The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hog g) took the chair at 12:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (12:31): I rise to move a motion to give extra hours to government business this evening to deal with three specific bills. I do appreciate the cooperation from senators this week with non-controversial legislation, and I also recognise the cooperation which has been provided to manage our legislative program to date. But, as anyone who has glanced at the Notice Paper would see, we have a lot of legislation before us. If the progress yesterday of the EPBC Amendment Bill is any guide, we will be here for many more weeks, which none of us want. Perhaps provoked by Senator Birmingham, I might add that having, on three separate occasions, additional speakers being added to the second reading list is not assisting progress with respect to that bill.
The only option for the government is to move this motion to provide for more government business time. As you would all know, this is a relatively straightforward motion. And it will not come as a great surprise to those of us who have been around here for some time, as a motion to extend hours for government business has become standard practice for the last sitting fortnight of a parliament and indeed of a session.
The government has attempted to give people as much warning as possible, and I have written to leaders about the issue. I anticipate the support of the chamber for this motion, which is the sensible way of getting the legislation dealt with. As the chamber would know—and I have made the point before on several occasions—there is insufficient time in the program for government business and the situation has prompted the need for this motion before us. I ask senators to support this motion so that the chamber can expedite legislation this evening. I move:
That, on Tuesday, 18 June 2013:
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 12.30 pm to 6.30 pm and 7 pm to adjournment;
(b) any proposal pursuant to standing order 75 shall not be proceeded with;
(c) that consideration of government documents under standing order 57(b) (x) be not proceeded with;
(d) that business be interrupted at 5 pm but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking to enable valedictory statements be made relating to Senator Crossin;
(e) that the routine of business from not later than 7 pm shall be government business only and the following government business orders of the day shall have precedence over all government business:
(i) Parliamentary Service Amendment (Freedom of Information) Bill 2013,
(ii) Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013, and
(iii) Australia Council Bill 2013 and a related bill; and
(f) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 10 pm.
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (12:33): Mr Deputy President, I wish to participate in this debate, but before I do can I seek the Clerk's guidance, through you. The notice of motion presented by Senator Collins purports to be an alteration of a notice of motion. It commences 'omit paragraphs (a) and (b)' of the original motion, but the original motion only has paragraphs (a) and (b). So I cannot see how, on any reading, this can possibly be an alteration of a notice of motion. It is in fact a completely, utterly brand-new motion.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I appreciate what you are saying, Senator Fifield, but it is still well within the remit of an alteration to a notice of motion. You may continue on the debate.
Senator FIFIELD: Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I will just put it in the category of farce, if I may. Senator Collins was right when she said that there has been a large degree of cooperation from this side of the chamber with the legislative program of the government. The coalition has, during the last almost three years of this parliament, been extremely cooperative in relation to bills that all parties in this chamber identify as non-controversial. Again later this week there are a large number of bills which all parties have agreed should be given swift passage too.
Contrary to the constant assertions of Mr Albanese in the other place, the opposition have taken a very practical and a very cooperative approach to the management of business in both chambers. Obviously, where legislation deserves thorough and complete scrutiny, we have sought to do that, but we have never sought to be bloody-minded, we have never sought to be obstructive, we have never sought to delay or impede for the sake of doing so; we have only ever sought to ensure that legislation receives the scrutiny that it deserves. I do appreciate Senator Collins acknowledging that this side of the chamber has been cooperative with the business of the Senate.
That leads me, therefore, to the issue of why this particular motion is necessary. Again, the opposition displayed a cooperative spirit when, yesterday, we signalled to the government that we would accept their second iteration of this motion—this being the third iteration. The first iteration was not acceptable to us, but we said to the government, quite reasonably, that if the motion that they put forward only sought to remove the MPI and also sought to make provision for valedictory statements in relation to Senator Crossin, we would support that. So the government circulated an amended motion to that effect, which we would have supported. As a sign of good faith this morning, the opposition did not submit an MPI. Yet, overnight, Senator Collins has sought to amend the motion. As I indicated, it is not really an amendment; it is a completely new motion.
I want to go through each part of the motion in turn, Mr Deputy President, because I know that, in debates on procedural motions, you like the focus to be on the procedural motion itself. The first item is to omit paragraphs (a) and (b). Well, there were only paragraphs (a) and (b) in the motion. We will just put that down to farce. Part (b) of the third iteration of the motion says that the MPI should not be in place. We agree with that. We think that is reasonable. The next part says 'that consideration of government documents under standing order 57(b)(x) be not proceeded with'. The government have provided absolutely no rationale for why government documents should not be proceeded with. They are an important part of the business of this place. They are an important way for the parliament to impose scrutiny on the activities of government and for other issues to be raised. Senator Macdonald is someone who takes full advantage of that, and it is important that we defend the rights of individual senators to avail themselves of the opportunities of this chamber. Section (d) says that business should be interrupted at 5 pm so as to enable valedictory statements relating to Senator Crossin. Of course we agree with that. We demonstrated yesterday that we were happy to facilitate that. It is practical and sensible.
Section (e) relates to legislation that the government propose to be dealt with no later than 7 pm. The government have not given any rationale as to what the urgency is for these bills to be dealt with. I want to take one in particular, and that is the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013. This bill, in the form that it was originally introduced into the House of Representatives, had the support of all parties, opposition included. It is quite an appropriate bill that seeks to ensure that people cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. However, Mr Dreyfus, the Attorney-General, has signalled that he wishes to have an amendment moved that would see the religious exemption, which we thought that all parties supported, altered. He wishes it to be altered so that the religious exemption no longer applies to faith based aged-care facilities. It is not inconsistent to be opposed to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and at the same time to respect religious freedom.
We had thought that the sex discrimination bill was a settled matter. We can only surmise as to what the motives of the government are in seeking to introduce this amendment. We can only surmise that they may be endeavouring to again practise the politics of division, pitting one part of the community against another part of the community when there is absolutely no need for it, when we should be in a position where we can respect the views of all Australians and have them appropriately accommodated. Antidiscrimination legislation is not the complete and absolute embodiment of all rights in this nation and of all freedoms that we respect. I just thought it was important to use one of the pieces of legislation that the government wish to debate from 7 pm tonight as an example as to what I think some of the motives of the government might be.
The final part of the motion, section (f), calls for the adjournment of the Senate to be proposed at 10 o'clock tonight. Obviously we are always happy to work, but the issue is that the responsibility is on the government of the day to manage their program within the legislative timetable and sitting schedule that they themselves have determined. If the government of the day cannot manage their legislative program within those bounds, that is a reflection on the government of the day. Here is another thought: perhaps the government of the day is seeking to legislate too much. There is no innate virtue in legislative activity. Not all legislation is good. Some legislation is bad. Some legislation does more harm than good.
We do not want to be in a situation where the measure of a government is their legislative throughput, where the measure of a government is how many bills have passed into law. Government does not always do good. Government can do harm. We have many examples—whether it be the carbon tax, the mining tax or any number of pieces of legislation that I could point to—that show legislating is not always a good thing. Sometimes it is better for a government to stop and think: 'No, actually. Why shouldn't the first principle of government be "Do no harm"?' If the government cannot manage within the sitting days that they have allocated and within the format of the sitting week that has been determined then that reflects on the government in two ways: firstly, they cannot manage their own agenda and, secondly, perhaps they are seeking to legislate too much.
I know those opposite will say, 'We're endeavouring to facilitate greater debate, greater scrutiny, by extending the hours tonight.' I have seen this so many times before, where the government give with one hand by extending the hours a little bit but they take even more with the other hand by, in the subsequent days, gagging and guillotining debate. When we have a motion such as this to slightly extend hours, we know, as sure as night follows day, that in a day or two or three there will be gag motions to put questions, to terminate debate where it is at that point in time, and we know that there will be motions to set up guillotines following hot on the heels of that. Whenever this government are faced with trying to manage the legislative agenda, they always, since they have the numbers, ultimately take the easy course, the easy path—that is, to guillotine debate. For those reasons, we cannot possibly support this motion.
If there were a sensible proposition and cooperation were required—if it were to remove, say, an MPI in order to facilitate valedictories—of course we would do that. If there were a requirement for a non-controversial legislation period and for the bills which were part of that to be agreed to, of course we would support that—and we would be positive about ensuring that it happened. But where we have these ad hoc, piecemeal motions which change three times over the course of the day and are then presented as alterations to existing motions—when in fact they are brand-new motions—we cannot be a part of that approach to the management of business in this place.
There are perhaps over 100 bills currently in the pipeline to come through this parliament. We know that the government do not anticipate being able to legislate all of those in the remaining two weeks. We know that, as the days tick by, they will focus, as governments do, on those pieces of legislation which are really important to them. I do not see any legislation listed in this motion before me which shouts out that it is of critical importance or that it needs the business of this place altered in order to facilitate its passage. I do not see that in the Australia Council Bill and I do not see that in the sex discrimination amendment bill—and the other bill is essentially a housekeeping matter.
This government never take the time, whether it be with the Australian people or with the Australian Senate, to make the case for what they want to do. Even if it is significant and adverse change, such as the carbon tax or the mining tax, the government never seek to take the Australian people along with them. They never seek to explain the rationale behind what they want to do. Firstly they will deceive and then they will do the opposite of what they originally indicated.
It is the same with this chamber. The government never seek to explain what their rationale is for the management of this place. We get motions presented here—overnight and without notice—that seek to completely up-end the business of this place, yet no rationale is given. There is cooperation extended from this side of the chamber, but it would be helpful for the management of business in this place if that cooperation were reciprocated in these sorts of motions. As I say, we on this side of the chamber are extremely reasonable and we are open to reasonable approaches. But when we have a proposition before us to remove the consideration of government documents, with no rationale explaining why that is necessary; when we have a proposition put that certain bills should be given precedence over other bills, but absolutely no rationale is given to support that; and when we have a proposition before us to alter the entire day, again with no rationale at all, we cannot possibly support that.
There are many more important matters we should be dealing with in this place and we could be dealing with those right now. Instead, the government have chosen to take the approach of altering this motion overnight—without justification, without rationale and without explanation. Our natural response to such an approach is to feel the need to debate and highlight it. It should not be this way.
I know what is coming in the days ahead. We will have similar motions again and the government will, as I have foreshadowed—and it is not prescience; it is just that we know that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour—seek to use the gag again and seek to use the guillotine again. I urge Senator Collins not to gag debate in the days and week ahead and not to use the guillotine in the days and week ahead.
I know the request comes from the other place, from Mr Albanese—that legislation has to be rammed through the place. I know it is not always the desire of Senator Collins to see the prerogatives, rights and responsibilities of this chamber abrogated. But I urge Senator Collins, when she gets that call from the other place, to resist it—because we do have a responsibility in this place to make sure that the Senate does its job, that the Senate scrutinises, that the Senate examines. As I think all senators here know, it is often senators in this place who are the first people in this building to actually read legislation. It does not always happen that it is read by anyone in the other place.
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
Senator FIFIELD: Senator Collins is concurring, I am sure! This chamber needs to be afforded that opportunity. So, Senator Collins, I urge you to resist the call from Mr Albanese. I know he does not appreciate the way this place works—and that you do, Senator Collins. We are looking for you to be a defender of the Senate and to say: 'I am sorry, Mr Albanese, but I cannot comply with your request. The Senate has a role to play, Mr Albanese, and the Senate is going to play that role.' I look forward, Senator Collins, to seeing evidence of that in the days ahead. Before I conclude, I move an amendment to government business notice of motion No. 1:
Omit paragraphs (a) to (f) and add:
(a) Any proposal pursuant to standing order 75 shall not be proceeded with; and
(b) That business be interrupted at 5pm but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking to enable valedictory statements to be made relating to Senator Crossin
I think it would help the good governance and management of this chamber if the opposition's amendment were accepted. It would put us back on the path that had been agreed to yesterday and then we could get back quickly to the business of this chamber. In closing, I would urge Senator Collins to support the opposition's amendment and, when Mr Albanese calls over the days and weeks, to just say, 'Mr Albanese, no.'
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (12:53): I move:
That the question be put.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Fifield be put.
The Senate divided. [12:58]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
The PRESIDENT (13:01): The question now is that the amendment moved by Senator Fifield be agreed to.
[The Senate divided. [13:02]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (13:05): I move:
That the question be now put.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion be now put.
The Senate divided. [13:06]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
The PRESIDENT (13:09): The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Collins be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [13.10]
(The President—Senator Hogg
BILLS
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013
In Committee
Debate resumed.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ) (13:12): The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 7375, moved by Senator Waters, be agreed to.
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (13:12): Given that we were rather rushed last night in the five minutes we had to discuss this amendment, I will recap: the amendment would allow landholders the right to say no to coal and coal seam gas mining on their land. Many communities across the east coast are now banding together to demand that right. Today a poll has been released showing that 86 per cent of New South Wales residents want the right to say no; they want to be able to lock the gate and to be not breaking the law when they do so.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge in the public gallery some members of the Lock the Gate Alliance. The alliance has been very courageous in the stand it has taken against this industry, which, as we know, threatens groundwater, threatens the climate and of course threatens the reef, and is impacting on rural communities—and increasingly on urban communities as the coal seam gas industry encroaches on the cities as well. We are honoured to be moving this amendment to give those communities the right to lock the gate and to do so lawfully.
As I outlined last night, this amendment does not change the ownership of the resource, it is perfectly constitutional and it does not lessen any of the other environmental requirements. This is purely an amendment to strengthen the bargaining position of communities and allow them to lock the gate against this dangerous and risky industry.
Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (13:14): I rise to say how critical this amendment is, particularly for the future of rural and regional Australia and particularly for areas that will be growing our food in the future. It is disgraceful that permission has been given for coal seam gas exploration when the precautionary principle would have told you they have no idea what the impact on groundwater or the Artesian Basin will be, yet they have allowed this to proceed. Furthermore, they have no idea how much fugitive emissions of methane are going from those coal seam gas sites into the atmosphere.
I started my political career supporting the farmers at Wesley Vale against the North Broken Hill pulp mill. I have been out with Senator Waters. I have been out in New South Wales with Kate Fairman and Jeremy Buckingham—they are members of parliament there. I have been to the Felton Valley, I have been to Moree, I have been through Lismore and I have been out onto the Liverpool Plains. Everywhere I go, farmers say to me that they cannot believe that they have been sold out so badly by both the Liberal and the National parties, who have told them for years that they support them in what they do. Yet, when push comes to shove, those parties are selling out to the coal industry and the coal seam gas industry against the best interests of protecting agricultural land and water into the future.
I have been on some of those properties and it is very, very clear—particularly with those black soils—that you will get massive erosion if you allow the infrastructure for coal seam gas onto those properties. But, apart from anything else, farmers and farming communities ought to have the right to say no. The anger out there is extreme because the political process has said, 'Where the most votes are counts the most.' They have changed the law to protect communities where there are votes, like Western Sydney, but they have left rural communities high and dry. I can tell you that people recognise—as Lester Brown has said many times—that in this century food security is a major challenge: those responsible for producing food particularly need to do it in the face of extreme weather events and in the face of agricultural land being lost to urbanisation and other pressures. We must protect this land and we must give farmers the right to say no to coal seam gas and coal on their properties.
This is the era— (Quorum formed) As I was saying, Lester Brown has recognised that food is the new oil in this century, and land and water are the new gold. It is about time that in Australia we recognise the pressure that the environment is under and we protect our land, water and rural communities. I think this is a critical amendment to give farmers the right to say no. We have heard from the Leader of the Opposition—depending on which station he is being interviewed on at the time—that sometimes he supports farmers rights to say no and at other times he does not. It is about time we actually had this tested in the parliament. This is going to be a very significant vote as to whether people actually do want to support farmers being able to stand up.
When I was out on the Liverpool Plains, I met a gentleman who was 70 years old; his name was Bill. He came down to talk to me and he said he had spent his 70 years building up his property to the state that it is in now. It is a very beautiful property and he said he never expected that he would have to spend the rest of his life defending it. That is a pretty powerful statement for a farmer to make. He has coal seam gas next door. Other communities, like at Moree, have locked the gates—and good on them. Communities around the country are trying to do the same.
They are up against it because of the power of the fossil fuel lobby. When you look at what has happened in New South Wales—with ICAC in particular—and you find out how many of these permits have been granted and what the conditions of those are, you really have to scratch your head and ask, 'Why haven't they been revoked, in light of how they were granted in the first place? How is it possible that farming communities are being wrought asunder and yet the people who have facilitated this are getting away with it?' As far as the government is concerned, it is very late for Tony Burke—now the minister—to be concerned about it after he approved every coal seam gas project that came across his desk until now, including the Gloucester facility. That is why the Greens have argued strongly that these laws should apply retrospectively, particularly to those projects that have not actually been started. And they should be applied retrospectively to those that have started, to the extent of them being forced to report on the water and atmospheric impacts of the fugitive emissions coming from those projects.
There is no excuse. Eighty per cent of the fossil fuel reserves should stay in the ground if we are to be serious about global warming and constraining global warming to less than two degrees. That means no more new fossil fuel industries. It makes no sense to be driving a fossil fuel industry at the end of the fossil fuel age. You cannot stand up in here, day after day, and say, 'I believe the climate science,' and in the next breath give the go-ahead to the biggest coal mines and massive coal seam gas facilities from one end of the country to the other. It makes no sense. It is totally hypocritical. You either believe this climate science and get on with rolling out 100 per cent renewables and protecting agricultural land and water or you accept the fact that you are a climate sceptic, that you do not believe the climate science and that is why you want to drive the fossil fuel industry.
But you cannot have it both ways, and it is about time people started to face up to that. We are seeing the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef as I stand here, as a result of new coal ports. We have the government and the coalition driving the opening up of coal in the Galilee Basin and the Bowen Basin. The Galilee Basin alone, if it were a separate country, would be producing seven per cent of the world's emissions when that coal is burned. It has to stay in the ground. It is not only a bad thing for the atmosphere but a bad thing for economic development. We cannot have people investing in companies when we know that the share value is going to be written off, because the value is based on reserves and these reserves are not accessible if you are serious about the climate science. Let us get back and protect our farmers; let us give them the right to say no.
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia) (13:23): The coalition will most definitely be opposing this amendment of the Greens. I inform the Senate that we do so because the words of Senator Waters and Senator Milne, in suggesting that this amendment does not in any way change ownership, ring quite hollow when you look at the actual wording of the amendment. The amendment states:
The Minister must not approve, for the purposes of the controlling provision, the taking of the action, unless the Minister is satisfied that any owner, and any occupier, of land that would be likely to be affected by the taking of the action:
(a) has obtained independent legal advice; and
(b) has obtained independent advice in relation to the likely impacts of the taking of the action; and
(c) has freely given informed consent in relation to the taking of the action.
This amendment would have two consequences that obviously spring to mind. The first is that an owner of the immediate property in question would be able to block access indefinitely, with a blank cheque, for as long as they want, until effectively they have extracted the price that they want for such access. That is what the effect would be. Unlike the historical provisions that I will turn to in a second in relation to how state laws around access have been governed for a long time, this is a blank cheque to block action with no automatic recourse to mediation, no opportunity for any type of fairness of recognition that the states' ownership of the minerals or the resource or the petroleum resource comes into play in the consideration of things. By giving the title owner, the landowner, that blank cheque to block access, you effectively give them a blank cheque to extract whatever price they want for the minerals that are in the ground.
Secondly, I highlight the fact that this amendment talks about any owner and any occupier of land that 'would be likely to be affected' by the taking of action. Those are important words, because we are addressing in the totality of the bill before the Senate amendments that relate to water resources and the protection of those water resources. Fundamental to the recognition that we must protect those water resources is a recognition that those water resources stretch across title boundaries into adjoining properties. The coalition acknowledges there must be appropriate science and research for the protection of those resources, but this amendment would lead to the possibility that not just the owner of the land on which the exploration or development activity is taking place would have to give permission but potentially adjoining landowners would also have to give permission. You could have a situation where the landowner in questioning extracts the price they want and are happy for it to go ahead, but adjoining landowners find themselves with the opportunity to block access until they extract a price that they are happy with.
This flies in the face of the entire understanding of land-use management in the history of the Australian Federation. Throughout that history it has been recognised that land-use management decisions lie with state governments. That is the fundamental understanding that has existed. The words 'lock the gate' that are thrown around emotively at times—and I know they have been used as a campaign slogan in this very emotive debate—are a demonstration that this is about a desire to stop development. Senator Milne talked about the fact that the coal has to stay in the ground for climate change reasons—a demonstration that the Greens' involvement in this space is driven not by genuine concerns for landowners, farmers or those who might be affected by these developments but by broader political objectives of the Greens political party.
As I said, this goes against the longstanding practice of states in their exclusive regulation of this area. Those longstanding practices have evolved over the years in recognising that there should be some firm processes in place for how landowners give consent and how such consent is given fairly. It tries to balance, at the state level around Australia, a recognition that, whilst the resources in the ground may belong to the state, there is an issue around the landowners and that landowners need to be reasonably respected and treated in a fair way for the giving of consent.
In New South Wales, such things date back to before the Mining Act 1906, which dealt not just with gold and other minerals but also with mineral oils or petroleum in outlining the types of provisions for obtaining landholder consent. The Mining Act 1906 was updated in relation to petroleum and gaseous products in 1955 with the passage of the Petroleum Act 1955 in New South Wales. Section 50 of that act contains the following provisions:
50. The holder of any licence or lease under this Act shall not carry out any prospecting or mining operations or erect any works on the surface of any land which is under cultivation unless the owner or the owner and occupier, as the case may be, of such land has or have consented thereto:
Provided that—
(a) the Minister may, if he considers that the circumstances so warrant, define an area of the prospecting or mining operations may be carried out or works may be erected, and may specify the nature of the operations to be carried out or the works to be erected, but before any such operations are commenced or works are erected, the warden shall assess the amount to be paid as compensation for any loss of or damage to any crop on such cultivated land;
(b) cultivation for the growth and spread of pasture grasses shall not be deemed to be cultivation within the meaning of this section unless, in the opinion of the Minister, the circumstances so warrant; and
(c) in the case of dispute as to whether land is or is not under cultivation within the meaning of this section the Minister's decision thereon shall be final.
So, a process has long been established and was set out there in the Petroleum Act of 1955 at the New South Wales level. That provided for the fundamental decision that owner or occupier should provide consent but, equally, a mediation process was in place there where the minister provide consent if it could be agreed to and there should be independent assessment of appropriate compensation to be paid.
In 1991 the Petroleum Onshore Act was passed in New South Wales and replaced the 1955 act, but it contained in s. 71 an almost identical provision in relation to land under cultivation and similar activities. In 1994 there were amendments that removed the requirement for landholder consent in relation to exploration licences and assessment leases but not in relation to production leases. These are important distinctions—and distinctions that I will be moving further amendments in relation to—that clearly separate the treatment of exploration or assessment activities from production activities.
The amendments also inserted a new part 4(a), with similar land access provisions to those introduced into the Mining Act of 1989. So, we had a new part 4(a) of the Petroleum Onshore Act 1991 that provided that the holder of a prospecting title may not carry out prospecting operations on any private land otherwise than in accordance with an access agreement (a) agreed between the title holder and the owner and occupier of the land or (b) determined by an arbiter. Since 1994 these provisions have been slightly amended but essentially remain in force in New South Wales, as do similar provisions in other jurisdictions.
When the Greens come to this place and others go to the other place to argue that somehow there is not a process in place that respects the rights of landholders, that is simply a falsehood. There are laws in place—long-established laws, century-old laws at a state level—that very clearly respect the rights of landholders whilst also respecting the right of the state to access the minerals contained within the lands. That recognises that those minerals are an important asset of the people of the state, not just of the individual landowner. Those laws have sat there for 100-plus years in Australian history, and longer if you go to the individual jurisdictions and longer still in places overseas. Such laws recognise that appropriate processes which ideally cover an access arrangement between the licensed company, which is developing the mineral resource and extracting the mineral resources, and the landowner. If that cannot be achieved—if the landowner cannot reach reasonable terms with the licence owner—then the state steps in via arbitration and establishes what those fair terms should be.
The Greens' amendment would simply turn this long-established practice at a state level completely on its head and suddenly there would be a situation where not just immediate landowners but other landowners on surrounding properties would have a complete right of veto and the federal environment minister would sit above all of the different ministers and authorities at a state level to have the final yea or nay say, with no process in the Greens amendment for how disputes might be arbitrated.
We on the coalition side recognise that there is a genuine concern that exists in many communities about how provisions such as those I have outlined are applied in the states. There is a real concern to make sure they are applied transparently. There are genuine concerns too about the way governments, like the New South Wales Labor government, may have given out some mining leases. That reeks of corruption and no doubt will be proven to be acts of corruption. But that does not mean that for the entire Commonwealth of Australia we should turn a century-plus of established law-making on its head. That would potentially shut down the appropriate management of mineral resources around Australia and, in doing so, shut down exploration, assessment and production activities that may likely be undertaken in the future. Essentially, that would be the outcome of the amendment proposed by the Greens.
I trust that the government will equally be opposing this and will oppose it with a similar concern—not just for its effects on an industry that is important to Australia and not just to trample on the federation and the rights of states that this amendment undertakes but to recognise that there is an appropriate balance to be achieved here. Such a balance should ensure that landholders are rightly compensated where access to their land is granted as part of a mineral or petroleum licence and that communities rightly receive a level of support and recognition for the way mining or petroleum development impacts on those communities. The balance should also make sure the people of a state receive the benefits of the utilisation of the resources of that state. They are the things that need to be balanced. They are the things that should be balanced in state laws, not through some blunt, crude amendment such as this one proposed by the Greens today, which I trust the chamber will rightly reject.
Senator JOYCE (Queensland—Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (13:37): The issue here is that of course we acknowledge that landholders have an absolute right to what is present on their land. But, by reason of state governments over such a long period of time stealing hydrocarbonist materials from underneath their ground, they have lost those rights. They have lost those rights by reason of state government actions. In Queensland they lost them with the 1915 Petroleum Act. In South Australia, where Senator Birmingham is from and you too, Temporary Chairman, they lost them in 1971. In the Territory they lost them in 1953. In New South Wales Neville Wran gave a splendid second reading speech on how he was stealing those rights in 1983. That was quite recent. So it is very clear that, when people say that landholders never had the rights to coal, gas and oil underneath their places, that is not correct. They have never had the rights to silver, gold and iron ore, but they have had the rights to hydrocarbonist material. The problem is that to restore those rights you have to restore them at a state level. You cannot restore them at a federal level; you have to restore them at a state level.
I think it is a great idea to give those rights back to landholders at a state level from where they were stolen. That would obviously give landholders a vastly greater say in what is happening. I would presume, much to the dilemma of the Greens, that far from stopping the further development of mineral resources it would actually assist the further development of mineral resources just like it does in Texas and other places. We can see that once people realise there is a substantial return that gives their family a better standard of living they are more than willing to engage with the mining companies. What is happening at the moment is that they are getting ripped off. We have said this quite clearly a number of times. We did in the 2011 Senate inquiry, which I wrote the extension of terms for, to deal in a transparent way with coal seam gas.
It is important to understand the principles that the National Party stands behind. No. 1 is: do not go onto prime agricultural land. No. 2 is: do not destroy aquifers. Even though my political adversary put forward a bill for $150 million for further investigation and you would think prima facie that we would be fighting against it, I fought to make sure it was agreed to. No. 3 is: do not go next to people's quiet enjoyment. That is a term borrowed from rental tenancy agreements. No. 4 is: make sure a return goes back to the community. Royalties for Regions—who came up with that policy? It was the National Party. No. 5 is: there be a baseline agreement that one per cent of the returns from the well head go back to the landholder. They were additional comments signed off by the National Party. This gives a clear understanding. That would mean in some areas, where it is not prime agricultural land and it is not going to destroy aquifers or be next to the quiet enjoyment of someone's house, a person gets a chance for a fair return.
The best well in Queensland, in Roma, returns $1 million a day. A one per cent return per year from that well would be around $3.3 million. That would be a great return for that landholder. That would be a great return for the town of Roma—or for Wallumbilla, Dulacca or Injune. It would give people the capacity to get a real return back into their local community. The person most likely to spend that money would of course be the landholder on whose property the well is. A very average well returns around $30,000 to $40,000 per day, so you are looking at in excess of $100,000 a year per well.
These are the sorts of things that would deal with so many arguments. What are they getting at the moment? We found one person who got a slab of beer. One person got $240 a year. Some people thought they were really getting ahead when they were getting $1,500 a year. It was only the Senate inquiry that brought transparency and gave a clear understanding of just how much was involved and how people should be getting a fairer return.
In the state of Texas in the United States of America they get 25 per cent of the gross at the well head. Then the federal government comes and taxes the landholder and then the state government comes and taxes the landholder. Do they have any problems with access agreements? Surprisingly, no. They have no problems with access agreements whatsoever. In fact, if you find a shoe box you will find an oil well or something sitting on top of it, because people are making quite a substantial return out of it. I think once this logic is taken on board, not by the federal government but by state governments and the mining companies, then a lot of these problems that have been dealt with here will be ironed out.
However, I do not think changing over constitutional law at a federal level is going to work. I do not quite know how that one is going to work today. What we have here, as always with the Greens—because I do not think this has not been supported in the lower house by any in the Labor Party or by the Independents—is a classic case of a form of a wedge. They do it for the purposes of saying, 'We'll work on the presumption that nobody actually knows what this is about.' At first blush they will say, 'This is just what we are looking for.' But the reality is that not only would it be constitutionally unviable; it just completely belies the historical facts that sit behind this thing, which is that you are looking for rights that are held by the states. You are trying to put conditions on them at a federal level and that is just not going to work.
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (13:44): I would like to add some comments to this and ask some questions. Senator Milne said that food is the new oil. I tend to agree with her. Food is vital. But it always amazes me when we see properties like Toorale Station, with 93,000 hectares of good food-producing country, locked up, bought out and made into a national park to burn. That is what will happen to Toorale Station. It will burn, as sure as I am speaking here now, with no management, a lack of hazard reduction, fuel on the ground and no grazing. They say, 'Let's just lock the property up and let it burn.' As sure as I speak the rain will fall, the grass will grow, and then we will get the dry time. Then along comes a thunderstorm and the lightning will set off the fire on 93,000 hectares of country that has not been grazed for years. There will be up to 100 or 150 tonnes to a hectare of fuel, just like it was in the Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria, where half the country burned—it just happened in national parks. Of course, you cannot allow grazing in national parks; that is not allowed following the Greens' pressure on Minister Tony Burke. The coalition government put cattle into the alpine country to reduce those very fuel levels.
We see it in the Pilliga, between Narrabri and Moree, where the country has been locked up for national parks. It used to be forest. It used to be managed. It used to be grazed. And we see the hot fires go through with so much fuel, getting up into the crowns of the trees and killing them, where the koalas are literally cooked. If there is a huge fire on a hot day the strong wind goes through these huge fuel levels.
We have the irony of the Greens, where food is the new oil, and they say, 'Let's just lock up our food-growing country in the national parks. Let it burn! Let it destroy the environment!' Around 90 million tonnes of carbon dioxide was estimated to come out of the Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria. But we have a carbon tax to reduce our carbon emissions. This is crazy! Let's let the country burn! Let the animals be killed and sizzled—koalas, native species, you name it! I find it quite amazing.
It is a fact that this country needs energy. When Senator Milne and the Greens can convince me that you can power a 9400 model John Deere tractor at about 380 or 400 horsepower, towing a 60- or 70-foot wide air seeder with a fertiliser and grain bin—when you can power that tractor with a solar panel on the roof of that tractor, I am going to be simply amazed. We need diesel to power that tractor. Perhaps the Greens want us to go back to the Clydesdale horse days with a single-furrow mouldboard plough, walking alongside. Shut the machines down! We need energy and here we have clean energy in Australia—gas—with fewer emissions, and it is not imported. So let's shut down gas! The current situation in New South Wales is that 95 per cent of the gas is imported into New South Wales. But let's close it all down. Then when people are knocking down the doors in my office asking, 'Why is gas so expensive?' I can say, 'Blame the Greens,' and lock the gate on others for shutting down industries. We have made it quite clear where the Nationals stand on this issue.
I am disappointed that Senator Milne has left the chamber, because I wanted to ask: if this amendment went through the Senate, where the farmer could say no to anyone going onto the property for mining projects, coal seam gas or whatever, how is it going to be enforced at a federal level when the land is controlled by the states? I want an answer to that. How are you going to enforce it as a federal law? I find that simply amazing. This is not about the farmers having a say, this is about a political wedge. That is all this is about.
When I talk to the large gas companies in Australia, they say they do not go onto properties when the farmers say, 'We don't want you here.' That has been the message clearly put to me. What I am saying is that we need energy. We need gas. We also need to look after our environment for future generations. One of the most, if not the most, important parts of our environment is the very topsoil that grows our food, not only for the 23 million Australians but also for millions of others around the world relying on the food production here in Australia. It is all very good to say, 'Let's shut this down, let's shut that down, let's go back and live in a cave and we'll issue three sticks of wood for a week—that's your quota to keep warm and do your cooking.' But that is not the real world. We live in the real world, where we need energy and we need to produce.
My leader in the Senate, Senator Joyce, just made quite clear to the Senate the policy that was released in November 2011: look after the land, look after the water, look after the environment, give a fair go. And here are the Greens looking for a wedge. How are we going to enforce this law? The minerals are owned by the states—the Crown—and the Rann government stole that off the farmers in 1981 or 1983 in New South Wales, with no compensation, just like when they shut down the farming country with the Native Vegetation Conservation Act. I was very pleased last week to hear Deputy Premier Andrew Stoner addressing that crazy issue.
I can give you an example about the food bowl, as Senator Milne said. If you have a farming country in New South Wales and you do not plough it for 10 years, then you are not allowed to plough it again. If you plough a good country you will get a tonne to the acre of wheat—you will yield 1,000 kilograms of wheat. Or you can leave it as grazing country under the native veg act and you might rear 20 or 25 kilograms, perhaps five kilograms of wool. Here we have the food bowl producing food, but under the Greens plan—and Senator Bob Carr, when Premier of New South Wales, said it would be the greenest government the state has ever seen—we have shut down the farmers from growing food and being productive. And what was the compensation? The compensation was zilch. Make the property owners pay for the environmental issues.
So do not ever talk about food being the new oil when the Greens' history is of shutting down the production of food in New South Wales. The history proves it. Thank goodness the New South Wales government is, after its inquiry, about to address that issue and bring some fairness back into the whole environmental debate in New South Wales. The landowners have been caned by the Greens; Senator Bob Carr; the minister—as John Laws used to refer to him, Kimberly Maxwell Yeadon—who we thought had a very capable staff; and Senator Penny Wong. This is the group hanging together, saying, 'Shut down the farmers, don't give them any compensation and don't worry about producing food.' That has been a problem in this country for too long.
We take our supply of food for granted. Around the rest of the world we see subsidies given to the farmers, and we have to compete against them. The point I make—and we made it quite clear—is that we need balance. We need energy, or you will take us back to the Clydesdales, walking behind the horse with the single-furrow plough and a couple of Clydesdales hooked together—a very slow process.
We have become a modern machinery farming enterprise, with huge production. We will not be going back to the horses. We will use energy. We require energy, and diesel will be part of that energy. Let us just shut down our local clean energy in gas and import diesel. Is that the plan? Is that the balance of payments plan? Is that the environmental plan? Is it to close down the clean energy and gas being produced in Australia? As I said, this amendment is simply a wedge piece by the Greens.
I wish Senator Milne were here to explain how they are going to enforce this. No-one takes more pride than our farmers and those who have lived all their lives in rural Australia and been on the land. I wish Senator Milne were here to answer this question—or perhaps Senator Waters might. How is this going to be enforced? If this were to go through, what law can the federal government enforce when the control of the land is under the Crown? Are they just going to change the Constitution with the wave of a stick and perform magic? We all know how hard it is to change the Constitution. That is the very point I make. I am sure my colleague Senator Birmingham has more to add to this.
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (13:53): I indicate my support for this amendment with some reluctance, because it seems to me that the status quo is not adequate. Senator Joyce did point out very well that there is a complete lack of balance of power between the farmers and some of these companies that buy in coal seam gas, that some people receive something like a slab of beer in extreme cases, when many millions of dollars are being made from these wells.
In terms of the constitutional issues which Senator Williams and, I think, Senator Birmingham as well referred to, I do not think there is an issue about the Commonwealth's ability in using this act or other powers, including the corporations power, to effectively legislate in this field. I note that the numbers are not with the Greens with this amendment, particularly in relation to the issue of informed consent on the part of a farmer for their land to be used in this way. I also note the very good history that Senator Joyce set out whereby farmers did have these powers to veto hydrocarbon exploration on their properties many years ago, but that was taken away.
My plea to the coalition, given the work that Senator Joyce and Senator Williams have done on coal seam gas, is to at least consider supporting parts (a) and (b) of this amendment. Those parts of the amendment ensure that a landowner has obtained independent legal advice and has obtained independent advice on the likely impacts of the taking of the action. I would have thought that, at the very least, the coalition should be going down that path because that is entirely consistent with their position. Having said that, my preference is to support the Greens amendment, because having informed consent is something that ought to be pursued in the absence of any other remedies for farmers.
Senator McLUCAS (Queensland—Minister for Human Services) (13:55): In closing, the proposed amendments require landholders and occupiers to consent before the environment minister can approve a project under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act in relation to the proposed water trigger. The proposed amendment would, in effect, allow a single owner or occupier of land to veto approvals of coal seam gas or coalmining development under the EPBC Act and in relation to the proposed water trigger. The government's advice is that there is constitutional uncertainty and risk associated with the proposed amendment and therefore the government does not support the proposed amendment.
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia) (13:56): I welcome the government's commitment to oppose this amendment. I welcome very sincerely the fact that the government has corrected the record with regard to the advice that we heard yesterday that there are no constitutional impediments to any of the amendments before the Senate. Very clearly, there would be constitutional impediments in relation to this amendment proposed by the Greens. Very clearly, the Commonwealth would find itself going straight to the High Court from action taken by the states were this amendment to be adopted as legislation.
We should not forget at all, in looking at this amendment, that were it to be passed it would be a complete subversion of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, because the EPBC Act deals with environmental approvals. It deals with setting out the types of standards for maintaining appropriate matters of national environmental significance and protecting those matters when allowing developments to proceed, whether they be building developments, mining developments or whatever the nature of those developments might be. Nowhere else in the EPBC Act does it seek to or attempt to use its powers as some type of land management provision. That is what the Australian Greens are seeking to do with this amendment. They want to take and expand Commonwealth powers and the powers under the EPBC Act into a whole different world of activity by dragging them into approving and assessing whether or not landowners have given valid consent to the use of their land. That is a whole different realm to the consideration of whether or not an action or a development actually has an impact on the land in terms of matters of national environmental significance.
We need to appreciate that this amendment, along with further amendments to be addressed by the Greens—which I note the government has yet to rule out—would expand scope into national parks and otherwise. It is really a type of Trojan horse amendment by the Greens to expand the nature of this bill quite dramatically, beyond its initial intent. In many ways, I would question the validity of an amendment like this before the chair, because it goes so much further than the intent of the bill under question, and it goes so much further than the base and intent of the act that this bill seeks to amend.
As I outlined previously, there are arrangements in place with regard to how land access is provided for developments—land access in relation to both exploration and production. As Senator Joyce rightly pointed out and added to my remarks, the evolution of these access arrangements at a state level has been undertaken for more than a century—and the arrangements have changed over time—but a common theme and thread is that the minerals and resources in the ground have been recognised to be the minerals and resources from which the wealth that should be shared by the people of the state is generated. The Greens, by seeking to pursue an amendment like this, are attempting to deny the people of every state in Australia the opportunity to share in those resources and the opportunity to benefit from the wealth that the development of those resources can provide. The fact is that the development of those resources can be used to fund schools, can be used to fund hospitals and can be used to protect the environment in other ways.
Progress reported.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
National Security
Senator CASH (Western Australia) (14:00): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Conroy. Does the minister agree with the AFP Deputy Commissioner, who said that law enforcement agencies around the world rely heavily on Interpol red notices and take in good faith the accuracy and content of them, and who also testified that, in his experience, he had not encountered an inaccurate notice; or does the minister support the view of the immigration minister, who stated yesterday in relation to red notices that quite often claims have been found to be wrong?
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:01): No, I do not accept the premise of the question at all. As Mr O'Connor has said on a number of occasions, there is no contradiction here at all. Mr O'Connor has full confidence in the operational decision making of not only the AFP but every one of our hardworking security agencies. Mr O'Connor pointed out that he would have expected those opposite to already know that the AFP takes Interpol red notices very seriously and examines very carefully the veracity of the claims made in each notice, and in this instance Interpol did reissue a red notice in relation to a person. It is a simple statement of fact to say that from time to time Interpol notices are updated and amended.
Senator Cash: Mr President, I rise in relation to a point of order on relevance. I did not ask the minister about general statements that the minister for immigration had made. I asked the minister about a specific statement that the minister made yesterday, that statement being that, quite often, claims have been found to be wrong in relation to Interpol red notices. I contrasted that with the statement made by the AFP Deputy Commissioner, which was completely in opposition to that, and I asked the minister which statement he supported. I would therefore ask you to direct the minister to the question.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Collins.
Senator Jacinta Collins: Mr President, this is not a point of order. Senator Cash has taken the opportunity to express her views in what should be limited to a point of order. Senator Conroy was making general statements which are indeed relevant to the context of this question. Any suggestion that general statements rather than specific statements might be not relevant is ludicrous in this case.
The PRESIDENT: I took it that the minister had finished his answer. That was my interpretation of the minister sitting down. But, if there is a point of order, the minister, as far as I was concerned, had concluded his answer. So there is no point of order at this stage, Senator Cash. You have got the right to two supplementary questions.
Senator CASH (Western Australia) (14:03): Thank you, Mr President, and I therefore ask a supplementary question. What was the rationale for moving the said individual to high-security detention in April? When did the government form the view that the individual identified by ASIO and the AFP from August last year as a convicted jihadist terrorist did not pose a national security threat to Australia?
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:04): Again, the opposition are engaging in serial, reckless fearmongering. We on this side of the chamber prefer to deal in facts, and I am happy to provide the opposition with the facts. First, a red notice is not an arrest warrant. Australian police cannot arrest a person solely on the basis of an Interpol red notice. There are a variety of Interpol notices for different purposes, including for persons who are wanted for extradition or who are simply subject to investigation. Interpol notices are even used to locate missing persons. A red notice can be issued for offences of a scale including issuing an unfunded cheque or causing bankruptcy. The Prime Minister has asked— (Time expired)
Senator CASH (Western Australia) (14:05): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Has the government requested that ASIO conduct a comprehensive national security risk assessment of the individual identified as a convicted jihadist terrorist by ASIO and the AFP in August and November of last year and, if so, when was that request made?
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:05): The Prime Minister has asked the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to conduct an independent inquiry examining the management of these issues. Further, I am advised that, after review of current holdings, the AFP is satisfied that appropriate measures are in place to manage those persons subject to DIAC processing who may also be the subject of Interpol red notices.
We have seen yet again in recent days that those opposite are all about short-term politics based on fiction rather than sound policy based on facts. That is why the Leader of the Opposition is dressing up his proposed tough line on foreign criminals. We saw that trotted out on the weekend, when in fact what he is proposing is a watering down of current laws. That is right—a watering down of current laws. (Time expired)
National Food Plan
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (14:06): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig. Can the minister explain to the Senate the Gillard government’s vision for putting Australia’s food system at the centre of government policy making?
Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery) (14:07): I thank Senator Sterle for his question. The Gillard government has developed the first ever National Food Plan. This is the first time the Australian government has ever taken a comprehensive view of the food system right through from the paddock to the plate. With growing export markets and a rising middle class in Asia, there are new opportunities for Australia on our doorstep, but these opportunities will not simply happen; we need a dedicated road map for government, industry, producers and our exporters. The National Food Plan is that road map. It brings together a range of strategies to assist in that endeavour.
We have set a goal to increase the value of Australian agriculture and food related exports by 45 per cent in real terms by 2025. Any road map requires goals. We have also set the goal to increase Australia's agricultural productivity by 30 per cent by 2025. We will do this by helping farmers grow more food using fewer inputs. And we have set the goal for Australia to be amongst the top five most efficiently regulated countries in the world. The National Food Plan also sets out how the Gillard government will work to achieve those goals.
We have established a $29 million Asian Food Markets Research Fund to provide support and research for the expansion of the Australian food industry into Asia. The Productivity Commission will also undertake a review of food regulation so we can cut red tape in the food-processing area. We will also publish two new reports to identify what Asia wants and the infrastructure we need to get it there. To overseas markets, we are working to create the first ever food— (Time expired)
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (14:09): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister advise the Senate how the National Food Plan seeks to capitalise on the growing Asian middle class?
Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery) (14:09): I thank Senator Sterle for his supplementary question. The growth of the middle class in Asia presents unparalleled opportunities for the Australian food industry. Take, for example, beef. Top restaurants in Shanghai advertise Australian beef as a premium product. Australian beef products into China, to give you one example, are forecast to rise to 60,000 tonnes in 2012-13. Eight years ago, that was only 5,000 tonnes. We want Australian food on more plates both here at home and around the world. To do that, we are investing in food businesses in Australia, strengthening our global brand and extending our reach into international markets. We are providing a $22-million grants program for food producers at home to improve new markets, technologies and biosecurity systems. (Time expired)
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (14:10): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Minister, are you aware of any other policies that look at the Australian food supply chain from the paddock to the plate?
Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery) (14:10): I thank Senator Sterle for his supplementary question. The Gillard government has released the first ever National Food Plan. Unfortunately, the opposition do not have one and do not even talk about one. That is how much they care about food producers in Australia. But the actions of the state Liberal and Nationals governments will give you a clear indication of what those opposite are on about. In Queensland, Premier Campbell Newman sacked rural financial counsellors, closed biosecurity centres and cut funding from research and development. In Victoria, $40 million was slashed from agriculture, and there have been $300 million of TAFE cuts that have seen campuses closed in rural Victoria and courses scrapped. Mr Abbott and the opposition need to commit to a national food plan. The opposition spokesperson, Mr Cobb, put out a press release, which was about the summary of his entire plan. All it did— (Time expired)
Asylum Seekers
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (14:11): My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Senator Wong. Does the minister stand by her expenditure projections in relation to illegal arrivals by boat in this year's budget, which are based on an assumption that those illegal arrivals will fall by at least 46 per cent from this year to next year?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:12): I thank the senator for his question. I have been waiting for a question from Senator Cormann, and it is very pleasing that we finally have one. He will know, of course—
Senator Ian Macdonald: Could you try answering it then, for a change?
Senator WONG: Oh, you're still here, are you?
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Interjections are disorderly, on both sides. The minister is entitled to be heard in silence.
Senator WONG: Senator Cormann traversed this in great detail in estimates.
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
Senator WONG: He's reminding us he's still here.
Senator Cormann: There have been some boat arrivals since then.
The PRESIDENT: Order! You have asked the question. The minister should have the opportunity to answer the question. The minister has one minute and 25 seconds.
Senator WONG: As I was saying, this matter was traversed in great detail in the budget. The opposition would know that we did provision additional funds for asylum seeker management in the budget. The methodology for irregular maritime arrivals is set out at statement 6 of the budget papers. It is transparently heavily influenced by occupancy levels across the immigration processing network, which are determined by the number of IMAs already in Australia awaiting resolution of the protection visa applications, operational decisions, length of time taken to resolve asylum claims and so forth. So the point is: we have been transparent in the budget about the methodology associated with IMA costs.
Senator Cormann: Mr President, I rise on a point of order in relation to the requirement for the minister to be directly relevant to the question. The question was not one about methodology in the budget, which we know. The question was whether the minister stands by the expenditure forecast, the expenditure projections that were made at budget time. The minister has not got anywhere near answering the question as to whether she stands by the predictions that were made in the budget in relation to illegal boat arrivals.
Senator Jacinta Collins: On the point of order, Mr President: of course methodology is relevant to that question.
The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order at this stage.
Senator WONG: The methodology is very relevant to the cost estimates—it is how the costs are calculated. In relation to this or any other issue, budget estimates are always reviewed at each budget update.
Senator Cormann: Do you stand by it? Yes or no. Answer the question.
Senator WONG: Have you finished heckling? Seriously, why do you bother asking questions? Why don't you both ask and answer the question yourself?
Senator Cormann interjecting—
Senator WONG: You like the sound of your own voice so much—
The PRESIDENT: Order! If you have asked a question, it does not help if you repeatedly override the minister with interjections throughout the answer. You have the opportunity now to ask a supplementary question.
Senator Cormann: It would help, of course, if the minister answered the question.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no debate. Ask your question.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (14:15): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the government's expenditure forecasts for this year were based on a prediction of 12,000 illegal arrivals by boat and that more than double that number—a staggering 24,541—have already arrived illegally by boat, why should anyone trust this government that things will be any different next year?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:16): I have laid out the methodology, which is transparent in the budget papers. I remind those opposite that this budget was so responsible that they are backing it in. They come in here and complain about the budget but they are backing it in—including the savings measures we put in place. Even Senator Brandis, I understand, is now supporting the court costs he railed against.
Everybody in this place knows that this debate has been driven entirely by the opposition's attempts to politicise it. We know that those opposite do not have any solution or any response to what is a difficult public policy problem. We know they have segued from 'turn the boats back' to 'maybe they will diminish over the first few years.' We know what a joke Ms Bishop is when she is being flatly contradicted by the Indonesian ambassador, who clearly demonstrated that their plan is entirely a farce. (Time expired)
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (14:17): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. How can the government in its budget possibly predict a massive 90 per cent reduction in illegal arrivals by boat over the forward estimates given the massive increase of illegal arrivals under this Labor/Green government so far? Is the government assuming that there will be a re-introduction of the successful border protection policies of the previous coalition government over the forward estimates period?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:18): How can anybody believe the opposition when they say they will stop the boats? We know that our experts—our Navy personnel—have said that it is too dangerous for the boats to be turned back. It is not a political statement; it is about keeping people alive. Despite the fact that the coalition boast that they will turn the boats back to Indonesia, the ambassador has said that no such collaboration will happen between Indonesia and Australia.
You are peddling lies on this issue in an attempt to make politics out of what is a very difficult public policy problem, which I find completely offensive. You do it again and again because you do not actually want a solution to this problem; you just want to play politics with it. Everyone in this chamber knows that. (Time expired)
Tasmania: Economy
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (14:19): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Senator Ludwig. Given community concerns arising out of the story on 7:30 on the ABC last night highlighting alleged rorting of a payment scheme relating to the forest peace deal in Tasmania, I have questions about the other tranche of the TFA funding relating to the $100 million economic diversification package.
I am aware of the ministerial advisory council process under which RDA Tasmania and the state's regional reference groups consider such development opportunities. However, my question is: was there an application process and what procedures were put in place to ensure TFA funding allocation is going to be transparent and provide equitable access to all applicants?
Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery) (14:20): One of the important objectives of the IGA is to achieve conservation outcomes through a community led process. The programs delivered by the government through the IGA are aimed at achieving those conservation outcomes while still ensuring that the forest industry in Tasmania remains viable and continues to provide jobs.
Senator Whish-Wilson: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. My question was not in relation to the conservation outcome or the money paid to the forestry industry; it was very clearly in relation to the second tranche of payments under the economic diversification package and my question was, again: was there an application process for funding—in other words, were people invited to apply for funding—and what procedures were put in place to provide transparency and equitable access to that funding?
The PRESIDENT: I draw the minister's attention to the question.
Senator LUDWIG: As part of the Tasmanian Forestry Intergovernmental Agreement, the Commonwealth did commit to and has committed $120 million for economic diversification over 15 years—at 2012, $24 million in funding assistance for a range of economic diversification projects, including the Tasmanian Innovation and Investment Fund, with $8 million for 28 businesses, creating 267 jobs, and a further $16 million for 10 projects.
Building on that work, in May the Prime Minister asked Mr Albanese to draw together a jobs and growth plan for Tasmania that focuses on the things that Tasmania and Tasmanians do best. On May 17, the Prime Minister announced that the government would increase the economic diversification fund to $100 million, to be delivered over four years. And, as discussed with the Tasmanian economic diversification consultation group when Minister Albanese was in Tasmania the week before last, the project that the government is looking— (Time expired)
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (14:23): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The jobs and growth plan that the minister just referred to—I take it that there was not an application process and people were not invited to participate in funding opportunities. If that is the case, who and what is driving the strategy for TFA funding allocation and what basis is this expertise applied?
Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery) (14:23): I thank Senator Whish-Wilson for his question. I know he supports the jobs and growth plan, because it is targeted at new opportunities that build on the government's significant investment in Tasmania since 2007 such as putting Tasmania first in the rollout of the NBN, providing significant infrastructure and transport investment, and delivering skills and education for the Tasmanian people.
There is—unlike what Senator Whish-Wilson has put, because I reject the premise of his question—ongoing consultation with the Tasmanian government, an economic diversification task force and three regional reference groups to determine suitable projects which will maximise local economic and community benefits and which represent value for money. Contrast that with those opposite. Here is what we know so far. Mr Abbott will cut Tasmania's GST by more than $600 million— (Time expired)
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (14:25): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. We certainly do support economic diversification in Tasmania, Minister. However, given statements from some Tasmanian Labor MPs that the TFA money has already been allocated, can the minister indeed confirm whether or not the money has already been allocated; and, if it has not, how do potential applicants put an idea, a project or a business enterprise up for potential funding?
Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery) (14:25): Just to be clear, the consultation process occurred on 6 and 7 June, and it was done jointly by the Tasmanian minister and Minister Albanese. That consultation actually set out the criteria for jobs and growth projects. As for the money, it has been available since the Prime Minister's announcement on 17 May. Again, this is well understood by the consultation groups in Tasmania. It is surprising that Senator Whish-Wilson is not aware of this, being a senator for Tasmania. But I am happy to take that part of the question on notice to make sure that information on this very issue that is on the record can also be made available to Senator Whish-Wilson. But it is clear that there are ongoing consultations with the Tasmanian government, and there is an economic diversification task force and three regional reference groups— (Time expired)
Broadband
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia) (14:26): Mr President, my question is to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. On how many sites has remediation work on Telstra pits been delayed as a result of asbestos concerns? Has work on any NBN rollout sites been delayed as a result of asbestos concerns; and, if so, how many? Further, what are the range of delays to the handover of Telstra pits that will be experienced by NBN Co. as a result of Telstra's cessation of works in certain pits as a result of asbestos concerns?
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:27): I congratulate the senator on getting a question on the National Broadband Network! It is quite amazing! I am sure you will assist me in the course of my answer. Telstra have remediated, I understand, over 120,000 pits, and there have been notices or incidents reported to Comcare—I think, 29, of which a number have nothing to do with the National Broadband Network. So, even if you add those in, that is about 0.02 per cent.
Let me be very clear about this: not one shortcut is acceptable. There are no shortcuts here when it comes to dealing with asbestos. Everyone is required to follow the rules—
Senator Brandis: You should have anticipated this.
Senator CONROY: And that is why the procedures were written into it, Senator Brandis, who knows all! That is exactly why, if you go and have a look, Senator Brandis—instead of pontificating and pretending you are in the High Court; if you could just manage not to be an expert on every topic, Senator Brandis, I would be able to complete my answer. I know that is very hard!
So, no shortcuts are acceptable to the government—none whatsoever. In the meeting that Mr Shorten and I convened, we brought together Telstra, NBN Co., the contractors, Comcare and all of the relevant authorities, including the trade unions involved, and the agreement reached at that was that Telstra's remediation of pits would cease until training standards were all agreed and to make sure everyone was given adequate notice that every single aspect—
Senator Birmingham: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. There were a number of very specific questions that were asked of the minister, such as at how many sites has remediation work by Telstra been delayed and whether there has been any delay to the handover of NBN sites and what number of delays had been experienced. Mr President, I note there are 10 seconds left on the clock. If the minister does not have answers to those specific questions, which he has not answered in the one minute and 50 seconds he has had to date, perhaps he might at least take those specific questions on notice.
The PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order. I believe the minister is answering the question. The minister now, as you rightly pointed out, has 10 seconds remaining to answer the primary question before you get the opportunity for your supplementary questions.
Senator CONROY: Mr President, you might want to ask Senator Brandis to shut up—and that would help Senator Birmingham. But, as I said, Telstra have suspended all remediation. NBN Co. have—(Time expired)
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia) (14:30): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Has any reprofiling or adjustment to the planned schedule for the handover of Telstra pits to NBN Co. occurred as a result of asbestos concerns? If so, in which states and on how many sites has this occurred? Again, can the minister indicate on how many sites Telstra has delayed work and whether this has delayed handover of any NBN rollout sites as yet?
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:31): As I have already indicated, Telstra have suspended all their remediation work—100 per cent; all. NBN Co. themselves have agreed that, when they find a pit that needs to be augmented—as you are now familiar with that phrase, Senator—they will actually bring in experts who are specialists in handling asbestos.
So, in NBN Co.'s work, that is continuing. They are not using their existing workforce; they are ensuring that they are all adequately trained to meet all the standards that were set out. In terms of whether there has been any rescheduling of handovers, I think I have usually described it as Telstra are about six months, on average—that is an average figure—ahead of the point where NBN Co. come in and start connecting people's houses. I do not have any information at all on that. I am happy to take on notice to see if there is any information that is available, but I have not been—(Time expired)
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia) (14:32): I thank the minister for taking that aspect of the question on notice. My final supplementary is: has NBN Co. made any changes to the contractual expectations or policies it expects its NBN Co. contractors to adhere to as a result of asbestos concerns? If so, what changes has NBN Co. made in relation to its expectations of its contractors?
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:33): The working party has had a number of meetings. It is being chaired by Mr Shorten, and I do not have an up-to-date brief. A number of agreements were reached when we held the first meeting, including that everyone would be adequately trained, and there was a discussion about what the appropriate level was, depending on what sort of work there was. If there is any suggestion that NBN Co. did not take it seriously, as Senator Brandis and others on that side have tried to suggest—
Senator Birmingham interjecting—
Senator CONROY: At least you were present when Mr Quigley stated that they took it very seriously from the day they engaged in this with Telstra. People have sought to misrepresent what Mr Quigley said—not you, Senator Birmingham, because you were actually present, but there have been those from your side. I am happy to take on notice to find out any further information for you on whether there has been a change. But there is an agreement and a process that is going on at the moment in that working group. (Time expired)
Syria
Senator STEPHENS (New South Wales) (14:34): My question today is the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Bob Carr. Minister, all senators in the chamber have been watching with concern the humanitarian crisis that is playing out in Syria. Can you please update the Senate on the situation there?
Senator BOB CARR (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:34): More than 93,000 people have been killed; 6.8 million Syrians needing humanitarian assistance; 1.6 million refugees, and estimates that there will be 3.6 million by the end of this year; a third of Syria's housing stock, 1.2 million homes, damaged or destroyed and an estimate that the homes of nine million people will be destroyed by the end of the year—nine million out of 22 million.
Australia has sought to respond to this immense human tragedy of Syria on four levels, the first being humanitarian. We have committed $78.5 million in assistance to the camps, where desperate refugees are trying to seek some shelter. We are the eighth largest donor to this crisis. Second, we will continue to advocate access to and protection of medical facilities, personnel and supplies, to stop the deliberate targeting of personnel and hospitals and the denial of medical access. Third, Australia will not supply arms to opposition elements. Such a course is not compatible with our assessment that Australia can most effectively contribute through humanitarian channels; nor can we have any certainty about the recipients, the use or the traceability of such arms.
Fourth, and most importantly, there will be no end to this suffering in Syria without a political settlement. Australia therefore supports the early convening of the Geneva II conference. The conference needs, above all, to achieve a ceasefire. It also needs to establish a transitional authority—an authority with full executive powers that can give the people of Syria some hope for a democratic future. And the efforts of Joint Special Representative Brahimi must be supported. We want progress within the country to enable the people of Syria to vote and elect their own government for the first time, effectively, in their history. (Time expired)
Senator STEPHENS (New South Wales) (14:36): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for that response. They are quite catastrophic statistics that we have just heard, but the impact of the crisis goes beyond Syria's borders. Can the minister outline the regional dimensions of this crisis?
Senator BOB CARR (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:36): I have had the melancholy duty, I suppose, of speaking to refugees in Jordan and in Lebanon. Only last month I travelled to a village in the Bekaa Valley in Northern Lebanon, close to the border with Syria. I saw a UNICEF childcare centre and met a group of Syrian women who only that night had crossed over the border following the fighting in Qatar. The stories were ones of tragedy. They had lost family members. They had lost the means of their livelihood. They had lost cows, they had lost cars and they had lost their houses. They had seen communities wiped out.
Lebanon is hosting around half a million refugees—and the number could grow to a million by the end of the year. One Lebanese politician told me that, if there is intensive fighting around Damascus, he would not be surprised if half a million refugees presented on the border with Lebanon. Another Lebanese politician said, 'Make that one million refugees from possible fighting.' Our friends in Lebanon are suffering. (Time expired)
Senator STEPHENS (New South Wales) (14:37): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Could the minister advise the Senate about reports of chemical weapons being used in Syria?
Senator BOB CARR (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:38): The Australian government shares the assessment that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale multiple times, including the deadly nerve agent Sarin. The use of chemical weapons is abhorrent. It is a clear breach of international law and it raises the serious possibility of mass atrocity crimes.
Australia has been at the forefront of efforts to rid the world of chemical weapons for over 30 years. We established the Australia Group in 1985 to prevent the export of materials and equipment that could aid the proliferation of chemical weapons and we secured the passage of the chemical weapons convention through the UN General Assembly in 1993. We support a comprehensive UN investigation into all reports of chemical weapons use in Syria and stand ready to assist the UN's investigation.
National Broadband Network
Senator BOYCE (Queensland) (14:39): My question is to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. I refer the minister to the government's commitment that NBN's fixed-wireless network would serve 700,000 Australians in outer-suburban and regional areas and be finished in 2015. Is it correct that the network has still only reached 17,000 premises? If that is not correct, would the minister inform the Senate just how close to this 700,000 target the wireless rollout is?
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:39): Thank you for the opportunity, Senator Boyce, and congratulations for asking a question on the day that the fixed wireless network has switched on its 25Mbps down and 5Mbps up product—a day when the people who have got access to this now have better speeds than anybody living in a metropolitan city, Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane, if they are using the copper.
Senator Brandis: Mr President, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. There were two questions. Firstly, the minister was asked whether it was correct that the network has only reached 17,000 premises. Secondly he was asked, if not, would he inform the Senate how close to the 700,000 target the rollout is. They were the only two questions. Each asked for a figure. What he is saying is not directly relevant or even vaguely relevant to either of those two questions.
The PRESIDENT: The minister has been going for 28 seconds, but the minister needs to address the question.
Senator CONROY: Thank you, Mr President. Unlike Senator Birmingham, the good senator was not at Senate estimates when this very issue was discussed at considerable length. The answer that was given to Senator Birmingham was that it was not going to be possible to be exact, because the number of towers that were being connected was still not fixed as at 30 June and there would not be an accurate answer to that question until after 30 June. As to Senator Boyce's overarching question about when it will be finished, it is still scheduled to be finished in 2015. There are annual targets—
Senator Brandis: How close are you, Stephen?
Senator CONROY: I cannot help it if you do not understand what a ramp-up is, Senator Brandis—but you are the living expert; you are the treasure of the chamber!
The PRESIDENT: Senator Conroy, ignore the interjections. They are disorderly.
Senator CONROY: I do apologise for being distracted by Senator Brandis. The overall build is still on target for completion in 2015. There is no change to that. Getting some towers erected, due to legitimate community concerns, has taken longer than would have been hoped. Some have been appealed to the relevant authorities in different states and some have had extra negotiations but have then resourced different communities. It is slowly but surely working its way through all of those legitimate legal processes. (Time expired)
Senator BOYCE (Queensland) (14:42): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the minister is using the end of the financial year as an excuse not to answer the first question, could he please confirm or deny that, after paying $120 million for spectrum licenses in 2011, the wireless rollout has now stalled because NBN Co. has discovered that its planned network interferes with an existing Optus wireless network using the same frequencies?
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:43): It may come as a surprise to you but Optus's ownership and holdings of that spectrum were not a national security issue. They were well known to NBN Co. and well known to the government. At boundaries there are always issues between different networks. That is just the laws of physics. But, as to a suggestion that the rollout has stalled because of such an issue, the answer is a categorical no—absolutely wrong. The rollout is not stalled, firstly, and it is not stalled because of an interference issue at the edges of the two networks.
Senator Birmingham: Are you too embarrassed, Stephen? You won't tell us because you can't tell us.
The PRESIDENT: Order! When there is silence on my left, we will proceed. You get the time to debate this issue at three o'clock. Senator Conroy.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Interjecting is disorderly. The time to debate the issue is after three o'clock. Order, on both sides! I call the minister.
Senator CONROY: It may come as a surprise that the laws of physics apply in this instance, but it is not a surprise to those at NBN Co. that those frequencies are the same. Optus purchased Unwired's frequency. I utterly reject— (Time expired)
Senator BOYCE (Queensland) (14:45): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I will have another go. I refer the minister to the NBN slashing of its brownfields fibre targets earlier this year. That followed months of questioning, in this place and elsewhere, about the lack of progress in building Labor's NBN. In light of the debacle and with the benefit of hindsight, can the minister please now rule out needing to downgrade the rollout targets for the fixed wireless network or tell us the facts—which is that it does need downgrading?
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:46): The seven per cent of Australian premises that will not be receiving fibre-to-the-home have always been going to be served by either satellite or fixed wireless. There is some overlay between the two: in some areas where towers are built, there may not be a line of sight to some houses. There is not an absolute black and white line in that seven per cent. It is about three per cent-four per cent or four per cent-three per cent. I have said this many, many times. But the seven per cent—unless those opposite, who are vandals, decide to overturn this at some future point, if they were to be surprisingly elected to this country's government—is the seven per cent. There is no suggestion. In fact, we increased it after the McKinsey report from 90 to 93 per cent, reducing— (Time expired)
Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (14:47): My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Tertiary Education, Senator Don Farrell. Given that the financial situation of universities is the only justification provided by university managements for refusing to meet the reasonable job security and pay rise demands of staff and unions at campuses that are currently locked in industrial disputes, do you accept the government's $900 million cut to base funding, as a result of the efficiency dividend, is partially responsible for reduced pay and conditions for staff?
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Minister for Science and Research and Minister Assisting on Tourism) (14:48): I thank Senator Rhiannon for her question. The government believes that, in terms of negotiations between universities and their employees, it is the job of the universities and the unions that represent the workers to conduct those negotiations. The federal government has set up a system, through the Fair Work provisions, that allows those negotiations to take place. We encourage the parties to the various negotiations to continue their efforts to achieve a negotiated outcome.
The government believes that the best way of lifting wages and improving conditions for workers is through that enterprise bargaining process. We support the parties in that process. We certainly do not believe that the changes that have been made to the funding arrangements for the universities in any way inhibit the parties from conducting those negotiations. This government has significantly increased the amount of money provided to universities over the six years of the government. We continue to support the university sector and we continue to support the process that allows workers and, in this case, universities to engage in negotiations. We look forward to a successful negotiated outcome to these bargaining processes. (Time expired)
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (14:50): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Considering Labor's backing of 'Your Rights at Work', does the minister support the demands of university staff unions in their work for above-inflation pay rises and better job security? If you are supportive of these reasonable demands, why is the government slashing funding for university budgets rather than increasing it, as you have stated?
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Minister for Science and Research and Minister Assisting on Tourism) (14:50): Once again, I thank Senator Rhiannon for her supplementary question. I simply do not accept the premise of your question, Senator Rhiannon. The government continues to strongly support the universities and the university sectors. I had the privilege of meeting with the Group of Eight only last week, where we—
Senator Mason: I bet you enjoyed that.
Senator FARRELL: I did enjoy it, thank you. Yes, I did enjoy that, because they know what you do not know, Senator, and that is that this government is supporting the university sector. You will cut the heart and bones out of the university sector. That is your plan, and the workers who work for universities know that the only way they are going to get a fair outcome in a set of negotiations is with a Labor government. God forbid, if you get re-elected— (Time expired)
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (14:52): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Minister, hasn't the Labor government already cut the limbs off the university body ready for the coalition to strip it down to a skeleton? Since it is clear that many university managements are using the cuts as a further reason to reduce staff pay and conditions, does the minister take responsibility for deteriorating conditions and the quality of university education as a result of the government's cuts to the higher education sector?
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Minister for Science and Research and Minister Assisting on Tourism) (14:52): I thank Senator Rhiannon once again for her question. Again, I do not accept the premise of your question, Senator Rhiannon. There are more students studying in Australian universities now than in the entire history of this country. More students are studying and they are studying because of the policies of this government, the fact that we have been prepared to match our words with funding, and the university sector is continuing to improve and increase.
The reality is that the bargaining processes that we have set up under the Fair Work system enabled both parties, the universities and their employees, to sit down and negotiate a set of terms and conditions. That is the system we have set up. It is a fair system; it is fair to all of the parties. We encourage all of the parties to do that. That is going to result in a good outcome, I believe, for the workers who work for the universities and it is also good for— (Time expired)
Employment
Senator SINODINOS (New South Wales) (14:53): My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Wong. Minister, I refer you to recent tweets by the Treasurer—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my right! Senator Sinodinos is entitled to be heard in silence.
Senator SINODINOS: I refer the minister to the Treasurer's tweet: 'At 5.5 per cent Australia has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the developed world.' Are you aware that, according to The Economist of 8 June 2013, several developed economies have unemployment rates that are lower than Australia's, including Japan at 4.1 per cent, Austria at 4.9 per cent, Norway at 3.7 per cent, Switzerland at 3.1 per cent, Singapore at 1.9 per cent, South Korea at 3.2 per cent, Taiwan at 4.2 per cent and Hong Kong at 3.5 per cent? Minister, do you concede that these countries have lower unemployment figures than Australia does?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:55): I have to say I was not aware of the tweet, but thank you very much for sharing that with us. I am aware that Australia's unemployment rate is indeed lower than that of many other advanced economies. Certainly, if you look to the economies of Europe, if you look to the eurozone, if you look to the United States, you will see economies with far higher unemployment rates than Australia.
I find it passing strange that the coalition is so anxious to talk down good employment outcomes for Australians, because those good employment outcomes ought not to be political. We all ought to be cheering the creation of jobs in this country, because it is a good thing for the people who send us here. Whilst there are many things that this government has done which I think have contributed to a better Australia, one of the first amongst those is the creation of jobs. No amount of negativity and carping and constant heckling from Senator Brandis—I do not need a blue tie, Senator, to know you are a pompous git; I really do not.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Wong, you should withdraw that.
Senator WONG: Which bit would you like me to withdraw—that he is a pompous git or that he is wearing a blue tie, which I am responding to?
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Just withdraw the comment.
Senator WONG: I am responding to an earlier prediction, Mr President. I am happy to withdraw it, but I am not sure which part you would like me to withdraw.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I do not specify the part; you know the part.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator WONG: I withdraw. Before I was again interrupted by Senator Brandis, I was making the point that 960,000 jobs have been created since this government came to power. We see more Australians in work than ever before, and it is a pity that the opposition cannot see past short-term politicking and a desire to criticise the government. They should recognise that that is a good thing for the nation. It stands in stark contrast to the millions of people we have seen join the unemployment queues around the globe in many developed countries. It stands in stark contrast to the sorts of unemployment rates— (Time expired)
Senator SINODINOS (New South Wales) (14:58): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, how is it that, given the government has cited factors such as global volatility and the Australian dollar as key reasons affecting parts of the labour market, these economies achieve superior unemployment outcomes compared to Australia? Will the minister concede that it is the government's own higher taxes, increased regulation and unstable governance that are the primary factors in explaining these much worse labour market outcomes?
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my right! I will call Senator Wong when there is silence on both sides.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:59): Mr President, we see more of the same of what I was responding to on the first question. We see a coalition senator—generally Senator Sinodinos is a little better than this—suggesting that there is something dreadful with the employment figures in this country. The reality is, as he would know and these are figures from May, the OECD average unemployment is eight per cent, the US is at something over seven per cent, and the euro area is at an all-time high of just over 12 per cent, from memory.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Wong, resume your seat. If you wish to debate the issue, the time is after three o'clock when taking note, not now.
Senator WONG: Unlike a country like Spain, where we see so many young people facing long periods of unemployment with all of the social and economic dislocation and all the long-term social and economic disadvantage that comes with it, what we see here in Australia is an unemployment rate— (Time expired)
Senator SINODINOS (New South Wales) (15:00): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Minister, I refer you to comments by Peter Harris, the chair of the Productivity Commission, where he warned of the need for a continuous program of economic reform to prevent a hit to income growth. Minister, are Australian jobs at risk of a sharp rise in unemployment if the terms of trade continue to fall faster than the government is forecasting? What risk mitigation strategy does the government have to protect Australian jobs?
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on both sides! When we have silence on both sides we will proceed.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (15:01): The first part of the question was a reference to reform and it would be useful perhaps if Senator Sinodinos could explain to the chamber how his party's increase in the company tax rate to fund a millionaire's paid parental leave scheme is good economic reform. I am not surprised that you look embarrassed, because you know it is embarrassing as a policy. I am very happy to respond because Senator Sinodinos is right in that there are risks to the global outlook and there are always challenges ahead, even for an economy as resilient as ours. That is why the government made the decision we did to put jobs and growth first in the budget, as the Labor Party always should, and we stand in stark contrast to the austerity prescriptions that cut to the bone that those on the other side would implement, should they come into government. They should be up-front with Australians that that means lower growth and higher unemployment.
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (15:02): I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
National Security
Senator CASH (Western Australia) (15:02): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Senators Cash and Cormann today relating to asylum seekers.
I rise to take note of answers given by Senator Conroy and Senator Wong to questions asked by Senators Cash and Cormann. The answer that Minister Conroy gave in relation to the question that I asked him today confirms without a doubt this government's contempt for border protection policy and national security in Australia. I asked what was an exceptionally important question in relation to the almost non-detention of a then convicted jihadist terrorist. The minister, in answering my question, said the opposition were 'engaging in serial, reckless fear-mongering'. If that type of answer does not confirm that, when it comes to national security, those on the other side packed up their bags and left a long time ago, then I do not know what does. Those on the other side are now responsible for the greatest number of illegal arrivals to come to Australia in our history.
As at today, we have 42,520 people who have arrived here illegally by boat. Australia is currently trending at 100 people arriving per day. You have to remember to put that into context. The reason that the current Prime Minister politically executed the former Prime Minister, Mr Rudd—and in a few days we will have the third anniversary of that—was that he had failed to stop the boats. If Mr Rudd had failed to stop the boats, I do not know what the Australian people must think the current Prime Minister has done. Maybe next week that will be the answer to the political execution of Ms Gillard: that Ms Gillard made a number of promises when she took over on 24 June 2010 and she has failed to discharge one of those promises. Let's wait and see what happens next week.
Most policy makers would acknowledge that the No.1 priority of any Commonwealth government is the security of its nation and its borders. If you do not have secure nations and if you do not have strong border protection in a country, then quite frankly you have nothing. If a government is serious about ensuring the security of its borders it will take action in terms of policy that does just that. But, when it comes to securing the borders of this country, this government gave up a long time ago. If we want further proof of that, it is what happened in relation to the Egyptian terrorist—the man with an INTERPOL Red Notice issued against him—who came here by boat, got through our immigration detention vetting process and was released into very low-security detention. The question that the Australian people need to ask is: how does it happen that a convicted jihadist terrorist can present himself to ASIO, the Federal Police and the immigration department and no-one seems to pick up that he is a convicted jihadist terrorist with an INTERPOL Red Notice against his name? The seriousness of the INTERPOL Red Notice has to be taken into consideration, because there was another man who had an INTERPOL Red Notice against his name and that man was Osama bin Laden.
Perhaps what is more serious is the contempt with which the Prime Minister reacted when she was made aware that a convicted jihadist terrorist was sunning it up in the Adelaide Hills. Basically, as far as the Prime Minister and those on the other side were concerned, it was not a breach of national security or a failure to protect our borders; it was just another incident under a failed Labor government. That is just not good enough. The government, through their handling of and response to this incident, have shown Australians that they have well and truly given up when it comes to border protection and national security in this country.
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (15:08): I rise to contradict much of what Senator Cash has just contributed to the chamber. Once again we have scare tactics—'Let's go out and scare people as much as we can. Let's inflame the conversations that might be had around the water cooler. Let's not talk about the measures that this government has actually implemented since it has been in government. Let's just keep on the very negative track that we have taken since we went into opposition. We can keep talking about the negative aspects. We can refer to people as being "illegal" when arriving in boats. We can talk about this, but we do not have to always talk about the facts.'
We know that those opposite seem to refer to The Australian on a regular basis. That is where they get their research material from when it comes to question time and tactics. I can understand that if you are as bereft of talent as they are on that side, that is probably what you have to do. I would just like to refer to Admiral Chris Barrie, former Chief of the Defence Force, and what he had to say on the opposition's policy of 'Stop the boats. Tow them back.' We can see Mr Abbott in his speedos swimming out to the boats and saying, 'Stop, stop. Don't come any further. You have to go back.' How ridiculous. I wonder how many of those people on the other side have actually spoken to any of the men and women in the Australian Navy who were put in that position in the past under the Howard government. How many have you actually spoken to? I have spoken to them. I have relatives in the Navy. They have been very, very emotional circumstances in which they have found themselves. That is not motivation for going into the Australian Navy. They are not there to make the decisions that the government should be making by having good policies like we have.
I will just come back to some comments that Admiral Chris Barrie made. He said: 'You can imagine that the opposition in government might be able to secure an arrangement with Indonesia. It might be possible for two armed forces to work together to execute some sort of policy. What worries me is that we have not got that far and we are making statements about what we are going to do without the agreement of the government of Indonesia. I connected the dots on this. When I look at the numbers that are starting to arrive in boats now, I wonder to myself if this is connected to the 14 September election date. Furthermore, it puts our people in the Navy, Border Protection Command and Customs in a very difficult situation—being, if you like, between the jaws of dealing compassionately with these people who want to come to Australia and policy being driven by people who frankly really do not want to see the problems for what they are. Putting our commanders and ships' companies in that situation, I think, is a terrible position for us to be in.'
He is quite right. It is a terrible position for us to be in. But, once again, when it comes to question time, we have those on the opposition resorting to scare tactics, trying to talk up the negativity that they are renowned for. They do not ask questions about the economy and how strong it is. They are not asking questions about the government's job plan. They do not come in here and ask any questions about reform in aged care and the benefits that that will bring to older Australians. They are not talking about the groundbreaking NDIS and the better quality of life that that is going to bring to those with disability and the better employment opportunities for those same people. Mr Deputy President, you yourself would know of the great benefit there is going to be for young Tasmanians with the pilot project that has been launched in our home state of Tasmania. These are the issues that this government has tackled—the hard decisions—after 11½ very long years of inaction from those opposite on the big issues.
The NBN was talked about in question time today. We are all of course concerned about the asbestos that has been found. But the opposition will not acknowledge the benefit that the NBN is going to bring to Tasmania and to the rest of the country, particularly rural Australia. Rural and regional residents are going to have the same capacity as those in the larger metropolitan cities. Here we are in the final two weeks of this parliament and what are they doing? Once again it is scare, scare, scare. (Time expired)
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (15:13): This Labor government has comprehensively stuffed up our border protection arrangements. By comprehensively stuffing up our border protection arrangements not only have they recklessly and irresponsibly put our national security at risk; they have also put huge additional pressure on our budget. Just as a result of Labor's ongoing border protection fiasco, the budget for this year is not worth the paper it was written on. You have to remember that the previous coalition government had fixed this problem. Through genuine offshore processing of all illegal arrivals, through temporary protection visas to ensure people smugglers no longer had a product to sell and by turning around these boats coming from Indonesia with Indonesian crew whenever it was safe to do so, the previous coalition government had fixed the problem.
But this Labor government, first led by then Prime Minister Rudd with Deputy Prime Minister Gillard at the time, thought they knew better. They comprehensively dismantled what was a successful policy framework and the results were there to see almost immediately. If you look at the graph over a long-term period you will see that as soon as the Labor government dismantled the policy framework on border protection that was put in place by the Howard government there was a huge spike in illegal boat arrivals that has not been reversed. Under this government, since they weakened our previously strong border protection arrangements, there have been 44,452 illegal arrivals on 724 boats. This year alone there have been 24,541 illegal arrivals on 384 boats.
The reason that is important is that this government's budget in 2012-13, incredibly and unbelievably, was based on an assumption that there would be just 5,400 illegal arrivals. In MYEFO they updated that to 12,000 illegal arrivals for 2012-13. But, guess what? The actual number of illegal arrivals so far is more than 4.5 times as high as what was predicted in the budget and twice as high as what was predicted in MYEFO.
I asked the minister today whether she stood by the prediction in the budget that between this year and next year the number of illegal arrivals would fall by about 46 per cent. The minister gave us a lecture on the methodology that was set out in the budget papers—we already knew that. But the one thing that the minister refused to do today was stand by the budget projection that the number of illegal arrivals by boat would reduce by 46 per cent. The reason for that is that she cannot. Given the current trend of about 100 illegal arrivals a day by boat, if the policies of the current government continue there is no way that there will be a sudden drop next year to just 36 illegal arrivals a day, as is predicted by the minister for finance in the expenditure projections in the budget. We call on the secretaries of Treasury and Finance to reflect on the current trend of illegal arrivals by boat and, if the government's current policy settings are maintained, make whatever adjustments to the pre-election economic and fiscal outlook they consider to be appropriate in their objective and independent judgment.
The government's record on border protection is outrageously incompetent. It has been an extraordinary fiasco. It is one that was predictable and was indeed predicted by the coalition. Not only have we a situation where we have had more than 44,000 illegal arrivals, we have actually had boats arrived in Geraldton undetected. For the people of Sydney that is the equivalent of an illegal boat arriving undetected in Port Macquarie. It is completely unacceptable. We have had a person with an INTERPOL Red Notice—a convicted jihadist terrorist—housed behind a pool fence. This government has to go just because of the absolute and comprehensive failure of its border protection arrangements. (Time expired)
Senator SINGH (Tasmania) (15:18): We talk about immigration policy and straightaway we go to the politicising of the very nature of that policy. What the questions asked today and this motion by the opposition to take note have demonstrated are the very politicising of the incredibly complex issue that is immigration.
We know very well that this is not a straightforward issue. That is why we had experts in the field—experts from the military and from civil society—come together to provide expert policy advice for us, to look at the way we could improve immigration policy issues in this country. As members of the expert panel have said, the results will begin to show when the full suite of measures is implemented. But the relentless negativity of the opposition has prevented us from doing that. They do not want a solution on this issue because they want to continue to be able to politicise and create negativity and divisiveness within the Australian community.
It is very timely that we should be talking about this, because this is Refugee Week. It is a week in which we reflect on the contribution that refugees have made to our nation. It is a week in which we reflect on the contribution by made refugees who have settled here; who have come from war-torn countries, from places of conflict, to settle and live a life of comfort, stability and freedom and to rebuild their lives. It is a week in which we reflect upon the heritage that they have, upon the families perhaps that they have left behind in order to settle, rebuild and create a new life here. We welcome them to do so. We welcome them because we are a supportive, compassionate nation. We are a nation that is a signatory to the refugee convention, which entails us to take in a number of refugees a year—as do other developed countries around the world, such as the US, the European Union and the like—to ensure that we can do our bit for the displaced people around the world. It is a compassionate policy. We in the Labor Party stand by it because we are a party based on the values of compassion, equality and doing what is right for people. However, those on the other side want to do the opposite. They want to demonise and politicise when it comes to issues regarding those who are seeking asylum in this country. We have just heard all of it from Senator Cormann, who was talking about illegals. I do not know how many times he uses the word 'illegals'—he loves that word 'illegals'; it is a positive word, isn't it?
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator SINGH: Let us talk about illegal immigrants all the time! It is a divisive word, Senator Cormann. You are deliberately politicising this issue by using that sort of language because you want to divide the nation. The nation needs to wake up and recognise—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Singh, please do not place your comments across the chamber; direct them to the chair. Senators on my left: please do not interject.
Senator SINGH: My apologies, Mr Deputy President. It is the divisive language being used by the opposition that leads this issue to becoming a very politicised one. I found it disrespectful that, while I was trying to listen to Senator Wong's answer to Senator Cormann's question during question time, all I heard was heckling by Senator Cormann. I do not think he actually wanted to hear the answer from Senator Wong. Again, he just wanted to add fuel to the fire and politicise the issue. We know that, when it comes to this issue, the opposition do not have anything but slogans to offer—very simple words like 'stop the boats'.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator SINGH: Can you stop the boats? On the issue of stopping the boats, Julie Bishop has been contradicted by the Indonesian ambassador on her line of 'Yes, we're going to work with the Indonesia and turn back the boats.' That is absolutely untrue. There is no support from the Indonesian government for the opposition's policy to turn back boats. It is complete nonsense. I wonder how much longer we are going to hear these slogans of 'stopping the boats' and 'turning back the boats' when the opposition know very clearly that they are actually damaging our relationship with Indonesia. The opposition continually raise this issue like it is all done and dusted, when that is certainly far from the case. (Time expired)
Senator KROGER (Victoria—Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:23): I have just been sitting back, flabbergasted, by what I have just heard from Senator Singh, because, in essence, what she has been saying for five minutes is that the current government's border protection policies are good, that they work and that she supports them. I am astonished that someone—anyone, actually—on that side of the chamber could get up and, hand on heart, defend the chaotic and irresponsible approach on border protection that prevails in this country.
I will just pick up on a couple of comments that Senator Polley made. I actually have a lot of personal regard for Senator Polley, but it does concern me that, when those opposite are asked about this issue, their response is such a defensive and reactive one. They direct their criticism at us, and all they can talk about is negative politics and scare tactics. The facts of the matter are quite simple, and that is that the failure of the border protection policies of this government is a national disgrace. Every one of you on that side of the chamber should bow your heads in shame at what is facing this country. It is a national disgrace.
It does not matter, as Senator Cash has already raised today, who is the leader of this Labor government: it does not matter whether it is Kevin Rudd, the member for Griffith; it does not matter whether it is the current Prime Minister. The fact of the matter is that every one of them has supported this public policy, which has consistently failed year after year, month after month, week after week and day after day. As my colleagues Senator Cash and Senator Cormann have said, we are now seeing on average 100 unlawful maritime arrivals each and every day. The consequences of that for this country are huge. Until the senators on that side of the chamber get their heads around the national security significance of that and, may I say, the humanitarian consequences of that, they are actually condemning us all by their very actions.
This is an example of yet another promise that Prime Minister Gillard has broken—just as she has done with the carbon tax promise and just as she has done with so many of her other promises. I remember one of the very early ones that she made when she was education minister: every child at school will have a laptop. Everybody has stopped talking about that one, because that is just one of dozens of promises that she has broken either as a minister of this government or as the Prime Minister. But I have to say that this promise is one that the government will go down in history for and be judged on. Australians hold this Gillard government in contempt for their chaotic and shambolic approach to border protection, and of all their policies it will go down in history as the most damning one. We have heard, yet again, the government's denial of the significance of their failure with border protection policies for this country.
Senator Cash, today, quite rightly raised questions in relation to how the INTERPOL Red Notices were dealt with. These were matters that I raised during estimates. I asked how the integrity of the INTERPOL Red Notices were assessed, how they were ascertained and what the process was. Yet, what we heard from the minister responding today was just a rant. He did not deal with the essence of that question. He could not assure us as to how that was dealt with.
I want to briefly return to Senator Polley's question about whether any of us on this side have spent time with Customs and Border Protection officers or Navy men and women who are dealing with this issue. I have to tell her that, yes, we have. Only a couple of weeks ago, officers were telling me how difficult they are finding it. They did not join the Navy to be a ferry service; they joined to protect our country—and I support them in the work they do.
Question agreed to.
Tasmania: Economy
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (15:29): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Ludwig) to a question without notice asked by Senator Whish-Wilson today relating to funding under the Tasmanian Forestry Agreement.
The Greens have been very supportive of efforts to diversify Tasmania's economy over a long period of time—in fact, for the last 20 years. In 1992, we commissioned a report looking at a 20-year vision for the economy that would completely transform Tasmania's economy. Obviously, we had a green lens on that because we wanted to see less reliance on extracting industries and more development around clean, green and clever. That is where those three words came from: they were first quoted by Greens Leader, Senator Christine Milne, when she wrote that report.
When $100 million in funding becomes available to help diversify the Tasmanian economy that is certainly something the Greens are very keen to see unrolled, and we would like to participate in that. This has come from the Tasmanian forestry agreement. There are two separate sets of funding here: one set has gone toward buying out saw-log quota and haulage quota in the forestry sector to give contractors an exit with dignity and also to help restructure the economy, because those funds can be reused to develop other businesses and help diversify risk; and the second set of funding is $100 million which would go toward economic diversification projects. My concerns are around the processes of how that $100 million is spent. I clarify with Minister Ludwig—and I will obviously put this in writing to him—that he said that $100 million would be spent over 15 years. My understanding now is that the majority of it is going to be over four years, which is obviously a much shorter term than we had originally envisaged. The reason for 15 years was to lock a long-term structural change into Tasmania's economy, and to try and avoid problems that we had previously seen with perceptions around pork-barrelling and throwing money at pet projects
It concerns me that today the minister said that on 6 and 7 June Minister Albanese met with the Minister for Economic Development in Tasmania, David O'Byrne. Two days of consultation were put together to spend this $100 million, or to allocate it. There are a number of projects around the state that would be worthy of consideration for economic development funds. It became very clear to me today that there have been no tender processes or application processes that are fair and equitable and that everybody can participate in to try to access that funding. I am keen to hear more from Minister O'Byrne on what processes are being employed to allocate the funding, and whether that is based on specific advice from consultants or from other people? I would also like to hear when that money is going to be released, how it is going to be released and what transparency there will be around the allocation of those funds.
One hundred million dollars is a lot of money in a Tasmanian context. It could go a long way to help assist in: the transformation of the Tasmanian economy; the diversification of the risk that we so desperately need; less reliance on low-value commodity industries which, unfortunately, Tasmania can no longer rely on; and incentives to help people innovate and drive research and development. There are a number of projects for which people that I have spoken to in the Tasmanian economy are looking for funding. It is very difficult to know exactly how these businesses, these enterprises, these projects can seek funding. From what we can gather there are no specific guidelines around how this can be spent. An allocation of funds of this magnitude is so important for Tasmania that it is absolutely critical that to have credibility behind it so that, in future, the Tasmanian government makes every effort to make sure that this is not seen as pork-barrelling going into a federal election, or even into a state election next year.
I have two Greens colleagues who are ministers in the Tasmanian government who, I am confident, would like to see that money allocated on a transparent and equitable basis to projects that are very deserving, and that everybody gets the chance to have access to that funding. I will be following this up, keeping an eye on this and watching with interest over the next few weeks as we see announcements on where the funding is going to go. It concerns me that some federal Labor MPs have said that the funding has already been allocated and that they are looking forward to seeing announcements of that funding allocation. My understanding is that there are still people out there scratching their heads wondering how they can get access to these funds. I am looking forward to clearing that up. (Time expired)
Question agreed to
PETITIONS
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (15:34): by leave—I present to the Senate a non-conforming petition relating to Duchenne muscular dystrophy and I seek leave to make a short statement in relation to the petition.
Leave granted.
Senator PRATT: I acknowledge this petition and the lead petitioner, Jacob Lancaster, as well as all of the other young men and their families who have been in parliament today. Jacob has said in this petition: 'I am one of thousands of young Australians with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. I have not been able to walk for many years. My heart and breathing muscles are failing. My arms are so weak I can no longer lift a pen. Eventually, it will take my life. Clinical trials are the only hope we have, but we need money to fund them. Can you please help us?'
That petition is signed by Jacob and 32,049 other signatories using a mechanical arm. It is a really powerful way of sending a message about the way Duchenne muscular dystrophy affects the lives of thousands of young Australians, and the need for our nation to fund research to do something about it.
Petition received.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator Xenophon: To move:
That Export Market Development Grants (Extended Lodgement and Consultant Quality Incentive) Determination 2012, made under subsection 70(4) of the Export Market Development Grants Act 1997, be disallowed. [F2013L00258]
Fifteen sitting days remain, including today, to resolve the motion or the instrument will be deemed to have been disallowed.
Senator McKenzie: To move:
That the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Monday, 24 June 2013, from 10 am, followed by a public hearing.
Senators Bernardi and Stephens: To move:
That the Senate—
(a) supports freedom of religion as a universal human right;
(b) does not support the imprisonment or persecution of individuals on the basis of their religious belief;
(c) calls on the Iranian authorities to release Pastor Saeed Abedini who was sentenced to 8 years in prison because his Christian faith and activities were deemed a national security threat by the Iranian Government;
(d) recognises that this action is a breach of Iran’s international obligations, its own constitution and stated religious values; and
(e) stands in solidarity with Pastor Abedini, his family and all those who seek to practise their religion without fear of persecution.
Senator Smith: To move:
That the Senate—
(a) recognises:
(i) the signing of the Charter of the Commonwealth by Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia and Head of the Commonwealth, on 14 December 2012, and
(ii) that the Charter reaffirms the core values and principles of the Commonwealth as being:
(a) democracy,
(b) human rights,
(c) international peace and security,
(d) tolerance, respect and understanding,
(e) freedom of expression,
(f) separation of powers,
(g) rule of law,
(h) good governance,
(i) sustainable development,
(j) protecting the environment,
(k) access to health, education, food and shelter,
(l) gender equality,
(m) importance of young people in the Commonwealth,
(n) recognition of the needs of small states,
(o) recognition of the needs of vulnerable states, and
(p) the role of civil society; and
(b) encourages the Australian Government to further demonstrate its support for the values contained in the Charter by working to ensure all Commonwealth nations abide by its commitments.
Senator Rhiannon: To move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Oxfam Australia recently released a report titled, Grow: Getting big results from small‑scale agriculture, and
(ii) the report found that:
(a) small-scale food producers play a critical role in global food production,
(b) 80 per cent of the world’s hungry people are involved in food production as small-scale producers, including small‑scale farmers, fishers, forest foragers and landless labourers, and
(c) small‑scale producers go hungry because they often lack access to the markets, land, financing and credit facilities, infrastructure, farmer training services, storage facilities and relevant technology enjoyed by large farms; and
(b) calls on the Australian Government to consider increasing aid to food security by 2016, and prioritising aid to small‑scale food producers.
Senator Rhiannon: To move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, by 27 June 2013, all documents relating to the production of the report, Pollution Reduction Program 4.2 Particulate Emissions from Coal Trains, dated May 2013, prepared for the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) by Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd, from 1 July 2012 until present, including correspondence between the ARTC and the Minister, the department, the New South Wales Environmental Protection Authority and the report consultant.
Senator Hanson-Young: To move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that unpaid caring work being undertaken by Australian individuals is leading to inequality over the life-cycle of women and the emergence of gender-based disparity in retirement incomes; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) direct the Productivity Commission to conduct an inquiry into mechanisms for recognising and valuing unpaid care which might reduce the gender gap, including, but not limited to, options and models for superannuation and tax offsets, carer’s leave, child care, aged pension supplements, and additional paid parental leave measures, and
(ii) specify that the inquiry examine the merits and feasibility of a system of ‘carer credits’ in the form of direct credits to the superannuation accounts of individuals with parent care responsibilities or carer responsibilities.
Senator Hanson-Young: To move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the current visit of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to Australia, and the visit of the Speaker of the Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile, Mr Penpa Tsering, to Australia’s Parliament House, and
(ii) the ongoing tension and repressions in Tibetan regions, leading to nearly 120 deaths of Tibetans by self-immolation, and the continuing surveillance and violent crackdowns on Tibetans; and
(b) calls on the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Bob Carr) to escalate diplomatic arrangements for a visit by the Australian Ambassador and an Australian parliamentary delegation to Tibetan regions for the purposes of fact-finding and observation.
Senators Moore, Williams and Cameron: To move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes the concerns about the security of the residents of Camp Hurriya in Iraq which was subject to a mortar attack on 15 June 2013;
(b) recognises that individual refugee status assessments are underway in Camp Hurriya, with more than half the determinations completed to date; and
(c) urges the international community to continue to work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Government of Iraq on finding a durable solution for camp residents, including resettlement in third countries.
Senator Crossin: To move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 2013 is the 50th anniversary of the Yirrkala bark petitions, and
(ii) these petitions were:
(a) from the Yolngu people of Yirrkala and the first documents bridging Commonwealth law as it then stood, and the Indigenous laws of the land,
(b) the first traditional documents recognised by the Commonwealth Parliament and are thus the documentary recognition of Indigenous people in Australian law,
(c) extraordinary in nature as they were the first petitions to use traditional forms and combine bark painting with text typed on paper, and
(d) painted designs proclaiming Yolngu law, depicting the traditional relations to the land and the typed text incorporating both English and Gumatj languages; and
(b) recognises:
(i) the national appreciation of this anniversary, and
(ii) that NAIDOC Week 2013 will be aptly themed ‘We value the vision: Yirrkala Bark Petitions 1963’.
Senator Stephens: To move:
That the Customs (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Regulation 2013, as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2013 No. 2 and made under the Customs Administration Act 1985, be disallowed. [F2013L00191]
Fifteen sitting days remain, including today, to resolve the motion or the instrument will be deemed to have been disallowed.
Senator Thistlethwaite: To move:
That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposals by the National Capital Authority for capital works within the Parliamentary Zone:
(a) the installation of pay parking infrastructure; and
(b) the relocation of the Torsional Wave outdoor exhibit.
Senator STEPHENS (New South Wales) (15:38): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I give notice that 15 sittings days after today I shall move:
That the Customs (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Regulation 2013, contained in Select Legislative Instrument No. 2 of 2013, and made under the Customs Administration Act 1985, be disallowed.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave granted.
Senator STEPHENS: The Customs (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Regulation 2013 was made on 14 February 2013 to prescribe matters to implement drug and alcohol testing within Customs and Border Protection. This follows from the enactment of the Law Enforcement Integrity Legislation Amendment Act 2012, which made amendments to the Customs Administration Act 1985 in part to introduce the drug and alcohol testing power.
In scrutinising this instrument against the seven treaties listed in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 the parliamentary joint committee noted in its sixth report that it had a number of concerns as to whether the instrument was consistent with the right to privacy and the right to self-incrimination. The Minister for Home Affairs responded to the committee on 29 May, noting that a number of amendments would be made to the instrument to take into account the committee's concerns. No time frame was given as to when these amendments would be introduced, and the committee responded in its seventh report, noting that the minister's letter did not respond.
The committee asked for a response to concerns by 12 June, and as of 18 June the committee has not received a response to its subsequent letter. This is the final day for giving notice to disallow this instrument. The committee has decided to take this precautionary step of giving notice to disallow the instrument to give the committee adequate time to consider the compatibility of the instrument with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, pending the minister's response. (Time expired)
COMMITTEES
Selection of Bills Committee
Report
Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (15:39): I present the sixth report of 2013 of the Selection of Bills Committee and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 6 OF 2013
1. The committee met in private session on Monday, 17 June 2013 at 8.41 pm.
2. The committee resolved to recommend—That—
(a) the provisions of the African Development Bank Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 August 2013 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the Australian Education Bill 2013 and the provisions of the Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 August 2013 (see appendices 2 and 3 for statements of reasons for referral);
(c) the provisions of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 August 2013 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(d) the Defence Legislation Amendment (Woomera Prohibited Area) Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 August 2013 (see appendices 5 and 6 for statements of reasons for referral);
(e) the provisions of the Homelessness Bill 2013 and the Homelessness (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 June 2013 (see appendix 7 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(f) the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 August 2013 (see appendix 8 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(g) the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 August 2013 (see appendix 9 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(h) the Privacy Amendment (Privacy Alerts) Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 June 2013 (see appendix 10 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(i) the provisions of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Public Housing Tenants' Support) Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 August 2013 (see appendix 11 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(j) the Superannuation Laws Amendment (MySuper Capital Gains Tax Relief and Other Measures) Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 June 2013 (see appendix 12 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:
Australian Citizenship Amendment (Special Residence Requirements) Bill 2013
Banking Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2013
Charities Bill 2013
Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill 2013
Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013
Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2013
Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2013
DisabilityCare Australia Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013
International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Cape Town Convention) Bill 2013
International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Cape Town Convention) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013
Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013
Parliamentary Service Amendment (Freedom of Information) Bill 2013
Public Interest Disclosure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013
Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Increased Concessional Contributions Cap and Other Measures) Bill 2013
Superannuation (Sustaining the Superannuation Contribution Concession) Imposition Bill 2013
Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013
Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy) Bill 2013.
The committee recommends accordingly.
4. The committee considered the following bills and, noting that they had been referred to committees pursuant to the order of the Senate of 15 May, resolved to make no recommendation:
Australian Capital Territory Water Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2013
Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013
Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013
Social Security Amendment (Supporting More Australians into Work) Bill 2013
Sugar Research and Development Services Bill 2013
Sugar Research and Development Services (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013.
5. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Country of Origin Food Labelling) Bill 2013
Interactive Gambling Amendment (Virtual Credits) Bill 2013
Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Caring for Single Parents) Bill 2013
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Caring for People on Newstart) Bill 2013.
(Anne McEwen)
Chair
17 June 2013
Appendix 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
African Development Bank Bill 2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Consideration of the additional financial and human resources required by the Commonwealth Treasury and the Australian Agency for International Development to support Australia's engagement with the African Development Bank Group
Consideration of the effectiveness of the African Development Bank Group's governance structures.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Commonwealth Treasury
Australian Agency for International Development
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Possible hearing date(s):
June / July
Possible reporting date:
20 August 2013
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
Appendix 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Australian Education Bill 2013 (third reading print)
Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To scrutinise the amendments to the Australian Education Bill, and examine the Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Non-government school authorities
State Governments
Peak bodies representing teachers
Peak bodies representing parents
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
Possible hearing date(s):
June / July
Possible reporting date:
August
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
Appendix 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013; and
Australian Education Bill 2013 (as amended in the House)
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
The bills to be examined against the national education reform agenda and Council of Australian Government objectives.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
States and territories
Non-government sector authorities
Principal and teacher associations
Parent Group associations
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
Monday 24 June 2013
(signed)
Senator McEwen
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
Appendix 4
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
There are issues to examine regarding the amendments relating to people smuggling and the use of wrist x-rays.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
AFP
Customs
DIAC
Medical experts
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
To be determined by the committee
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
Appendix 5
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Defence Legislation Amendment (Woomera Prohibited Area) Bill 2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To examine land use and land management issues
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Department of Defence
Department of Resources
Traditional Landowners
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Possible hearing date(s):
June / July
Possible reporting date:
Mid August
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
Appendix 6
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Defence Legislation Amendment (Woomera Prohibited Area) Bill 2013.
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
While a review of the proposal to open up the Woomera area was canvassed by the Hawke Review, the exposure draft was open for public comment from 8-13 May, insufficient time to assess whether the recommendations of the Review have been adequately implemented.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Traditional owners of the area including representative bodies and individuals from
o Maralinga Tjarutja
o Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara
o Kokotha Uwankara
Peak environmental groups
Corporations seeking to mine in the Woomera Prohibited area
SA government
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
July/August 2013
Possible reporting date:
October 2013
(signed)
Senator Siewert
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
Appendix 7
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Homelessness Bill 2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
The homelessness sector believes the bill is not rights based legislation (as was promised originally) that demonstrates or explicitly states the government is progressively committed to providing affordable housing.
As such, funding for homelessness services and housing provided under the National Affordable Housing Agreement and in the National Rental Affordable Scheme for example should be covered in a homelessness bill. No financial arrangements or commitments are covered in this bill.
It's also a confusing bill that talks about rights and obligations under Human Rights treaties-but the bill ends by stating it cancels out any legal obligation to give an avenue for recourse with regard to those treaties. Finally the definition of homelessness is problematic to the sector.
The homelessness sector is extremely concerned and disappointed this Bill has no teeth and adds no value to the homelessness response.
The long delay for this Bill is also a reason for concern. The bill was a recommendation from the Inquiry as part of the government's White Paper on homelessness in 2009.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Homelessness Australia
Anglicare Australia
Community Housing Federation of Australia
Homelessness Council of Australia
Australian Council of Social Services
HomeGround Services
St Patricks Western Australia
St Vincent de Paul
Mental Health Council of Australia
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Committee on Community Affairs
Possible hearing date(s):
The week ending Friday June 21St
Possible reporting date:
Tuesday June 25th
(signed)
Senator Siewert
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
Appendix 8
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Examine the regulatory burden and cost this bill will impose upon employers forced to seek overseas workers to meet a skills need that cannot presently be met from within the Australian workforce.
Examine proposed changes to Australia's Migration Zone to guarantee that no unintended consequences may result in litigation, may undermine offshore processing arrangements or compromise the power of the Minister for Immigration to grant or refuse a visa.
Examine implications for the decision precedent established by the Federal Court in Allseas Construction SA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 529 (Allseas).
Examine any confusion that may be created in relation to Australia's international obligations and jurisdictions at sea.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Attorney-General's Department
Department of Immigration and Citizenship
Department of Education, Employment and Work Place Relations
Australian Customs and Border Protection Command
Australian Mines and Metals Association
Migration Council of Australia
APPEA
Australian Shipowners Association
Allseas
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
July
Possible reporting date:
August
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
Appendix 9
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
The Bill requires further investigation into the regulatory impact the proposed changes will impose on Australian business and industry, together with impacts on labour market efficiency and business productivity from the reintroduction of labour market testing in particular. An inquiry is required to ensure no adverse impacts arise that would prohibit businesses from accessing the skilled labour they need to support Australian jobs and Australian investment.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Department of Immigration and Citizenship
Department of Education, Employment and Work Place Relations
Migration Council of Australia
Migration Institute of Australia
Australian Mines and Metals Association
ACCI
AHA
BCA
Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
July
Possible reporting date:
August
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
Appendix 10
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Privacy Amendment (Privacy Alerts) Bill 2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Regulatory burden on business;
Interoperability of the Bill with voluntary codes currently being prepared;
Adequacy of the Privacy Commissioner's resources to administer the regime and to deal with current responsibilities in code formulation;
Status of code formulation;
Progress of a consumer education program for the new privacy regime;
Extent of the regime established by the Bill that is to be contained in Regulations.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Privacy Commissioner
Attorney-General's Department
Australian Retail Credit Association
Veda
Dun & Bradstreet
Genworth Limited
Optus
Telstra
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
To be determined by the committee
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
Appendix 11
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Public Housing Tenants' Support) Bill 2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To examine:
Whether the bill will achieve its objective to prevent homelessness for public housing tenants at risk of eviction due to arrears.
The likely financial pressures on the target group
Whether the Bill will affect a wider than anticipated group
The regulatory and financial burden required to administer
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Homelessness Australia
Australian Council of Social Services
National Shelter
Tenants Union of Victoria
Salvation Army
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Community Affairs
Possible hearing date(s):
July 2013
Possible reporting date:
August 2013
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
Appendix 12
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Superannuation Laws Amendment (MySuper Capital Gains Tax Relief and Other Measures) Bill 2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Schedule 1: Scope of CGT relief (and ability to transfer losses)
Schedule 2: Impact on the superannuation benefits and retirement incomes of veterans and their surviving spouses
Possible submissions or evidence from:
FSC, ASFA, AIST, ISN, Defence Force Welfare Association and the RSL
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Economics Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
To be determined by the committee
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
Senator McEWEN: I move:
That the report be adopted.
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:40): I speak to the motion that the report be adopted, to commend the adoption of report No. 6 and also to express my delight and surprise that the committee and the government accepted a number of the reference proposals that the opposition put forward to the committee, particularly in relation to some education bills and migration bills. I was also delighted and surprised that the government accepted the reporting dates that the opposition proposed.
I express my sincerest desire that the committees to which these references have been made feel under absolutely no pressure from the government to adopt reporting dates which would seek to circumvent the proper examination of the legislation that has been referred to these committees. I am sure that will not happen, but it would be disturbing if these committees felt pressured by the government to perhaps report earlier than the date which has been agreed upon by the committee and the dates which have been accepted by the Senate chamber.
I thought it was important to put on record my pleasure and delight at the work of the committee, the fact that it looks like the chamber will unanimously adopt this report, and that it would be a bad precedent if pressure were brought to bear on the committees in question to seek to subvert the will expressed by the committees and the will that is, I think, about to be expressed by this chamber. I am sure all interested stakeholders will be watching closely.
Question agreed to.
National Capital and External Territories Committee
Meeting
Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (15:42): by leave—On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, Senator Pratt, I move:
That the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 from 12.30 pm to take evidence for the committee's biannual review of the National Capital Authority.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Postponement
The following items of business were postponed:
Government business notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations (Senator Collins) for today, relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business for 19 June 2013, postponed till 24 June 2013.
Government business notice of motion no. 4 standing in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations (Senator Collins) for today, proposing the approval of the Australian Charities and Not‑for‑profits Commission Amendment Regulation 2013 (No. 1), postponed till 25 June 2013.
COMMITTEES
Community Affairs References Committee
Reporting Date
Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (15:44): On behalf of the Chair of the Community Affairs References Committee, Senator Siewert, I move:
That the time for the presentation of reports of the Community Affairs References Committee be extended as follows:
(a) sterilisation of people with disabilities—to Wednesday, 17 July 2013;
(b) impacts on health of air quality—to Monday, 12 August 2013; and
(c) care and management of dementia—to Monday, 12 August 2013.
Question agreed to.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee
Meeting
Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (15:44): On behalf of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, Senator Wright, I move:
That the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 from 11.30 am.
Question agreed to.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
Meeting
Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (15:44): On behalf of the Chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, Senator Heffernan, I move:
That the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee be authorised to hold an in camera hearing during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 19 June 2013, from noon for its inquiry into the Foreign Investment Review Board national interest test.
Question agreed to.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
Reporting Date
Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (15:44): On behalf of the Chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, Senator Heffernan, I move:
That the time for the presentation of the reports of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the following inquiries be extended to Friday, 19 July 2013:
(a) New Zealand potatoes import risk analysis;
(b) fresh pineapple imports; and
(c) fresh ginger import risk analysis.
Question agreed to.
Law Enforcement Committee
Meeting
Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (15:44): On behalf of the Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, Senator Nash, I move:
That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Monday, 24 June 2013, from 10 am, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the spectrum for public safety mobile broadband.
Question agreed to.
Broadcasting Legislation Committee
Meeting
Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (15:44): On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Select Committee on Broadcasting Legislation, Senator Cameron, I move
That the Joint Select Committee on Broadcasting Legislation be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 19 June 2013, from 3.30 pm, for a private briefing.
Question agreed to.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee
Meeting
Senator McEWEN ( South Australia — Government Whip in the Senate ) ( 15:4 4 ): I move:
That the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Monday, 24 June 2013, from 5.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into Australia's relationship with Timor-Leste.
Question agreed to.
Public Accounts and Audit Committee
Meeting
Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (15:44): On behalf of Senator Bishop, I move:
That the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit be authorised to hold private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) followed by public hearings, during the sittings of the Senate as follows:
(a) on Wednesday, 19 June 2013, from 11 am; and
(b) on Wednesday, 26 June 2013, from 11 am, followed by a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1).
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism
Senator KROGER (Victoria—Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:44): I, and on behalf of Senators Abetz, Birmingham, Payne, Ronaldson and Smith, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that although nearly 70 years have passed since the end of World War II and the Holocaust, antisemitism still exists,
(ii) the vital work of the London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism in drawing the attention of the democratic world to the resurgence of antisemitism in international affairs, politics and society, and
(iii) that more than 125 parliamentarians in over 40 countries have signed the Declaration;
(b) recognises the vast contributions made by the Jewish people to Australian society;
(c) expresses its solidarity with the Jewish people;
(d) affirms that antisemitic prejudice, rhetoric and hate campaigns, such as the Boycott, Divestments and Sanctions campaign, utterly contradict the democratic values Australian society and the Parliament hold dear; and
(e) encourages all senators, regardless of party or politics, to sign the Declaration and so assist to combat antisemitism across the globe.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave granted.
Senator KROGER: The London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism, a declaration that asserts the need for international cooperation to fight anti-Semitism, is regrettably necessary today, just as it was 70 years ago. It is deeply disturbing that, whilst decades have past since World War II, when the world witnessed the holocaust, we are witnessing a resurgence in anti-Semitism across the globe that is manifesting itself in all sorts of ways. Only last week, I attended an event hosted by the Victorian state government to celebrate the 65th anniversary of Israel's Independence Day. Walking into that venue, I saw some 100 police inside and outside the doors. They were concerned about trouble that they had been advised was possible, and they were there to secure all—an extraordinary situation in Melbourne, a site where we have seen the BDS movement boycotting the Max Brenner chocolate business. I challenge all to expose those who engage in this racist behaviour and commend all coalition members and senators for supporting this.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:46): by leave—I indicate the Greens will not be supporting this motion, but we will not be calling a division. The Australian Greens defend the right of all persons to be able to live in an environment without discrimination and violence. We do not tolerate or endorse anti-Semitism and we condemn all forms of discrimination on the basis of race, culture, ethnicity, religion or nationality. The Greens have championed antivilification legislation around Australia. It is an important mechanism in encouraging a tolerant community.
We oppose the motion and will not be signing the London declaration, which equates anti-Semitism with criticisms of the State of Israel. It is legitimate to criticise Israel for its actions against the Palestinian people, including blockades and expanding settlements. While the Australian Greens do not and have not supported the BDS campaign, we also do not believe the motion accurately reflects the campaign. The Australian Greens policy supports the legitimate rights and aspirations of both the Israeli and the Palestinian people to live in peace and security in their own independent sovereign states. It is the Greens view that the only way to achieve this is through a comprehensive, negotiated settlement of the conflict leading to a two-state solution with Israel and a Palestinian state living side by side within secure and internationally recognised borders. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
Peru
Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (15:48): I, and on behalf of Senator Furner, move:
That the Senate—
(a) recognises:
(i) the accomplishments of 50 years of fruitful diplomatic relations between Peru and Australia,
(ii) the continuing friendship between our nations, and
(iii) the contribution of Peruvian migrants in our nation building; and
(b) notes:
(i) the reopening of our Embassy in Lima in September 2010;
(ii) our shared democratic values in the context of a strong commitment to transparency, well-established policy credibility and good governance structure and quality of institutions,
(iii) our mutual emphasis on multilateral involvement exemplified by Peru's membership of the United Nations, World Trade Organization (WTO), Organization of American States, Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, Pacific Alliance, and Forum for East Asia and Latin American Cooperation,
(iv) the roles of Dr Herbert Vere Evatt and former United Nations Secretary General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar point to our mutual activity,
(v) our similar activity on the free trade front and common membership of the Cairns Group, WTO and APEC,
(vi) the visits to Peru by former Prime Minister, Mr Gough Whitlam, in 1975 and former Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, in 2008 and the visit of former President Alan Garcia Pérez to Australia in 2007,
(vii) the November 2011 framework to promote Bilateral Consultations and Cooperation,
(viii) the presence at the 2011 census of 8 441 Peruvian born citizens in Australia and attraction of Peru to Australian visitors totalling 30 000 in 2011, and
(ix) the longstanding Australian mining endeavours in Peru, the growth of Peruvian student numbers in Australia and 56 Australian companies having an office in Peru or investment in a Peruvian project.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Telecommunications Amendment (Get a Warrant) Bill 2013
First Reading
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (15:48): I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, and for related purposes. Telecommunications Amendment (Get a Warrant) Bill 2013.
Question agreed to.
Senator LUDLAM: I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (15:49): I present the explanatory memorandum and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMENDMENT (GET A WARRANT) BILL 2013
This Bill strengthens the rules about collecting data about Australians. It returns us to the normal warrant procedures whee a law enforcement agency is required to obtain a warrant before accessing a person's private data.
Currently Australian law enforcement agencies (other than ASIO) are able to access vast amounts of private data without getting a warrant. This information includes data about telephone calls that you have made, emails you have sent, information that you have accessed online, and detailed information about the location of your mobile telephone.
According to the Telecommunications Interceptions and Access Act (TIA) Annual report 2011-12, Australian law enforcement agencies were granted access to personal information about Australians 293,501 times throughout the 2011-12 year, without obtaining a warrant or having any judicial oversight.
This Bill does not prevent law enforcement and intelligence from accessing material in order to carry out their functions; it simply requires that law enforcement agencies obtain a warrant prior to accessing the information.
A member of the judiciary, a recognised cornerstone of democracy and the rule of law, will be required to provide independent and informed oversight of the use of coercive or invasive powers. Requests by ASIO will be required to obtain a warrant from the Attorney General.
Warrants not only protect citizens from the abuse of power by the State, they also provide legitimacy and authority to police or intelligence agencies carrying out their functions by ensuing that their actions are both necessary and proportional.
While it is the government's role to promote collective protection against identity theft, online crime and acts of political violence, Australian citizens have a legitimate expectation that the government will defend their democratic right to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom from arbitrary acts of state surveillance or coercion.
The Greens believe that changes made to the Telecommunications Act and the Telecommunications Interception and Access Act (TIA) in 2007 to normalise warrantless surveillance, radically and unnecessarily privileged national security concerns over the privacy and civil liberties of Australians. This Bill reinstates the balance between national security and privacy and treats Australians as citizens first with basic rights and protections, and not merely suspects.
In May 2013 the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor concluded that several of the 80 hastily made changes to Australian law after the events of September 11 were not effective, appropriate or necessary. The scope and reach of the laws were unprecedented, and included extraordinary powers of surveillance, detention and restriction and censorship on speech.
Citizen's human rights are protected when laws are transparently made, independently adjudicated, equally enforced and fairly applied. Among the rights recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the "freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers," which is contained in Article 19 of that Declaration.
In June 2012, the UN Human Rights Council affirmed in resolution A/HRC/20/L.13 that, "the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one's choice, in accordance with Articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights"
The online and offline human rights of Australians are being compromised when safeguards and privacy protections are insufficient to prevent widespread warrantless surveillance.
Given that Australia's security agencies and police forces have been deployed against targets that fall well beyond threats to national security such as climate change demonstrators, the occupy movement, anti-whaling campaigners and supporters of the WikiLeaks publishing organization, the lines between terrorism, civil disobedience and healthy dissent are being routinely blurred. This Bill seeks to ensure that Australians are protected from indiscriminate monitoring by law enforcement agencies.
The Australian Greens strongly support the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) recommendation that the Telecommunications Interception and Access Act (TIA) be reviewed in its entirety.
Until an Australian government has the sense to implement the ALRC's recommendation, the TIA must be amended piecemeal, such as with this Bill, in an effort to return Australian law enforcement procedures to protecting the hard-won rights fundamental to a liberal democracy.
I commend this Bill to the Senate.
Senator LUDLAM: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
MOTIONS
Melbourne: East West Link
Senator KROGER (Victoria—Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:49): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Melbourne is suffering from a traffic congestion problem across the city and particularly on the Eastern Freeway and the Monash CityLink West Gate corridor,
(ii) without better infrastructure, this problem will worsen as Melbourne is experiencing the largest growth of all capital cities,
(iii) by 2020 it is estimated by the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics That the cost of traffic congestion in Melbourne will be $6.1 billion, double what it is today, and
(iv) as well as being an economic cost, congestion impacts on quality of life, including time spent with family;
(b) recognises that:
(i) the Victorian Government has proposed the development of an East West Link which would provide an alternate route across the city by connecting the Eastern Freeway with the Western Ring Road,
(ii) this East West Link would have significant benefits for Melbourne and Australia, as it would:
(A) relieve bottle necks on the Eastern, Monash and West Gate Freeways and provide an alternative to the West Gate Bridge,
(B) improve freight efficiency by catering for growth at the ports of Melbourne and Hastings and increase productivity by improving travel time reliability for freight,
(C) enhance Victoria's competitive advantage globally, improve the key industry centres and support the knowledge precinct in Carlton and Parkville,
(D) complete missing links between freeways to alleviate congestion and ensure travel time reliability for families and freight, and
(E) reduce travel times, particularly for residents in Melbourne's east and west who travel to Melbourne to work, and
(iii) the Federal Coalition has committed $1.5 billion towards the construction of the East West Link; and
(c) calls on the Australian Government to match the commitment of the Federal Coalition towards the construction of the East West link as a vital piece of economic infrastructure for Melbourne.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that notice of motion No. 1263 standing in the name of Senator Kroger be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [15:54]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (15:56): I advise senators that there is likely to be a series of divisions.
Senator KROGER (Victoria—Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:56): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator KROGER: What we have just witnessed is this government not supporting the people of Victoria. In voting against this motion, they have damned the people of Victoria, and it is an absolute indictment on them. The East West Link is a key infrastructure project for the people of Victoria and it has been identified by the RACV as the No. 1 project for the people of Victoria. It is a project that will change and improve the productivity of that state and make a real difference to the people, in particular to those who live in the eastern corridor.
It is a matter of great regret that the members for Bruce, Chisholm and Deakin—that is, Alan Griffin, Anna Burke and Mike Symon—have not lobbied the Prime Minister to fund this project. It is a disgrace. (Time expired)
Public Broadcasting
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (15:58): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) 80 per cent of Australians surveyed believe the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is balanced and even-handed when reporting news and current affairs and 83 per cent of Australians regard the ABC to be distinctively Australian and contributing to Australia's national identity,
(ii) the motion put to the Victorian Liberal Party Council conference on 25 26 May by the Warragul branch, urging an examination of the feasibility of partial or full privatisation of the ABC and Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) was deferred to the next conference, and
(iii) That the ABC and SBS are vital public news, information, education and entertainment services for the benefit of citizens and audiences rather than advertisers and shareholders; and
(b) calls on:
(i) the Liberal Party to categorically reject the motion put by Warragul branch, and
(ii) all parties to commit to maintaining the ABC and SBS as properly funded public broadcasters with independent boards free from political interference.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (15:58): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:58): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator FIFIELD: The opposition will not be supporting this motion. It is a stunt.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Senators, please—Senator Ludlam is trying to listen to a response from Senator Fifield.
Senator FIFIELD: The opposition have stated on many occasions that we are not planning to privatise either the SBS or the ABC. The opposition are committed to the public broadcasters. It is well known that policy in the coalition is set by the parliamentary party, but I note that the members of the Warragul branch of the Liberal Party are citizens and are entitled to express whatever views they choose to and should not be condemned for doing so. Unlike the Australian Greens, the Liberal Party in the Victorian division has a completely open state council; we do not have closed sessions, which is why the Australian Greens know that this motion was on the agenda of that conference. But I restate the opposition's commitment to the SBS and the ABC.
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (15:59): Mr Deputy President, I also seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator LUDLAM: Thanks, Deputy President; I probably will not need that long. Senator Fifield had just dismissed out of hand and called this motion a stunt. This is a very simple motion, in response to the more than 10,000 people who signed a petition; we said that we would put this motion forward in defence of public broadcasting. Not only was it a motion that was to be brought forward to one of your Victorian party branches but also it was endorsed by quite senior members of the Liberal Party who joined the Facebook group in its support.
I notice also that you are 'not planning on' privatising public broadcasters. I wonder whether that is in the same way that Campbell Newman was 'not planning on' opening up uranium mining in Queensland before he was elected. You cannot be trusted on a motion like this, and I am very proud to stand with the millions of Australians in defence of public broadcasting. As you work your way down the Institute of Public Affairs hit-list of public policy disasters, we will continue to support public broadcasters in this country.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Ludlam be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:02]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
PRISM
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (16:04): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) revelations that the PRISM program has been used by the United States of America's National Security Agency to conduct warrantless real time surveillance via the servers of nine companies, including Apple, Microsoft, Google and Facebook,
(ii) recent reports suggesting that Australian agencies are receiving information through the PRISM program to access emails, audio and video chats, photographs, documents, connection logs and location data of Australians, and
(iii) that strong concerns have been expressed by the United Kingdom's Intelligence and Security Committee, Canada's Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, and the German Minister of Justice, Sabine Leutheusser Schnarrenberger; and
(b) calls on the Attorney General (Mr Dreyfus) to table in Parliament a ministerial statement of explanation before Thursday, 20 June 2013 on the vulnerability of Australian legislated privacy protections and government information to PRISM.
I seek leave to make a brief statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator LUDLAM: I am happy to be contradicted by the whips, but I understand that neither the government nor the opposition will be supporting this motion, so I just want to indicate what it does. It does not actually require the government to do anything, apart from requiring the Attorney-General to make a statement to the Australian people about the degree to which Australia is implicated in the PRISM surveillance scandal that has blown up in the United States. I call on senators as strongly as I possibly can to let this motion go through so that, at the very least, we have a statement from the Attorney-General as to what is actually happening. He can choose to read in the same kind of verbal anaesthetic that we got from Senator Ludwig yesterday if he wants, but, at the very least, it is essential that as senators we hold this government to account to make a statement and put it on the public record, as is happening in parliaments, assemblies and congresses right around the world. It is not enough to pretend that this is simply going to go away.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Moore ): The question is that the motion moved by Senator Ludlam be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:07]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Moore)
NOTICES
Postponement
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (16:10): I move:
The government business notice of motion no. 3 standing in my name, relating to the consideration of legislation be postponed to the next day of sitting
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Consideration of Legislation
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (16:10): I seek leave to move:
That further consideration of the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill 2013 be an order of the day for the first day of sitting after the government provides for equal funding for both the yes and the no case, to ensure that the Australian community is properly informed about the arguments for and against the proposed change to the Constitution.
Leave not granted.
Senator ABETZ: Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the consideration of the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013.
There is no more important debate for this country than a change to its fundamental document, the Constitution. It is absolutely appropriate that any discussion of matters constitutional be dealt with on a fair and equitable basis, as has always occurred in Australia. The prime example of that is when we had Prime Minister Howard—an ardent constitutional monarchist—saying that in deciding whether or not Australia should become a republic there should be equal funding to the constitutional monarchists and the republicans.
In relation to the local government issue the coalition have always proceeded on the basis of bipartisanship, with the hope that there would be an equality of treatment for the yes and no cases. What we now have is a government sneaking a proposal through to ensure that the yes case gets 20 times the funding of the no case. That is not fair. That is not transparent. That is not the way that we do business in Australia.
That is why we, as a coalition, are most concerned to ensure that before this matter proceeds further we have the opportunity of ensuring equality of funding for the yes and no cases. This is so typical of this government. They see an outcome that they want. What do they do? They throw buckets of money at it—$10 million worth—and say that the no case is worthy of only $500,000. That is a factor of 20 to one.
Any sense of decency or fairness would surely motivate somebody to say that both sides should be equally funded. That is what we in the coalition believe. It is the integrity of the referendum process that is ultimately even more important than the question itself. We want to ensure that the Australian people are properly informed in relation to these matters, and that the government does not buy—with taxpayers' money—a victory in a referendum. So the coalition say that, above all things, the principles here are vitally more important than the consideration of the actual question.
Never before has this occurred. What is even worse is that this government, without any consultation with the opposition said, 'We will declare the funding on the basis of how many people voted no and yes in the House of Representatives.
What about the Senate? I thought we were in a bicameral system of parliament. And any senator who is worthy of their stipend as a senator must surely vote against a proposal put forward by Mr Albanese and Ms Gillard saying that the Senate does not count when it comes to constitutional change. Of course the Senate must count, otherwise you are abrogating your responsibilities as senators in this place.
It will be very interesting to see how our friends in the Australian Greens vote on this particular proposition, because they are the ones who I understand now are trying to adopt the Australian Democrats' slogan of keeping certain people honest. Well, this is a good example—the first test for them to live up to their own challenge of keeping certain people honest, namely, the Australian Labor Party government—of keeping them honest to ensure that there is equality, there is transparency and there is fairness in the issue of equality of funding for a referendum proposal and, more importantly, the role of the Australian Senate in determining constitutional issues.
The coalition comes to the Senate arguing cohesively, on principle—on all the principles that we can muster—to ensure that equality in this debate is assured for the Australian people and that the government and others do not buy a result based on throwing taxpayers' money at it.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (16:16): The government will be opposing this suspension motion, and there are several reasons for that.
Senator Brandis: A disgraceful act of bad faith.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Firstly, what was completely disgraceful was the way in which the opposition attempted to progress this matter. For all the whinging from Senator Fifield this morning, there was no notice given at all that you wanted to seek leave to progress this matter—none at all. That is the first main reason we will be opposing the suspension and indeed why we oppose leave. Senator Abetz, Senator Brandis and Senator Fifield are all well aware of the appropriate conduct in a matter such as this. You came before the Senate with no notice and read a motion which you sought leave to move, which was deliberately designed to be opposed. So, for those that carry on and talk about stunts and high jinks, here is the best example.
I look forward to an opportunity—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Moore ): If you would cease yelling across the chamber we would be able to hear the argument. Senator Collins.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. As I was saying, I look forward to an opportunity to differentiate fact from fiction here. I have very little confidence in this opposition presenting before us, in a clear and proper way, the facts of this matter. Too often, as we see in question time and as we see in other debates, the hype and hyperbole is what is presented in this chamber.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Yes, hyperbole.
Senator Brandis interjecting—
Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Oh, thank you, Senator Brandis, because you expose yourself completely every time.
An opposition senator: You wouldn't answer this question in a debate in this chamber.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I answered this question in the debate, but, as I said, I look forward to an opportunity to differentiate the fact from the fiction here.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senators on the left side would remember that Senator Abetz was heard in silence.
An opposition senator: Relative silence.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Absolutely relative silence. Senator Collins.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Thank you, and Senator Brandis might like to stop screeching. Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to address the points in this matter in a more appropriate way.
Senator Brandis: You are so decorous.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Should I acknowledge that interjection as well?
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I wouldn't, Senator Collins.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Senator Abetz—sorry, Senator Brandis; I apologise, Senator Abetz, because you do not conduct yourself in this way. Senator Brandis does not seem to understand that the nature of the interjections that he is shrieking and his carrying on do him no service at all. You only need to look at the faces of his colleagues when he carries on this way. Fortunately, because of where I sit in the chamber, I do not often see his face and his carry-on, but now as I stand it is pretty obvious that he understands, as does Senator Abetz, that this clearly is a stunt.
I look forward to looking at the merits of this situation. Senator Abetz is obviously excited about a matter. But, if you were serious, you would have consulted us before bringing this on. I understand Senator Brandis and Senator Abetz were all very excited. They trotted into the chamber and it was very obvious that a stunt was coming, and here it is and it is presented in this way. Next time, give notice if you wish to seek leave. It is as clear as that. Give notice if you wish to seek leave. Until you act accordingly, yes, we will oppose a suspension of this character.
I look forward, with an opportunity of time and facts, to clearly assess what has been asserted here. But, for the moment, unfortunately, this opposition has form—very clear form—of coming into this place with inaccuracies and fiction. Until I can see the facts of this matter, I certainly will not be agreeing to completely circumvent the Senate program for the day.
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (16:21): I rise to second the motion.
Senator Jacinta Collins: You don't second motions, you goose!
Senator BRANDIS: Madam Acting Deputy President—
A government senator interjecting—
Senator BRANDIS: Madam Acting Deputy President, will you impose the same standards on the government as you imposed on the opposition?
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I always do, Senator Brandis. Continue your statement.
Senator BRANDIS: The opposition’s position in relation to this referendum has been transparent from the start. Our position has been, after very difficult discussions, I might say, inside the Liberal Party, that we would not oppose the putting of this referendum question to the people. We see that, following the Pape case and the Williams case, there are issues about grants to local government which do require to be addressed by constitutional amendment, and it has always been our position—even though some of my colleagues have a different view, in good faith—that we would not stand in the way of this referendum proposal being passed through the parliament. However, that was always on the footing—and the discussions between the office of the Prime Minister and the office of the Leader of the Opposition have always been conducted on this basis—that there would be equal funding for the yes case and the no case so that the Australian people would have the opportunity to make up their minds on the basis of a full expression of the yes case and a full expression of the no case. It was on that basis, on the basis of those assurances, that the opposition, in the House of Representatives, did not oppose these referendum bills. After they had been passed through the House of Representatives, after the issue of funding for the yes case and the no case had been explored in Senate estimates and the opposition had been led to believe by the government that there was not a problem here, yesterday, for the first time, the government, through Mr Albanese, the minister with carriage of this, announced that the yes case would be funded to the tune of $10 million and the no case would be funded to the tune of half a million dollars.
An opposition senator: It's appalling!
Senator BRANDIS: That is the most appalling breach of faith with an opposition which was prepared, and had indicated to the government that it was prepared, to allow the passage of these bills through the parliament on the basis that the yes and no cases both had equal funding.
Senator Cormann interjecting—
Senator BRANDIS: You are right, Senator Cormann. You cannot trust these people. You cannot trust the Labor Party. Senator Collins says there was no notice of this suspension motion. That might be so, but nor was there any notice to the opposition of the trick that Mr Albanese tried to execute yesterday. It has always been the constitutional practice that the yes case and the no case at a referendum have been funded equally, regardless of the vote for or against the referendum bills in the parliament. Senator Abetz referred to the republic plebiscite, but let me give you an example of the most recent referendum where that occurred—the 1977 referendum, during the Fraser government, for simultaneous elections of the Senate and the House of Representatives. That was defeated. It had bipartisan support. It was proposed by the government and supported by the Labor Party in the House of Representatives. It was carried in the Senate with bipartisan support, but a small group of backbench Liberal senators—some of them I note, Senator Cormann, were Western Australians—
Senator Abetz: And Tasmanian.
Senator BRANDIS: and Senator Abetz reminds me at least one of them was a Tasmanian; there were about half a dozen of them—crossed the floor, against the position of their party, to vote no. And in that referendum, because there was a division of opinion in the parliament, the yes case and the no case were funded equally. That is the relevant constitutional precedent that establishes the constitutional practice. But, yesterday, dishonestly, in a most disingenuous way, Mr Albanese, on behalf of the government, said that, because most members of the House of Representatives voted yes and only a couple of opposition members voted no, the funding would be split in a 20 to one ratio. That is inconsistent with the assurances given to the opposition by the government and inconsistent with constitutional practice. It is a disgrace.
Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:26): The proposition before the Senate is that we suspend the standing orders so that a matter that Senator Abetz wishes to debate with regard to the local government referendum can be brought on ahead of all other government business. There are a number of bills before this parliament that we need to get through before we leave here for the winter. We were dealing with the EPBC Amendment Bill and dealing with a filibuster that the coalition set up and have to have talked out. They continue to talk it out so that they are not forced to go to a vote. They will eventually be forced to go to the vote, but there has been a filibuster on, so it is an absolute cheek to come in here after setting up a filibuster on one bill and then want everything else suspended to deal with this matter. This matter should be dealt with when we debate the referendum bill, which was on the Notice Paper for today. If we had not had the filibuster on the EPBC Amendment Bill, we would have been onto the local government bill and had this debate in the context of the debate on that referendum bill.
The Local Government Association are holding their national conference here in Canberra at the moment. They want this matter taken seriously and they do not want it being played with in a political sense. It is quite obvious from what Senator Brandis has just said that the coalition have no intention of supporting the yes case. All they have agreed is that they will not oppose the question being put. In other words, they will not oppose a referendum being held.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ): Order!
Senator MILNE: As I was saying, they will not oppose the question being put, but they have not indicated whether they would support the yes or no case. It is fairly obvious that that is the case. However, that is not the point. The point here is: should we suspend standing orders to debate—
Opposition senators interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order!
Senator MILNE: We are here to debate whether Senator Abetz's proposition should take precedence over all other business, when the second item on the Notice Paper for today was the second reading debate on the Constitution Alteration (Local Government), during which he could have raised these matters if the coalition had not set up a filibuster on the EPBC Amendment Bill. That is why we are not going to support this. We will deal with these issues when we get to debate the local government referendum bill, which is the context in which we ought to deal with them.
I note with interest the outrage from Senator Brandis that the backroom deal that they had obviously done with the government on this matter has fallen to bits. I wonder if he got a letter that he could perhaps brandish to show how the agreement that was signed was so badly ratted upon, as occurred to the government only a few weeks ago. So I find it fascinating that there is such high dudgeon in relation to breached agreements when that is what happened over the last couple of weeks.
The Greens point of view is that we should continue with the bills which were agreed. We should have been onto the local government bills, but we have three other bills to deal with tonight. We shall deal with them and then deal with these matters when we get to the local government referendum bill.
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (16:29): This government's true north is bad process. Unerringly, that is where this government heads every single time—whether it is bad process by design, as in the case of a carbon tax; whether it is bad process through sheer incompetence, as in the case of the mining tax; or whether it is bad process as a cover to rig an outcome, as we are seeing with the referendum. There should be only one threshold requirement for equal funding being provided to a yes case and a no case: that there are two sides to the argument, that there are two options for voting—yes or no. That is the only threshold which should need to be passed in order for there to be equal funding for both cases in a referendum campaign.
Amongst all parliamentarians, there is—or so I had thought—a sense that there is something bordering on sacred when it comes to the Australian Constitution. Similarly, up until now I had thought that all parliamentarians, regardless of which side of politics they come from, would approach any change to the Constitution with great sobriety, with great sincerity and with great solemnity—because the Constitution is the overarching legal framework within which our system of government operates. I had thought, no matter which side of a proposed change to the Constitution a senator or member was on, that that was something all parliamentarians would agree upon—that it was a serious business, that we should approach it in that fashion and that we should support the yes case and the no case being equally put.
A fundamental part of a yes case and a no case being equally put is equal resourcing. You cannot have equality in the public presentation of the yes case and the no case when only one side is substantially funded. There is only one conclusion you can draw when the government of the day seeks to provide significant resources to put one side of the argument and minimal resources to put the other side—and that is that the government of the day wants to rig or skew the outcome.
We have no issue at all with the government of the day arguing vigorously for a particular position. That is not what is in question here. What is in question here is the complete and absolute abrogation of what has been a cross-party, bipartisan Australian convention—that, when any proposition to change the Australian Constitution is put forward, both sides are presented equally and fairly and funded accordingly. Mr Albanese has come up with this bizarre new concept—that the resources allocated to the various sides of the argument should be dependent upon the number of people who vote a particular way in the Australian parliament. In fact it is not even the number of people who vote a particular way in the Australian parliament; it is just those in the House of Representatives. Even if the voting patterns of both chambers were looked at, however, it is still a bizarre new threshold that Mr Albanese has set. The only conclusion to draw is that the government are worried about their ability to mount the case for their preferred outcome.
There are different views about the referendum among people on this side of the chamber, but I think there is one thing which unites everyone on this side of the chamber, regardless of whether they see a need to change the Constitution or not. The one thing which unites everyone on this side of the chamber is the desire to see the Australian people fully informed so that any referendum gives a fair and accurate reflection of their views. That is the only thing which Mr Albanese should take into account with this proposition. For those reasons, further consideration of the legislation should be deferred until this issue is resolved. (Time expired)
Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery) (16:35): I had hoped that we could get through these two weeks, deal with the legislative agenda and not have the Liberals come down here and hijack the chamber. It appears that they want to continue to oppose a sensible amendment to the Constitution to give local government recognition. That is what they are on about and that is what they are here to argue. Bizarrely, the way they have decided to prosecute their case is by preventing the chamber from getting onto the local government referendum bill. Instead, they are arguing for a suspension so they can debate the issue—when all they had to do was wait 10 minutes and they could have had the debate they say they want to have.
Apart from all that, they could have raised it between leaders or they could have raised it in a range of other ways. But instead they turn up in this chamber, try to up-end it with a stunt and then argue that they are being the rational Liberals that they are not. That is rejected. It is bizarre in the extreme, when you look at the actions of the Liberals. They are all over the place on this issue, like a dropped pie.
When you look at the issues currently before us, fact 1 is that constitutional recognition had bipartisan support, or so I thought, at the federal level. I am now starting to doubt that, quite frankly. The government supports constitutional recognition of local government; the coalition, I thought, supported it; and the minor parties and the crossbenchers support it. The vote earlier this month was almost unanimous. Only two members of the House of Representatives voted against this proposal. Fact 2—
Senator Brandis interjecting—
Senator LUDWIG: is that local government will continue to be the responsibility of state governments—
Senator Brandis interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ): Order! Senator Brandis, I remind you that you are not in your seat. Interjecting is disorderly in any case, but it is more disorderly when you are not in your seat.
Senator Brandis interjecting—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, I can hear you.
Senator LUDWIG: If that were only true, Acting Deputy President Marshall. Fact 3 is that the referendum campaign funding is proportionate. The amount of funding to be provided for each case will reflect the proportion of members that voted for and against the Constitutional Alteration (Local Government) 2013 amendment bill. The government will offer, as we have said, up to $500,000 to proponents of the no case—
Opposition senators interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Ludwig, please resume your seat for a minute. I have been trying to bring—
Senator Cormann: Your government is an absolute disgrace.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann, I have been trying to bring senators to order, and people continue to interject. It is disorderly, and I would ask senators to remain silent.
Senator LUDWIG: The two members who voted against the bill have been asked to determine the distribution of this funding. The government will provide $10 million to the Australian Local Government Association for the yes campaign. That is the way that we will proceed with this referendum.
What we are seeing now is a rearguard action from the rump who are opposed to recognition for local government in our Constitution. That is what this is all about. That is why those opposite are here. That is why they are running down to the chamber, whispering little secrets about how they are going to surprise us when they arrive here, jumping out of the box and saying, 'We want to suspend the Senate, up-end the Senate.' They then want to have a debate about the suspension, not about the substantive issues.
Senator Abetz interjecting—
Senator LUDWIG: Of course, Senator Abetz is the lead proponent of the stunts in this place. He has decided he will be the one to run down with his loyal servant, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate—just like Dick Dastardly and his companion, Muttley—to argue a particular case. This is not a debate that should be held now. It is a debate that can be dealt with properly and appropriately when the bill comes on. The bill is on the Notice Paper, but instead we are going to have to have this suspension debate. And we will vote against it, because not only is the motion substantively inaccurate but also the Senate has important work to deal with this week and we should not be wasting our time on stunts. (Time expired)
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! The time for this debate has now expired. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Abetz be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:45]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
COMMITTEES
Membership
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ) (16:48): Order! The President has received letters from party leaders requesting changes in the membership of various committees.
Senator THISTLETHWAITE (New South Wales—Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs and Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs) (16:48): by leave—I move:
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
DisabilityCare Australia––Joint Select Committee––
Appointed––Senators Lines, Urquhart, Siewert and Stephens
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee––
Appointed––
Substitute member: Senator Wright to replace Senator Rhiannon for the committee’s inquiry into the provisions of the Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
Participating member: Senator Rhiannon.
Question agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Planning for the ANZAC Centenary
Progress of the National Road Strategy 2011-20
Senator THISTLETHWAITE (New South Wales—Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs and Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs) (16:48): I present two ministerial statements relating to the Planning for the ANZAC Centenary and Progress of the National Road Strategy 2011-20.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Report Nos 46 and 47 of 2012-13
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ) (16:48): In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the following reports of the Auditor-General:
No. 46—Performance audit—Compensating F-111 fuel tank workers: Department of Veterans’ Affairs; Department of Defence.
No. 47—Performance audit—AUSTRAC’s administration of its financial intelligence function: Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC).
PARLIAMENTARY ZONE
Proposal for Works
Senator THISTLETHWAITE (New South Wales—Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs and Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs) (16:49): In accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Act 1974, I present a proposal for works within the Parliamentary Zone relating to the installation of pay parking infrastructure and the relocation of the Torsional Wave outdoor exhibit. I seek leave to give a notice of motion in relation to the proposal.
Leave granted.
Senator THISTLETHWAITE: I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:
That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposals by the National Capital Authority for capital works within the Parliamentary Zone:
(a) the installation of pay parking infrastructure; and
(b) the relocation of the Torsional Wave outdoor exhibit.
COMMITTEES
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Report
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (16:50): On behalf of the Chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Senator Cameron, I present the report of the committee on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Material of Local Significance) Bill 2013 and the delivery of news coverage in rural and regional areas by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia) (16:50): I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.
Leave granted.
Senator RUSTON: I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I particularly wanted to speak on this Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee report given that the reason that Senator Xenophon decided to move the bill that this report refers to, the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Material of Local Significance) Bill 2013, was that regional news services were being withdrawn from the area in which I live. WIN TV, the television broadcaster in the Riverland and the Mount Gambia area in South Australia, made a decision, very tragically, a few months ago that they were no longer in a position to be able to provide a news service. Only a matter of a few months prior to that, they had made a decision that they could afford only one news service—which actually combined both areas—and, subsequent to that, was their decision that they could no longer afford to do any news service at all.
Senator Xenophon's response, obviously, was out of concern for the people of that area and the lack of news service. But the main concern the coalition had with the bill related to the fact that, when WIN TV negotiated the deal to enable it to be the broadcaster in this area, no such requirements were placed on them. There was never any intention that a commercial operator should cross-subsidise and operate at a loss to enable the people of this area to receive their news services. We were concerned that a bill was being introduced which would suggest that in a retrospective way the WIN Television network were going to be required to provide a news service that was of significant cost to them when obviously they had made the decision that they were not commercially able to do so.
I draw this to the Senate's attention in the context of what is happening in this region. Because of a whole heap of reasons, the economic environment in this area of South Australia—I am sure this is the case across a lot of rural and regional Australia—cannot provide the money to support these kinds of activities. WIN TV had to make a decision on the basis of a huge reduction in the amount of commercial revenue that they were receiving for advertising, and they were in a position where they would have been losing money if they continued to plough into their new service the kind of money they had been spending. That is obviously very disappointing for the people of the Mt Gambier area and the people of the Riverland but, once again, it is not the place of a commercial broadcaster to be cross-subsidising its operations and providing an uneconomic service.
The retrospective nature of this measure was disappointing, hence the report from the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee indicating that we are not in support of this bill. It does not seem fair, when you have made a decision in possession of all the facts, that the facts can be changed after the event. We have seen that happen way too often, where businesses enter into an agreement in good faith, on the basis of a government policy, and then the situation changes. The decision about the Abel Tasman, which is tied up at Port Lincoln, is a classic example. I am pleased that the recommendation is not to support the requirement for WIN TV to provide a new service.
I also put this in the context of the changing media landscape that we find ourselves in at the moment. The way that we find information from new services is changing very significantly and at an extraordinarily rapid rate. You only have to look at the emergence of online activity. These days most of us have read the newspaper before we get out of bed in the morning. The obligation and responsibility to ensure that people in the country have the same sorts of facilities as their colleagues in the cities is highlighted by the likes of the requirement for Australia Post to collect and deliver letters anywhere in Australia at a standard rate. We are expecting the same thing with our telecommunication providers—that people in the country are able to access the same sorts of services as their colleagues who live in the city. However, we have noted that there are still an awful lot of people who are living in rural and regional areas, particularly remote areas, who still do not have the same sort of telecommunication access as their colleagues in the city.
The ABC is the national broadcaster. The ABC is the media outlet that is charged with the responsibility of ensuring there is some level of equity with the delivery of news services and regional content to people who live in places that are not necessarily highly populated or where it is not easily commercially viable to provide such services. I congratulate the ABC for the response it took to this issue in our area. The ABC immediately responded to the withdrawal of these news services by acting to employ video journalists through its radio stations in the area. My understanding from speaking to the local ABC radio business in the Riverland only last week is that a video journalist has been appointed and will start working out of the Renmark office very shortly, and the same thing will occur in Mt Gambier.
Whilst it is the responsibility of the ABC to undertake the delivery of uneconomic news services to those of us who live in areas where it is not commercially viable to have those services, it was with great delight that we saw that it responded so quickly to the problem. I would like to thank the ABC for that and I also note that I was delighted that the recommendation of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee was to oppose the bill on the grounds of the retrospective nature of a requirement to provide a news service where it was not commercially viable to do so and that requirement had not existed at the time of negotiating the contract.
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (16:58): I provided a dissenting report on this inquiry of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Material of Local Significance) Bill was my bill, and the bill was introduced because WIN TV in South Australia withdrew its local news bulletins. They said that was for commercial reasons but it is interesting to note that under the Broadcasting Services Act there is a requirement in the eastern states, from Far North Queensland all the way down to Tasmania, for regional broadcasters to have local content. That is an anomaly that this bill would have addressed.
The impact of losing those regional services, those news bulletins, in the Riverland and in the south-east of South Australia was quite profound. For those reasons this is a matter that still needs legislative reform. I have had discussions with Bruce Gordon, the owner of WIN TV—they were very cordial and fruitful discussions—and with Andrew Lancaster, the CEO of WIN TV. I hope they can reconsider their position so that those local news bulletins in the south-east and in the Riverland can be restored at some time in the future because of the important role those services have had in those local communities. I am pleased, as is Senator Ruston, that the ABC has filled some of the gap—but it is still not the same as those local communities in South Australia having their own local half-hour news bulletins.
Question agreed to.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (16:59): Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the visitors gallery of the former senator for Western Australia, Ruth Webber. On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Valedictory
The PRESIDENT (17:00): Pursuant to the order of the Senate that was agreed to today, the Senate will now move to valedictory statements.
Senator CROSSIN (Northern Territory) (17:00): In June 15 years ago, I stood in this chamber and gave my first speech. I have checked today to make sure that Senator Vanstone is not about! So, hopefully, I will get this one finished! Back then, I was stopped at the 20-minute mark exactly. You might recall that, Senator Faulkner. History will show how that was resolved. I also got a note passed me in those fleeting seconds, which seemed like hours, from former senator Stott Despoja. It said, 'You've pissed off Amanda. You're my hero.' It helped me come to the realisation that colleagues in this place do not always come from your own party, and so started my journey in this place.
I am the first woman to be elected to the federal parliament from the Northern Territory and the first woman to be elected to the Senate from the Northern Territory. In my first speech, I was the first person to speak in Indigenous language in this chamber. Now, as of last November, I am the longest-serving senator from the Northern Territory. So, Nige, you might get to beat my record after all, mate!
I have sat in this chamber, in these seats, for 873 days out of the last 15 years, so far. I have attended at least 2,470 divisions and I have spent in excess of—wait for it—3,500 hours of my life with Qantas, flying to and from sittings here. Sometimes, I thought I saw more Qantas stewards than my own family. Being elected to the federal parliament is an amazing experience. Coming into the Senate provides you with a unique opportunity to be part of one of the best democracies in the world.
I am here, of course, to say thanks to the Labor Party members of the Territory, who have supported me five times during the pre-selection process over those years. I will talk about the sixth time in a few minutes. I want to thank the voters in the Territory for having the confidence in my ability to represent them here in Canberra. I hope Hansard are recording this infamous cough, by the way!
Let me start by thanking my husband, Mark. He is my best friend, a great support and a solid rock. Leaving you at home with four children—the youngest was two at the time—was a big ask. Your work and guidance, at times pretty critical, was welcomed. The challenges that we faced together during this time were invaluable. To Paul, my eldest, thank God I taught you to cook. There is no time to tell the spaghetti story here tonight, but thanks for helping out. Thanks for being there in many different ways during those years and being a good support. Mel grew from a teenager to a forthright, confident, professional young woman. Mandy, a great campaigner and political strategist, is now a competent union official. She declared, 20 minutes after the polls closed in 2007, 'It's a Rudd-slide.' That was the banner that was used in the local newspaper the next day. Miss Kate was only two years old when I first stood here in this chamber and rode Teletubbie scooters outside the President's office and slid around on polished wooden floors at the opening of parliament. She wondered at how we counted a division, when everybody in here has eyes and noses. Annabel Crabbonce described her as a 'serious insect'. You are a confident and smart young women who now has the world at her feet.
So, during this time we have had two weddings and four wonderful grandchildren. Mr Lachlan Simpson thought I had the coolest office in the world, because it was underground, so I must obviously work with Batman. Ms Jade Simpson loved all the moons hanging from the roof—of course, those are the clocks. Mr Seth Reed is my champion, and now there is little Kobe—who is here today—at only 11 weeks old. My sons-in-law, Ben and Greg, who do not care about politics at all, quite frankly, sat around our table each week just putting up with it. To my sister, Ann, and my brother-in-law, Peter: wow, thanks for being here today. What a surprise. Thanks for your support.
To my mum, finally: hi, Mum! I am going to wave to you. Through all those years you have watched question time and you have said to me, 'How come you never get to wave to me?' This is my big chance. Thanks for your collection of Amanda Vanstone comics, the articles you sent me about her and the political discussions we have had over the years. To my unbelievably supportive friends, my kitchen cabinet: Sue Murphy, Gillian Harrison and Anne Lindhe. I cannot find the words to thank you enough.
To my comrades in the trade union movement, especially in the NTEU, where I learnt so many of my skills to do this job: thank you so much. To my colleagues in the Senate—Kim, Claire, Gavin, Carol, Doug, Ursula and both Annes—and those in the other place—Anthony Albanese, Simon Crean, Robert McClelland and Kevin Rudd—thanks for your guidance and support. To those of you from other political parties across this chamber, thanks for your friendship and especially your support in the last few months.
My staff over the years included Cate Lynch; Peter Carmichael; Chris Hallet, who is here today; John Prior; Lesley, who is also here; Kimberley; and Mathew Bock is here—what a champion. Golden Noble-Harris is here as well, as are many others. Thanks for your work and advice. It seems so quick to say, 'Thank you,' but your work was always appreciated.
My thanks to Carla and Amanda for many years of supportive work with joyful team spirit, from pushing planes to dealing with donkeys at polling booths and endless weeks of mobile polling. My very special acknowledgement goes to Alison for being not just my right-hand person but the person that my family life relied on so much. We have worked together for 23 years, not 15. How can I ever repay you for what you have done, for being there, for your wisdom and your guidance anytime—two o'clock in the afternoon, 10 o'clock at night and all the time? Thanks to Rosemary Brissendon—who I hope is listening and I know that Michael is here—for your friendship and for housing me for years, and to the Murphys for the roof over my head.
To the Clerks of the Senate, Dr Laing, Harry Evans, Cleaver Elliott, our dear friend Anne Lynch and the many other Senate staff—what an outstanding operation. To my Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs team, how lucky was I to get to chair such an intelligent, professional group of people to work with. Thank you for absolutely everything that you have done. To all the other committee staff I have come to know and have worked with—even those who have retired, John Carter and Peter Hallahan—thank you so much. To the chamber staff, you make life in here seamless and easy: thank you. To Hansard, Broadcasting, Parliamentary Services, men and women in the security office, the Parliamentary Education Office—too many to name each and every one of you, but all highly skilled and providing a first-class service. The Parliamentary Library, the best collection of this country's smartest minds—and I do not mean just the books but the people in it. Your knowledge and ability to assist in this place is a great asset and should always be well funded and independent.
To everyone in Comcar, you are truly our best mates, ever reliable and friendly. Thank you for caring about us personally; some weeks you are the only ones who do. To Tim and previously Kate in the dining room, thanks for looking after my guests and me over the years. Finally, to Dom and the team in Aussies, this might be the one very year, after 15 years, that I get to collect on our bet—he is a Carlton supporter and I am Essendon. I will not be there to see the sad look on his little Carlton face to take his $50 this year; he had better post it to me!
I clearly remember my first speech: 19 May this year marks 15 years since senior traditional owner Yvonne Margarula was arrested on her land for trespass, her own country at Jabiluka. It is now time to return this parcel of land to the World Heritage Park and amend the mining lease. This would be the true meaning of Closing the Gap and recognising that the mining world respects the wishes of these traditional owners and will leave that land alone for all time.
To my constituents in Katherine, you experienced one of the worst floods in recent times back in 1998 and again just a few years ago. I admire your resilience and sense of community that continues in the face of adversity. I will desperately miss the wonderful communities of Christmas Island and Cocos Islands. I recognise the representatives from Christmas Island here today. I know I have made lifelong friends in these places. I have sat on the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories for 15 years, and I have proudly represented your issues here in Canberra; protecting booby birds, red migrating crabs and robber crabs, to recognising the unique and difficult circumstances of having the country's most intimidating detention centre on your soil. While your communities share a friendship and acceptance for one another, you deserve much more support for the complex issues that continue on your beautiful home and wonderful tourist destination.
Cocos Islands need a permanent recreation centre and a decent cyclone shelter now that these islands house so many people asking for refuge. On Christmas Island there are many volunteers who are yet to receive the recognition from this country that they deserve for the role they played on that tragic days two years ago.
I have co-authored a book on the stolen generations to be used during the 2000 Olympics. As you know, I continue to lobby for compensation for members of the NT stolen generation. If we can find $21 million to fund the movie 20,000 Leagues under the Sea, surely—what more can I say? It leaves me speechless. I have supported the NT Working Women's Centre and recently gained four years funding for its operation.
In estimates nearly nine years ago I asked rather naively: how many people in this country have trachoma? The answer was: we do not know. This led to another long story. Finally, in 2009, thanks to you, Kevin, $17 million for the eradication of trachoma. I am thrilled to see that further funding for this important program was provided in the budget this year. The titles of five heritage houses at Myilly Point are now under the National Trust. I have campaigned against the abolition of bilingual education and mandatory sentencing. I have managed to get a community consultative committee established with the increased presence of refugees being detained in Darwin, and I have secured a Northern Territory representative on Minister for Immigration and Citizenship's advisory committees.
But my memories of this place go back to being an active member of the Parliamentary Group on Population and Development, lobbying for improvements in the reproductive rights of women, being actively involved in stem cell research legislation and access to RU486. Former senator Webber is here and will remember that well. I remember establishing the asthma parliamentary support group and lobbying for the building of the childcare centre in Parliament House—and it is here. Loads and loads of stories about that journey, but the excuse that the division bells would wake the babies really got me going that day. There was getting the Opposition Whip their own entrance—so, Senator Bushby, you can thank me for your own door.
The work in the Senate committees I truly enjoyed and I will fondly remember questions on Indigenous hearing and sight, fighting Senator Carr for just one hour for Indigenous education in estimates, the rights of donor conceived people and the endless matters relating to migration law and refugees. It would seem from the selection of committee reports today that that has not quite stopped yet.
Four years ago I initiated the review of the Sex Discrimination Act which led to some major amendments to this legislation. I initiated and tabled the Marriage Equality Bill in the Senate last year. As a country, we need to step up to the plate and recognise that people love each regardless of the sex of their partner and they want to be with that person for the rest of their life. So, let's get over it and let's just do it. Last December I was appointed chair of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition for Indigenous People. The highlights of my time include: being part of the ALP gaining government in the Northern Territory in 2001 and, of course, winning the federal election in 2007; meeting Barack Obama; representing this parliament overseas; visiting the Antarctic; and chairing the Indonesian Parliamentary Friendship Group.
The Labor Party was formed 120 years ago to improve the lives of ordinary workers, to build this nation and to give us a fair share in a growing economy. Our platform talks about opportunity, responsibility and fairness. We have always been the champions of change but were always the defenders of rank and file involvement in developing our policies and choosing who will represent us at all levels of government.
I cannot give my valedictory speech and not mention the final steps in my journey. Do we need more women in parliament? Of course we do, but not at the expense of each other. Do we need Indigenous representation? Most certainly we do, but not in a vacuum without a plan or without a strategy. Just because one person says it must be so does not make it right or democratic. The review of the 2010 federal election recommended that intervention in party preselection by the national executive should only occur as a last resort, rather than as a first resort, and only in exceptional circumstances. There are many wonderful Indigenous members of the party in the Northern Territory who have now been denied the chance to replace me. This is grossly unfair. It is undemocratic and it is not the Labor way.
To those members of the national executive and those who are sitting right now in this chamber, I hope you have thought long and hard about what the party will do in the future to make sure that this is not unique and that this is not a one-off pick. What is lacking is an effective and active Indigenous network. We need to see that engagement through fair and democratic processes are now driven by you and those at the national level. The party must learn from this and must look to the future and engage with Indigenous members of the party seriously and genuinely to make systemic changes. In the aftermath of this preselection intervention, the Northern Territory branch should be given a seat at the national executive, because we are currently not at that table. The members of the party in the Northern Territory deserve at least some recognition for the way the branch has been treated, and the party should now commit to ensuring that all states and territories are part of this peak decision-making body.
Finally I must say something about the worst day of my Senate career, which in fact was not in January this year but the announcement of the Northern Territory intervention. To move into people's lives and communities in this way left me speechless and helpless. The people that I had lived and worked with were humiliated and shamed. They were left to wonder why and how it had come to this. Then, when we won government, they lobbied me continually to make changes faster than we did and to recognise that support and assistance was needed. The final report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody says:
If there is one lesson we can learn from history, it is that solutions imposed from the outside will only create their own problems.
Isn't that so? Just have a look at the last five years.
The issue of giving back to Aboriginal people the power to control their own lives is therefore central to any strategies which are designed to address these underlying issues.
Warren Mundine is right in his view that commercial development and economic solutions are the only chance for Indigenous communities to escape poverty. The rights based agenda does need to be set aside and government engagement officers replaced with strategic economists and business developers; incentives need to be given to businesses to get out into remote communities and set up there; the land rights act needs to be reviewed and modernised. It is time to stop treating Indigenous affairs from a welfare point of view and grow and develop the industries that they are competent in.
Finally I want to pay my respects to Dr Yunupingu and his family. We taught together at Yirrkala and shared many moments. I hope to have more to say about that next week. I offer my deepest sympathies to Gurruwun, his wife, and those who are mourning his loss.
Let me finish by saying in Gumatj: Gumatjkurru wangakurru Gumatj. Bitjan ngarra yurru buku-gurrpan Yolngu-yulngunha. Now I would like to thank the Yolngu people: Bili walala mirrithirri gunga'yun ga marnggigurrupar ngarranha—because they have really helped me and taught me. Ngathili ngarra ganangumirringu—because when I got there I was full of my own white culture. Dhiyangu bala lundumirri—now I have plenty of Yolngu friends. Bilina. That is all I want to say. Let me leave by saying to you all—and Nige will get this: Nah, you mob, Djut Djutna.
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (17:22): I thank you, Trish, for that contribution. It was moving. Trish, you are leaving on exactly the same terms on which you arrived. You joined the Senate in June 1998, representing the Northern Territory. As you mentioned, you were re-elected in five subsequent general elections. You joined the Senate with a background in work in education in the community on the Gove Peninsula and as an active union member.
Over the years, Trish has extended her connections with Indigenous communities and presented their perspective and expertise in this chamber as uniquely as she just has again. This has brought an invaluable understanding to discussions on how legislation will operate on the ground and this has been particularly important for her work in committees.
The area that comes to my mind—and, Trish, you touched on this a number of times already—is your work on the Northern Territory intervention, on the various committees monitoring and reviewing the effectiveness of the intervention. It has been extensive and highly valued over many years. In many respects, there is no more complex domestic issue for the government, and your input and the specialised knowledge that you have brought to those hearings and committee reports could not have made your family and your community prouder. I take this opportunity to say that your contribution has been greatly appreciated and your dedication to improving the lives of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory is widely acknowledged.
In the last few years you have also chaired the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, and your work here again has been thorough, thoughtful and invaluable. Just to mention one recent inquiry conducted by this committee, the review of the human rights and anti-discrimination legislation was a major task and has added greatly to how the legislation will operate in the future. Your committee work has been detailed and well grounded. I cannot believe the number of hours you described. That probably includes estimates as well. It is just incredible. You have developed, as shown by the response in the chamber here, cross-party relationships that at their best have made the Senate scrutiny of legislation and policy constructive and brought the chamber together.
As I said, you began your career in the Senate with a bang. I did go back and have a look at your first speech to get the flavour and a reminder of what happened at the time. You mentioned that your speech was notable for the thankyous given, as you have just done today, in an Indigenous language. It was also notable because, as you said, you pulled no punches—as you pulled none today—and you did draw a bit of a response at the time. You included a detailed critique of the cuts that were made to services in the Northern Territory by the then still relatively new Howard government. Your criticism drew a response from former Senator Vanstone, as has been mentioned, that resulted in your whole speech not being delivered and your last paragraphs being incorporated into Hansard. You have continued your fine tradition of pulling no punches.
You do tragically support the Essendon Football Club. I know that Mark is possibly not looking forward to discussing football with you as much as you are now planning on discussing it with him. I was not going to mention this, but now that you have mentioned it, yes, you did beat Carlton just a few weeks ago! I know that you like to remind him of that regularly.
I have joined you on a number of occasions campaigning for the National Broadband Network. You joined me pulling fibre. It is fitting that just this week we have turned on the very first live services of the National Broadband Network in Darwin. I know you will take great pride in that because the naysayers have continued to campaign against it but you have championed it in the Northern Territory every single day.
I also want to take the opportunity to acknowledge and thank your family for the support that they have provided to you over the years. It is a staggering number of hours that you have been on Qantas planes. I have always said to my friends and colleagues that it is tough enough living in the Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane triangle, but to be a senator from Western Australia, the Northern Territory or Far North Queensland is an extraordinary commitment. That is something that you have shouldered absolutely brilliantly. It is great to see so many of your family here today. Mark, your husband, is, as you said, a Carlton fan. He may want some sympathy for having to listen to you more often, but, frankly, he is not going to get it from a Collingwood fan! Do not call me to say, 'Please, will you tell her to stop reminding me that we lost.' Also here are your son, Paul, and your daughters Melinda and Amanda, with baby Kobe and Kate. It is also great to see so many of your staffers and former staffers here—the other group that each one of us knows we cannot survive in this job without. They make us look great and we could not do this job without them and their behind-the-scenes support and hard work.
I give you one final promise, Trish. I will personally collect that 50 bucks from Dom because one should always take money off a Carlton fan if one gets the chance. I will make sure he hands it over at the end of the year. I want to congratulate you on 15 fantastic years. I look forward to seeing you up in the Northern Territory and possibly even Skyping you on the NBN when it is going.
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (17:28): I rise on behalf of the coalition to briefly respond to the final speech from Senator Crossin. As we know, Trish has been a Territorian, as we call it. To achieve that, you actually have to live in the Territory for some 30 years. As she has indicated, she was the first woman to come to federal parliament from the Northern Territory and the first to come to the Senate. If you want to know something about a parliamentarian, you can go to Google and find their maiden speech. I did that. But Trish and I—and I will relate this in a moment—had quite an interesting relationship on the way here. I remember how impressed I was, when I read her first speech, that she was the first to use Yolngu Matha in this place. She made a public undertaking to the people of not only her home town at that stage of Yirrkala but also North-East Arnhem Land, saying among other things, in Yolngu Matha, that she would work hard to represent them and continue to respect and acknowledge their rights. If you look back you will find that wherever Senator Crossin has gone she has done just that. Good on you, mate.
Senator Crossin is currently the chair of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. I think it is reasonable to say that she has had a brilliant career in her work through the committee processes of this place. A lot of people think that this place is all about the theatre of this chamber, but a lot of the work of the Senate and of the parliament is actually conducted through the committee process. It is a really important process in ensuring that we get the legislation right. Trish, you have done an absolutely unbelievable job in that regard.
They say that the world is run by the people who turn up. That is something I live by and I can recall that, wherever I was, Trish was turning up. As a parliamentarian, as a politician, it was terrific, particularly in the Territory. You are out and it had rained lightly in the morning and you are screaming down a dirt road: 'There hasn't been anyone here. Great! Labor aren't here. I can just go and talk to them on my own.' You would scream into a place, the dust would settle, you would get out and say: 'How are you going?' They would say, 'Hi, Nigel. Get up here,' and I would go over and they would say, 'Trish is here. Come on!' Fair dinkum! Off we would go: 'Hi, Trish, how's it going? What are you doing here?' We would glare at each other and sit down with the community and jointly listen. I do not think many of the communities actually understand a lot of the differences and nuances in parliament. They think we are both to blame for everything and we are both trying to take the credit for everything. Those are some of recollections of Trish; she was just everywhere.
We share a passion for the Territory, we are the same age and we share the same address, seat 1A, on the way down from Darwin to Canberra. I have to reflect on the difficulties, which I appreciate, of how far away you have been from the mob up there behind me in the gallery—it is terrific to see them all here. I remember one of the first times I met Trish on the hustings. There was a meeting on a radio station where Trish was flogging me for being an idiot—and I was. I was actually such an idiot. I was on the way home from England trying to get rid of my British passport. I had done everything except drop-kick a corgi. I had managed to get home just in time after having gone through that process, for those who can remember. Trish was explaining what an idiot I was, and I managed to get in there in time. On the radio, she checked mine and read it out saying, 'Yeah, I suppose that'll pass.' That was the start of a great relationship.
The next time I met Trish I was annoyed in the morning. It was typical of an Aboriginal community: we had to go hunting. I said, 'It's supposed to be election day today. Oh, all right.' Off we went. It was fairly standard. We were in a white Falcon station wagon. Part of the suspension on the front had gone. It had never been registered, I suspect. The results of the morning's hunt were on the roof and there was claret running down onto the windscreen. Perhaps they had not knocked all the chips off me—I was dressed in a Hawaiian shirt. I said goodbye to my mates and stepped out and there was Trish. Straightaway—she was supposed to be my mortal opposition, and I was not really sure what was supposed to happen—she came over and said, 'Nige, how are you, mate? Good to meet you. Come on, I'll show you around.' I think the relationship has stayed pretty much that way.
I often think we in the Territory are very different. There are only two senators in the Territory, so there really is an obligation to work together. We have been very close colleagues and have worked together. We have worked together on both sides; we have worked together when I was in government and when Trish has been in government. I think that any future Territorians who are considering this place will find that such a relationship is an essential part of getting things done for Territorians.
The circumstances under which you leave this place are going to be more controversial and annoying than Amanda Vanstone, although I know that everybody here was mightily impressed. I have to reflect again that my personal view is that I do not understand it. I do not think many of us will understand. Maybe in their memoirs someone will throw some light on the fact that we have an Aboriginal woman—a traditional woman—who has spent 10 years as a Labor minister in the Northern Territory and we have Trish, who has spent 15 years as an outstanding senator, both standing for preselection in quite a reasonable preselection process. Trish was sharing with me that she was a bit nervous because Marion Scrymgeour is a very, very good candidate. Then I saw Trish in Sydney. It was very distressing. Out of the blue these things had happened. It was really a reflection on the Prime Minister's judgment. I say that not in a political sense. It is a great sadness to me.
It is sad that Kevin still is not here at this stage. I am not sure about the machinations of the next week and I do not wish to pour any porridge on your day—
Honourable senators: Don't mention the war!
Senator SCULLION: Yes, don't mention the war! But, Kevin, if you are listening and you are going to do something, there is still time to undo a great wrong. On behalf of the coalition and the Territory, Trish: thank you.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (17:36): Trish, I am going to miss you a huge amount. Because of the shadow portfolio and spokesperson roles I hold, I have worked a lot with Trish, and with Nigel. I am not a Territorian but I suspect I have spent more time in the Territory than most of our Senate colleagues. I have been in the Territory, in community, with Trish on many occasions. I cannot tell you how highly Senator Trish Crossin is regarded in those communities. This is quite obvious the minute you go into the communities with Trish—you see everybody coming up to her to ask her questions about what is going on and to show their respect for the work that she does. It has been a great learning experience for me to be in community with you, Trish.
Likewise, I remember my worst day in here, which was when the intervention was announced. I had a group of Central Australian traditional owners in my office the day it was announced, and I will to the day I die remember the tears flowing down their faces when they heard the news. I swore then that I would fight to oppose it—and I will continue to oppose it and its new invention, Stronger Futures. I still do not think that Stronger Futures has given the control and decision making to communities. We spoke on many occasions of things being just the same.
I have also deeply respected your chairing of the committees which I have participated on, such as legal and constitutional affairs. I must say that you have been very generous in the time that you have given me to ask questions in estimates. I also acknowledge the fair way in which you have chaired the many inquiries which I have taken part in. We have spent a relatively brief time together on the joint committee on constitutional recognition. I am very sorry that you will not be chairing that committee, because I think you have done a great job and you want to see constitutional recognition achieved.
The work that you have done for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities has been outstanding. A measure of that is that, since the announcement in January that you will no longer be in this place, whenever I have been in community or with members of the Aboriginal community, they have asked me: 'What's going on? What have they done to Trish?' They have shown a great level of disappointment that you were treated in the manner in which you were treated and that you will no longer be a senator—a senator who speaks so passionately about community interests and who ensures in all ways that the effect which any bills have on Aboriginal people and communities is taken into account.
I also remember the time we spent adding up numbers for the issues that you talked about—RU486 and stem cells. I have said in this place before that those occasions when we all work together across parties on various issues show the best of this parliament and this chamber. As I said, many people are greatly disappointed that you will no longer be in this place. I will miss your chairing of committees. I will miss being able to rant and rave with you about bad policies. I will miss the advice that you give on how policies affect the Territory and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Your presence here will be greatly missed. I greatly value your input. The respect that you obviously have in this place is on show here today. I hope the respect that Nigel has shown you and the camaraderie that you as Territorians have continues in this place. I know that you both do your best. I have disagreed with you on many occasions but I know that you genuinely do your best to represent the interests of Territorians.
I wish you well. I wish your family well. It is nice to put faces to the names that I have heard talked about. I met Kate when she was smaller, but it is nice to put faces to the names that I have heard so much about over the years. To Trish's mum—Hi!
Senator Crossin interjecting—
Senator SIEWERT: And there is your sister. I have also heard a lot of stories about her. We do talk a lot about our families when we are on the road together. We all miss our families so we all share lots of stories about our families. Trish has shared lots about her sister. It is all good—mostly—except for the time when the mud crabs were thrown out instead of the cane toads. I will always remember that story. The rest of you will have to ask Trish about that one—they were frozen mud crabs that were thrown out. We will miss you, Trish. Well done. Congratulations. You are able to look back on 15 fantastic years of achievement—thank you.
Senator MOORE (Queensland) (17:42): It is a real honour to be able to share in the acknowledgement of my friend Trish Crossin. We are all going to mention her attributes. So many people are going to share in making the same kinds of words, but I want to start by thanking 'team Crossin'. One of the real strengths of this woman is her family and friends—there are many of them here—and also her staff members. They work as a genuine team, and that gives Trish the ability that she has shown for so many years to live out the total commitment and passion she has for the people of the Northern Territory.
When I first came here, I knew of Trish. I had worked with her husband, Mark, in the Northern Territory years ago. Her first words to me were: 'Welcome, mate, you've got a job to do.' I was sitting beside her in the same way as I am sitting beside her tonight, but in an area over there. I then learnt the process of the Senate. She knew all the rules. Trish is a teacher—she is an educator who actually shares knowledge. One of the things she shared with me was the way in which the Senate operated. Trish gave me advice about that through the day and she also gave me advice about the other people in the place and little bits of information about them.
When I first came here, I was terrified about the need to ask a question. As you know, you are given questions to ask. You are very careful about them, and when you get one you go, 'Oh, I don't know.' Trish is the only person I know who checks every question for grammar and punctuation and then changes the question to make sure that it is accurate. Education is so important to so many of us because, as we heard from Senator Siewert, when it comes to dealing with issues about the Northern Territory and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights, Trish is overwhelmingly generous in giving support and knowledge to other people about the very important historical backgrounds of her patch.
On many occasions, she has provided me with visas to come into her area in the Northern Territory. When we are there, as we have heard from Nigel and also from Rachel, there is the obvious respect and affection which is given to Trish by her people—and all Territorians are her people. She represents the Territory with pride. But there is something extraordinary about going into an Aboriginal community with this woman, because the warmth and respect that the people have for Trish is given to us because we are with her. She takes us with her as her friends and we receive that welcome with her. I have had the joy on many occasions of going into community. Nigel, remember recently that we had the full welcome with spears!
With the knowledge and the passion that Trish has, she is a valiant warrior for rights and justice. Many times in our discussions on legislation—and she mentioned some of that in her speech—we talked about things that we genuinely believed should be changed, and she took that fight up to people across the chamber and in ministerial offices. Even when we did not get the answers we wanted, the fight continued and will continue. If anyone thinks that when Trish leaves this place as a senator her engagement in the issues and her genuine commitment to equity will not be taken up in another way, they do not know 'Team Crossin'. The fight will continue.
I particularly want to acknowledge Trish’s strength in having our backs through some very difficult times. Ruth Webber is in the chamber and she knows about times when we were gathering support where we did not always have support from the areas we thought we would have it. But Trish Crossin in this place was always with us. One of her absolute attributes is her direct honesty and the fact that she will tell it how it is. It may not matter that it is not what you wanted to hear and it may not matter that she will be questioning things that you think you are doing well; she will her give her advice, though not ever in a hurtful way. I have never known this woman to be hurtful in her contribution. What I do know is that you are left in no doubt about what the impact of your decisions will be, whether you are doing it right and how you had better stand up straight too—I remember that.
Trish was very generous in mentioning the Parliamentary Group on Population and Development. We have been through issues with that group and she was always there for us to offer her support. She worked with the Friends of Indonesia on the desperate issues of poverty and need in that place. She is always there making sure that we do our job, because the overwhelming focus of Trish’s work in this place is doing her job. Nigel quoted what she told the people in the community—that when she was here to represent the Northern Territory, that was her job, and she has done it. Thank you, Trish, for your inspiration, for your challenge—always for your challenge, because that is what makes us always stronger.
We have too many endless stories about that football club. Wherever we were we had to get scores. I know the colours of the club, which is lovely! I know the work that Mark and the family and you do to encourage sport across the board in the Territory. That is a way for people to have opportunities and expectations for the future, which is what you have always said. You wanted to ensure that there was real opportunity for all the people of the Territory, particularly for the Indigenous people.
Thank you for your work in committees, because it is so important. Rachel has pointed out the way in which you do your job as chair. I see the secretariat from the Senate Standing Committees on Legal and Constitutional Affairs up in the gallery. They are a great group. They have told me that you have chaired over 200 committees. I do not know how many hours that comes to. But I was told by the secretariat that six more bills were given to you yesterday. That should be good fun for you for the next few days!
Senator Crossin: Actually, what are they still doing sitting here!
Senator MOORE: They should be up there! People have mentioned the difficult committees that Trish has worked through, where there was passion and conflict and the need for a straight bat—sporting analogy there, Trish—to be able to move forward. I want to mention that Trish was aware that the secretariat of one of her committees was getting a hard time from some of the witnesses—important witnesses who felt strongly about issues and were overstepping the mark in how they were approaching the secretariat, demanding action and processes. Trish, as chair of that committee, stepped in immediately and ensured that her people were not going to be subject to bullying. She stood up and said, 'This is not the right way to behave' and did her job again.
So, Trish, I want to say thank you. You are the kind of person that we talk about when we tell people about the Senate. When we are asked, 'What does a senator do?' the kinds of things that we are going to hear this evening actually reflect what a senator does. Congratulations to you personally and to your family. Not only has it been a pleasure working with you—and we will continue working together; there is no doubt about that—it has been an honour to be a member of the Senate beside you.
Senator STEPHENS (New South Wales) (17:50): Can I add a few words this evening to thank and congratulate Trish for her contribution to public life. As Senator Moore has just said, we have not heard the end of Trish. She may be leaving us, but there is definitely life after the Senate. We know that Trish, who is so much an advocate for public policy and fairness, is not going to go away.
There are some times in your life when you meet someone who has a very formative impact on you, and I think that everybody here who has served as a senator with Trish would say that Trish is definitely one of those people. As we have heard, she has been very generous in the way in which she has mentored and supported people in this place. She was very kind to all of us who came in here trying to make sense of how this place works. And, as Senator Moore just said, as a teacher and an educator, she has the gift of being able to make those things so much easier and so much simpler.
I know that Trish has been sitting here for nearly an hour, as have her family. We are going to have lots of opportunities to thank Trish and acknowledge her work. Many speakers have already talked about the specific work that she has done in this place. We all have great personal memories of our relationship with Trish, which we will celebrate on some other occasions. I was having a conversation with the Clerk, and we discussed what kind of a poem Trish deserved. In deference to her past work as a teacher and in recognition of how Trish always pares away the inessentials to get right to the heart of the matter, I have decided to apply the discipline of a sonnet for you tonight, Trish. Here it is:
Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
I think I'll just resist that great temptation
And take this opportunity to pay
A tribute to your fine work for our nation.
Since '98 you've worked for the Northern Territory
Dragging us round the country in your zeal;
Indigenous rights were just one specialty
You wanted us to see, "to make it real".
On petrol-sniffing, migration and health
Committees were the beneficiaries
Of your insights and knowledge. And the wealth
Of fun we had in Ireland—what a wheeze!!
I'll miss you, Trish, and hope we remain friends
Long after both our time in Canberra ends.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McKenzie ): Lovely, Senator Stephens.
Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (17:53): I want to pay tribute to the political career of Senator Trish Crossin. She has served her community, the Senate and her party with distinction. In the 15 years that I have known her in this place, she has been an outstanding senator. The Northern Territory is very different from other jurisdictions, electorally, demographically and geographically. A senator from the Northern Territory plays a very different role and has different sets of responsibilities to those of us from other states. Senator Crossin's duties have taken her to some of the most remote and some of the most disadvantaged communities in this nation, and she has served those people incredibly well. Whether it has been in the Indian Ocean Territories or the remote desert communities of the Northern Territory, she has been there on the job for those people. She has also fulfilled her duties with incredible dedication to the urban areas—to the city of Darwin and to the big towns in the Northern Territory.
Senator Crossin has been a servant of this chamber through her committee work. Former Senator Stott Despoja once described her as a 'workhorse', and I think that was meant to be an extraordinary compliment. I had the opportunity to work with her in the education committee. Through that work, I was able to really appreciate her humour and her humanity. We have seen her work in Indigenous communities and through the Indigenous work of this chamber in reconciliation, which has been a matter of great service to this nation. She was the first woman to represent the Northern Territory in this parliament and she has worked tirelessly for women's rights and for social justice in her time here. She has maintained her commitments to local sporting organisations, the Asthma Foundation, institutes for medical advancement in the Northern Territory and the Northern Territory Working Women's Centre. She does that on the basis of having to go back to Darwin at a level I find quite extraordinary. She has often complained to me about how little time I have spent in the Northern Territory. You do not have to spend a lot of time there to appreciate how difficult it is for senators represent those communities.
Senator Crossin's service to the Labor Party deserves particular recognition, because it is not just the community that she has chosen to serve so well. She has been unflinching, whether it be as local branch secretary at the Buffalo Creek branch or as president of the Territory branch itself. She has been a stalwart there and was a key player in the election of a Labor government in the Northern Territory. When I was at school, the idea of a Northern Territory Labor government was something people dreamt about. She has been extraordinary in her work here in this parliament for the Labor Party, through the status of women committee, for instance. I came to know her on various trips to the Northern Territory, where she sought to explain the politics of the Northern Territory from a Labor point of view, which was in itself an education.
I had the opportunity to listen to a broadcast recently describing Senator Crossin's journey to political representation of the Labor Party in this chamber. I want to share that with the Senate. It was broadcast on the ABC:
After growing up in a self described "working class family" in Melbourne's western suburbs—
They were wrong about that; it was actually in the northern suburbs—
Senator Crossin was lured to the Top End for a teaching position in 1980.
"I'd been teaching for three years and Mark and I decided we'd have a bit of an adventure," she says.
I can imagine how that was described at home! The broadcast went on:
"We applied to the Commonwealth teaching service and got offered a teaching position at … Yirrkala …
I was also a member of the Commonwealth Teaching Service, at the about the same time, but I got posted to Glenroy Tech. I suspect that you got the short end of the stick in that regard! The broadcast went on:
"We had a five-year-old son at that time so we opted to go to Yirrkala and we were only ever going to go for two years and we've never gone back."
At first it was hard for the city girl to adapt to her new environment.
"I had immense cultural shock, I took a very long to adapt. A very, very, long time to adapt. I'd come from the heart of Melbourne, I was a city girl. I arrived in a town that didn't have fresh milk back then, had ABC TV taped and relayed to us 24 hours later.
"I was even told not to bring all my white goods from Melbourne, they'd all be supplied and when I got to my house in Yirrkala there was one of those old washing machines that you had to put the clothes through yourself with a hand wringer. "I had long blond hair and in my first month my hair got stuck in the wringer and Mark had to cut it to release me and I cried and cried and packed my bags and walked to the airport many, many, many times and I had a lot of trouble adapting."
Senator Crossin says—
This is the report from the ABC—
it was the generosity and spirit of the Indigenous people in the community that led her to stay and inspired her to move into politics.
"Just the realisation that there were such enormous inequities out there in terms of ... access to health services and houses," she says.
"And also, I believed there needed to be more women in politics actually."
"There needed to be women in parliament, there needed to be people who could stand up and relate to what working women raising a family experience on a day-to-day basis."
I was one of the two members of the national executive of the Australian Labor Party who opposed Senator Crossin's disendorsement. I did so because I believed that no case had been made for that action to take place. I maintain that view. This was a particularly significant intervention because the process for preselection had actually commenced in the Northern Territory. I do not recall that happening anywhere else in this country—an intervention after a preselection process had actually commenced. While I wish Trish's successor every success—as I do every single endorsed Labor candidate across this Commonwealth—I still maintain, Trish, that you were treated unjustly. Senator Crossin's will be very big shoes to fill.
I also take this opportunity to remind the chamber that Senator Crossin was a national co-convenor of EMILY's List and a very active supporter of more Indigenous women participating in parliaments across this country. She had taken practical steps to see that through. I note that Senator Crossin and I had had other conversations about her replacement, who was to be an Indigenous person. So I was particularly disappointed at the position that EMILY's List took in regard to this preselection. I have never bought the line that EMILY's List does not get involved in preselections. Frankly, I thought they let the whole team down in this matter. To Trish, Mark and your entire family: I wish you well in civilian life and thank you for the service you have rendered.
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (18:02): I wanted to add a few words of my own in tribute to our colleague Senator Trish Crossin. I first came to work with Senator Crossin closely when, after the election of the Rudd government in 2007, she became the chair of the Senate Legal and Constitutional—don't laugh yet, Senator Crossin—Affairs Committee and I became, as shadow Attorney-General, the principal coalition participant on that committee. So, for the last 5½ years, Senator Crossin and I have shared the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
An unastute observer watching some of the sessions of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee over the last few years might have jumped to the erroneous conclusion that Senator Crossin and I did not get on very well. There were certainly a number of occasions—a number of, may I say, splenetic occasions with some very splenetic explosions from the chair at what Senator Crossin perhaps thought were liberties I was taking in the examination of witnesses—when we did have the odd cross word. Nevertheless, it would be a superficial view to think that we did not get on very well. In fact, with the passage of time, I grew to be a great admirer of the way Senator Trish Crossin conducted the affairs of that committee—and perhaps I am not the easiest person to rein in when I am in an exuberant or expansive mood. Some have said that. But Senator Crossin never seemed to have any difficulty in doing so and in pulling me up. So, Senator Crossin, thank you and congratulations on the way you conducted the affairs of that committee so professionally and so well for so long.
In fact, you received a compliment about your conduct of the affairs of that committee from a slightly unusual source earlier this year when Mr Peter Coleman, a former Leader of the Opposition in the New South Wales parliament, a former minister in a New South Wales government and a former member of the House of Representatives—and therefore no stranger to parliamentary committee procedure—made some observations about you in his column in The Spectator. I thought I would celebrate the occasion by reading into the record what Mr Coleman had to say in The Spectator on 2 February this year. He had taken himself along to the Sydney hearings of the inquiry you were conducting into the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill and had this to say:
Senator Crossin has been far more active than most in the daily work of the Senate, especially in its committees, currently in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiring into the draft Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012 which purports to consolidate, simplify and clarify five existing Commonwealth anti-discrimination Acts.
He went on to make this observation about your conduct as the chair:
… Senator Crossin kept the exchanges moving along, stuck to the timetable, and maintained order … she did it professionally and senatorially—despite the occasional provocative intervention from Senator Brandis QC … Senator Crossin was competent, experienced and fair. It is hard to find any convincing reason why the Prime Minister should purge her.
I will come back to that.
The other committee on which I have served closely with Senator Crossin in the last 12 months is the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. Senator Crossin has been the chair and I have been the deputy chair. I think it is a shame that the general public sees senators in a combative mode—that is part of the parliamentary process, to have a combative mode across the chamber—but seldom sees members of parliament in the collaborative mode which the committee system of the parliament fosters and engenders. If they had seen Senator Crossin and me and all the other members of that committee, including our dear friend Senator Scullion, working in an entirely non-partisan way, in a collaborative, cooperative spirit, to bring together the consensus to achieve, in the next parliament, the fitting constitutional recognition of the First Australians, which all of us are committed to doing, then I think the public would have a very different perception, a much fuller and more rounded perception, of the way parliament works.
Once again, Senator Crossin, I think it is a tragedy that you will not be there to fulfil your work as the chair of that committee, but you were the inaugural chair of it, and, if at some time in the life of the next parliament, the recognition of the First Australians in the Australian Constitution is achieved by a successful referendum carried on a bipartisan basis, then there will be few, if any, who will have contributed more to that outcome than you will have done.
I was not going to refer to the unpleasantness that occurred in the Labor Party earlier this year, but it did not stop Senator Kim Carr or others, so I thought I might as well. I have been a member of the Liberal Party for all my adult life, so I am no stranger to brutal acts and dark deeds! But I must say I have never in all of my political life seen anything so brutal and unfair and disgusting perpetrated by a political party upon one of its own than that which was perpetrated upon Senator Crossin by the current Prime Minister, when Senator Crossin was—with no process at all and for no sufficient reason; in fact, for no good reason at all—summarily dismissed, having been properly preselected and being midway through a first-rate parliamentary career. I thought it was disgraceful and I doubt there are many people in this parliament, regardless of their party or factional affiliation, who would not share that view. I think you were very shabbily treated, Senator Crossin, and I feel sorry for you. Those who executed this attack upon you, which effectively terminated a very, very constructive and useful parliamentary career, should be very ashamed. But, sadly, I suspect they are not, because they are beyond shame.
As it happened, the political assassination of Senator Crossin by Julia Gillard occurred during the time when Senator Crossin was chairing the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's hearings into the exposure draft of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill. Senator Crossin arrived at those hearings in Melbourne on 23 January this year, within 36 hours of the undoubtedly unpleasant interview she had with the Prime Minister at the Lodge, and Senator Crossin was, I think it is fair to say, shaken. In the spirit of senatorial solidarity—I think I am allowed to say this, Madam Acting Deputy President McKenzie—Senator Crossin did somewhat confide in me about what had just been done to her. Little did we know that a very alert photographer was in the committee room, and that very alert photographer snapped a marvellous photograph of Senator Crossin confiding in me, which I might frame and present to you as a parting gift, Senator Crossin, and in which I hope I am exhibiting the appropriate collegial and pastoral concern and patience!
An honourable senator interjecting—
Senator BRANDIS: I am shameless; that is true! So, Senator Crossin, I do not know why this was done. Perhaps the party that you have represented with some distinction for so long feels ashamed that, 42 years after Neville Bonner first took his seat in this chamber as a Queensland Liberal senator—the first Indigenous representative in this chamber—the Australian Labor Party has not given us an Indigenous representative in the Commonwealth parliament. And, I am bound to say, even when your designated successor takes her place, the Australian Labor Party will not have given us an Indigenous senator who was chosen through an orthodox preselection process. But whatever the reason, whatever the motive, you should never have been the victim, and all of your colleagues—certainly, all of your colleagues from the coalition—feel enormous sympathy for your position and, if I may say so, also respect the dignity with which you have borne such an unjust reversal of fortune.
Senator Crossin, you have been a person who everyone this chamber would acknowledge as an honest person, as a decent person, as a person who was passionate about the causes you believed in, as a person who was extraordinarily hardworking, and you have made of your years in this place a really, really substantial impact.
I try to understand politics, but there is one part of politics I have never been able to understand, and that is the inner workings of the Australian Labor Party. I have never been able to understand why, Senator Crossin, you were never a frontbencher, because certainly, among those of us on this side of the chamber, there are very few who would disagree with me that you are a lot more able than certain other Labor Party frontbenchers in this place that we have seen, including some of the current ones. But thus are the vicissitudes of political fortune.
If we set ourselves the test when we come here of, 'How would we hope to be remembered and what achievements and accomplishments would we wish to make to make the life our nation better?' you have fulfilled the tests and aspirations that you no doubt set yourself with flying colours, and you have earned the affection and respect of political friend and political opponent alike.
Senator McLUCAS (Queensland—Minister for Human Services) (18:15): I will make a short contribution because I am sure that there are others who would like to contribute today. Trish, I pay tribute to you for many reasons. As senators from Northern Australia, we have a different way of looking at the world and we were able to do that together. Joseph and I came into the parliament very shortly after you did. So our time here has been matched up in many respects, and I call you 'the sort of class of 98', although you were a couple of months early.
Trish is an extraordinarily generous and thoughtful person. When I was elected, Trish was one of the first people to contact me—a person not even from my state, but I think recognising the fact that we are Northerners and we can talk another language. When people were talking about throwing the wrong bag out of the freezer, I knew they were talking about the toads not the crabs. I got that one.
Trish, the principles that you brought to the Senate are principles that have stayed the same—and I have observed that over a long time. You sent me a t-shirt that said, 'A woman's place is in the Senate,' and that has stood the test of time. You have shown great feminist values and principles that have never wavered.
Within some months of coming into this place, we established an inquiry into the operations of the Northern Prawn Fishery. I think that was a bit of a baptism of fire for both of us, but we got through that. We established that committee—and it was a bit of fun. Trish, your knowledge and your passion was brought to bear on many committees, and I particularly refer to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Native Title, where we did a lot of work in those early years around the observance of how the Native Title Act was operating.
You are a straight talker—you call a spade a shovel. I think a lot of people have said that tonight. I value that, and I think we all value the frankness and decency that you bring to the deliberations you have made. Politics is a tough game. We know that—you know it more. But you can be very proud of the contribution that you have made over many years—as can your family be very proud. I know that contribution will continue to flow and I hope that we continue to maintain a strong friendship across that border.
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (18:18): Firstly, can I indicate that I am extremely pleased to have been here to listen to a fantastic speech. You started your career in controversy and you are finishing your career in controversy. I think that is not a bad thing, Senator Crossin. The last thing you would want is to spend a lot of years in this place and have someone ask you whether you had been in the Senate. People will know that you have been in the Senate, I must say, because your contribution has been fantastic.
I want to thank you for the personal support and the personal friendship that you have given me in my time in the Senate. It has been fantastic. You welcomed me not only to the Senate but also to your home, along with Mark and your family when I came up to the Northern Territory on parliamentary business. Thanks for that. You have also welcomed my family from overseas to your home when they have come from overseas. You are a great friend and your family is a great family.
You are, I think, the epitome of what we should be looking for in this place—a trade union activist, a community activist, a parliamentary activist, someone who knows where they want to go, can articulate their values and stand up for the things that they think are important. That is how I have always found you, Trish, and it has been a pleasure to have worked with you—not for all of your career but for a short time in your career.
It is because of the genuine warmth that everyone here talks about here tonight—not in any confected way but in a genuine way—that I think people were appalled at the treatment that was meted out to you. As a personal friend, I was appalled and I took the view that I should say something about it publicly and I want to say something about it again tonight.
Sure politics is a tough game. Sure politics means that you cannot take anything for granted. But there is a level of common decency, I think, that should be in politics. If someone has made a contribution, like the contribution you have made, Trish, to your community, to your trade union and to the parliament, then they should be treated with common decency and dignity. You have made a contribution over many years, and I am appalled at the way my party has treated you and I hope that we never see the likes of that again. When you make a contribution, it is not only you that makes that contribution; your family, your staff, your friends and the other members of the Labor Party in the Northern Territory have helped make that contribution. Nobody comes here and makes a contribution as an individual; you come here as a collective. I would have thought that after the collective work that you have done, your commitment on every tough issue in this parliament and your commitment on every progressive issue in this parliament, you should have been treated with fairness and dignity. You were not, and it is a shame that the Labor Party was involved in that.
I hope that, given the broad support that you have across the Senate, you can find another career. Your capacity and your ability to contribute is still fantastic. In my view you still have a great contribution to make to public life in this country. You have made a huge contribution already, but I think you can make a bigger one. I hope that your family will continue to support you making a public contribution, because it is important that people of basic human decency like yourself make a contribution after having been a member of the Senate.
Sure this is a tough game, but it should not be a brutal game. The work that you have done over many years should be recognised. I, for one, will continue to publicly say that the contribution you made was fantastic, that your treatment was abominable—you should never have been treated like that—and that you should enjoy a career into the future knowing that you have many friends, many supporters, many colleagues and many good comrades in this place who will wish you and your family well for the future. Thanks for your friendship, thanks for your political activism, thanks for being a great trade unionist and thanks for being a great community activist. You are a great person. We will miss you and this place will be worse off for your leaving. I hope that you can continue to make a strong contribution into the future. Thanks, Trish.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (18:24): It is a great honour for me to pay my respects to Senator Crossin's wonderful career in this place. I want to begin by talking about my experiences on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, echoing much of what Senator Brandis said. I also want to acknowledge Senator Crossin's capacity to engage with the issues and to drive solutions into the reports of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. That has resulted in more change, just through the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, than many senators in this place get to achieve in many years of contributions across a great range of issues. Senator Crossin has achieved so much, and the kinds of changes she has been able to drive through the committee reports I have seen will make a real difference to the lives of many Australians.
I also had the great honour of being with Senator Crossin on the National Capital and External Territories Committee. Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands are wonderful and extraordinary places, and I was delighted that Senator Crossin was able to introduce me both to the communities there and to the very significant issues that confront those communities. I do not think it is any surprise, Senator Crossin, that you have such a good understanding of the issues because of your passion and love for the Northern Territory, but as a Territorian senator you also understand the lack of representation that the Territory has at a state level because of the extraordinary powers that the Commonwealth has over the territories—an example being the power to intervene on issues like the intervention. It has been of great concern to me to witness the common issues that exist between Western Australia and the Northern Territory and the very different ways that they are managed simply because the Territory does not have its own exercisable state powers.
On that note it is significant that you have faced election every election, unlike other senators, and you have done that for some 14 years. In that context I also note the way that you were eventually undone in the preselection for election to this place, and it is a matter of regret for me that I will not have the opportunity to serve with you longer.
Touching again on the Indigenous issues that are common across the communities that we represent, you had a capacity to embed yourself in and be a part of Indigenous culture. I appreciate what an honour it would have been for you to have the opportunity to do that. There is a significant cultural divide in this country. We have a very westernised parliament and it is significant that you are one of the people in here who can break that down for ordinary Australians and bridge that cultural divide. It is a divide I hope more parliamentarians work to close, because so many Australians are ignorant of the enormous depth and diversity of Australia's Indigenous cultures. There can be no Indigenous culture without an Indigenous economy and without autonomy for Indigenous cultures within that economy. We have to value the intrinsic economy that exists in a culture when you give it autonomy. This was something that you highlighted with the intervention—it is the complete opposite to the way we should be empowering these communities.
Trish, you have also contributed to the Labor Party's Status of Women Committee. It was a great joy to me, as a Labor feminist, to have had your guidance as a previous chair and to share that mutual commitment that we and many other Labor women have. Indeed, it is that great sense of solidarity that helps me get through the long periods of time that I spend away from my family and my home. That sense of solidarity is certainly something you have offered to me and to other Labor women. Finally, I want to say thank you on behalf of Australia's LGBTI community. You have been a really wonderful advocate for our community and you have made a real difference. Thank you.
Sitting suspended from 18 : 30 to 19 : 00
BILLS
Parliamentary Service Amendment (Freedom of Information) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator RYAN (Victoria) (19:00): I rise today to speak on the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Freedom of Information) Bill 2013. At the outset I concur with remarks made by the government in the tabled second reading speech, and in the other place by the minister and the shadow minister. This bill amends the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 to restore the longstanding and previously understood position of three parliamentary departments: the Department of Parliamentary Services, the Department of the House of Representatives and the Department of the Senate. These three departments were historically excluded from the operation of the Freedom of Information Act.
There are longstanding justifications and reasons for this, particularly regarding the ability of members and senators to go about their respective duties and the rights and privileges of the houses to determine their own affairs. The Parliamentary Budget Office is not covered by this bill as it is already designated an agency exempt from the legislation that created it. I should add that the parliamentary departments cooperate with the spirit of the FOI act by providing access to administrative information when requested. Both DPS and the Department of the Senate also come before the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee during estimates hearings, are questioned in detail and provide information in that forum.
This bill is necessary due to the inadvertent removal of the exemption by the creation of a separate Parliamentary Service in 1999 that became apparent only last year. This became apparent to all members and senators when the parliamentary librarian was placed in a difficult position through a determination by the Information Commissioner that the assumed exemption had, for a long time, no longer applied. This placed the librarian in a conflicted position, with the Parliamentary Service Act requiring the role to be undertaken in confidence but with the FOI regime no longer guaranteeing this.
It is entirely correct that this issue be placed beyond doubt. If, at a future time, the parliament wishes to make certain aspects of the operations of parliamentary departments subject to the FOI regime then this bill preserves that possibility. The coalition supports the bill.
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (19:02): The Parliamentary Service Amendment (Freedom of Information) Bill 2013 should retain the status quo of keeping parliamentary departments and office holders subject to the FOI act. As we know, it was long thought that the three parliamentary departments—the Department of the Senate, the Department of the House of Representatives and the Department of Parliamentary Services—were exempt from FOI. Then, in May 2012 the Information Commissioner, in guidelines to the FOI act, noted that these departments were, in fact, covered. This bill is the government's attempt, with the support of the coalition, to close the loop opened by the Information Commissioner's ruling—a ruling which has the potential to do what the Prime Minister promised when she formed government, and what we often hear politicians speak about: provide open, transparent, accountable government. You can only achieve that with certain information being available.
The Greens oppose this bill as it is an obstacle to that transparency and reflects a watering-down of FOI laws. These parliamentary departments spend hundreds of millions a year in public money, and they should be open to public scrutiny. This will go a long way towards maintaining confidence in our democracy and will also avoid the potential for corruption. That is something we need to focus on, because we are aware of serious problems that can arise with governments. We have seen this in New South Wales. ICAC has been able to delve into this, but with greater availability and greater possibility for public scrutiny of how money is spent we have further obstacles to corrupt behaviour developing.
One of the Greens amendments would require MPs to disclose their pay and to link directly on their websites to the individual expenditure reports for their allowances. This should be nothing unusual, and should be standard practice. In the future, if this amendment passes, I am sure it will one day become standard practice. It is happening in many other jurisdictions. The Greens have always upheld the principle of greater transparency on MPs' expenses and other public spending. Sadly, the bill is being rushed through and pre-empts the tabling of a major FOI review, the Hawke review, which will look specifically at FOI coverage for parliamentary departments.
This bill, this debate, should not precede without us having the opportunity to be informed by that review.
When it comes to FOI, Australia lags behind other jurisdictions. For example Britain, the home of the Westminster system, is streets ahead of us when it comes to FOI. Current exemptions in FOI laws are sufficient to protect genuinely sensitive material. I want to give emphasis to this because often when I raise it there is a little bit of a scare comment put around like: 'This is not fair, because constituents would have their emails revealed.' We can put all the protections in place. The Greens amendments absolutely achieve that by putting the protections in place so that the issue of privilege is respected; and, at the same time, we can have the all-important thorough public scrutiny.
It had long been assumed that the three parliamentary departments were exempt from FOI. In May 2012 the Information Commissioner noted that these departments were, in fact, covered. The Attorney-General at the time, Nicola Roxon, characterised this as an anomaly. Coming from a government that came into office with a commitment to greater transparency, I was concerned at the language she used; it was very much downplaying the significance of this situation. Still, the Hawke review was established and the terms of reference for the review were designed to include review of the very issue that we are talking about now. That is why I say it is poor form that this bill is being rushed through before we can be informed by that review.
The exclusion of parliamentary departments has long been criticised in Australia. I think it is important that senators focus on that point because these are significant criticisms of the failure of these departments to be covered. The Australian Law Reform Commission recommended their inclusion in 1996. During this review the then Clerk of the Senate, Mr Harry Evans, argued for the extension of the FOI Act to parliamentary departments, noting that exemptions already protect genuinely sensitive documents. I want to emphasise that that protection is there; it can be achieved. Once we have that protection in place, the arguments from Labor and the coalition, and their excuses for not opening up these departments to greater public scrutiny, fall away. The Greens submission to the Hawke review recommended that no amendments be made to exclude parliamentary departments from FOI.
Now that we are seeing this move from both the government and the coalition, it does highlight how Australia fails best practice in FOI. This is a real negative against a parliament that has so many fine aspects. One thing that I always find absolutely outstanding in this parliament is the committee process, and it is something that has certainly been picked up by other jurisdictions. But when it comes to FOI, it is an area where we cannot be proud.
The respected Carter Centre, in the USA, advocates that all three government branches be subject to FOI law, and that other jurisdictions should subject the parliament to FOI law. Westminster, as I said, has been subject to FOI law for eight years now, and government departments in Scotland, India, Ireland, South Africa and Mexico are covered to different degrees. That is why I gave emphasis to the fact that Australia is falling behind—and certainly it is not to our credit. Within our own country, the situation in Tasmania is interesting. They have made some positive moves in this area. Tasmania's Right to Information Act 2009 covers requests to parliamentary departments but is limited to administrative matters.
I go back to the example of Scotland. They have online, searchable records of MPs' expenditure. It is very easy to do. Again, in time, as the whole necessity of making information available is recognised more widely, I am sure this will happen. Hopefully, it will happen tonight, but from what I am hearing it does not sound likely. Certainly, Scotland have established that and it is something that we should look to.
In 2012, the New Zealand Law Commission recommended FOI coverage, and those recommendations form the basis of the Greens' proposed amendments.
The UK Freedom of Information Act enables the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Clerk of the Parliaments to certify on a case-by-case basis that information is exempt when necessary to avoid infringement of the privileges of either house or where, in the reasonable opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Clerk of the Parliaments, disclosure would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. I wanted to give that considerable emphasis because it highlights how protections and safeguards can be put in place. We can continue to do our work without undermining privilege. We can achieve a balance, and that is what the Greens' amendments are attempting to do.
I will briefly cover our amendments. The first Greens' amendment is designed to narrow the full application of FOI to the three parliamentary departments by specifically defining what information held by the parliamentary departments is subject to FOI. For example, documents subject to FOI would include salaries and additional salaries for office-holders, electorate allowances, superannuation, and services and facilities to support parliamentarians in Parliament House. The Greens believe there is no reasonable excuse for shielding this information about public expenditure from public scrutiny. The speeches that I heard from Labor and the coalition when this issue was being debated and spoken about provide no good reason why that should not occur. If they cannot come up with some good reasons, they start to look very self-serving.
Now, if that amendment is voted down, the Greens will move a second amendment, to limit requests for access to documents relating to matters of an administrative nature only. It should be difficult for the major parties to justify not supporting this lesser, second amendment, because even the parliamentary departments themselves have publicly supported this position. I wanted to emphasise that, because we have found it difficult to get the government to focus on our amendments, but the parliamentary departments have themselves said that they support being covered that way—certainly, it is in limited form, which is not the Greens' first preference, but it is something that those departments support.
Neither of these amendments would affect the existing exemptions under the FOI Act—for example, for cabinet documents, national security, legal professional privilege, electoral rolls or contempt of parliament. The Greens' amendments explicitly ensure that these exemptions would still apply to enable these three parliamentary departments to protect sensitive material, including an absolute exemption for parliamentary privilege. Many of the likely applicable exemptions under the act are conditional exemptions, such as for deliberative documents, personal privacy and business affairs, which are also subject to a public interest test. Obviously, I commend to the Senate these Greens' amendments to keep the parliamentary departments subject to FOI as an important measure to protect the democratic principles of transparency and accountability.
I finish with the words of the Prime Minister herself, speaking on this issue back in September 2010, when she had just been elected. In her announcement about forming government, she stated:
What the Australian people told us, and they told us this in no uncertain terms on that day and on the days that have followed, is this: that we will be held more accountable than ever before, and more than any government in modern memory. We will be held to higher standards of transparency and reform, and it’s in that spirit that I approach the task of forming a government.
Then on the ABC's 7.30 Report, when she was interviewed at the same time, she stated:
People do want to see us more open, more accountable, more transparent.
That is a strong, clear statement. But how can that be achieved if we do not have FOI laws that are at least to the standard that other Westminster countries have now achieved?
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (19:15): I will make a very short contribution. I think Senator Williams said that I had 2½ minutes, which is very generous of him. I indicate that the controversy in relation to this bill is that there is a perception that the parliament is exempt from the standards of freedom of information. I note that the second reading speech of this bill refers to this as an interim measure. It is a transitional measure, pending a review—an overall review; a long overdue review—of freedom of information legislation.
It is clear that there are some circumstances, when a parliamentarian obtains information, where there are good public interest reasons for that information not to be disclosed, particularly if you are dealing with constituents and other sensitive matters. I think that that would fetter the work of a parliamentarian. The amendments moved by Senator Rhiannon appear to me to be quite sensible. They are attempting to deal with matters that are currently the subject of the review, but I think that these amendments would improve this bill appreciably. It would lead to greater transparency, in a way that would not fetter the work of members of parliament when they are dealing with constituents or on matters where privilege may apply.
For those reasons, I can indicate that, whilst I support the bill with some reservations, I think this bill would be significantly improved with the amendments that Senator Rhiannon has proposed. I hope that these amendments will at least be considered seriously by my colleagues on both sides.
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (19:16): I thank everybody for their contributions and I look forward to discussing the bill at the committee stage.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN ( Senator Stephens ) (19:17): The question is that the bill stand as printed.
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (19:17): I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 7391 revised:
(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (lines 1 to 26), omit Schedule 1, substitute:
Schedule 1—Amendments
Freedom of Information Act 1982
1 After section 6A
Insert:
6B Department of the House of Representatives, Department of the Senate and Department of Parliamentary Services
(1) This Act does not apply to any request for access to a document of the Department of the House of Representatives, the Department of the Senate or the Department of Parliamentary Services unless the document relates to matters of an administrative nature.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt, the reference to a document of an administrative nature in subsection (1) includes a document to the extent that is:
(a) statistical information about the activities of the Department; or
(b) information about the expenditure of public moneys; or
(c) information about payments to a Senator or member of the House of Representatives; or
(d) information about services and facilities provided to a Senator or member of the House of Representatives; or
(e) information about assets, resources, support systems and other administrative matters of the Department.
(3) For the avoidance of doubt, the reference to a document of an administrative nature in subsection (1) does not include a document to the extent that it is:
(a) research or advice provided to a Senator or member of the House of Representatives; or
(b) information held on behalf of a Senator or member of the House of Representatives; or
(c) information about how a Senator or member of the House of Representatives performs their role as a Senator or member of the House of Representatives; or
(d) any advice provided to a Senator or member of the House of Representatives; or
(e) information that is otherwise subject to parliamentary privilege.
(4) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this section limits or infringes the powers, privileges and immunities of the Houses of the Parliament.
This amendment defines the FOI applications that can be made in relation to parliamentary departments and office holders. The amendment is that information relating to the parliamentary departments, office holders' use of public resources and departmental administrative functions should be subject to FOI, while information relating to parliamentary proceedings, matters of political strategy or an MP's activities—for example, when dealing with constituents—are not.
I would just like to spell it out and give you some examples of what that means. I would argue strongly that, when you look at the detail, it really is hard to understand why this is being opposed. FOI applications would be limited to statistical information about the department's activities; information about the expenditure of public money—including payments to members and senators, as well as payments to services and facilities to support parliamentarians in Parliament House; and information about the department's assets, resources, support systems and other administrative matters. The following would be excluded from FOI requests: research or advice to members of parliament provided by the Parliamentary Library; information held by the parliamentary departments solely as an agent for or on behalf of the House of Representatives, the Senate or a member of parliament, regardless of whether that information resides on facilities provided by the parliamentary departments; information held by a parliamentary department about a member of parliament in relation to the member's performance or his or her role and functions as a member; and advice provided by the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 staff, irrespective of whether or not parliamentary privilege applies to a member of parliament.
In fact, when you put those two together—what is in and what is out—it is very responsible. It is actually very limiting. As I said in the second reading debate, there is nothing in this group of amendments that limits or affects any privileges, immunities or powers of the House of Representatives or the Senate. That the Senate FOI regime would not apply to any matter subject to parliamentary privilege is clearly achieved. I commend the Greens amendment (1) to the Senate.
Senator RYAN (Victoria) (19:20): The coalition does not support the Greens amendment. In our view, the parliamentary departments covered do a very extensive job of making relevant information available and, as I stated in my second reading contribution, this does not preclude the future consideration of it by the parliament. But, due to the unexpected removal of the exemption or the apparent nature of it, being made last year, we believe that this needs to be reinstated. A future parliament can reconsider it.
I will conclude by saying that I am happy to respectfully disagree with Senator Rhiannon, but I will not be lectured here on bills being rushed through, given I have sat in this very chair on many occasions on bills—that are on electoral matters and on audit matters—where the Greens have supported a government guillotine, where there was no opposition contribution in a second reading debate and there were no opposition, government or minor party contributions to the consideration of amendments to very important legislation. I think Senator Rhiannon might be able to come down a bit off the soapbox before we get a lecture.
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (19:21): I indicate that the government rejects this amendment. The effect of the proposed amendment is to make a substantive amendment to the FOI Act: to change the application of the FOI Act to include the parliamentary departments. The application of the FOI Act to the parliamentary departments has been considered by Dr Hawke's FOI review. It is premature for the government to take action to amend the FOI Act before it has had an opportunity to consider and respond to recommendations in the review. The government understands that Dr Hawke has completed his review and is in the process of preparing a report on that review. The Attorney-General expects to receive Dr Hawke's report in coming weeks. In the meantime, the government has agreed to the request of the Presiding Officers to amend the Parliamentary Service Act as an interim measure to ensure that parliamentary departments are not exposed to requests they are not currently in a position to handle.
The bill as drafted takes into account the views expressed by the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Department of the House of Representatives, the Department of the Senate, the Department of Parliamentary Services, the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library, and the Parliamentary Library. Consequently, the government does not support the Greens amendment at this time. Once the government has received and has had an opportunity to consider a response to Dr Hawke's report, the government will make a fully considered decision on the application of the FOI Act to the parliamentary departments.
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (19:22): Minister, could you explain why the legislation has been brought in prior to the Hawke review being available for our consideration, considering that when the former Attorney-General established the Hawke review it was clearly understood that it would review the very issue that we are now grappling with in this legislation?
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (19:23): It is an interim measure to return us to where we were. At the moment we have got ahead of the Hawke review, so this is an interim measure to restore the status quo.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN ( Senator Stephens ): The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 7391 revised, moved by Senator Rhiannon on behalf of the Australian Greens, be agreed to.
The committee divided. [19:28]
(The Chairman—Senator Parry)
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (19:30): I move Greens amendment (2) on sheet 7391 revised:
(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (lines 1 to 26), omit Schedule 1, substitute:
Schedule 1—Amendments
Freedom of Information Act 1982
6B Department of the House of Representatives, Department of the Senate and Department of Parliamentary Services
1 After section 6A
Insert:
(1) This Act does not apply to any request for access to a document of the Department of the House of Representatives, the Department of the Senate or the Department of Parliamentary Services unless the document relates to matters of an administrative nature.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt, the reference to a document of an administrative nature in subsection (1) does not include research or advice provided to a Senator or a member of the House of Representatives by the Parliamentary Library.
(3) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this section limits or infringes the powers, privileges and immunities of the Houses of the Parliament.
This limits FOI applications to documents of an administrative matter only. It really should be difficult for Labor and the coalition to justify not supporting this lesser second amendment. I call it a lesser second amendment because it is a much reduced form of FOI. Even the parliamentary departments—the Department of the Senate, the Department of the House of Representatives and the Department of Parliamentary Services—have publicly supported this position. They are okay with this degree of openness. So, it will be interesting to hear the minister as to why they are not ready to support this amendment when the departments themselves are comfortable with it. For those three departments and office holders, while they are subject to the FOI Act, this amendment limits access to administrative matters only and this amendment excludes research or advice to members of parliament provided by the Parliamentary Library. It makes it explicit that nothing limits or affects any privileges, immunities or powers of the House of Representatives or the Senate. I do commend Greens amendment (2) to the Senate.
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (19:32): I indicate that the government will not be supporting this amendment either. As we have indicated, this is an interim bill to restore the status quo. We are looking forward to giving final consideration to the Hawke report, and we think it is pre-empting the discussions and the full consideration of that report by moving these amendments today.
Senator RYAN (Victoria) (19:32): For the reasons outlined earlier, the coalition does not support this amendment moved by Senator Rhiannon. This bill in no way precludes future acts by the parliament. As I stated earlier, the parliamentary departments have an exemplary record in releasing information, particularly of this nature, and we are awaiting more formal review of the FOI provisions. This bill is an interim measure to reinstate the status quo that was inadvertently overturned and only became apparent a decade after it occurred.
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (19:32): Minister, considering that you are now calling this an interim measure, why will you not support what the departments themselves are saying? If you want an interim measure, that is precisely what this amendment is, because it is what the departments say they are willing to work under.
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (19:33): As I have indicated, we are giving consideration to all of these matters. We have not received the Hawke report. We do not believe there is a need to move this at this point.
The CHAIRMAN: The question is that Greens amendment (2) on sheet 7391 revised be agreed to.
The committee divided. [19:34]
(The Chairman—Senator Parry)
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (19:40): I move Greens amendment (3) on sheet 7391 revised:
(3) Page 3 (after line 26), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 2—Further amendments
Parliamentary Allowances Act 1952
1 Section 4
Omit "There are payable", substitute "(1) Subject to subsection (2), there are payable".
2 At the end of section 4
Add:
(2) A member is only entitled to allowances if:
(a) the member includes a link to the Department of Finance and Deregulation website in their biographical details on the Australian Parliament website; and
(b) the link directs the user to the individual expenditure report of that member.
Note: In 2013, the Australian Parliament website is located at www.aph.gov.au.
This sets out a proactive publication requirement of MPs' expenditure. It is actually very minimal in what it sets out to do. It creates an obligation that all senators and members be required to provide a link on their official parliamentary website to their individual expenditure reports on the Finance website. I say it is minimal because we again need to remember the experience in Scotland. Scotland has online searchable records of MPs' expenditure. All this is about is providing a link. There are a few steps one has to go through to be able to obtain the information. Why shouldn't that information be public? It is public money; it should be publicly available and easy to search. It is not good enough to say no. It is one small step to achieve some level of scrutiny of the considerable public money that we as MPs have the privilege to use. I commend the amendment to the chamber.
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (19:41): I again indicate that we believe this should be looked at as a whole package. The amendments have merit, but we believe they should be considered as part of a whole package and so we will not be supporting them.
Senator RYAN (Victoria) (19:41): The coalition opposes the amendment moved by Senator Rhiannon.
The CHAIRMAN: The question is that amendment (3) on sheet 7391 revised 2 be agreed to.
The committee divided. [19:46]
(The Chairman—Senator Parry)
The CHAIRMAN (19:48): Senator Rhiannon, just to confirm: you do not wish to pursue any further amendments?
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (19:48): No, thank you.
The CHAIRMAN: The question now is that the bill stand as printed.
Question agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.
Third Reading
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (19:49): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that this bill be now read a third time.
The Senate divided. [19:53]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (19:55): The opposition supports the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013. The purpose of this bill is to include within the Sex Discrimination Act as a protected attribute 'sexuality'. The opposition supports this bill most particularly because it represents the adoption by the government of coalition policy.
When the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee reviewed the government's ill-fated and bizarrely entitled Human Rights and Anti-discrimination Act—that is, the act would have prohibited controversy in Australia and therefore prohibited or imposed very, very significant limitations on our traditional rights and freedoms—the opposition Senate members of that committee nevertheless saw the opportunity to salvage from the wreckage of that ill-thought through proposal a beneficial piece of law reform.
In the minority report of the opposition senators—and here I refer to page 109 of that report—identified what we described as an area for reform. If I may read what the opposition senators said:
… Coalition senators were impressed with one part of the evidence before the inquiry … from the GLBTI community, who pointed out that none of the Commonwealth Acts which deal with anti-discrimination law extend to sexuality-based discrimination. This is, in our view, an obvious gap, which should be addressed. People in that category are no doubt vulnerable to unfair discrimination. Discrimination against members of that community is unacceptable by modern community standards, and is reflected in the removal in 2008–on a bipartisan basis–of all discriminatory treatment from Commonwealth legislation. It is also consistent with the policy which the Coalition took to the 2010 election. A simple amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act, which includes sexuality (or, for completeness, identity as a gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or intersex person) as a protected attribute, would overcome that lacuna.
Therefore, recommendation 2 of the report states:
Coalition Senators recommend that Part II of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 be amended to include identity as a gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or intersex person as a protected attribute to which the Act extends.
When Ms Roxon ceased to be the Attorney-General and Mr Mark Dreyfus became the Attorney-General, he had the wisdom to abandon the ill-conceived Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill. On the day on which he announced that the government was yielding to the force of public opinion by abandoning that bill, he announced that the government—he did not have the good grace, I might say, to concede this—would legislate to extend the terms of the Sex Discrimination Act to protect people from sexuality based discrimination. In other words, he would adopt the opposition senators' recommendation—that is, as I said, a policy which the coalition took to the 2010 election and has in fact been coalition policy for several years. I am always one to extend credit where it is due, and I am glad to see that the government—which has, I acknowledge, moved in this area, particularly in the 2008 amendments which the opposition then supported—has on this occasion come to the party to support a proposal which the opposition recommended.
If the story stopped there, it would be simple. We could have had, in this closing fortnight of the parliament, on a bipartisan basis, supported I daresay by all parties represented in the Australian parliament, an acknowledgment that discrimination against people on the ground of sexuality is wrong and they ought to be protected from it, just as people are protected from discrimination on the ground of their gender or of their age or of their disability or of their ethnicity or on any of the other grounds which the law legitimately recognises ought to be within the reach of anti-discrimination law.
Unfortunately, I fear that that happy consensus will not be achieved this fortnight because of a decision by the government late in the piece to destroy that consensus. Unfortunately, the government have now decided, contrary to the position which they adopted in the House of Representatives, to move a series of amendments to their own bill, which take it much further than the bipartisan position of extending the reach of the Sex Discrimination Act to sexuality based discrimination. Those foreshadowed amendments would extend the reach of this bill to aged-care facilities irrespective of the religious character of those facilities and the tenets of the religious faith of those who operate those facilities, and that the opposition cannot support, for reasons which I will explain. So the opposition’s position is to support the bill—the bill as presented by the government, the bill that we supported in the House of Representatives in its then form—in its current form, to oppose the foreshadowed amendments and, if the amendments were to succeed, to oppose the amended bill.
There are some who speak in very loose and clumsy terms about anti-discrimination law, as if, by passing an act of parliament, one could immediately remove all unfair treatment that vulnerable minorities suffer. But it is not so. Anti-discrimination law is not a moral absolute. The right of people to fair treatment, a precious value, must take its place alongside other precious values, and one of those precious values is freedom of religion. The coalition has always insisted upon—and we had understood the Labor Party had always insisted upon—the exemption of religious organisations from the reach of anti-discrimination law. And we do that because, in balancing those competing and sometimes inconsistent values, we say that the right of freedom of religious practice and the right of freedom of religious worship must always be respected. And if we are to respect it, then the right of religions which conduct social institutions, whether they be schools or churches or aged-care facilities or hospitals, to conduct those institutions in accordance with the tenets of their faith should always be respected. That is a very fundamental value.
You cannot have freedom of religion if you also have legislation which requires, which imposes by statutory obligation, an obligation upon a church or religious institution to conduct its affairs at variance with the tenets of its teachings. If we were to accept that proposition then we would have a position in which the state tells a church or adherents to a religious faith what they may or may not believe, and that is wrong, just as I have always been of the view that it is wrong for the state to, for example, say to a Muslim woman, 'You may not wear a particular garment which other citizens find confronting, although to do so is a respectful expression of your religious faith or religious practice.' I have always been of the view that the state should not have the power to do that. Equally the state should not have the power to say to a particular church or religious institution which conducts an institution like a hospital, a school or an aged-care home: 'You must conduct that institution in accordance not with the tenets of your faith but in accordance with the dictates of the state.' The Australian Labor Party has always said it believes that.
The religious exemption to the antidiscrimination laws has always been, at least among the Labor Party and the coalition—although not, I should acknowledge, the Greens—also a matter of bipartisan agreement. The Labor Party resolves this philosophical dilemma as to how to balance religious freedom and the right to equal opportunity in the same way as the coalition has done. But on this occasion, for reasons yet to be explained, in foreshadowed amendments to this bill the Labor Party now says, 'We are going to abandon our commitment to the religious exemption by applying the prescriptions of this bill to aged-care homes, including those conducted by religious institutions, by churches.' As I say, if that amendment were to be passed, we would be in the sad position of being opposed to the bill in its amended form.
It was represented by the Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, that the amendment that is foreshadowed by the government is not a problem for the churches. It is said by the government, incorrectly, that in submissions to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's review of the draft Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill, which is the genesis of the current bill, a number of the churches which conduct aged-care facilities said that they did not have a problem with having their aged-care facilities subject to the terms of the Sex Discrimination Act as they would be if amended by this bill. The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, the Salvation Army, Catholic Health Australia, the Presbyterian Church of Australia and a number of smaller religious denominations, both Christian and non-Christian, which provide aged-care services all indicated in submissions to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee that such an amendment would be problematic for them because it might intrude upon their capacity to conduct and govern their institutions in accordance with the precepts of their respective faiths.
We are therefore left with a very sad reality. I am sorry to say I cannot help but be cynical about the government's motives here. When the government decided to introduce this bill, they knew that they had bipartisanship on it. Mr Dreyfus, when he announced the government's intention to legislate in this manner, on 20 March this year, knew that what he was proposing was what the opposition senators, in their minority report on the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill exposure draft, had recommended. I had, as the shadow Attorney-General, with responsibility for discrimination law, made it clear time beyond number, both in this chamber and in public speeches, that the opposition was committed to the principle of extending the Sex Discrimination Act to cover sexuality. If the bill in the form in which the government chose to introduce it had been allowed to proceed in that form, this terrible, fractious, divided, angry parliament could at least, in its last fortnight, have had something to be proud of: a bipartisan consensus—indeed, if we include our colleagues the Greens, a multipartisan consensus—that discrimination against people on the basis of their sexuality should be against the law.
Why would a government acting in good faith and knowing those facts to be true then move to amend the bill at the last minute, after it has already been through the House of Representatives, with the opposition's support, to include a provision which is at variance with its own traditional position concerning the religious exemption and which it knows the opposition cannot and will not support, because, unlike the Labor Party, we have not abandoned our commitment to the religious exemption? We have not recalibrated the ethical consensus in the way in which Mr Dreyfus and his colleagues feel that they are able to recalibrate the ethical consensus. What a shame, from a government which has sought in its desperate dying days, in its death throes, to throw up any issue that might create division rather than harmony, to create division rather than unity. What a shame for the gay community that the government, through a deliberate and cynical act, has vacated its initial commitment to this principle and sought to make it impossible for there to be the appropriate cross-partisan consensus that there ought to be on the principle of prohibiting sexuality based discrimination.
That is where it lies. I urge the government to reconsider this divisive, fractious, cynical manoeuvre on which it is engaged. I urge the government, for once in its life, to show some good faith. I urge the government to abandon these amendments which would violate its own commitment to the religious exemption and make it impossible for the opposition to support this bill—because we do not abandon our commitment to the religious exemption. Present the bill to the Senate for a vote in its original form, the form in which it was presented to the House of Representatives, and let us all be united in support of the principle, shorn of any complications, that discrimination against people on the ground of their sexuality should be within the reach of the Sex Discrimination Act and should be prohibited by law.
Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (20:15): I rise tonight to speak on the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013. The Australian Greens have long championed freedom from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status as well as protections from discrimination for same-sex de facto couples. So, to the extent that it establishes these protections, we do welcome this bill. We further commend the government's late amendments which provide a limitation on religious exemptions in the provision of Commonwealth funded aged care and which update terminology in Commonwealth legislation to provide consistency with this bill.
All that said, however, this bill is equally significant for what it fails to protect. The Australian Greens strongly believe that this bill should have abolished the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act which exempt religious bodies from anti-discrimination law. We further believe that the new exemption stating that 'conduct is not unlawful when … it constitutes a request for information and keeping of records in relation to sex and/or gender' should be subject to a sunset clause.
The Australian Greens are always working towards equality for everyone. We seek to ensure that individuals and groups receive fair and equal treatment so that every person can have the opportunity for full participation in society and the chance to live life to its full potential. Protecting human rights in this way is not just intrinsically right; it also provides considerable instrumental benefits for our society. Equality involves affording dignity and respect to everyone and not treating them unfavourably because of their background, their religion or their housing or social status, or on the basis of personal characteristics such as sex, race, age, sexual orientation, gender preference or disability.
Along with many other Australians, the Australian Greens were extremely disappointed that the government abandoned the draft Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill earlier this year. Despite three successive Labor Attorneys-General committing to streamline and modernise anti-discrimination and human rights law in Australia in the form of that instrument, they ultimately and unfortunately abandoned the project. This bill, while introducing some long needed reforms, is a mere shadow of that important reform.
Not only has the government declined to modernise federal anti-discrimination laws generally, it has also declined to address some of the most pronounced cases where an organisation can deny a person's human right to freedom from discrimination. This bill's preservation of sections 37 and 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, and indeed its extension of these exemptions for religious bodies to discriminate on the grounds of newly protected attributes, represents another seriously missed opportunity.
Freedom of religion is an important human right. However, religious bodies should not have a free pass to discriminate. The Sex Discrimination Act as it stands gives broad exemptions from anti-discrimination law for religious bodies and educational institutions set up for religious purposes. The exemptions fly in the face of the idea that people should be treated equally, with dignity and respect, so that they can have access to opportunities and services such as health, education and housing. As a result of these exemptions, a religious hospital can refuse to employ a gay doctor, a religious school can refuse to enrol a bisexual student or to hire a lesbian administrator, and a faith based homelessness shelter can refuse to accept a transgender resident.
Research shows that there are students with protected attributes in every education system in Australia, including religious educational institutions, and that these students continue to experience homophobic abuse and mistreatment. Systemic discrimination sanctioned by the state makes it much harder for a tolerant, rights oriented culture to flourish in Australia.
As well as being the Australian Greens spokesperson for legal affairs, I also have responsibility for education and mental health. Sadly, these three areas intersect powerfully when it comes to exemptions for religious schools which are allowed to discriminate against students on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity or transgender status. The serious consequences of discrimination for the mental health of young people who identify as gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex are well known. There is compelling and troubling data about the disproportionate incidence of depression, anxiety and self-harm among young people who perceive themselves to be less than worthy or equal because of the treatment they receive. Treatment like this at the hands of religious institutions, permitted by our state, is highly damaging and fundamentally wrong.
The Australian Greens believe that the religious exemptions in the Sex Discrimination Act strike the wrong balance between freedom of religion and protection from arbitrary discrimination. It is a great shame that this Labor government has passed up two important opportunities to strike them out. This bill permits a request for information, or the keeping of records, to require that a person be identified as either male or female, irrespective of how a person identifies themselves. There are a significant number of people in our society, with estimates ranging between 1.9 per cent and four per cent, who just do not—and indeed, in some cases, cannot because of their physiological make-up—identify strictly as either male or female. They face daily difficulties in employment, housing, credit and welfare matters because the associated requests for information and the records kept do not accommodate their identity. Given that the draft Australian government guidelines on the recognition of sex and gender will be adopted from 1 July 2013, we believe this aspect of the bill needs to be revisited as a matter of priority.
The Australian Greens have raised with the Attorney-General and the government the issue of consistency between the proposed Commonwealth legislation and state legislation. Some jurisdictions in Australia, such as Tasmania, have a more advanced state of anti-discrimination law where there are no exemptions for religious bodies. It is interesting to note that the world has not ended in Tasmania, despite the protestations of religious organisations against the lifting of the exemptions! We have some concerns that, in jurisdictions with more progressive laws, like Tasmania, the amended Sex Discrimination Act will be so inconsistent with them as to render such jurisdictions' laws invalid. However, we support this bill on the basis of advice from the government that the Commonwealth legislation is not intended to cover the field with respect to such jurisdictions. We support this bill on the basis of advice from the government that it intends for state protections from discrimination to operate concurrently with the federal law. In short, we support this bill because it goes some way towards improving protections for people against discrimination in Australia.
I indicate that we will not be supporting the coalition amendment, because this would remove the function whereby a regulation can specifically address this issue with respect to a state's legislation. We oppose this coalition amendment because it would allow a regressive state to pass discriminatory laws with automatic precedence over the Commonwealth law, and that is certainly not an outcome that the Australian Greens will countenance.
There is no doubt that this bill could have gone further and falls short in many respects, and the Australian Greens will continue to work towards a future where this task is complete. I will be moving a second reading amendment on behalf of the Australian Greens, as circulated in the chamber. The amendment notes, while not declining to pass the bill, that this bill is intended to replace the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012 and, despite three successive Attorneys-General committing to streamlining and modernising anti-discrimination and human rights law, this bill does not achieve that; that this bill preserves sections 37 and 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and so extends exemptions for religious bodies to discriminate on the grounds of newly protected attributes; and that the government has stated that this Commonwealth legislation is not intended to cover the field with respect to jurisdictions with more advanced anti-discrimination laws and intends for state protections against discrimination to operate concurrently with the federal law. I commend the amendment to the Senate. I move:
At the end of the motion, add "but while the Senate does not decline to pass the bill, it notes:
(a) that it is intended to replace the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012, and that, despite three successive Attorneys-General committing to streamline and modernise anti-discrimination and human rights law via that instrument, this bill shows that this Government has no intention to do so;
(b) this bill's preservation of sections 37 and 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, and indeed its extension of these exemptions for religious bodies to discriminate on the grounds of newly protected attributes, represents another missed opportunity;
(c) that not only has this Government declined to modernise federal anti discrimination laws generally, it has also declined to address some of the most pronounced cases where an organisation can deny a person's human right to freedom from discrimination; and
(d) the Government's statement that the Commonwealth legislation is not intended to cover the field with respect to jurisdictions with more advanced anti-discrimination law, and that it intends for state protections from discrimination to operate concurrently with the federal law".
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (20:26): I am very pleased to give my support to the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013. This bill is the latest in a very long list of reforms delivered by this federal Labor government to support the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians. These reforms have included recognition of same-sex couples and parents; improving the processes by which transgender and intersex Australians have their identity recognised on Commonwealth documentation; providing Australians who want to get married overseas with access to certificates of no impediment; and introducing specific health and aged-care strategies for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians.
I am very proud to be part of a party and a government that has delivered these and so many more reforms, and that we have now introduced this bill. I would really like to commend the GLBTI community for their advocacy and assistance to government in bringing these many reforms to the table. It is only through the community sharing their experiences and bringing them to the fore that we, governments and parliaments, can understand and adjust the way we govern ourselves in the interests of all Australians.
To me it is almost unbelievable that, in 2013, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians can still be legally discriminated against under Commonwealth law, even though they are widely accepted. Most Australians know gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex people. We understand that sexuality is neither a choice nor a reason for people to be subjected to discrimination or harassment. Fewer Australians, however, have a good understanding of the issues relating to gender identity and intersex status. A person's 'gender identity' refers to their inherent sense of themselves as being male or female, or perhaps even a combination of the two, and this may not always align with the sex they were assigned at birth. 'Intersex status' is quite a different thing. It refers to someone whose biological make-up—the way they were biologically identified at birth—is not wholly male nor wholly female and, in fact, may be a combination of both or may be lacking some of the attributes. So there are a range of quite specific and diverse genetic and biological conditions that mean that a significant number of people have a biological intersex status.
Like sexual orientation, neither gender identity nor intersex status are a choice and neither are a reason for a person to suffer discrimination or harassment. However, sadly, like GLBTI Australians, gender identity and intersex status can and often are reasons for people to suffer discrimination. As I participated in the inquiries into this legislation, conducted by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I and other senators heard many significant stories about the kind of discrimination and harassment suffered by GLBTI Australians—the most appalling examples of discrimination.
I know of people with spotless professional histories who have been sacked from their employment with no recourse on the discovery or disclosure of their sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status and, importantly, of young people who are so bullied and harassed so badly within educational settings due to their sexual orientation or gender presentation that they become depressed and suicidal in the face of institutional inaction, a failure of these organisations to act to protect the young people in their care. It is really important that this legislation creates that onus of protection on Australia's educational institutions.
There is also evidence of older GLBTI Australians being, if you like, forced back into the closet, to hide or lie about their identity and life, in order to be assured of receiving respectful care in their older and most vulnerable years in aged-care settings. It is all very well for Senator Brandis this evening to complain about the amendments that the government is putting forward, and I am proud that we are putting forward, but we put them forward not out of an act of political divisiveness—far from it. We put them forward because the lesbian and gay community have worked very hard with the aged-care sector to put protocols in place to say, 'This is how things should be done.' They have worked hard with the aged-care sector and with GLBTI Australians to identify the kind of discrimination that older GLBTI Australians face.
Discrimination in aged care is well documented. Aged care is a service that is subsidised by the Commonwealth so that all Australians, if they need care and support, can access an aged-care service. Not all Australians have a choice about the kind of aged-care institution that they would like to access. In many communities there is only the local service. So I put on a much higher order the right of GLBTI Australians who need care and protection in an aged-care service to have their personal liberties and rights respected. Those services are subsidised by the Commonwealth, and it is vital that the Commonwealth should mandate that GLBTI Australians have the same access to those services as all other Australians.
In the self-proclaimed, egalitarian Australia—one that prides itself on a fair go for all—discrimination where people are denied health care, social assistance and even denied banking services on the basis of their gender identity, their sexual orientation or gender presentation, is plainly unacceptable. So I am very pleased that, with the passing of this bill into law, we will help and provide redress for Australians where this discrimination exists.
There is, however, more work to be done. We need to look seriously at including a range of other attributes within our discrimination protection law as part of a consolidated federal antidiscrimination law but also within the Sex Discrimination Act. For example, being a victim of domestic violence is an attribute that can cause people to be significantly discriminated against. It can cause people to lose their housing and it can cause people to lose their employment at a time when they are already incredibly vulnerable. There is a significant need for us to continue to look at all those kinds of gender related aspects of discrimination.
I also think that we need to engage with the philosophical and legal framework behind the way we integrate existing acts together. I hope that the consolidation is something that will happen in the future, and I am assured that it is something that the government remains committed to. As part of this, I do believe we should be considering whether people who hold religious beliefs also need protection from discrimination. I also believe we need to tighten up on religious exemptions.
Aged care is but one example of organisations receiving funding from the Commonwealth to deliver services to the community—services that we expect community members to be able to access—and, personally, this is something that I put a great deal of priority on. People do not have a choice about which service they are referred to. So, if you are a transgender Australian, for example, and you are referred by Centrelink to visit your local Employment Plus service, that is the service through which you are required to access your services. There is absolutely no transparency within government as to which services retain the right to discriminate or not. As a consumer, as someone who wants to access services, there is no transparency around which organisations in our nation retain the right to discriminate. Most often, Catholic institutions are listed as charities. They are not listed, for example, as religious institutions when you look at the government bureaucracy and paper work. So there is absolutely no transparency or capacity for Australians to be reassured that, when they access a service, there is a possibility of them suffering discrimination at the hands of that service. These are the kinds of things that we must address in future, and I lay that proposition on the table.
Legislation is only one tool that we have for fighting discrimination and intolerance in Australian society. I am proud of how far we have come as a nation and I appreciate the enormous difference that that makes to the lived experience of GLBTI Australians. However, there are still far too many people who suffer extreme discrimination and extreme mental health impacts from that discrimination. So, of greater importance is the change that needs to continue to take place in our hearts and minds—in the hearts and minds of the community and of individual people—so that we treat each other with compassion and respect in day-to-day life. I am very pleased to say, though, that legislation like the legislation before us can open very real avenues for redress. When discrimination arises, legislation like this can help point the way for society to go. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Senator HUMPHRIES (Australian Capital Territory) (20:38): I participated last year in the inquiry by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee into the draft human rights anti-discrimination package, and I was also a member of the committee for the purposes of the inquiry into this bill, the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill—although the inquiry did not lead to a hearing by the committee but rather to a report on the papers. In those circumstances it is a matter of some concern that this legislation was referred to the committee in the wake of the collapse of the earlier human rights legislation package. The government decided not to proceed with the package. It salvaged one part of it—the provisions dealing with lesbian, gay, transgender and intersex people—and brought it forward in this bill.
In the course of doing that, and following an inquiry in which there was no public hearing, the government has introduced a new element into the legislation—an element which not only was not foreshadowed when the legislation was first introduced; it was quite strongly suggested that it would not be present in the bill. The government stated that its intention was to introduce the relevant protections as a first stage of reforms but to otherwise maintain the existing structure of the Sex Discrimination Act including the exemptions. The bill before us today maintains the exemptions but the amendment which the government has tabled removes at least one of those key exemptions. An area of consensus, in a debate last year in respect of human rights and anti-discrimination legislation that generally lacked some measure of consensus, is no longer an area about which we enjoy consensus. It is a matter of real regret that in dealing with this legislation we cannot go forward to address an area of obvious need to correct a gap, a lacuna, in the laws of Australia because the government has decided to change direction on this and introduce an element about which there is not a consensus. I emphasise that point.
On the question of providing for protection under Australian law for people of lesbian, gay, transgender or intersex status there was a consensus that the law was deficient and that the amendments should be made. That consensus, however, was based on the government protecting and preserving the existing exemptions for a range of activities across the community, in this case particularly the exemptions for religious organisations providing services to the Australian public. In one key respect the balance has been lost as the government has decided to step away from its earlier commitments and proceed to remove what I think is an important protection in the existing Sex Discrimination Act where there is not consensus among the parties affected by it. If all of the religious organisations concerned had come to either the earlier inquiry or the inquiry most recently conducted into this bill and said, 'We are happy to have the exemptions taken away; we do not need them; they are not important, remove them,' then I am sure coalition senators would be rising to support the bill, and there would not be a need for this division across the chamber.
But not all the witnesses gave evidence to that effect. A number of organisations made it very clear that, although they did not operate facilities and services in the aged-care sector which practise discrimination, they believed it was important to maintain the exemption for cases where particular instances might not clearly be explained or evident from the state of the law. Those organisations argued that while it was not policy to discriminate in any event, religious organisations should be given the opportunity to justify their position or otherwise in light of the fundamental freedoms of religion and association. That was essentially the position put by bodies like the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, the Salvation Army, Catholic Health Australia, the Presbyterian Church of Australia, the Catholic Women's League, an organisation called Freedom 4 Faith and a number of the smaller denominations. We are proceeding to remove protections from those organisations, many of them presently providing, directly or indirectly, aged-care services in the community where there is a lack of consensus on the appropriateness of the step which the Senate will take tonight by accepting this amendment. That is a matter of real regret to me.
Senator Pratt, in her contribution, praised the government's progress towards widening rights and extending the coverage of the human rights legislation across the field. As I have said, in saying that, she rather glossed over the fact that, last year, the government stumbled rather badly with respect to human rights legislation when it proceeded with a piece of legislation—to the extent of sending it to a Senate inquiry—and that legislation was found to have many, many provisions which were very contentious and which were widely opposed across the Australian community. They were measures which particularly appeared to infringe the right to freedom of expression.
That particular provision was ultimately withdrawn from the package and, in the end, when a new Attorney-General came to that office, he took the package entirely off the table. The government's progress down this pathway has not been entirely smooth, as I hope Senator Pratt would acknowledge, but it is clear that, in proceeding with the amendment that has been moved tonight by the government to its own bill, there is a disturbing question of how the government has struck a balance in this process, and that has not yet been answered.
I worry about the basis for this and I worry about the lack of consultation with affected organisations. As I said, we have conducted an inquiry into this without hearing from any witnesses. We are making a major change to the law, arising out of inquiry in which there was only evidence taken from written submissions. Most of them were very brief, because the legislation did not sit on the table for very long. Most of them were two or three pages in length, with a conflict in the views of the organisations providing aged care. Against that background, we have decided to proceed to make this major change. That is a matter of real regret.
It is not a surprise, given the way in which many, many bills have been dealt with in this place in recent days. There have been rushed bills, bills lacking proper processes of consultation behind them and bills that demonstrate a lack of understanding of the areas which are being affected by them. It is not a surprise, therefore, to see the government in this mess. But it is disturbing nonetheless because this does present a significant change to the landscape of discrimination. I think it is a step which we are not taking in the right direction.
Senator Pratt argued that it was important for religious organisations to accept the application of discrimination legislation and the removal of all exemptions relating to lesbian, gay, transgender and intersex people. I have left one category out there; I have forgotten which one it is. Whichever one it is, I apologise to that category of person. The view of Senator Pratt appears to be that those exemptions should be removed on the basis that those services are subsidised by the Commonwealth. Public funding—taxpayers' dollars—is in those services and therefore they should accept that discrimination on religious grounds is not permissible.
Senator Pratt would need to acknowledge that many of the services offered in the community—indeed, the overwhelming majority of services offered in the community today—by religious organisations are subsidised by the taxpayer, whether it is at the federal level or the state and territory level. Schools are virtually all subsidised by the taxpayer; hospitals run by religious organisations are subsidised, as are aged care services and employment services, which Senator Pratt referred to. They are all subsidised. So presumably Senator Pratt would argue for the exemptions that currently apply to religious organisations to be removed altogether. Indeed, she did go on to say: 'We need to tighten up on religious exemptions.' Perhaps that is the view of Senator Pratt. I would hope that is not the view of the government as a whole, because religious organisations, it has been accepted for a long time, have an important place in the provision of services across the community. In doing so, they are deserving of support from the taxpayer, because they provide extremely important services that would otherwise be more costly to offer if they were not supported by those organisations.
Without the right to operate those services—taking into account the religious sensibilities of those who provide them—there would be a serious problem in those organisations participating in those sectors. We would be much the poorer as a community if they were excluded from that sector by virtue of the total application of discrimination laws, which would prevent any application of religious principles in those organisations. Worse still, perhaps they would become the preserve of the richer Australians and poorer Australians would be excluded from the use of those services. That would also be a very unfortunate development. The amendment the government is moving tonight does, very regrettably, take us in a direction which is unfortunate.
I thought the witnesses who argued against this were quite cogent—that is, those who put submissions to this inquiry; there were no live witnesses, as I said. One submission, from the Catholic Women's League Australia, quoted Catholic Health Australia. I will read from that submission, which was quoting Catholic Health Australia. It said:
Catholic hospitals and aged care services today care for any person of any faith or none, race, gender, or sexual orientation who seeks services to be provided to them in a way that is consistent with Catholic teaching. Catholic hospitals and aged care services in this regard do not discriminate against anyone, and do not need protection of blanket exceptions from discrimination laws. That said, Catholic hospitals and aged care services do not provide services that are inconsistent with Catholic teaching. To not provide a service on grounds of Catholic teaching is not to discriminate, rather it is a simple limiting of services that Catholic organisations chose to offer as fulfilment of their religious belief.
I think that they make a very important point. It is not discrimination to provide services on the basis of the tenets of a faith, if the faith requires that things be done in a certain way. Overall, Australia is not diminished if those organisations continue to provide the services on that basis, even if it sometimes means that certain things happen within those institutions that might not happen in other sorts of institutions that are not so based. Catholic Health Australia did not make a submission directly to this inquiry, so I assume that the Catholic Women's League has captured the spirit of what they think about this legislation. I do not pretend to be quoting directly the view of Catholic Health Australia, because their view in respect of this bill is not on the record.
I commend the bill very warmly to the Senate. I think it is an important development and that people in our community deserve the protections that the bill affords. But I do not think that in doing so we should sweep away important balance which has been achieved in our Sex Discrimination Act and in related pieces of legislation. The amendment which the government is moving tonight unfortunately achieves just that effect.
Senator BOYCE (Queensland) (20:53): I will not speak for long, because the history of this bill has already been well discussed. The fact is that, until the government put up the amendment to this bill, it had the support of all parties and all people in this place, because it was good policy and it was good legislation.
In terms of this amendment, I find myself somewhat conflicted. I support the aims of this amendment. It was interesting to go back and look at some of the comments made in 2001 and 2004 by then Liberal ministers for ageing and for aged care around the development in this sector where people have moved from being seen as inmates or patients who should be grateful for whatever they get to people who are seen as having rights and the right to feel as though, when they are in an institution, that the institution has been developed into the most home-like institution possible. This is a mood that was started by the coalition. Ms Julie Bishop, in 2004 as the Minister for Ageing, talked about the introduction of certification standards into the physical environment where residents lived. She said, 'These are their homes.' This is true, and that is the way that we are now trying to push aged care more and more. We have extended aged care at home, but when people move into aged-care facilities we want them to feel as though they are in a home, their own home. In 2001, Ms Bronwyn Bishop started this as the Minister for Aged Care. She said, 'All of our policy is designed to have respect for the individual.'
I do not think that the religious organisations can have it both ways. They cannot say, 'We don't discriminate' or 'We respect the individual' and at the same time say, 'But we don't want any legislation that affects the way we treat people.' The amendment to this bill being proposed by the Attorney-General would have benefited from a lot more discussion and a lot more debate. It seems that there are number of issues that need to be looked at.
I remember an inquiry into suicide and mental health in Australia that you were involved in, Madam Acting Deputy President Moore. We heard from a number of service provision organisations, all organisations that in some form or another would have given evidence to the earlier Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill—arms of the Uniting Church, the Catholic Church and so on. I said to every one of those organisations: suicide used to be considered a sin by your church. Is it still a sin? No-one said, 'We've stopped calling it a sin,' but they all made the point that they were trying to frame the whole argument differently. They said they were looking at the issue from the health aspect of the individual, not from the religious aspect of the individual.
Can they have it both ways? Religious organisations would like to have it both ways. They would like to say, 'We can make the rules the way we want to make the rules for people who use these facilities.' I have no dispute whatsoever with organisations such as Catholic schools and other religious schools having the right to decide what values their staff are expected to embody. I do not think that a religious school or hospital, or an aged-care home for that matter, should have to employ people who clearly do not live by the values that that organisation adheres to. But that is quite different from the people who are the patients, the residents or the students of those organisations.
There have been suggestions around this that hospitals and schools are not included, just aged-care facilities. Do we need to include hospitals and schools? I do not think an intersex person or a person in a homosexual relationship or a transgender person would be denied, as a student, rights to enter a school. Nor would they be denied, as a patient, rights to enter a hospital. So why should we allow aged-care institutions that are funded by the federal government to decide who the residents of those aged-care facilities will be based on the sexual orientation or the sexual status of the people involved? I do not think it is reasonable for that to be the right of the organisations.
As a number of people have already pointed out, numerous organisations have told us that they do not discriminate. If we look at some of the comments made about this surprise amendment, a number of providers told us that their policy is not to discriminate in practice and the need for this regulation is not demonstrated. How do you, perhaps as a homosexual couple, demonstrate the need for this legislation when no law has been broken? What did you do? There was no discrimination being conducted—unless this amendment goes through—so we have no idea how many people out there of intersex status or homosexual couples or transgender or bisexual people have been discriminated against by religious organisations when they wanted to become residents of those organisations. We are not going know the level if there has not been an issue.
It seems to me that the amendment has merit but it should not have come to us in the way it has. It would have benefited from further debate and discussion and an opening up of some of the issues around the religious organisations. It struck me as interesting that it was the Catholic Women's League that put in the submission around the amendment to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, of which I am a member, and not Catholic Health Australia, which I think would produce at least a submission a week to various committees in this place or to departments. It certainly would not be for lack of resources to create one quickly that we did not receive a submission. It seems to me that many of the religious organisations choose to put on a non-religious face when it suits them in service provision and the like, but then, again when it suits them, to pull out their religious values and religious exemptions in that area. I think this is an area that needs a lot more debate, but I do support this amendment.
Senator BACK (Western Australia—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (21:02): I rise to contribute to the discussion on the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013. I join the disappointment expressed by our deputy leader, Senator Brandis, that when this legislation went into the House of Representatives it had the support of the Labor government and the coalition. It appears that it was only when it arrived here in the Senate that the amendment, which is now the question of so much discussion and so much disappointment from this side of the chamber, has started to dominate the discussion.
There is no argument that there should be no circumstance in Australia in which we would see discrimination based on sexual orientation. As we know the bill follows from the government's abandonment of its Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill earlier this year, the effect of which was to adopt the recommendations of coalition senators. I think you, Madam Acting Deputy President, have been very much involved in the deliberations and discussions that have gone on in this particular area. It is this amendment to extend the exemption to religious organisations and others that has made it the subject of so much discussion. When we saw the original legislation on the removal of discrimination on the basis of sexuality, anybody in this chamber would surely have accepted it. As I recall, it was the position that the coalition took to the election in 2010. Earlier speakers have referred to different aspects of sexual orientation, which is defined as a person's orientation towards persons of the same sex or different sex or the same and different sex. Gender identity is defined as gender related identity, appearance or mannerisms of the other gender. Intersex status is defined as the status of having physical, hormonal or genetic features that are neither wholly female nor wholly male—or a combination of both or, indeed, neither of the two.
The prohibition on discrimination is being extended to areas in the workplace—including employment, superannuation, contract workers, partnerships and the like—and to education, to goods and services, to accommodation, to clubs and to the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. We would naturally support all of these. I join Senator Brandis in his comments that, to this point, the coalition supported the bill in the House of Representatives and would support it here in the Senate. However, the position of the coalition, which I share strongly, would be to oppose the foreshadowed amendments and, should those amendments proceed, then we would have no option but to oppose the bill itself.
I listened very carefully to the contributions of Senators Wright, Pratt, Humphries and more latterly Senator Boyce. I would describe myself as an active member of the Catholic faith, a regular church goer, a person who, for the last 11 years leading up to 4 February 2012, was the carer of an aged mother who went from being a highly-independent, very intelligent woman to suffering a major stroke. I, like many other Australians, found myself in the position of going from knowing nothing about aged care—or the need to guide an aged parent into aged care—to becoming an expert within a matter of weeks. Indeed, I had to fight the case through the medical system for her to be assessed because initial shock, anger and disappointment all led to a determination that my mother's case should be the subject of intense examination by the medical profession before a permanent decision was made that she possibly could not recover from that left-side stroke—and, indeed, she did not.
I make that point because of the observations made by my Senate colleagues on the circumstance of the right of religious organisations. My mother then spent time, from February 2002 until 4 February 2012, in the Southern Cross Care facility of Margaret Hubery House in Perth, run by the Knights of the Southern Cross—a Catholic aged-care institution. If Senator Boyce were here, I would say to her that, in the entire time that I had responsibility as the primary carer for my mother while she was in that facility and as a person who engaged actively with the management of the Margaret Hubery facility and Southern Cross Care homes, I never at any time saw a circumstance of discrimination against any resident. There was a wide range of residents. There were aged sisters and aged brothers and priests. There were people of every or no denomination. It was not my business to inquire into their gender identity, sexual orientation or intersex status, if they had one, but I can say that at no time have I ever observed any discrimination of any type.
Having said that—and this is where I do take issue with Senator Pratt—I respect the right of religious organisations to find themselves beyond the reach of discrimination law of the type that is being proposed in this amendment. I believe there is a right of religious practice. There is a right of religious worship. This has got to be respected and protected in the same way as the rights of those about whom we are speaking this evening. This is the sad irony of the bill and its amendments. The bill is calling for a removal of discrimination on the basis of sexual or other identity or intersex status, and yet at the same time we are demanding the end of this discrimination we seem to be accepting a scenario in which groups such as religious organisations with regard to the aged-care sector must be bound up in the same voice as those against whom we are pleading for discrimination to be removed.
I believe, as has been said here this evening, that you cannot have freedom of religion if you turn around and have legislation which imposes on a church or a religious institution something that is at variance with its very tenets or rules. If there is a fault with those, it should be examined. It is dangerous to say that, simply because there is Commonwealth government support for an organisation, such as the religious organisation in the case I referred to, the Knights of the Southern Cross, you can at the stroke of a pen remove the independence and capacity of that religious organisation to preserve and respect the tenets upon which it was based. I would argue that very, very actively. It is not up to the state to tell churches what they can or cannot believe.
We have a long tradition in this country of the involvement of churches, particularly in education, health, aged care and, more latterly, complementary services such as mental health services, disability services, pregnancy health services and a whole range of others. There may be an argument on the part of some people to say, 'If they receive some federal funding or state funding, then they must automatically come under the auspices of the state or federal government.' I dispute that. I go back to, for example, in my own state of Western Australia, the very earliest days of our colony when in the education space the Mercy nuns arrived in early January. It must have been stinking hot when those Irish nuns arrived in Perth in early January. Within seven days of them arriving, using as desks the very packing cases that their belongings came in, under a tree in Victoria Square they were already commencing the education of young women, including young Aboriginal girls. That is the rich tradition of churches and other religious organisations.
I know we are focusing particularly this evening on the aged-care discipline, but, just because we now have a circumstance in which there is state and federal funding of education, does that mean it must be totally dominated by the state or federal government? When I went through school there was no support at all for Catholic education from state or federal sources. Yet that did not stop the rich development of our education. Of course, in many cases the only reason we got into the professions and, indeed, probably into the positions we find ourselves today is that the sacrifices of those religious organisations and of our own families and parents allowed us that opportunity. I do not think it equates to a circumstance in which we say in this place tonight that, just because there is some federal and/or state funding in the circumstance of aged care, the legislation that we are proposing with regard to sex discrimination should find its way automatically into those areas associated with aged care as it is provided by religious and like organisations.
Religion is a universal right under article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I ask my colleagues to remember and respect that when we vote on this issue this evening. I plead, as Senator Brandis did, that in the dying days of this parliament we can put to one side an amendment that is divisive, an amendment that is going to cause this Senate to divide along party lines. It is a fact that we all—the Labor Party, the Greens, I understand the Independents, Senator Madigan and the coalition members—support the bill. But do not send us again to a circumstance of division over something that did not even find its way into the House of Representatives when the bill was debated. This amendment has been introduced in this place.
I will not join the debate—I will not lower myself to the debate—about the reasons or the motives of the Labor government in introducing this amendment. I just plead for common sense on an issue as important as this one, that we could actually allow ourselves to have universal support for the bill right across this chamber. I plead with the government: withdraw this amendment and do not require us to oppose it and therefore move to oppose the bill, should the amendment fail.
Senator SINODINOS (New South Wales) (21:16): The Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013 extends the antidiscrimination protection in Commonwealth law on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status. It follows the government's abandonment of its Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill on 20 March. Its principal effect is to adopt the recommendation of coalition senators, in the minority report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the bill, that the Sex Discrimination Act should be amended so that it extends to discrimination on the basis of sexuality, which was a policy that, I think my colleague Senator Back and others have said, the coalition took to the 2010 election, and that remains coalition policy. These so-called shellbacks in the opposition led by an opposition leader who is meant to be a throwback to the 1950s had a policy at the 2010 election which to my mind sounds very contemporary. I commend my leader, Tony Abbott, and others—I was not here in 2010—for having the foresight to have adopted this policy at that time. I welcome the fact that the bill is coming forward on the basis of removing the sexual discrimination that we talk about here.
Sexual orientation is defined in the bill as:
… a person’s sexual orientation towards:
(a) persons of the same sex; or
(b) persons of a different sex; or
(c) persons of the same sex and persons of a different sex.
The use of 'different' rather than 'opposite' reflects recognition in the bill for those whose sex is categorised as intersex or by reference to their gender identity. Without going into the discussions in the party room today, I make the point that Mr Warren Entsch made an eloquent plea in relation to the situation of intersex people. He drew attention to an, I think, eight-year-old who faced these dilemmas. It is not very easy for us to put ourselves in the shoes of a person who finds themselves in that sort of situation, but one of the obligations of a parliament, of us as representatives of the people, is to try to understand the challenges and dilemmas faced by people in those situations. I welcome the fact that we are able to talk about these issues in this open way and find a way forward on the discrimination we are talking about.
Gender identity is defined in the bill as:
… the gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of a person (whether by way of medical intervention or not), with or without regard to the person’s designated sex at birth.
Intersex status is defined in the bill as:
… the status of having physical, hormonal or genetic features that are:
(a) neither wholly female nor wholly male; or
(b) a combination of female and male; or
(c) neither female nor male.
As my colleagues have mentioned, the prohibition on discrimination on the new grounds extends to areas of work, education, goods, services and facilities, accommodation, land, clubs and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. So far so good. However, the issue that has arisen and that my colleagues have raised—I will not take up too much time on this—is that the bill as originally presented to the parliament did not include the proposal from the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill to qualify the general religious exemption in the provision of Commonwealth funded aged-care services. The government stated that its intention with respect to this bill was to introduce the relevant protections as a 'first stage of reforms' but to otherwise maintain the existing overall structure of the Sex Discrimination Act, including the exemptions. However, the government has now introduced an amendment that reverses that stance. The amendment will restrict the existing exemption from antidiscrimination law for religious organisations which provide Commonwealth funded aged-care services or accommodation. The government has introduced the amendment in a manner that has not permitted proper consultation to occur and it has brought the amendment on for debate as a matter of urgency, which is inexplicable.
Maybe the government has done that because it believes the amendment is not controversial, because it believes the amendment has been welcomed by the majority of religious aged-care providers. However, a perusal of the actual submissions provided by religious organisations to the inquiries into the failed Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill and this bill indicates that that is misleading and that the position of religious aged-care providers is not nearly as uniformly supportive as is claimed. For example, while some organisations, such as the Uniting Church, do support the removal of the exemption, other large religious institutions have stated that making the link between government funding and the implementation of the provisions is 'a false way of resolving a conflict between what are competing and legitimate human rights and that the proposal should not be implemented without extensive consultations'.
They argue that, while it is not policy to discriminate in any event—and that is an important caveat—religious organisations should be given the opportunity to justify their positions or otherwise in light of the fundamental freedom of religion and association. Here we get to the nub of it—and the difficulty. The difficulty is that we are talking about competing 'freedoms', about what is the hierarchy, if you like, of freedoms. Legitimately, that is the subject on which reasonable people can have differing views. But I do, along with many of my colleagues, put a particular store by this fundamental freedom of religion and association, and I do so for a couple of reasons. The first is that I do respect the role of religion in our society. Not everybody has to be religious; people can be religious in different ways. I also respect the role that the churches have played in our society. While a church is an institution full of fallible human beings, the fallibility of those particular people should not necessarily be seen to cast aspersions on the nature, role and mission of religious institutions, including churches.
As I said in my maiden speech, I believe that, on balance and overwhelmingly, churches and religious institutions have played a very positive role in Australia's social, cultural and, indeed, spiritual journey. It is very important that we recognise that, on balance, the very positive that they have played. They are integral to that part of the community that we like to call civil society and non-government organisations. It is important that, as a vigorous democracy, an important component of it is to have strong, sturdy, independent participants and actors in the civil society and non-government organisations.
We talk about the importance in our society of democracy, freedom of the press and all the rest of it. I think that freedom of civil society, of non-government organisations, is also very important. Yes, you could make an argument that, if we as a state, as the font of all taxing authority, provide money as a state, we should determine the conditions on which it is provided and that that provision should reflect a set of values. That is a reasonable argument which reasonable people can put up, but we have to respect the people with whom we are engaging and the fact that, for them, the institution which they are part of, whether it is a faith based institution or some other private institution, is actually an institution where people are brought together by a certain set of values and beliefs and are guided—and this is the more important point in many ways—by their conscience.
We saw how in totalitarian and authoritarian societies that one of the ways in which the state sought to extend its domain was by snuffing out and suppressing civil society, non-government organisations and, in many cases, of course, the churches, which were seen as independent organisations. In the Australian context, we are not talking about a situation where civil society is about to be suppressed or anything like that, but—and this is the thin end of the wedge in a way—we should respect the right of people to have certain views and we should not necessarily expect, as a state, to impose one particular view on them. You could say, 'But this is about discrimination and we should all be against discrimination.' That is true, but what we are talking about here is the possibility that, by embracing the principle in this particular context, we give grounds on which the principle can be extended to other contexts—in other words, the thin end of the wedge. These are some of the reasons why we in the coalition have reservations and concerns about what the government seeks to do through these amendments.
The position I have talked about here, or a close variant of it, is also argued by the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, the Salvation Army, Catholic Health Australia, the Presbyterian Church and smaller denominations. The providers all indicated that their policy is not to discriminate in practice and that, in these circumstances, the need for regulation is not demonstrated. They all complained that consultation has been extremely limited. In these circumstances, the removal of so fundamental a principle as the religious exemption cannot be supported and will be opposed. We will be opposing the government's amendments.
On the way through, I want to commend the comments earlier this evening of Senator Brandis. My reason for doing so is that, earlier in the day, we had an incident where there was a bit of slagging of the good senator. I will not go into that; it is part of the argy-bargy of the House. But, to me, it was a reminder that Senator Brandis has made a contribution since his teens not only to the cause of what I might describe as modern Australian liberalism but in particular to promoting the freedoms, particularly the freedoms of the individual, that we on this side of the House believe are a core part of what it means to be a modern Australian liberal. I commend the way in which Senator Brandis argued for those views as a student, as a young politician, as a backbencher and now as a senior shadow minister. Whatever slagging and other things happen in this place, I hope people will respect the fact that Senator Brandis is one of the leading proponents promoting individual freedoms. He played an important role in defeating some recent attempts to constrict that freedom—for example, the media bills which would have, among other things, imposed a regulator on the press, particularly the print media, for the first time outside of wartime. Again, this goes to the impulse by the state to try and control institutions and entities which, perhaps we could say, march to the beat of different drum, whether they are civil society, non-government organisations, churches or, in that particular case, the press. So, for us, this is a matter of principle. As Senator Back mentioned earlier, it is such an important matter of principle that it puts at risk our support for the bill.
In closing, may I say that from my own perspective I welcome the fact that we as modern Australian Liberals embrace removing discrimination wherever possible. As someone from a non-English speaking background, I do not believe that I encountered any particular discrimination growing up. But one of the things that has always distinguished Australia has been that capacity to uphold those individual freedoms and to promote, if you like, the fight against discrimination, both within our own country and internationally in various fora. On that basis, it is disappointing that we cannot simply vote for this bill without the particular amendments I mentioned earlier in relation to Commonwealth funded aged-care services.
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (21:30): One of the advantages of speaking late in the night, after a number of my colleagues have spoken on the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013, is that all of the technical issues addressed in the bill have been fully canvassed. I am particularly pleased to have heard from Senator Sinodinos and Senator Back, who gave a very powerful speech on some of his personal experiences in relation to the good work that many religious orders do, particularly in the aged-care area.
What concerns me about this bill is the way that the Labor Party are managing it through this chamber. As I understand it, when this bill went through the House of Representatives recently—I am not sure if it was earlier this week or perhaps a couple of weeks back—it had universal support because it dealt with discrimination and it dealt with the extension of laws to prevent discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status. It was a bill that had been around for a while and on which there had been quite a bit of discussion and consultation. That consultation and that policy work resulted in a bipartisan approach being taken to this very important issue. When the bill went through the lower house, the Labor Party, the single Greens person, those Independents that were interested enough to contribute and certainly the coalition all indicated support for the bill. On that basis, it passed through the lower house.
Something happened on the way to the Senate, and I am not sure that any of the speakers from the Labor Party or the Greens have yet indicated to us what it was that happened—
Senator Siewert interjecting—
Senator IAN MACDONALD: I see, so the aged-care committee reported—
Senator Siewert interjecting—
Senator IAN MACDONALD: And that was a unanimous report, was it, Senator?
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Fawcett ): Order! Senator Macdonald, I appreciate that the interjection is helpful, but it is disorderly to take note of interjections.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: It was helpful, but clearly it was not a unanimous report and something happened then—perhaps I am wrong—not on the way to the Senate but on the way from the House of Representatives to the committee, which is controlled by the Greens and the Labor Party. What I want to know is what actually happened on the way to the committee and on the way to the Senate that changed the view of the government when this matter was dealt with in the other place. I do not think anyone has properly explained that. Clearly, one could make some guesses on conspiracy theories, on what it is that the Labor Party or the Greens have against religious organisations. In fact, I am quite surprised that people like Senator Farrell have allowed this to get to this particular stage. I wonder what Mr Joe de Bruyn thinks about this. He is that union guy who seems to control the South Australian Labor Party and, through them, the Australian Labor Party. So what was it? Has any explanation been given in this debate so far as to what this amendment is all about?
This amendment and the way that the Labor Party have dealt with it and the way they deal with any comment that gets close to the truth are in fact interesting. Here was a bill that received universal support in the other house. So what happened? Why didn't all of the Labor members who supported this in the House of Representatives come to this conclusion as they debated this bill so minutely in the other place? Somewhere along the line the Greens or someone have influenced the Labor Party in the Senate—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! I remind senators that, under standing order 197, interruption of a speaker, except on points of order or privilege or to identify a lack of quorum, are disorderly.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Actually, Mr Acting Deputy President, you alert me to the fact that there is not a quorum here. (Quorum formed) I am glad that the Labor Party came in to hear me speak on this debate. They were very keen to extend the hours of debate tonight, but it seems it took them almost three minutes to rustle up enough people to come into the chamber to keep it going. That is symptomatic not only of how the Labor Party run the chamber but of how they run the government.
As I was saying, this bill contains measures to extend protection from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status. It also extends the existing ground of marital status to marital relationship status to provide protection from discrimination for same-sex de facto couples. These amendments give effect to the government's commitment to introduce new protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
As I mentioned before, this bill, in that form, was totally supported by all the members of the lower house who spoke on the bill. I raised before that I was suspicious as to what happened between the House of Representatives and the Senate committee. By way of disorderly interjection, someone from the Greens political party pointed out that it was some submissions from aged-care authorities. One wonders why those same persons who were so concerned to require the Greens and the Labor Party in their majority report to come to a different conclusion in the Senate committee did not approach their local Labor member at the time the bill was being discussed in the lower house. One wonders why these groups did not approach the minister as the minister was preparing this legislation. One can only come to the conclusion that either the Greens or the Labor Party have this fixation on anything that involves religious freedom and the ability of religious organisations to determine their own destiny when it comes to the way they look after, the way they manage, their aged-care, educational and other facilities.
That is where this bill as it is proposed to be amended is of great concern to the federal opposition. We would, as we indicated in the lower house, support the original bill but we will not support these amendments, which make it quite clear that religious organisations are going to be dictated to by a secular government on whether or not they can get funding for aged-care units, for aged-care facilities, if they do not toe the line for the political philosophy, bias or focus of the government of the day and their Greens partners.
This is symptomatic of the way the Labor Party run the government. Mr Acting Deputy President, you might recall that they are very good at making policy announcements and then, when people alter their position because of those policy announcements, changing them. I only have to mention the solemn promise before the last election that under no circumstances would Ms Gillard or any government that she led ever introduce a carbon tax. It was the most solemn promise. It was repeated by her on several occasions. Then the Treasurer, when we alerted people to the fact that you could not believe the Labor Party, said before the last election that we were being 'hysterical' in suggesting that the Labor Party would not carry through their solemn commitment not to introduce a carbon tax. Yet what happened within a couple of months of their becoming the government after the last election? The Labor Party broke that solemn promise and introduced a carbon tax.
I only raise that to say that, with this bill, the approach of the Labor Party, supported by their Green colleagues, was exactly the same. They approached the opposition and said: 'Here's the bill. Do you agree with it?' We looked through it carefully, we debated the issues and we thought, 'Yes, this is an appropriate bill,' so we indicated support and it got a fairly easy passage through the lower house. But somehow, somewhere between the lower house and the upper house, we have got this change to the bill, which smacks of a government wanting to impose its will on the freedoms that have previously been enjoyed by religious organisations and those who have particular rules in relation to the way they run their facilities.
As my colleagues in this debate have indicated, the bill also contains minor amendments to address some drafting anomalies in relation to family responsibilities and makes minor consequential amendments to the Migration Act. Again, that was all fine. The principal effect of the original bill was to implement the recommendation that the Sex Discrimination Act be extended to cover discrimination on the basis of sexuality. Why did the coalition support this in the lower house? Why would we support the original bill in this chamber? That is a fairly easy question to answer. It is because it was consistent with the policy the coalition took to the 2010 election—and that policy remains coalition policy.
The prohibition of discrimination on these new grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status extends to areas of work. That includes employment, superannuation, contract workers, partnerships, qualifying bodies, registered industrial organisations and employment agencies. It also extends to education; to goods, services and facilities; to accommodation; to land; to clubs; and to the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs.
The bill allows exemptions and limitations for membership of voluntary organisations, competitive sporting activity and religious organisations. It also extends the current exemption in section 38 of the act relating to educational institutions established for a religious purpose so that otherwise discriminatory conduct by those institutions on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity will not be unlawful.
The existing exemption which permits exclusion of persons of one sex from participation in competitive sporting activity will be broadened to permit discrimination on the grounds of sex, gender identity or intersex status. A new exemption is proposed so that it will not be unlawful, merely because the option is not provided to enable a person to identify as neither, to request information as to whether a person is male or female. The purpose of that exemption is to ensure that the regulatory burden of the bill is minimised, given the small number of people likely to identify as neither male nor female. The Commonwealth is developing its own guidelines for departments in this regard.
In relation to Commonwealth funded care services and the removal of the religious exemption, the government stated that its intention with this bill was to introduce the relevant protections as a first stage of reform but to otherwise maintain the existing overall structure, including the exemptions. However, the government has now introduced an amendment reversing that stance. This is the part of the process which disturbs me. It will restrict the existing exemptions for religious organisations which provide Commonwealth funded aged-care services or accommodation. As my colleagues have mentioned, providers such as the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, the Salvation Army, Catholic Health Australia, the Presbyterian Church of Australia and some smaller denominations have all indicated that their policy is not to discriminate in practice. In these circumstances, the need for the regulation is not demonstrated.
If discrimination is not happening in practice, why do you need Big Brother, the government, to come in and so regulate? That has not been explained by the government or the Greens in putting forward this amendment. The providers I have named all complain that consultation has been extremely limited. They might have been surprised that there was limited consultation by this government, but those of us who have had to endure the last six years of Labor governments would not be surprised at the paucity of consultation. The Labor government and their Greens allies are serial offenders when it comes to failure to consult.
In the circumstances I relate, the removal of so fundamental a principle as the religious exemption cannot be supported. So we will be opposing the amendments being proposed by the government. If we cannot get enough senators to support us in opposing those amendments, we will, regrettably, be voting against the whole bill, a bill which, in its initial form, was strongly supported by the coalition. As I mentioned earlier, the original bill was consistent with the policy we took to the last election—and that policy remains coalition policy.
Clause 52 of the bill provides a saving clause in respect of anything done in direct compliance with a law of the Commonwealth, or of a state or territory, which is prescribed by regulation. That is, as the attorneys-general of the three larger states have argued, an unduly wide vesting of de facto legislative power in the hands of the executive government. Accordingly, as I have mentioned, the coalition intends to amend the saving provision to exempt actions which are in accordance with, or are necessary to comply with, state or territory law.
I conclude by saying again: here is a bill, the basic principles of which were unanimously supported. When this bill was debated in the lower house, there was no suggestion of the possibility of these amendments that we in the Senate are now dealing with. One can only guess why this new provision has come before the Senate. We believe in freedom. We believe in the right of religious organisations to properly manage their affairs and the affairs of the facilities they look after in a way that is in keeping with their principles and their beliefs, and this intrusion by the government is not one that we can support. It is regrettable. I certainly hope the government's amendments are defeated, in which case we can all ensure a rapid conclusion to this bill; but, should those amendments be supported, then regrettably we will be opposing the whole bill.
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia) (21:53): In rising to contribute to this debate on the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013, I do so with a degree of disappointment, because significant legislative reforms in this space, as this is, should be done in a unifying manner that takes all sides of the chamber and the Australian community with it on the journey of improving and enhancing our anti-discrimination laws. That is what appeared to be the case. After some issues surrounding the original Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill that the government introduced, it appeared that the government was going to go on a cooperative, bipartisan journey to enact reforms that enjoyed support across the chamber and made incremental improvements, but very important improvements for a segment of our community, to our anti-discrimination laws. It appeared to be the case, as recently as when this bill passed the House of Representatives, that a measured, considered and unifying approach was being taken to these laws. It is unfortunate to find that, upon the bill reaching the Senate, we have a slightly different approach from the government, where it has re-engaged in areas of greater controversy in how anti-discrimination laws are applied.
What we have tried to do with these laws over a period of time is seek a semblance of balance: a balance between the individual rights of those who do not deserve to be discriminated against and the rights of those who, rightly, seek to be able to adhere to their religious faiths and doctrines. These are difficult issues, because to give on one hand often means compromise on the other. Up to now, what laws in the anti-discrimination field have sought to do is ensure a level of coexistence in both of these areas so that the rights of people to be true to their faith and religious doctrines are balanced equally alongside the rights of people to not be discriminated against. And there is no perfect solution to reconciling those two competing interests, none at all, in that area. The best solution this parliament has applied to date is to say that the rights of each should be respected, noting that in doing so there may be some conflict. The rights of some groups to be protected from discrimination may conflict with the rights to certain religious freedoms. That can lead to a clash of beliefs, of faiths, and a clash of who people are, what people are and the lifestyles that people lead.
I do not come to this chamber with a magic solution to that—aside from a fundamental principle that, insofar as it is possible, the parliament enact laws that respect as many people as possible. That is what the parliament should seek to do. I, for one, am somebody who wants to see the bulk of this bill passed, but I do not want to see it passed in a context where we substantially undermine what has been the historical approach to anti-discrimination laws—that is, respecting rights across the spectrum of agendas, not just across one level of society. That is why it pains me, and I find it disappointing, that the bill we are debating puts into conflict different rights and forces the parliament to consider trading off people's right to accept and enjoy religious freedoms against the rights of others to enjoy, in any other spectrum or area of society, the right to non-discrimination. As I said before, it is not easy, but we have to acknowledge that. If we are to take all of society on the right journey to enhance anti-discrimination laws in providing a greater basis of rights in Australia, we need to respect some of those rights that have existed on a more historical footing.
This bill seeks to extend anti-discrimination protections in Commonwealth law to sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status. In many ways, as I said, that is an incremental improvement that is very significant to the people who are affected—but it is incremental in the sense that those same anti-discrimination principles already apply to numerous other cohorts of the Australian populace. In doing so, it would be reasonable to expect that the same principles would be applied to the new groups of people included as would have applied to those already included.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Fawcett ) (21:59): Order! It being 10 pm, pursuant to order, I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Camp Hurriya
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (22:00): I rise to strongly condemn last Saturday's brutal and senseless rocket attack on Camp Hurriya, formerly known as Camp Liberty, near Baghdad that killed and injured camp residents. Two innocent people were killed and over 70 injured. On Saturday, 15 June 2013 over 40 107 millimetre missiles were fired into Camp Hurriya. Residents who were killed and wounded were in shelters whose protective T-walls had been transferred out of the camp by the government of Iraq.
This is the second deadly attack on Camp Hurriya this year. The first, on 9 February, claimed the lives of eight people and left scores injured. The more than 3,000 residents of the camp are men, women and children who are refugees from neighbouring Iraq. They and their families have suffered oppression, torture and murder at the hands of the Iranian regimes. Due to inaction and indolence at the highest level of the Iraqi government, they are trapped in unsafe, unsanitary and dangerous conditions with little prospect of resettlement and safety in third countries.
The Iraqi government is not taking effective action to protect the residents of Camp Hurriya. The question needs to be asked: how is it that these defenceless civilians can be subjected to rocket attacks while in a secure former military zone under the protection of the Iraqi government? The situation of camp residents is becoming increasingly dangerous as al-Qaeda and Iraqi Sunni extremists seek to revive sectarian conflict across Iraq. Residents are further in danger by the increasing fragility of the region, including the deteriorating situation in Syria and the increasingly aggressive and dangerous regional ambitions of the mullah regime in Iran. I do not believe that it is a coincidence that the attack on camp residents was on the same day that the result of the election of the new president of the Iranian regime was announced.
The continuing attacks on Camp Hurriya residents have drawn condemnation from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the Canadian government, US Secretary of State John Kerry and the Vice-President of the European parliament. Our foreign minister, Senator Carr, has condemned the attacks and called on the government of Iraq to take immediate steps to ensure the security of Camp Hurriya residents.
I call on the government of Iraq to render all possible medical assistance to the victims and ensure the safety of the camp's residents, consistent with its international commitments and obligations. I also call on the government of Iraq to investigate this attack and bring the perpetrators to justice. I also call on the UN to ensure that everything within their power is done not only to ensure the safety of Camp Hurriya and its residents but also to win the confidence of the Iraqi people that their human rights will be protected against oppressive elements in Iraq and from across the border in Iran. Every step must be taken by the government of Iraq and the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq to implement the 25 December 2011 agreement to quickly relocate the residents of Camp Hurriya outside Iraq. There must be a permanent and long-term solution that ensures their safety.
Finally, I would like to express my admiration for the work of the Camp Hurriya residents' tireless advocates here in Australia. Principal amongst them is Mohammed Sadeghpour. I have met with him many times since least 2010 and I never fail to be impressed with his humanity, his boundless patience and his deep and abiding commitment to justice and the freedom of his people.
This is an international disgrace. This is a situation that must be fixed. Australia has a responsibility as we have engaged in military activity in Iraq, and we have a responsibility to ensure that these defenceless civilians are provided protection by the UN and the international community.
Wind Energy
Senator MADIGAN (Victoria) (22:05): The large-scale, wind energy industry is being allowed to do what it likes, where it likes in Australia. Wind energy should be a tale of positive action and change. Instead, the real story is one of regulatory failure, harm to local residents, environmental damage, wrongly issued renewable energy certificates and a discredited RET system. The authors of this disturbing tale are coalition and ALP governments at federal and state levels over the last 15 years.
Late last year, Senator Doug Cameron spoke of the wind energy industry's importance to the government's climate change and emission reduction policies. I say now to Senator Cameron, making excuses to ward off proper regulation of this industry by slagging off at me or mocking the experience of affected residents will not protect the government's policy. These tactics do not even help the industry you are trying to promote. They will not improve the operating standards of the industry, they will not deliver regulatory stability, and they will not repair the industry's damaged image.
What will help this industry, and protect the government's policy, is robust regulation that holds the industry to account and forces it to improve its practices. Legislation is needed right now to reduce and control wind farm noise. Regulators right now need to enforce the requirements of the Renewable Energy Act and the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
I have seen too many rural communities hammered by industrial noise produced by wind energy facilities that may or may not comply with the standard. Over time the Clean Energy Regulator and state and territory regulators have failed to ensure compliance. Worse, they have accredited and approved wind energy facilities prior to construction, effectively negating post-construction permit conditions. The Renewable Energy Act is crystal clear. It says that, in order to become eligible for accreditation, wind energy facilities must operate with regard to all local, state, territory and Commonwealth laws. The fraud policy statement of the Clean Energy Regulator is equally crystal clear. It says:
Fraud is a significant threat to the integrity of our schemes … and the credibility of the markets that we operate. Fraud is defined as … dishonestly obtaining a benefit … by deception or other means. Examples … are … providing false or misleading information in an application to the Clean Energy Regulator.
Like other jurisdictions, Victoria has not bothered developing the capacity to check whether wind farm proponents tell the truth in their applications. Disturbingly, planning Minister Matthew Guy revealed that since Waubra's turbines started turning four years ago, it has never been signed off for noise compliance. This wind farm has split the local community, driven people from their homes and seen Acciona buy up seven properties, effectively carving out a buffer zone in the countryside. Meanwhile, Acciona has been allowed to rack up more than $80 million worth of renewable energy certificates that should never have been issued, with the cost loaded onto the bills of Australian electricity consumers.
Minister Matthew Guy, I call on you today: we want a decision on Waubra. Does it comply or not? Make a decision. If it does comply, well and good. If it does not, make the call and tell the Clean Energy Regulator. You owe the Waubra residents the courtesy of a decision and you owe Australian energy customers the right not to be ripped off. State, territory and Commonwealth governments and their regulators are all failing to ensure compliance—it is systemic regulatory failure. Federal governments of all persuasions, with the support of the Greens, have also approved wind farms contrary to the requirements of the Commonwealth Environment Protection Act. My office recently received a letter on behalf of Minister Tony Burke regarding the environmental concerns of local residents about the proposed Mt Gellibrand wind farm. Ministers, their departments and regulators are all failing to regulate the wind energy industry. Self-regulation does not work.
Deniehy, Mr Daniel
Senator STEPHENS (New South Wales) (22:10): Daniel Deniehy was a significant political figure in Australia in the 19th century. He was famous for his opposition to the Wentworth Constitution Bill, which he claimed would support a bunyip aristocracy in Australia. He was elected to the New South Wales Legislative Assembly as the member for Argyle and lived in Goulburn during the 1850s. Recently, as part of the 150th birthday celebrations of Goulburn, we held the inaugural Daniel Deniehy Oration—an opportunity to consider the shaping of Australia as a nation, the contribution of the Goulburn region to national politics and the importance of honouring those who have championed social justice, fairness and the republican movement. More than 100 people attended, including former Irish ambassador to Australia Richard O'Brien and the current ambassador, His Excellency Noel White and his wife Nessa Delaney.
Daniel Deniehy declared:
… my eye is fixed on one point—the doing my duty in establishing Republican Institutions and advancing in every genuine method, my native land.
Deniehy wanted Australians to care about and talk about our country and the future we would share. The inaugural Daniel Deniehy Oration was presented by Dr Jeff Brownrigg, cultural historian and adjunct professor at the University of Canberra. A gifted raconteur, Dr Brownrigg was awarded a Commonwealth Centenary Medal for services as Australia's wandering historian for the Centenary of Federation.
Daniel Deniehy in his short life was a brilliant orator, gifted poet, publisher, satirist, democrat, republican, politician, lawyer, land reformer and man of letters. Although he is almost forgotten, he played an important role in creating the kind of Australia that we now enjoy. He was the only child of two emancipated Irish convicts. Born in 1828, he was a Currency Lad—a first generation Australian after settlement. His father's business was successful enough to allow the family to return to Ireland and England and for Daniel to have university tutors and continue his studies back in Australia, articled to Scot solicitor ND Stenhouse—a very significant lawyer in those days.
In the late 1840s, Deniehy involved himself in political issues which included demands for the extension of self-government in New South Wales, plans by conservatives to renew transportation and the opening up of large estates. He made political allies such as John Dunmore Lang and he worked for the Australian League in the liberal constitution committee with Henry Parkes and the poet Charles Harpur, but his crowning achievement and most famous speech was at a protest meeting in 1853 against Wentworth's proposal for an antipodean version of the British landed aristocracy. At the time he was 25 years old. Speaking for the proposition 'That this meeting pledges to resist, by every constitutional means, the formation of any second chamber which is not based on popular suffrage', he concluded:
… I suppose we are to be favoured with a bunyip aristocracy.
That speech is widely credited with ending Wentworth's dreams for an Australian House of Lords. JD Lang would later write:
It was a narrow escape for the Colony from the would-be Earl of Wingycarribee and the Vicount Curraducheidgee.
It inspired Charles Harpur to write:
Little Dan Deniehy
Brilliant Dan Deniehy
Dear is the light of thy spirit to me!
Dear is the streaming ray
Out of the gleaming bay
Is to some weather worn bark from the sea!
Deniehy was opposed to the Crimean War and the flag flappers who supported sending Australians to faraway lands.
He helped form the Electoral Reform League, to wrest power from the rich and powerful squattocracy and the unelected appointees of the governor. He was elected to the New South Wales Legislative Assembly in 1857 but lost his seat three years later. Dr Brownrigg's inaugural lecture set the economic, political and social scene in which Deniehy was active. His presentation included lively renditions of Deniehy's delightful poetry, his stirring writings, a sympathetic description of Deniehy's decline into alcoholism and impunity, and his excommunication from the Catholic Church because of an attack on Archbishop Polding and Vicar-General Father Gregory. This led to Deniehy being denied his rights of a Christian burial when he died at the age of 37. He was redeemed 23 years later by Cardinal Moran's approval for his remains to be reinterred. It was Henry Lawson who wrote:
Southern men of letters, seeking kinder fields across the waves,
Tell a shameful tale entitled "Deniehy's Forgotten Grave".
Rural and Regional Services
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (22:15): I regret that I have to make this speech, yet again, about dialysis in Central Australia. For many years, I have been standing in this place and talking about the need for dialysis in Central Australia. In 2011, we made some progress. That is because we saw the release of the Central Australian Renal Study, which recommended a number of things. Firstly, it found that we are going to have—as was widely calculated from other statistics, but they confirmed it—a significant increase, in fact up to a fourfold increase, in the number of people that require dialysis support in Central Australia. The numbers could reach as high as 479 by the year 2020.
This study recommended a wide range of things: that Alice Springs becomes the main hub for dialysis, that remote communities are the spokes in a hub-and-spokes model, and that supplementary mobile and respite dialysis services are required. I have spoken in this place on many occasions about the need for community based dialysis as well, but that we need a significant investment. In response to this report, the government announced—not long after the release of the report in 2011—that they would commit $13 million to enable support, particularly for accommodation for dialysis patients. Particularly in the initial stages of their treatment and before we can get more funding to enable them to have dialysis on country, people need accommodation in the major centres they come to for dialysis support. That includes Alice Springs and Tennant Creek.
Unfortunately, at the beginning of this year we established that the government had taken $3 million of that $13 million back into consolidated revenue because it had not yet managed to spend it, because it had not reached an agreement with the Northern Territory. Later on, we received concerning information that the $10 million that was remaining would also be taken back into consolidated revenue or spent on other things. Those other things, admittedly, could be of use, but not on dialysis. What we need is focused investment on dialysis. Part of the reason for it not being spent was that the NT government was refusing to put in their contribution to the accommodation.
The government then started looking around for other projects to invest in and announced, yet again, more funding for dialysis, which was in fact part of the money that was originally committed to dialysis. As it turns out, a large part of that funding was—surprise, surprise—dependent on funding from the Northern Territory government. In other words, it was not going to be spent on dialysis. The government then chose some other general health projects. Again, they were good projects that do not deal with dialysis. Those projects, as I said, are good projects, but some of the projects are not being funded: funding into Warburton in Western Australia; funding into Kiwirrkurra in Western Australia. They are putting two chairs in Lajamanu and putting more accommodation and support into Santa Teresa. All of these things are absolutely essential for delivering improved dialysis support in Central Australia. I put it to this place, as I have raised during estimates, that investing in one chair in Lajamanu would increase dialysis support. They could use the money that would have been spent on the other chair to help support them—through accommodation or staff support, whatever is needed—to keep that one chair going instead of having no chairs.
It is ridiculous that Aboriginal communities in Central Australia are still not able to access dialysis, even though there is funding on the table. They are still not able to access that because of ongoing disputes between the federal government, the NT government and the Western Australian government. Fortunately, they have reached some agreement with the South Australian government about investment into mobile dialysis units through fitting out the bus. But we have a large number of people who are not able to access dialysis support in their community. When are we going to get this right? I welcome the day that I do not have to talk about dialysis in this place any more.
Hawke, Mrs Hazel, AO
Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales) (22:20): All of us in politics and the public life understand that our partners and families also bear the burden of our careers. For the leaders of our parties, and especially when those leaders become Prime Minister, the costs and the challenges that are faced by their partners are even greater. They step into a spotlight they did not choose. They are scrutinised for their ability to do a job they did not apply for. It is a job with few guidelines and many expectations. Hazel Masterton, who became Hazel Hawke in 1956, met those challenges with grace and with humour. She was a woman of strong political opinions and had a deep commitment to the Australian Labor Party and the values of the Labor movement. But she refused to try to shortcut the normal processes of policy development with a word in the Prime Minister's ear.
She was actively engaged in many causes—women's rights, environment, education, social justice—but refused to be labelled with any of them. She was fiercely private but accepted that public and media attention were part of her 'job' after Bob Hawke became the Labor leader—and she insisted it was a job—and was open and matter-of-fact about personal, painful matters in her private family life. Her courage and her refusal to act as if these challenges were a stigma or a source of shame gave strength to many others in our community facing similar difficulties in their own lives. The same would be the case when Hazel spoke publicly about having Alzheimer's disease.
In 1999, Hazel Hawke gave the second annual John Curtin Prime Ministerial Library Anniversary Lecture. She took as her topic 'In search of the Light on the Hill. 'We must look forward,' she said, 'we must seek, we must hope; but we must do this in a spirit of compassion, and with a sense of inclusion. The whole of this nation, in all its diversity, must be on board. It must be a journey not only for the bold and brave, the healthy and strong.'
Hazel understood that even the boldest and bravest are not immune to the catastrophes that unexpected health and life events can wreak on families. I suspect Hazel's feet were too firmly on the ground for her to be comfortable being called an inspiration. But she was an inspiring figure for a great many people who found in her an example of dignity and good humour in adversity, and of a constant commitment to making the world a better place at every opportunity.
Hazel was regarded with great affection by Australians, and she was much loved within the Labor Party. Both her hard work and her kindness were legendary. She will be greatly missed by those who knew her and those who did not, but of course most acutely by her family—her children and her grandchildren who were so dear to her. I offer my deepest sympathy to Sue, Steve and Ros and their children at this difficult time.
Federal Election
Senator BOYCE (Queensland) (22:25): I would like to speak about Mr Luke Howarth who is the LNP candidate for the federal seat of Petrie in the upcoming election. As part of telling about Mr Howarth and his qualities and the reason that he should become the member for Petrie, I will compare and contrast his characteristics and talents with those of the current Labor member for the seat, Ms Yvette D'Ath.
Senator Farrell: There's no comparison.
Senator BOYCE: You are quite right, Senator Farrell, there is no comparison.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Fawcett ): Order! I remind Senator Farrell and members on my right that, under standing order 197, senators have the right to be heard in silence, and you can only interrupt on a point of order or of privilege or to call attention to quorum.
Senator BOYCE: It is my hope that Luke Howarth will become the federal member for the seat of Petrie after the election in September. Luke Howarth is a 40-year-old small-businessman. In fact, it is his experience and the experiences of so many of his colleagues in small business that has led Luke to nominate as our candidate for the seat of Petrie. Luke, his extended family and his friends were sick to their stomach at the incompetence of the federal Labor government—an incompetence that Luke knew was based on the complete lack of real-life experience amongst Labor MPs.
Luke Howarth has a deep and abiding connection to the electorate of Petrie. He is a lifelong resident of the electorate, having been born at the Royal Brisbane Hospital—where I was born—and brought home by his proud parents, Ron and Denise, to their home in Bracken Ridge.
Luke and his wife, Louise, were married in 1999. They have three sons, William, Thomas and Samuel, and the family lives at Woody Point, in the electorate. Luke and Louise have grown and operated their family owned pest control business together. Their staff has grown from an initial three people to now 15 local people. Some have been with the company for more than 20 years. Luke is very proud of the family culture and respect that exists within the company's workplace—the management and staff have jointly developed the company's core values.
Luke is a keen sportsperson. He represented our state in judo as a teenager and he continues to teach judo at the Redcliffe PCYC. He has spent many years on the management committees of local PCYCs and of Crime Stoppers Queensland. He is currently a member on a local school chaplaincy committee and has been involved with local chambers of commerce in the area for the past 10 years.
Luke wants to continue to serve his community by becoming the federal LNP member for Petrie. He says that it is his frustration with the Rudd-Gillard government as a small business owner that has prompted him to put his hand up for the honour of representing the people of Petrie. Luke says:
I've watched the Rudd-Gillard Government stumble from one failure to another and I've seen them take our nation from zero debt under the former Coalition Government to now owing hundreds of billions of dollars that my sons—everyone's children—will be paying off.
I've seen my local community suffer. I've seen friends in business suffer and I want to give the voters in Petrie a genuine alternative to the incumbent.
I would now like to turn to that incumbent, Mrs Yvette D’Ath. Back when Mr Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister, she was the blond who sat behind him doing the noddy-doll impersonation—the more Mr Rudd smirked, the more Mrs D'Ath nodded.
Senator Farrell: Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I do not think that is an appropriate way to describe a member of parliament. I ask the Senator to withdraw the unpleasant suggestion in that claim.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I do not consider it to be unparliamentary, but, Senator Boyce—
Senator BOYCE: I withdraw, but I would continue to comment that Mrs D'Ath would nod her head regularly whilst sitting behind the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd when he was answering questions.
Since Mrs D'Ath's good friend Ms Gillard became Prime Minister, Mrs D'Ath has prospered and has been appointed Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation. Having a focus on industry and innovation sounds like a great idea, especially for this government. A bit of industry and innovation might help to brighten up the economic dross that they have presented to us. I immediately checked to see what Mrs D'Ath’s qualifications for this role were, and you will be pleased to hear that she was the AWU’s—the Australian Workers Union’s—senior industrial advocate—
Senator Farrell: Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I am concerned that Senator Boyce did not write this speech and that someone else has written it on her behalf.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There is no point of order.
Senator BOYCE: I would point out that I did actually write the speech myself and I will continue to make the point that the union domination and the lack of real life experience is the real reason for the incompetence of the current government. We have Mrs D'Ath—
Senator Bilyk: Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I do not think Senator Boyce knows anything about Mrs D'Ath. She does have real life experience.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There is no point of order.
Senator BOYCE: I would assume from the number of points of order being taken by the government that these comments are actually affecting them. The real life experience of Mrs D'Ath from 1994 to 2007 was as the senior industrial advocate for the AWU in Queensland. It is a great qualification for developing industry and innovation policy. As I said, you will remember that Mrs D'Ath and Ms Gillard are such good friends that one of Ms Gillard’s first actions became notorious. One of her first acts as Prime Minister was to use the VIP jet—at a cost of $9,000 to taxpayers—to fly to Brisbane and back to support an AWU fundraiser for her friend Mrs D'Ath. We are told the function, which was attended by one of Ms Gillard's strongest supporters, Mr Bill Ludwig, raised $10,000 but it cost taxpayers $9,000 to get Ms Gillard there so that $10,000 could go into Mrs D'Ath's electorate coffers. As Senator Ronaldson from our side joked at the time, it would have been cheaper had Ms Gillard stayed home and written a Treasury cheque to her good friend.
By contrast, Mr Luke Howarth’s record is in itself a great reason to vote for him. He understands the needs of small business in his electorate—Petrie has particularly large light industry and commercial regions in it, and Luke knows those people and knows them well. The fact that Luke Howarth will be part of a Tony Abbott led government that will restore hope, reward and opportunity is another great reason for the electors of Petrie to vote for him. But I have here an additional reason that I think people should vote for Luke Howarth. It is a photo of the woman who has led—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Boyce, that is not orderly. You can continue, but do not use props.
Senator BOYCE: I beg your pardon. What I have here is a photo of the woman who has led Australia’s most incompetent government, Ms Gillard, flanked by her good friends Mrs Yvette D’Ath and Mr Swan. If you vote for Mrs D’Ath, you are voting to keep Ms Gillard and Mr Swan. My plea to the electors of Petrie is that they vote for Luke Howarth, not just to save the constituents of Petrie from the incompetence of this government and the inabilities of Mrs D'Ath but also to save the people of Australia. The most amusing aspect altogether is that we have Mrs D'Ath claiming in a speech this year that she has $742 million for the Moreton Bay Rail Link that has been talked about for over 100 years. Senator Macdonald, I am sure you would have been in the electorate of Petrie recently—have you seen any rail lines there? No. Exactly. It is just another election promise with nothing—
Senator Carol Brown interjecting—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Boyce. Senator Brown, you have continually interjected and I have let you go up to this point and so, please, do not interject any further.
Senator BOYCE: Mrs D'Ath's grasp of the real world is quite weird—the Moreton Bay Rail Link is not going anywhere under Mrs D'Ath. She could not deliver it; she will not deliver it. The National Broadband Network, she says, is rolling out in her electorate. She forgets to mention that in fact the NBN Co. did not negotiate with Telstra to connect—(Time expired)
DisabilityCare Australia
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (22:37): I rise tonight to speak on something important, and that is DisabilityCare Australia. The creation of DisabilityCare Australia, popularly known as the National Disability Insurance Scheme, is a reform which comes around only once in a generation. It is a reform that has taken vision and courage. It is hard to overestimate the effect that this policy will have for those Australians with disability and their families and carers. DisabilityCare Australia will provide people with severe or profound disability and their families and carers in my home state of Tasmania and across Australia with the support and care they need when they need it to help them lead rewarding lives. It is a change that is as fundamental to the social fabric of Australia as the introduction of Medicare or the superannuation guarantee.
DisabilityCare is being launched in stages simultaneously around the country. Last year I and my fellow Tasmanian colleague in the chamber here tonight, Senator Carol Brown, sat down with representatives from Baptcare to hear from them as to why Tasmania would be a perfect location for an NDIS launch site. We heard that Tasmania has both the need as well as organisations with the capacity to implement the NDIS. We heard that many Tasmanians with disability and their families are not getting the support that they need. We heard that people in the disability care sector are excited that finally someone is doing something after decades of neglect to improve the disability care sector.
I was extremely pleased, then, as a Tasmanian—
Senator Ian Macdonald: Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order that I have raised a number of times previously with this speaker. I refer you to standing order 187, which says:
A senator may not read a speech.
Clearly this senator has done nothing but read since she started. She could at least make a pretence of looking up at me now and again.
Senator Farrell: Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. It is customary practice to allow some leniency in respect of this matter, particularly during the adjournment. I personally am enjoying Senator Bilyk's speech.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, you are correct about the standing orders; however, it has been common practice in this chamber for senators to refer to notes or to read from time to time.
Senator Farrell: Mr Deputy President, on the point of order, I note that Senator Boyce, who is about to leave the chamber, in my recollection read the entire—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order.
Senator BILYK: Senator Macdonald does not like the fact that I am speaking about something that the Labor Gillard government has implemented and so, once again, as I have predicted, there he is—
Senator Boyce: Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Farrell claimed that I read my speech. I did not read my speech and I would like that corrected.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order.
Senator BILYK: As I was saying, Senator Carol Brown and I met with Baptcare and we heard about a number of issues from them. We heard that Tasmania has both the need and the organisations to be able to implement the NDIS. We heard that many Tasmanians—as the other senators in the chamber from Tasmania would be aware—with disability and their families are not getting the support they need. We heard that people in the disability care sector are excited that finally something is happening after decades of neglect to help them to improve the disability care sector.
Extremely pleased, then, were Tasmanians with disability, their families and carers, and workers in the disability care sector to hear the Prime Minister announce in July last year—and this is, of course, the part that Senator Macdonald does not want to hear—that Tasmania was one of the proposed launch sites for the NDIS. It was also pleasing when in May this year the Tasmanian government signed the agreement with the Australian government to launch the NDIS in Tasmania. This agreement has been strongly welcomed by people in the disability care sector in Tasmania.
I would like to quote from Catherine Viney, the CEO of Cosmos, with regard to this. Recently she said:
Historically, people with disability and their carers have had to fight for every ounce of support from the government.
The legislation introduced today by the Gillard government is testament to its commitment to all those Australians with a disability.
Lobbying for DisabilityCare has been a very long journey for some of us, and to see our grassroots campaign culminate into this announcement today is just fantastic.
She continued:
The funding provided from the rise in the Medicare levy will pay for half of the scheme and has removed much of the uncertainty around the NDIS.
This will mean 280 Cosmos clients will be able to decide what type of support they need, and a further 560 individuals, including primary carers, will be indirectly supported.
I fully support Ms Viney's comments. As I said, this is great news for the people of Tasmania.
In total, the launch in Tasmania will focus on around 1,000 young people between the ages of 15 and 24. Under DisabilityCare Australia, these children and young adults will for the first time: be assessed to receive individualised care and support packages; have the power to make decisions about their care and support, including choosing their service provider; be assisted by local coordinators to help manage and deliver their support; and be able to access a system they can easily navigate and that will link them to mainstream services.
Other eligible Tasmanian residents will start entering the scheme from July 2016. DisabilityCare Australia will progressively roll out across Tasmania so that by July 2019 all eligible residents—11,000 Tasmanians with a disability—will get the care and support they need. This means people with disability in Tasmania will have more control over their lives, more certainty as to the level of care they receive and more opportunities to get involved in work, school and community life.
Those on the other side, especially Senator Macdonald, might not like to know this, but the Australian government is delivering $1 million to start rolling out the first stage of DisabilityCare in the launch sites. DisabilityCare will be operated by the independent agency that was set up through legislation that was passed by parliament earlier this year. There will be local DisabilityCare offices in each of the launch areas, each of which will be staffed by local people. By the middle of the year we expect that the DisabilityCare Australia launch transition agency will employ around 30 people in Tasmania as staff or contractors. They will have offices in Hobart, Launceston and Devonport. The Commonwealth will contribute about 51 per cent of the full cost of the scheme, with Tasmania to pay the remaining 49 per cent. By 2019-20, the Commonwealth will contribute around $245 million to the scheme for Tasmania.
We on this side understand that it is vital that DisabilityCare Australia is sustainably funded into the future. The 2013-14 budget has made the responsible decisions necessary to fully fund DisabilityCare Australia for the long term. This unprecedented long-term funding security will provide people with significant and permanent disability and their families and carers with the certainty they deserve. Through increasing the Medicare levy from 1.5 per cent to two per cent of taxable income from 1 July 2014 we have created a strong and stable funding stream that will provide certainty and security to the 460,000 Australians with disability and their families and carers. The campaign director of Every Australian Counts, Mr John Della Bosca, said about last month's budget:
I have followed the Commonwealth Budget for decades. In some years you needed a microscope to find disability mentioned at all. Supporting people with a disability is at the core of tonight’s budget.
The NDIS will mean people with a disability and their family and carers get the support they need when they need it. It will end the waiting lists, fund necessary equipment and improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians.
Tonight’s budget is a win for people who believe in justice for people with disability. The NDIS is a budget measure that appeals to the heart and the head.
Labor is investing $14.3 billion over seven years to roll out DisabilityCare Australia across the country.
Recently I attended a forum held in Huonville, south of Hobart, held by DisabilityCare Australia. The forum was attended by a number of people from the Huon Valley. There were people from the broader community, people with disability and their families and carers, and people who work in the disability care sector. The overwhelming feeling that struck me from this forum was the feeling of hope in the room. In fact, each person I spoke to and those who spoke to the group expressed the belief that with each of these reforms they finally had hope for the future—hope that their children and loved ones under their control would get the care that they require and have that care personalised to suit their needs; hope that they would get the support that they have needed for years. I am really proud to be part of a Labor government that is leading the way on this historic reform. We know that for too long people with disability have been treated as second-class citizens in their own country. The NDIS will change that.
Along with my Tasmanian federal Labor colleagues—two of whom are in the room tonight—both in this place and the other place, I have been lobbying really hard for an NDIS to come to Tasmania, because we know that people with disability have waited long enough for change. While the government has been behind this reform for some time, I would like quickly to thank and congratulate the thousands of Australians who have been involved in the Every Australian Counts campaign. The union movement, including the Australian Services Union, for which I used to work, has been a strong supporter of this campaign. It has been a very active participant in this campaign.
The fact that we have secured a full scheme in Tasmania is a real tribute to the dedicated disability advocates in our community who have campaigned tirelessly for this as well. An NDIS will transform the lives not only of those with disability and their families but also of the wider Australian society. Timely interventions, appropriate aids and equipment, and training and development will become an investment in individual capacity rather than welfare. I am at a loss to understand why there were so many objections and why certain senators from the other side insisted— (Time expired)
Canberra Air Disaster
Senator EGGLESTON (Western Australia) (22:49): I rise tonight to record the relevance to the parliament of a recently published book about a tragic air crash that changed the course of Australian political history. The book is Air Disaster Canberra: the plane crash that destroyed a government by Andrew Tink.
The crash of a Hudson aircraft as it came in to land in Canberra on 13 August 1940 was a particularly momentous event in Australia's political history in that it started a chain of events that eventually led to the bringing down of the Menzies government, giving Australia a Labor government under Prime Minister John Curtin for the duration of the Second World War.
The crash, which ended in a fiery inferno, killed all 10 on board. Its passengers were coming to Canberra from Melbourne for a cabinet meeting. The plane carried three cabinet ministers and the chief of the war staff. The three ministers killed were the Minister for the Army, Geoffrey Street; the Minister for Air, James Fairbairn; and the Vice-President of the Executive Council, Sir Henry Gullett; and also the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Brudenell White, who in World War I was the first Australian to achieve the rank of full general during wartime. Their deaths destabilized the wartime Menzies government. In the general election that Menzies brought forward by a couple of months, one of those killed was replaced by an Independent who initially sided with the government but who later crossed the floor, effectively bringing down the government the following year. So as a direct consequence of the crash, the conservatives lost government and Western Australia's John Curtin gained power and subsequently was written into the history books as Australia's wartime Prime Minster who turned to the United States over Britain to assist in the defence of Australia after the fall of Singapore. While Australians have been generally unaware of the tragedy or its impact, we now have the benefit of this very detailed account of the crash and its consequences for the first time. It is a very important book and very interesting to read.
Andrew Tink is an award-winning author—a barrister who took up writing when he stepped down from his career in New South Wales politics, having been shadow Attorney-General and Leader of the House for many years. His third book, Air Disaster Canberra, was officially launched last month at New South Wales Parliament House by New South Wales Premier Barry O'Farrell. The launch was also attended by former Prime Minister John Howard.
As a Western Australian and a believer in justice, I want to bring it to the notice of the Senate that, from his painstaking research, Andrew Tink has come to the conclusion that an injustice has been done to the ill-fated plane's pilot, Bob Hitchcock, who, as it happens, was a Western Australian. In the four inquiries that followed, it was determined that the crash was the result of pilot error by the designated pilot, Bob Hitchcock. The plane—a Hudson bomber converted for passenger travel for use by the then Minister for Air, James Fairbairn—was in good mechanical order, and it was fine, clear weather around Canberra that day. There was no explanation as to how Hitchcock could make such a fatal error in landing the aircraft when he had graduated in Hudson flying in the previous July, after 49 hours of solo practise, and had accrued 107 hours in flying Hudsons. Hitchcock had previously landed at Canberra, and so he understood the idiosyncrasies of Canberra airport, having to come in over the hills. Also, he had landed perfectly at Essendon Airport that morning, after flying in from the RAAF's Laverton airfield to pick up his passengers in the Hudson.
There were rumours at the time of the crash that Bob Hitchcock had not in fact been piloting the plane on landing and that it was James Fairbairn, the Minister for Air, who was flying it, after having insisted on changing places with the co-pilot, Richard Weisner, who was not trained in Hudsons but was sitting in the cockpit of the dual-control plane on that day only to observe. Andrew Tink says that, using his legal mind to examine the available evidence, he has come to the conclusion that Minister Fairbairn was in fact flying the aircraft. His exoneration of Bob Hitchcock is so vitally important to the Hitchcock family and to Australian history that I believe it should be recorded here, in the Senate, as it is in this book by Andrew Tink.
Tink bases his judgment on several pieces of evidence that were not known, or not raised, in the four inquiries following the crash. First, though, it needs to be noted that Fairbairn was a distinguished pilot and something of an aviation hero. Tink provides evidence that Fairbairn, who was not formally trained to fly Hudsons, was keen to learn and to take every opportunity to practise flying the Hudson because it had a unique landing style. Unlike other aircraft, the Hudson did not glide after lowering the flaps; it required a hard and fast landing, driving the plane into the ground on a steep angle and pulling up the nose at the last minute, because a low and shallow approach would stall a Hudson. According to Tink, it was revealed only much later that Hitchcock's squadron leader had given Hitchcock a verbal direction before the flight 'that he was quite happy that Fairbairn could have a touch of the controls'. Also, Tink points to the Hudson stopping for an unexplained 14 minutes after taxiing out to Essendon airport's runway—a time when, Tink concludes, Fairbairn tapped the co-pilot on the shoulder and switched seats so that he could land the Hudson at Canberra. He says Hitchcock's obedient 'old soldier' attitude would have ensured his acquiescence to the assertive air minister, who would have had an almost hero status in Hitchcock's eyes.
John Curtin gave a tribute to Bob Hitchcock in Parliament after the disaster:
Bob's father lost his life in a gallant work of rescue—
which actually involved Kingsford Smith—
during the beginning of Australian aviation. It was my lot to assist Bob to join the Air Force, and I shared with his family their pride in his rapid promotion, and flying was in his blood. Our sympathy must go out to his mother, who has now lost a husband and son in the cause of Australian aviation.
It is important to note that Andrew Tink is not critical of Fairbairn, saying it was not unknown for the most senior officer in the RAAF to fly a plane that he was not strictly certified for. By way of a memorial to the crash, there is a simple granite cairn and plaque that was placed by Sir Robert Menzies at the crash site on a hill overlooking the Canberra airport and its RAAF component, known as RAAF Fairbairn. This event was still considered so important 43 years after Menzies' memorial that a second memorial in the shape of the plane's wing was placed there 10 years ago. It was unveiled by the then Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Wilson Tuckey—also a West Australian.
The site is under the control of the ACT government, but some years ago the ACT government decided to block access to it. Signs along the forest tracks indicating the way to the site were taken down and two heavily locked gates blocked the road into the forest. Only now, because of some media action, has the ACT government started to re-erect signs to indicate the way to crash site and to make a clear walking track it. This work started in May and is not yet complete. The memorial is still, however, out of bounds to anyone who cannot walk three kilometres or more. I hope that this memorial will be open to the public soon. I must say that I am very pleased to have recorded in Hansard this event in Australia's political and wartime history and the fact that the details are now readily available through Andrew Tink's book. (Time expired)
Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands
Senator THISTLETHWAITE (New South Wales—Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs and Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs) (22:59): Australia is a wealthy nation. We enjoy some of the highest living standards and incomes in the world. But we are also a very generous people. Our aid budget is one of the highest per capita compared to other nations. Importantly, we also give generously of our most precious resource, regularly and throughout the world: our people's time and efforts. And there is no finer example of our generosity when it comes to our resources and people than the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands, or RAMSI.
For almost a decade, Australians have given their time and effort to restore peace, renew confidence and promote development in the beautiful archipelago to our north. On the eve of the 10th anniversary of the Australian RAMSI deployment, we should be very proud of the contribution that our countrymen and countrywomen have made to improving the lives of our neighbours to the north. The Australia-led Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands was instigated in 2003 by the Howard government as regional unrest threatened to tear the country apart. Ten years on, RAMSI is a shining example of regional cooperation that gave a new start to a troubled nation.
In 2003, law and order in Solomon Islands was in tatters in the wake of devastating ethnic conflict; corruption was widespread; and officials and citizens were regularly intimidated and subjected to physical violence. The nation was descending into lawlessness. Now, thanks largely to the efforts of our dedicated Defence Force personnel, Federal Police, AusAID staff, diplomats and civilians from a host of Commonwealth government agencies working alongside our Pacific island neighbours and, importantly, the Solomon Islands government, order has been re-established and the country's future is much brighter.
I must say that on my recent visit to Solomon Islands, to Honiara, I was struck by the positive effect that Australia's RAMSI presence has had on the people of Solomon Islands and their confidence, and the importance of our bilateral aid program to development in the nation. Some of the indicators of that progress are that, in the first year of RAMSI, 3,700 firearms were confiscated and more than 3,300 arrests were made. There have been achievements and productive initiatives in law and order. For example, the building and maintenance of 84 police houses across the provinces and the training of more local police officers have helped to provide a sense of security and confidence to the nation's people and business community.
The mission has also brought about remarkable progress in areas such as health and education. To combat rising infant mortality, Australia has helped improve the rate of medically supervised births, and now 86 per cent of all women in Solomon Islands give birth in the presence of a skilled birth attendant. Our work in fighting malaria has also seen the number of cases fall from 199 per 1,000 citizens in 2003 to just 45 per 1,000 in 2012. To ensure that more kids in the Solomons get an education, Australia has worked with local government authorities to provide free primary school education, helping more than 145,000 young Solomon Islanders go to school in 2012.
I was equally amazed by the broader structural changes that have come about as a result of Australia's presence and that of our regional neighbours through RAMSI. The number of parliamentary committee hearings has increased from seven in 2004 to 133 in 2009, including the first outside Honiara, with 40 public hearings across all nine provinces. The tabling of the public service code of conduct in the Solomon Islands parliament in December 2009 represented a major milestone in the work to improve the Solomon Islands public service, and the national parliament is about to debate a new public financial management bill and a family protection bill. The new code of conduct provides minimum standards of conduct and work performance for public officers, and the majority of public servants have now undertaken training related to their responsibilities under the code.
Significant financial savings are also being realised through better tenancy management and property management practices, and the elimination of incorrect payments to rental-scheme landlords has resulted in savings of approximately one million Solomon Island dollars each quarter. The audits of financial records of state owned enterprises, such as the Solomon Islands Water Authority and the Solomon Islands Electricity Authority, are now up to date and being undertaken annually. Thanks to these and other improvements, RAMSI is now entering a transition phase. Peace and stability have now been restored and our Defence Force personnel are returning home and the work of Australia is very much moving from a peace-keeping operation to one of building development capacity, particularly around health and education. So despite the fact that RAMSI is drawing down, Australia's work in the Solomons will continue. Our Federal Police will continue working with the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force in mentoring, training and in a capacity-building role. Our civilians will continue to assist the Solomon Islands government to improve health, education, access to justice and living standards.
During my visit to Honiara I was fortunate to meet a band of very inspirational and dedicated young Aussies, who are working as volunteers at the Solomon Islands Red Cross centre. This centre and its people played an integral role in the response and recovery following the February 2013 earthquake and the tsunami in Temotu province, which killed 10 people, devastated 25 villages and left more than 4,000 people homeless. The Australian government provided $1 million to assist the disaster affected communities. I was really touched by the stories and the experiences of those young Aussies who were working as volunteers at the Red Cross and the wonderful work they had done teaming up with other regional partners—people from France, other Pacific island nations and New Zealand—to provide volunteer assistance to those devastated communities.
The Solomon Islands economy is in good shape. It is looking up. There is much work being done and a level of optimism and wonderful opportunity in the Solomon Islands, particularly around the industries of tourism, agriculture and fisheries. It was uplifting to visit some of these organisations, particularly the Forum Fisheries Agency, of which Australia is a sponsor, and to meet some of the wonderful people who were responsible for helping rebuild the region's communities in the wake of the tsunami and earthquake and the wonderful Australian Defence Force personnel, the Australian Federal Police, AusAID staff, DFAT staff and officers working cooperatively to restore peace and good government to Australia's important neighbour.
We should be very proud of our countrymen and women who have served and continue to serve in the Solomon Islands. I wish to pay particular tribute to our High Commissioner in Honiara, Matt Anderson. Matt is a down-to-earth bloke. He is a very hard worker and, most importantly, he is passionate about development in the Pacific. He has spent most of his diplomatic life working to improve the health, education and living standards of people working in the Pacific. He is a wonderful ambassador for development and a great symbol—personification of our nation's generosity when it comes to making a difference in the Pacific. I would like to thank Matt and all of his team for their very hard work in showing me around the Solomon Islands and ensuring that I got a first-hand account of the great work that Australians are doing. We need to thank all of our dedicated countrymen and women for their time away from their families, working on restoring peace and promoting development, and we must never forget their contribution in promoting security and prosperity in the Pacific and the continuation of that great Aussie spirit of generosity.
Regional Community Leadership
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria) (23:09): This week I had the pleasure of meeting representatives from right across regional Australia to discuss a range of issues as the representatives from local councils have been in Canberra for the Australian Local Government Association national general assembly. But also this week two community leadership groups, the Loddon Murray leadership group and the Northern Mallee leadership group, travelled from my home state of Victoria to discuss their priorities in Canberra. The Loddon Murray Leadership Program aims to develop leaders for vibrant and sustainable communities. The community leadership programs right throughout regional Victoria are having a significant impact on developing capacity within our regional towns and centres, working to engage, encourage and empower members of the community in leadership roles.
The delegation this year to Canberra was made up of 23 community leaders from right across the Loddon Murray area, which covers north-central Victoria. A cross-section of age, gender and professional backgrounds was represented and they spent two days here in Canberra. They came up on a bus. I shared a meal with them on Monday night and was able to bring them into the gallery here to see some of the commentary around the EPBC Act. They were quite fascinated to see the difference between a question time performance and an in-committee performance of their parliamentary representatives. They met a range of political representatives and government agencies. Over that two days it has been very inspiring to hear how actively they are engaged in their community and how passionate they are about the future of regional Victoria, particularly the Loddon Murray area. It is these leadership groups that help build local capacity.
We had a group of them in the National Party's party room yesterday quizzing us and found their questioning quite challenging as they went right to the heart of what we are doing here and why. I think it is very useful when we meet community groups to be challenged to ensure that we are actually delivering for people on the ground. Local councils and leadership groups both provide systems for feedback about what is happening on the ground in towns, on farms and in local communities. They help communicate the challenges and triumphs of the areas to representatives and senators such as me.
The electorate of Mallee, where most of the people I have met over the last two days have come from, is located in north-western Victoria, covering 73,879 square kilometres. I know, Madam Acting Deputy President Boyce, that when I compare that to North Queensland electorates it may seem kind of small, but it is actually larger than Tasmania, with only one representative and a 12th of a senator. The main centres are Mildura in the North; Warracknabeal, St Arnaud, Horsham and Stawell in the south; and Swan Hill and Kerang in the east. The Mallee produces a wide variety of food and wine. According to the Nationals candidate for Mallee, Andrew Broad, with the exception of coffee every ingredient for a meal can be sourced from the Mallee: milk, cereal and orange juice for breakfast; Mallee lamb with vegetables and a glass of red; fresh fruit for afternoon tea; some cheese, almonds and sultanas for a snack; and, if you catch one, a Murray cod for dinner. The Mallee is also home to a range of manufacturing companies and thriving tourist destinations, in Mildura and the Murray River in the north, and Halls Gap and the great climbing opportunities that draw so many international and domestic visitors to the Grampians in the south.
As a National Party senator, there is nothing more important to me than the interests of the seven million people who live outside our metropolitan cities. Regional and rural areas face unique challenges which my predecessors and my colleagues have championed since the 1920s as Nationals and also in our prior iteration as the Country Party. The Nationals are 100 per cent committed to fighting for a better deal for regional communities. We are dedicated to securing a better deal in the areas of education and health and securing a better deal for regional infrastructure.
As the 41st Parliament is in the last few days—most of us hope, at this time of night—I would like to pay tribute to my colleagues who are preparing to retire. They are John Forrest, the member for Mallee, Senator Ron Boswell, and Paul Neville, the member for Hinkler and the Nationals whip in the House of Representatives. It is sad to see colleagues go and I am sure we will spend a lot of time over coming days listening to the valedictory speeches and, over coming months, attending those parties we like to have for colleagues to give them a send-off and a good old roasting, in the way of the Nats. But it is exciting to preselect the next generation of Nationals parliamentarians, such as Andrew Broad, our candidate in Mallee, who will continue to represent the people of regional Australia, building on our legacy as the party whose heart and soul resides in country Australia and, whilst building on that legacy, ensuring that we respect and advocate for the diversity that exists in the regions.
Andrew has committed to speaking up for the needs of the people in his electorate and he has been lobbying me quite a lot about the issues of Mallee per se. He is a former VFF President and board member of Australian Made, Australian Grown. He is passionate about regional developments and capitalising on increasing wealth in Asia through Australian food production. His policy priorities essentially centre around wanting to ensure electorates like Mallee continue to thrive and that the inhibitors to growth are removed. He is focused on infrastructure—roads and better rail services—and most particularly as a new-gen Nat he understands the importance of communications in the regions and wants to see improved broadband services and technology for regional areas like Mallee. When we had the shadow minister for regional communications in the seat of Mallee last month, it was fantastic to get into Mildura and talk to local businesses and community leaders about the coalition's broadband plan and how Mallee will not have to wait until 2021. The community will be getting more than 25 megabits per second from 2016 and they are quite excited about that happening.
When it comes to stimulating the economy, Andrew believes the best strategy is to leave money in people's pockets and allow them to invest locally. He has been visiting farms and listening to locals' concerns. He has been hearing what we Nationals know all too well as does the coalition more generally, and that is that increasing costs, including the carbon tax, are raised often when we visit communities and talk to not only businesses but community members more generally. The impacts of the carbon tax, according to Andrew, on communities in Mallee are clearly very serious.
He is also aware of the barriers to education faced by people in his electorate. He is particularly keen to see young people in the Mallee electorate access tertiary education. He understands that there is a high cost on regional families to send their children to university, and this disadvantage should be acknowledged by government. People in country areas should have the same educational opportunities as their city counterparts. The Nationals understand this and we have been quite strong advocates attempting to redress that balance. Education is also key to ensuring a bright and sustainable future for regional communities, as it is the regional students who will be more likely to contribute to their regional communities via either returning in person or, as I think is more important, getting into the boardrooms of international companies and our national leading companies to bring in that country perspective and an understanding of how we live and work in the regions. That would probably make a bit of a difference to some of our issues as well.
When we had the shadow minister for mental health, Senator Fierravanti-Wells, in Swan Hill a little while ago, Andrew and Senator Fierravanti-Wells met with local mental health providers and aged-care providers. They spoke through some of the challenges, particularly for the Swan Hill region which as a community has one of the highest rates of teenage self-harm in Australia. That community has been seeking a headspace project for a long time, but because of the size of the town—it is under 20,000 people—the community is really struggling to bring that to Minister Butler's attention. They hope to look for other solutions. People who need a high level of care in mental health should have a choice on where they relocate to. They should not be forced to move to get the care they need.
Similarly, Andrew Broad is keen to raise awareness of access to quality accredited childcare services. In small towns there is not enough demand to warrant a full day care service, and parents are left with fewer options. He believes structural changes to the childcare funding model could see smaller towns gain access to extension services from larger neighbouring towns. This could make life a whole lot easier for many families living in small towns.
Andrew strongly believes that the people, products and natural assets of his electorate have a lot to offer and deserve recognition and support from the federal government. He believes that Australia deserves a government it actually can be proud of—a government that builds things; a government that rewards initiatives and endeavour. He believes the federal government should favour Australia first in access to agricultural land, in defence policy, in trade policy and in natural resources. Andrew wants a government that believes in small business. He knows that small business is the driver of the Australian economy. It is the pursuit and endeavours of individual Australians that create the wealth and prosperity that we often take for granted. It is precisely that group of people in our Australian society who have been feeling the pressure and are lacking the confidence in the current government. Andrew will be another strong voice for regional Australia in the Nationals party room post-election following the retirement of a very popular local member, John Forrest. He will advocate for better education and better health services. He will speak up for the farmers who feel their voice has not been heard and he will fight for greater investment in regional education.
Andrew is lucky to be taking over—hopefully, if all goes well for the Nationals in the electorate of Mallee at the next election—from a very experienced and passionate local member in John Forrest, who has served the electorate of Mallee for a couple of decades now. John Forrest is championed and celebrated right throughout the Mallee. As I mentioned earlier, the breadth of food produced within the Mallee electorate is largely as a result of John Forrest's advocacy on the Wimmera-Mallee pipeline. If you go through the Mallee, he is actually known as 'Mr Pipeline'. That pipeline secured a water source for the electorate of Mallee going forward. A member in a safe conservative seat, his passionate lobbying over a long period of time brought that to fruition. As an engineer, he was quite stoked and probably even has the drawings for it—I am sure they are in a back pocket somewhere. He has dedicated 20 years of his life to the Mallee electorate, and it has become the safest conservative seat in Australia.
He was the Chief National Party Whip from 1998 to 2006. He was shadow parliamentary secretary for trade from 2007 to 2008 and shadow parliamentary secretary for regional development from 2008 to 2009. His legacy is one that Andrew Broad is more than proud to carry on. As I said earlier, as the Nationals grow and expand, we are entering a new phase where, whilst we may have been viewed once as the farmers' party, and whilst that is a core aspect of who we are and one that we are very proud of, at the moment we are also obviously strong advocates for regional education and regional health.
John Forrest is looking forward to seeing Andrew Broad continue his representation of Mallee if the electorate so decides. In John's words: 'Andrew has the acumen and boldness that such a vital region of Victoria needs to ensure that strong representation continues to occur.' As I was talking to John about Andrew, he wanted to ensure that his best wishes and strongest encouragement are offered to Andrew in his task of winning the confidence of the very discerning electors of Mallee at the forthcoming federal election.
The Nationals are committed to providing good governance within the coalition, and this was demonstrated by the motions passed at the recent Nationals federal council. Motions passed included support for a code of conduct for supermarkets, the lowering of the GST threshold for online purchases from overseas, and allowing alpine grazing back into national parks, particularly the Alpine National Park in Victoria. These motions are practical, achievable and, if implemented, could effect positive change for farmers, primary producers and graziers, as well as small-business owners, the backbone of our local communities.
As we know, small businesses are facing increased cost pressures to compete with online trading where items are sold much more cheaply—and it is not just the high Australian dollar that is making the purchase of online goods so cheap; it is the fact also that they do not attract GST.
A recently released report by Ernst & Young looked quite deeply into how we could have a similar scheme operating within Australia. One of the voluntary schemes, where e-retailers such as Amazon contribute voluntarily to paying the particular country's version of the GST, was quite successful, and it would contribute a lot to our state governments' coffers as they seek to deliver services in their communities.
The code of conduct governing the relationship between suppliers, processors and supermarkets, ensuring a fair return for all, is a practical policy that would make a real difference for farmers, primary producers, facing unprecedented challenges. The EU has a green paper out on this and is looking at a code that will be governing the relationship between all three aspects within the supply chain. The UK has its own very recently minted code of conduct primarily dealing with the relationship between processors and retailers. But there is some work that needs to be done in this space. If we look at the Senate inquiry into food processing which was chaired by Richard Colbeck last year, that was one of the key issues that we found in the relationship between producers, processors and supermarkets. It was leading to a downfall in integrity in some of those relationships and very real issues within the supply chain.
The Nationals have the candidates and the policies to deliver for the regions. Come the end of next week, we are looking forward to getting out there on the ground and taking our message to the Australian public.
Western Australia: Environment
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (23:26): I am here tonight to voice very grave concerns about my hometown. As a senator from Western Australia I find myself frequently on the other side of the country representing a place that is about as far as you can get from this parliament while still remaining on the continent. I want to talk briefly about a place that to me exemplifies the principle of a place that is too precious to lose. The Beeliar Wetlands, as we know it these days, is a double chain of lakes running parallel with the coast on the Swan coastal plain. I spent a lot of my teenage years and into my twenties living very close to one of the largest lakes in the wetland chain. Today we know that lake as Bibra Lake but for tens of thousands of years it was known as Walliabup. It is a place where, as a young person, I saw the seasons turn and spent a lot of time tramping through the remarkable stands of intact banksia woodland watching the way the seasons affected the flow of the lakes. That impressed me greatly and I think it was the first part of the native ecosystems of my hometown that I genuinely fell in love with.
In former times, the area between Bibra Lake and what we now refer to as North Lake was a very important campsite for the Nyoongar people. Of course, this was part of the traditional lands of the Whadjuk Nyoongar people, for whom sovereignty over that country to this day has never been ceded. That campsite formed a link and continuity with the trail that came up from the south where the Bibbulmun people for time immemorial had moved parallel with to the coast into the area that later became the central area of the establishment of Perth. It is also one of the first places that I realised was under threat. It is a regional park. It is afforded a degree of protection in that we do not need to worry about new housing estates impacting on it. In a sense the city has flowed around the wetland chain, leaving in effect islands of biodiversity and it is the city that swarms around it. The sudden growth corridor is an area of huge residential and industrial growth rapidly increasing transport volumes and it is a very important part of a growing city. Of course, the impact of this spectacular wetland chain have been quite severe.
It forced me to raise my eyes, I suppose, from my local patch of ground when I realised quite early on that this area was threatened with a freeway—that successive state governments had proposed to ram four lanes of tarmac through it at a cost of what is currently estimated to be just shy of $700 million, for a section of less than five kilometres of freeway. I have found myself impressed over the years with the campaigners who have taken up the cause of trying to protect that area, as generations have done before them, from the encroachment of urban development and growth—in particular, this freeway.
The Southwest Botanical Province is one of 25 biodiversity hot spots in the world. To be a hot spot, an area needs to be defined globally and internationally as a significant reservoir of biodiversity. To qualify, it must meet two strict criteria: it needs to have at least 1,500 endemic species, and it needs to have lost at least 70 per cent of its primary vegetation. The Perth metropolitan area is one of those places. Perth is the only city in the world based in a natural landscape dominated by banksia woodlands. The Swan coastal plain, where Perth now sits, was originally a chain—or a series of chains—of wetlands, banksia woodlands and coastal heath. Three-quarters of it is gone; it has disappeared under the fabric of the city we call home The areas of habitat that remain are home to more than 600 species currently listed as being threatened with extinction. Whether or not that occurs is not some blind process of natural selection. Whether those extinctions and that cascade of disappearances of species and creatures that have lived there forever, effectively, as far as human time scales are concerned, actually occur is up to us.
In 2009 Tim Flannery warned that 'we know better' and that 'extinctions are about to resume, and there is no doubt that without urgent action they will build into the biggest extinction wave of all'. A study in 2012 identified that the numbers of one iconic species, Carnaby's black cockatoo, in the Perth metropolitan region have decreased by 40 per cent just since 2010. That is a collapse; that is the sort of thing Professor Flannery is trying to warn us about. It does not happen by accident, of course. Imagine intact ecosystems, and then suddenly this city begins to swarm, north and south, along the Swan coastal plain over a period of mere decades in the life of an ecosystem that has formed up and been there in that form effectively since that last ice age. Think about the threats that are now taking place—intersecting, cross-cutting, concurrent threats, hammering the groundwater reservoirs of the Gnangara and Jandakot mounds: weeds and invasive and feral animals, including some of the pets we are most affectionate towards that have had a devastating impact on local wildlife. There have been changes in rainfall by climate change and as a sort of a feedback cycle of land clearing. And that of course is the big one: land clearing—simply putting bulldozers to habitat. That is the big one. Although climate change may have a much longer period and ultimately a more devastating impact, what really is hammering the vegetation and the biodiversity of the Swan coastal plain at the moment is simply pushing earthmoving equipment through it and knocking it over.
We launched an initiative in March, in the late days of the state election, called Perth Greenways, which I would like to speak a little bit more about. One of the things it did was identify the top 10 places under threat, and I will speak of some of those in a moment. On paper, each of the places we identified as being most at threat has at least one formal type of so-called protection. They are named Bush Forever sites—ironic. They are listed as conservation category wetlands; they are home to threatened species; they are listed, they are documented. And they are disappearing. In fact, these names and the categories that we put them in are a form of mocking what we actually do to them once we have notified ourselves and documented the damage we are about to do.
In WA is seems that developers—or some of them, because splits have opened up in the development community and it has been very interesting to see—but those of them who are dubbed the sprawl merchants can put their finger virtually anywhere on a map and name the most outrageous and insane proposal that they like and nothing appears to be standing in their way, because many of the places that are most seriously threatened on the Swan coastal plain are threatened by processes by which the state government itself is actually the proponent. And in all these places the last line of defence, therefore, depending on which way you look at it, is either the community itself and the people who show up and inspire others to stand in the way or it is the federal government, it is federal environmental law made in this chamber. We do not appear to be able to trust either of the old parties to protect those places.
One key action that the Labor government here has failed to do is to formally recognise the biodiversity values of south-western WA and particularly the Perth region. The Banksia woodlands of the southern Swan coastal plain have been nominated for listing under the EPBC Act as threatened ecological communities but they are not yet listed. There is no question at all that the values are there; it is just that the listing process is taking an inordinate amount of time while we are seeing these precious places go under the bulldozer blade. Like hundreds of other species and ecological communities waiting for assessment around the country, they are just languishing on this list and we risk losing them to another list, the list of names of species that are extinct. So tonight I call on the federal government to urgently progress the assessment of Banksia woodlands under the act and to formally recognise Perth and the south-west region of WA as a biodiversity hotspot and thereby provide some more support to manage it.
The state government is giving us some of the worst-case examples of how badly you can manage or mismanage biodiversity. As Mary Gray from the Urban Bushland Council says, we have the best biodiversity in Australia and the worst legislation. My home state still has no legal protection for threatened ecological communities. WA's Wildlife Conservation Act is more than a century old and it was originally called the Gaming Act. It was written to describe how you could legally kill wildlife, so in some ways it is an apt description of Perth's current planning system. Premier Barnett committed to a new biodiversity conservation act as a pre-election commitment. We will just have to see how that goes, won't we. The same Premier is overseeing and in some cases directly responsible for a number of the plans to liquidate some of our most important stands of remaining natural heritage. These include the Beeliar Wetlands, where I began, currently threatened by the Roe highway extension to nowhere—$700 million, five kilometres of tarmac to obliterate a number of important Aboriginal cultural sites and separate in the most brutal fashion possible with tarmac two lakes which constitute a Bush Forever site—that ironic name again. I want to acknowledge the work of people like Felicity McGeorge, Nandi Chinna, Kate Kelly and the 20,000 other people who put their names against this project. This has been a very long-term project for my state MLC colleague Lynn McLaren.
At Point Peron and Mangles Bay further down the coast an outdated and utterly unwanted canal development—I thought we had gone over those—is being pushed by Landcorp, the state government's land development arm, and Cedar Woods that will erase a coastal regional park and another Bush Forever site from the map. It threatens countless endangered species, including ancient thrombolites in the adjoining freshwater lake. There have been 20 appeals to the EPA raising more than 30 different grounds for objection, and for reasons that we suspect are political pressure the Conservation Commission has withdrawn its appeal. To the Hands Off Point Peron group Dawn Jecks and James Mumme, very long-term campaigners in defence of their backyard on behalf of all of us people a long way away, including right here on the other side of the country.
There are lesser-known places like the Anstey Keane Damplands, threatened by another pointless road. Fifty submissions have been received against it and this will literally sever in half the largest remaining intact wetland vegetation on the eastern Swan coastal plain with one of the richest areas of species in the region.
The Friends of Forrestdale, including Rod Giblett and Briony Fremlin, with a lot of assistance from my former state MLC colleague, Alison Xamon, are standing up for places that perhaps nobody in this room could even point to on a map, and not many residents of Perth necessarily even know where they are. They are no less important for that. The Underwood Avenue Bushland, which has been subject to campaign after campaign is another Bush Forever site and is valued as a regional conservation area and is home to one of the largest remaining flocks of Carnaby's cockatoos. The local community and beyond are opposed to the pointless destruction of the Underwood Avenue Bushland. The Western Region Environment Network and Wayne Monks deserve particular credit, as does a large part of the student population of UWA, who have had to turn out over and over again to protest and protect this place.
The Stratton Bushland is one other lesser known area rich in wildlife. It is an essential ecological link into John Forrest National Park up in the escarpment. It is another roosting area for Carnaby's and Forest Red Tail cockatoos. There are so many places that we know are under threat. One that was under threat and one that I would like to briefly note is Nowergup Lake, which is the deepest lake on the Swan coastal plain and the centrepiece of an extraordinary bit of urban bushland. It was proposed for a limestone quarry and a cement batching plant but was actually saved by the local community. The batching plant and the quarry will not be going ahead and now the group that has put so much effort into protecting their backyard is pushing for some kind of permanent protection.
As I say, the federal Labor government in some instances are the last line of protection for these places and we need the federal government to stand up for them. We know the coalition cannot be trusted to stand up for the kind of environmental values that the Greens have championed since we were formed. I want to give one example of what I mean. Mr Tony Abbott, who quite clearly believes he will be the next Prime Minister of Australia, and is already behaving as though the election has occurred, said the following in January of this year while pledging financial support for a freeway extension in the north of Brisbane. He said:
… because cars are able to work efficiently … Better roads means better communities; better roads are good for our economy; they're good for our society.
They're good for our physical and mental health.
Senator Sinodinos, can you help me out here? What on earth is he on? He goes on:
They're even good for the environment because cars that are moving spew out far less pollution than cars that are standing still.
Spectacular, breathtaking, wide-eyed ignorance.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator LUDLAM: You are welcome to interject, any of the coalition senators sitting here tonight, if you can tell me what on earth he is talking about. Without the Greens in the Senate, come September, an Abbott led coalition will have unfettered power in this place. That is the kind of mindset that they appear to be bringing to bear to urban development issues including in my home state.
Perth, by the way, is already one of the most car-dependent cities on the planet. It has the largest houses, is among the smallest number of occupants and is one of the lowest density, sprawling cities on earth. This has come at a very high cost to our natural environment, but of course, that is not irreparable. A number of studies that we have undertaken in the past couple of years, including the Perth greenway study to relink, remesh and heal some of the damage that we have done to the fabric and underlying ecosystems of the Swan coastal plain. This depends on answering the question: what about urban growth? How are we to live? How should our cities grow and develop?
I am proud to work with the Property Council of Australia and the Australian Urban Design Research Centre on a study called Transforming Perth. As I said, the developers in WA are not necessarily a bad lot, and in some cases they are turning away from the sprawl-merchant methodology that just says you roll the urban carpet out, no matter what the cost to biodiversity, in that part of the world. They are looking for new ways of doing things and in some cases the developers and the development community are much further ahead than policy makers in either of the old parties, but particularly they are further ahead than some of the mentality demonstrated by Premier Barnett and his administration.
The Transforming Perth study that we undertook with the Property Council and AUDRC studied the potential for urban regeneration along just seven of Perth's 18 future transit corridors and it found the potential for 124,000 new dwellings at medium density. It is not Hong Kong with four or five storeys. It is public transport oriented, protecting urban bushland within Perth and protecting heritage in places of value to the local community. That would be Perth's entire density target in just seven of the 18 public transport corridors that the state government have identified.
That is a form of smart growth; it is a form of urban resilience that would service well, even when the city ceases to grow because nothing can grow forever. We would be talking about sustainable, beautifully designed townhouses lining vibrant high streets buzzing with light rail, with activity, with people. And for every hectare, just by way of example, that you take up to what in planning notation is R160 or 160 dwellings per hectare you save 16 hectares of urban bushland or farming and agricultural country on the edge of town. Perth no longer needs to expand in this way.
I would like to briefly acknowledge a really valuable WALGA project, the Perth Biodiversity Project. The project manager there, Renata Zelinova, introduced us to: what would it look like if we got it right, if we relinked and remeshed, using an urban forest strategy, yards, verges, street plantings, and actually brought the population and community of Perth back into a conversation about how we can be at home on the Swan coastal plain?
Finally, our thanks go to the Urban Bushland Council, in particular Mary Gray, who is not afraid to stand with the 70-odd community groups right across the area who stand up for urban bushland, campaign after campaign, letter after letter, submission after submission, standing in front of equipment needed—when push comes to shove. We cannot afford to adopt those sorts of strategies for interventions for much longer. We need to be more systematic. We believe that some of the work we have done with our partners whether they be property developers, conservationists or Aboriginal people across the city shows one of the ways forward that we can in fact live and make a good home for ourselves on the Swan coastal plain.
Melbourne: East West Link
Senator KROGER (Victoria—Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate) (23:46): I rise tonight, as a Victorian senator to once again express my dismay at the policy failings of this Labor government. The list of these failings could otherwise be described as impressive, were it not such a litany of disaster—the collapse of border security, rising cost of living due to the carbon tax, the increased cost of doing business that is driving more and more business offshore; the list, as we know, goes on and on. But tonight I will speak on an issue closer to home to many of the Victorians that I represent. It is an issue that, whilst perhaps not rivalling in sheer scale the collapse of our border security, nonetheless does have a significant local impact on many Victorians, particularly in and around Melbourne, and one that the federal Labor government refuses to address. The issue I will speak about is the construction of the East West Link.
The East West Link Project will, at its heart, address the serious issue of chronic traffic congestion on the Eastern Freeway, and relieve traffic pressure on the Monash-CityLink-West Gate corridor. Now the reasons for doing this may seem self-evident. Less traffic congestion in, and of itself, is always a good thing, but it is important to actually spell out what the benefits are. This is not for the benefit of the people living in seats such as Deakin and Chisholm—they already clearly understand them—but more for the federal Labor government, which refuses to address them, obsessed as it is with its own internal machinations.
The first issue revolves around the impact on business of the chronic traffic congestion that the East West Link Project will address. Anyone involved in running a business impacted by this congestion can tell you that the movement of freight along the Eastern Freeway adds to the costs of them doing business, as more time in transit means delays in delivery of products to their customers and higher freight costs due to increased fuel consumption and time lost, amongst other factors. The increased cost for the distribution of products from suppliers to manufacturers and other businesses adds increased pressure to manufacturers already under strain, and will lead to increased costs to consumers, or, worse still, business closures and the consequent loss of jobs.
Beyond the distribution of freight, however, the movement of tradesmen to jobs is impacted by the traffic congestion that would be solved by building the East West Link. Increased time spent by tradesmen caught in traffic means less time spent on the job. Quite aside from the impact this has on people who need their services, less work means less income, which impacts not only directly on the tradesmen themselves and their families, but also on those employed by these small businesses, such as their assistants and apprentices. So not only is the effect immediate, but an apprentice who is not trained today equals one less tradesman in the future. This is particularly relevant given the skills shortages that Australia faces today and into the future.
But, of course, no-one really expects the federal Labor government to understand, let alone care about, the needs of business. The raft of anti-business and pro-union policies is one testament to this. But you would think that a party that purports to represent the interests of ordinary Australians would understand the impact of traffic congestion on the day-to-day lives of the people in seats such as Chisholm and Deakin. More time spent commuting to and from the workplace means less time that busy parents have to spend at home with their children. More time spent stuck in traffic means greater fuel consumption and wear and tear on the family car, and therefore more pressure on already strained household budgets. There simply is no upside to the traffic congestion that the East West Link project will address.
The issue of this project clearly demonstrates how out of touch the government is with the concerns of ordinary Australians. I understand these concerns because, on a daily basis, constituents contact my electorate office in Burwood East to voice them. I understand them because of the strong representations made on behalf of many of these constituents, and particularly the representations made to the excellent Liberal candidate Michael Sukkar in Deakin. He is giving a clear voice to the people of Deakin and is providing a stark contrast to the current member for Deakin, Mike Symon, who remains very silent on this particular issue. Even when, I hesitate to say, this issue was raised in the House only in the last sitting period, he chose not to enter the debate on the issue. Now you would think that Mr Symon, being in a marginal seat, would be doing everything he could to represent the interests of the people of his electorate. I hate to suggest that it may be easier for him to ignore them and stand shoulder to shoulder with the Greens, who have strongly criticised the construction of the East West Link project, than to commit the funding required to deliver this critical piece of infrastructure.
Perhaps the same conclusion or suggestion could be made for the Labor member for Corio, Richard Marles, or the Labor member for McEwen, Rob Mitchell, who both recognise the need for a solution to this congestion but oppose the East West Link project. Finally, you might even think that the member for Chisholm, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Ms Anna Burke, would take time out to fight for her constituents on this particular issue and obtain an undertaking from her government to help fund the East West Link project. But we already know where her priorities lie in the electorate. Surprisingly, it in not with issues such as the impact of chronic traffic congestion on the lives of the families of Chisholm, nor the impacts it has on the cost of doing business. According to her, the No. 1 concern for the people of Chisholm is ‘ending the live cattle trade and animal cruelty’. Now I do not doubt for a moment the compassionate and caring nature of the vast majority of people in Chisholm, but it beggars belief that they would rate that issue above the health and wellbeing of their families.
Finally, there is the ‘environmental dividend’ that will result from the removal of chronic traffic congestion as a result of the construction of the East West Link. Quite simply, moving traffic pollutes less than traffic that is forced to stop and start as a result of congestion; fewer pollution particles will enter the atmosphere and less CO2 will be emitted. Again, you would think that this would be something that the Gillard Labor government would support, but the record stands for itself. This is a party that attempts to sell itself as committed to the environment, albeit through the recklessly irresponsible carbon tax, so you would think that it would welcome this—but, no. In fact it is the coalition that, in addition to standing up for the people of Victoria, is also prepared to face up to the environmental impacts of traffic congestion by taking concrete action to deal with it.
So where does the coalition stand on the construction of the East West Link project? I have to say that, unlike the Labor government, we understand the needs of ordinary Australians, including those affected by the chronic traffic congestion on the Eastern Freeway. And we have listened, not only to the people who have made representations but also to the Victorian government, who has made the East West Link the No. 1 priority project for the state, with the Napthine government already committing $294 million towards stage 1 in its budget handed down on 7 May. We have listened to the RACV, who have made the East West Link their top priority infrastructure project that they believe should be invested in. Ordinary Australians know and understand what is important for the quality of their lives. The Victorian government knows and understands the importance of key infrastructure programs, such as this project, to the lives of Victorians and to the future development of the state of Victoria. The RACV know and understand the issues affecting Victorian motorists and how to address these issues. The coalition have listened and we clearly understand the need for this project to go ahead as a matter of priority. Why doesn’t the federal Labor government?
It is one thing to listen—that is very much the easy part, even if federal Labor seems to have difficulty with doing just that. But it is quite another thing to act—and act we have, and we will continue to do so. In order to make this crucial project a reality, the federal coalition have agreed to work with the Victorian government to progress it and pledged $1.5 billion to help to do so, should we be elected to office. This is in stark contrast with the federal Labor government’s refusal to commit funding to the project, which will not only ease local chronic traffic congestion but will also complete the overall Melbourne ring road. The coalition have listened to the community and key stakeholders, considered the issues and made a clear decision to address a significant issue, and we are committed to significant funding to address this. The federal Labor government could use this as a template of how a competent, well-managed government could conduct itself, if only it could drag itself away from its own internal navel gazing.
And now the lights are going off at this time—but I will continue, Mr President. The East West Link project will do far more than simply address chronic traffic congestion, as important as this is in itself. I am very determined here, before the lights all go down! Not only will it improve the lives of families who are stuck in traffic for hours each day, ease the pressure on businesses, particularly small business, and help address environmental concerns; in an increasingly uncertain economic environment, with a slowing construction sector, the project will create around 3,200 new jobs in Melbourne, particularly in the construction industry. Again, you might be forgiven for thinking that the Labor Party, a political party that styles itself as representing workers, would jump at the opportunity to help create thousands of new jobs over the years it takes to construct such a project—but, no. In fact it is the coalition who continues to stand up for workers and for those who would benefit from the jobs that such a project would create.
Whilst the Labor government remains focused on leadership issues this week—and has continued to do so for some months—and is continually looking inwards, it does so at the expense of good, strong and competent government for all Australians. The coalition remains committed to building critical infrastructure and to providing and creating the new jobs needed for all Australians to share in the benefits of this great nation.
Enough is enough. When the Prime Minister announced the 14 September election date back in January, she stated that there would be days for governing and days for campaigning and that the Australian people would be clear on which was which. Unfortunately for this great nation, the days of governing have been few and far between and those days have been chaotic and plagued by policy failures. The Australian people deserve much better. The people of Victoria deserve much better. Labor could go some small way in addressing this by joining the coalition and pledge federal funding to the East-West Link project immediately. Every indication is that this may well be a bridge too far. Labor would rather stand side by side with its Greens alliance partners in ignoring yet another vital infrastructure project. For the people of Chisholm and Deakin—and for so many other electorates in Victoria—I hope that is not the case.
It is time to act. It is time to get things done to improve the lives of the people of Victoria. If the federal Labor government cannot or will not do this, then it is time they stood aside for a government that will.
Wednesday, 19 June 2013
Higher Education
Beckett, Ms Roseanne
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (00:01): There are no winners when a government cuts university funding. The chronic underfunding of tertiary education in Australia over recent decades has placed increasing financial pressure on universities to cut costs. The most recent OECD figures show that of 29 advanced economies Australia is ranked 25th for public investment in universities, as a percentage of total GDP expenditure.
Following years of chronic underinvestment by the coalition government this Labor government has made $4 billion in funding cuts to higher education since 2011. In this year's budget, universities were hit with a direct $900 million cut—dubbed an efficiency dividend—as part of the $2.3 billion university cuts that are hurting students and staff. These cuts do hurt students. They damage the quality of our higher education. We have seen a marked rise in the nation's student debt over the past 20 years from a total of less than $5 billion in 1995 to around $30 billion today. In 2012 the average HECS debt of a university graduate was $15,200 and would take eight years to repay. These recent university cuts could see some students debts increase by 50 per cent. Young people should not be burdened with such student debts to earn a degree.
Underfunding has led to increased staff-to-student ratios at Australian universities. Student-to-staff ratios increased from about 13:1 in 1990 to more than 21:7 in 2010, an average 65 per cent increase. This includes research staff, who may teach occasionally or not at all, and is an aggregate of casual and part-time staff counted as full-time staff. So the actual body counts of students to staff are likely to be highly undercounted.
According to one researcher, the ratio of coursework students to staff who teach is more like 34:1, which is an increase of over 150 per cent since 1990. This directly affects the quality of teaching and learning at our universities. Cuts also hurt university staff, who have borne the brunt of cost-cutting measures with reductions in conditions, job security and career-development opportunities. A key part of my role as a Greens senator is in supporting campaigns for progressive change that are taking place on the streets and in the workplace. One such struggle is the current NTEU and CPSU enterprise bargaining campaign at the University of Sydney, which will have far-reaching consequences for the future of higher education across the sector.
In conversations with university staff on the picket lines, long-term unionists have told me that the level of industrial action at the University of Sydney—five strike days over the course of semester 1—is unprecedented. They say they have been forced to take this action in opposition to a similarly unprecedented attack by university management on their wages and conditions, which would negatively impact the quality of education for current and future students.
Recently released survey results indicate that the decision by the overwhelming majority of union members to take ongoing strike action aligns with widespread discontent among staff over the direction of the university. The survey found that staff perceptions of management performance were markedly more negative than at other Group of Eight universities.
It is not hard to understand why staff feel this way when we look at the objective conditions of work at the university and the approach of management to staff at the bargaining table. One of the key demands by the unions has been for management to reduce their reliance on casual work. NTEU members gave evidence about the demoralising treadmill of casual work at a recent parliamentary inquiry into insecure work, initiated by Greens MP Adam Bandt.
The inquiry was told that casuals are in a constant state of anxiety about where their next short-term contract will come from in the face of ongoing and permanent living costs. They highlighted the fact that they receive no leave entitlements and other protections if they get sick, have caring commitments or simply need a holiday and that they are required to take on large amounts of unpaid work.
Across the country, around half of undergraduate teaching is now performed by casuals and the trend towards casualisation has been no different at Sydney university. After the fourth strike day this semester, management were pressured into agreeing to provisions that would have a real impact on reducing the trend towards casualisation. However, I was disappointed to find out that unions had been told that these and other wins were conditional on staff accepting a real pay cut over the course of the agreement.
University staff have been forced onto an effective wage freeze since January 2012, due to management delaying enterprise bargaining negotiations. Their revised offer of below three per cent per year will not keep up with rising housing, childcare and energy costs in Sydney, ranked in one measure as the third most expensive city in the world.
Union rights are particularly significant in the context of the federal Labor government's $2.3 billion budget cuts to higher education, which gained the support of the coalition.
Today, casual staff in the Sydney University Casuals Network staged a 'mark-in' where they marked exam papers on desks placed outside the Vice-Chancellor's office. They held placards with parody job advertisements for casual academics, which read: '$15 an hour for marking, half the superannuation rate of permanent staff, little training for teaching, no job security.' This action highlighted the unrealistic workloads, low wages and precarious nature of casual work.
Sydney university casual academics are paid to mark 4,500 words per hour and more for exams. Every tutor knows that this is unrealistic. When you take into account the time taken to consult with colleagues on what is expected in the assessment, properly evaluate the quality of the work, provide feedback that students deserve and then process the marks, in real terms casual tutors receive around $15 per hour. This is just one of the many ways unrealistic workloads disguise underpayment of casual academics and demonstrate why a decent wage increase is so important in the current industrial dispute at Sydney university.
In bringing along their own tables and chairs, the casuals network also drew attention to the lack of resources and support given to casual academics. For example, casuals at Sydney university are forced to prepare classes, mark assignments and meet students, often in their living rooms, libraries or other public spaces because many of them are not given office space. This reflects a general attitude towards staff by a university management that views its casuals as disposable workers. It is why unions have put job security at the forefront of their enterprise bargaining campaign, and some faculties at Sydney university the proportion of casual academic staff is staggering: architecture has 42 per cent casual teachers; Sydney College of the Arts and music, 34 per cent; dentistry and nursing, 35 per cent; and education 43 per cent casual staff.
Increasing levels of casualisation as an appointment strategy is a growing problem across the university sector. When you look at the number of face-to-face teaching hours performed by casual teachers, it is over 50 per cent. Most of the staff will choose to be in permanent teaching positions.
I was incredibly disappointed in question time earlier today that the Labor government refuses to support university staff's moderate demands for an above-inflation pay rise and better job security. The minister talked up his connections to the university management. It is management that are using Labor's cuts as a vehicle for slashing pay and conditions. Staff and students are also rightly disappointed that a Labor government would at the same time refuse to support the modest demands of workers and cut funding to higher education.
The announcement of cuts to higher education funding in the midst of the industrial dispute at the University of Sydney has crystallised two competing visions of the future of higher education. On one side, the major parties and management teams like those at Sydney University want to place educational opportunities and critical research in the hands of the market; on the other side, we have staff, unions, student activists and the Greens that want our public universities to be places where secure staff and supported students can cooperate through teaching, learning and research to advance ideas to make the world a better place.
I congratulate the NTEU and the CPSU for their work on behalf of their members—work that plays a critical role in building a quality higher education sector.
On another matter, in August 2006, a wonderful reconciliation took place in a cafe in Shellharbour, New South Wales. Roseanne Beckett, five years out of prison for a wrongful conviction, was meeting with her local member of parliament. A woman, who worked at the cafe, approached Roseanne and cried out, 'Mum! I thought I would never find you again' and they embraced. The cafe's chef was Tracy Taylor. Tracy called Roseanne 'Mum' because her own mother had died when she was five years old, and Roseanne took Tracy under her wing, giving her a job and teaching her how to cook.
Tracy recounts how she was wary of approaching Roseanne, because they had not spoken since Tracy testified against Roseanne in a 1991 trial for conspiracy to murder her husband Barry Catt. Roseanne Beckett was Roseanne Catt when I met her in 2000. At the time I was a member of the New South Wales Legislative Council and Roseanne was a prisoner at Mulawa Correctional Centre. I came to visit this prison as I was a member of the upper house inquiry into the increase in the New South Wales prisoner population.
Roseanne gave evidence to this inquiry. During the hearing, she requested a closed session with no men present. All the male MPs and male prison staff left the room where the inquiry was being conducted. I found Roseanne's evidence very troubling at the time. The extent of the injustice she had suffered was not fully clear to me. I have come to realise the abuse, discrimination and injustice Roseanne has suffered as an example of extreme sexism. In the current debate about sexist attitudes, we should not lose sight of what happens to ordinary women as well as our women leaders.
Six years after the parliamentary inquiry where I met Roseanne, the chance meeting with Tracy opened up the next troubling chapter in how our justice system operates. Wendy Bacon, a professor with the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism has assisted Roseanne and Tracy reveal what they have been subjected to. Tracy signed an affidavit which in part states:
Parts of the evidence I give at the trial are not truthful. I went along with the police because I was frightened. I am very sorry for any harm that was caused but I had no-one to help or advise me.
In 1990, two police intimidated her with misinformation. Tracy explained:
The police said I was a prostitute and that Roseanne was a madam and that I was the one who kept the gun. I said I knew nothing about guns. I had never seen Roseanne with a gun. They also said I was going to be charged with conspiring to murder Barry Catt.
She adds:
I was threatened into signing a statement that was not mine. I was terrified … I feared for my life and my baby's life.
Tracy's affidavit is part of a story which begins in February 1989. Roseanne's stepchildren had disclosed to Family and Community Services that they had been sexually abused by Barry Catt. The Newcastle Police Child Mistreatment Unit charged Catt and another relative with 15 counts of sexual abuse and they were committed for trial. Roseanne was also halfway through proceedings for assault against her husband. Weeks later, Roseanne was charged with conspiracy to murder Catt. The officer most vigorously pursuing Roseanne was Detective Peter Thomas. Thomas had recently been transferred after falsely accusing Roseanne of burning down a shop in an unrelated incident. Thomas had known and drunk with Barry Catt for many years and later admitted he intensely disliked Roseanne. Commenting on these developments, Professor Bacon stated:
Back in 1990, the Ombudsman passed the file on to the NSW Police Internal Affairs who recommended charges against the leading detective in the case, Peter Thomas. But the NSW DPP did not proceed with the charges. Thomas was allowed to leave the police force and become a private inquiry agent in Queensland, where he was found to have charged people on insufficient evidence and offered a witness a bribe. On more than one occasion, he has given evidence in court that he was aware of no findings against him.
At Roseanne's trial, neither the court nor her lawyers were told of the report's finding against Detective Thomas. Despite much evidence of bias and misconduct on the part of the detective, Roseanne was found guilty and sentenced to 12 years in prison. In her summary, Justice Jane Mathews said: 'Either Roseanne was a victim of a terrible conspiracy or an evil and manipulative woman who had concocted false assault charges against Barry Catt and also convinced her children to lie about sexual abuse.' There was already significant evidence of a conspiracy against Roseanne and there was much to follow.
Ten years into her 12-year sentence, fresh evidence came to light that proved she was indeed framed by Detective Thomas, and Roseanne was released. In 2004, a judicial inquiry, led by Justice Thomas Davidson, found that Thomas may have planted the gun which was alleged to have been Roseanne's, and she may have been framed regarding the charge of attempting to spike her husband's drinks. Further, Justice Davidson argued that the prosecution witnesses were unreliable and that Thomas used improper methods of investigation. Tracy Taylor's affidavit, two years later, would seem to bear this out. As to the accusation that Thomas was biased against Roseanne and was corrupted by his friendship with Barry Catt, Justice Davidson found that the detective had a propensity to use his office to damage Ms Catt, and demonstrated a lack of objectivity, which descended into malice and abuse of power. Detective Thomas had also been accused by a New South Wales judge in another criminal case of acting reprehensibly and using fair means or foul to convict a person.
Thomas was also involved in another disturbing case around the same time as he arrested Roseanne. This was a case of Jake Sourian, which I first raised in 2002 in a speech in the New South Wales Legislative Council. Sourian lost his house and other assets after being falsely accused by Thomas of arson, and remains uncompensated for the injustice. Instead of being held accountable, Thomas became a private investigator. There have been other, unsubstantiated arson charges against innocent citizens, leaving him further discredited. Despite all this, the New South Wales government has refused to reopen compensation discussions for Roseanne, which were dropped in 2006.
Here we must bring into the story the current New South Wales Attorney-General, Greg Smith, and former crown prosecutor Patrick Power. Power was in charge of Roseanne's prosecution and, before her unsuccessful 1993 appeal, was involved in the children changing their statements accusing Barry Catt of sexual abuse. In 2006, large amounts of child pornography were found on Power's computer, and Greg Smith, Power's colleague at the time, alerted Power to this discovery before notifying the authorities. Investigating the allegation on a tip-off, former High Court Judge Michael McHugh reported that Smith had acted improperly but not corruptly. This is a sordid tale that spans 24 years, involving the highest reaches of the New South Wales justice system.
Through Professor Bacon's excellent investigations, I have been following this case and seeking justice for Roseanne since November 2000, when the Greens first called for an inquiry into her case. We have been asking questions since the injustice first came to light and, unfortunately, many are yet to be satisfactorily answered. Who was involved in abusing Roseanne's children? Why was it not vigorously prosecuted? Who threatened Tracy Taylor and why was her story ignored by police? Why did the Crown continue to conduct itself in such a ruthless fashion and rely on the evidence of witnesses already found to be unreliable? Given the example of Detective Thomas's history, what action is being taken by the Crown to find out whether innocent people may be imprisoned because of activities by similarly corrupt officers? Why is New South Wales Attorney-General Greg Smith continuing to resist Roseanne's claims for compensation despite her recent victory in the High Court?
While there are many troubling aspects to this story in what it reveals about how some human beings treat others, there are also many inspiring stories about the people who stuck by Roseanne when she was in prison. I would particularly like to acknowledge the work of Mary Court and Sister Claudette Palmer, who worked tirelessly for years to help Roseanne obtain justice.
A critical aspect of any society is how it deals with corruption and injustice, especially when it systematically oppresses women and anyone suffering discrimination and disadvantage. We must acknowledge when something goes wrong, act to assist those who are affected and remedy the problem. It is clear that powerful institutions have wronged Roseanne Beckett. Continuing to hide the facts and delay restitution is unacceptable. Roseanne and her supporters for over a decade have been working to clear at her name.
What happened to Rosanne has not just affected her; it reflects poorly on all of us. An inquiry is needed into the Crown's behaviour in dealing with Roseanne. The New South Wales government should be held responsible for the injustice she has been subjected to. It is time the government took responsibility for ensuring Roseanne is afforded justice and full compensation. A speedy and just resolution to this case is important for Roseanne, for all women and for our wider society.
Senate adjourned at 00: 21 (Wednesday)
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The following government documents were tabled:
Anindilyakwa Land Council—Report for 2011-12.
Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC)—Report No. 120—Access all ages: Older workers and Commonwealth laws—
Final report, dated March 2013.
Summary report, dated March 2013.
Education and Care Services Ombudsman, National Education and Care Services Freedom of Information and Privacy Commissioners—Report for the period January to June 2012.
Judge Advocate General—Report for 2012.
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)—NHMRC Licensing Committee—Report on the operation of the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 for the period 1 September 2012 to 28 February 2013.
National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council and Australian Vice‑Chancellors’ Committee—National statement on ethical conduct in human research, dated March 2007—Replacement page 53.
Productivity Commission—Report No. 61—Compulsory licensing of patents, dated 28 March 2013.
Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997—Quarterly report on the maximum movement limit for Sydney Airport for the period 1 January to 31 March 2013.
Treaties—
Bilateral—Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay on the Exchange of Information with Respect to Taxes (Montevideo, 10 December 2012)—Text, together with national interest analysis.
Multilateral—Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (Rome, 22 November 2009)—Text, together with national interest analysis and annexures.
United Nations—Convention on the Rights of the Child—Committee on the Rights of the Child—Consideration of reports submitted by States parties—Concluding observations: Australia—Sixtieth session, 29 May to 15 June 2012.
War Crimes Act 1945—Report for 2011-12 on the operation of the Act.
Answers to Senate Questions on Notice will no longer be published in the Senate Hansard. The full text of Questions on Notice and their answers are available online at www.aph.gov.au/SenateQON