say, the Labor Party is opposing this legislation because this is a pretty ham-fisted way to do business. It reflects a very poor understanding of the way in which the education system actually operates. It demonstrates, in my judgement, a movement by this government by stealth to fundamentally change the way in which the higher education system in this country operates and to see circumstances where there's a considerable shift away from public provision towards what some vice-chancellors used to call Ma and Pa Kettle operations. I see one of these colleges today, because of their financial circumstances, has moved to extend the vacation considerably to try to make up savings, forcing people to use up their various entitlements. They did so without consultation, without any engagement with their workforce, bringing into practice some measures which really do demonstrate a culture alien to the way in which the tertiary sector and the education sector in this country has traditionally operated.
Treasury Laws Amendment (COVID-19 Economic Response No. 2) Bill 2021; Consideration of House of Representatives Message | Bills | Senate debates
Commonwealth Integrity Commission | Motions | Senate debates
I move: That the question be put.
COVID-19: Vaccination | Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers | Senate debates
The pandemic is, of course, one of the great crises that have been facing our society, and I think that, internationally, it's reshaping the way in which we live. Today, when Minister Colbeck...
The pandemic is, of course, one of the great crises that have been facing our society, and I think that, internationally, it's reshaping the way in which we live. Today, when Minister Colbeck indicated that the government acknowledges that it has challenges in terms of its capacity to provide sufficient supply for what it acknowledges to be the key to finding solutions to this pandemic, in terms of supply and the logistics of vaccines, I think he was underestimating the difficulties that the government has brought upon itself. It strikes me that the government has mismanaged this crisis at every level. From the very beginning of the crisis, the government has sought, effectively, to present this as a challenge to take political advantage and has sought to play favourites with the states. It has sought to underestimate the capacity of Australians to deal with the truth in regard to this matter. It has failed to acknowledge the importance of our own manufacturing capacity. It has failed to deal, in any real way or with any understanding of the international questions, with the pharmaceutical industry. It has failed to come to grips with the basic questions of the major health crisis faced in this pandemic. In fact, we had this protracted debate about whether or not we should concentrate on the economics of the country versus the health of the country, and that has been played out through the government's attempt to blame one state over another and, of course, its attempt—and failure—to deal with the personalities involved with this matter. I'm particularly concerned that we have not been able to develop our own manufacturing capacity. While I acknowledge how important it is for AstraZeneca, for instance, to be able to make vaccines in Australia, I find it extraordinary that the government is not able to provide us with even the most basic information on the supply contracts it engaged in on that matter, claiming, of course, that national security is involved. When under freedom of information the ABC sought details of the supply contract for AstraZeneca they were told that the provision of such contracts would present a major risk to the national security of the country, despite the fact that the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, Mexico and Brazil have taken an entirely different approach to the provision of basic public information about those supply contracts. It doesn't excuse the failure of the government to deal with the fundamentals providing sufficient vaccines for the people of this country. We saw for instance its lackadaisical attitude to the provision of different types of vaccines and the catastrophe that emerged around the provision of the Pfizer vaccines. We saw the minister's attempt to duck and weave about his direct engagement with Pfizer. Rather than it being, as he tried to imply, just a matter of low-level public servants who were the bunglers in regard to the contract arrangements, industry sources highlighted through the ABC that the minister himself had been rude, dismissive and penny-pinching when it came to dealing with the senior management of Pfizer. A former Pfizer global president of R&D, John LaMattina, underscored this point about how unfortunate it was that Australia had failed to secure the necessary supplies of Pfizer vaccine because of the government's failure to understand basic elements of supply chains and basic elements of how the pharmaceutical industry worked globally, which was made worse by the minister's direct assault upon individuals within the company. I find it extraordinary that the government has tried to duck and weave and been unable to deal with even basic issues around the mRNA vaccine production facilities when it should have been moving much more quickly to deal with these fundamental questions. It's not too late. There is of course still time for us to be able to develop the necessary sovereign capability to ensure that we can protect this country and we can ensure that the people of this country can enjoy the benefits of modern science and modern manufacturing processes. (Time expired)