Richard Di Natale's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Valedictory | Parliamentary Representation | Senate debates
Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a functioning NBN right now! Perhaps I'll just reflect upon the disappointments of the past few decades. I do leave parliament hopeful that things will change; I...
Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a functioning NBN right now! Perhaps I'll just reflect upon the disappointments of the past few decades. I do leave parliament hopeful that things will change; I do. Unlike the response to climate change, state and federal governments have ditched the partisanship and have been guided by evidence in responding to this pandemic. It's absolutely true, some terrible mistakes have been made, and they deserve scrutiny. But I also want to acknowledge the many sensible, life-saving decisions, too. There's also a strong sense of solidarity in the community. It's been a really, really tough year for many people. Many people are struggling. But the vast majority of people understand that this shared sacrifice is required in order to get us through this together. It's also a moment when people have been given space to think deeply about what's important in life. We're social creatures. We rely on human contact. We rely on each other. It's a moment like this that puts a lie to the dog-eat-dog, rampant individualism that has formed the basis of our politics for far too long. I'm optimistic because social movements are building around the world, too, and throughout history it's these movements that have driven change. Right now collective action on climate change, racism, sexism and inequality is gathering steam. I remember leaving parliament once, feeling especially demoralised after a particularly brutal sitting week, and it was the tens of thousands of passionate, engaged young people at the climate strike the following day that gave me the strength and energy to keep fighting. I want to thank them. I leave politics feeling confident about the Greens, too. I joined the Victorian Greens two decades ago. We had no state or federal representation, and over what is a short period of time we've elected dozens of state and federal MPs and local government councils right across the country. Our party is strong and resilient. We have the support of millions of Australians, and we're the only party with genuine solutions to today's problems. That doesn't mean we can't do better. We need to continue building a culture of accountability and respect. It's easy to focus on yourself or perform for a small and noisy crowd, but success lies in reaching outwards and engaging meaningfully with people from right across the community, and that's what our members, supporters and volunteers do every day. None of us would be here without their commitment, their passion—working tirelessly, giving their time, sharing their ideas and talking to real people to get more Greens elected. To everyone who's knocked on doors, made calls, stood at polling booths in the middle of winter, demanded change at rallies, shown solidarity at vigils and done so much more to make this country better, I want to thank each and every one of you. To all of my staff, who have worked so hard for so long this past decade, thanks so much for the long hours, the weekends, the travel away from home, the pep talks and the wise counsel—and just for listening to me whinge. I'm not going to name anyone today, but you know who you are, and I will be forever grateful. To my team of wonderful Greens MPs: thank you for your unwavering support. You are all incredible human beings, and it has been a privilege to lead this incredible team. To Adam: you're going to do us proud. To other MPs across the political divide: I know that most of you are here because you believe in making Australia a better place, and I genuinely wish all of you every success in making the next decade better than the last. To all the people who keep our parliament functioning—the clerks, the Senate attendants, the cleaners and the gardeners—thank you so much. To the COMCAR drivers with whom I've spent many a long drive: just thanks for your company. It's been a privilege. And to my family: Lucy, thank you for your incredible support these past 10 years. I could not have done this without you, and I hope I can support you in your career, just as you have done in mine, as we raise two fine young boys. To my boys: time to get the footy boots out, because your old man's back in town. To my mum and dad, who have ridden every bump along the way in support of their little boy: thank you for all of your love—and thanks, Mum, for all those packages of lasagne that I managed to sneak into Parliament House. In my first speech almost a decade ago, fresh faced and optimistic, I quoted Martin Luther King, who said: 'The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.' Now older and greyer after a tough decade in parliament, my faith in that idea is a little shaken, but not broken. Sure, there've been setbacks this past decade, but it will bend towards justice again. It will bend because we will bend it together. Thank you so much.
Let me begin by acknowledging the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nation from whose land I am speaking today, the Ngunawal and Ngambri people on whose land our national parliament meets and the...
Let me begin by acknowledging the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nation from whose land I am speaking today, the Ngunawal and Ngambri people on whose land our national parliament meets and the traditional owners of the lands from right across the country. Mr President, I hope you don't mind me saying that, after announcing my resignation—I'm going to share this with the rest of the world—you sent me a cheeky text message saying that you wouldn't kick me out of the Senate during my final speech. Now I'm not sure how you're going to do that from Melbourne, but I'm going to do my best to behave. I didn't expect that my final speech would take place in a virtual parliament from a locked down city amid a global pandemic. It's a pandemic that's causing untold suffering and hardship across the world. It's a pandemic that follows a devastating summer of bushfires. And it's a pandemic that concludes my decade in this parliament. Over that decade, six different prime ministers have come and gone, climate change remains a festering sore on our body politic, economic inequality has been entrenched, race politics has reared its ugly head again and the gap with our First Nations peoples has grown. If ever there was a time for deep reflection and for a reset of our national politics, this is it. Like many people right across the country, I've had plenty of time to reflect these past few months, and I leave the Australian parliament knowing that, despite the turmoil of the past decade, our nation is a better place because of what we Greens have achieved. One of the first votes that I cast in this place is one of my proudest, as we delivered the world's best climate laws. The Clean Energy Act was a result of the power-sharing arrangement between the Labor Party, the Greens and Independents, and it showed what could be achieved when politicians ditched the partisanship and cooperated in the national interest. Not long after that, I was fortunate to be able to negotiate a $4 billion dental package to provide millions of children with free Medicare funded dental care. 'How good's this?' I thought. Thanks to the Greens, we had a price on carbon, we had billions of dollars flowing into renewable energy projects and we had the first stage of our Denticare plan to roll out Medicare funded dental care to Australians across the country. In politics, just as in life, sometimes you don't know how good things are until they're gone. That power-sharing arrangement may have been tarnished by former prime ministers' quests for vengeance, but it was one of the most productive periods in the nation's history. The Abbott government that followed is infamous for many reasons, but the jaw-dropping 2014 budget, with its full-frontal assault on Medicare and on schools, is seared in my memory. It was like a horror story. Each election, millions of people vote for the Greens because they share our values. But they also vote for us to hold bad governments to account, and that was never more important than during those Abbott years. But the great privilege was taking on the leadership of the Australian Greens just as that government ended, and I like to think that those two things may have been connected. Leadership was a responsibility that weighed very heavily on me. As leader, I confronted successive conservative governments and spent much of my time fighting their attacks on the environment and on people doing it tough. But I'm also proud that, along the way, we achieved some real wins for people. Securing $100 million in funding for Landcare as part of our solution to the backpacker tax stand-off was a good day. Before I was elected to parliament, I often thought these things were the product of careful deliberation and a thorough policy process. But it was a tense meeting with the leader of the Senate in the corridor that allowed us to achieve a great outcome for farmers and for the environment. It took a 28-hour sitting to democratise voting in the Senate after the Labor Party reversed its position and threw everything at us. The Greens policy was based on the very novel idea that, in a democracy, the outcome of an election should reflect how people vote, not backroom deals between political parties. There were lots of wonderful offerings during that long and ugly debate that night, but listening to a senator compare the bill to his colonoscopy had me questioning my life choices. After years of campaigning against multinational tax-dodging, we negotiated important laws that increased penalties on corporations for tax avoidance and profit-shifting. Labor attacked us because the laws didn't go far enough, but when will Labor learn that you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good? Sam Dastyari, of course, led the attack with memes and posters and even a billboard decrying 'Di Natale's dirty deals'. Sam, of course, was an expert on the subject of dirty deals. Working across the political divide carries real risk for a party like ours. We didn't benefit electorally from the power-sharing arrangement with the then Gillard government, but we got some really important policy wins. Getting good policy outcomes on the rare occasions we negotiated with the Liberals also gave our rivals plenty of ammunition, and it did cut across our own message. But I firmly believe that we owe it to the millions of people who vote for us to roll up our sleeves and deliver Greens policy for them. Leading our team in walking out of parliament during Senator Hanson's first speech, rather than sitting in quiet acceptance of her racist views or, worse still, shaking her hand afterwards is another proud moment. Within hours of doing that, our office was flooded with calls, mostly from people from the Australian Muslim community, many in tears, just thankful that they were not alone. Often, during my time in parliament, I felt like I was shouting in the wind. But, in that moment, I knew that our message of solidarity was being heard where it mattered most. I'm proud to have led the party that supported marriage equality long before it was a popular cause and worked tirelessly with campaigners from across the community for decades until it became law. Our work behind the scenes in exposing the corporate greed in our banking and financial sector was critical in helping secure a banking royal commission. When we first advocated for a levy on the big banks, the Liberals slammed us for our economy-wrecking socialist policies. A decade later, they introduced one. It gave me great satisfaction to be upstairs in the ABC's studios at Parliament House doing a radio interview with Senator Paterson, freshly out of the Institute of Public Affairs and now defending another sensible Greens idea. Greens legislation for a national integrity commission to root out corruption was rejected outright by both sides for almost a decade, but we finally won. Now it's time to make sure that an anticorruption watchdog is up to the job of fighting corruption and is not just window dressing. Medicinal cannabis would still be illegal in Australia if it weren't for the Greens. It took our bill to gain cross-party support and joint press conferences with people like renowned Greens hater and LNP senator Ian Macdonald for the government to finally start listening. We've been a lone voice in this place on sensible drug policy, with reforms like pill testing, supervised injecting facilities and adult-use cannabis. And I know there are MPs in this place who agree with us; I just wish they wouldn't find their voice only once they've left parliament. The citizenship scandal that saw us lose two fine senators was one of my toughest times in that place. The first phone call, from Senator Ludlam, came out of the blue, and it triggered a series of events that cast a shadow over the 45th Parliament. A Perth lawyer had been digging around and he discovered that Scott had left New Zealand as a three-year-old and had not renounced his citizenship. I initially thought that the second call, just days later, from Senator Waters was a joke. She told me that she was still waiting for legal confirmation but she believed that she had unknowingly held Canadian citizenship. The legal advice was clear: they were both ineligible to sit in parliament. It's an archaic section of our Constitution and it needs to be changed, but there was no question about what to do next. In the space of a week they had both resigned and I had lost my two deputy leaders. We had let down our members and supporters, the Prime Minister called us sloppy and extraordinarily negligent and the right-wing media went into overdrive, as they do. Of course, we all know what happened in the weeks and months that followed: politicians from all sides were outed, except this time there were delays, denials, blame and expensive High Court challenges at the taxpayers' expense. It's one thing to talk about personal responsibility in this place; it's another thing to demonstrate it. So I leave here feeling incredibly proud of our team, who have behaved with integrity and achieved so much. I leave with a deep sense of personal fulfilment that comes from fighting for a cause bigger than yourself. But, if I'm being really honest, I also leave knowing that successive parliaments in which I've served have failed to achieve lasting reforms on the things that matter: climate change, homelessness, job insecurity, mental illness and protection of our environment. It's easy to put these flaws down to the personal failings of individual prime ministers, but the failings of the past decade are much bigger than that. The very structures that underpin our democracy—many of them established a century ago, have been incapable of responding to the challenges before us. We are currently living through a pandemic of which we were warned but unprepared for. Our National Medical Stockpile was inadequate. Health workers were unable to get masks and we lacked the basic capacity to make our own. Victorians are now locked up in their houses because of the failure of a quarantine system, which failed due to a culture of outsourcing and privatisation. Ongoing outbreaks in aged-care facilities have revealed the ugly truth of how we care, or don't care, for the elderly. We were warned about the threat of a global pandemic, and we've been warned time and again about the threat of catastrophic climate change. And yet the coalition, the Labor Party, the business community and even sections of the union movement are divided over this issue. Despite having the technological tools to address it, despite significant public support and despite a litany of climate fuelled disasters, they remain incapable of reaching internal agreement. The Liberal Party once believed in protecting the environment—in the notion of conservation. Today they're dominated by a reactionary rump that represents corporate rent-seekers who want protection from technological change, like renewable energy. Today, with the climate crisis spiralling out of control, Labor's climate policy is weaker than it was a decade ago. The Labor Party lost me many, many years ago, but they're going to lose a lot more people if they don't muster up a bit of courage and take a stand on climate change. The Business Council worked hand-in-glove with the Abbott government to tear down our climate laws, only to leave their members hopelessly exposed to the risks posed by climate change. All they offer now is lip-service in support of climate action but criticism of anyone with a meaningful plan to do something about it. And during last year's election campaign we had a powerful mining union in Queensland forcing candidates to sign a pledge in support of coalmining and denying them a chance of a long-term future. Not so long ago, our major newspapers would hold these institutions and our political parties to account. Today they host fundraisers for them. The dominant Murdoch media continues to shamelessly promote climate denialism and the ABC has been worn down by relentless attacks and ongoing budget cuts. Social media, which was getting started a decade ago, promised to take power away from media moguls and to democratise debate by giving citizens a voice. Instead, it has become a platform for extremes, where conspiracy theories flourish and where anonymity plays to the worst of human instincts. Our institutions no longer reflect who we are or who we want to become. We urgently need a new era of sweeping political and economic reform, and it has to start by making our democracy work for people and not for corporations. The first political fight I saw up close in this place was when I watched a cashed-up gambling lobby descend on Parliament House like a pack of vultures and shamelessly sink popular pokies reform. Since that time, I've seen the same story play out over and over and over again, whether it's the mining tax, alcohol regulation or action on climate change. The formula they use is always the same: keep the donations flowing; deploy an army of lobbyists, preferably politicians, so they can exploit their connections; host fundraisers; run big campaigns against anyone who threatens your bottom line; pay thousands to get a seat at the minister's table, and the bigger the cheque, the better the seat. That awful new fence that surrounds Parliament House now is symbolic of this rotten culture. We've closed off the building to the community but we've thrown the gates wide open to vested interests with deep pockets. A representative democracy should represent the full diversity of its citizens. Instead, ours represents a political class who tread the well-worn path of student politics to political staffer to parliamentary politics. Our parliament and the Australian nation are two different countries. We need more women, more people from different cultural and economic backgrounds, more young people in our parliament. It shouldn't take a pandemic to force the introduction of technologies like the one we're using right now, which is going to make it easier for parents and carers and people with disabilities—those from rural backgrounds—to engage in our democracy. Our parliament is not representative of how people vote, either. The National Party, with about four per cent of the national vote, returns 16 lower house MPs. The Greens, with almost three times that vote, returns one MP. Yet for nearly two decades a tiny, overrepresented, anticlimate party has been crucial in blocking action on climate change. If we had proportional representation so that our national parliament fairly represented the wishes of voters, the climate change debate would be largely over. This pandemic has demonstrated the critical role of looking after people. We've got to get our democracy working for people. The pandemic has also exposed the lie that government can't support those in need. For years, the low rate of Newstart condemned people to a life of poverty, and that has only changed because millions more Australians have been forced to live that reality. We now effectively have a universal income, and it should stay. We've been gradually heading towards a two-tier, privatised, American style health system, but we know the best insurance against any pandemic is Medicare and our precious public health system. The crisis has again exposed a tough reality for people in insecure and inadequate housing. We need a massive new build of public housing, which would create jobs and investment. Online communication has been critical for people during this period of isolation, keeping people connected and allowing businesses to continue functioning. It's now an essential service. Free access to high-quality internet would give many more people opportunity to flourish. And real action on climate change is nation building. Phasing out dirty, expensive, coal-fired power and gas and replacing it with renewable energy means thousands of new jobs. There are jobs, too, in building network infrastructure and new storage systems and in the electrification of our transport system. Investment in revegetation and—
I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the telehealth Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) items introduced during the COVID-19 crisis have provided many Australian patients...
I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the telehealth Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) items introduced during the COVID-19 crisis have provided many Australian patients with safe, continued access to healthcare from their homes when they might otherwise have forgone these consultations, (ii) telehealth provides particular benefits for patients with mobility issues, disadvantaged families, rural and remote patients, and Indigenous Australians, (iii) the telehealth items, spanning general practice, mental health, specialist, allied health and other consultations have allowed greater protection for healthcare professionals during the pandemic, while allowing them to continue delivering care to patients, (iv) greater use of telehealth has been a long-term reform objective in the Australian health system for many years, and has the potential to allow greater, more equitable access to healthcare across Australia long after the COVID-19 pandemic, and (v) the current telehealth items introduced during COVID-19 are due to expire on 30 September 2020; (b) acknowledges that: (i) telehealth consultations cannot and should not fully replace face-to-face consultations, but offer choice and accessibility to healthcare when required, and (ii) video consultations are preferable to telephone consultations where possible, while acknowledging that Australians have inequitable access to high quality broadband services, and some older Australians in particular face barriers to accessing video consultations; and (c) calls on the Government to make the telehealth MBS items permanent, with a full evaluation after 12 months, including of patient access, compliance, and continuity of care. Question agreed to.
Export Control Legislation Amendment (Certification of Narcotic Exports) Bill 2020; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
I rise in support of the Export Control Legislation Amendment (Certification of Narcotic Exports) Bill 2020. This bill removes barriers to Australian hemp and medicinal cannabis companies...
I rise in support of the Export Control Legislation Amendment (Certification of Narcotic Exports) Bill 2020. This bill removes barriers to Australian hemp and medicinal cannabis companies exporting their products to supply international markets. The Greens support this bill because we understand the many potential benefits of medicinal cannabis and we support a healthy Australian medicinal cannabis industry. But this bill also raises serious concerns about the domestic market. Since the Greens led the charge for the introduction of medicinal cannabis as far back as 2015, I've been highlighting the enormous barriers to patient access to medicinal cannabis in Australia. The TGA arrangements at present are failing to provide people with timely, cost-effective access. As a result of the problems within the current regulatory system, we undertook a detailed inquiry into the barriers and problems with regulation of medicinal cannabis in Australia. We did that earlier this year and the committee tabled its report in March. It's now essential that the government implement the recommendations of that report. At the end of my speech I'm going to be moving a second reading amendment to that effect. It's really important to understand the history here. The government made medicinal cannabis legal in 2015 and set up the regulatory framework through The Therapeutic Goods Administration. At that time we advocated very strongly that a separate, independent standalone regulator be established to allow people to access medicinal cannabis. That's the approach taken by many jurisdictions right across the world, recognising the very unique issues associated with a drug that in many circumstances has been prohibited for consumption and understanding also that medicinal cannabis is not one drug but indeed many different drugs. We decided to give the government the benefit of the doubt. It was a big change at the time. Up until 2015 it was illegal, full stop, for a doctor to prescribe a patient medicinal cannabis. But what we've seen now is that the system is failing people. In the five years that have now passed, what we've seen is people failing to get access to medicinal cannabis when they need it. The barriers are many and I'll go through some of them in a moment. The Community Affairs inquiry into patient access to medicinal cannabis uncovered a range of issues which advocates in the industry have been highlighting for many, many years. At the moment, if a doctor wants to prescribe a patient medicinal cannabis, they require the use of the Special Access Scheme through the TGA. This is important to understand. The TGA regulates products for approval here in Australia, but where there's a pharmaceutical drug that's from another jurisdiction, that hasn't yet entered the Australian market and hasn't been approved for use in Australia, there is a special provision called the Special Access Scheme that allows doctors to seek permission to prescribe that product. That's a scheme that was designed to be used in exceptional circumstances for drugs that may be of benefit to a limited number of people. The scheme was never intended to be used at scale for something like medicinal cannabis. It's remarkable—you've got the regulator, the TGA, that is designed specifically to regulate for the approval of pharmaceutical products, and they've been chosen to regulate a drug which bypasses their normal approval processes and uses something called the Special Access Scheme. As I said, what that scheme does is to allow for the prescription of products not yet approved for sale here in Australia, but it requires doctors to jump through a number of hoops in order to be able to prescribe it. It requires doctors to complete a detailed form every time, per patient, per script. There is another way in which you can avoid having to go through that approval process for every specific script for a patient. You can become what is known as an authorised prescriber, but, again, the number of authorised prescribers has been extremely limited, and not only is the process for becoming an authorised prescriber onerous but also the committee found that the required approvals are really hard to come by. There are very few people who have been designated as having authorised prescriber status. I will just give a practical example. When I was in general practice, if a patient came in to see me I could write a script for an opiate. Opiates are drugs—codeine type drugs and other injectable preparations of opiates, like pethidine, for example. I can write a script for an opiate like codeine without requiring any approval from anywhere else. It's up to my discretion as a prescribing doctor as to whether I think the patient will benefit from an opiate. Now, we know from what is happening here in Australia—indeed, right around the world—that there is a crisis in overdose deaths from prescription opiates. In the US, tens of thousands of people are dying from prescription overdose deaths. I can do the same for benzodiazepine type drugs—I can write a script. And we know that, when it comes to the use of drugs like opiates and benzodiazepines, people do die when they are taken in large quantities. The potential for overdose is very real. I don't require any approval to be able to prescribe those drugs, and yet I have to jump through a range of hoops to prescribe a drug like medicinal cannabis, for which there has not been one documented case of overdose. When you talk about the relative safety of particular drugs, medicinal cannabis is safer than over-the-counter drugs like alcohol. We're trying to put a square peg into a round hole. The issues don't stop there. Doctors are struggling to get the necessary training and information they need to appropriately prescribe these products. Look, when I was training, we didn't even know there was an endocannabinoid system—it was something that just wasn't understood in medicine. We know now that medicinal cannabis products work because we have our own endogenous system, our own endocannabinoid system—our own body produces variations of these drugs itself, and that's why these products are effective. We didn't know about that only a short time ago. So the amount of information that doctors have on cannabis type products is very limited. Indeed, the only training I got was that cannabis is a dangerous drug and you need to ensure that people stay away from it. If you can find a doctor who's willing to undertake the paperwork and feels comfortable in prescribing, you're going to find red tape in accessing medication thanks to the overlapping regulation not just at a federal level through the TGA process but also at a state level. I'm sure we'll have a contribution later on where we hear about the huge problems in Tasmania specifically, where that state has decided to make it harder than any other state for someone to access medicinal cannabis. If you manage to go through the tangle of federal and state restrictions, patients are then going to be hit by the enormous cost associated with accessing these products because they're not subsidised—again, unlike other medications. So patients who need these treatments, who will benefit from them and who want to do the right thing continue to use the black market because they can get these products cheaply. Unfortunately they don't know what they're getting, it's an unregulated market and often what people think they're getting is not what they're purchasing, but they are being forced to break the law. Our inquiry included contributions from senators on all sides and made unanimous recommendations on how to urgently fix this failing system. These recommendations need to be the government's highest priority in this area. While we support our local industry accessing export markets, surely we should be looking after Australian patients first. Our committee has recommended that immediate changes be made to both the Special Access Scheme and the Authorised Prescriber Scheme to allow a smoother, simpler, more straightforward process for doctors. We recommend that investment be made by the government and by the colleges to ensure that appropriate doctor education is available so that people learn about the endocannabinoid system and the benefits of medicinal cannabis rather than the stigma that's currently associated with the use of these products. Crucially we recommend that the government investigate a compassionate subsidy scheme for medicinal cannabis so that patients are not faced with huge price tags just for accessing their medication. Right now, when people are given a script, they can be forced to pay hundreds and hundreds of dollars each month simply to get access to a medication that would be of tremendous benefit to them and their families. Through the committee we made a number of other recommendations, and I commend the report to all senators, but the key one is that the government moves forward to reform the system—that we establish an independent, stand-alone expert regulator for medicinal cannabis and move away from the TGA system, which is good for what it needs to do, but we are trying to put a square peg into a round hole. The report said very clearly that the government should reform the system if barriers to patient access persisted 12 months after tabling the report. Personally, I would've liked to have seen a stronger recommendation—immediate reform of the system—but, working across the divide with both Liberal and Labor senators, we accepted that the government be given 12 months to address the inadequacies of the regulation associated with medicinal cannabis. We know that an independent regulator which understands many of the complexities associated with medicinal cannabis would allow for far greater patient access. That's experienced in many jurisdictions overseas. The irony of the current system is that, although the TGA is the pharmaceuticals regulator—it regulates the introduction of pharmaceutical products in Australia—most medicinal cannabis bypasses the normal regulatory framework within the TGA through the Special Access Scheme. So it circumvents the processes that are established within the TGA to regulate medicines. We have decided to use a regulator to regulate medicinal cannabis only to have it bypass their normal regulatory processes. It makes no sense, it's not sustainable and Australians deserve much better. Of course, all these improvements to patient access would improve the viability of the Australian medicinal cannabis industry. This is a young market. It's just starting out and it wants to supply a domestic market, but the barriers are so high that despite knowing how many Australians are likely to benefit from these treatments there are only a trickle of prescriptions coming through. Yes, there has been incremental improvement over recent months, but it's coming off an extraordinarily low baseline and is still not enough to meet the extraordinary demand there is for medicinal cannabis progress. It's been estimated that millions of Australians would benefit from the use of medicinal cannabis or at least a trial of those products. At the moment, all we have is a few thousand Australians being able to access those products. We know that our domestic market isn't enough to sustain a medicinal cannabis industry, and that's why the export market is important. As I've said, we do support that, but let's sort out our system here in Australia so that Australians can benefit from medicinal cannabis products. I have said on many occasions that this isn't a wonder drug. It doesn't have the benefits that some advocates purport, but it does have many, many potential benefits. You only need to talk to people who've experienced a remarkable improvement in their quality of life to know that this is a drug that Australians should be able to get access to. The key issue for both industry and patient access domestically is the descheduling of CBD, one of the components of medicinal cannabis—and again it's important to understand here that THC is the drug with the psychoactive effect; CBD products don't have any psychoactive effects—and there's now a move to deschedule CBD-only products so that they can be accessed like other complementary medicines. Since the inquiry, the TGA has begun a progress to down-schedule small-quantity-CBD products, from schedule 4 to schedule 3, so they can be available over the counter at pharmacies, rather than requiring a prescription. It's a good start, but the issue remains that even schedule-3 CBD—which, as I said, has no capacity to create a so-called high; we know it's safe, we know it's well understood—would still require registration on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Drugs, requiring all the years of huge investment in clinical trials. Clinical trials are important, but they shouldn't be a barrier. So we support the bill, but it's time we got on with fixing the situation at home so that Australians can access medicinal cannabis products here. I therefore move the following second reading amendment: At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate calls on the Government to urgently implement the recommendations contained in the report of the Community Affairs References Committee on its inquiry into current barriers to patient access to medicinal cannabis".
West Papua | Adjournment | Senate debates
One of the great privileges of being a member of parliament is that you get the opportunity to shine a light on important issues that are too often ignored. Tonight, I want to do something that...
One of the great privileges of being a member of parliament is that you get the opportunity to shine a light on important issues that are too often ignored. Tonight, I want to do something that I've tried to do many times over the last decade in this place, and that is to bring attention to the plight of the West Papuan people. West Papua, which covers the two western peninsulas of the island of New Guinea, was occupied by the Dutch until 1969, when it came under the control of Indonesia. Since that time, Indonesia has killed more than 500,000 Indonesian Papuans—half a million men, women and children—simply because they were fighting for freedom and for independence. I first became aware of the West Papuan cause through my involvement in the East Timorese independence movement. The conflict and bloodshed following the 1999 Timorese independence referendum resulted in the evacuation of hundreds of East Timorese refugees to Australia and, as a young doctor, I flew to Darwin to help with medical checks and ensuring that those refugees were able to settle temporarily here in Australia. I later travelled to Timor-Leste, where I visited the graves of many East Timorese people killed in their bloody struggle, and heard firsthand about the atrocities committed by the Indonesian military. There are some eerie parallels with the conflict occurring in West Papua. Our assistance to Timor-Leste during the referendum was a bright spot in an otherwise dark history. In the 1970s, Gough Whitlam assented to Indonesian President Suharto's plan to occupy what was then referred to as Portuguese Timor. We failed to investigate and hold anyone to account as they murdered Australian journalists—the Balibo Five. They were murdered by Indonesian security forces in Timor in 1975. Indeed, subsequent administrations cooperated and conspired with the Indonesian military and President Suharto to obscure details about conditions in Timor-Leste and to preserve Indonesian control of the region. Of course, after Timor-Leste's independence, Australia spent well over the next decade undermining our newest neighbour, behaving reprehensibly in our maritime boundary dispute. Indeed, it's going on right now, with the secret trial of Bernard Colleary, who had the temerity to blow the whistle on the illegal spying of one of the world's poorest nations. It seems we've learned nothing. The West Papuan people today face oppression and violence under Indonesian rule, just as the East Timorese did. For decades now, the West Papuans have endured a brutal injustice. Since the effective takeover by Indonesia in 1969, they have suffered a UN process that's been rigged against them and endured countless human rights abuses. What has been occurring in West Papua is described by many people as a slow-motion genocide. Half a million West Papuans have been slaughtered at the hands of the Indonesian military and militia. It's a genocide that's facilitated by the support given to the Indonesian government by Australia through military training and other support. Successive Australian governments have also supported Indonesia's actions in more insidious ways. Indonesia refuses free access to West Papua by the media and UN observers yet Australia has remained silent and we have been silent in the face of the countless deaths of peaceful protesters. In the second half of last year, we watched the violence dramatically escalate in West Papua. It became international news. West Papuans were killed while protesting and were detained and charged with treason for doing nothing other than flying their flag, the Morning Star. This week seven West Papuan activists and students are on trial for treason for their involvement in the protests in Jayapura. For decades the Indonesian government has discriminated against West Papua's Melanesian people. There's been a deep-seated racism at the approach of the Indonesian authorities. The protests last year were sparked by Indonesian militants and soldiers, who called West Papuan students monkeys. The seven defendants—Buchtar Tabuni, Agus Kossay, Stevanus Itlay, Ferry Gombo, Alexander Gobai, Irwanus Uropmabin and Hengki Hilapok—face between five and 17 years in prison. Their trial is a travesty of justice, something that's recognised by many decent Indonesian people who have opposed sending these activists to prison for treason. Just like we did for decades over East Timor, the Australian government has been silent in the face of systematic human rights abuses. There are many Australians who stand in solidarity with the people of West Papua, and I'm certain there would be many, many more if this tragedy received the attention it deserves. Over the years I've worked with many of these incredibly passionate, decent people, some of them from West Papua, like Ronny Kareni, Jacob Rumbiak, Rex Rumakiek, some of them Australians, like Peter Arndt, Louise Byrne, Jennifer Robinson, Jason McLeod and Joe Collins, some musicians, like David Bridie, who dedicated so much creative energy to the West Papuan struggle, and some Indonesian human rights activists, like Veronica Koman, an amazing advocate for justice here in Australia. Some put themselves at great risk simply for speaking out. Over the years I have worked with this wonderful community on West Papuan self-determination and human rights and have witnessed them come under surveillance from the Indonesian authorities yet they remain resolute in their determination. In parliament here in Australia some brave MPs have spoken out, politicians from across the political divide, people like Jane Prentice from the Liberal Party, Laurie Ferguson and more recently Ged Kearney from Labor. The Greens have always stood in solidarity with the West Papuan community. In Indonesian President Widodo's recent visit, our parliamentary leader, Adam Bandt, confronted him directly on the issue, despite our Prime Minister refusing to raise it. I hope that soon my parliamentary colleagues will do what I haven't been able to do, and that is to organise a parliamentary visit to West Papua to see firsthand the situation and report it back to the world. I hope I can support such a visit in some way. I may be leaving the parliament, but I will continue fighting to stop Australia from repeating the mistakes of the past. I'll continue to support West Papua in standing against oppression and injustice, West Papuans like the 1.8 million people who managed to covertly and under huge threat sign a petition calling for self-determination only a few years ago. Their struggle is our struggle. As the West Papuans say: 'Merdeka'.
COVID-19: Health Care | Motions | Senate debates
I move: That the Senate— (a) pays tribute to Australia's world-class healthcare professionals for their incredible, life-saving work during the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic; (b)...
I move: That the Senate— (a) pays tribute to Australia's world-class healthcare professionals for their incredible, life-saving work during the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic; (b) recognises that healthcare workers have placed themselves at personal peril while at work in order to save the lives of others during the pandemic, including in the face of shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE); (c) further recognises the role of our exceptional public health experts who have led Australia's response to the pandemic; (d) notes with gratitude the professionalism and dedication of our doctors, nurses, allied health professionals and all those working in our public health system, during the pandemic and throughout their careers; (e) acknowledges the significant mental health burden on health professionals during this challenging time; and (f) calls on the Federal Government to: (i) support and appropriately fund Australia's world-class public health system and all those delivering essential health care within it, and (ii) ensure that no healthcare worker is put at greater risk through lack of access to PPE or other essential equipment.
Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment (Enhancing Australia's Anti-Doping Capability) Bill 2019; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
I just indicate that the Australian Greens will be supporting that amendment. Indeed, Greens amendment (5) was an amendment with a similar effect. As I indicated in my speech in the second...
I just indicate that the Australian Greens will be supporting that amendment. Indeed, Greens amendment (5) was an amendment with a similar effect. As I indicated in my speech in the second reading debate, we do have concerns around lowering the threshold. We think that where the standard sits at the moment is appropriate. In light of the Labor Party moving their amendment, we'll be withdrawing our amendment (5). Question negatived. by leave—I move Greens amendments (1), (3) (4) and (8) on sheet 8966 together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2, column 1), omit "4", substitute "4A". (3) Schedule 1, item 16, page 5 (lines 17 and 18), omit the item, substitute: 16 Subsection 14(4) Omit "ADRVP", substitute "CEO". (4) Schedule 1, item 40, page 9 (lines 5 to 9), omit subsection 78(5), substitute: (5) A national sporting organisation of Australia, or a person performing work or services for the organisation, is not liable to an action or other proceeding for damages for or in relation to an act done or omitted to be done in good faith: (a) in the performance or purported performance of any function given to the national sporting organisation under the NAD scheme; or (b) in the exercise or purported exercise of any power given to the national sporting organisation under the NAD scheme. (8) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 6), after Part 4, insert: Part 4A—Athlete ombudsman 48A At the end of section 14 Add: Athlete Ombudsman (6) The NAD scheme must establish an Athlete Ombudsman. (7) The functions of the Athlete Ombudsman must include: (a) providing independent advice to athletes and support persons, at no cost, in relation to the operation of the NAD scheme and this Act; and (b) investigating complaints made in relation to matters arising under the NAD scheme; and (c) providing assistance in disputes arising in relation to matters under the NAD scheme; and (d) establishing and maintaining a list of legal practitioners who are able to provide pro bono assistance to athletes and support persons in relation to matters arising under the NAD scheme. (8) All money required to give effect to the Athlete Ombudsman is to be funded out of money appropriated by the Parliament for the purposes of this section. We also oppose schedule 1 in the following terms: (2) Schedule 1, item 14, page 5 (lines 13 and 14), to be opposed. (6) Schedule 1, item 45, page 11 (lines 7 to 9), to be opposed. (7) Schedule 1, item 47, page 11 (line 12) to page 12 (line 3), to be opposed. As I indicated in my speech in the second reading debate, we have a number of concerns about other elements of this bill. I won't repeat those concerns. Suffice it to say that we believe that these amendments improve this legislation. We're supportive of the broad thrust of the bill. We're pleased that the disclosure threshold hasn't been lowered, and we believe these other amendments would improve the bill significantly. They, I think, would allow a strengthening of the anti-doping framework without compromising the fundamental rights of athletes, including the right not to self-incriminate.
Medically Supervised Injecting Rooms | Motions | Senate debates
Before moving general business notice of motion No. 623, I wish to inform the chamber that Senator Keneally will also sponsor the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senator Keneally, move: That the...
Before moving general business notice of motion No. 623, I wish to inform the chamber that Senator Keneally will also sponsor the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senator Keneally, move: That the Senate— (a) welcomes the announcement from the Victorian government that a life-saving medically supervised injecting facility will be opened in the Melbourne CBD; only the second in Victoria and third in Australia; (b) further welcomes the continuation of the trial of the Medically Supervised Injecting Room (MSIR) in North Richmond for another three years; (c) notes that the MSIR trial review, released last week, found that: (i) since its commencement in June 2018, the North Richmond MSIR has been one of the busiest supervised injecting facilities in the world, with 119,223 visits in the first 18 months, (ii) despite 271 serious overdose incidents, no overdose deaths have occurred in the MSIR, and at least 21 lives have been saved, (iii) there has been a reduction in local ambulance call-outs due to overdoses, and (iv) there has been a reduction in reports of public injecting; (d) acknowledges that the Uniting Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (Uniting MSIC), which opened in Kings Cross, Sydney, in May 2001 has managed 8,500 overdoses since commencement with zero deaths; (e) notes with concern that in Australia there are more than 2,000 preventable drug overdose deaths per year; (f) recognises that supervised injecting facilities save lives; and (g) calls on the Government to act to prevent drug overdose deaths by: (i) supporting the states and territories in the establishment of supervised injecting facilities wherever there is need across Australia, (ii) expanding access to drug treatment programs across Australia, (iii) expanding access to needle and syringe programs across the country, including urgent roll out of trials inside prisons, and (iv) promoting awareness of the life-saving opioid reversal drug naloxone and making it free for all people at risk of experiencing or witnessing an overdose.
Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment (Enhancing Australia's Anti-Doping Capability) Bill 2019; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
I rise today to speak about the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment (Enhancing Australia's Anti-Doping Capability) Bill 2019. When we think of ourselves as Australians, we often...
I rise today to speak about the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment (Enhancing Australia's Anti-Doping Capability) Bill 2019. When we think of ourselves as Australians, we often think of ourselves as a sporting nation. There is a lot to be proud of there: 14 million of us participate in sport annually and almost two million people volunteer each year in a whole range of different ways. They might be involved in their local football, soccer, netball, cricket, rugby league, rugby union, basketball, swimming or athletics club, and it goes on and on and on. We love our sport. We need to do everything we can to protect that wonderful sporting culture. We have to make sure that we support community sport, but we also have to ensure that there is integrity at the highest levels in sport. We know that that trust can be shattered when we learn that a high-profile athlete—someone who kids look up to—has been found cheating. They undermine people's faith in a really important institution for all Australians. That's not fair, and Australians want a level playing field when it comes to engagement in sport. Of course there are lots of things that can challenge the integrity of our sporting culture. This bill addresses the issue of doping violations, but the Wood review, as was mentioned in the earlier contribution from Senator Farrell, went well beyond anti-doping violations to the whole issue of the commercialisation of sport. For example: there is the rise in sports betting, which has resulted in the manipulation of outcomes and, again, further undermining of the integrity of sport. So, from the outset, it is absolutely critical that we see a level playing field, that we make sure that all athletes are participating fairly and doing what they do because they love what they do—that they are doing it honestly and are able to compete on a level playing field. We need to do everything we can to stop people who game the system, who manipulate the system and who cheat. But we do have to think about it as a system. It's not just an athlete in isolation. As I've said previously in this place, modern sport is an industry. It's big business, and athletes don't compete on their own. I often listen to Ash Barty, one of Australia's most significant figures, I think, in Australian sport over the past decade. You rarely hear Ash Barty talk about herself as Ash Barty the individual; it's always 'our team'. High-profile athletes are almost always part of a much bigger team—they're surrounded by coaches, trainers, nutritionists and physios, and a whole range of other support staff. I said this when we were debating an earlier bill: it's true that athletes will always bear ultimate responsibility for what goes into their bodies, and pay the price when mistakes are made. But if athletes and entire teams are found to have wandered into the doping grey areas and beyond, it's as much an organisational failure—a systems failure—as a case of individual cheating by athletes. So we need to consider that context; that context is absolutely critical. I actually heard from a range of former athletes when I was engaged previously in this portfolio and was prosecuting a previous bill. What we've heard was that athletes find this system very invasive. It's intense and it exposes them to a level of scrutiny that very few people can imagine. They're required to frequently report their whereabouts. Holidays are really hard to organise—they have to be available for testing. They basically have to have their sport control all aspects of their lives; their diary has to be absolutely coordinated with any potential for testing, and it makes life difficult. Most people do it, and they do it voluntarily and willingly because they love what they do, but it does provide a huge challenge for many athletes. Of most concern, we've heard from athletes who've received antidoping violations for missing an appointment for absolutely valid reasons. We've heard from athletes who have provided a sample but have left competition because they needed to get home and have received a sanction for not providing a second sample, even though the first sample might have been clean. If an athlete has enough of those warnings, it has a huge impact on their career, even though they participate honestly and with integrity and there's no question about whether they actually engage in cheating. So, given the concerns that have been raised with us, it's important that we scrutinise all of the proposed changes to this bill and understand what their impact is on decent people: the athletes who do what they love, and who do it so that we can enjoy watching them excel in their chosen sport. In 2013 I was successful in securing amendments to an ASADA bill that protected an athlete's right to silence. At the time I said it was my view that the privilege against self-incrimination was fundamental to our democratic system of justice and that forcing an athlete or support personnel to give evidence, even if it could compromise their own career, flew in the face of this principle. Senator Farrell said this earlier. This is a right we afford to criminals and to people who are facing criminal charges. If it's a right that's afforded to people who are facing criminal charges, then surely it's a right that should be afforded to athletes. It's a fundamental legal principle. We do support a better system, a fairer system, but we do have to scrutinise the detail of this bill very, very clearly. We do have some concerns about some of the matters that are reflected in this bill, and it's for that reason that we'll be proposing some amendments shortly. I want to take a moment to talk about some of the processes in ASADA's work. An important process in legal terms is its use of disclosure notices. As the Bills Digest explains: ASADA has power to issue a disclosure notice to compel certain persons to attend for questioning and to produce documents and things. ASADA can enforce its disclosure notices with civil penalties. It's an important part of the investigative power that ASADA uses, and there are very clear parameters around disclosure notices because the use of those disclosure notices has a very direct impact on the lives of athletes and on their experiences of interacting with what is a very complex system. One of the changes in this bill is that it would lower the threshold required for the CEO of ASADA to issue a disclosure notice. At the moment, the CEO has to have a 'reasonable belief' that a person has 'information, documents or things that may be relevant to the administration of the NAD scheme', the National Anti-Doping Scheme, before issuing a disclosure notice. We think that's appropriate. But what this bill does is change the notion of a 'reasonable belief' to that of a 'reasonable suspicion'. What's a suspicion? Is it a hunch? If someone's performance has improved over a period of time and we have a hunch they might be cheating, we might issue a disclosure notice. We are very concerned that, in lowering the threshold for disclosure notices to a 'reasonable suspicion', it is actually setting the threshold for the use of what is a very significant power far too low. You only have to talk to the various key stakeholders to know just how concerned they are. The Australian Athletes' Alliance noted: The breadth of the information that can be requested in a disclosure notice is broad. Given that compliance may place a significant burden the person receiving a disclosure notice, it is reasonable to require that the CEO actually believe that the disclosure notice will yield relevant information. A suspicion, which is tantamount to a hunch, even if reasonable, is not enough to require an athlete to provide their personal data, phone, computer, bank accounts, and other private information. That's the view of the Australian Athletes' Alliance. I think it's one that is absolutely reasonable. There's also a second aspect of the changes to disclosure notices that we've got concerns about. The bill will make it harder for athletes to access the document retained by the CEO, changing their rights to access it from 'at such times that the person would ordinarily be able to do so' to 'at such times and places as the CEO thinks appropriate'. So we think it's reasonable that, if ASADA has significant powers to issue these disclosure notices, there's some transparency and that athletes have the right to access that information. My colleague Senator Rice has also spoken to many of the people who've struggled with this system and with knowing what information is being relied on as they navigate what's a very complex process. They have had their phones accessed. They've faced significant bureaucratic hurdles just to find out what information has been taken off their phones. Of course there's a role for appropriate investigations to make sure the system's fair, but it should be fair and it should be transparent, and it's reasonable that athletes be able to access the information that's provided via disclosure notices. Again, when we secured the changes I mentioned earlier in the previous legislation, we also secured the right to silence in that legislation. This bill removes that right—that is, athletes would no longer be able to refuse to answer questions under a disclosure notice because it would self-incriminate. Again, that's something that we afford in the justice system to people accused of criminal charges. But, despite the fact that we secured that in previous legislation, what we're finding now is that the governing bodies are using contracts as a way to impose a requirement that athletes self-incriminate in response to a disclosure notice. What that effectively does is take away their right to silence. So what you're seeing is an undermining of legislative protection via the use of contracts. Athletes use their right to silence when they sign a contract to play a particular sport. It's a separate question, and it's not really one for this bill, but it's something we are concerned about and something that should be addressed. Another part of the process is that currently the ASADA CEO has to have the approval of the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel before issuing the disclosure notices. We're persuaded by the views of stakeholders that the panel hasn't added much in the way of oversight, but we think it's important that athletes retain the right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. They might not be able to appeal the panel's decision to the AAT, but we think they should retain the right to appeal the ASADA CEO's decision to the AAT and we're going to move an amendment to that affect. Another amendment ensures that there would be some protection for national sporting organisations from civil liability where the actions are in line with the National Anti-Doping Scheme. That protection would extend more broadly. Again, I'd like to quote the Australian Athletes Alliance, who say: We oppose this amendment because it would deny an athlete any recourse if they suffer a loss as a result of their NSO's— national sporting organisation's— breach of its duty of care. Even for an athlete who is exonerated, the ramifications of an anti-doping matter on their career, mental health, and reputation can be substantial. Accordingly, an NSO must be required to exercise due care and, if it fails to do so, an athlete should be able to hold it to account. We've heard of athletes who are not able to compete after circumstances beyond their control, such as, as I said earlier, not being able to provide a second sample because they had to catch a flight, even though their first sample was clean. There are lots and lots of stories. Some of them are from household names, people who have competed internationally. Some are competing in their spare time on top of full-time work. There's an example that's in the news at the moment—the sample taken from Bronson Xerri in November 2019 where the results weren't released until months later in 2020. Of course where there's a reasonable suspicion it's appropriate to conduct an investigation, but surely it should be timely and transparent given the impact it's going to have on that person's life? Finally, there's an amendment that would establish an ombudsman to support athletes. We think that's important. The legislation that's been passed by this place is significant. It will result in major changes to the sports integrity framework. We think there should be an athletes ombudsman established. Again, we want a clear system and we want a level playing field, but we also want to ensure some basic fundamental rights for athletes who are under investigation. So we support the overall objective the government is pursuing, but we will be moving amendments to make the system fairer. (Time expired)
Illicit Drugs | Adjournment | Senate debates
I rise today to speak in support of the surprise announcement from the Victorian government that a second supervised injecting facility will be established in the Melbourne CBD, and that the site...
I rise today to speak in support of the surprise announcement from the Victorian government that a second supervised injecting facility will be established in the Melbourne CBD, and that the site of the North Richmond centre will be extended for another three years. I want to congratulate the Victorian government on this courageous decision. It is a decision that will save lives. When we treat drug dependence as a health condition rather than as a law and order issue, we save lives. This is a rare positive moment in the fight for drug law reform and harm reduction that we've been fighting over recent years. We know what works, and yet the government continues to demonise and stigmatise people who become dependent on drugs and, worse still, to starve those drug and alcohol treatment centres that we know help people of the funds they so desperately need. I've said it before: the war on drugs is a war on people, and this government is leading the charge. If you want to know what drives someone in politics, look at what they did before they came to this place. Before entering parliament, I was a drug and alcohol clinician in Geelong. I worked in India, setting up drug treatment programs and providing clean needles and syringes. One thing I learnt was that when people become dependent on a drug it is no longer a choice. It leads to a downward spiral: families are torn apart, relationships are lost and people lose their livelihoods. They're often homeless; that's not a choice. The real crime here is not the crime committed by a system that says, 'If you take a drug, you're a criminal.' The real crime is denying people the treatment and the support that they need, and that's what this government is doing. Drug and alcohol treatment works and saves lives, yet this government has starved the alcohol and drug treatment sector of resources. More than one in two people who come in for treatment will be denied the treatment they need. They won't get it. I got sick of looking someone in the eye when they were ready to take those first positive steps towards breaking that cycle of dependence and saying to them, 'We can't get you a bed,' or, 'We can't get you a spot in a treatment facility.' We know that clean needles prevent the spread of diseases like hepatitis C and HIV, yet still people can't get access to them. In prisons, you're denied access to clean needles and syringes. This is not just about IV drug use. We know that when it comes to things like young people taking pills—and it doesn't matter what anyone in this joint says about it—they will continue to do it. Here's the reason: many of them enjoy it and have a good time when they're taking pills. However, we know that they're putting their lives at risk. We know that they'll take a substance of unknown purity that will sometimes be contaminated with something else, and we've got the potential to stop that through pill testing. Yet, despite successful trials here in the ACT, this government has done everything it can to stop pill testing at festivals. I've met organisers from right across the country who want to introduce it, yet they're threatened with the loss of their licence or with having policing fees ratcheted up when they consider it. We need to see pill testing at all festivals, and we need to see pill testing across fixed sites in the community. That's the Greens' policy. Cannabis is another area where there's major reform going on right across the country. We know that in Canada right now people can get access to cannabis safely. We know that in many states in the US and in many European countries it's less harmful than alcohol; we know that the major harm is that you're putting someone in contact with criminals. How about we put the health professionals in charge? How about we regulate it tightly, give people advice and have referral services set up for people who get into trouble with their drug use? We could do that, but this government refuses to act. COVID-19 has shown us what happens when you listen to experts. It's shown us what happens when you have the courage to ignore the rabid right-wing corporate media and listen to the people who know what they're talking about. It's about time the Australian government listened to the experts and did something to help save people's lives.
Marginalisation of Ethnically Diverse Communities | Motions | Senate debates
I just want to record, to save another division, that obviously the Greens support all aspects of that motion.
Before moving general business notice of motion No. 562, I inform the chamber that Senator Griff will also co-sponsor the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators Faruqi and Griff, move: That...
Before moving general business notice of motion No. 562, I inform the chamber that Senator Griff will also co-sponsor the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators Faruqi and Griff, move: That the Senate— (a) notes with serious concern the further marginalisation of ethnically diverse communities in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic; (b) recognises that: (i) anti-Asian racism has spiked during COVID-19, and there has been a sharp increase in reported cases of racist incidents in the public and racial discrimination complaints made to the Australian Human Rights Commission, and (ii) the Asian Australian Alliance's COVID-19 Incident Report Survey found that 81% of the respondents said recent racist incidents they experienced were a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic; (c) celebrates Australia's cultural diversity as essential to who we are as a nation; and (d) calls on the Government to: (i) fund an ongoing national anti-racism campaign through the Human Rights Commission, (ii) establish a charter of rights that ensures everyone in Australia is treated equally with guaranteed access to essential services, and that the Government cannot discriminate against anyone based on the colour of their skin or their visa status, (iii) take a stand against racism by adding hate speech to the Criminal Code Act; and (iv) ensure that ethnically diverse communities are not left behind in the nation's recovery from COVID-19.
Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
I rise to speak to the Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020. Let me start by sending my profound thanks to the many unsung heroes of this pandemic—the doctors,...
I rise to speak to the Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020. Let me start by sending my profound thanks to the many unsung heroes of this pandemic—the doctors, the nurses, the healthcare workers, the patient care attendants and the health officials, all of whom have put themselves on the line. But, beyond health, the childcare workers, the teachers, the scientists, the supermarket employees and the cleaners—the people who have allowed us to continue to function as a society—have, at great risk, sacrificed so much to help save the lives of others and to support us during this critical time. I've spoken to many of my medical colleagues about the real-world implications of this virus and they have told me some harrowing stories. When the data was emerging from Europe and we heard those stories about what life was like in ICU in Italy and other parts of Europe, I spoke to some of my colleagues who themselves are anaesthetists and intensivists. They were discussing how they would live apart from their families during this epidemic, so that their children, their wives and their elderly parents weren't put at risk. I want to say thank you to them. At a personal level, of course it has been difficult for many people. I resigned to self-isolate. I didn't think it would be forced on the entire Australian community. I've stayed at home; I've followed the advice of health experts. Lucy, the boys and I are finding new ways of doing everyday things. I know it has been hard on my elderly parents. They miss their grandkids; they miss the social connection. It has been tough on everyone, but it must also be said that it could have been a hell of a lot tougher. Australia's response so far to COVID-19 has been, by most measures, a success. There's a hell of a long way to go, but, to date, we've made some good decisions and had some good luck because we're an island continent; we're a long way from the rest of the world. There's the tyranny of distance, but, when it comes to a pandemic, there's also the tyranny of proximity. We're lucky that this pandemic reached us in summer. We think there might be some seasonal variation with regard to the way this virus behaves—so, yes, we've had some good luck, but we've also made some very good decisions. When it comes to a government that has made some terrible decisions over so many other issues, you have to ask yourself: why? The simple answer is that this response has been led by the medical and public health experts on the basis of the best possible evidence and modelling. The Australian Health Protection Principal Committee has brought together the vast expertise of our public health community. We are absolutely blessed to have some of the best public health professionals anywhere in the world helping to drive the response to this epidemic. They made some tough decisions early that proved to be the right decisions such as restrictions on travel, particularly from China, then Europe and other countries across the world. We've seen a proportionate response in terms of the restriction of activities, driven—it must be said—by significant pressure from some state jurisdictions. Overall it has led to us flattening the curve, which was our objective at the start. I have to say, I've asked myself a number of times: why it is that the government decides to listen to the experts when confronting a major threat to our health, yet ignore the experts and the science when faced with a threat not just to human health but to all life on earth? Look at our response to climate change to date. We know what the answer is: a response driven by vested, powerful interest groups; by money; by massive corporate donations; by the lobbying that goes on behind closed doors; and by the threat of campaigns from some of those vested interest groups. Just imagine if, in terms of responding to the threat of catastrophic climate change, this government had put science and expertise front and centre—more jobs, more investment, clean air, energy independence, freedom from the shackles of big energy companies. Yet they have failed comprehensively to deliver. As I said, the response to COVID-19 to date has been a success. I've tried to cut the government some slack along the way; we are confronted with significant uncertainty when it comes to how we respond to this virus. But it must be said that early on many of the messages were confused and contradictory. It must be said that, when it came to outbreaks like that on the Ruby Princess, there were some very, very poor decisions made. It should cause a rethink to the way we structure border security in this country. There were many other lessons learnt. We learnt that when it came to personal protective equipment in our medical stockpile, the government simply did not have enough to keep our health workers safe. There was a lot of talk about providing ventilators during the initial stages of this pandemic. But ventilators are no good if you don't have the personal protective equipment to operate them, the gowns, the masks and the face shields. On talking to my colleagues in intensive care units, they weren't concerned about access to ventilators; they were concerned about access to personal protective equipment. Through the course of this pandemic, we've learnt that the medical stockpile was dangerously unprepared. We must learn those lessons and learn them for any future pandemic. The government have got to make sure that they conduct a detailed review of the medical stockpile not just when it comes to personal protective equipment but when it comes to all facets of the drugs and other equipment necessary when confronted with a pandemic like this. That means ensuring that we've got local manufacturing capacity to produce those goods when and where they need it. We've also called for the government to make the influenza vaccine free for all Australians. We know how critical it is, with the flu season upon us, that vulnerable Australians—indeed, all Australians—protect themselves against the risk of influenza. We do know that if someone were to contract the flu, they would be at significantly higher risk of complications from COVID-19. We've supported the rollout of the broadscale telehealth item numbers. It has been a hell of a long time coming, and we know now that it has served Australians very well during this pandemic. It's of concern that many Australians aren't seeing medical professionals during this crisis. I would encourage everybody to continue to maintain a relationship with their local doctor, with their community health centre and with practice nurses because those chronic medical conditions—diabetes, heart disease, hypertension—all need to be managed, and need to be managed with regular engagement with a health worker. See a doctor. Make sure that you're getting the appropriate treatment that you need. The government has to keep these telehealth items in place after this crisis. They are an essential part of modern medicine. They give people more choices about how they engage with health practitioners, and they've got the potential to go some way to bridging the divide between urban and rural and remote communities with respect to health care. Of course, it's not just in health care. We know that, in so many other industries, the move to use online technologies has the capacity to reduce pressures on commuting and to support women in the workplace and more family friendly work environments. We need to speed up support for everybody to be able to access those technologies. To the COVIDSafe app, I have to start with the government's track record when it comes to establishing legal protection for the use of data that they collect. Their track record is abysmal. From mandatory data retention to the My Health Record site, the government has a history of surveilling its own citizens and failing to protect private information. The data retention laws allowed warrantless access to personal data. We fought against it and we lost. It's absolutely crystal clear that the My Health Record legislation, for example, required amendment, and we achieved that in the Senate as a result of long and sustained advocacy so that personal data could be protected and that important reform could be implemented. We saw people's Medicare numbers, a key piece of identity information, being sold on the dark web. That caught people by surprise. So the government's track record on managing people's data is not good. However, I am pleased that the government has listened to the criticism directed against it when it comes to this app and is looking at tightening up the protections in this legislation for the data collected by the COVIDSafe app. Of course, it doesn't guarantee that the data's safe. It doesn't mean that there might not be some scope creep in the future, and that's why it is so critical that the Senate support amendments that will be moved by my colleague Senator McKim to further ensure protections. I'd urge all senators to support those amendments. I say to all Australians: this is clearly a voluntary decision. People need to weigh up the decision for themselves. I've had to do that personally—to weigh up this government's track record on data protection against my role as someone who's been a public health specialist and a GP. I'm aware that, from a public health perspective, this app does have the potential to help contact-tracing officials to more quickly and effectively identify and contact people who may have come into contact with COVID-19. It's new technology. We aren't sure just how effective it'll be. It's not going to render traditional contact tracing redundant. It won't be a panacea, but it may help and, if it can stop an outbreak faster, it has the potential to save lives. So it's on the basis of weighing up those options and considering that, if we were to download this app, we could potentially save lives that I have decided that I will download this app. Whether we download it or not, it's so critical that we continue to invest in our public health workforce and that we continue traditional contact tracing because that is at the heart of a sustained response to this pandemic. That's why I support this legislation and that is why I will be downloading this app. Right now the concern is that we are potentially facing, with the easing of restrictions, a second wave. We've seen that in many other jurisdictions, such as South Korea and China, and that is obviously of concern to many of us here. We don't know right now what the pathway out looks like. We know that the hunt is on for a vaccine. I'm watching that closely. There's a very promising candidate here, at the University of Queensland, but the truth is there have been many candidates for vaccines and many failed candidates for vaccines. A vaccine to treat this pandemic is a possibility, not a certainty. Remember, when HIV first emerged, we were promised that a vaccine would be developed within a few years. Many decades down the track, we still do not have one. Look, many armchair experts will tell you what they believe the pathway out of this is. The truth is that none of us knows exactly what the blueprint to move forward through this pandemic looks like. What I do know is that restricting people's activities has bought us some time and that some of the decisions informed by our public health experts have bought us time. I know that the virus is likely to be with us for years. I know that easing restrictions risks another peak in the pandemic. But I also know that the longer these restrictions are in place the harder life will be for many people. This isn't a trade-off between health and the economy, because poverty and unemployment and lack of access to education also have a profound impact on peoples' health. It's why we need to continue to invest in the response that's needed, it's why we need to continue to trust expertise and it's why I will be downloading this app.
Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
India: Human Rights | Motions | Senate debates
Again, it is very disappointing that the government's refused to consider what is an important issue occurring with an important partner of ours. The Greens have been very disturbed by the...
Again, it is very disappointing that the government's refused to consider what is an important issue occurring with an important partner of ours. The Greens have been very disturbed by the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act in India in December. For those people who aren't aware, it's a bill that legalised the granting of Indian citizenship based on religion but specifically excluded the Muslim community. This is a hugely concerning development, not only because it's created the legal grounds to strip millions of Muslims of the fundamental right to equal citizenship but because, together with India's National Register of Citizens, it might render many Indian Muslims stateless. Not only that, but the Indian government's also suppressed legitimate protest about these new laws. This is a very concerning development and one that the Australian government should make its voice very clear on. We should speak up so that the world's largest democracy might reverse this discriminatory decision.
I seek leave to make a one-minute statement in lieu of moving a suspension.
I ask that General Business Notice of Motion No. 459 standing in my name and the name of Senator Faruqi for today, relating to Indian citizenship, be taken as a formal motion.
It is again deeply disappointing that the government has refused to consider this important policy motion. I shouldn't be surprised, because this is the mob that wanted to relocate the Australian...
It is again deeply disappointing that the government has refused to consider this important policy motion. I shouldn't be surprised, because this is the mob that wanted to relocate the Australian embassy to Jerusalem in a desperate bid to chase a few votes for a by-election victory. That backfired and backfired spectacularly. This is not a peace proposal; this is anything but. It's not worth the paper it's written on. It's a direct copy-and-paste of the PR manual of the Israeli Prime Minister, the man who is up on corruption charges. It reflects all of the Israeli government's arse. It rewards the theft of Palestinian land by rewarding illegal settlement activity. In this proposal, any Palestinian self-determination is contingent upon so many unrealistic demands. Australia should speak up against Trump's unfair and damaging plan, which is an enemy to— (Time expired)
In lieu of a suspension, I seek leave to make a short statement.
I ask that notice of motion No. 421, standing in my name for today, relating to the peace proposal for Israel and Palestine, be taken as a formal motion.