Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to all questions without notice asked today.

I know we're all very excited about the Matildas at the moment, and everyone has a newfound enthusiasm for women's football. But there have been a number of own goals from those opposite, and I'm not quite sure that's how the game should be played. In today's question time, getting information and answers proved impossible, as usual.

What we did see, and what we've seen over the past couple of weeks, is who is the weakest link when it comes to answering questions. Do you remember that game show that used to be on Channel 9, The Weakest Link? I think we know that that would be Senator Gallagher. When Senator Kitching made reference to Mean Girls, she didn't tell us who was who, but I think we now see that Senator Gallagher must be the Karen. Those of us that have watched the movie know what her special talent was. She could not answer a question today about political advertising—advertising that is unauthorised—aside from the fact that taxpayer funds are being used to publish an ad promoting the Voice but not promoting unauthorised argument. She was asked if she thought that it was appropriate for taxpayers' money to be spent on that and had zero answer, because she hadn't seen the ad. She hadn't seen the eight-page spread that was being put out. She couldn't answer. Wasn't Senator Gallagher once the Special Minister of State, or didn't she have some authority overlooking elections? Was she part of a process around this? Yet she didn't have the first clue as to whether unauthorised advertising using taxpayer funds was allowed. Well, I can tell you—bam-bow: it's not, Senator Gallagher. You might want to get yourself up to speed on the rules when it comes to the Voice and spending taxpayers' money.

We know that Australian taxpayers fund $40 billion in direct supports to Indigenous Australians, but the whole point of that money is that it's given to Indigenous Australians who need it, not just those who are related to, friends with or somehow in bed with those that run the land councils. We had a discussion last night, as this bastion of transparency and integrity—which, of course, we know this government is not. We qualified last night that that was just a slogan they put out, along with the $275 that was coming off our power bills. We learnt last night that both the Greens and those opposite oppose an inquiry put up by three Indigenous women to have a look into the inappropriate use of funds by Aboriginal land councils. The thing is they keep telling us we need a voice because we need to listen to communities. Communities are asking for these things, but they're the wrong kinds of communities for those opposite; they're the wrong kinds of voices for those that sit up that end of the chamber. So we get the beautiful whitesplaining like we got from Senator Pratt yesterday during this debate. It was fantastic. I notice Senator Thorpe called her out for that as well. It's just extraordinary.

The Central Land Council gives out $80.2 million. It was supposed to be given to Indigenous communities that are actually part of that land council. The Auditor-General's report said that the situation around governance there was not up to speed when it came to looking at conflicts of interest or fraud—conflicts of interest or fraud. The biggest conflict of interest that was even alluded to by Senator Pratt last night was the fact that these funds were given out on a whim: who was closest, who were the people they knew and who they liked. It was disgraceful. And these are taxpayer funds. Yet those opposite continue their absolute tirade. The behaviour—the stunt that has been pulled today. Again, Senator Pratt, you're the star this week! I don't know what you've done to deserve it, but here you are, putting up motions against your own government's policy!

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley?

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I've been very mindful and I haven't jumped straightaway, but it would be appreciated if you could just remind the senator that her comments should be through the chair.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hughes, please address your comments to the Deputy President.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I will direct my comments through you—my absolute pleasure—because you, for one, actually do understand the way standing orders and the way upper houses operate, and the way parliament should operate. And I'm sure you, like many of us, are absolutely dumbfounded that anyone would put up a motion against their own government's policy and then not vote with it. Honestly. I really look forward to explaining this to my kids when I see them tomorrow—because this is the madhouse that is occurring under this government.

Again we saw today that Senator Gallagher couldn't answer a basic question when it comes to unauthorised advertising, because she doesn't understand the rules or how to write a motion.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Hughes. Senator Polley.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't know what contribution that was meant to be. I understood you took note of all questions, but I've never heard such rambling nonsense in this chamber—well, not since you spoke last time, really. But I do want to address—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's a little unfair, Senator Polley.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will withdraw that.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was a bit excited there.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's been a long day. Let's all be moderate in our tone.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do want to talk about the issue that I think the senator was trying to raise—trying to justify why those on that side are not supporting the 'yes' campaign to give our First Nations people a voice to parliament and to give them recognition. Talking about a spread that was in a newspaper or a magazine that may or may not have been authorised that the minister had not seen, and I, for one, have not seen—I think it's a long bow to then try and castigate the minister for not being able to respond, when, really, the essence of this is that those opposite want to continue to treat First Nations people the same way that we've been doing decade after decade, and by all sides of the chamber when in government. We on this side know and, most importantly, First Nations people themselves know that that hasn't worked, and they want to have a say in their future.

I, for one, cannot understand why First Nations people have never previously been acknowledged in our Constitution. I don't know what those on that side have to fear about recognition in our Constitution. I don't know why they won't support the referendum 'yes' vote to have that recognition in our Constitution and to establish a voice to parliament. But I guess it goes back to their leader, who walked out when the Labor government was actually acknowledging and apologising to First Nations people. As we on this side all know, the Liberals and Nationals are so far behind—they're not what you would call a progressive political party or force in this country.

But, quite clearly, we want to address the issues around life expectancy for First Nations people and give them the opportunity to have that voice about how we can best support them in having better educational outcomes, because what an education does is to open up doors for a more prosperous future for the individual and their community. If you look at it from a humanitarian point of view, on the health outcomes, we as a nation should be ashamed that First Nations people have the worst outcomes on health—apart from some. Unfortunately, Tasmania, where I come from, has worse outcomes than First Nations people do. When it comes to incarcerations, we know a higher proportion of First Nations people than of any other cohort of Australians are in our jails.

I think the Australian people will ultimately decide that they want to see change and that they want to see better outcomes. Internationally, we've seen other countries make this move to actually allow their first nations people, as we are doing for ours, to have a real voice to their parliament and to future parliaments. I don't know what those opposite are scared about. You have Mr Dutton and those opposite saying that they would support legislation of a Voice to Parliament. We know why they would support that and why they would like us to go down that path: because they know that then, with a stroke of a pen, they can change that but that, when it's in a referendum and it's acknowledged in our Constitution, they can't.

I have to say that, for a Thursday afternoon, after two weeks of sittings, the target of their questions was quite bizarre. We went from airlines to radioactive material. With the way the former government treated airline staff and baggage handlers during the pandemic, I am amazed that they would even want to talk about the aviation industry in this country.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Kind of important to AUKUS, ruining our relationship with Israel, pandering to terrorists—good program!

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Hughes! Senator Ayres on a point of order?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've never seen you so exasperated to hear from me, Deputy President!

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I know. It was just—

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you might have anticipated my point of order, and if Senator Hughes—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The interjection has been moderated. Thank you for your attention, Minister.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What question time did demonstrate today is that the Labor Party aren't the government that, before the election, they promised they would be. It's the same old Labor. It's the same old Labor that can't make decisions. It's the same old Labor that makes decisions for its mates. It's the same old Labor that doesn't consult, despite all the promises that it made prior to the election. Remember they promised that they would be an open and transparent government. We haven't seen much of that. In fact, as has been indicated by colleagues here already this afternoon, they spent half the day gagging debate on a motion of ours that they then moved and voted against. They promised to be a government of lower power prices. I think we all remember the 97 times that the Labor Party promised us that there would be a $275 reduction in power prices, and, of course, the number 275 cannot cross their lips anymore. The promise has been abandoned. It has been broken. They promised us lower cost of living, and yet inflation continues to run at six per cent.

They promised us a consultative government, and I think, as we've seen here this afternoon, that, if you ask the pharmacists about that, they might not agree. We gave the government the opportunity to spend some time consulting with pharmacists this afternoon, and they knocked it back. Rather than debate it, they gagged it. So, as to their being consultative, open and transparent, none of that is being seen. Clearly, they are not the government that, before the election, they promised they would be.

They promised us lower housing prices and lower housing costs, and yet there have been 11 interest rates in a row under this government. And, of course, when they can't make the argument—and we've just seen a demonstration of that—they get personal, they get nasty. They promised a fairer, kinder government and parliament, and they haven't delivered on that promise either. We see it every question time: if they can't answer the question, they'll try and deflect the question to something else, they'll blame somebody else or they'll get personal. That's the tactic of this government, and its not what they promised they'd be before the election. In fact, we've seen hardly anything of what, before the election, they said they would be.

Senator Liddle and Senator Nampijinpa Price came in here yesterday with a motion to conduct an inquiry, off the back of bad reports, concerning reports, from ORIC and from the office of the Auditor-General. Of course, the government are not prepared to do that either. Then we have to bring into this chamber—and it's part of the general conversation this afternoon—a motion to actually even have public hearings in a Senate inquiry. How is that the trait of an open and transparent government? The Senate moves to take on a Senate inquiry into a piece of legislation, and the government doesn't even want to have public hearings and uses its numbers, in the committee, to shut it down. Really, how does that meet any of the commitments that the Labor Party made before the election about the way that they would operate? Open, transparent, ethical? I wonder what Qatar Airways thinks of the fact that they can't get access to additional flights into the country? Who does that benefit? The government were asked about who they had meetings with. They don't want to say. They just want to deflect the question. They want to blame somebody else. As I said before, if they can't get that to work, they'll get personal.

It really is time that this government actually started to do the things that, before the election, it promised it would do. I don't think it will, because it's just the same old Labor, with the same old characteristics, the same old traits. They can't keep their promises and can't commit to the Australian people.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As was evident in answers from the government in question time today, Labor has a very clear policy agenda and one that I am very glad we were able to clear a path to in terms of delivering 60-day dispensing.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You literally put the motion up to disallow it.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, it is peculiar. I was paired while these things happened in the chamber earlier today, so I was very pleased to have a chance to participate in bringing the disallowance to a vote. But it was recommended that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee introduce 60-day dispensing. We have seen the coalition delay it over and over again. Media reports earlier today had reported that rural doctors were relieved that the coalition was going to withdraw its 60-day dispensing disallowance motion. It's all very well for those opposite to point the finger at me for seeking to reflect on the need for the federal government to be able to get on with delivering this policy outcome and to stop the other side from equivocating, but I had seen reports that those on the other side were going to withdraw or no longer wanted to support the disallowance. But, here in the Senate this afternoon, we have cleared a path towards implementing our very clear policy intent, which is most definitely in the interests of patients right around the nation.

The move to 60-day dispensing, from 30 days to 60 days, means that patients get more medication for less money, with fewer visits to the pharmacy. These are not small changes in the context of people with busy lives, managing, sometimes, two or three different medications. I myself have three or four regular medications that I take, so it's not uncommon for me to need to go to the pharmacy on a weekly basis because they run out at different times. For me, 60-day dispensing will be a great convenience and a money saver because I will be able to access those medications in, frankly, a more timely, not less timely, way because I will not run out of medication as often.

As the rural GPs said: why should our elderly rural patients have to travel for hours to collect their medication from the chemist every month when there's no good reason this can't be every two months? Why should this unnecessary burden on patients and GPs continue when the pharmaceutical benefits authority has made it very clear that the move is safe and benefits the community? We have put in place measures to ensure the sustainability of remote and regional pharmacies. We've seen an announcement that the regional pharmacy maintenance allowance, for very remote pharmacies that have limited dispensing activity, will increase to just over $100,000 annually per pharmacy. This is incredibly important because we believe that our regional and remote pharmacies must be sustainable and must be integrated with other local remote and regional health services. To add to that sustainability, we've seen fee-for-service options for pharmacists to include all vaccinations. We've seen this in addition to items they already have. (Time expired)

Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers given by the government today in relation to the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility. It's extraordinary to be standing here today when the Labor government has in fact laid waste to the news that the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility would be kept. The government has declined to appeal the decision and has effectively, in the process, junked a careful, considered and extensive 10-year process to establish this nuclear waste facility in the northern aspect of South Australia, my home state, near the town of Kimba, which was due to be the beneficiary of a very generous $30 million, or so, incentive package in order to host that site. In so doing, the Labor government has not only torpedoed that extra funding for the local area and therefore put businesses in the area in jeopardy; it's also now put into doubt the nation's nuclear submarine program, and put that in jeopardy.

It needs to be remembered that, in addition to those two matters, this government has given itself an incredible headache going forward in terms of what is to be done with the 13,000 cubic metres of low-level radioactive waste and, I believe, 4,300 cubic metres of intermediate-level nuclear waste. We need to understand here that this is not, as those against this proposal like to portray it, like you would see in The Simpsons, with radioactive drums of green ooze. This is very low-level—very intermediate-level—nuclear waste, which has really come as a result of the use of nuclear medicine—people who have the terrific benefit of that sort of care and treatment rely on this. But there is now no real future plan for this. We saw that it took 10 years for the previous coalition government to get to this point, through careful and considered consultation with the community.

But this is what happens when you have a government that is more interested in local, factional partisan politics than it is in focusing on the national interest. This is all, of course, on the eve of Labor's National Conference next week, and it's all about appeasing the party's radical left—people like Senator Ayres here, who would, presumably, be against this. Why would you want to see it go ahead? All it would do is provide a benefit for the locals. It's not in the interest of South Australia, I'm sure.

Of course, it does leave the people of Kimba high and dry. We know from the work that was done by the coalition government that the consultation was quite extraordinary and the Kimba community supported this through a number of mechanisms. They were asked this on a number of occasions, but the broad community support was demonstrated through a range of indicators, including 61.6 per cent of people in the Kimba local council government area supporting the facility, according to the now dismissed Kimba ballot, which was independently facilitated by the Australian Electoral Commission. And 59.3 per cent from surveyed local businesses in Kimba supported the prospect of this nuclear waste facility going ahead, as well as a similar amount—a slightly larger amount, with 59.8 per cent—from local submissions. One hundred per cent of the neighbours who shared a boundary with the nominated site at Napandee actually supported the facility. Why did they do that? It's because they are better and more broadminded than those opposite. They understood that not only would it be good for the local community; they understood that a purpose built facility was essential to supporting our nuclear medicine industry, with more than 90 per cent of the waste produced in Australia being linked to nuclear medicine. That waste at the moment is stored at Lucas Heights and about 100 other locations all around the country—at hospitals and other facilities. Every Australian, sadly, is going to draw on nuclear medicine in their lifetime, so there does remain a critical need for this project and for a national radioactive waste management facility.

The reality for this government, though, having not progressed this or taken up the good work of the previous coalition government, is that they now have a giant political headache. What they seek to do with this facility as we move forward— ARPANSA require it—we will see.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Public trust in our democracy is at an all-time low, and the community feels less and less confident that people elected to represent them are actually representing them, rather than representing vested interests and big political donors. They feel that our democracy is for sale, and I think they are right. The big four consultancy firms donated more than $4.3 million to both sides of politics over the last 10 years, and over that same period, in return, they secured about $8 billion in government contracts. That's for work that my party thinks should have been done by an independent, well-resourced Public Service, but you can't deny that's a pretty good return on investment for those firms.

Polling released this week found there's an overwhelming majority of people—74 per cent—who think you shouldn't be able to donate to a political party if you are someone that gets funding from government contracts. That is, if you're a government contractor, you shouldn't be able to pay the people who are then paying you for your work. They think it sounds like corruption or, at the very least, bribery. I might add that, of those 74 per cent of people, 70 per cent were Labor voters and 80 per cent were coalition voters. So this is something that people who vote for all the parties in this building actually think needs to be addressed.

So I put that to the Minister representing the Prime Minister today in question time, and it was very interesting. Often, when the Greens ask the government of the day—no matter who's in charge—about donations and the influence that they buy, we get some pretty angry responses. But we didn't get an angry response today. We had a response that actually showed that perhaps the government is thinking about these sorts of reforms. Maybe I am an optimist—well, I certainly am an optimist; perhaps I'm being too optimistic in this regard, but I really welcome the potential for the government to genuinely consider reforming the rule that says you can make a donation and then on the very next day you can get a government contract. There's a real perception of corruption there. The minister in fact acknowledged that that perception exists. You could argue there's a reality as well as a perception, but I'm grateful the minister does at least recognise it's a really bad look. I'm hopeful that we might see some changes to our laws.

I next asked about companies that make political donations and then receive grants of public money—not contracts as such but just handouts, just grants. I cited the fact that the gas fracker Tamboran Resources, who are the ones who want to open up the Beetaloo basin to frack it beyond recognition and to release an absolute carbon bomb into the atmosphere, donated $200,000 to both of the big parties in the financial year 2021-22. I mentioned that in that very same financial year they sought and received 7½ million dollars in taxpayer money—a grant of taxpayer money—to frack the Beetaloo basin. We, of course, sought to disallow that grant, and the two big parties disagreed. They were very happy for that massive gas fracker to get public money to frack the Beetaloo basin. For me, that really highlights the fact that the government needs to change the rules to make sure that if you are seeking a government grant you are not allowed to donate to any political party, either in the lead-up or after you've received that grant.

On government contractors and government grants, it's clear we need to clean up the system, but it's also environmental approvals. I mentioned this in my question to the minister, and I noted that Adani—who have come under scandal after scandal and who have finally got approval for their megamine in my home state of Queensland—and their subsidiaries donated almost a quarter of a million dollars to the coalition in the same financial year they got their final environmental approval. In fact, they did it in instalments. They even made $100,000 of that $248,000 donation in the month after they got their federal environmental approval, which looks really fishy.

I'll be introducing a private member's bill to ban political donations from people who are seeking or receiving government contracts, government grants or environmental approvals from government. It is time we cleaned up the stench of corruption over our democracy and made it work for people again, not for political donors.

Question agreed to.