Linda White's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee; Delegated Legislation Monitor | Committees | Senate debates
I present Delegated legislation monitor12 of 2023 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, together with ministerial correspondence. I move: That the Senate take note...
I present Delegated legislation monitor12 of 2023 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, together with ministerial correspondence. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Delegated legislation monitor 12 of 2023 reports on the committee's consideration of 51 legislative instruments registered between 9 September 2023 and 18 September 2023. This includes 46 disallowable instruments and five instruments exempt from disallowance. I first would like to draw the chamber's attention to the National Anti-Corruption Commission Regulations 2023. The committee first raised scrutiny concerns in relation to this instrument in September regarding issues such as the conferral of discretionary powers and availability of independent merits review. I thank the Attorney-General and his department for their constructive engagement with the committee on these matters. Further, the committee welcomes the Attorney's undertaking to update the instrument's explanatory statement to address the issues raised. I am pleased to advise that the committee has resolved to conclude our examination of this instrument, and today I did withdraw the notice of motion to disallow this instrument. Additionally, I would like to draw the chamber's attention to two instruments, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2023 and the Competition and Consumer (Gas Market Code) Regulations 2023. These instruments raise a number of similar scrutiny concerns, including the availability of independent and judicial review, the use of significant penalties in delegated legislation and the inclusion of strict liability offences. The committee raised concerns that both instruments contain significant penalty provisions that are higher than the committee's expectations for what is appropriate for inclusion in delegated legislation. The committee's longstanding view is that significant penalties should be included in primary rather delegated legislation. The committee's guidelines state that the usual expectation is that penalties in delegated legislation should not exceed 50 units for individuals and 250 for bodies corporate. These expectations align with the Attorney-General's guide to framing commonwealth offences. For both these instruments, the committee has previously sought advice as to why it was appropriate, as a matter of principle, to include significant penalties in delegated legislation. I thank both ministers for their constructive engagement with the committee on this matter and for providing detailed responses to the committee's request for information. However, the committee reiterates its expectations in relation to the inclusion of significant penalty provisions in delegated legislation. As such, the committee will continue its engagement with relevant ministers about this issue in the future. Regarding these instruments, the committee has also raised concerns about the inclusion of no-invalidity clauses, which have the potential to limit judicial review. In particular, the offshore petroleum instrument contains four no-validity clauses relating to the requirement for NOPSEMA to make decisions within a set time frame. Following the committee's first request for information about this matter, the minister advised that the main intent of the clauses is to increase regulatory certainty for titleholders and to ensure the validity of NOPSEMA's decisions. Further, the no-invalidity clauses only impact a person's review rights to the extent that NOPSEMA fails to meet their decision-making time frame. The minister concluded that the provisions are therefore unnecessary. While I thank the minister for her advice, it remains unclear to the committee why the no-invalidity clauses are necessary as there are existing provisions in the instrument which allow NOPSEMA to extend decision-making time frames. No-invalidity clauses are a serious matter as they can restrict an applicant's capacity to seek review of relevant acts or decisions. For this reason, the committee expects that they should only be used when necessary and appropriate. Further, they should be accompanied by safeguards to ensure that a person's right to seek judicial review is not unduly limited. As such, the committee will continue its engagement with the minister on the issue. Finally, I would like to draw the chamber's attention to the Higher Education Support (Other Grants) Amendment (National Priorities Pool Program and Regional Partnerships Project Pool Program) Guidelines 2023. This instrument amends the Higher Education Support (Other Grants) Guidelines 2022 to remove the annual spending cap for the National Priorities Pool Program. This instrument appears to significantly broaden the minister's discretionary power to determine grant amounts under this program. For this reason, the committee requested the minister's advice as to why this step was necessary and appropriate. The minister advised that removal of the spending cap was in response to the reprofiling of uncommitted funds, which resulted in more funding being available for the program. Further, the minister clarified that his discretionary powers remain limited by the general maximum payment determinations made under the enabling act. I thank the minister for his advice on this matter and for clarifying why this instrument was considered necessary and appropriate. Noting the importance of ensuring appropriate parliamentary oversight of the expenditure of public money, the committee requests the minister amend the instrument's explanatory statement to include further information on these matters. With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated legislation monitor 12 of 2023 to the Senate.
Pursuant to notice given on 18 October, on behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, for 11 sitting...
Pursuant to notice given on 18 October, on behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, for 11 sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Insurance Exemption Determination No. 1 of 2023, and business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, for four sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Regulations 2023.
On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw business of the...
On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, for 12 sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Insurance Exemption Determination No. 1 2023, and business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, for five sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Regulations 2023.
Aviation Industry | Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers | Senate debates
For 25 years I've represented airline workers, and for 25 years I watched successive coalition governments ignore workers who didn't work at Qantas. In 2001 when Ansett collapsed, the then Howard...
For 25 years I've represented airline workers, and for 25 years I watched successive coalition governments ignore workers who didn't work at Qantas. In 2001 when Ansett collapsed, the then Howard government ignored the loss of jobs of those Ansett workers—some might say in favour of Qantas. In 2020 it happened again. When Virgin was about to be put into administration, the then government turned its back on those Virgin workers and did absolutely nothing to assist Virgin in its recovery. Again, those Virgin workers absolutely thought that the coalition government was benefiting Qantas workers over Virgin. Then we also look, though, at what happened with the sacking of the 1,700 transport workers and what the then coalition government did about that. They sat back and supported an illegal act by Qantas. So throwing at this government that we are somehow captive of Qantas is a bit akin to the pot calling the kettle black, as far as I can see, because the long history that I have witnessed first hand has seen successive coalition governments favouring the interests of Qantas—not Qantas workers but Qantas—over other airlines in this country. So it's a bit rich, I think, to make those accusations because, when I look at the history, it just doesn't support those sorts of accusations. I was fortunate enough to sit on the inquiry into air services. Again, sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but I listened to a range of evidence about what happened with those air services agreements and the history of how air services agreements have been negotiated. They are a valuable commodity for a country. You have to look at how you deal with them, who flies here and what negotiations you have with not only governments but also the airlines of those governments, and many, many governments across this world take a different view of how they deal with them. As a country, they look at their national interest, and what they weigh up can be different. Let's talk about Canada. Canada absolutely refused to do air services agreements with Qatar. Is that in the report? No. Does it mention how Canada looked at its national interests! Let's talk about what the US does. The US will not allow any non-US owned airline to flight domestically. In Australia, what do we do? Foreign carriers can fly. They do not have to be Australian owned. The only one that has to be 51 per cent Australian owned because of the Qantas sale ad is Qantas, but every other airline that flies domestically here—let's talk Rex Airlines who is wholly owned by a Singaporean company—can fly wherever they like and they're foreign-owned! That doesn't get a mention at all in this report. When you weigh up the national interest, you weigh up a range of different things—and that is what this minister has done—what was failed to be appreciated is that the national interest is complex, it can change from time to time and it is absolutely influenced by what is going on around us, and that just did not come out in the Senate inquiry. Sorry! There was evidence about it, but it was ignored. Hence, the dissenting report that I was proud to support and why I speak on this 'take note'. Air services agreements are a complex issue, and it was not appreciated.
Employment | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
The employment white paper outlines where some of the big changes in our economy will be in future decades and helps to guide how we can be prepared to harness the opportunities that come with...
The employment white paper outlines where some of the big changes in our economy will be in future decades and helps to guide how we can be prepared to harness the opportunities that come with them. This includes opportunities for women in the Australian economy. What are the opportunities for Australian women, and how will they help grow and strengthen our national economy?
National Cabinet met yesterday and endorsed the new National Skills Agreement, which reflects much of the thinking in the employment white paper. How will the agreement expand and transform...
National Cabinet met yesterday and endorsed the new National Skills Agreement, which reflects much of the thinking in the employment white paper. How will the agreement expand and transform access to the VET sector, support quality training and implement reforms to address critical skills shortages? How will the government's fee-free TAFE measure help industry while also helping Australians with the cost of living?
My question is for the Minister for Finance and the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Last month the Albanese Labor government delivered on its commitment to release the...
My question is for the Minister for Finance and the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Last month the Albanese Labor government delivered on its commitment to release the employment white paper Working future, outlining a roadmap to ensure more Australians who want jobs or more hours of work can get them. What key challenges did the paper identify, and what opportunities are ahead for individual Australians and the broader economy?
Environment | Matters of Urgency | Senate debates
Contrary to the assertions made by the Greens Party in the chamber today, the federal Labor government is committed to bringing down emissions and protecting our natural environment. The evidence...
Contrary to the assertions made by the Greens Party in the chamber today, the federal Labor government is committed to bringing down emissions and protecting our natural environment. The evidence of this commitment exists in the statute books, the pieces of legislation made law often with the support of the Greens, who have brought this motion to the Senate today. It's true that we worked with the Greens to implement a climate target to legislate a net zero commitment and to legislate a climate safeguard mechanism. But, as is usual when it comes to motions moved by the Greens, the bigger picture of what the government has achieved and the evidence of the government's commitment to climate reform and environmental protection has been ignored. For example, it's still true that any decision taken by the climate and energy minister when considering coal and gas projects must comply with emissions targets and our net zero commitment. Our climate safeguard laws were introduced to ensure that any new projects emitting over 100,000 tonnes of emissions must cut those emissions by up to 4.9 per cent per year or offset those emissions. This also applies to the 215 largest polluting sites in Australia and acts as a five-year rolling cap. The government's whole environmental and energy transition framework is concentrated on locating an appropriate balance, which requires the climate minister to assess whether new fossil fuel developments are consistent with the goal of bringing down industrial emissions. That was the point of the safeguard mechanism that we developed with the Greens and the Independents. In that vein, it is clear to everyone that our transition to net zero emissions and renewable energy is a massive job. Transitioning smoothly towards meeting our targets is an economic challenge, as well as an environmental one. Getting to 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030 is still the government's commitment, and that shows Labor is serious about addressing climate change. But, of course, the necessary transition can't happen overnight. Nevertheless, we have ramped up approval of renewable projects, which have almost doubled, with 104 projects in the pipeline to date. In fact, just this week, the government approved the biggest battery project in Asia, and a few weeks ago a massive new solar farm at Smoky Creek in Queensland was given the green light, which will produce enough power for around 200,000 households, with a million megawatts of more power entering the grid. These are just two of 37 renewable energy projects that have been approved since Labor came to office and acted quickly to renew the Commonwealth's focus on our renewable energy transition. In relation to the transition, I acknowledge that in the recent past things haven't moved as quickly as some would hope, but the sad fact is that we have had more than a decade of political fighting that has cost us much in our energy transition and action on climate change. Because of the infighting in the coalition and the single-mindedness of the Greens, emissions have been higher for longer and the delivery of certainty for renewable energy projects looking to invest in upscaling clean energy was set back. In their time in government, the coalition had 22 failed energy policies, which got us nowhere. They harboured in their party, and still do harbour, climate denialists who would happily see all our good work on climate change undermined and reversed. Of course, how could we forget the greatest betrayal of all when it came to the climate future of Australians, when the Greens and the coalition teamed up to sink Labor's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme when we were last in government? It was a tragic moment for our nation when the odd bedfellows of the coalition and the Greens got together to sink a good policy which by now would have prevented more than 80 million tonnes of emissions being released into the atmosphere. After this decade of lost policy and missed opportunities, Australians rightly had had a gutful and chose to elect a Labor government in 2022. We acted almost immediately to implement our ambitious climate agenda, including capping emissions, legislating net zero and reshaping the tone of the debate around climate policy in Australia to acknowledge that the economic challenges of transitioning our country towards renewable energy were something we could no longer shy away from. It is in that spirit that the government will continue to act, striking the balance and building the framework for a clean energy future where fossil fuel developments are held up to the light and measured against our legislated targets and renewable energy commitments. The agenda of renewable energy development and ending the climate wars will rightly be at the forefront of the government's agenda now and in the future.
Vocational Education and Training | Ministerial Statements | Senate debates
I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I rise to make a contribution on the ministerial statement, tabled just now, from Minister O'Connor on the government's work on revitalising...
I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I rise to make a contribution on the ministerial statement, tabled just now, from Minister O'Connor on the government's work on revitalising national planning in vocational education and training. Before coming to this place, I had a career in the union movement; I have spent my life representing and defending Australian workers. This means that I have seen what good, skilled jobs mean to people. It also means that I have seen how government policies, some good and some not so good, impact on workers and materially change people's daily lives and prospects. The establishment of Jobs and Skills Australia and the government's fee-free TAFE program are two of those good policies which clearly make a difference to the lives of Australians. In the first half of 2023, more than 214,300 Australians enrolled in fee-free courses. That's about the same amount of people as the population of Hobart. That's worth saying again: in just six months, more than 200,000 Australians have chosen to enrol in vocational education. Encouragingly, the data shows that the policy is targeting the people who need and want to upskill the most. Of the 214,300 enrolments, 60 per cent are women and 23 per cent are jobseekers. And there are 15,269 students who live with a disability and 6,845 students who are of First Nations origin. That is targeted and effective public policy in action. In a labour market where the work of women in feminised industries is consistently undervalued, the fact that more women are training and retraining to acquire new skills and to access well-paid secure jobs is fantastic. That's nearly 130,000 Australian women who are moving up the pay ladder and using the fee-free TAFE model to invest in their abilities and in their futures, and they're earning higher wages as a result. There's also a link between vocational education and training and further higher education. People who start a course at TAFE are more likely to progress even further through the vocational and higher education systems. There are certainly challenges in our labour market at the moment. After the COVID pandemic, certain parts of the Australian jobs market have struggled to recover to pre-pandemic levels. We've all heard about and experienced the impacts that labour shortages in essential services and frontline sectors have on prices and supply chains, and on Australians accessing the services they need, like child care, health care, cyberservices, nursing and in the construction area. We've heard that this problem is complex. I've seen the labour market develop and evolve over my career, and it's not just one thing that can change the way Australians work. I have always said that it's a complex ecosystem that needs broad reform and that it has to be looked at as a whole. Nevertheless, we're moving towards a service based economy and a more highly-skilled economy. Of course there will always be whole range of jobs that are necessary to make Australia work; we should support all sorts of jobs and all sorts of work. But it's true that we need more people to deliver health care, child care, hospitality services and trades, among other things. In short, we need people to do skilled work more than we used to. This brings me back to Jobs and Skills Australia and fee-free TAFE. In the last six months, the most popular courses Australia-wide were: Certificate III in Early Childhood Education and Care, the Diploma of Nursing, Certificate IV in Accounting and Bookkeeping, Certificate III in Individual Support and Certificate IV in Training and Assessment. This list of enrolments again demonstrates that fee-free TAFE is working. It’s a policy designed to encourage Australians to meet the skills shortages and labour demands we are seeing in particular parts of the economy. Again, the data shows that the policy is working. Lastly, I want to briefly talk about my experiences with fee-free TAFE out in the real world. We spend a lot of time in this place discussing issues and making contributions about the lives of Australians, so whenever I get the chance to see policies in action in real life, I grab it with both hands. A month or so ago I got the chance to visit Wodonga TAFE in the electorate of Indi and I saw firsthand how the fee-free TAFE mechanism is working there. Enrolments have increased across a whole range of vocational education courses there, particularly in the training of electricians and in construction management. Given the pressures on supply chains and the labour shortages in the construction industry, this sort of thing is positive to see. This is particularly important in our regions, where it is often the case that the problems of a city are compounded by distance and demand. This is the case in Wodonga, where social and affordable housing is harder to access because it's harder to build. It's a similar story for childcare deserts in our regions, where there are three children per childcare place. Labour shortages of childcare workers and early-childhood educators make it hard for families to balance the responsibilities of work and care. Fee-free TAFE and Jobs and Skills Australia seek to correct this mismatch between supply and demand by making it easier for Australians in the regions to acquire the skills their communities need and to stay in their communities to work. The goal for Jobs and Skills Australia and the fee-free TAFE program was 180,000 enrolments this year. The program has exceeded that goal by more than 30,000 people. Clearly, people want to upskill and be part of our government's investment in Australia's skill base. They want to take the opportunity to build their wages and their communities. I am proud of the work of Jobs and Skills Australia and proud of the Australians who have taken up the opportunity to develop their skills, and I congratulate Minister O'Connor for this fantastic result. Debate adjourned.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee; Report | Committees | Senate debates
I want to make a few comments on the interim report on Australia's preparedness to host the Olympic, Paralympic and Commonwealth Games and the committee process today. To begin with, I want to...
I want to make a few comments on the interim report on Australia's preparedness to host the Olympic, Paralympic and Commonwealth Games and the committee process today. To begin with, I want to thank the secretariat of the rural and regional affairs and transport Senate committee. Juggling multiple, demanding inquiries takes real effort, but the Senate committee staff meet the challenge every time, so thank you. Firstly, I want to address some of the commentary that has been made about Victoria's international reputation following the cancellation of the Commonwealth Games and the doubt that has been cast on Victoria's ability to host major events. As the committee heard, Melbourne is the only city in the world that hosts both a tennis grand slam and a Formula 1 grand prix. It hosts the Melbourne Cup and the AFL grand final and is the only city in the world that has six international standard sporting facilities on the fringe of the CBD. As a former director of the Melbourne Cricket Ground Trust, I can tell you that there is no place in Australia or, indeed, the region that is more revered and sought after to host events than Victoria. Just last week, a quarter of a million people went to the AFL finals over three days. The AFL finals season is a huge event in itself. To argue that somehow Victoria's ability or reputation in pulling off large events has been irreparably damaged is to miss the point, because Victoria demonstrates that this isn't the case on a weekly basis and the culture of Victorians going to events remains unchanged. It's also worth pointing out that the nature of hosting events like the Commonwealth Games is obviously changing. Clearly, hosting the Commonwealth Games at this point in time is difficult. We know this because, in addition to the Victorian decision, we saw the Commonwealth Games move from Durban to Birmingham in 2022 due to financial reasons and we also saw little appetite to take on the 2026 games initially. Of course, in the last month or so, we have seen Alberta step back from a future bid to host the games in Canada. In relation to Victoria, the committee also heard about the impact that the compressed time frames for the games had on getting the planning right. There are also disruptive economic factors at play that are important and supply-side constraints that make planning and hosting more challenging than in the past. Supply-chain issues, shortages of essential building materials and a war in Europe, as well as domestic and global inflationary pressures, are all playing a part in making things more difficult, it seems, not just for Victoria but for many stakeholders involved in these events. It is important we acknowledge these pressures. In relation to the Brisbane 2032 Olympics: with nine years to go and one of the longest lead times in recent Olympics history, it's important to highlight the evidence the committee received from the Australian Olympic Committee and the Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, which is that the International Olympic Committee is satisfied with the development, costing and progress of the Brisbane games so far. That is worth repeating: according to the International Olympic Committee in Switzerland, the Brisbane 2032 Olympic Games are on track. From that point of view, while I think there is some utility for the Senate to be examining Australia's capacity to host the games nine years out, as you would expect, consultation with the community is still ongoing and some details are yet to be finalised. That is not only normal but what you would expect for an event of this scale which is slated to take place in nine years time. I also want to make a few observations about the development of the Gabba. That stadium in the heart of Brisbane is due to be the central focal point of the games. At the conclusion of the games, the Gabba will also function as a world-class sporting venue for Queensland. Given this dual purpose, it is not unreasonable by any stretch for the Queensland government to upgrade the stadium. My experience on the MCG Trust tells me that stadiums have a relatively short life span. It is an international infrastructural standard that is constantly improving itself, which means that you can't have the primary Olympic venue not being state of the art. What is more, you cannot use an old venue that has limited disability access, restricted change room use for women and inefficient seating capacity to host an Olympics. I also note that this plan to redevelop the Gabba fits with the IOC's New Norm approach to Olympic infrastructure, where hosts must only build new infrastructure where there is a demand for it post the Olympics to avoid the construction of any white elephants and the cost of upkeeping them. On that New Norm and infrastructure point, I just want to draw out what I have found to be a central tension of this inquiry. On the one hand, national sporting organisations want state-of-the-art venues and infrastructure in which to train, compete and grow their sports. But, on the other hand, we have governments, as well as the International Olympic Committee and the Australian Olympic Committee, committing to the New Norm, which dictates that taxpayers shouldn't fund the construction of venues that won't have decent demand attached to them after the games. Both of these points of view are understandable, and the tension between them demands that we strike a genuine balance between them in the design, execution and planning of infrastructure for sporting events of the kind the committee is looking at. Given that, it is a shame that the coalition senators on this inquiry have not actually engaged with the central questions. What do we build? When do we build it? For whom do we build it? On the other hand, the coalition has criticised the Queensland government for apparently misplaced infrastructure programs, which in fact develop venues that are needed in Queensland after the Olympics. They claim that the plans for venues are unwieldy and uncertain and that the support from the Commonwealth doesn't go far enough. On the other hand, in relation to the Commonwealth Games in Victoria, the coalition go the other way. Despite the Victorian government pledging that $2 billion will be spent on the development of regional venues in consultation with councils and sports, according to the coalition rhetoric, Victorian sport infrastructure is being left behind and national sporting organisations in Australia will never recover. Critics can't have it both ways. It's difficult to claim that the Olympics in Brisbane is too showy and doesn't have enough behind it, and then in the next breath suggest that changes to the Victorian government's original plans for sporting infrastructure were too ambitious and too uncertain and therefore will be the ruin of community infrastructure and national sporting organisations in Victoria. Of course, these things are never as clear cut as that. The fact is that regional Victoria will get legacy infrastructure under the Victorian government's withdrawal plan, and Queensland will get legacy infrastructure under the Olympic plan. National sporting organisations will get improvements and investments under both plans. It is a decent and fair balance that I think both the Queensland and Victorian governments have struck. In my view, they have found a way to balance the central tension of large-scale sporting event planning in the modern day—that is, resisting building new venues and infrastructure that turn into white elephants while still providing state-of-the-art venues and facilities for the years following. Finally, I want to address another issue that came up in the committee process, which is the question of federal government funding for the Brisbane 2032 Olympics and infrastructure programs. There have been claims that the government is cutting Olympic infrastructure projects. This is not true. The government has guaranteed funding for 16 minor venues, plus the construction of the Brisbane area. This, of course, stands in contrast to the inaction of the previous government, who never committed to anything. In July 2021, former prime minister Scott Morrison promised to fund the Olympics fifty-fifty. Of course, as was often the case with the former government, money was promised and never delivered. In the life of the Morrison government, not a cent was allocated in a federal budget to the Brisbane Olympics. As usual, they announced billions of dollars in Olympic funding and then proceeded to never put the money in the forward estimates or appropriate a cent from Treasury to spend on the Olympic Games. What it actually took to get any money allocated to the Olympics in Brisbane was five months of a federal Labor government, a fact that the coalition find uncomfortable. I'm looking forward to the last few hearings of this committee and the tabling of the final report. There is room for the Senate to look into these matters—however, I think the process is diminished by politicisation. If critics claim to care about sport, infrastructure and our international reputation then it is unhelpful to do nothing but wreck debates and politicise issues for political gain in a way that leaves no one materially better off —not sports in Australia, not our reputation and not the Senate's understanding of the issues. It's a bit disappointing given that there are genuinely things to learn from this process and room to expand on the questions of how to deliver major events and get a great result in Brisbane in 2032. I know my Albanese government colleagues will do our best to answer these questions, so I look forward to the remainder of the committee process. I may be the last speaker, so I also seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Aviation Industry | Adjournment | Senate debates
There are some events in life that make people reflect on where they were when it happened. I think of the assassination of JFK, the dismissal of the Whitlam government and the closure of...
There are some events in life that make people reflect on where they were when it happened. I think of the assassination of JFK, the dismissal of the Whitlam government and the closure of Australian borders because of COVID. I remember where I was 22 years ago this week when the planes flew into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC late on September 11, Australian time. And I remember where I was the next day, when Ansett Australia was put into administration. On the night of 11 September I was at the Holiday Inn at Sydney airport. I was there preparing to lead our members at Qantas in industrial action, something they had not done for a very, very long time. I remember groggily watching the television as I tried to go to sleep—I had to get up pretty early to start that industrial action—and it did not really register with me, when the first plane flew into the World Trade Center, what it would all mean. What it did mean, the very next morning, when I got up at 3 am, was that I realised we could not go ahead with our industrial action and that we would have to call it off. The Australian Services Union members called off their industrial action because, like the world, those airline workers on the front line were shocked. They had to greet people off planes who did not realise what had happened. On that very same day, 12 September, the owners of Ansett Australia put the company into administration. I flew back to Melbourne airport, my home base, to be greeted by a large number of our members. The ASU had 4½ thousand members in the 16½ thousand staff; we had the largest group there. It became very clear that the board had decide the previous weekend to put the airline into administration, intending that it trade out by restructuring. That's what they had intended, but unfortunately, their decision coincided with September 11. They appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers as administrators. I have to be clear that it was the first administration I had ever been involved in and, in fact, it was one of Australia's largest administrations. We had to go into action because we had to get proxies from our members—4½ thousand of them—from around Australia. We did not have the sophisticated email systems or the like and the proxies all had to be signed by the various staff creditors, the 4½ thousand of them, and we had to get them within five days. I pay credit to our lawyer at that time, who is now the member for Melbourne, Mr Bandt. It was devastating for people because two days later, on 14 September, as a result of the turmoil across the world following September 11, the administrators made a decision to shut the airline, to stop it from flying. Ansett was owned at that time by Air New Zealand, who in turn were owned by Singapore Airlines. They did what every airline often does and went back to base and decided that Ansett could not be part of their future plans. It is fair to say the airline industry in 2001 was suffering difficulties. I recall coming to this place to try and get a meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, to express our concerns, but of course we were rebuffed. There was no time to talk to workers. We were unimportant. I could go on and on about the Ansett administration, but I can say that it was devastating for a range of workers. For a short moment there was a buyer, but that buyer, Tesna, dropped out in March 2002, and the last flight by Ansett was on 4 March 2002. Today I wear the badge of a flight attendant from Ansett, who on that night gave me her wings. It took 10 more years for those workers to be paid out after the collapse of Ansett. They had 14 payments— (Time expired)
Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 2023; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
Sure. I'm happy to withdraw that. To me, the debate hinges on a few things—firstly, on a matter of principle. This bill sits badly with me. The Senate and the federal parliament should not...
Sure. I'm happy to withdraw that. To me, the debate hinges on a few things—firstly, on a matter of principle. This bill sits badly with me. The Senate and the federal parliament should not seek to interfere or meddle in the decisions made by other democratically elected governments. This principle has been developed over a long time, and it was again confirmed with the passage of the Restoring Territory Rights Bill last year, which saw the principle of territory self-government reinforced by the federal parliament. From a technical legal angle, the evidence given by the ACT Solicitor-General to the inquiry that it would be legally unprecedented for one government to direct the executive actions of another government also confirms my view that this bill is a bad idea. From a policy point of view, I also happen to think that it's fair and reasonable for the ACT government to own the land and hospital buildings that are entirely funded by the people of the ACT. If you're spending billions of dollars over decades on a public hospital, it makes sense you would want to own it. Finally, while I take the criticism in relation to motivation, the people that wrote to me by e-mail definitely called out this reason. They said this was motivated by a view to limit religious freedom. They didn't talk about ACT rights or territory rights. What they said was totally homing in on religious freedom. I have no objection, and nor should any of us, to the rights of Catholic Australians to practise their religion or publicly put their views on issues in this way, but in no way should it undermine the public ownership of North Canberra Hospital. The ACT government's decision is not part of a wider plot to undermine religious freedom in Australia. It was a government decision which would have been taken had the administrators of the hospital been based in faith or not. On that basis, I'm glad that the government will not be supporting the passage of this bill.
I will measure my comments. Nevertheless, the politics aside, I want to set out why I think the bill is a bad idea. It's a matter of principle that this parliament and this Senate do not...
I will measure my comments. Nevertheless, the politics aside, I want to set out why I think the bill is a bad idea. It's a matter of principle that this parliament and this Senate do not interfere in the self-government of the ACT and the Northern Territory or undermine the independence of those legislatures. The ACT was granted self-government in 1988. It is my view that from that point on it became inappropriate for the Commonwealth to cherry-pick issues that the elected parliament in the ACT could legislate on. Once the power to make its own decisions was handed out and the people of the ACT got responsibility and elected a government to represent them, the Commonwealth, out of principle, should no longer restrict it. We saw the same principle applied last year with the debate on Restoring Territory Rights Bill. The parliament agreed, with the support of many coalition members and senators, that restricting the power of territory legislatures to make decisions about themselves for themselves was wrong. The debate found that restricting the rights of the territories to actually govern themselves through the prism of single issues was not right. Yet, with this bill, we are making the same mistake again by seeking to overturn the recently expressed will of this Senate that using a hot-button issue to justify interfering in the self-government and democratic processes of an entire Australian jurisdiction is just not right. The position taken with this bill is unprincipled, and I feel it is disingenuous. The fact is that the ACT has an elected government and a well-equipped parliament, and interfering with it would be legally strange. The view was echoed by the ACT solicitor-general in his submission to the inquiry to the bill: It would be unprecedented for one legislature to seek to direct the executive of another government to undertake an executive action … which really flies in the face of basic principles of our system of government. One jurisdiction should not be in a position to dictate what another self-governing jurisdiction does in such a fashion. From those comments, it's clear that whichever organisation runs the Calvary hospital is a matter for the ACT people, enacted through a majority of elected members of the ACT parliament which makes up their executive. Reviewing that decision through an inquiry is not a matter for the Commonwealth government or the Senate. It was an executive decision for the ACT. Australians, acting through their local parliaments, deserve the same equal rights to legal self-determination and should not be stood over by this chamber or the Commonwealth government. This sentiment was well expressed in the ACT government's submission to the inquiry when it outlined: … the majority of elected members of the ACT Legislative Assembly have so far concluded that they do not want and did not seek to create— an inquiry into the decision— The Self-Government Amendment Bill ignores existing mechanisms for deliberation, accountability, transparency and debate that have operated as intended. It instead attempts to interfere in the ACT's self-government and to impose a poorly defined requirement that undermines the Assembly's decisions on when and how to consider, scrutinise and pass legislation and is, on its terms, inconsistent with the principles of responsible government. To me, that summary says it all. We should keep out of decisions which do not concern us. Putting this matter of principle to one side, the second reason I wanted to speak on this debate today was to unpack what I see it as the merits of the ACT decision over Calvary hospital. From my point of view, the move to publicly insource the hospital sounds like a good idea. If you're going to spend millions of dollars over decades to publicly fund an entire hospital and its redevelopment, it makes sense that the territory government would also like to own it. The decision of the ACT government, contrary to a lot of letters I've received about this issue, was not a takeover. The former Calvary public hospital was a public hospital, publicly funded by the ACT government. All the buildings at the site were paid for by either the ACT government or the Commonwealth government. As Calvary public hospital was funded by the government in order to provide a service, it was well within the power of the ACT government to terminate its contract of service with the contractors who formerly ran Calvary. What's more, it's not as though the decision came out of the blue. There's been significant consultation over this decision for some time. In fact, there have been two stages of public consultation over the proposal to in-house North Canberra Hospital, and a two-year negotiation process which, by all accounts, did not happen in good faith from the side of the hospital administrators. Throughout the negotiation process, the ACT government made it clear that, as a last result, it would consider legislating to acquire the land if necessary, and after two years of Calvary not coming to the party, it made a decision that the long-term best interests of Canberra were served by publicly owning and operating a hospital which was collectively funded by the people of the ACT. The transition of the hospital staff and administration of the ACT government occurred on 4 July this year. Given this extensive consultation and negotiation process and the fact that the transition has already happened, the substance of this bill is actually redundant. Forcing the ACT government to hold an inquiry into a decision that was two years in the making and has already happened, in my view, is ridiculous. I think Senator Canavan knows this and he is properly just as surprised as anyone that he even got an inquiry into this legislation in the first place. Sadly, though, as I mentioned earlier, I think this has been an attempt to whip up fear about religious freedom.
I rise to speak on the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 2023. This is a piece of legislation which would require the ACT government to hold an inquiry into its own...
I rise to speak on the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 2023. This is a piece of legislation which would require the ACT government to hold an inquiry into its own legislation, the Health Infrastructure Enabling Act 2023, which took effect on 3 July. There are a number of reasons why I've chosen to make a contribution to this debate today. Firstly, no doubt like many senators here, I have received a lot of correspondence from members of the public about this issue. At last count, I had received 1,300 emails. Some emails have been from the ACT; however, the vast majority of the contact I've received has been from other parts of Australia. I want to take this opportunity to address the points raised with me through my inbox. Secondly, I think it's important to call out this bill and the committee process that surrounded it for what it is: a political stunt for the Nationals to dog whistle and whip up debates which highlight alleged religious divisions. Similarly, the Greens' choice to support a committee inquiry into a decision taken by their territory government counterparts when their ultimate position is now to oppose the passage of the bill not only made the inquiry a waste of the Senate's time and resources but revealed the Greens' support for what it was: a cheap political stunt designed to cause pain for ACT Labor members in this parliament and the territory legislature.
Human Rights: Iran | Matters of Public Importance | Senate debates
The government supports Senator Chandler's matter of public importance motion, based on our ongoing concern for the Iranian regime's widespread disregard for the human rights of its own people....
The government supports Senator Chandler's matter of public importance motion, based on our ongoing concern for the Iranian regime's widespread disregard for the human rights of its own people. In the year following Mahsa Jina Amini's death there has been widespread media reporting that Iran's morality police have resumed enforcing mandatory hijab laws, despite earlier indications that they had effectively disbanded. This speaks to the very nature of the situation in Iran. The brutal campaign in the Iranian regime is ongoing, is multifaceted and has long oppressed women, minorities and protestors. As such, the Albanese government will continue to use every strategy at our disposal to uphold human rights. We will prepare to adaptively and strategically apply pressure on the Iranian regime. Undoubtedly the arrest, detention and ill treatment of Mahsa Amini fortified Australia's stance with Iranian women and girls in their struggle for equality and power. I would like to acknowledge the cumulative Australian government efforts to consistently and forcefully raise our concerns internationally and directly with Iran. The subsequent February 2023 recommendations from the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee inquiry on human rights implications of recent violence in Iran will be formally responded to in due course. I'm particularly proud of the Labor government's response on these issues to date. The Albanese government has taken stronger action against Iran on human rights than any previous Australian government. Our work is not done, however, and I would like to reflect on our efforts to date. Our condemnation of Iran has set a benchmark for how Australian governments should hold perpetrators to account. In terms of international condemnation, Australia has been at the forefront of efforts to call out Iran, in concert with other nations. We've spearheaded efforts to remove Iran from the Commission on the Status of Women. We co-sponsored the successful Human Rights Council resolution to independently investigate human rights violations in Iran. Additionally, the government has raised concerns directly with Iran through diplomatic channels. Foreign Minister Wong spoke with the Iranian foreign minister on 22 March to express Australia's condemnation of Iran's brutal crackdown on protesters, the execution of protestors and the oppression of women. The Labor government's unequivocal opposition to the Iranian human rights situation can be expressed as follows. The Albanese government condemns the Iranian execution of protestors. We oppose the death penalty in all situations for all people. Pressure will continue to be applied on Iran to establish a moratorium on its use of the death penalty. This sentiment can be repeated in statements directly to the Iranian foreign minister, to the Iranian regime in Teheran and to Iran's representatives in Australia. We condemn the harassment, surveillance and intimidation of the Iranian community in Australia. As a country, we do not tolerate attempts by foreign regimes to disrupt peaceful protests, which is the heart of Australian democracy. Our criminal offences for espionage and foreign interference are robust and unequivocal. We urge families and individuals who have received threats to report them to the National Security Hotline, the Australian Federal Police or state and territory police. Remember: you have the right to protest and express your views. We will not stand for the suppression of views on human rights abuses. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a malignant actor that is a threat to the international community as well as well as its own people. I echo the Attorney-General's submission to the Senate enquiry. The position of the IRGC is an organ of a nation-state. It is not covered by the terrorist organisation provisions of the Criminal Code. Despite this, we empathise with those calling for the IRGC to be listed under the Criminal Code. We hear that they want to hold the IRGC accountable for their actions. My electorate office has received many emails and calls expressing this point of view. We are committed to addressing this concern, and that is why we are using tools other than the Criminal Code to take meaningful action. We have imposed sanctions on 27 IRGC-linked individuals and 21 IRGC-linked entities. Australia's quick and effective response to human rights abuses in Iran illustrates that the Albanese government sees things through. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and Iran autonomous sanctions framework will continue to shape our efforts to condemn the Iranian regime. Ultimately, I am proud to know that my speech today is already and will continue to be backed by the actions of the Labor government.
Housing Australia Future Fund | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
Australia's peak housing and homelessness bodies have been steadfast in their support of the Albanese government's housing reforms. Can the minister explain why the sector wants all...
Australia's peak housing and homelessness bodies have been steadfast in their support of the Albanese government's housing reforms. Can the minister explain why the sector wants all parliamentarians to pass the Housing Australia Future Fund bill?
I thank you, Minister, for the update. What other measures is the Albanese Labor government taking to ensure Australians, including renters, have a safe and affordable place to call home?
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Albanese Labor government is delivering on its promise to build more...
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Albanese Labor government is delivering on its promise to build more homes for Australians through the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund? Can you please confirm the fund will create a secure ongoing pipeline of funding for social and affordable rental housing?
Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
I rise finally to speak on the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills. It's true that there are a range of very serious issues which undermine the provision of housing in...
I rise finally to speak on the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills. It's true that there are a range of very serious issues which undermine the provision of housing in Australia. There is a large demand for increased social and affordable housing in our cities and our regions. The most recent census data counted 123,000 homeless people in 2021 in Australia, a 5.2 per cent increase since 2016. Women over the age of 55 are most at risk of homelessness, and they are the group that makes up the largest proportion of homeless Australians. Often these women have had careers, families and what could be described as stable lives. We see that it takes only a few things going wrong—a relationship breakdown, a financial downturn, illness or something else that life throws at them—and the women in this group have nowhere to go. We have to ask, why is it women in this group who end up in these situations? I believe it is women who end up here because of the precarious nature of women's savings, superannuation and financial position and systems that mean they rely on others for security and safety, which means they end up way more at risk than other groups. Those social and economic factors, and how they contribute to poor gendered outcomes, are things that we need to engage with and think about seriously. Similarly, First Nations Australians continue to struggle with long-term and stable housing. We know this, because we heard in the Closing the gap statement that First Nations people in this country continue to be disproportionately disadvantaged when it comes to accessing secure, appropriate and affordable housing that's aligned with their priorities and their needs. In addition, too many Australians are being hit with growing rents and many others struggle to buy a home, even on fairly decent incomes. This is a reality we cannot accept; Australia is not a country where this sort of housing shortfall should be permitted to happen. The Albanese government recognises this; we know that ensuring Australians have safe and affordable housing is central to securing the dignity in life which Australians not only deserve but are entitled to by virtue of living in Australia. That's why the housing reform before us today is ambitious and comprehensive. It has quite a few moving parts but, at its heart, is the establishment of the Housing Australia Future Fund. This is a legacy fund which will provide long-term stable investment in social and affordable housing across Australia. The future fund is a long-term plan; no more sugar hits and no more short-termism. It represents a $10 billion investment that will generate $500 million a year in returns which can be invested in perpetuity and used to build well-located social and affordable housing. This is a record investment from the Commonwealth which will transform the long-term future of Australia's housing supply and the affordability of housing market stock. Along with the Future Fund, we are widening the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility and the legislation also establishes the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to provide independent advice to government on options to increase housing supply and affordability. What's more, the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee has already been accessed by nearly 3,000 Australians choosing to live in our regions, and the Help To Buy program makes home ownership cheaper and more accessible for those trying to access the housing market for the first time. In addition to what is now an extra $3 billion, the government's entire plan is about getting more homes on the ground now. The social and affordable housing sector agrees that this funding will make a real difference, and will change lives. National Shelter, Homelessness Australia, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Housing Association, the Community Housing Industry Association and the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute have all called for this legislation to pass the parliament as a matter of urgency. The government also recognises that preventing people from falling into homelessness in the first place is a central aspect of good housing policy. Once people are on the street it becomes much harder to get them back into secure and stable housing. I'm so proud that the Labor government has committed $124 million to fund the equal remuneration order in the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement. This will keep vital housing crisis support services open, functioning and properly staffed so that more people at risk of homelessness can access support services and get the help they need when they're on the precipice of becoming homeless. This will keep more people in homes and off the street, and takes an important preventative approach in solving the challenges in our housing system. I also acknowledge the campaigners who reminded the government of the importance of this money and the disproportionately positive impact that investing in prevention services has on our housing and homelessness outcomes. I was glad to see every state and territory government signing up to support the Housing Australia Future Fund and the federal government's housing package earlier this year. This is on top of the establishment of the National Housing Accord, which reflects the shared ambition of federal, state and territory governments to build one million homes over five years from 2024. It's clear that state and territory governments are just as serious about improving the state of Australia's housing supply as the federal Labor government is. It's clear that all levels of government are willing to work together to achieve better outcomes. In matters of shared responsibility, like housing, this is a sensible approach, driven by the quality of results and the need to respond with urgency. It's clear that our states are serious, and so I find it astounding that the coalition has chosen negativity and scare campaigns in the debate around housing. They are suffering, I believe, from political relevance deprivation, so they figure that it's smart just to make some noise, throw up a few thought bubbles and hope that someone pays them some attention. But in the process of that political game, they actually deal themselves out of being part of big reform. They stop Australians getting safe and affordable housing and they actually make themselves even less relevant. By saying no to this reform, they are saying no to our nation's most vulnerable. They are saying that having 123,000 homeless people is okay. That is not tolerable. It is a shame. I would say that, when the time comes, it is unlikely that Australians will forget that when it comes to securing a better future for themselves and their kids. The Liberals and Nationals stood in the way of this government providing one of the most important aspects of that future—better housing for more Australians who are currently doing it tough. The Liberals will come out with some ridiculous thought bubbles when it comes to housing policy. 'Home first, super second' is the latest iteration of this damaging thought bubble. We heard a bit of that in an earlier speech today. Imagine actively encouraging individuals to undermine their own stability in retirement rather than taking responsibility for what is a national policy problem. The coalition's housing problem is a lazy, regressive idea that shows they haven't learned anything. The impulse to kick the can down the road is ingrained in how they think about politics and policy. They can't bring themselves to do the right thing by Australians in the long-term and put the effort into coming up with some meaningful reforms. In short, they just refuse to take responsibility. I'm glad the Greens political party have finally decided to join us on the road to solving Australia's housing shortfall; although I do think it's worth pointing out the Greens are now supporting a policy, the very essence of which their housing spokesman claimed only a few months ago would make the housing situation worse. Australians can make up their own minds about this contradiction in Greens' messaging, but from my point of view the whole saga has demonstrated the Greens are truly a political party who will say anything to wedge the government for as long as they can even if they agree in the end that the Labor Party got it right. Nevertheless, it's a relief to have this legislation on its way to being passed in the parliament. Unfortunately, we cannot solve all the problems Australia's housing market faces overnight, nor can the Labor government undo in one year what has been 10 years of delay and neglect by the coalition government more focused on themselves than on Australia. But what we can do is take the massive $10 billion investment in the form of the Housing Australia Future Fund that will deliver 20,000 new social rentals the first five years plus 10,000 affordable homes and run with it. That will make a difference; that will have an impact. It is for that reason I'm pleased that senators in this place will work with the government on this reform and not stand in the way of delivering a better life for Australians who are homeless or on the brink of homelessness. I read the newspapers and listen to the radio. I've watched the debate around social housing in Australia grow over the last 10 years of inaction. I've represented frontline housing workers who day in, day out work with Australia's most vulnerable to end their homelessness. I've heard from many peak bodies who all tell me there is a housing crisis. How we got to this point is a shame and should never have happened. But now the Albanese government is listening to Australians who need access to social and affordable housing. The housing market has a lot of problems. Not all of them can be fixed with one piece of legislation or, indeed, in one year. The minister, Julie Collins, has done a fantastic job of getting us this far. She has advocated tirelessly for a better deal for Australians who are locked out of getting an affordable and safe place to live. Now the Senate must finish the job and bring this much-needed reform to Australians who need it the most—single older women, young people, First Nations Australians, the disadvantaged in our regions and our cities. I'm glad my Greens colleagues have weighed up the lives of those people against their political objectives and now support this legislation. It is a shame the coalition didn't see the political value in these groups, because it will be up to those who voted not to increase investment in Australia's housing stock who will have to explain themselves to Australians, who right now need their help the most. I'm looking forward to delivering this election commitment to the Australian people and in doing so cementing another piece of legislation in the Albanese government's growing legacy of delivering a better future.
Commonwealth Bilateral Air Service Agreements; Appointment | Committees | Senate debates
It was circulated. It's in the Notice Paper. Keep up! Read it!