Sam McMahon's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Valedictory | Parliamentary Representation | Senate debates
I rise today to take this opportunity to thank the Senate and to express my gratitude in a number of areas over the last three years of my time in this place. As we all know, in June last year...
I rise today to take this opportunity to thank the Senate and to express my gratitude in a number of areas over the last three years of my time in this place. As we all know, in June last year the Country Liberal Party exercised their democratic right and selected a new Senate candidate. There have been many hours and column centimetres to discuss the merits of this decision—or otherwise. But I would like to have a few other reflections. In reflecting on my time in this place, I want to start by acknowledging those around me who have offered me tremendous support over an extended period of time. I made some initial mistakes in who I chose to receive advice from. I have acknowledged those mistakes, and they continue to follow me in this place. Personal staff, as we know, can make or break an elected member, and I've certainly experienced both. I've taken the opportunity to bring my current staff to Canberra to witness the budget and see firsthand the parliament in action, which, unfortunately, they have been unable to do over most of my term. Let me start with some of the staff that I brought with me. Helen Bateman has been with the office from the onset and, more than most, has experienced the high and lows with me. Helen has seven decades of life experience, many of those in politics, and I am grateful for her tireless work in keeping me on schedule and for her genuine and sincere engagement with constituents. Kylie Bonanni joined my office last year. Kylie swept into the office and brought with her substantial organisation skills, with her ability to connect to people and create from scratch programs and events for ministers and even the Prime Minister at short notice. I'd like to acknowledge Lance Northey, who's not actually here today. He has been my long-suffering media adviser, and, given some of the media attention I have attracted, his has not been an easy task. He has filled the shoes with all of his many years of experience, as you would expect. To you, Hollie: I would thank you for bringing Lance to me. Marianne St Clair was a personal friend before I entered politics. She gives me endless joy and laughter, mainly at her own expense, but she doesn't mind; she's a good sport. Marianne, thank you for working tirelessly for our constituents and being a thorn in the side of Telstra and the NBN. Riley Schipp is a young Territorian who is studying here at ANU. Throughout COVID, he has, unfortunately, been quite estranged from us, but he contributes to our WhatsApp conversations and is outstanding at making mango daiquiris, a very important skill in a Territory office. Kris Civitarese—Big Kris—joined my office after helping me fire a previous office manager. It's been a gift that keeps on giving. Sorry, Kris. You're like a boomerang: you keep coming back to us. Sometimes you don't know what you've been missing until you find it. Kris became a confidant of mine, and he steadied the office through the use of his own measured temperament and people skills. I will mention Ashley Manicaros, who took over from Kris when Kris thought that he wanted to return to his home and wife in Tennant Creek. It turns out he was wrong; he came back to Darwin. Ashley was familiar to many in this place through a long career in politics. It seems some of you never appear to leave. He came back to Darwin, but, as he was familiar to many in this place through a long career in politics, it seemed some of you never appeared to leave. He left my office a few weeks ago to pursue other challenges, which I didn't understand, because I thought I was a pretty good challenge! But perhaps he meant he wanted less, not more. To Wayne Nayda, my husband, who has been the reason I have been able to come to this place over the past three years without a tribe of, as Michaelia said this week, fur babies trailing behind me. It's often been expressed that we may like a Senate cattle dog, and I can assure you that you would have had several if I had not been able to leave them at home. He has also been incredibly supportive of me and my job, particularly over the last 12 months. To all of my colleagues: I have and will forever appreciate your candour, your counsel and your friendship. And of course, particularly, my Nats Senate family: Matt, who is, unfortunately, not here; Susie; Perin; and our leader, Bridget. To all of you who have assisted my office by answering endless questions, taking time out of your busy days—and thank you very much to Holly, Keith Pitt and Bridget particularly for generously lending me your staff. I really, really appreciate the loaners. I'll just mention Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce and Vikki Campion, who have been absolute rocks to me during my time here. For those of you who know Barnaby well, he is a very kind and caring person. As a result of that kindness and caring attitude, he often tends to pick up stray people, and I kind of feel like I'm one of his strays that he just never managed to rehome. On the opposition side, I wish to personally acknowledge Senator Don Farrell, who, despite his personal opposition to voluntary assisted dying, was prepared to offer his assistance in getting my Ensuring Northern Territory Rights Bill debated. His interactions with me were sincere, and his word was his word. I also want to say thank you for the kind words and often random calls and text messages from Senator Malarndirri McCarthy. She's obviously a Territory colleague and she has been a great friend and support. People think that, in the heat of political battle, we never work together, but of course those of us in this place know that that is not true. One of our greatest abilities in this place is the ability to work with each other. And of course, when we work together, the biggest winners from our point of view are Territorians. I'd also like to mention—and I mentioned her in the condolence motion on Monday—Senator Kimberley Kitching. I spoke of my work with her and the joy that I had in sharing the joint standing committee with her. I'd like to acknowledge all of my colleagues. Sorry if I've left some out; you're all special and important to me. There has been much written about my resignation from my former party, the CLP, and speculation over why. My losing preselection was not connected to my resignation at all. A democratic decision was made. We can argue the merits of that another time, but it was a democratic decision, and they exercised their right to do that. I have no problem with that decision at all. My reason to resign was driven entirely by my former staff member, Jason Riley, who did abuse and terrorise my office, including myself, and the party's decision to place him into a position on their central council. To have to sit in meetings with such a person was a very stressful experience and one that has not been without me seeking out professional assistance to overcome the anxiety and PTSD it created. The reported treatment of my fellow senator Kimberley Kitching—as I've just touched on Kimberley—by her Labor colleagues greatly saddens me. Whether or not it contributed to her death is a matter of speculation and it will likely never be determined. But that's really irrelevant. If it happened, it should not have happened and yet it seems that it may have—and so it does over and over again, unfortunately. We need to accept that poor behaviour can be part of our profession, and that part needs to be eliminated from our game. A great friend of mine once said, 'Politics is a nefarious business,' and he was right. My only hope is that we are learning and evolving, and that it won't always have to be this way. This alleged behaviour towards Senator Kitching should not become a partisan football, for it is not constrained to any one particular side of politics. We on this side might laud ourselves over the recent response to claims of bullying and sexual harassment with the Jenkins report. And it was a very appropriate and good response. We will now find ourselves tempted to point to the other side with an attitude of 'look over there; see what they did'. We should refrain, for bullying, harassment and victim-blaming can still be occurring on all sides of politics. Just a few weeks ago I was the subject of a vicious display of victim-blaming in the media by a former senior staffer. This was in response to my revelation that I had resigned from the CLP due to inaction on my concerns for my personal safety. This public attack was female-on-female, as are the allegations surrounding Senator Kitching. It seems it's not a man thing, a faction thing or a party thing, but it certainly can be a political thing. I don't want this to become a finger-pointing or pointscoring exercise; I want it to be a learning one. I think of the premature death of my colleague Kimberley Kitching and one thing that haunts me is that it so easily could have been me. We can honour her memory by not making this a political issue but by fixing it so that politics is a better place, particularly for women. I would now ask your indulgence to go over a few of the things that have been important to me during my time here. When I entered this place there was no COVID; the world seemed normal, and then the world came crashing down for the rest of my term. But I got stuck in and I wanted to achieve things. I didn't realise how short a time I would have in this place, so it is lucky that I got stuck in and tried to make Australia and, particularly, the Territory, a better place. At this election, voters will get to elect two members for the Northern Territory in the House of Representatives. It is through the combined efforts of myself, working with my colleagues, and members opposite that we saved these two seats. I want to acknowledge the role of then Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormick, Barnaby Joyce, Llew O'Brien and Mathias Cormann, with Bridget McKenzie in this as well. Had we failed then we would be electing one person less to argue our case in Canberra. In the agriculture space, we saw a modification and positive changes to ACIL 3.0 regulations. For that I thank my Nationals colleagues and Minister Littleproud for his open-minded approach as to the consequences for producers after they were abandoned by even the live exporters themselves. I am grateful that I had the support of my colleagues in the Nationals Senate team to convince the government not to appeal the live export decision of the Federal Court. We could easily have extended the pain, but common sense prevailed. The introduction and development of an agricultural visa which now has Vietnam signed up to the bilateral agreement will assist the industry to address workforce shortages, as we did with the seasonal worker and other programs. Mangoes are the second largest value agricultural industry in the Northern Territory and COVID nearly wiped this out with a lack of access to pickers. I think Minister Littleproud thought that I was haunting and stalking him because every time in the months leading up to a mango picking season there would be many phone calls. In the end, we managed to save about 80 per cent of the mango crop. And now with this ag. visa I am positive for the industry going forward. I was also able to argue for the removal of the working hours cap for international students, which has eased the pressure when it comes to their ability to earn income on the back of COVID and provided the hospitality and tourism industries another source of valued workers. But there are still policy battles to be had, starting with the NT's ability to make its own laws. The Andrews bill is almost a quarter of a century old and it needs to be removed. Every other state in Australia is allowed to at least debate voluntary assisted dying laws and yet we in the NT and the ACT are not. We are not second-class citizens so I ask that we not be treated this way. To quote a member opposite, 'We don't need voluntary assisted decision-making.' The other fight at the moment in the Northern Territory—I know it happens as well in other jurisdictions—is that we are being mandated with COVID vaccinations. I'm not an antivaxxer. I'm a pro-vaxxer. I'm a scientist. I'm a vet. I'm fully vaccinated. I support vaccination. I support COVID vaccination. But that's my choice. I don't want to have to have it brought upon people that in order to work you have to undergo a medical procedure. There are also the powers that have been given to our Chief Health Officer, specifically in the Northern Territory. We should never shirk our responsibilities in parliament, but we are a democracy and we have seen the removal of rights, which makes me personally uncomfortable. Moving forward, I also have concerns about the support for business and industry in the term ahead. Labor and their green partners are anti-energy, anti-industry and anti-agriculture. A Labor-Greens government is not what Australia needs right now. I also have grave concerns for the ability of the NT government to expend the Commonwealth funds that we've committed in areas, particularly roads and infrastructure. We've delivered a very generous budget. The problem is the NT government's inability to roll that money out and spend it where it's needed. Many people have asked about the future for me—what I'm passionate about and what I'm working on. I'll go to my maiden speech where I talked about nuclear energy and how we cannot continue to ignore it as part of our energy mix and our broader solution to reaching net zero emissions. My position is similar, if not stronger, than when I came to this place. The UK, the US, Canada and France all have around a 20 per cent nuclear mix in their energy plants and in their plans to achieve net zero. We can't be blind to this. We must explore every means available to mankind to address climate change concerns. We will do Australia a great injustice if we do not develop gas reserves and if we bury our head in the sand when it comes to nuclear energy. In closing, let me say, on reflecting on what may lie ahead for me in the future, I have made no decisions at this stage about my immediate future, which may confuse some people. But I am a qualified veterinary surgeon. I was accepted into university as a 16-year-old, completed my degree the age of 20 and have worked in the industry ever since. I have the opportunity to return to a successful business or many other opportunities as my time in this place has taught me to take advantage of the skills and the things that I've learnt. All of us grow into the role of senator over time. None of us slip into the role and become the most effective politician from day one. I know I wasn't when I first was elected. But, given more time in this place, my contributions would have been greater than the opportunity has afforded me. I'm lucky my future is more secure than others who depart this place and than most others facing the next election. I leave clear of mind knowing I did the best job possible and with a list of achievements which will last well beyond my time here. I thank you, Mr President, and I thank the Senate, the people of the Northern Territory and those within the CLP who supported me on my endeavours and expressed sorrow at my departure. My road was bumpy, but then living in and coming from the Northern Territory the roads are always bumpy. So, thank you, Mr President, and thank you to all members, senators and staff in this place.
Kitching, Senator Kimberley Jane Elizabeth | Condolences | Senate debates
I rise today to speak about our colleague Senator Kimberley Kitching. Others have detailed her achievements and outstanding contributions. I will not reiterate those, but I wholeheartedly support...
I rise today to speak about our colleague Senator Kimberley Kitching. Others have detailed her achievements and outstanding contributions. I will not reiterate those, but I wholeheartedly support what others here today have said. Kimba was, from the other side of the chamber, one of the people that I was probably closer to, and that was due to a combination of her own outgoing and vivacious personality and the fact of our mutual passion for the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, on which we both served. She was dedicated, passionate and extremely knowledgeable about many things, as we have heard today, and that certainly included the ADF. I enjoyed immensely our inspection tours, the last of which was last month, just two weeks and one day before she passed away, and I am incredibly glad to have had those two days to enjoy with her. It was a fantastic inspection tour. She had this ability to ask questions on our inspection visits and in our committee that were not just appropriate but insightful and showed her great knowledge of and interest in the subject at hand. She would ask questions that the rest of us hadn't thought to ask, but I was always enthralled by the information that she uncovered in asking her questions. On a personal note: no matter what sort of day I was having, running into Kimba would always brighten it. She was vivacious, her smile infectious and, as Senator McKenzie covered, she could be somewhat mischievous and irreverent. I will miss her, and this place is poorer without her presence.
Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
In considering the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021 a lot of people find it confusing. I'm a veterinary surgeon and a scientist, and even I found it confusing until I...
In considering the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021 a lot of people find it confusing. I'm a veterinary surgeon and a scientist, and even I found it confusing until I delved right down deeply into it. I feel that it's a little bit misnamed—'mitochondrial donation'. People equate it with organ donation. You may decide that, when you die, you want to donate your organs. The person who receives that organ gets that organ. It's donated by you. You've said, 'You can take that from me when I die'—hopefully after you die, not before!—and that person receives that organ and they have it until they pass away. Mitochondrial donation is not a donation as such; it's the taking of genetic material from one cell and putting it in another. It might seem like semantics but when people hear 'donation' I think they equate it with organ donation, which is a very-well-understood and long-practised technique. I will go into a little bit of the science of it. The mitochondria, as others might have said, are little structures in our cells—they exist in all cells—and they're often described as the powerhouse or the engine room. They're the structures which essentially take what we eat and turn it into energy for the cell to function. Mitochondrial disease is becoming better understood. This is a fairly recent thing in terms of medical research; it's becoming a more-understood disease in recent times. There are various different types of mitochondrial disease. It's basically a dysfunction of the genetic material within the mitochondria, which leads to various manifestations. They can be extremely mild—so much so that the person with the condition doesn't even realise there's anything wrong with them—or they can be quite devastating, leading to the very early death of babies or children or long-term medical effects such as Senator Lines detailed with the case of Pippa. It was very distressing to hear about that case, and I'm sure that no-one would not have sympathy for someone who had to live with such a debilitating disease and a premature death. So that's the basics of what mitochondrial disease can do. It can range from very mild, to not noticeable to the person, to something that is incompatible with life. What does mitochondrial donation do? You're basically taking a cell from a donor who doesn't have mitochondrial disease—a normal, healthy person. You're taking the genetic material from, in this case, an egg, because most of your mitochondria is inherited maternally—from your mother. That's not 100 per cent cut and dried, but the majority of it comes from your mother. This is generally passed on from mothers to their children. So you're taking two eggs: one from a donor who doesn't have mitochondrial disease and one from the mother who does have mitochondrial disease. You are removing the healthy DNA from the donor and implanting it. You are taking out the DNA that's in the mother with the mito disease and implanting the DNA from that healthy egg in the defective egg. Then you are fertilising it, and then it goes on to hopefully—this is the theory, but, as far as I'm aware, this hasn't been done to produce a normal healthy human—get a normal baby that has the mother's genetic material and the father's genetic material. Only the mitochondria will have the genetic material from the donor. That's the theory of it. As Senator Lines said, there is no cure and no treatment for this disease. That's true, and this technique isn't a cure or a treatment either. There are actually about five different techniques you can use, and they do vary slightly. I know Senator Canavan is moving some amendments, and some of those go to the different techniques that are used, because there is concern amongst some people that in destroying a zygote or an embryo you are taking a life. I get that. It's not my concern, but I understand that is the concern of many. But the theory is you get this normal embryo, which then hopefully turns out to be a normal person without the mitochondrial disease. Yes, there is currently no effective treatment and no cure, but there is prevention. There is definitely prevention. This goes to your morals and your ethics and to the question of whether you believe it's a person's absolute right to have a child of their own genetic make-up. I'm not going to argue that. My point of view, personally, is no: having a child is not an absolute right that every single person on the planet has. We all have a lot of things that we have burning desires for. I get that for some people that is having a child that is of their genetic make-up. But there are a lot of other people who have equally burning desires about various things. We know that in life you don't always get what you want. So I would argue that it's not an absolute, government guaranteed right for every single person to be able to have a child of their genetic make-up. But, as I said, that's an ethical and moral debate. You can currently prevent mitochondrial disease. You can prevent it by diagnosing it in the mother or father, and that's something that I think we need to focus on. I think we're putting the cart before the horse a bit with this legislation, because this would only come into effect if you've been diagnosed with the disease first. So I think we need to put a lot more effort into genetic screening, so that people can know they have this disease—or one of many other genetic diseases—before they make the choice to have a child. I think that's essential because, if you know you have mitochondrial disease, there are a few choices you can make. You can choose not to have a child: 'Children are not going to be for me; I'm not going to have children.' You can choose IVF. You can still have a child that is of your partner's genetic make-up and a donor's, and you can carry that child and give birth to that child, so you have a child that's your child and that you've given birth to. Alright, it doesn't haven't the mother's genetic material, but, as we've seen for many, many years all around the world, that doesn't stop people from loving and raising children, so you've still got that option. The other option, if you have a burning desire to have a child, is that you can adopt. That's something that I would also like to see more effort put into in this country: facilitating adoptions. There's a whole pile of babies, kids and teenagers out there who would love to have a loving family raise them, and adoption in this country is quite difficult, so I would like to see that facilitated as an option. It's not going to be for everybody, because, as we know, some people have that burning desire: 'This child must be of my genetic make-up.' But, for those who just want a child and can give a child a loving family home and a great life, we should be doing all we can to facilitate that before putting billions of dollars into developing techniques that can potentially give someone a healthy child. Let's not forget that this is potential, because this is still experimental. It concerns me that these laws have been in place in the UK for six years now and we don't have evidence that these techniques can produce normal, healthy children, so that is a bit of a concern. So I think we need to consider how much effort we're putting into these laws and this research compared to other things that we could be facilitating, such as adoption and IVF. However, having said that, I think it's important that Australian researchers are given the opportunity to conduct world-leading research. It's something Australia does very well. We've been world leaders in a lot of different aspects of medical research. So I think enabling the research and the testing to occur is important. I know one of Senator Canavan's amendments concerns the second phase, if you like, so it allows the research to occur, so Australian medical researchers can start conducting this research in Australia, but it stops short of allowing some minister in some government in the future to make regulations. We're told it will probably be at least 10 years before this goes on to phase 2, with the clinical trials and the clinical application. I'm all for starting the process, not just because this technique could give a family a child of their own genetic make-up but because we really don't yet know what else this research could lead to. It could well be that some of the techniques that are developed with this research at some stage in the future could save humanity. So I really think it's important to start the research and to have legislation that allows that to occur, but I would like to see it stop short of legislating here and now to, as I said, allow some minister from some government at some stage in the future to make up the regulations which will then determine how this is clinically applied. We've got time. This is not time critical. It is time critical to start the research, but it is not time critical to legislate for the clinical application. We've got at least 10 years and maybe even more. The UK hasn't done much in six years. So we've got time, and we can come back to the parliament in the future. That may be a few years. It may be 10 years. Whatever time frame it is, we can come back when we have the results of the research that the UK is doing and that our own researchers are doing. That can be brought back to the parliament, and the parliament can then make legislation. I certainly would support this bill with amendments, and one amendment that I would really need to see is that we split it. We can go ahead with phase 1, but it needs to come back to the parliament rather than just be delegated to a minister to make regulations on. So that would be a critical thing that I would need to see to support this legislation.
Centre for National Resilience | Statements | Senate debates
I rise today to speak about the sad decay and decline of the Centre for National Resilience, the quarantine facility at Howard Springs in the Northern Territory, under the watch of the Gunner...
I rise today to speak about the sad decay and decline of the Centre for National Resilience, the quarantine facility at Howard Springs in the Northern Territory, under the watch of the Gunner Labor government. This facility was considered world-class, gold standard, under Professor Len Notaras and his AUSMAT team. It has gone from gold standard to winning the wooden spoon. Just last week we had three people presumed to have actually caught COVID within the centre. We had one person abscond. They got out of the centre and were found hours later at a bar in Darwin's CBD. Just today we have news of three people absconding from the centre and being found in Palmerston. People are just going over the very small fence and getting out. This never happened under Professor Len Notaras. That's why it was considered to be gold standard. It wasn't the physical buildings of the facility itself; it was the management. Less than six months since the facility was handed over to Michael Gunner it has gone into absolute decline. It has gone from being the shining light of quarantine facilities around the world and around Australia. We've had people come to the Northern Territory to examine the facility and see what we're doing that is working so well. It was working well until the management of the facility was handed over to Michael Gunner. It has gone from being the shining light to a chaotic failure. It's very sad that in less than six months it has been torn apart and is no longer functional.
Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority Board and Other Improvements) Bill 2019; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
As I was saying last night when I opened my contribution on the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority Board and...
As I was saying last night when I opened my contribution on the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority Board and Other Improvements) Bill 2019, the importance of agricultural and veterinary chemicals and their regulation can't be overemphasised. How has this come before us? It's not something we thought up yesterday; it has been a long process. It was part of the 2015 Agricultural competitiveness white paper. The government committed to streamline access to agvet chemicals and better manage the risks they pose whilst at the same time retaining protection for the health, welfare and safety of humans, animals, plants and the environment. The Morrison-Joyce government recognises the need to better balance regulatory effort with risk and improve veterinary surgeons', farmers' and other users' access to newer and better agricultural and veterinary chemicals, including many medications. This government also recognises the need to ensure that our regulatory agencies have effective governance arrangements, with clear accountability and transparency. The department consulted on potential agvet chemical reforms between 2015 and 2018. Stakeholder feedback indicated widespread interest in reform and support for a more efficient and effective regulatory system. I can personally report that people in industry that I have been speaking to recently—as you're well aware, I'm very close to this industry, being a veterinary surgeon—have talked about how they have seen improvements in the way that the APVMA works, in the way that it approves medications and chemicals and in the time that it takes to get approvals through. That was a big thing that industry has had for many, many years. This is quite a small agency and it's often dealing with hundreds of applications at any one time. Industry has been concerned for many years about the time taken to get things approved. I am very pleased to report that under the previous ag minister, Senator McKenzie, and under the current ag minister, Mr Littleproud, there have been incremental improvements. Industry is still looking for more improvements to be made, but they are quite impressed with the steps that have been taken to improve these areas. The APVMA is probably an agency that a lot of people haven't really heard of and don't really pay a lot of attention to, but, as I've stated, it is a vital agency. It approves and regulates all of the chemicals that are used in agriculture. It's absolutely vital for our agricultural industries. We have a very strong agricultural industry in Australia. We have a proud history of our agriculture and the food and fibre that we produce. For all of this to be efficient, effective and safe relies on the efficient regulation of the chemicals that are used in it. Although many Australians would not have heard of this agency, the vast majority of Australians have animals, or have at some stage owned animals. They've owned either farm animals or companion animals, pets or performance animals, such as racing horses and greyhounds, or horses that are used in competition. The veterinary side of it is very vital for production animals. Veterinarians and the medications that we have access to are vital for animal health and welfare in our production systems. These range from intensive production systems, such as chicken and pigs, to quite extensive systems, such as beef cattle. The treatment, the maintenance of not only the health but, as I said, the welfare is absolutely vital. It's vital we get the medications that are used in doing that approved in a timely manner. It's vital that they are regulated in a way that, as I said, is safe, efficient and effective. We also have companion pets. Most people in Australia will be well aware of pet cats, dogs and birds, and these days reptiles, fish. Veterinary medications that are regulated by this agency are absolutely vital for all of these companion animals. Modern veterinary medicine is increasingly coming into line with human medicine, and people are increasingly demanding improved treatments and outcomes for their pets. In fact, these days it is quite common for pets to undergo chemotherapy for cancer, to have complex surgeries—including complex orthopaedic surgeries and complex soft-tissue surgeries—and to take medications for many emerging and existing diseases and conditions. The regulation and approval of these medications is vital to pets and their owners. We're a very small country, in terms of population and in terms of our pets and our veterinary industry, compared to countries such as the US and the UK, so we don't have a lot of medications that are developed in this country. We rely heavily on both human medications and medications that are developed overseas. These have to be approved in Australia to be used, and that is where this agency comes in. It is absolutely critical in getting timely approval for these medications and in making sure that the testing and regulation that have been done overseas are appropriate for Australian conditions and for Australian pets and production systems. This bill will improve the APVMA's governance, reduce the regulatory burden on industry, support the APVMA's operations, strengthen the integrity of the regulation system and enhance the way the regulation operates. I've already spoken about how this agency operates and the fact that it's important to increase efficiency and the time in which various medications and chemicals are approved. One example of this is minor use permits. These are permits that are granted by the agency for chemicals and medications that generally don't have widespread use or are needed in a very urgent situation. They're generally used in small amounts, with small production systems, and there may not have been the time or it may not have been worthwhile to the company to go through the full registration process, which is quite expensive and quite onerous. An example of where these are used in veterinary medicine is autogenous vaccines, where you have an outbreak of a disease on a particular property. We're trying to get away from the widespread use of antimicrobials, and that's where these vaccines are important. There will be a veterinary investigation on a property where a disease is occurring. Identified bacteria—the cause of the disease outbreak—will be found and a vaccine will be developed for the specific bacteria on that specific property. You're not going to go through a whole regulation process to get a vaccine to market for use on one or two individual properties. That's where the minor use permits come in. One of the issues that has come about is that, while the APVMA has five months in which to approve one of these minor use permits, the agency can go back to the proponent with a question about the information that's contained in the permit application and that then triggers another five months. So you can have almost a year between a disease being identified on a property and a permit being issued for the vaccine to combat that disease. Anyone would acknowledge that that's not desirable. We need to speed this process up. We still need to maintain safety and efficacy, but we need to speed this process up. That is where this will come into effect, so that we're continually improving the governance of the APVMA and we're continually improving its efficiency and effectiveness. As someone who is intimately involved in the agricultural and veterinary industries, I thank the ministers involved. As I said, Minister McKenzie has been instrumental in this, and I thank her for the work that she's done on it. Industry certainly strongly welcomes and recommends this bill and the improvements in effectiveness and efficiency that it will bring about.
The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority is an important regulator. It regulates agricultural and veterinary chemicals, including medications. We all understand the importance...
The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority is an important regulator. It regulates agricultural and veterinary chemicals, including medications. We all understand the importance of agriculture. It is vital to Australia—absolutely vital. It produces our food and our fibre, and not just for us but for exports. It is really important that Australia has access to the high-quality chemicals needed to produce the quality food we do. With respect to the veterinary side of it, being a veterinary surgeon myself, all of the veterinary medications are registered and regulated by the APVMA. Now—
Ensuring Northern Territory Rights Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
Thank you to Senator Gallagher. Thank you for acknowledging the work that I have done, and I thank all of my colleagues in the Senate for hearing me out on this issue and for granting me the...
Thank you to Senator Gallagher. Thank you for acknowledging the work that I have done, and I thank all of my colleagues in the Senate for hearing me out on this issue and for granting me the opportunity to bring this legislation, the Ensuring Northern Territory Rights Bill 2021—my private senator's bill—to the Senate and to debate it. It is important. The Northern Territory is, I believe, a very unique place. Everybody probably believes that about where they live. They probably believe that it's special, it's unique and it's the best place in the world. But the Northern Territory is unique. It's a huge landmass. We've got over 1.4 million square kilometres. We don't have many people. We have a very large Indigenous population. We have a great deal of difference in our socioeconomic areas. You've got Darwin, which is quite a metropolitan, cosmopolitan city, and many people live there, as in inner-city Melbourne or inner-city Sydney. Then we have the smaller towns. Katherine is where I'm from. Katherine is the fourth-largest town in the Northern Territory, with a population of about 10,000 people—so it would count as quite a small country town in the rest of Australia. Our Indigenous communities are spread throughout the Northern Territory, often in some very beautiful but inaccessible locations. A lot of these places are not well serviced by roads, and the people live out there in very small communities and with quite a traditional lifestyle. We have our cattle stations, isolated farms, isolated properties. For some people on some of these properties, it might be an 800-kilometre trip one-way to go shopping. So it is quite sparsely populated, and a unique and different place. Some of our places are not even accessible by road for most of the year. They have to get their supplies brought in by barge or by small plane. Having such a small population, we are a territory, the same as the ACT, although the ACT is obviously geographically very small. But we are capable of making our own laws. We are capable of governing our people and making our own decisions and deciding what is best for Territorians. I've just described a little bit of the uniqueness of the place. Now, how can you expect someone who lives in Melbourne or Sydney or Canberra to understand what makes the place and the people tick and to know what is best for those people. Only those who live in that environment, who live with those people, can truly know what is the best thing for Territorians. The Northern Territory was the first jurisdiction in the world to legalise voluntary assisted dying, or voluntary euthanasia, laws. The Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill was introduced into the parliament by then Chief Minister and member for Fannie Bay Marshall Perron on 22 February 1995. Mr Perron actually resigned his Chief Ministership; that's how important this issue was to him. To introduce this private member's bill, he resigned his Chief Ministership so as not to influence his colleagues by the weight of his office. That is a pretty big decision to take and it just shows you the conviction that he had in introducing these laws for Territorians. Mr Perron said at the time: This bill is based on a relatively simple principle: if there are terminally ill patients who wish to end their suffering by accelerating inevitable death, and there are sympathetic doctors who are willing to help them die with dignity, then the law should not forbid it. There are such patients, and there are such doctors, and the law does forbid it. Mr Perron recognised that, with the laws forbidding this from occurring, you were taking away people's right to die without suffering and to die with dignity. is Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill was passed by the Northern Territory's Legislative Assembly on 25 May 1995. The Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 entered into law on 1 July 1996—25 years ago. The following year the Commonwealth parliament intervened to overturn this act. Section 50A was added to the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 to prohibit the Northern Territory from making laws in respect of voluntary assisted dying. In June 1996, Mr Kevin Andrews, the member for Menzies, in the Commonwealth House of Representatives announced his intention to introduce a private members bill to override the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act. On 9 September 1996 he introduced the bill entitled Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996 in the House. On 7 November 1996, while debate on the bill continued in the House of Representatives, the Senate Selection of Bills Committee recommended, and the Senate agreed, that the provisions of the bill be referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee for inquiry. The report was tabled in the House in March 1997. On 9 December 1996, the House of Representatives agreed to the bill with amendments. The Rights of the Terminally Ill Act in the Northern Territory was in force for nine months, during which time four people died by medically assisted procedures. At the time, the overturning of this legislation by the Commonwealth was seen by the Northern Territory as taking away the rights of Territorians to legislate for themselves. Now I understand it. I get it. At the time we were the first jurisdiction in the world to do this, so I understand that people in this place said: 'Clearly they're all mad. They can't make decisions for themselves. They've lost the plot. They can't govern responsibly, so we're going to step in and we're going to look after those poor people up there in the Northern Territory whose government has quite clearly lost the plot.' I get that, but that was 25 years ago. Time has moved on and the world has moved on. The world is a very different place, and there are now many, many jurisdictions that have legislation around voluntary assisted dying—including most states of Australia. They can make those laws. The states can make those laws. The territories can't. The territories are still prohibited from legislating for their people. In this way, Northern Territorians are being treated as second-class citizens, and so are the residents of the ACT. The residents of the territories are being treated as though they can't govern for themselves. As we've heard, the territories have multi-billion-dollar budgets. They look after everything else. They legislate for everything else that affects their citizens, but they can't do this one thing that all the states are saying we need to do for the people. I get that 25 years ago the Northern Territory was ahead of its time. History has proved that. We weren't crazy back then. We were not crazy; we were just ahead of our time. The fact that almost every other jurisdiction in Australia has passed or is considering these laws shows that. We've been vindicated. We weren't mad. We were just ahead of our time. You might say about the Northern Territory, 'You're just a small place. You don't have many people. How could that be?' Well, maybe that's why. Maybe it's because we are a small, tight-knit community and we look after each other because we are isolated up there, because we've grown up having to look after ourselves and each other. Maybe that is why we were ahead of the game? Maybe that's why we were ahead of our time? We got together, we saw what was happening, we saw what people wanted and our Legislative Assembly at the time had the fortitude to pass voluntary assisted dying laws for the people of the Northern Territory. I'm not here to debate what those laws might look like or the attributes or otherwise of voluntary assisted dying, because that's a matter for the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. They are best placed to debate those laws and bring them into effect if they want to—they can't currently but they could. That is not for me to debate. I am an advocate for voluntary assisted dying. I'm a veterinarian. I see what effect the relief of pain and suffering has on animals and their loved ones all the time, but that's not the purpose here today. This is not to make laws about voluntary assisted dying or assisted euthanasia; this is to empower the people of the Northern Territory to enjoy the same representation and power to make their own laws that almost everyone else around Australia has. The two territories are cut out of this. They can't even have this debate, but everyone else in Australia can. Is it fair? Is it right? Is it just that, because you happen to live in the ACT or the Northern Territory, you don't have the right to have the same governance that someone who lives in New South Wales, Western Australia or Tasmania has? Is it right that territorians don't enjoy the same freedom of having their government pass laws for them? That is my argument. That is not right; that is not just. The Commonwealth stands back in every other argument saying: 'It's up to the states to decide if they want to have biosecurity in place. It's up to the states to decide about quarantine. It's up to the states to decide this.' However, in this area, the Commonwealth government is still saying: 'No, you can't. We're going to stop you. We're going to override your right to make fair, just and needed laws for your people.' That is absolutely not right; it is not fair. It is time for the Commonwealth to pull back from this argument and say to the territories: 'We got it wrong 25 years ago. We thought you were mad. We thought you were nuts. We thought you'd lost the plot, but we were actually wrong: you hadn't. It turns out you were ahead of the game, and we will give you back the right to make laws, if you so desire, around this very sensitive topic. It is sensitive. It is emotive, and there are different points of view; however, we give you the right to have that debate and that discussion with your people if they want to pass laws around voluntary assisted dying and that is what you decide is right for your people.' It is time for the Commonwealth to get out of the way of the territories and let them make laws around this issue, the way they let them make laws around everything else that governs everything from economic policy to life-and-death decisions that affect peoples' everyday lives. Let them make laws around voluntary assisted dying, if they so desire, that will have an effect on peoples' lives. Territorians no longer want, and certainly don't need, voluntary assisted decision-making. Thank you.
Industry Research and Development (Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program) Instrument 2021; Disallowance | Regulations and Determinations | Senate debates
I rise to speak on this disallowance motion. It's not the first time that this has been attempted. Yes, this government has committed $50 million in grants to advance the exploration of the...
I rise to speak on this disallowance motion. It's not the first time that this has been attempted. Yes, this government has committed $50 million in grants to advance the exploration of the Beetaloo basin, which we think and we hope will be extremely productive. Why have we done this? This government gives grants to a lot of different industries that we think are going to be valuable for the Australian people and for our economy. We give lots of grants to things like hydrogen, battery storage, solar and wind, and lots of grants to business development and manufacturing. We do a whole lot of work in this space to try to advance economic development, and this is just one of those. This is to bring forward exploration of the Beetaloo basin, which has the potential to bring a huge amount of jobs and economic stimulus to the Northern Territory in particular and also to Indigenous people and traditional owners. The Greens like to talk a big game about Indigenous people, but the truth is that they actually don't care about Indigenous economic advancement, Indigenous jobs, Indigenous businesses and independence from welfare. If they did truly believe that then they would be supporting this program. This program is not only going to provide jobs—actual long-term jobs—for the traditional owners of this area but it's also going to provide opportunity for Indigenous businesses. In fact, I am engaged with an Indigenous business at the moment in the region which is looking to provide services and a whole pile of other jobs to this industry. (Quorum formed) The Greens like to talk a big game about supposedly supporting Indigenous Australians, but they actually don't. What they want to do is oppress them. What they're doing is trying to infantilise Indigenous Australians. They want to keep them down. They don't want to give them economic opportunity, because this is the biggest economic opportunity that Indigenous Territorians have had in a very long time. This will grow Indigenous businesses. This will provide Indigenous jobs. This will provide royalties for traditional owners. The Greens don't even know what a traditional owner is. And when they can't find a traditional owner that supports their view, they go and make one. They actually created a traditional owner. Senator Hanson-Young mentioned Rikki Dank and said that she'd come all the way from the Northern Territory to Glasgow. But she hadn't. She'd come all the way from Dubai, where she lives, and she has been confirmed by the Northern Land Council as not a traditional owner. But she certainly wants a slice of whatever's in it for her from the Beetaloo basin. The Greens can't find traditional owners who support their views, so they go and make them. They create traditional owners who are fake. That's what the Greens do. They make up what they want in order to support their view. They are patronising to the Northern Land Council. The Northern Land Council is the body set up for determining who the traditional owners are and helping them negotiate with companies about their traditional lands. The Greens reject that because it doesn't suit their narrative. They reject the Northern Land Council, which is made up of Indigenous Territorians, and they go and make up their own traditional owners. The Greens claim—and Senator Hanson-Young claimed this—that the traditional owners do not support this development on their land, but the truth is they do. The Greens also claim that the traditional owners are not capable of making the decisions regarding their lands. They are extremely capable. They sit down with the companies that want to explore and they sit down with the Northern Land Council. They're capable of understanding what's going on, what's going to happen, and they make informed decisions. They don't have decisions made for them, which is what the Greens would have you believe. They make informed decisions about their traditional lands. They make informed decisions about what are and are not sacred sites and where they do and do not want exploration to occur: 'You don't speak for me; you don't speak for my mob.' They're perfectly capable. The Greens would have you believe they're not capable. But, in fact, they are and they have made the decision that they do want to have exploration, economic opportunities and jobs on their land.
Violence | Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers | Senate debates
I rise to respond to Senators Kitching and Ciccone taking note of answers from Senator Birmingham to questions asked by Senator Wong. I might be paraphrasing Senator Wong a little bit, but...
I rise to respond to Senators Kitching and Ciccone taking note of answers from Senator Birmingham to questions asked by Senator Wong. I might be paraphrasing Senator Wong a little bit, but basically her question was why we as a government did not oppose the motion that was put up. The fact is that there was no motion put. So we didn't not oppose, and we didn't vote against—there was no motion put to the Senate to vote on. If we turn to some of the comments made by Senator Kitching regarding the issue of violent protests, violence and unacceptable behaviour, we did hear from Senator Birmingham. He said, 'Of course, we oppose and condemn threatening or inflicting violence in any form whatsoever.' So he did address it. We as a government and we as individuals completely oppose threatening, violent or inciteful behaviour by anyone. Those opposite and those in the corner would have us believe that this is all right-wing extremism. It's not. Certainly, there are extremists out there—right and left wing, and other types—and we must always take action against extremist, politically motivated violence. And we are. I'm pleased to say that this year the government has made a record $1 billion investment in ASIO's most sensitive capabilities. This is to investigate, discover, stamp out, prevent and crack down on this kind of extremism and this kind of violence. So we're definitely doing a lot about the issue. The other thing that we need to look at is why we're seeing this massive rise in violence and threats—fortunately, at the moment, it's mostly threats—directed towards people in government and people in public office. None of it's excusable, but those on the other side don't care why. They don't care. We do. On this side we do, and we recognise that a lot of these people who aren't the extremists are actually pretty normal people who are behaving in a very, very abnormal way—a way that they would not normally behave in. We need to look at what's causing that. Some of the people I know in the Northern Territory who are going to these protests are not behaving violently or threatening violence, but they are behaving in a way they would not normally do. The reason they have done that is through absolute frustration and through their livelihoods being taken away from them by the government. That doesn't excuse what they're doing, but these people need help. We need to intervene before they get to the stage where they feel their only course of action is to threaten people. And we are doing that. We're making record investments in mental health. We recognise that a lot of the stresses that people have suffered over COVID have driven them to experience mental health issues, and we're investing in mental health to combat these issues. Those on the other side don't care about mental health. They're not speaking out about it and they're not committing to investing in it. They don't care about helping people through one of the most difficult and extraordinary times that we'll probably ever live through. We need to acknowledge the impacts of this disease and the responses to the disease. Often, it's the state and territory Labor governments which are reacting extraordinarily in taking away people's lives and livelihoods. We need to acknowledge that and we need to provide help and support for these people who are experiencing mental illness as a result of the COVID responses.
COVID-19: Vaccination | Statements | Senate debates
I rise today to speak about the appalling state in the Northern Territory of the vaccine mandates inflicted upon Territorians by the Gunner Labor government. In the Northern Territory anybody who...
I rise today to speak about the appalling state in the Northern Territory of the vaccine mandates inflicted upon Territorians by the Gunner Labor government. In the Northern Territory anybody who has a job, who has contracts, who has a business cannot work unless they're vaccinated or they are someone who works from home and never sees another human being during the course of their day. Mr Gunner said yesterday that anyone who does not support vaccine mandates are antivaxxers. This means he's calling the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the entire government antivaxxers, which is clearly not the truth. He also went on to say that anyone who gives comfort or support to anybody who argues against the vaccines is an antivaxxer. This is disgusting. This is un-Australian and this is un-Territorian. This means that he is labelling people antivaxxers if they give comfort or support to anyone who does not wish to be vaccinated. This covers thousands of individuals, including people out on Indigenous communities who have chosen not to be vaccinated and other Territorians who for various reasons have chosen not to be. There are many Territorians who choose not to be vaccinated, not because they're being belligerent, not because they're being difficult but because they have a genuine fear and terror of being vaccinated. I might feel that their fears are unreasonable and unfounded, but to them they are real. Fears and phobias are not rational or logical. Most people who are terrified of planes have never been in a plane crash, most people who are afraid of spiders have never been bitten by a spider and most people who are afraid of heights have never fallen from a great one, yet their fears are just as real.
[by video link] I rise today to speak about the dire state of COVID vaccinations in the Northern Territory, particularly in remote Indigenous communities. In one community alone, only nine per...
[by video link] I rise today to speak about the dire state of COVID vaccinations in the Northern Territory, particularly in remote Indigenous communities. In one community alone, only nine per cent of people have received their first dose and just five per cent their second dose. There are numerous communities where the second dose is in single digits. Just last week, I spoke to an organisation that sent a medical team out to one of those remote communities. They took 400 doses, enough for every single person in the community, and they managed to vaccinate just 14 people. Some of our general population statistics are the worst in the nation. For those aged 16 and over, we have just 71.68 per cent of people having had their first vaccination. For those 70 and over, first dose is sitting at 86.4 per cent and the second dose is at 70.9 per cent. This is the worst in the country by a long way. The Northern Territory government is not addressing this crisis in some of our most vulnerable people: Indigenous communities and the aged. Instead of addressing the problem, the Northern Territory government is mandating that nearly all workers be vaccinated or be fined $5,000 and lose their jobs. Have we really come to a society where, in order to have a job, put food on the table and put a roof over your family's head, you must undertake a medical procedure against your will? And this is doing nothing to address the real crisis out there in communities. Instead, it is driving workers who don't want to be vaccinated, for whatever reason—and I disagree with that—to the unemployment queue or out of the Northern Territory.
COVID-19: Indigenous Australians | Matters of Urgency | Senate debates
[by video link] The first thing that I would like to do in speaking on this matter of urgency is to say that I absolutely reject the premise of this. It talks about the need for the...
[by video link] The first thing that I would like to do in speaking on this matter of urgency is to say that I absolutely reject the premise of this. It talks about the need for the Morrison-Joyce government to stop blaming First Nations Australians and instead take responsibility for their bungled vaccine rollout. I reject all of that comment, all of that sentence. Who has said that anyone is blaming First Nations Australians—or anyone else for that matter? And why do those opposite constantly have to find blame? We talk about how we're all in this together and we're all working together and we should have a bipartisan approach, yet those opposite continually politicise this issue and continually want to apportion blame to someone. I haven't heard anyone in this government blaming First Nations Australians, yet we're accused of doing that here, and I absolutely reject that. We're not blaming anyone, yet that's what those on the other side continually seek to claim. Why does there have to be someone to blame? Can they not just join with this government in getting on with the job? Secondly, the government should take responsibility for its bungled vaccine rollout: there has been nothing bungled about this vaccine rollout at all. Yes, there have been aspects of it that may have been less than desirable, where things haven't worked out as planned, but it hasn't been bungled. Things happen. This is an absolutely unprecedented situation. We're being asked to do something that we as a nation—and we as a world—have never, ever attempted to do previously, so not everything is going to go absolutely according to plan all of the time, but that does not mean that the job is bungled. This government has been exceptionally good at dealing with it and dealing with everything that has been thrown our way. Many things have changed; this is a dynamic situation, and we have dealt with everything that has come our way and we've dealt with it practically and efficiently. The governments that are actually responsible, as those on the opposite side say, for getting jabs into arms are the states and territories. They've decided that they want to be responsible for health and for the vaccine rollout, and that's fine. They probably should be. They know their communities. Particularly with regard to Indigenous communities, they know those communities, certainly better than the federal government does, so it's appropriate that they should be in charge. Yet we hear, for example, that in the Northern Territory there are some fairly poor results with regard to Indigenous communities. In Utopia, one community in Central Australia, at the clinic there, approximately 10 out of 700 residents have been vaccinated. At Kintore, another remote Indigenous community in Central Australia, it's reported one in 400 people consented to be vaccinated when a team went out there with enough vaccine to vaccinate that whole community of over 400 people. This failure absolutely has to fall at the feet of the Northern Territory government. Again, I'm not laying any blame, but if they are incapable of doing this rollout then they need to ask for help. We are certainly here and prepared to help and to provide resources and funds where they are needed, but the Northern Territory government are very much in charge of this rollout in Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. They need to admit that they are not capable of doing this effectively, and they need to ask for help where they are failing in their task of rolling out the vaccine to remote Indigenous Territorians. Come forward, say you're not doing the job— (Time expired)
Australian Agriculture Visa | Statements | Senate debates
[by video link] I rise today to talk about our recently announced Agriculture Visa. This has been a long-held initiative of the Country Liberal Party and the National Party, and I am very glad it...
[by video link] I rise today to talk about our recently announced Agriculture Visa. This has been a long-held initiative of the Country Liberal Party and the National Party, and I am very glad it is going to come into effect from the 30th of this month. It will complement our existing Seasonal Worker Program, which has been so vital and so successful in the Northern Territory. It will rely on us having bilateral agreements with the countries that we are going to invite these workers to come from, and I hope that these bilateral agreements will be able to be brought into play, nutted out and agreed to very shortly to allow Territory producers and farmers to take advantage of the Agriculture Visa. The next part of the puzzle is that we need to be able to have quarantine arrangements, particularly during COVID, for these workers. It has been a struggle, even under the Seasonal Worker Program, to get the Northern Territory government to agree to quarantine arrangements. I'm very glad to see that 160 people have arrived from Vanuatu, who have gone into quarantine for their two weeks and will be available for the Northern Territory mango harvest. But it was disappointing that one of our biggest producers, Katherine based Nino Niceforo, had to have his workers quarantine in WA because the Northern Territory would not make places available for them. We, the federal government, have done the heavy lifting here. We've provided the visas. We've provided the programs. All we ask of the states and territories is that they come to the party and support their people in agriculture—their farmers, their producers—by providing places for these workers to be able to complete their quarantine so that they can go onto farms and produce vital food.
Infrastructure | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
That's great news for the Northern Territory. What investments is the government making in other critical projects, particularly in regional Australia, to chart our way back from COVID-19?
That is indeed excellent news, Minister. Can you inform us what infrastructure programs will improve safety and support growth and recovery in Northern Territory communities?
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Regional Development, Senator McKenzie. Can the minister inform the Senate how the Liberal and...
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Regional Development, Senator McKenzie. Can the minister inform the Senate how the Liberal and Nationals government's record $110 billion—that's a lot of money—infrastructure investment plan is helping to connect communities, create jobs and support our economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic?
Agriculture Visas | Statements | Senate debates
I rise today to speak about the recently announced agriculture visa—announced this week, in fact, by my colleague Minister David Littleproud. I congratulate him and everyone who has worked...
I rise today to speak about the recently announced agriculture visa—announced this week, in fact, by my colleague Minister David Littleproud. I congratulate him and everyone who has worked on this. This visa, which is to be in place by 30 September, is something that has been a long-held CLP policy and something that I have advocated for since coming to this place. We in the Northern Territory rely heavily on seasonal workers and struggle to get agricultural workers. We have used the Pacific labour solution and will continue to do so—it is a very, very important part of our seasonal workforce—but this visa will give us much more flexibility for our farmers and producers who cannot get the skilled Australian labour that they need. We, on this side, care about agriculture. We look after our farmers and our producers and those in the regions, while those on the other side, and their cronies in the Northern Territory Labor government, do not care about agriculture at all. What have they done for agriculture? I'll tell you: they have done absolutely nothing for agriculture. Why do we need this visa? We need it because we have a lot of unique agricultural enterprises in the Northern Territory, such as crocodile farming. This occurs in the Northern Territory and nowhere else in Australia, so we have no access to labourers who are used to working with crocodiles. Let me tell you: if you're not used to working with crocodiles and you suddenly start to try to farm them, accidents will happen and digits will be lost.
Northern Territory: Zoos and Aquariums | Statements | Senate debates
I rise to speak of the plight of zoos and aquaria in the Northern Territory. In the Northern Territory, we don't have what you would call traditional zoos and huge aquaria, but we do have several...
I rise to speak of the plight of zoos and aquaria in the Northern Territory. In the Northern Territory, we don't have what you would call traditional zoos and huge aquaria, but we do have several very unique attractions. Their tourism value is far outstripped by their ecological and educational value. Some of them are doing it extremely hard at the moment. We know that when down south sneezes the Northern Territory catches a cold. That is in fact what is happening. These attractions rely on interstate tourists and large tours of schoolchildren that come through in buses, which they're not getting at the moment. We have provided assistance to them, and that's fantastic, but they're still doing it extremely hard and are on the brink of, or are in fact, closing. I'll talk about the Alice Springs Reptile Centre, owned by Rex Neindorf. It has a fantastic, unique collection of reptiles, many of which are found exclusively in Central Australia. It has fantastic educational and ecological value. Another attraction, up in Darwin, is Indo Pacific Marine, owned by Jon and Helene, which has in fact closed. They had been there for 50 years. They have whole-reef living ecosystems in aquariums. Have they closed because of COVID? No. They've certainly been impacted by COVID, but they have closed because the Northern Territory government has kicked them out of the premises that they lease. They were kicked out and not provided any alternative premises. They're not looking for a handout, they don't want anything free and they're happy to pay rent, but they have been left with nowhere to go. This is an incredibly unique attraction, and it is now lost to the Territory.
Environment and Communications References Committee; Report | Committees | Senate debates
Senator Watt seems to be pathologically obsessed by Minister Taylor. In fact, he spoke about Minister Taylor and about Minister Taylor's trip to the Northern Territory for quite some time and he...
Senator Watt seems to be pathologically obsessed by Minister Taylor. In fact, he spoke about Minister Taylor and about Minister Taylor's trip to the Northern Territory for quite some time and he cast aspersions about Minister Taylor's involvement. I would just like to point out to Senator Watt that he has the wrong minister, because Minister Taylor is not responsible for this program. In fact, Minister Taylor has absolutely nothing to do with this program. This program is administered by Minister Pitt—two completely different ministers, two different parties, in fact—and it is, in fact, Minister Pitt who has carriage and he is the sole decision-maker of this program. Minister Pitt was not even there. In fact, he's never been to the Beetaloo. I would love and I extend the invitation for him to come, but he's not even been there, so I don't know why Senator Watt is so obsessed by Minister Taylor and why he is trying to draw him in to what should be a factual report of evidence given by credible witnesses. In fact, he is using the opportunity to try to draw in a minister who is not involved in the instrument that this inquiry was about. Senator Watt, I don't know what your obsession is—I really don't—but you have definitely got the wrong minister. If you want to talk about any ministerial involvement in this program then you need to talk about Minister Pitt, not Minister Taylor. In case you need help: they do look quite different, they are from two different parties and they do look after different areas of ministerial responsibility. If Senator Watt and the Labor Party are going to try to incriminate any ministers in any of this program, I suggest they at least get the correct minister. As I said, coalition senators have a dissenting report, which we believe displays the factual evidence that was presented by credible witnesses. I ask the Senate to please take our report into consideration and to discredit some of the evidence given by Labor that implicates the wrong minister. Our recommendations in this report are quite easy. There are two recommendations. The first one is that the NT government complete its implementation of the Pepper review in a timely manner. That is something that came out as part of the evidence. Many witnesses gave evidence that the issues they had were because the NT government had not implemented the recommendations of the Pepper review, as it was meant to. The other recommendation we have is that the Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program proceed. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I would like to point out that the coalition senators involved in this inquiry cannot support the majority report. This report is characterised by overtly political and ideological statements and...
I would like to point out that the coalition senators involved in this inquiry cannot support the majority report. This report is characterised by overtly political and ideological statements and selection of evidence. It has resulted in a quite biased report and biased conclusions, and we do not support it at all. In fact, we have a dissenting report which relies solely on scientific and factual evidence that was given by organisations such as the CSIRO and GISERA. The evidence that was picked up and presented in the majority report relied on a lot of unreliable witnesses, a lot of witnesses that didn't even seem to know why they were there or what they were saying. This is the reason we can't support this report. For the Northern Land Council, in fact, one of the star witnesses was a lady who gave evidence from Dubai, where she lives, claiming to be a traditional owner. The Northern Land Council, which is the body under the legislation that is charged with identifying and organising consultation with traditional owners gave evidence that this witness was, in fact, not a traditional owner of the area concerned. The report is just punctuated by claims such as these all through it, where these witnesses, who were supposed to be factual witnesses, giving evidence were actually activist groups, such as GetUp who were coaching a lot of the witnesses that were appearing, and a lot of the witnesses who supposedly appeared independently gave strikingly similar answers and they were the same answers as those that were given by organisations such as the Australia Institute and GetUp. My colleague Murray over there seems to be pathologically obsessed by Minister Taylor.