Lisa Singh's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Climate Change | Motions | Senate debates
I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1370 standing in my name for today and relating to climate change in the Pacific region be taken as a formal motion.
Tasmania: Bushfires, Climate Change | Adjournment | Senate debates
Once again, bushfires have plagued Tasmania for the start of 2019. It is not something that Tasmanians are unfamiliar with. We suffered terrible losses around Lake Mackenzie in the Tasmanian...
Once again, bushfires have plagued Tasmania for the start of 2019. It is not something that Tasmanians are unfamiliar with. We suffered terrible losses around Lake Mackenzie in the Tasmanian central plateau in 2016 and the destruction of the fishing town of Dunalley in 2013 and, of course, so many Tasmanians, including my parents, remember the 1967 bushfires that plagued the state, killing 64 people and destroying whole towns. But this January, 2019, was Australia's hottest month since records began. It was Tasmania's driest January ever. The Tasmania Fire Service has stated that fuel loads were 20 per cent to 30 per cent drier than average. Tasmania's maximum temperatures were much more than three degrees above the long-term average for the month. So, of course, the fires came, and they haven't stopped. Already they've burnt some three per cent of Tasmania's forests, with the Central Highlands and the Huon Valley suffering extensive devastation. It is a climate change tragedy, a tragedy that has, despite the outstanding work of firefighters from Tasmania, the mainland and our neighbours across in New Zealand and even with the help of water bombers from overseas, removed a horrifying amount of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area off the map. We have lost homes, businesses and tens of thousands of hectares of alpine vegetation. The flames were scorching the edge of the largest remaining forest of thousand-year-old King Billy pines in the world. We have lost key wilderness tourist attractions, like the iconic Tahune AirWalk in Geeveston. I have fond memories of visiting the Tahune AirWalk—the treetops of it—with my children when they were young. Everyone loved this incredible wilderness attraction of feeling like you were almost on top of the world, walking amongst the trees. But now the incredible photos taken by Matthew Newton of the ash debris after the wildfires just show how devastating they've been through Tahune and elsewhere. The owner of the Tahune AirWalk, Ken Stronach, reflected, though, that we do have now an opportunity to re-create this attraction and give it a rebirth as the forest slowly regenerates over the years ahead. I do hope the air walk will take us into the sky again to join with Australia's tallest tree, which, I'm glad to report, was protected from the bushfires burning in the Huon Valley. At 100 metres tall, the centurion tree, a Eucalyptus regnans and the world's tallest flowering plant, is near the Tahune AirWalk, but the Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service and the Tasmania Fire Service were able to protect this globally significant tree that lives in Tasmania. As the fires burnt southern parts of the state, I was walking the iconic Three Capes Track—48 kilometres of cliff-hugging wilderness in the Tasmanian peninsula which is just one per cent of Tasmania's land area but has one-third of Tasmania's flora. What an incredible place our island home is, and what an amazing walk. From the melaleucas to the moorlands, to the Cape Pillar she-oaks and sea cliffs and views of past lives with the lighthouse on Tasman Island, from the Blade to the fairytale rainforests, then back on the coastal cliffs with Cathedral Rock, the Monument, Hippolyte Rocks and the Totem Pole, and all the Tasmanian plant species and wildlife in between. But as I walked along the cliffs, I could see and I could smell the smoke drifting all the way to New Zealand from fires 100 kilometres or more away. In fact, it was reported that New Zealand firefighters were called to attend a fire near Milford Sound due to thick smoke in the area, only for the crew to discover that there was no fire to be put out. Indeed, the smoke was coming from Tasmania. Within this tragedy, though, heroes have emerged. Heroes like Geeveston pharmacist, Ian Magill, who stayed, despite the emergency warning for his town, to ensure that other residents in the town had access to urgent medical support; like firefighters and volunteers and those that travelled from interstate and overseas to help protect lives and property; like local Tasmanian volunteer firefighter Tom Andrews, who missed Christmas, missed his son's first birthday and even missed his wedding anniversary. Local ABC Radio was a vital source of information, and journalists routinely went into the heart of the action to keep us informed and provide life-saving warnings to local residents. But if the experts are to be listened to, this extreme heat is a sign of things to come. December 2018 was the warmest on record. There were heatwaves in every state and territory according to the Bureau of Meteorology, who have warned that temperatures are set to rise further in years ahead as a result of climate change. Climate scientists from the University of Tasmania have warned that dry lightning strikes, like the ones that started some 60 fires across Tasmania in mid-January, including the fires that I've already talked about, will increase in frequency because climate change and the hot, dry conditions that turn Tasmania into a tinderbox will become more common. Tasmanian author Richard Flanagan said: Tasmania's world heritage area was our Great Barrier Reef, and, like the Great Barrier Reef, it seemed doomed by climate change. Flanagan points out: Climate change isn't just happening. It's happening far quicker than has been predicted. Each careful scientific prediction is rapidly overtaken by the horror of profound natural changes that seem to be accelerating, with old predictions routinely outdone by the worsening reality—hotter, colder, wetter, drier, windier, wilder, and ever more destructive. Tasmania's iconic leatherwood honey industry has been destroyed as part of this as well. Even before the fires, these unprecedented temperatures had already dried the flowers of Tasmania's native leatherwood trees, unique to our island and found only in the cold and remote wilderness currently ablaze in the Gell River, Tahune and West Coast fires. The hives have now been burnt, and in the sad words of Tasmanian Beekeepers Association Vice-President, Peter Norris: Leatherwood doesn't handle fire, it takes a couple of hundred years to come back. … … … We're never going to see it recover—once it's gone, it's gone. Meeting the challenge of future wildfire in Tasmania is a matter not just for our state, but also for this place. Australia already experiences severe problems with wildfire, coastal and river management, and flooding and drought, and yet we're only at the beginning of runaway climate change. The 2018 Red Cross World Disasters Report ranked Australia 10th in the world for the cost of damage caused by disasters between 2008 and 2017, with a disaster damage bill of $38 billion. The damage these more-regular extreme-weather events keep delivering will demand money and time to rebuild, while also devastating productivity as higher average temperatures and lower rainfall smash our agricultural production. Everyone knows that there needs to be action and that action should have should have started years ago—but we really need it now. That's why we do need bipartisan action from federal and state politicians to try and meet or mitigate this threat. Everyone knows that Labor is committed to cutting our carbon pollution by 45 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030 and to reaching net zero emissions by 2050. But at this moment in time it is important to recognise how communities have come together in times of crisis, as we have seen in Tasmania, and the resilience of communities. I thank every remote area firefighter who kept fighting those fires beyond exhaustion in conditions beyond imagination; every volunteer firefighter who worked day in and day out on the front line and behind fire fronts to help and protect Tasmanian communities; and every person in those communities impacted by the firestorm who have faced this disaster with courage and resilience.
Select Committee into the Obesity Epidemic in Australia; Report | Committees | Senate debates
Labor welcomes today's tabling of the report of the Senate Select Committee into the Obesity Epidemic in Australia. As the committee's deputy chair, I'd like to express my gratitude to all of...
Labor welcomes today's tabling of the report of the Senate Select Committee into the Obesity Epidemic in Australia. As the committee's deputy chair, I'd like to express my gratitude to all of those individuals and organisations from across Australia who made submissions to this inquiry—some 153 submissions—and also to those who appeared at public hearings. As the chair, Senator Di Natale, has outlined, obesity in Australia is a really serious problem. That is why I have 'enjoyed' this in the sense of being informed about what we can do at a policy level to tackle what has been termed an epidemic because the rates of obesity continue to rise. We have worked very constructively through this Senate select committee to come up with what I believe is a really constructive, full and informative report that has a number of key recommendations which I think will be of huge benefit to the Australian population going forward if they are implemented. The rates of obesity are that 28 per cent of the population aged 15 and over are obese, making us the fifth highest among the OECD countries. And Australia's rate of childhood obesity is increasing rapidly. Our 2014-15 data showed that 63 per cent of Australian adults were overweight or obese, with 71 per cent of those men and 56 per cent women. There are currently over one million children in Australia who are overweight or obese, while 20 per cent of children aged two to four and 27 per cent of children and adolescents aged five to 17 are overweight or obese. I think those statistics are alarming because we know that the short-term health impacts for children and adolescents include chronic conditions such as breathing difficulties, fractures, hypertension, insulin resistance and early markers of cardiovascular disease. That's why government really needs to act to address this issue. The most significant long-term health impacts of childhood obesity that manifest into adulthood are cardiovascular disease, diabetes, musculoskeletal disorders and certain types of cancer. We had a wide range of stakeholders make submissions to this committee's inquiry and they urged government to target health interventions and to hold broad education campaigns. And, as the chair has referred to, they raised the need for a national obesity task force, which is one of the key recommendations in this report. I think, indeed, many of us in this place were alarmed to learn that there was no body within government looking at addressing obesity. So as a start, I think that is something government could get on with and do straightaway. Some of the key submitters who we heard from during this inquiry's hearings included the Centre for Research Excellence in the Early Prevention of Obesity in Childhood; The Children's Hospital at Westmead in Sydney; Diabetes Australia; Choice; The Root Cause; the Global Obesity Centre; Parent's Voice; the Health Star Rating Advisory Committee; the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; the Public Health Association of Australia; the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation; the Australian Local Government Association; and, of course, the Department of Health. We listened to some passionate individuals, and one I want to highlight particularly is Belinda Smith, from a small organisation called The Root Cause. She shared with us about the foods that were in children's lunch boxes every day. I think that's a very good place to start. Belinda and The Root Cause believe that with a focused effort at the grassroots level on school food—around what is in children's lunch boxes—it is possible to prevent and curb childhood obesity, plus improve on the sorts of academic results we have had thus far. She told me about an Australian tour that The Root Cause went on to transform children's health called the Real Food Lunchbox Project. Out of that project, she learnt that children just want to fit in. In saying that, children want to eat whatever their friends are eating. If their friends are eating packets, they eat packets. But if they are all eating real food—fruit and vegetables—then even the kids whose parents say they are fussy eaters will eat the fruit and vegetables. Having listened to Belinda and hearing about her experience, which was in schools right across the country, where she saw pretty much the same thing happening, I think we can really learn from addressing this at the school level and at the educational campaign level and learn from looking at what jurisdictions overseas have done on that front. France and the UK are two easy examples. In France they actually have a cooked lunch within the school. I think the UK has a similar model to some degree. When kids are turning up with sugary drinks, sugary foods, packaged foods or processed foods in their lunchbox it does not set them up well for the rest of their lives. I know it's quick and easy, but long-term it is doing them damage. We need to support families and schools to address this so that kids eat well, because not only is there a benefit to their physical health; there is a massive benefit to their mental health and to their learning capacity. That is something that we heard through evidence provided by organisations such as The Root Cause. There are so many individuals and organisations that are so passionate about this issue because they're at the coalface and are seeing what is going on with our kids. The rise of obesity in our kids is really, really worrying. That's why we've proposed these recommendations, as Senator Di Natale went to: a national obesity strategy; looking at food labelling and how we can improve food labelling; looking at food reformulation; looking at advertising; looking at education campaigns; looking at healthcare interventions; at community based multistrategy interventions. This is a holistic issue. Yes, government can play a role, but it is also about the broader community, and we need to support the broader community in playing the role that it can play. Labor is very pleased to support the majority of the report's recommendations, such as the establishment of a task force; an obesity strategy; and labelling that's fit for purpose, which obviously represents the nutritional value of foods and beverages. However, while we agree with the majority of the recommendations, we have provided a short dissenting report on the implementation of the sugar-sweetened beverage tax, and on restrictions and the mandatory health-star rating on food and drink advertising. But, as Senator Di Natale, the chair, said, this is something where Labor accepts the logic. We accept the logic that a sugar tax is likely to reduce consumption and accelerate the reformulation effort, but we need to recognise, as we heard throughout this inquiry, that that is only one option, amongst many, to address overweight and obesity. We need to recognise it simply would not be effective without those other measures. I think in other jurisdictions like the UK and Mexico the evidence around a sugar-sweetened beverage tax is still emerging, particularly in relation to obesity rates, but it is something that we still need to monitor closely, and we will do that. Similarly, with the changing nature of children's viewing of advertising—children don't just sit down in front of the TV anymore; they're using iPads, iPhones, computers, you name it—we need to look at other ways in which advertising is filtering through. That's why we've committed to having a review in relation to the advertising approach. We take this incredibly seriously. Labor really want to see action to address obesity, particularly childhood obesity, in our country. We need to support the next generation so that they can be healthy young adults. Question agreed to.
Mining Industry | Matters of Urgency | Senate debates
In 2014, the warmest recorded year in human history, this government made Australia the first country to go backwards on climate change. Nothing has improved since. In fact, I would dare say...
In 2014, the warmest recorded year in human history, this government made Australia the first country to go backwards on climate change. Nothing has improved since. In fact, I would dare say things have got worse, as our emissions since 2011 have continued to rise. It has been made very clear by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation in their annual report this year that Australia will require declining—not increasing, but declining—emissions in every sector of economic activity in order to achieve its Paris commitments at least cost. That, of course, means new investment in large-scale renewable wind and solar energy, not new investment in new coalmines. What has been made very clear since the toppling of the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, is that there are so many in government who simply do not believe in climate change, deny that it is happening, do not understand global warming perhaps or just want to at least reject the science. I say that based on information received just yesterday from the former Prime Minister himself. He said: There is a significant percentage of the Coalition members who do not believe climate change is real, who think we should get out of Paris … who would rather the government, instead of building Snowy 2, built a new coal-fired power station. There you have it from the horse's mouth. That's from the former Prime Minister. It shows exactly why we have no action on reducing our emissions. In relation to this particular proposal put forward by the Adani company with another idea to build a new coalmine, admittedly a smaller sized one, I think we all need to be made aware, firstly, that global coal demand fell by two per cent only a couple of years ago and the year before that. The International Energy Agency finds that meeting the Paris climate targets means the coal trade will shrink 25 per cent by 2025 and that new coalmines are not needed. The Australia Institute has done a lot of work in this regard. I made my position very clear very early on in relation to Adani's first proposal. I made clear my opposition to it. In doing that, I also met with various stakeholders. One of them was the Stop Adani Alliance. The Stop Adani Alliance, as we know, is made up of some 40 different organisations. Those different organisations include the Australian Conservation Foundation, who surveyed the Australian population. This was on 1 February this year. They found that nearly three-quarters of Australians, some 73 per cent of Australians, support a policy to halt the expansion of coalmining and to fast-track solar power and storage to reduce the threat of climate change. That shows you the position of the Australian community. That shows you what the Australian community are wanting. In relation to the coalmine that Adani is now proposing, I still remain, as my colleagues on this side of the chamber do, very sceptical about this proposal. We have to look back at what this company's projections were in the past in relation to jobs. That shows clearly that what they were claiming was incredibly unrealistic. It was simply fake. It wasn't true. It was telling that there was not one bank that wanted to invest in this project. Not one business wanted to invest in this project. I think that is because banks, businesses and the business community understand that we have gone beyond peak demand for coal globally, as referred to in that International Energy Agency report. Most of them do understand we have gone beyond peak demand for coal. That is the economics. We know that the economics didn't stack up. We know that the jobs didn't stack up. On top of that, some of those stakeholders I met raised a number of outstanding environmental issues, particularly in relation to what happened in the past with this company's behaviour around water sampling. This company doesn't have a great track record of behaviour. I'm sure many people in this place saw the Four Corners report into what occurred in India and what happened to the community and the people in India after a certain project by this exact same company. We have said all along that this has to stack up environmentally and economically, and I do not believe it does. Therefore, it remains a project that has very little support from me, from the community, from the business sector, from the banks—the list goes on. I did want to highlight, though, that, when we're talking about this whole downturn in peak demand for coal, there is still a need for energy, there's still a need for electricity, there's still a need for all of that, but it has to be clean, and that is where Labor has such a fantastic policy. We have an energy policy. We have a climate change policy. We have a policy to deal with just transition. These are the things that this government has absolutely nothing of. Now, why do we have a just transition policy? We have a just transition policy because we care for workers, be they workers who are working in the coal industry or workers who will need jobs in that sector in the future. It is inevitable that there will be the closure of coal-fired power stations, because many of them are already operating beyond their original lifespan. Therefore, it is inevitable that we need a just transition for workers and communities to support those who will be affected when those coal-fired power stations close. Seventy-five per cent of coal-fired power stations are already operating beyond their original design life. It is impossible for these to continue to stay open. They cannot stay open forever. Therefore, it's completely irresponsible for the government to play politics with this and to pretend otherwise. These coal-fired power stations are going to close. It is a fact. If those opposite want to bury their head in the sand and not understand climate change, not want to embrace the science, not want to accept the fact that these coal-fired power stations have to close, be it on their heads, because they are giving those workers in those communities no support in having that attitude. We must have a plan to help those workers and communities respond to those future closures and that is why we have a just transition plan. As I said, this company, Adani, has made a lot of fake announcements and broken a lot of promises. Labor has a policy for real jobs in Queensland. We want to build critical jobs-creating infrastructure, like roads and port upgrades. I think it is really important that no government puts all of its eggs in one basket. There is no silver bullet when it comes to jobs. There needs to be a diversification of jobs, there needs to be a just transition plan, and there needs to be action on climate change and clean energy. That is why Labor backs investment in renewables, in solar, in wind, in hydro. We are setting a goal that, by 2030, 50 per cent of our energy mix should come from renewables. That's exactly why those students protested the other day—because that's what they want to see in a government. They don't want to see a government like we have currently—living in the dark ages, wanting to build new coalmines, thinking that there is no such thing as global warming. Wake up and get in the 21st century.
Energy | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
Reports yesterday indicated that the changes were a refining of the original government proposal. Given the minister last week declared that the government had already refined its energy policy,...
Reports yesterday indicated that the changes were a refining of the original government proposal. Given the minister last week declared that the government had already refined its energy policy, is this a refinement of the refined policy? If so, how has it been refined and what exactly is the government's policy?
In a now infamous interview with David Speers on Sky, the minister refused to explain what the government's big stick was and when it would be used, and has refused to articulate the policy to...
In a now infamous interview with David Speers on Sky, the minister refused to explain what the government's big stick was and when it would be used, and has refused to articulate the policy to the Senate. Can the minister now explain Mr Morrison's big stick? Is it still a big stick or is it a little twig? How will it work and when will it be used?
My question is to Senator Cormann, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Prime Minister was forced by his own backbench to retreat on his energy big stick, with the Prime...
My question is to Senator Cormann, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Prime Minister was forced by his own backbench to retreat on his energy big stick, with the Prime Minister waking to headlines, including 'Morrison's energy "big stick" cut down to size'. Reports indicate Deputy Leader of the Liberals, Julie Bishop, warned the Liberal party room that the big stick threatened investment, could be regarded as a sovereign risk and is inconsistent with Liberal values. It is also reported that other backbenchers, including Jason Falinski, Russell Broadbent and Craig Laundy, spoke out strongly against the proposed legislation. How many members of his own backbench did it take for Mr Morrison to retreat?
Energy | Matters of Public Importance | Senate debates
I rise to also contribute to this matter of public importance. In doing so, I will say at the outset that I agree with Senator Storer that meaningful action on climate change is well overdue and...
I rise to also contribute to this matter of public importance. In doing so, I will say at the outset that I agree with Senator Storer that meaningful action on climate change is well overdue and Australia should be playing its part as a wealthy nation in the region to limit our pollution and reduce greenhouse gases. Our country—and indeed the world—is undergoing a period of rapid destruction in the energy sector. But, through innovation, scale and our need to respond to climate change, renewable energy is becoming the future of that energy mix, and rightly so. This year, 2018, has been a record year for rooftop solar installations as well as large-scale solar and wind developments. But it's vital that we have the energy policy that reflects and anticipates these market developments, our environmental obligations and the need for a transition plan from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change exclaimed recently: 'Climate change is no longer an emergency; it is a disaster.' On that front, I would like to take this opportunity to outline the Morrison government's renewable energy target. Excuse the silence, but there is no policy. That, there in itself, weighs up exactly what we are dealing with in this country: a Morrison government that does not have an energy or a climate policy, a government that is missing in action. Electricity prices have increased by nearly 19 per cent in the past three years—three times as fast as wages growth. The government have blamed blackouts on wind farms, and they've treated coal as though it's some sort of panacea. In fact, the just-released 2018 United Nations Environment emissions gap report makes clear that the government has no interest in climate change as there has been no improvement in Australia's climate policy. On current projections, applying the government's policy—well, lack of policy—by 2030 we will be well above the Nationally Determined Contributions target under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Under Morrison's hopeless climate change policies, carbon pollution will continue to rise all the way to 2030, which is as far as the projections currently go. It is for those reasons that moderate Liberals are now speaking out against the government's continued kowtowing to the hard-right wreckers of their party room that have dictated action on climate change and energy for so long. As Bill Shorten aptly observed last week, the single most important thing about energy and climate right now is to actually have some sort of policy. Well, Labor does have a very comprehensive policy. Labor's energy plan, announced last week, addresses comprehensively the energy market as a whole. It delivers predictability, investor confidence, more renewables, cheaper power and more jobs. We're committed to ensuring that there's a just transition for workers in existing generation facilities that will be eventually phased out, notably coal, and for affected communities. We'll ensure households can reduce both their power bills and their carbon footprint, notably by making battery storage more affordable and improving efficiency. And we'll promote the modernisation of our energy infrastructure—in particular, by investing some $5 billion in a new energy security and modernisation fund and by doubling the original investment in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. But we also realise that energy policy should not be this partisan. Our preference is to achieve some sort of bipartisan agreement, and it always has been. So we'll continue to pursue the National Energy Guarantee, which can deliver our 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030. It's clear that some on the other side want to move forward in this direction. The member for Curtin has called on her colleagues to 'consider energy policy through the prism of securing bipartisan agreement with Labor', which 'must and has to be balanced with concerns for our environment and preservation of our planet'. But even the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, recently said that the Liberal Party and the coalition are not capable of dealing with climate change. Australians deserve a government that will take action on climate change, reduce pollution and invest in our renewables. Australia deserves better, and Labor is ready to be that. (Time expired)
Modern Slavery Bill 2018; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
I rise to contribute on the Modern Slavery Bill 2018 after a hard-fought campaign by a wide range of stakeholders that Labor has listened to and responded to. The clothes we buy and the food we...
I rise to contribute on the Modern Slavery Bill 2018 after a hard-fought campaign by a wide range of stakeholders that Labor has listened to and responded to. The clothes we buy and the food we eat in Australia is often imported or includes imported parts. Many countries from which it is sourced do not benefit from the labour regulations we enjoy here at home. Indeed, new research published in the journal Nature Communications found that fishing crews all over the world are working excessive hours for little or no pay in horrific conditions. Modern slavery is real, it is pervasive and it is everywhere. There are more people in slavery or slavery-like conditions in 2018 than at any other time in human history. Many of these are children. The International Labor Organisation has estimated that about 168 million children worldwide are engaged in child labour. Two-thirds of the 45.8 million people trapped in slavery worldwide are in the Asia-Pacific region. Many of them are stuck in the global supply chains of products and services that Australians use every day. They are victims of exploitation in private sector activities like manufacturing, construction, agricultural and fishing. Even in Australia, an estimated 4,300 people are currently trapped in slavery or slavery-like conditions. They are migrant workers, international students, backpackers and women; they are people working in horticultural industries, our convenience stores or for labour-hire companies. As a nation, we rightly find the notion of slavery abhorrent. It conjures images of subjugation, pain and fear. As a society we know this is unacceptable. Modern slavery is the worst abuse of humanity by humanity. We are all shamed by this shocking reality. Modern slavery harms people of all ages, genders and races. It deprives people of their autonomy, their freedom, their potential and their dignity. It harms their physical and mental wellbeing. Eighty per cent of the 75 million people who make our clothes are women between the ages of 18 and 35. Often these women live in poverty, suffer from exploitation and verbal and physical abuse and work for as little as the equivalent of A40c an hour. That is why a number of countries, including the UK, France and the Netherlands, have acted with legislation to curb the rise of slavery in business supply chains. While this modern slavery legislation introduced by the government is welcome, it is indeed very much overdue and it does lack the teeth contained in models adopted elsewhere. The lack of an independent antislavery commissioner or adequate penalties makes it a lost opportunity to identify, prevent and mitigate adverse human rights impacts broadly and child labour in particular. Its major legislative omissions will substantially curtail the success of the implementation of this act. No person wants to purchase goods tainted by slavery. No business wants slavery in its supply chains. With this legislation, turning a blind eye to allegations of slavery will no longer be an option, and that is a very good thing. Legislative change in Australia has been the culmination of advocacy across a multitude of sectors by people dedicated to ensuring human rights in Australia are respected, and it should be no surprise that it has been Labor that has been very supportive and has been listening to that sector and leading every step of the way. In 2016, I initiated an inquiry into human trafficking as part of my role as deputy chair of the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement. It ended with key recommendations to prevent such instances and provide support to victims. This was then followed in 2017, as part of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, with an inquiry into establishing a modern slavery act in Australia. The committee held public hearings in Mildura, Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra, and its recommendations were consistent with those of the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement's inquiry into human trafficking. The committee found that there are serious gaps in the way victims are identified and supported as well as in the ways our criminal justice agencies cooperate to bring perpetrators to justice. Particularly concerning were the reports by stakeholders of serious misconduct in overseas residential institutions and within Australia, particularly in the horticulture and labour hire companies. For example, in Mildura, the committee heard from Mr Turaga of Fiji. He had been promised the opportunity to work in Australia and to earn a fair living, with the opportunity to study and the ability to send money back home to his family. Instead, he had his passport taken upon arrival, he was told he had to pay back a debt associated with the cost of him coming to Australia, he was forced to work over 12 hours a day and his wages were not repatriated to his family. Further investigations revealed that this kind of exploitation was not isolated. The committee heard that such passport seizures, wage theft and violations of even the most basic workplace health and safety laws had become a business model for labour hire companies. As a result, the foreign affairs committee's report recommended a series of changes to the way Australia's victim support programs operate, including the introduction of a national compensation scheme; improvements to how victims are supported in the visa process; the delinking of this support from criminal prosecutions; and the introduction of a national labour hire licensing scheme. The committee listened to stakeholders and recommended the establishment of an independent antislavery commissioner, the introduction of global supply chain reporting requirements and penalties for their breach. The committee also made a series of recommendations to improve coordination and training for Australia's law enforcement and criminal justice agencies. Labor supported these recommendations. In fact, the recommendations were in lock step with Labor's policy to introduce a modern slavery act in Australia, announced by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow justice minister, Clare O'Neil, in June last year. Labor's proposed Australian modern slavery act includes supply chain reporting requirements for major Australian companies and the establishment of an antislavery commissioner. A Labor government would enforce supply chain reporting requirements for all major businesses, ensuring that no Australian company is either directly or indirectly engaged in modern slavery. Major Australian companies will be required to comply by reporting annually to the government with a slavery and human trafficking statement detailing the steps they've taken to ensure that modern slavery is not occurring in their business or their supply chain. Each statement must include specific information about the company's supply chain: where risks have been identified in that supply chain, what steps are being taken to ensure slavery is not part of that supply chain, training provided to staff on these matters, and whether slavery has been found in the supply chain and what action has been taken. The list of companies in Australia who are required to report under Labor's Australian modern slavery act will be publicly available. A central repository of statements will be established, and, most importantly, there will be penalties for noncompliance with the act. Labor will also establish an office of an Australian independent antislavery commissioner, recognising the importance of this role in ensuring the effectiveness of the legislation. A Labor government, unlike this government, will introduce an independent antislavery commissioner to monitor and scrutinise the government's work in tackling modern slavery and to help address the gaps in enforcement and victim support. Key stakeholders, including ACRATH, Anti-Slavery Australia and the ACTU, have joined Labor in the call for the establishment of such a role. Labor's commissioner will work with victims of slavery to receive inquiries and complaints. Labor's commissioner will assist business in building and improving best practice in protecting their supply chains from the taint of slavery. Labor's commissioner will work with civil society to help prevent and detect slavery in Australia. Labor's commissioner will lead Australia's global efforts to fight slavery, including working with other countries and international organisations. The legislation before us does not achieve any of this. The government's decision to reject an independent antislavery commissioner in favour of a business engagement unit shows that their primary concern, unfortunately, as always, is with protecting big business. The absence of civil penalties in this bill is baffling. Leaving companies to police themselves has not been effective in any other jurisdiction. The banks didn't do it, and neither did the insurance companies, and companies aren't doing it in the United Kingdom. Evidence provided to the Senate inquiry into this bill showed that, in the UK, where there are no penalties, the percentage of businesses that are reporting still hovers at around 30 per cent of those that supposedly have had an obligation to do so. That is not good enough. Conforming to the law cannot be an option. It is important to achieve the right balance to ensure companies are encouraged to undertake best practice and scrutinise their suppliers to ensure that they are also compliant. Regardless of size, all businesses have a responsibility to ensure that they are not trading in the misery of modern slavery, and penalties will ensure this. Penalties should include: a civil penalty provision for failure to report, with an immediate start date, focused on the fact of reporting rather than the content of the report, to give business time to build compliance procedures and gain familiarity with these new requirements; a civil penalty provision for submitting an inadequate report, with a delayed start date of two years from the date on which the bill receives royal assent; and a requirement that the minister report annually to the parliament on the companies that have failed to comply with the act. Stakeholders who provided evidence to the Senate inquiry into the bill also raised a number of further concerns, including the threshold for reporting. The reporting requirement in the bill will apply to entities with consolidated annual revenue of more than $100 million. Some stakeholders have called for a lower threshold of $25 million, to align with ASIC's definition of 'a large corporation', or $50 million, which is closer to the United Kingdom's model. Labor is committed to reviewing changes suggested by stakeholders at the Senate inquiry, including the threshold for reporting, as part of a three-year review provided for in section 24 of this bill. The clandestine nature of modern slavery makes it very difficult for authorities to detect, investigate and prosecute incidents when they occur, wherever they may occur. Victims of modern slavery are often incredibly vulnerable and face cultural, social, economic and language barriers. There are also significant gaps in the support services we provide for victims of modern slavery. Modern slavery acts and similar legislation are currently in place, as I said, in the UK, France, the EU and some states of the US such as California. A modern slavery act will encourage businesses to take every step they can to put pressure on suppliers and notify authorities, as well as ensuring that they are more careful about checking who their suppliers are and what kind of labour practices they are engaged in. So, despite the shortfalls in this bill, it is an important piece of legislation and this parliament needs to enact it for the best interests of our community and communities elsewhere in the world. Vigorous consultation with stakeholders, including NGOs, the business sector and departments, has made clear that modern slavery is an issue which needs to be dealt with immediately. I want to sincerely thank all of the stakeholders who made submissions and appeared before the law enforcement committee, the Senate committee and the joint foreign affairs committee, particularly the Law Council of Australia and its former president, Fiona McLeod; ACRATH and Christine Carolan from there; the Walk Free Foundation, particularly former Senator Chris Evans; and the Salvation Army Freedom Partnership, particularly Heather Moore, who has worked tirelessly on this issue. I acknowledge Fuzz Kitto of STOP THE TRAFFIK and the petition that was received by Senator Penny Wong and our shadow justice minister, Claire O'Neill, on 13 November, signed by tens of thousands of people from around the world, calling on this Australian parliament to be a global leader against slavery by enacting a strong and effective modern slavery act. I understand that Fuzz presented that petition to Senator Penny Wong and to Ms Claire O'Neill on 13 November. Fuzz, as the national co-director of STOP THE TRAFFIK, was doing so as a response to members of its Australian coalition, which represents over 30 organisations working together to prevent, disrupt and abolish modern slavery. I understand that STOP THE TRAFFIK has been actively engaging with members and senators on all sides of politics, as well as with business, industry, non-government organisations and consumers on this issue of a modern slavery act for Australia. That petition that Senator Wong then presented to this Senate was signed by some 52,719 people from around Australia and the world, coordinated by Freedom United. It commends the Australian parliament for taking bold first steps towards creating a modern slavery law that could greatly impact the lives of millions of people working under conditions of forced labour. It went on to outline how, as we know all too well, many workers in Asia endure forced labour to bring us, as I said, the garments, the food, the electronics and other goods we enjoy. I am very pleased that Senator Wong presented that petition to this parliament and I thank STOP THE TRAFFIK for presenting it to Senator Wong to do so. There are many more, of course, who have fought for this legislation to end slavery for many years. There is no doubt that this legislation, limited though it is, will drive corporate change and will have a positive impact on countries around the world. It will create a framework for business, government and civil society to address modern slavery. I want to congratulate members throughout this parliament, particularly our shadow minister, Ms Clare O'Neil, but also the chair of the foreign affairs committee inquiry, Mr Chris Crewther, from the other place, and indeed my Senate colleague Senator Linda Reynolds, with whom I had the pleasure of working closely on this issue. I understand how passionate she is about this issue and I share her passion. But the work is not over, and Labor is not ready to stop working. We will ensure that we are doing all we can to fight this horrific practice, rather than leave the job half done. We do not accept modern slavery in any form, whether in Australia, the Indo-Pacific region or anywhere else throughout the world. We do not accept slavery in the supply chains of companies operating in Australia. That is why we must legislate to ensure that the tragic stories we have heard are never, ever repeated. It is abhorrent to me—it is abhorrent to so many in this place—that in this day and age, 2018, we still have to deal with issues of slavery and slavery-like practices. The reality is that there is modern slavery within our communities and indeed within our region. It is real, it is pervasive, it is everywhere. We must stamp it out. We must end this practice. It is abhorrent. I commend the bill in front of us today and hope it can be improved upon in time to come.
I rise to speak on an important issue of national significance, Australia's engagement with India. In April last year, the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, announced with great enthusiasm...
I rise to speak on an important issue of national significance, Australia's engagement with India. In April last year, the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, announced with great enthusiasm that the former Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and former High Commissioner to India, now University of Queensland chancellor, Peter Varghese AO, would be commissioned to study and prepare an India economic strategy. The opposition welcomed the idea and its chosen author. Indeed, Mr Varghese is highly respected among many in the Indian economic and trade communities. The Varghese report was released publicly in July this year. At 514 pages in length, the report charts a pragmatic, ambitious and confident course for Australia's future engagement with India. It represents a truly exceptional body of research. The Turnbull government subsequently welcomed the report, and Labor announced our support for its key recommendations. But then the government buried it. Indeed, in my questioning in Senate estimates, the government admitted that it had been sitting on the report since April this year. On Friday last week—some seven months later—only after continuous pressure from Labor, and with the recent visit from India's President, His Excellency Ram Nath Kovind, did the Morrison government endorse the report and provide in-principle support. But we still have no substance from the government, and those opposite still have no coherent India strategy. As many of my colleagues and stakeholders are aware, as a person of Indian origin and as an Australian senator, I am a long-time supporter of the Australia-India relationship. In 2015 I was honoured to receive the Pravasi Bharatiya Samman, the overseas-Indians award for building friendlier relations between our two nations. It was conferred by the then President of India, His Excellency Shri Pranab Mukherjee, and it was indeed an honour. But this importance of Australia's engagement with India cannot be overstated. If we do not move quickly, Australia is at risk of losing out to other countries that have already recognised the myriad opportunities that India will bring in the coming years. Modern Australia and India share a common heritage and—as His Excellency President Kovind said during his visit to Australia last week—a special bond. But, as Australia has shed its colonial links, developed its own culture and economy and may soon, I hope, become a republic, India similarly bears no resemblance to what it was under the British Raj. It is an economic superpower in the making and, indeed, a republic. As Mr Varghese observed, India is changing, driven by the politics of aspiration. His Excellency President Kovind fittingly declared last week, 'We are running and soon we will be galloping.' In this regard, the numbers speak for themselves. India is now the world's fastest-growing large economy. It is the third-largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity and it is the largest democracy in the world. By 2025, one-fifth of the world's working-age population will be Indian. In the next 10 years, India's five largest cities will have economies comparable to that of middle-income countries today. Within the business sector, sales and earnings growth among Indian companies are noticeably higher than their Australian counterparts. Over the past five years, India's stock market has seen greater performance than the ASX. Inbound foreign direct investment has increased by 19 per cent each year over the past 20 years, and India's trade has increased from 13 per cent to 40 per cent of GDP. And there is considerable room for India to maintain that rapid economic ascent. Its mean age is only 27, and 90 per cent of its workers are still engaged in the informal economy. Against that backdrop, the government of India is seeking to upskill some 400 million of its citizens, moving them from the informal economy and expanding the country's secondary and tertiary industries prowess. As Mr Varghese observes in his report, there is no market over the next 20 years which offers more growth opportunities for Australian business than India. As Australia's engagement in India has considerable room to grow, our shadow minister for trade, Jason Clare, observed last Thursday, when speaking at the AFR India Business Summit, that, to date, Australia hasn't been hungry enough. He also rightly observed that Varghese's report is potentially as important as the one Ross Garnaut produced for Bob Hawke's government almost 30 years ago on North-East Asia. The reality is that our trade with India is comparable to our trade with New Zealand, a country not even 100th of India's size and with a quarter of the population of Delhi. While 19,000 Australian companies export to New Zealand, only 2,000 export to India. Over the past decade, Australia's exports to China have quadrupled, but our exports to India have remained stagnant—indeed, dropping by a quarter between 2010 and 2016. Varghese's report makes the pragmatic estimate that the opportunity exists to expand our export market from $14.9 billion to as much as $45 billion over the coming decades and for our investment in India to rise tenfold. The report emphasises that our economies are complementary. As India continues to advance to become the world's most populous nation and the third-largest economy, it will need more of what Australia can develop and has developed to provide a competitive advantage. In this respect, the report identifies 10 core sectors—in particular, education, agribusiness, resources, tourism, energy, health, financial services, infrastructure, sport and science and innovation—where Australia is well positioned to succeed. Beyond complementarity, the potential that India presents to improve our economy's security cannot be overstated. At a time of increasing uncertainty in the international trading system, we need to take steps to add balance and reduce our international trade risk, but developing a deep, sustainable economic relationship capable of producing increasing and long-term benefits for both countries will not happen if left to market forces alone. Government support is required, and the current government is nowhere to be seen. By contrast, Labor has committed to supporting the report's 10 key recommendations and more, including holding annual Australia Week in India trade missions, following Mr Varghese's India Economic Strategy, working with the Indian government to establish a reciprocal internship program to allow recent Australian graduates to help build the Asia business capability of young Australian professionals, and implementing a future Asia strategy to immerse ourselves further into the Indo-Pacific region and make Australia and the region more secure. Labor's commitments will address not just the report's economic strategy but also the geopolitical congruence and people-to-people ties, which the report stresses must also be improved to achieve success. The Australian Indian diaspora now numbers near 700,000, tripling over the past decade. One in 50 Australians was born in India—more than any other OECD country per capita. In my time as a senator of Indian origin, I have engaged actively with the diaspora at key Indian festivals, attending Diwali events in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and my home state—all over the country—and seeing the growth and the opportunity to spread multiculturalism through those festivals. I think that we need to create a more meaningful relationship that can improve social utility and mobility, create jobs and foster opportunities for people in both countries, and indeed the region, to live fulfilling lives. This report needs to be commended.
Victorian State Election | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
Former Liberal Vice-President Greg Hannan has said, 'The Liberal Party needs to focus on voters and stop focusing on itself.' When will the Liberals stop fighting amongst themselves and start...
Former Liberal Vice-President Greg Hannan has said, 'The Liberal Party needs to focus on voters and stop focusing on itself.' When will the Liberals stop fighting amongst themselves and start fighting for Australians struggling with cuts to services, spiralling costs of living and stagnant wage growth?
Hopefully the government is learning the lessons outlined by John Pesutto. One Liberal source has described the Victorian election result as a bloodbath, warning that it was a shot across the bow...
Hopefully the government is learning the lessons outlined by John Pesutto. One Liberal source has described the Victorian election result as a bloodbath, warning that it was a shot across the bow for the federal Liberals and that 'if the Feds continue meandering they will suffer the same fate'. What action will Mr Morrison take to ensure his government stops meandering and avoids the fate of the Victorian Liberal Party?
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Following the disastrous result for the Liberals in the Victorian election, Victorian shadow Attorney-General John...
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Following the disastrous result for the Liberals in the Victorian election, Victorian shadow Attorney-General John Pesutto said, 'My advice to our federal colleagues is, if you haven't already had enough lessons, you ought to look at Victoria and learn the lessons that we're seeing tonight.' Has Mr Morrison heeded Mr Pesutto's advice? If so, how?
Khashoggi, Mr Jamal | Adjournment | Senate debates
On 2 October, Jamal Khashoggi, a citizen of Saudi Arabia, walked into its Istanbul consulate to obtain a simple marriage document while his wife waited outside. What happened next has shocked the...
On 2 October, Jamal Khashoggi, a citizen of Saudi Arabia, walked into its Istanbul consulate to obtain a simple marriage document while his wife waited outside. What happened next has shocked the world. Khashoggi would never return. Six weeks later, we now know that he was murdered brutally in the consulate in what was a premeditated event. The details of his death have yet to be confirmed, but all reports agree that he was tortured and his body has yet to be located. Horrific rumours abound. We are living in extraordinary times. The norms and values that underpin international peace, security and prosperity are being eroded. As Bill Shorten said in his recent speech at the Lowy Institute: The international order in which Australia has operated since the Second World War is being disrupted. The effect of this disruption is becoming increasingly clear. Khashoggi's murder could only have been sanctioned by individuals who calculated their actions would be met with impunity. Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of the event, incorrect claims were made by Saudi officials that the consulate was sovereign, connoting immunity from prosecution and echoing nationalist rhetoric that has now unfortunately become an all-too-familiar excuse for abdicating moral and legal responsibility. But international law is clear. Khashoggi's murder occurred on Turkish soil, and Turkish law applies. Of great concern, however, is the reason Khashoggi was targeted in the first place—for exercising the right to freedom of speech, a right guaranteed under every human rights treaty. Across the world, freedom of speech and, importantly, freedom of the press are deteriorating. Very few bright spots remain. According to Freedom House, only 13 per cent of the world's population enjoys a free press, and, as The Economist recently observed, it is becoming a luxury limited only to Western states. It is axiomatic that, in the absence of an unfettered press, democracy dies and corruption flourishes, and, right now, there are perhaps no regions more hostile to the transparent press than the Middle East and North Africa. Indeed, Freedom House observes that only Israel has something close to resembling a free press, while Iran and Syria are among the world's 10 most restrictive countries on press freedoms. Across the region, the Arab Spring brought freedom to very few countries. Tunisia is perhaps a stand-out. Australians watched with anger and despair in 2014 as one of our own very fine journalists, Peter Greste, along with his Al Jazeera colleagues, was arrested and jailed in Egypt. I acknowledge the efforts of our diplomats and the former foreign minister, Julie Bishop, in securing Peter's release. Khashoggi's demise is the clearest example yet of the lengths to which some regimes will go to silence freedom of speech. Khashoggi was a veteran Saudi journalist and a former government adviser. After becoming critical of the government and seeing what was happening to his counterparts who expressed criticism, he fled to the United States and lived there in exile. He was a columnist at The Washington Post, writing, as its editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt, said, 'out of a sense of love for his country and deep faith in human dignity and freedom'. In what would become his final column, released posthumously, Khashoggi highlighted that the Arab world suffers from poverty, mismanagement and poor education. His articles pleaded for improvements in human rights, for peace in Yemen, for the end of political meddling and corruption across the Arab world, and for women's rights. These pleas of course are not confined to the Arab world. Human rights, democratic values and civil rights are being devalued worldwide. Recently, the United States withdrew altogether from the United Nations peak human rights body, the Human Rights Council. Even here in Australia we all are aware that more can be done to progress human rights. But Khashoggi's murder has brought human rights back to the forefront of international relations. Condemnation from many in the international community has been swift, but it is only the starting point. Protecting and upholding human rights must be a priority. A United Nations investigation is necessary and those responsible for this heinous act must be brought to justice. That is why I am pleased to learn that Turkey has now called for an international investigation into the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. This was a level of treachery the world has been rightly shocked by. It involved extrajudicial torture, murder and forced disappearance. Australia and the international community must be unequivocal that such brazen acts, indeed any derogation of human rights, will never, ever be tolerated.
World Diabetes Day | Motions | Senate debates
I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) 14 November 2018 is World Diabetes Day, (ii) the theme of World Diabetes Day 2018 is 'Family and Diabetes',...
I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) 14 November 2018 is World Diabetes Day, (ii) the theme of World Diabetes Day 2018 is 'Family and Diabetes', (iii) Australia has one of the highest rates of Type 1 Diabetes in the world, with around 160,000 people affected, (iv) Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus is one of the most common chronic diseases affecting children in Australia, (v) children diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes require insulin for life to manage their diabetes and live with the reality of hypoglycaemic fits, diabetic ketoacidosis and even death, along with the long-term health impacts, and (vi) Type 1 Diabetes is responsible for significant financial and emotional burdens on those living with the disease and their families; and (b) calls on the Federal Government to: (i) consider extending National Diabetes Services Scheme subsidisation to flash glucose monitoring technology – which enables people with diabetes to detect their blood glucose levels without a blood sample and track their blood glucose trends on their mobile phones, following the Department of Health's review, and (ii) extend the provision of free continuous glucose monitoring devices, which radically improve diabetic health and safety, to pregnant women and adults with severe hypoglycaemia and limited awareness of their condition if they cannot afford the technology.
World Toilet Day | Motions | Senate debates
I move: That the Senate— (a) recognises World Toilet Day 2018 on 19 November, as the day to recognise the importance of sanitation; (b) notes that: (i) an estimated 4 billion...
I move: That the Senate— (a) recognises World Toilet Day 2018 on 19 November, as the day to recognise the importance of sanitation; (b) notes that: (i) an estimated 4 billion people around the world live without access to a safe toilet, and 892 million people still practice open defecation, (ii) diarrhoea caused by poor sanitation and unsafe water kills around 289,000 children every year, (iii) clean toilets contribute to poverty eradication by protecting people's health and ability to work, (iv) globally, lack of sanitation and unsafe drinking water costs the world economy an estimated $260 billion every year in lost productivity, (v) United Nations' Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 aims to ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all by 2030, and (vi) the theme of this year's World Toilet Day is 'When Nature Calls' and recognises the important role of nature-based solutions to the sanitation and water crisis; (c) also notes that, while an annual global expenditure of $158 billion is estimated to be needed to bring about the full implementation of SDG 6, as former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Chair of the Global Partnership on Sanitation and Water for All pointed out in a recent speech to the Mahatma Gandhi International Sanitation Convention in New Delhi, less than $50 billion is currently spent worldwide; and (d) calls on the Australian Government to increase its general aid commitments, including to its water, sanitation and hygiene aid programs. Question agreed to.
Trade with Indonesia, Minister for the Environment | Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers | Senate debates
Whatever muppet is popping up now—thanks, Senator Cameron. We've had enough of it. We've certainly had enough of it. We want to ensure that our relationships with our nearest neighbours are...
Whatever muppet is popping up now—thanks, Senator Cameron. We've had enough of it. We've certainly had enough of it. We want to ensure that our relationships with our nearest neighbours are solid, concrete partnerships. That is why our leader, Bill Shorten, made that pledge at a recent speech outlining what Labor would do in government with our relationships in the Pacific—how it would be a partnership and not paternalism, and that we know, with the rising sea levels, we need to take action to support our neighbours now. Question agreed to.
It's another moment, another week and another month when we, as Australians, feel embarrassment under the leadership of Prime Minister Morrison or, indeed, whoever is in the role of leadership in...
It's another moment, another week and another month when we, as Australians, feel embarrassment under the leadership of Prime Minister Morrison or, indeed, whoever is in the role of leadership in this country under this coalition government. It is another moment, thanks to this government, when we all feel the cringe and the embarrassment, as Australians, of knowing about the mutterings in the Pacific, in the region, of our nearest neighbours, that will filter throughout the diplomatic channels and elsewhere—mutterings about how arrogant we are as a nation when we hear of the thought bubbles that come out of this government and out of this Prime Minister's mouth. Whether it's junking longstanding bipartisan foreign policy, such as the thought-bubble decision of moving the Australian embassy to Jerusalem, or whether it's the rude words of the now environment minister, who has been termed the L-plated environment minister, it leaves Australians in a diplomatic mess. It does not serve Australia's national interests in any way whatsoever. It's very rare that I agree with Senator Fierravanti-Wells, the former Minister for International Development and the Pacific. But, having read her opinion piece in The Sydney Morning Heraldtoday, at least there is one senator on that side that does recognise the effects of climate change on the Pacific. She raises that in her opinion piece in some detail, but then she gets to the important point that it is 'regrettable' that the good work that has been done by this government in the Pacific has been damaged by this new, L-plates environment minister in, as we know, that very unfortunate incident with former President of Kiribati Anote Tong. In answers to questions asked by Senator Kitching on this very matter, we did not receive from Senator Cormann anything detailed in relation to that—or, indeed, how it has damaged our relationship with the Pacific. That has not been the only thing, of course, that has damaged our relationship with the Pacific. The decision by the government to not even have the Prime Minister attend the Pacific Islands Forum meeting on Nauru was another embarrassing and short-sighted decision. Former President Tong said in a recent interview, about Minister Price: Obviously she needs to learn a great deal more about the world around her … If she came to Kiribati, I would be happy to show her what we do. Maybe she could begin to understand … and be less arrogant about it. I think it shows very clearly how arrogant we are perceived to be by the region, and rightly so, after that minister's comments on the night in question. Now, it doesn't just stop there, but it needs to stop. Whether it's in relation to the Pacific or whether it's in relation to Indonesia, it needs to stop. We need to stop, straightaway, this undiplomatic language and these stupid decisions—these thought-bubble decisions—that have damaged our relationship with our nearest neighbours. But, instead, what do we have? We have Senator Abetz going on Sky News today and undermining even further our relationship with Indonesia. Well, we have all had enough. We have all had enough of the embarrassment and the cringing we feel when we hear these former ministers, current ministers, ministers on L-plates, new prime ministers, former prime ministers or whatever revolving-door positions those on the other side are in today—
Minister for the Environment | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
Senator Collins asked whether or not Senator Canavan agrees with the former minister's assessment of what took place in the conversation between the minister and the President of Kiribati.
My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
I think everyone in this place would agree that Australians should have the right to privacy. Our health records are the most highly personal information. It's information that we entrust to...
I think everyone in this place would agree that Australians should have the right to privacy. Our health records are the most highly personal information. It's information that we entrust to medical professionals acting in our best interests. I cannot think of a more important privacy relationship than that between a patient and their health professional. That is why it is so important that we get this My Health Record model right. What is clear from the Senate inquiry that has gone into this legislation is that currently we don't have it right—so much so that, as we speak, thousands, if not now millions, of Australians are on their phones and on the internet opting out of the My Health Record scheme proposed by the government. This government has lost the public trust debate, and that is why Labor has made it very clear that we want to put in place amendments to this legislation to put back the public trust that is so needed in this My Health Record debacle. This debacle isn't the only one there has been, when we look at the government's record in the area of information technology. The government have a woeful track record on IT security and privacy. They botched the rollout of the NBN, they botched the rollout of the NDIS, they gave us a census fail and they gave us the robo-debt debacle—and now they have stuffed up My Health Record. If you look at the record of this government and its previous versions on sensitive data security, I think the Centrelink robo-debt debacle stands out, with lots of bells and whistles on. But, then again, what about the immigration department database breach that put the lives of asylum seekers at risk by revealing their details? These are just a couple of examples of how this government has simply failed when it comes to information technology security and privacy, and that is why Labor is calling on the government to extend the deadline for My Health Record to go live, which it is due to do from tomorrow. In fact, my Senate colleague Senator Watt successfully passed a motion in this place this week asking for exactly that. I think the Senate, and indeed the government, should respect the passing of that motion and the amendment that Labor put forward to ensure that that happens for the sake of all of the Australians who are worried today, and who have a right to be worried, because this government cannot be trusted in how it is dealing with these sensitive privacy and security issues. I'm also deeply concerned about some of the failings in this bill as it stands without amendment. I'm deeply concerned by the potential use by third parties of patient information. I think there is definitely a need for further protections for privacy and security, both in legislation and in policy. We need a government that will take all Australians with them to do that, to discuss and educate them about the benefits of My Health Record, which there clearly are, but also the risks, so that everyone can make an informed choice about whether to participate or not. That takes time, and it is something that this government hasn't done. It has failed to do that, which is why we're asking for an extension of the deadline. What happens if you find that your data has fallen into the wrong hands? Katharine Kemp and David Vaile from the University of New South Wales law school and Bruce Arnold from the University of Canberra law school noted in a piece in The Conversation recently: We have witnessed a stream of health data breaches in Australia and overseas, and the incentives for these breaches are only increasing. Storing records digitally with online access greatly increases their accessibility for criminals, hackers and snoopers. Health records are valuable as a means of identity theft due to the wealth of personal information they contain. They are a huge prize for hackers, fetching a high price on the Dark Web. That is really concerning, and I think everyone would share that concern. But, when discussing a medical condition with their doctor, Australians should not be concerned that it will end up in the wrong hands. There really should be the most searching review into the operations and behaviour of the Digital Health Agency, the ministers who signed off on this and the costs of the public disinformation campaign so far that has, I think, misled not only the parliament but, more importantly, the public. It needs to be reversed. We need to have information. We need to have education about the benefits and the risks, and that case simply has not been made by this government. We need to remember very clearly some of the rhetoric that's come out of Minister Greg Hunt on this issue. I know that the government has now put itself in a position to bring forward amendments of its own bill, but I think we all need to remember that these changes the minister is making he was forced to make. He was not going to make any changes to My Health Record. These are not changes that he willingly has made. If you remember when Labor initiated the Senate inquiry, this health minister said it was a stunt. For a minister of the crown, of this government, to claim that the important process of legislative investigation through Senate inquiry—into something so pivotal, so important, when you're talking about privacy and security—was a stunt but then to go further and acknowledge, through the findings of that Senate inquiry, that his legislation was flawed and did need amendment and that he has now brought forward those amendments shows very clearly the failings of this minister. It also shows that he has provided disinformation to the Australian people on what he set out to do in the first place. Of course, they've now amended their own legislation. But I think we needed a much more informed consent model, and we didn't have that from this government. It's not just those of us who were on the Senate inquiry or consumers who are raising some of these concerns; they are coming from health professionals themselves. They're coming from doctors themselves, who've made it very clear, saying, 'Yes, we want to have this partnership with patients.' They think the idea of the My Health Record is important but they also want to make sure that this relationship is not in any way jeopardised by the notion that the information is automatically shared and that patients can't have full control of it. They've raised those concerns throughout this process, particularly throughout this important Senate inquiry process. In Tasmania, my home state, doctors have approached me with their own concerns. They have made me very aware of their worries about this simple tick-a-box approach. Errors on requests for pathology imaging tests can occur. Poorly edited shared health summaries or errors with pharmacy dispensing notifications may cause unintended or incorrect uploads of data, particularly with the My Health Record. Tasmanian doctors have made me aware of their concerns about what these records will mean for young people. They can foresee an inordinate amount of extra time and effort to ensure that their young patients completely understand the structure, the methodology and the supposed benefits but also likely risks of My Health Record and the real need for them to be alert for exposure of their sensitive information if they do not have control of their personal My Health Record. The possible and increasing threats to their personal information coming from cyberspace, I think, are real. But the negative publicity around My Health Record also gives the likelihood that teenagers may—this is an unintended consequence—refuse to consult with their doctor, or other health professional such as psychologists, through the Medicare system. That would be terrible. To have a loss of faith would be catastrophic for Australian health care, with serious consequences for those patients over not just the short and medium term but also the long term. The doctors I've spoken to do fear it would all but destroy that long accepted recognition by young people that doctors will safeguard the confidentiality of their records. Labor's privacy and scrutiny concerns about this were clearly expressed through the Senate inquiry process and through the committee report process. We laid bare the government's botched implementation of this opt-out model. We made additional comments in that report which urged the government to commission an independent review of the My Health Record system by the Privacy Commissioner and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, which has itself called for further consideration of several privacy and security concerns. In particular, we highlight that the Privacy Commissioner and the OAIC should consider the appropriate balance between the utilities, the clinicians, patients and others, such as carers; privacy and security for individuals; the difficulty of ensuring informed consent in an opt-out model; measures to encourage consumer engagement and informed choice; and changes to default access settings that are necessary because of this shift to an opt-out model from our original opt-in model, where informed consent was assured. That is part of the big problem here: the fact that the government has changed this from an opt-in model—which is what Labor's proposal and the legislation were originally—to an opt-out model means that the issue of informed consent is limited and jeopardised. Further, we ask for particular protections for vulnerable people, including minors aged 14 to 17 and families fleeing domestic violence. Further legislative policy and system changes are needed to achieve these aims, but in the meantime I think that the government does need to heed Labor's call and support Labor's amendment—and I urge the crossbench to do likewise—to suspend the opt-out rollout until the Privacy Commissioner and the OAIC report is taken into account, until the government makes those necessary changes and until public confidence in this important reform is restored. That's all going to take time. It's simply not going to happen overnight and it's simply not going to happen by tomorrow, with that date looming for the government's proposal. The government needs to explain to the people of Australia what it's doing to minimise these risks, otherwise the whole enterprise will be hobbled by distrust and scepticism, and we'll never move away from that. This reform needs public support to work and, unfortunately, that's where the government has failed. We certainly support the amendments that the government will be moving, particularly in relation to issues around domestic violence, employers and workers compensation. But these are all amendments, as I said earlier, that we signalled months ago. Of course we're pleased that the government is basically picking up Labor's recommendations now. But, that said, we still think there are issues around the default settings of My Health Record that do require the Australian Privacy Commissioner to have a look at this whole thing again. We think that 12 months is a reasonable time for our Privacy Commissioner to look at this, to see whether those default settings are right. And at the same time that is going on, throughout that 12-month period government could be running an education campaign, not just telling people about the benefits of My Health Record but actually telling them what they need to do to actively manage this very important piece of health information—their My Health Record. There needs to be that consumer confidence put into the system, and it's simply not there at the moment. I think that what has also been clear is the role of and concern about the Digital Health Agency, in particular: what exactly are doctors being paid to sign up their patients to do, and what for? What information about access and usage has or has not been fully—or at all—disclosed to them? Again, those are unknowns. I think, though, implemented by a competent government, e-health could deliver tangible healthcare improvements and save healthcare costs through perhaps fewer diagnosis, treatment and prescription errors. I think that that could actually work. But what we don't want to see is people's patient health records falling into the wrong hands. We certainly don't want to see it privatised—there should be no privatisation of patient records—and we don't want to see it falling into the wrong third-party hands at any cost at all. That's why, when we began delivering on electronic health record systems when we were last in office, our system was an opt-in system. We thought that that was the right approach. Anyone who participated had to give informed consent; they had to give their full, informed consent. But this government has failed on that completely. Worse, it seems to have actively refused to communicate with Australians about the risks to My Health Record and what this opt-out system means in practice. What worries me today is how many Australians are unaware and do not realise that tomorrow is the deadline for opting out of this model if they choose to do so. Very concerning to me today is the fact that they haven't been given that education, communicated by government, of what this opt-out system means to them and what the risks and the benefits of their My Health Record are. I think the absolute failure by Minister Greg Hunt and this government to communicate has fuelled so much of the privacy and security concerns that Australians quite rightly have about My Health Record. It didn't have to have come to this, but it has because of the failure of this government. When the Senate Community Affairs References Committee was scrutinising the My Health Record system in September, representatives of the Australian Digital Health Agency conceded that more than 900,000 Australians at that point had already opted out of My Health Record. It is well over a million today, and goodness knows how many more by tomorrow. With one day left before the deadline my message to Australians is: please make yourself informed today about the options and about not only the benefits but also the risks. Choose what you want to do today, whether or not you wish to opt-out. But, more importantly, my pitch this morning to this chamber, to the government and to the crossbench is: please support Labor's amendments. Support these amendments to ensure that we put back in place the trust that Australians need in this My Health Record model. We need more time to get this right. It is nowhere near right as it currently stands, despite the government's amendments that they were dragged here to put forward. We need more time, we need the review and we need to ensure that Australians trust what we are doing when we say we want to ensure we have a great health system with a digital capacity to improve efficiencies. We are simply not there yet. Please support Labor's amendments to this bill.