The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hog g) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Senate Clocks
The PRESIDENT (09:31): The Senate time clocks have just packed it in. Timing will be done by a stopwatch—which will not give you any more time; I am certain of that. Senators will be notified when they have one minute to go. We will get the clocks repaired as soon as possible. I have been advised that a technician will have to come onto the floor while the Senate is sitting to attend to the fault.
BILLS
Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013
Australian Aged Care Quality Agency Bill 2013
Australian Aged Care Quality Agency (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
Aged Care (Bond Security) Amendment Bill 2013
Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (09:32): Last week we had a five-minute false start on the debate on this aged care package of legislation. As shadow minister for ageing, I want to place on record the appalling process that this government has adopted. So much for these measures being, as the Prime Minister said, a second-term priority for Labor. These bills will join the 55 bills to be guillotined this week, which is almost double the 32 bills guillotined in the entire period that the coalition had control of the Senate. All up, some 216 bills have been guillotined under the Labor-Green alliance. It is disgraceful that this debate on five complex bills is being guillotined. As late as yesterday the government tabled yet more amendments.
Whilst we may see passage of these bills today, through this very truncated and rushed process, the real detail of this legislation is in the 18 pieces of delegated legislation yet to be tabled, some of which commence operation next Monday. This is political blackmail by a minister showing contempt for the ageing and aged-care sector in general and a real lack of interest in older Australians. The 18 pieces of delegated legislation will no doubt be tabled out of session, thereby precluding proper scrutiny by this parliament. This delegated legislation will include the workforce supplement, which has created so much concern and alarm in the sector.
No move for disallowance of any of these instruments is possible until the new parliament, given that 15 sitting days need to elapse before they come into effect. We would remind the sector that the future of these instruments rests with the new parliament. In the meantime, Minister Butler will no doubt continue to falsely promote that aged-care workers will get pay rises, knowing full well that their future is not certain. I am sure we will see more false advertisements like this one in The Retiree, wrongly asserting:
From July, $1.2 billion will flow into the pay packets of 350,000 aged care workers across Australia thanks to Federal Labor.
That was authorised by Minister Butler himself, with the address being his electorate office in Semaphore, South Australia. This is false. It is wrong. It is a lie. It is a fabrication. In media reports of 6 March, Minister Butler admitted it is unclear how many of the 350,000 aged-care workers will benefit from the $1.2 billion funding. So, Minister, stop peddling falsehoods and giving false hope for pay rises that will never materialise because providers cannot afford them and the on-costs associated with them.
That brings us to today. It is 727 days from the time the Productivity Commission delivered its Caring for older Australians report to the government on 28 June 2011—almost two years to the day. The government took two years and gives us 45 minutes. That is really showing us the value of Labor's 'second term priority' for ageing Australians.
These bills also pave the way for the creation of an Aged Care Pricing Commissioner to oversee and manage the new pricing arrangements that come into effect on 1 July 2014. The original draft bills allowed for the establishment of that position from 1 January 2014, allowing six months to set in place the appropriate new arrangements and to allow aged-care providers to submit applications for the relevant price variations. But, despite the operation of these provisions and those relating to quality issues not coming into force until 1 July next year, the government has advertised the positions.
The government's intention became clear last week when they tabled a list of amendments to their own bills dated 14 June—only eight days after the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing gave assurances about the filling of these positions. Now the commencement date for the pricing commissioner has been brought forward from 1 January 2014 to 1 August 2013. Let me be clear. The government are not changing the commencement of the revised pricing arrangements. They are just giving the new commissioner 11 months to get his or her house in order and have used dubious claims from industry to justify this outrageous slap to the looming caretaker period, which rears its head only twelve days later.
Not only will the coalition seek to amend the bills to restore the commencement date to 1 January 2014; we will also seek to remove any opportunity for the authority of the pricing commissioner to be delegated to an officer of the Department of Health and Ageing. The pricing commissioner should be independent of the department and be able to maintain integrity at all times.
Let me now move on to the very confusing issue of the accommodation pricing issues that are so complex and so convoluted that they will probably create a whole new industry in accommodation pricing consultants. The coalition supports the removal of the distinction between low care and high care and the consequent introduction of bonds across all residential care accommodation for those with the financial means. The coalition also recognises the importance of giving choice to consumers to select the most appropriate location and type of accommodation best suited to their needs. However, the coalition is not convinced that the new arrangements for accommodation pricing will achieve the improvements the minister and the government are spruiking.
The introduction of refundable accommodation deposits, RADs—accommodation bonds by another name—and daily accommodation payments, DAPs, instead of accommodation charges and income tested fees will be a further confusing part of the aged-care conundrum. Further complications add to the intrigue of making the right decision if there are means-testing and asset-testing components to add to the equation. Overlay that with considerations around the multiple choices on what to do with sizeable assets, such as the resident's house and superannuation funds, and you end up with a very confusing situation. This is likely to be well beyond easy understanding by many older Australians and their families or carers assisting them with such momentous decisions.
I now turn to some other concerns of the coalition regarding these bills covered in the dissenting report of the Senate committee, some of which are the subject of our amendments. There were many concerns raised in the Senate inquiry and, given the guillotine, we have been prevented from canvassing them properly and fully. Firstly, there are the ACFI appraisals. The bills change the point at which the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing can intervene when an aged-care provider has ACFI claim errors. The current wording of the section in the legislation requires that a substantial number of appraisals must be involved before invoking the secretary's powers to suspend providers from making ACFI appraisals. The proposed change is to remove the words 'substantial number', providing greater opportunity for the secretary to suspend an approved provider. The potential that this could occur after one simple mistake is overbearing bureaucracy.
Secondly, the issue of lifetime contribution caps saw many submitters raise concerns that the proposal to set annual and lifetime caps on contributions does not recognise the increasing trends in life spans of older Australians and the benefits to residents from the quality of care and services that are the foundations of these longer stays in residential care. There are also concerns associated with such things as the removal of the retention and the impact this will have on providers. The list goes on. Coalition senators are concerned that these changes have been ill-considered and not backed up with proper financial modelling to ensure confidence in, and certainty of, the economics of the proposals. Coalition senators recommend that the lifetime cap and its specified level be reconsidered, subject to further modelling and analysis of the impact of the lifetime cap on consumers and the industry.
Thirdly, the dementia supplement was intended to cover the 'additional costs involved in caring for people with dementia and other mental health issues'. The coalition believes that further clarification and expansion of the definition is required and that the name should reflect those targeted older Australians who may be eligible for the supplement.
Now, to lost opportunities. Those of us who have wound our way around the maze of illness, disablement and increasing frailty of a parent through the process of ACAT to find a suitable vacant place in a nice home will know how challenging this can be for any family. Instead of taking an opportunity to simplify the process of moving from full independence to community care or to residential care, the government have gone completely in the other direction and created an even bigger, more confusing process. They have completely ignored the opportunity to reduce the confusion and have, instead, introduced RADs, DAPs and combinations of the two, as well as draw-down options, top-up arrangements, time limits and cooling-off periods. Experts will be challenged by these choices. We have to question the rationale of introducing such convolutions for the average Australian family.
I now turn to concerns of coalition senators regarding the impact of the proposed changes in regional, rural and remote areas. Many older Australians indicate a desire to age in place. This is the same for people residing in the non-metropolitan areas of Australia, but this is substantially more difficult for them to achieve, particularly as their care level needs increase. Ageing in a local community is important not only for the individual's wellbeing but also for the stability of community and the cohesiveness of family. Coalition senators recognise the significant role that aged-care facilities play in rural townships by enabling families to remain connected as people age closer to home, family and community. We remain very concerned that the impact of the changes will adversely affect the viability of many providers in regional, rural and remote areas.
I have talked a lot about the impact of these bills on care recipients and their families. I now want to move the focus to the other side of the equation—to the hundreds of approved aged-care providers. Over the last six years, we have seen a major decline in the business confidence levels across all spheres of care operations. It does not matter if I talk to large commercial operators, the bigger mission based providers, the smaller community based facilities or the few remaining 'mum and dad' family-owned homes: they all tell the same sad story that 60 per cent of all nursing homes are operating in negative financial territory.
We know that community care operators across the country are all facing huge increases in demand for services. Those services are also coping with changes in the governance and funding processes that are being thrust upon them, with little care and understanding by the Gillard Labor government. The picture is not rosy with a financially stressed aged-care sector; the ongoing uncertainty created by a dysfunctional government which holds all the money cards; the ongoing conflicts and disconnects with the state and territory governments, particularly in relation to the recent Home and Community Care, HACC, changes; the increasing numbers of older Australians seeking care and accommodations services; and the ever-increasing frailty of those who do manage to get the type of care they need. All of this suggests that the five bills we have before us are just not good enough to assist the many providers that have taken on the challenging tasks of delivering care and accommodation services and facilities in this country.
The third 'corner' in this triangular playing field is the government. Any government in Australia today, or the one that will exist in another 80 days, will be challenged by the continuing high costs of our ageing population. There is simply very little 'new' money to perform miracles and tackle these problems.
The government cherry-picked from the landmark Productivity Commission's report Caring for Older Australians, ignoring the majority of the report and committing little in the way of innovation to supplement and support those few recommendations it has been inclined to tackle.
While these five bills introduce some worthwhile improvements, older Australians deserve greater consideration. Their families and carers deserve support and assistance at a time of great stress. Decisions to relinquish independence, even if it is in decline, are difficult for all involved. While the government may assert that the arrangements in its package may give greater choice, these choices are now harder to fathom, harder to make and harder to live with over time. This is a very poor effort after such a long gestation period. The government itself has recognised the need for amendments and is joined by the coalition, the Greens and the Independent Senator Xenophon.
The coalition will oppose all government and Greens amendments that relate to the early commencement date for the Aged Care Pricing Commissioner. The government has other amendments on various issues, such as people with special needs and home care, as well as amendments of a technical nature. The coalition will not oppose those amendments. The Greens have proposed amendments relating to a homeless supplement, information requests from the Aged Care Commissioner and the formalising of the establishment of the Aged Care Financing Authority. The coalition will not oppose those amendments. Senator Xenophon has proposed changes to the review processes set down in the bills. The coalition agrees that earlier evaluation is appropriate and will not oppose the amendment from Senator Xenophon.
In conclusion, this has been an appalling process. After such long delays and holding patterns over the last two years, we now have a ridiculously rushed process with far less time for sufficient, appropriate and confident scrutiny by the parliament. In the last two weeks the Living Longer Living Better bills have been thrust into a race, competing with hundreds of other bills and legislative business. Today we will suffer the guillotine simply to get this legislation to the next step. The government and the minister have only themselves to blame. The government has wasted time. It has now run out of time; Australia has simply run out of patience. This is not real reform. It is just more regulation, more bureaucracy and more red tape. In the end, it will not achieve the end objective which is to give older Australians the care they need, when they need it and where they need it. So while our older Australians are living longer, under this regime they will not necessarily be living better.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (09:47): I rise to speak on the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013 and accompanying legislation. Before I commence my speech, I seek leave to table three pieces of correspondence from the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Mr Butler, which I have circulated to the whips.
Leave granted.
Senator SIEWERT: The Australian Greens are strongly supportive of responsible and much needed reform within the aged-care sector. As our population continues to age, the already significant challenges faced by the sector will increase. They can only be addressed through comprehensive reform. We see this reform as being part of that process. This reform has been sought by consumers, aged-care providers and workers. Instead of whipping up hysteria around these changes, we actually listened to what people had to say. We know that people support these reforms and that, in particular, the majority of aged-care providers support these reforms, although they want some amendments, which I will address in my contribution to this debate. Aged care has not dominated the agenda in the way that other major reforms have this year, but it is vitally important reform that will touch most lives at some point, whether it is they are helping a loved one access the services and care they need or whether they are accessing that care themselves.
I know that many organisations have been working on this reform over a long period of time and have successfully put aged care onto the political agenda, firstly with the Productivity Commission process and then through the NACA blueprint. It is because of this tenacity that there will be more options for care, particularly in home care, which will help Australians be able to age in place for as long as possible with flexible care that can change as their needs change.
The Australian Greens believe that all people should be supported with high quality services, regardless of their capacity to pay, so it is particularly pleasing that funding is available to support vulnerable people who are unable to meet the costs on their own. For this reason we have particularly addressed the issue of homelessness, as indicated in our contribution through the committee process where we highlighted this issue, and my colleague Adam Bandt spoke of this issue in the lower house. There are services such as Wintringham Specialist Aged Care—and I acknowledge representatives of Wintringham in the gallery now—and these organisations do absolutely amazing work in providing care and support to some of the most marginalised and disadvantaged members of our community. Individuals who have experienced homelessness are highly likely to need specialised support to address complex behavioural and mental health needs. While facilities such as Wintringham have managed to cobble together some of the mainstream funding available, evidence presented to the inquiry clearly demonstrated that the service had lost about $20 a day per resident with the new ACFI arrangements. Given that these services are not likely to be collecting any fees from their residents, their long-time viability is in question.
Our preference would have been to move an amendment to the legislation, and I did circulate an amendment in the chamber. Unfortunately, due to some complications, that will not be possible, so I indicate that I will be withdrawing the amendment that specifically relates to the homelessness supplement. One of the pieces of correspondence I have tabled is a commitment by the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Mr Butler, to implement a homelessness supplement through the principles process. That commitment will be operationalised over the next couple of days and will be implemented on 29 June. In other words, the government has committed funding to a homelessness supplement which will work in combination with the viability supplement. Minister Butler outlines in his correspondence—I understand he will also make a statement about this—that this will be a transitional supplement while the viability supplement is reviewed and that that transitional supplement will continue until a new proper homelessness supplement is put in place. The homelessness supplement will be $15 a day and will work in combination with the other services homeless people will be able to access. I think that is a very positive move, and I am very pleased that the government has agreed to implement that homelessness supplement.
Similarly, I am glad to see that LGBTI people will also be enshrined as a special needs category in the legislation. This group of people are another group of people that have been marginalised when it comes to accessing aged-care services, and recognising them in this legislation will ensure that there is a focus on addressing discrimination on the basis of sexuality in all training and planning aspects of aged care. I believe this is a group who also need legal protections from discrimination, which is why the Greens so strongly supported the amendment that passed through this place earlier this week.
The Greens also welcome the range of other special needs that have been acknowledged in this legislation, including culturally and linguistically diversity and care leavers. I am also particularly glad that the government has taken up the committee recommendation to make amendments to include those affected by forced adoptions, an issue that everybody in this place will know is very close to my heart. Similarly, the addition of specialised supplements for veterans in dementia care is welcome. I am very supportive of the renaming of the dementia supplement to acknowledge that the supplement also covers cognitive impairment and complex behaviours.
However, broader mental health needs still seem to have missed out. Older Australians should have access to quality mental health services, just as other Australians do. This can be particularly difficult in residential care, just as we know accessing GP services in residential aged care is difficult. The government response notes that the review of the legislation should include the mental health needs of older Australians, and the Australian Greens believe that the government should consider creating a special supplement for mental health once that review has been carried out.
All these improvements, along with a significant increase in the number of packages available and funding for wages, are welcome. But the Australian Greens also recognise that, in order to ensure access to and quality of care in the face of rapidly increasing demand, aged-care services need to be financially viable and capable of achieving growth. This legislation will provide the architecture for our aged-care system's future. However, there are limits on the scope of this reform because the government did not go as far as implementing all the recommendations from the Productivity Commission.
Clearly, the issue of how aged care is to be funded into the future is going to need ongoing discussion with the broader Australian community as this pressure increases. Nevertheless, this legislation does represent some significant changes to the way aged care is delivered. For example, consumers will have access to greater control over how they pay for their care and they will be expected to contribute to the cost of their care if they can afford it. The asset-rich, income-poor consumers who have largely avoided paying for high-care places will now contribute the same as somebody else with the same overall means but with a different mix of assets and income. The distinctions between high care and low care, and the associated restrictions on who is asked to pay for their care, will disappear. Overall more consumers will be contributing to the cost of their accommodation and care, and providers will have to contend with the increased control of consumers to choose how they pay for their accommodation, on a daily basis or in a lump sum.
The overall viability of the sector is an issue of concern to us. As well as participating in this inquiry, I have consulted widely with the sector and taken very seriously the concerns of industry about the impacts of legislation could have on their individual businesses. Their ability to navigate the new system and implement these reforms on the ground will determine how many more aged-care places are available and the quality of those services, which in turn is crucial for delivering better aged care for consumers. The current reform package does not necessarily achieve neutrality. There is no neutrality between new daily accommodation payments, DAPs, and the refundable accommodation deposits, RADs, because of the decision to maintain existing arrangements for the primary residence in the assets test.
The most significant change to residential care is focused on the lump-sum payments—formerly accommodation bonds, which are now the RADs. There will now be a clearer link between the cost of delivering accommodation and the cost of that accommodation, whether that is reflected in the lump-sum deposits that individuals use to pay for their accommodation or whether they choose to pay on a daily basis. While these reforms put restrictions on the size of the bonds, they increase the total pool of people who can pay their accommodation fee through a lump sum, as well as lift the distinction between high care and low care. It means that more people will potentially be paying for their care via a lump-sum payment. With this reform those consumers who may have waited too long to enter care because of the perceived barrier that large, low-care bonds have represented will have more options available to them, including the DAPs, and will be able to negotiate combinations of DAPs and RADs. However, as a result, providers have to face less certainty about how consumers will choose to pay their contributions. Evidence to the committee's inquiry demonstrated that this has implications for their business planning, given the industry's heavy reliance on the capital that upfront bond payments provide. In other words, they use that money to build new accommodation. A move away from lump sums will require them to find new ways to attract bank loans to finance their operations and build new facilities and service their debt. These are all matters that I have considered very seriously, particularly as there are some very effective and capable providers who run important services for low-income Australians by making low-care beds available or by operating in regional areas. These services have been and will continue performing ongoing juggling acts to make ends meet. These reforms must strengthen, rather than undermine, these services.
The KPMG modelling on the financial implications of this reform have helped resolve some of these concerns by trying to quantify the effects on the capital available to aged-care providers, but I acknowledge that this modelling cannot account for all factors, and I have made that point in our additional comments to the committee inquiry. I recognise that this modelling may not have resolved all their concerns about what real consumers may actually choose to do, because it is not possible to model everything. There are a number of reasons why people make the particular decision to choose a lump sum or, conversely, a daily payment. I acknowledge that there will be some uncertainty for them to contend with, as the industry is in transition, which is why I have spent a lot of time talking to providers and why the overwhelming message from most of the providers is that they want this legislation to go through—because we need reform.
The shift in the industry's financing structures will be gradual, as all existing contracts—in other words, all the people who are currently in aged care—will be grandfathered under transitional arrangements, but short-term liquidity problems will need to be addressed immediately once issues become apparent. We cannot leave those until the general review of the legislation later down the track; we must address these problems as they arise. However, the Australian Greens are reluctant and do not want to address the issue of the equivalence in treatment of the lump sum and the daily payment by simply allowing lump sum payments to also receive protection from asset testing. The Australian Greens believe this would unwind most of the progress that has been made on ensuring that assets are means-tested and that consumers contribute to the cost of their care. This would in turn undermine the financial viability of the sector into the future. We in fact asked for modelling of these various options and we can see no way of addressing the inequity between daily payments and rates unless changes are made about addressing the value of the primary residence; and, as yet, Australia is not prepared to address that issue, so we cannot fix this particular problem.
We can, however, look at how we address any transitional problems, any viability problems, for the sector. That is why the Australian Greens have introduced amendments to recognise the Aged Care Financing Authority in the legislation as a specialised monitoring body, separate from the Department of Health and Ageing, with a similar composition of industry experience to its current membership. One of the documents I tabled addresses some of the requests that the minister has made to ACFA in their work and in their review process. ACFA can undertake this monitoring work with a view to ensuring the financial viability of the sector and provide timely analysis and make recommendations to the government about how and when to implement transitional arrangements that can address liquidity and capital problems as they arise.
I am glad that the government has also responded to our concerns with an up-front commitment to subsidise business advisory services to residential aged-care providers that need assistance to implement the new accommodation payment system. Some of that information was articulated in the government's response to the Senate committee inquiry.
We have also been concerned about how consumers will be affected by the new co-contribution component and we have paid particular attention to the new home-care fees. While full pensioners will receive greater support under this legislation—and we are very supportive of that and appreciate the fact that our most vulnerable Australians are being supported in this manner—low-income part-pensioners may face some relatively large fee increases while still facing a range of other cost-of-living pressures. It would be disappointing if this group began to self-ration their care dollars. This was raised as a potential issue during the committee inquiry, and we looked at it carefully. Unfortunately, if we start fiddling with the taper rates, that would lead to a reduction in the number of packages available. We are not sure if the increase in the care fees will have a negative impact in terms of self-rationing. This is another issue that we expect ACFA to watch closely and advise the government on. Again, this issue cannot be left unaddressed in the long term. If people are self-rationing care, if they are unable to meet the costs of care, action needs to be taken as soon as possible. ACFA have a comprehensive work plan set out in the letter that I tabled in this place, and we will very carefully watch ACFA implement that work plan. They are essential, to my mind, in terms of how these reform processes are going to work.
On the whole, the Australian Greens believe that the Living Longer legislation is an important step forward in ensuring quality care is accessible to all older Australians. For that reason, we also support the workforce supplement. We appreciate the fact that the government has made some changes to that and we support those changes because they address some of the concerns of the sector. Our amendments and the commitments that the government has made in response to the very comprehensive committee inquiry have improved the bills further. What we now have before us is an architecture that should ensure the delivery of better outcomes for older Australians and the aged-care sector alike, both now and into the future.
We have listened carefully to all the stakeholders involved in this discussion. It is very clear to us that aged-care providers want this reform. Yes, there are concerns with this reform. We are concerned about some of the weighting for the daily accommodation payment and what that will do to consumer choices—in other words, they may choose the daily payments. However, until we are ready to have a broader discussion—and I agree with the government: this Australian community is not yet ready to have that broader discussion about how we use some of our accumulated assets to pay for our care into the future—this is the best we can do.
We very carefully looked at what the options were for different modelling, for taking into account what is in and out of the assets test, bearing in mind that the assets test is very close, is linked directly, to the age pension assets means-testing process. There was certainly not an appetite to delink those two. You cannot make any other changes to the DAPs and RAD unless you are prepared to significantly increase the cost of care or take the guts out of this package in terms of funding, and we are not prepared to do that.
The Greens will be supporting the package of these bills. We strongly support the passing of these bills on the basis of the homelessness supplement and also the amendments that we have already tabled in the Senate. We support these bills.
Senator SMITH (Western Australia) (10:06): It gives me a lot of pleasure to stand up and talk about aged-care issues more broadly and the government's aged-care reforms but I do need to stress that, of all the guillotines that have fallen on bills in this Senate over the last few days and that will fall over the next few days, it is most shameful that we should have to be rushed in our deliberation of aged-care reforms that go to the heart of how we treat older Australians. It is true that many of the bills that the Senate is debating this week are important bills. It is hard to imagine a bill that is more important than how we deal with aged care in our country. I just want to echo the comments of Senator Fierravanti-Wells. She was quite right: we will be living longer but not necessarily living better as result of the government's aged-care reforms. I will restrict my comments, unfortunately, to five minutes to allow Senator McKenzie, my colleague from Victoria, who I know wants to talk about regional aged-care issues, to do so. It is disappointing that I will not have longer to talk about my own interests, but I think that in the interests of coalition bipartisanship I will share some time with Senator McKenzie.
We need to be clear about what it is that we are addressing here. Let us be clear: we are addressing falling levels of confidence amongst aged-care providers about their ability to deliver aged care. We are talking about increased financial stress amongst rural and regional aged-care providers, particularly those across smaller regional communities like areas that I represent in Western Australia, like the Great Southern. We are talking about the need to properly reward aged-care workers for the effort and the passion that they show in their work, but the proposals for rewarding aged-care workers in the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013 and related bills are not suitable.
Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells was very, very correct when she said this is a complex and complicated approach to the future financing of aged care in our country. When we think about why financing is such a critical issue, we only need to look at the comments of Peter Cosgrove some weeks ago when he talked about a shortfall of 66,000 home care places by 2050 and said that 83,000 new nursing home places will be needed over the next nine years. He went on to say that the number of people over 65 will double to six million by 2050, pointing to the fact that aged-care reform and aged-care discussion is central to how we manage ourselves as we go forward as a country. On the issue of the aged-care workforce, he said:
The aged services workforce of 350,000 will need to triple by 2050 to serve the increasing demand for care. The majority of aged care workers are over 45 with a third nearing retirement.
So there is an issue that needs to be addressed. It needs to be addressed in a considered manner. Rushing aged-care bills through the parliament like this is certainly not the way to proceed.
There are many issues that I would have liked to have addressed in my time, but I will just quote from Dr Lucy Morris, who is the CEO of Baptistcare in Perth, in Western Australia, and her very, very considered comments in regard to these particular bills. Dr Lucy Morris, in April this year, said:
I believe that the specific issues of rural, regional and remote Australia providers, particularly in WA, have been ignored. These include issues around the ACLEI changes going to the viability, the implications of the workforce supplement, ongoing issues about access to staff, professional services training and increased costs of service delivery. The 28-day choice of payment methodology is going to cripple them. There is lack of access to capital. There are lower incomes generally in the country. Sixty per cent of our services are provided in rural and regional WA.
… … …
Our concern about our capacity to provide affordable services to the marginalised, in line with our mission, and at the same time generate a surplus to future-proof our services and continue to invest in capital infrastructure, which has come almost to a halt in the last few years, is significant.
Reform of the aged-care sector is important. It should not be done in the way it is being done by this government.
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria) (10:10): I rise to make a shortened contribution to this debate on what could have been a significant opportunity for this government to deal with the real issues across the aged-care system. This focus-group-tested and press-release-happy-titled Living Longer Living Better aged-care reform package, announced on 20 April, is a package of five bills to give effect to the government's response to the Productivity Commission's report into caring for older Australians.
A lot of comments have been made about rural and regional issues related to the provision of aged-care services, because there are some real concerns about the impact of this package on those services, on the people who use them and on the communities that support them. In regional Australia there are 1,225 residential aged-care providers, 1,100 of which have 60 or fewer beds, the number of beds being a figure that is generally used to define how viable a provider will be. In the Bendigo electorate, where my office is situated, over 17 per cent of the population is 65 years of age or older, which is above the average in my home state of Victoria. As is the case in other regional areas, available residential and home care services for the elderly are at below average levels. As Senator Fierravanti-Wells has already mentioned, ageing in place is incredibly important for those who live in regional areas, because it is not only about the individual's wellbeing but also about the stability of community and the cohesiveness of our families.
Again, this package of bills contained no detail. Providers and stakeholders were asked to comment on how the bills would affect them and the work that they do without being provided with any detail. Rural providers, throughout the brief consultation we were able to conduct into this package of bills, raised several challenges, including the relatively high cost of establishing and delivering services in rural areas; difficulties in attracting, retaining and professionally developing suitably qualified staff; the limited availability of medical practitioners; low-income asset value; distance; logistics of continuous care provision; and so on.
I believe this package of bills fails to address the challenges faced by our rural providers. The early provisions which can potentially come into force on Monday next week will actually set the standards in efficiency within the Public Service. Good luck with that coming into effect! What we on our side know is that this is not about aged-care services; it is about buying votes.
I participated in the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry. We travelled across the country in a very brief period of time. It is regrettable that sufficient time to consider this important legislation was further eroded by the majority of Labor and Greens senators, who voted to bring forward the reporting date of this committee from 17 June to 31 May. As I said, stakeholders have had limited time and the devil is always in the detail.
Reform is required, and the majority of the sector actually supported the Productivity Commission's report, yet here we are with a grab bag of legislation that really only adopts less than 10 per cent of what the Productivity Commission sought to recommend. Obviously, though, the coalition as the champions of rural and regional Australia have made significant recommendations for how this package of bills could be made better for rural and regional areas, and that is outlined in our dissenting report.
But this government continues the rush to legislate without detail. The amendments moved by the coalition, by the Greens and by Senator Xenophon deserve greater scrutiny. We should be going into committee to do that, but—as usual—we are disrespected as senators. (Time expired)
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ): Order! The time allotted for consideration of these bills has now expired. The question is that these bills be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.
Explanatory Memorandum
Senator McLUCAS (Queensland—Minister for Human Services) (10:16): I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum and an additional supplementary explanatory memorandum, relating to the government amendments to be moved to the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ): The question is that government amendments (2) to (5), (14) to (16) and (18) to (26) on sheet BX253, as circulated, be agreed to.
Government ' s circulated amendments—
(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (after line 25), after paragraph (g), insert:
(ga) parents separated from their children by forced adoption or removal;
(3) Schedule 1, item 72, page 14 (lines 25 and 26), omit the item, substitute:
72 Subsection 46 ‑1(1) (note)
Repeal the note.
(4) Schedule 1, page 25 (after line 6), after item 180, insert:
180A Subsection 85 ‑6(1)
Omit "1239 of the Social Security Act 1991", substitute "126 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999".
180B Paragraph 85 ‑7(1)(a)
Omit "1240 of the Social Security Act 1991", substitute "129 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999".
180C Paragraph 85 ‑7(1)(b)
Omit "1243 of the Social Security Act 1991", substitute "135 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999".
180D Subsection 85 ‑7(2)
Omit "1240 of the Social Security Act 1991", substitute "129 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999".
(5) Schedule 1, item 196, page 27 (lines 11 to 18), omit subitems (1) and (2), substitute:
(1) This item applies if, before the commencement time:
(a) a person was approved under Part 2.1 of the old law as a provider of aged care (whether or not the approval had come into force); and
(b) the approval had not ceased to have effect.
(2) To the extent that the approval was in respect of community care, the approval is taken, for the purposes of the new law, to be in respect of home care.
(3) To the extent that the approval was in respect of flexible care, the approval is taken, for the purposes of the new law, to be in respect of both home care and flexible care.
(14) Schedule 3, item 103, page 52 (line 21), after "dementia", insert "and severe behaviours".
(15) Schedule 3, item 142, page 71 (line 5), after "dementia", insert "and cognition".
(16) Schedule 3, page 117 (after line 12), after item 175, insert:
175A Subsection 72 ‑1(2)
Omit "Residential Care".
(18) Schedule 3, Part 2, page 134 (after line 13), at the end of the Part, add:
292 Determining the status of residential care service buildings
A provision of the Subsidy Principles has effect before it commences as if it had commenced if the provision:
(a) is made for the purposes of section 44‑28 of the Aged Care Act 1997 as amended by item 125 of this Schedule; and
(b) relates to determining, or applying for the determination of, the status of a building.
(19) Schedule 4, Part 1, page 135 (after line 16), at the end of the Part, add:
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013
5A Section 9 (definition of community care )
Repeal the definition.
5B Section 9
Insert:
home care has the same meaning as in the Aged Care Act 1997.
5C Paragraph 29(1)(b)
Omit "community", substitute "home".
5D Subsection 29(1) (note)
Omit "community", substitute "home".
(20) Schedule 5, item 215, page 169 (line 4), omit the definition of commencement time, substitute:
first commencement time means the time when Part 1 of this Schedule commences.
second commencement time means the time when this Part commences.
(21) Schedule 5, item 216, page 169 (line 8), before "commencement", insert "first".
(22) Schedule 5, item 216, page 169 (line 10), before "commencement", insert "second".
(23) Schedule 5, item 216, page 169 (line 14), before "commencement", insert "second".
(24) Schedule 5, item 217, page 169 (line 21), before "commencement", insert "first".
(25) Schedule 5, item 217, page 169 (line 22), before "commencement", insert "second".
(26) Schedule 5, item 217, page 169 (lines 25 and 26), omit subitem (2), substitute:
(2) Without limiting its effect apart from this item, the process is also taken, after the second commencement time, to have been begun under the corresponding provision.
Question agreed to.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ): The question is that government amendments (1), (6) to (13) and (17) on sheet BX253 and (1) to (4) on sheet BX255 be agreed to:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit the table item, substitute:
3. Schedule 2, items 1 to 4 |
1 January 2014. |
1 January 2014 |
3A. Schedule 2, item 5 |
1 August 2013. |
1 August 2013 |
3B. Schedule 2, item 6 |
1 January 2014. |
1 January 2014 |
3C. Schedule 2, items 7 to 11 |
1 August 2013. |
1 August 2013 |
3D. Schedule 2, item 12 |
1 January 2014. |
1 January 2014 |
3E. Schedule 2, items 13 and 14 |
1 August 2013. |
1 August 2013 |
3F. Schedule 2, item 15 |
1 January 2014. |
1 January 2014 |
3G. Schedule 2, items 16 and 16A |
1 August 2013. |
1 August 2013 |
3H. Schedule 2, item 17 |
1 January 2014. |
1 January 2014 |
3J. Schedule 2, item 18 |
1 August 2013. |
1 August 2013 |
3K. Schedule 2, items 19 to 21 |
1 January 2014. |
1 January 2014 |
3L. Schedule 2, item 22 |
1 August 2013. |
1 August 2013 |
3M. Schedule 2, item 23 |
1 January 2014. |
1 January 2014 |
3N. Schedule 2, Part 2 |
1 August 2013. |
1 August 2013 |
(6) Schedule 2, page 36 (before line 30), after item 16, insert:
16A Section 96 ‑1 (after table item 14)
Insert:
14A |
Fees and Payments Principles |
Parts 3A.1, 3A.2 and 3A.3 |
(7) Schedule 2, item 24, page 38 (line 6), omit the definition of commencement time, substitute:
first commencement time means the time when item 5 of this Schedule commences.
(8) Schedule 2, item 24, page 38 (line 8), before "commencement", insert "second".
(9) Schedule 2, item 24, page 38 (line 10), before "commencement", insert "second".
(10) Schedule 2, item 24, page 38 (after line 10), at the end of the item, add:
second commencement time means the time when item 1 of this Schedule commences.
(11) Schedule 2, item 25, page 38 (line 13), before "commencement ", insert "second".
(12) Schedule 2, item 25, page 38 (line 14), before "commencement", insert "second".
(13) Schedule 2, item 26, page 38 (line 18), before "commencement", insert "first".
(17) Schedule 3, item 236, page 125 (table items 15 and 15A), omit the table items, substitute:
15 |
Grant Principles |
Parts 5.1, 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7 |
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:
2. Schedule 1 |
1 August 2013. |
1 August 2013 |
(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit the table item, substitute:
5. Schedule 4, Part 1 |
1 August 2013. |
1 August 2013 |
(3) Schedule 1, heading, page 5 (line 2), omit "1July 2013", substitute "1August 2013".
(4) Schedule 4, heading to Part 1, page 135 (line 2), omit "1July 2013", substitute "1August 2013".
The Senate divided. [10:22]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Marshall)
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ) (10230): The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 7408, circulated by Senator Xenophon, be agreed to:
Senator Xenophon's circulated amendments—
(1) Page 4 (after line 6), after clause 4, insert:
4A Further review of operation of amendments
(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be undertaken of the operation of the amendments made by:
(a) this Act; and
(b) the Aged Care (Bond Security) Amendment Act 2013; and
(c) the Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Amendment Act 2013.
(2) The review must consider at least the following matters:
(a) the effectiveness of the provisions for determining the value of a person's assets in accordance with the Subsidy Principles;
(b) the operation of the provisions relating to accommodation agreements and the impact that those provisions have on approved providers and care recipients;
(c) the relative use of refundable deposits and daily payments and the impact that refundable deposits and daily payments have on aged care providers and residents;
(d) any other related matter that the Minister specifies.
(3) The review must make provision for public consultation and, in particular, must provide for consultation with:
(a) approved providers; and
(b) aged care workers; and
(c) consumers; and
(d) people with special needs; and
(e) carers; and
(f) representatives of consumers.
(4) The review must be undertaken as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 18 months after the commencement of Schedule 1.
(5) The person who undertakes the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months after the end of the 18 month period.
(6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving it.
The Senate divided. [10:25]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Marshall)
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ) (10:27): The question now is that items 36, 37 and 40 of schedule 1 and clause 95B-11 of division 95B of part 6.7 in item 14 of schedule 2 stand as printed:
Opposition's circulated amendments—
(1) Schedule 1, items 36 and 37, page 9 (lines 1 to 7), TO BE OPPOSED.
(2) Schedule 1, item 40, page 9 (lines 15 to 18), TO BE OPPOSED.
(3) Schedule 2, clause 95B-11, page 35 (line 29) to page 36 (line 5), TO BE OPPOSED.
The Senate divided. [10:28]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Marshall)
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ) (10:31): The question now is that amendment (1) on sheet 7393 circulated by the Australian Greens be agreed to:
The Australian Greens' circulated amendments—
(1) Schedule 1, page 25 (after line 8), after item 181, insert:
181A At the end of section 95A-1
Add:
(3) If the *Aged Care Commissioner requests the Secretary to give the Commissioner information that the Commissioner requires for the purposes of the Commissioner's functions, the Secretary must, if the information is available to the Secretary, give the information to the Commissioner.
(4) If, on and after 1 January 2014, the *Aged Care Commissioner requests the CEO of the Quality Agency to give the Commissioner information that the Commissioner requires for the purposes of the Commissioner's functions, the CEO must, if the information is available to the CEO, give the information to the Commissioner.
181B After section 95A-11
Insert:
95A-11A Aged Care Commissioner may give report to Minister at any time
The *Aged Care Commissioner may, at any time, give a written report to the Minister on any matter relating to the Commissioner's functions.
(2) Schedule 1, page 25 (after line 14), after item 184, insert:
184A Subsection 96 ‑3(1)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(1) For the purposes of this Act, the Minister:
(a) must establish a committee to be known as the Aged Care Financing Authority; and
(b) may establish other committees.
(3) Schedule 1, Part 1, page 26 (after line 21), at the end of the Part, add:
194A Application
Despite the amendment made by item 184A of this Schedule, subsection 96‑3(1) of the Aged Care Act 1997 has effect, before 1 August 2013, as if that amendment had not been made.
(4) Schedule 3, item 246, page 126 (lines 17 and 18), omit the item, substitute:
246 Subsection 96 ‑3(1)
After "this Act", insert "and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997".
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (10:34): The question now is that amendments (2) to (4) on sheet 7396, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to:
(2) Schedule 1, page 25 (after line 14), after item 184, insert:
184A Subsection 96 ‑3(1)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(1) For the purposes of this Act, the Minister:
(a) must establish a committee to be known as the Aged Care Financing Authority; and
(b) may establish other committees.
(3) Schedule 1, Part 1, page 26 (after line 21), at the end of the Part, add:
194A Application
Despite the amendment made by item 184A of this Schedule, subsection 96‑3(1) of the Aged Care Act 1997 has effect, before 1 August 2013, as if that amendment had not been made.
(4) Schedule 3, item 246, page 126 (lines 17 and 18), omit the item, substitute:
246 Subsection 96 ‑3(1)
After "this Act", insert "and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997".
Question agreed to.
The Senate divided [10:32]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Marshall)
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ) (10:34): The question now is that the remaining stages of these bills be agreed to and these bills as amended be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
MOTIONS
Australian Education Bill 2013
Senator MASON (Queensland) (10:35): I seek leave to move a motion:
That the Senate notes:
The Australian Education Bill 2013 was debated in the House of Representatives for less than two hours;
The government allowed just three days for a Senate inquiry into the bill and refused to allow time for hearings—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ): I will see whether leave is granted first before you read it all out. I get the gist of what you are saying, and I think everyone else understands it.
Leave not granted.
Senator MASON: Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Abetz from moving a motion to provide for consideration of matter, namely, a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the Australian Education Bill 2013 and a related bill.
The government is, of course, entitled to stand for re-election on whatever grounds it wants. It has chosen to stand for re-election on two signature policies: the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the so-called Gonski reforms. It is entitled to do that. The Prime Minister herself has said these are issues of legacy. These are the most significant policy changes in the areas of education and disability in the history of this country. She is entitled to do that. While the government is entitled to do that, the parliament of this country is entitled to scrutinise those proposals. This is what the opposition argues.
The fact that the Australian Education Bill, known as the Gonski reforms, was debated in the House for less than two hours, that the inquiry was allowed just three days and that there are, indeed, 71 pages of amendments for the bill is absolutely obscene. We are talking about the expenditure of an enormous amount of money, and shortly we will go through the charade of the second reading speeches. Where will it really count? It will count in the committee stage. That is where we should be trawling through this legislation, because of its significance—and I acknowledge its significance—line by line. But we will not get there. The Senate will not be allowed do its job.
We are concerned as to whether the reforms will even work. We are talking about $16.2 billion worth of expenditure. That is a lot of money. The opposition is concerned as to whether this will in fact make a difference. The government has already spent $20 billion on the Building the Education Revolution, computers in schools and various national partnerships. What has happened to our school results after the expenditure of $20 billion? The results have got worse: they are worse in the domestic tests and they are slipping in international comparative examinations. Our point is simply this: it is not that we do not think this area is important—of course it is; it is important to the future of our nation. We are concerned that, with that sort of expenditure—more than $16 billion over the next six years—this area of policy must be looked at. We are not convinced that the expenditure of this money is everything. We think that principal and school autonomy is just as important—perhaps even more important than the expenditure of this money; in other words, giving principals the power in many cases to determine who they have on their staff and for how long. We think that parental engagement is really critical. We want the community and the parents to be engaged in the educational life of children. We think that is even more important than the expenditure of this sort of money. We think this is extremely important for improved results.
What about the huge debate about teacher quality? Whatever differences the opposition and the government may have on education, we now know—the results are in—that teacher quality is absolutely critical for educational results. We think there must be much more debate about that rather than spending $16½ billion without proper scrutiny. Curriculum is also absolutely critical to better educational outcomes. What we are going to do is spend all this money and change, in many significant ways, the red-tape arrangements and the relationships between states and the federal government. Why? Because we are told—take it on trust—that this will in fact lead to better educational outcomes for our children.
Despite all the arguments about education I have had with those on the other side over the years, I have never doubted for one second the sincerity of the Prime Minister's commitment to raising the standard of education in this country. Not once, publicly or privately, have I doubted the sincerity of her commitment. What I dispute, however, is the merit of throwing $16 billion at this issue—and it is a very important issue—when it has not received proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Prime Minister is entitled to run for re-election on this policy. She is absolutely entitled to do that—but only if there has been proper scrutiny of how that money is going to be spent over the next six years.
There are many policy, red-tape and very difficult federal-state relations issues which have to be resolved. Because of this ridiculous guillotining of this signature bill, the Senate is unable to do its job. (Time expired)
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (10:41): Senator Mason, it is sad to see you attempt to carry out a stunt. You say you do not question the genuineness of the Prime Minister's commitment to education, yet you throw lines out about the government supposedly 'throwing' $16 billion at education. You know better than that.
You have asked for more time to deal with this legislation, yet, as I pointed out when we set up the time management motion, this bill has had a lengthy and detailed gestation. You might argue about the limitations on parliamentary time, yet the only person in Senate estimates asking questions about the amendments which were before us at that time was Senator McKenzie. The coalition did not use estimates time to deal with these issues. The amendments may not have been there earlier in the week, Senator Mason, but you had more than adequate time. You did not use estimates time to ask questions related to these measures.
I have already made the point about the necessity for time management. We did a calculation of how many bills we would have progressed in the last two sessions without time management. The answer was a dismal 12. That is how much work would occur without time management being utilised to deal with critical and important legislation—and this bill is. Indexation at the moment is 3.9 per cent. Next year it will drop to three per cent. Christopher Pyne might think he can delude people about these facts, but you know better, Senator Mason. You know that the AGSRC this year is 3.9 per cent. You know that. You know it is not six per cent and you know it is not 5.6 per cent; you know it is 3.9.
So how can you tell—
Senator Williams: On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: I ask you to ask Senator Collins to address her remarks through you as the chair.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ): All senators should be aware that all their remarks should be addressed through the chair.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I am grateful for that reminder, Mr Acting Deputy President, to address my remarks through you—tempted as I am to respond to some of the cheap rhetoric and stunts perpetrated by the other side on the education reform process. Senator Mason normally knows better. That it is encouraged in this environment is astounding. I do not want to waste any more of the Senate's time dealing with a procedural motion like this. I do not want to eat into the hour and a half that has been allowed for this debate so that we can hear some substance from Senator Mason when he makes his speech. I would rather listen to him attempt to justify the cheap rhetoric that comes from Mr Pyne on these issues than waste more Senate time on procedural matters. On that basis, I move:
That the question be now put.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the question be now put.
The Senate divided. [10:49]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
The PRESIDENT (10:51): The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Mason be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [10:53]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
BILLS
Australian Education Bill 2013
Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator MASON (Queensland) (10:56): We are debating the Australian Education Bill 2013 and the Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. The Prime Minister has described the government's Gonski reforms as 'the biggest change to school education in 40 years', yet the Senate has been given only two hours and 45 minutes, or 165 minutes, to scrutinise and debate these bills. This is an insult to the Senate and it is an insult to the taxpayers, whom the government wants to saddle with a $16.2 billion bill for its reforms. That is 165 minutes to debate the expenditure of $16.2 billion.
The government is as careless with people's money as it is with the constitutional process of Senate scrutiny and Senate review. Of course, this is not the first time that the Senate has debated the Australian Education Bill. The difference is that the last time, a few months ago, we were debating a nine-page document which was short on detail and rich on platitudes and motherhood statements. It was more of a policy document, or an aspirational rhapsody, than detailed legislation. Now we have in front of us two bills and, sure, there is plenty of detail—I accept that. Yet there is not enough time to debate them properly on this the second or perhaps the third last day of sittings of the second term of the Rudd and Gillard governments.
The government has had years to get this done and to get it done properly. The Prime Minister—the then Minister for Education—has been talking for a long time about her desire to see a new school funding model. Mr David Gonski was commissioned in 2010 to look into it, he delivered his report in November 2011 and here we are today, more than a year and a half later, with less than three hours to debate bills that reflect a deeply flawed new funding model which has been rejected by many states and territories.
Senator Jacinta Collins: That is not true.
Senator MASON: Yes, it is. This farce provides a telling epitaph for the Labor government. Like the French Revolution, the government's Building the Education Revolution, which started with much promise and public enthusiasm, ends a year later in disillusionment and the guillotine.
The Australian Education Bill 2013 establishes a new federal funding formula for non-government schools. It also amends the legislation to include funding arrangements for government schools but outlines different arrangements for government schools depending on whether their state government has agreed to those changes. Under the new system, all participating schools will be entitled to a base amount of funding for every student which will indexed annually. This will be the new schooling resource standard, colloquially known by the acronym SRS. Non-government schools will receive a percentage of the SRS amount based on the school's socioeconomic status score, which is referred to today as a 'capacity to contribute'. This capacity to contribute will not apply to government schools, special and special-assistance schools, sole-provider schools and schools with a majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.
In addition, students and schools will attract six different types of loadings: students with disability, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, students with low socioeconomic status, students who have low English proficiency, schools that are not in major cities, and of course small-size schools. It sounds good, doesn't it? After six years of the Labor government, I shudder every time the government think they have a good idea. Even if, like broken clocks, they are sometimes right, the implementation is so often botched that it makes you wish that Labor had just stuck to bad ideas and stopped giving good ideas such a bad name.
In reality, there are numerous problems with Labor's attempt to implement school funding reforms recommended by Mr Gonski and his review. The shadow education minister, Mr Pyne, stakeholders in the Catholic and independent school sectors, as well as the governments of Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, have identified a number of them over the past few months. Some of these concerns are contained in the amendment I intend to move shortly at this second reading stage. There is the persistent concern about schools actually being worse off under the new funding system. The government maintains that no school will be worse off. State and territory governments beg to differ. According to them, around 469 government schools in Queensland, Victoria and the Northern Territory alone will lose out, never mind potentially hundreds of Catholic and independent schools. In my office in Brisbane, there have been many calls and much concern has been expressed, particularly by Catholic and independent schools, about whether they will be worse off, but in some cases even by government schools. Without any doubt and without any debate, concern has certainly been expressed—even the government would need to acknowledge that. They have yet to—how do I put this?—satisfy both government and non-government schools that none of them will be worse off. That is yet to be satisfied.
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
Senator MASON: That is correct. If anyone in the Labor Party thinks that every school sector in this country is convinced that they will not be worse off, that is incorrect. As I stand here in the Senate today, they still are. The funding inequities are not limited to bricks and mortar schools into our towns and cities. The Christian Education Ministries have highlighted what they see as the government's legislated underfunding of distance education school students in the non-government sector. This was an issue raised with me just the other day. Students receiving their education in this system only attract 35 per cent of the schooling resource standard, but, despite repeated attempts, the Christian Education Ministries are yet to receive an adequate explanation on how the government arrived at this figure. This is just an example—it is not the only one—of repeated concern amongst different school sectors in this country, particularly, I might add, in my home state of Queensland.
Of course, it does not help that throughout all this process the Gillard government has demonstrated a singular lack of transparency and openness. It is hard to reconcile the government's rhetoric and spin with what we are reading in the budget papers and what we actually know about the proposals. Take, for example, the Prime Minister's claim that $9.8 billion of additional funds will be required to transition to the new system over the next six years, between now and 2019, yet in the 2013-14 budget there is only $2.98 billion over the forward estimates, never mind that $2.1 billion of the $2.98 billion is not new money at all but merely various national partnerships that have been cut by the government and redirected towards financing Gonski, thus leaving only $880 million in genuine new money over the next four years.
Even with that $2.98 billion, the government remains short on its commitment—about $2.6 billion short, in fact—because, if we take the government at its word on the $9.8 billion over six years, the allocation over the forward estimates should be $5.6 billion. When I asked the education department officials at the budget estimates in June why there is only $2.98 billion in the budget when there should be $5.6 billion instead, they were confounded and did not explain. All this suggests that the government's reforms consist of a trickle of money right now and the promise of a windfall sometime way in the future. If you believe this government will give you billions of dollars sometime after the next two elections, then I have a nice bridge on Sydney Harbour to sell to you. The government has quite simply been making it up as it goes along, promising everyone money it does not have and, when these enticements are not enough, it promises some more money.
Then there is red tape—always a big favourite of this government. States, non-government authorities and individual schools will be required by regulation to provide extensive information to the federal government. Information requirements will include school census data, other data for the purposes of a new national collection regime to conduct research on school education, implementation plans, student reports to parents and other information about a school. State governments in Victoria, Western Australia and Queensland all suggest that the National Plan for School Improvement extends the reach of the federal government into the operations of state schools and will result in further duplication and compliance and more red tape.
Last but not least, there is concern about proposals to change the capacity-to-contribute measure for non-government schools in the future. The bilateral agreement between the federal and New South Wales governments suggests that the federal government will review the socioeconomic status score—that methodology—by 2017 to ensure this remains the most appropriate means of assessing the relative educational advantage of non-government schools.
This agreement suggests that capacity to contribute will be defined as 'the anticipated level of private contribution will be based on a school's SES score until a new, individual measure of parental capacity to contribute is developed'. There is no mention of this new measure in the revised legislation. Just consider Labor's recent forays into class warfare and stirring up of class envy, and its deep-seated suspicion of, if not outright hostility to, non-government schools. Who could forget the infamous school 'hit list'? If I were a Catholic or an independent school, I would be very worried. The government should rule out the introduction of a new means test beyond 2017, but, of course, it will not do that.
These are all real and immediate problems with these two education bills. There are also deeper policy and philosophical problems with Labor's plans for our schools. The government's Gonski reforms are a typical social democratic measure. Labor has yet to find a problem that it could not throw money at. The money, of course, it does not have, and it has to borrow it. In this case, it is throwing tomorrow's children's money to supposedly fix today's children's problems. What evidence is there that more money will mean better schools? What is the evidence that more money will mean better schools and better educational outcomes? Ben Jensen, the director of the Grattan Institute School Education Program noted that:
Despite its strengths, the Gonski review retells the same old, and failed, story of Australian education: that the only way to fix our schools is to spend more money and to change the way it is divided between schools and students.
… … …
Supporters of Gonski claim it is a 'once in a generation opportunity'. That will be true only if the money is well spent. If it is spent the way education money is being spent in the past, it will be a complete waste—and risk dooming further reform efforts for a generation.
Across the past decade, education spending has increased by nearly three times as much as Gonski is proposing, yet our school performance has stagnated or has fallen.
Mr Jensen is merely echoing a growing international consensus which now acknowledges that there is little or no relationship between spending per student and student outcomes and that other factors, such as teacher quality, parental involvement, principal and school autonomy, as well as a robust curriculum, play a far greater role in giving children a quality education—a far greater role in giving kids a better education.
For Labor, it is not about the outcomes, certainly not medium- and long-term outcomes, but about short-term political advantage. 'We care about education,' says the Labor Party. 'Look how much money we are spending. Please re-elect us, because we're throwing all this money at the issue.' In reality, Labor are like a deadbeat dad who blew all the money on booze and smokes and who now breaks his baby girl's piggy bank, steals the money and uses it to buy her a bike to show how much he loves her. That is what has happened to the Labor Party.
If the government throws another $5 billion, $10 billion or $15 billion at schools, will it actually make any difference? Past experience is not very encouraging. Over the past six years, in addition to all the recurrent spending, Labor has already spent over $20 billion on computers in schools, the school halls program and various national partnerships. Did all that money make our system any better? Did that extra $20 billion make our kids smarter, improve their literacy or numeracy, or help them acquire new knowledge and new skills? Did it? Judging by both domestic and international results, the answer is a resounding 'No!' The 2012 NAPLAN results show that literacy and numeracy, as measured in years 3, 5, 7 and 9, have been, for all intents and purposes, stagnant since 2008. Yes, there have been some slight improvements here and there, some up and down, but, overall, very little improvement. Even the minister, Mr Garrett, was forced to acknowledge in December last year that:
There shouldn't be a single education minister in the states nor a single senior state education bureaucrat who can take any comfort from these NAPLANs.
Neither, by the way, should the minister and the federal bureaucracy, which so far have managed to get no bang whatsoever for their $20 billion bucks, just a very expensive whimper.
If NAPLAN results are discouraging, how do we, as a nation, compare to other developed countries, including our regional neighbours and our competitors? The answer is also, unfortunately, not that great. Take the Programme for International Student Assessment, or PISA, which tests 15-year-old students on their preparedness to use the knowledge and skills they have gained at school to meet real-life challenges. The latest PISA results show that Australian students are making no progress and, in some cases, are actually going backwards. For example, the 2009 results show a 13-point drop in reading performance compared to 2000. Or take the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study, which revealed that a quarter of Australia's year 4 students fail to meet the minimum standard in reading for their age. In that test, Australia ranked 27th out of 48 countries in reading, on a similar level to New Zealand, Poland and Lithuania. Or take the 2011 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, which shows our students stagnating for years and years, while, at the same time, countries like Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan have experienced dramatic improvements, and even the United States has shown a steadier improvement in performance.
So, what is the answer? What is Labor's answer? It is: 'We have spent $20 billion already in an education revolution, all for no results, so let's just now spend another $16 billion on top of that in the Gonski reforms.' All of us want our schools to be well-resourced, but we also know that money is not necessarily the only answer, particularly considering the random, wasteful and unaccountable manner in which Labor tends to throw it at any given problem it sees.
The two bills we are debating today represent a deeply flawed proposal which substitutes another cash splash for serious educational reform. It promises schools money the government does not have in two elections from now. It claims to be better and fairer than the old system. Yet it leaves hundreds if not thousands of government and non-government schools worse off. Labor has once again managed to achieve the impossible by taking an important area of public policy and turning it into a debacle of historic proportions. In fact, to paraphrase the Prime Minister, it is the biggest debacle in school education in 40 years.
I have circulated the amendment in my name on behalf of the coalition. The amendment calls on the Senate to note the need for the government to provide certainty that individual schools will not be left worse off under the new arrangements, and the importance of more transparency regarding the financial impact of the proposed arrangements. The amendment also calls on the Senate to note its concern with parts of the National Plan for School Improvement that increase the federal interference in the operation of state government and Catholic schools by micromanaging schools and, of course, increasing red tape, and with proposals to change the capacity to contribute measure for non-government schools into the future.
This has been a debacle, not because the intention of the government is not good, but simply because, like so many good ideas that the government thinks they have, the implementation has been and will be a shambles. I move:
At the end of the motion, add: "but the Senate:
(a) notes:
(i) the need for the Government to provide certainty that individual schools will not be left worse off under the new arrangements, and
(ii) the importance of more transparency regarding the financial impact of the proposed arrangements; and
(b) further notes its concern about:
(i) parts of the National Plan for School Improvement, which have the effect of micromanaging schools or increasing red-tape, and the increased federal interference in the operations of state government and Catholic schools; and
(ii) proposals to change the capacity to contribute measure for non-government schools in the future."
Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (11:16): I rise today to speak on the Australian Education Bill 2013 and the Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. To the extent that they establish a framework for needs based funding of schools in Australia the Australian Greens commend these two pieces of legislation. The Australian Greens believe that education is the foundation of democracy, and a well-resourced, public education system striving for excellence is the guarantee of a healthy and fair society. It is the right of all children to have access and opportunity to high-quality and affordable education and for their parents to expect as much. The public system is the only guarantee of this right.
The Greens have argued for a decade that our national funding model needs to be changed to make it fairer, to make sure that public education is properly funded throughout Australia and to invest billions more in education commensurate with the funding of our peers in other developed countries. In an increasingly divided community, where people's destinies are often determined by their postcodes, quality public education can be a unifying force. It fosters connection and understanding by bringing together children who would otherwise always move in different orbits. It can be the lifeline for all kids, whoever they are, wherever they live and whatever their circumstances, to achieve their full potential and to be the best they can be. It is also recognised that, as one of the best financial investments a nation can make, higher education standards and outcomes for everyone will enhance our country's human capital and increase skills, innovation and productivity in our community. We believe that a principled, transparent and enduring schools funding model, where public money is fairly prioritised according to need, is necessary to ensure a world-quality public school system that is accessible to all children no matter what their background or circumstances. It is true that this legislation does not go as far towards establishing that model as we believe is necessary, but it is certainly a big step in the right direction, and it is the most important educational funding reform in Australia in decades. Needs based funding is necessary to ensure public schools are funded to provide a world-class education for any student regardless of their background.
The Gonski review of funding for schooling was commissioned to devise an optimal education funding model. The Gonski review concluded that our current system is opaque, complex and inequitable with disadvantage concentrated in particular schools, predominantly government schools, which educate the lion's share of students with disadvantage. Gonski recommended a needs based funding model and a substantial increase in national education funding of $5 billion per year, which has subsequently been increased for inflation to $6.5 billion per year. Despite the coalition's disparagement about the need for money and throwing money at the problem, it was a universal consensus recommendation of the Gonski review that, indeed, Australia's funding of our national education system was lagging behind those of our peers in the developed world.
It is ludicrous to suggest that this is not about money. It is about many things. It is about more than money, but it is certainly about money as well. Why is it otherwise that the wealthy schools are not offering to give the money back that they receive? Because, of course, it is about money. Having visited schools across Australia, it has been very clear to me that those disadvantaged public schools could do so much more if they had more resources available to them to enhance the educational opportunities of those students from disadvantage that they educate so well already.
The Gonski review also concluded that an independent and expert national schools resourcing body should determine the applicable schooling resource standards. The Australian Greens strongly regret that this legislative framework fails to provide for this body. Such a body, independent of governments and the various sectors and interests that characterise education debates in Australia, could provide the core of the governance necessary to ensure that funding for schooling is provided in a way that maximises its educational impact and minimises self-interest and sectoral interests, as are often advocated by the main players in the system. An independent national schools resourcing body would develop, maintain, review and index the schooling resource standards and associated loadings to provide for currency and effectiveness. The Australian Greens lament the fact that this key component of the model that the Gonski review devised is missing from the legislation.
Another key recommendation of the Gonski review is that, in the case of the non-government sector, the assessment of a school's need for public funding should consider the capacity of the parents who enrol their children in the school to contribute financially towards the school's resource requirements. A genuine needs based funding model would ensure that all resources of a school are taken into account in determining need.
Such an approach needs to be carefully implemented—there is considerable diversity in the existing private contribution among non-government schools—however, the Gonski review concluded that this is achievable in developing a new framework subject to other funding parameters and transitional arrangements. I will be moving a second reading amendment to encapsulate the points that I have been making.
The Australian Greens have two substantive amendments to the Australian Education Bill. The first relates to yearly reporting obligations, which provide for transparency in how public funds are distributed within a system and moves these from the draft regulations into the legislation. This would require schools to report their resources—their assets, income, fees and other aspects—as an essential element of transparency and accountability in the context of needs based funding. We wish to embed this in legislation rather than leave it in a regulation and run the risk of it being undone by a future coalition government which has not yet acknowledged that there is an inequity at the heart of our current schools funding system, as was identified by the Gonski review.
This would also ideally overcome the risk of money being dissipated within bureaucracies before it arrives at the gates of the schools where it is most sorely needed. We also propose an independent review of the education funding model that this bill established, commencing in 2018.
The second Australian Greens amendment would simply require non-government schools to comply with antidiscrimination law. Equality is a core principle underpinning Australia's modern, proud democracy. Any school which is in receipt of large amounts of public funding should not have recourse to the exemption provisions set out in sections 37 and 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act, which allow it to discriminate against Australians at will.
The fact is that there are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex students in every education system in Australia, including religious schools. Sadly, recent research shows that the situation with respect to homophobia and homophobic abuse in schools is not improving. And systemic discrimination—discrimination upheld by social institutions and governments—legitimises such incidents. On the other hand, it is well established that policy protections for people's rights are associated with decreased risks of experiencing homophobic violence and decreased risks of self-harm and suicide rates.
In formulating this education reform, the government has taken the opportunity to increase policy requirements for schools, including more information gathering, and submitters to the inquiry on this bill noted that the architecture of the Australian Education Bill gives the Commonwealth the potential to exercise a high degree of control over the way in which government, Catholic and independent education systems and schools deliver education to Australian students.
The Australian Greens believe that this education reform package is an opportunity to bring school standards on discrimination into line with community standards, and set a benchmark for protecting people's rights. This is a great opportunity for Australia to align itself squarely with international human rights standards. It is very clear to the Australian Greens that if an organisation is receiving public funding to provide a service the Australian public has the right to expect it to abide by basic, widely held community standards and antidiscrimination principles.
Those are the two substantive amendments the Australian Greens will be moving. I move the Australian Greens second reading amendment in the terms circulated in the chamber.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Crossin ): Senator Wright, just to clarify the procedure here, we have a second reading amendment here before us, which we will need to deal with. Once that is dealt with you can move your amendment and we will deal with yours. That is all going to happen, as I understand it, at one o'clock. It will be put at one o'clock, after Senator Mason's. I am saying that just so that you are clear about where we are travelling here.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (11:27): This plan before our chamber today to fix the inequities in our education system has been needed in this nation for a very long time. We have had rampant inequity and inequality take hold, with no plan to address that until now. I am very pleased to say that, through the Gonski review, this Labor government has been working very hard on getting the solutions in place.
The inequality has been a great cost to the nation, and it is time to do something about it. It is time for this parliament to do something about it. That is why it is very important that these changes pass this week. When you look at the impact of inequality on our nation, it is profound. Today, the wealthiest 20 per cent of Australians own 61 per cent of the nation's wealth and the poorest 20 per cent own just one per cent. This is something that is reflected, also, in our education systems.
We are a good deal less equal than countries such as Japan, Sweden and Norway, which have education systems that are also far more equal. We are one of the most unequal developed countries—keeping company with the US and Britain. This inequality is embedded in our nation's education system. So addressing inequality in education is certainly a key to fixing our education system. On that note, what we know from looking at education around the globe is that education systems that are more equal—systems that remove the inequality and give all students an opportunity—have much better educational outcomes. It is proven, globally, that this is the fact: nations that have more equal education systems do better. They have much better education outcomes overall and as a whole.
The current inequality comes at a great cost. We have needed a plan to fix this for a long time. A lot of the inequalities in our education system have been driven by the way our education system is funded, and it is time it was fixed. I am very proud to have the opportunity to do that in this place today. I note that when this plan passes some 60 per cent of the nation's students will be covered. But I think it is important that we see this nation realise 100 per cent coverage. On that note, I really want to see Western Australia come into this scheme. It is critical because, while WA is reasonably well resourced—we are, as a whole, closer to the student resource standard than some other states are—the most disadvantaged schools in my home state do not meet the resource standard put forward in this model. To my National Party colleagues across the chamber: it is rural and regional students that are currently the most disadvantaged in Western Australia. These are the students that would benefit from being brought into this model.
The Labor government is serious about education reform in Australia. It is about time we had a fair funding system in place so that every school, regardless of their state, regardless of the sector they are in and regardless of location—including rural and regional schools, schools in remote communities and schools in disadvantaged suburbs—get the money they need to do a great job. The cost of inequality is great. I would like to quote Dr Carmen Lawrence, who has been a significant contributor to the discussion around education equity and who was on the Gonski review. She said, in an article in The Monthlylast year:
In Australia, almost 80% of students from the lowest quarter of socioeconomic disadvantage attend government schools. The drift of students and resources from government to non-government schools has accelerated here in the last decade or so and further concentrated wealthier students in the private sector. As a result, there are more schools with very high proportions of students from disadvantaged backgrounds – mainly in the government system – and more with high concentrations of the most advantaged – mainly in private schools.
This is not about class warfare, as the opposition claims. It is not about envy—far from it. Far from it being about the politics of envy, it is about all parents wanting the best for their children. It is about making sure that no child in this country in the school that they are in is getting left behind. Parents want choice, but some parents have no choice. Choices are being taken away by the inequities in our education system. It is time to make sure those students are not left behind. I will give you a very clear example of how our country's students are being left behind. Dr Lawrence went on to say in this article:
In one country town in Western Australia, the local government high school lost ground dramatically after four private schools were opened; the most disadvantaged children were left behind with fewer teachers per student than in the new private schools. The total cost of education in the community skyrocketed, without any aggregate improvement in children's scores on routine tests.
I am not saying that it is a bad thing for new schools to be opened in communities—far from it. I am saying that it is absolutely immoral to leave behind students who have no education choices, to leave behind those schoolchildren who inevitably have less choice in education. Every student in this country deserves that choice. Parents making hard economic decisions in their households deserve the choice between a good private school and a good government school. That is the option that we should be giving students and families in this country.
One in 12 Australian students is currently not meeting minimum standards in reading, writing and maths in our country. We have a good deal of these students in WA, so I really want to see Western Australia become part of this plan. I think the plan has the potential to see our classrooms in the top five in the world by 2025, because it is a plan to properly resource all schools, all our children, teachers and classrooms, for generations to come. It is something that will see the bedrock of education in this country meet the kinds of quality standards that we expect—quality standards that are comparable with the best performing countries around the globe. Without these reforms before us, there is no plan to do that. The National Plan for School Improvement includes a new funding approach to make sure we get these things right. It responds to the problems in the system. In our plan, every state and every sector will see increased funding and more support for students in the classroom.
I note that Senator Mason is looking for a guarantee that no school will be worse off. We have made that commitment. As a bare minimum, we want every school in Australia to receive its current funding plus indexation of three per cent. This is not a competition between education sectors. We simply want to make sure that no student gets left behind. Schools that need more support to support their students will get it, irrespective of sector. We are prepared to guarantee this, and we are asking the states and territories to do the same.
Today, I ask Mr Colin Barnett to do the same for Western Australia's students. He now has but a few days left to sign up to this deal. He has to get it lined up by 30 June to make sure that Western Australian schools also have the opportunity of fixing the problems in our education system. The plan that we have before us responds to the needs of states, like WA, who have higher costs attached to delivering education in our system. As I said before, where the problems are in WA, where we fail to meet the student resource standard, is, most profoundly, in disadvantaged communities and in rural and regional areas.
This is where the funding under this model is targeted. It is a great benefit for Western Australia and it is time, in my view, for Senator Barnett to accept this offer. It is time for all schools in Western Australia to benefit from a fairer and more stable school funding system. Under the offer that we have made to Western Australia that is embedded in the plan before us, we have total funding growth for WA of $2.8 billion, which would make a massive difference to Western Australian students.
I am pleased that the offer was increased, because the $922 million that is on the table will go a very long way. There is $922 million under the current investment plan and then we have got the indexation, which will also see funding in Western Australia continuing to grow. This indexation needs to be locked in by both the Commonwealth and the states coming to an agreement. The Commonwealth is making a commitment to indexation of 4.7 per cent and we are asking the states to commit to three per cent so that both the states and the Commonwealth are playing their part in seeing education funding grow in our country.
We want all sectors to have the extra resources for our nation's schools that need it. I do not think school principals and teachers around Western Australia think locking in funding growth of around $2.8 billion is a bad deal. It is a good deal, it is a well-targeted deal and it will make an enormous difference to Western Australian schools. It makes good sense for WA.
I note that a decrease in funding would have occurred under the previous model when it stopped. WA will receive the same funding guarantee that we gave to New South Wales. That means every year they will receive an increase in base funding. What we have currently is a very volatile education funding system. The model introduced by the previous government sees indexation declining by a further three per cent. This means Western Australian schools have more funding year on year on year and have more certainty and more confidence about funding. So schools in Western Australia will be benefiting from this new suite of reforms if they come on board—and it is high time that Western Australia did. All schools in WA need to move on to a needs based funding model, consistent with the school-resource standard, to make sure that students in Western Australia do not get left behind.
I would like to contrast that with what we have before us in the opposition's non-plan for education. The education spokesperson for the coalition, Christopher Pyne, has confirmed that the coalition want to keep in place a broken school-funding model that could see up to $5.4 million cut from Australian children. He has dismissed the findings of the Gonski review, which was very strongly welcomed, right around the country, by the education community. I know this from talking to the Primary Principals Association, where principals from all three sectors—Catholic, independent and government—work together. They all told me the system is broken and that they are committed to seeing progress made on these questions. They are working across sectors to say, 'Yes, the system is broken, and we want to be part of the solutions.' But Mr Pyne has not listened to schools and parents around the country. In fact, the coalition has a plan to sack one in seven teachers, squeeze more children into classrooms and slash funding to disadvantaged schools. Mr Pyne has said that teaching quality would be his highest priority. I cannot see how that can possibly be the case, because the coalition has in fact announced that it would cut $425 million out of the Teacher Quality National Partnership. They said that in the 2010 federal election. So if that is how Christopher Pyne treats his main priority, how will he treat the rest of the education system?
I want to acknowledge the amendments moved by the Greens. These amendments would create legal uncertainty in respect of the affected parts of the bill and include in the bill matters that the government thinks are better addressed in regulations. I also note that putting these information requirements into the act, rather than leaving them to regulations, would likely increase the complexity of the act, and that is something the government does not support. Further, one of the government's key concerns is that there has been considerable buy-in from different parts of the education sector—from government schools, from non-government schools and from Catholic and independent schools—to get them to support these reforms and to get their support for a path forward and, at this stage, the government thinks these amendments would represent a threat to the goodwill that we have generated in terms of being able to move forward on these very important questions. That is why the government will not be supporting these amendments. The government also has concerns that this level of detail in the primary legislation would limit the capacity to amend the requirements to respond to the changing needs of the bill through future regulations, because it will start to create contradictions between the act and the regulations.
In closing, I want to say that we cannot let this current broken system continue. It is doing a great disservice to the nation's students. It is driving inequities in our education system and it is driving down education standards. It leaves hundreds and thousands of young Australians behind, many in government schools but also in schools in the Catholic and independent sector, who will get extra resources under these reforms, all of whom deserve the resources and support that come with this legislation.
We know, on the other hand, that Mr Christopher Pyne and Mr Tony Abbott have no alternative plan for school funding that fixes these inequities, only a plan to maintain a broken system that is doing a great disservice to our nation's children, maintaining a broken system that will see schools lose $16 billion in six years. No school will be worse off under the current model, they say. That is not true, as the current system sees many schools go backwards, especially the most needy, and that is what we aim to address in this parliament today. I commend the bills to the Senate.
Senator KROGER (Victoria—Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate) (11:46): I too rise to speak on the Australian Education Bill 2013 and the Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. But before I do that, Madam Acting Deputy President Crossin, can I firstly just acknowledge, as you are in the chair this morning, the enormous contribution that you have made to the Senate.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Crossin ): Thank you.
Senator KROGER: This is your third-last day in the Commonwealth parliament. Those of us who have worked with you on committees and have been working with you in this chamber have high regard for your professionalism, the depth of your appreciation of so many issues, the breadth of your knowledge in relation to the processes of this place and particularly, may I say, your respect for and empathy with so many communities, particularly the Indigenous community. I know that you have taken the opportunity—probably rightfully so—at times to educate me on your perspectives on that. Congratulations for your time and your contributions, and all the best following the end of this 43rd Parliament.
Senator Mason: Hear, hear!
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Senator KROGER: I turn to the bills. It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on these bills, because education is an issue that I have had a lifelong passion for. In fact, it was an issue that I raised in my first speech in this place. I spoke at length about my particular personal passion in relation to education and what we provide for all those young people coming through the school system and on to tertiary education. Not only do I speak in terms of the coalition's perspective and my personal perspective on this but I would also like to be a voice for the people—I was trying to think whether I should term it as hundreds or thousands; like so many, I have been contacted by probably now thousands who are either principals or schoolteachers, and certainly parents—who have all expressed their enormous concern about these education bills. They have written to us, called and actually visited me in my electorate office. We have spent considerable time listening to the concerns of those who are caught up in the education process, whether that is as a stakeholder—that is, as a family, as parents who have children going through the system—or as those who seek to pursue a career in the education sector. So many have expressed their concerns, and it is as much for them that I speak today as their voice in expressing their concerns on these bills.
In my first speech in this place, I reflected on my parents' interest in and passion for education and how they taught me that education is the No. 1 equaliser in society. It is actually access to education and choice of education that provide an opportunity to give people a hand up in life, not a handout. That is why it is of such critical concern to us in the coalition, and it is why we have been so consistent over the years—and I refer to the former Howard government period. It is why we spent so much time and had such a priority in this area to ensure that strong education standards applied to all within Australia.
I have to say that on a personal basis I think that one of the great things that we should be considering is having a system whereby a fiscal amount, if you like, is applied and assigned to an individual child regardless of where that child is educated so that the parents themselves have the opportunity to choose which school is in the best interest of their children and, more importantly, which schools reflect the values and principles of the way in which those families wish to raise their children. But that is an argument for another day.
I will briefly reflect on my parents, though, because I think this is a great example. My brother and sister and I were the first in our family who were offered private education. We were the first in our extended family who went to private schools. Interestingly, though, the three of us did not go to the same school. My parents determined that each of us had different requirements and different needs, and they determined that different schools would bring out the best in us and suit us in very different ways. That is a very relevant example, certainly for me, of where different schools and the different principles applied at those schools supported individuals in different ways. It is the parents—only the parents—who can determine what education system best suits their own children. So any education public policy introduced or mandated by a government should be very cognisant of that fact.
It is a crying shame that, on the third last day of the 43rd Parliament, these bills are numbered 23rd and 24th of 55 bills to be guillotined. It is an absolute crying shame, as Senator Mason alluded to when he sought to suspend standing orders so that we could debate this longer. It is an absolute travesty for us all that in the House they only had two hours to look at, scrutinise and deal with these bills. We just heard from Senator Pratt. These are bills that the government themselves believe are absolutely critical to the long-term future of all Australians. Why are the government only allowing two hours in the House and less time here in the Senate for us to debate a public policy which they have proposed and which they, the government, have suggested is so important to them? Without wanting to influence those who might be listening to this broadcast and without wanting to influence those who would make their own minds up on this, I think the facts stand for themselves.
It is an absolute tragedy that the committee inquiry into this only went for three days. For something as significant and as comprehensive as this, only three days were allowed to examine the implications of the introduction of the Australian Education Bill 2013 and the Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. This is just too serious to play politics with. Unfortunately, this is yet another example of a rushed public policy, rushed politics, serving an agenda other than the one we should be critically concerned about: the future of our youth in Australia.
I also suggest that the government are being quite misleading when they keep on referring to these measures, loosely—I do say loosely—as being part of the Gonski recommendations. The one person we have not heard from since these bills have been formulated for us to consider is the esteemed David Gonski himself. He is not associating himself with these bills. What he did was undertake a very comprehensive review and make a number of recommendations, and the government have cherry-picked aspects of that review and incorporated them in these bills. It is very deceptive to suggest that this is the conclusion of all the recommendations made in the review, because that is far from the truth.
We know that because the Gonski review called for no less than $6.5 billion in new funding each and every year. That is $6½ billion in each and every year, to a total of over $39 billion. Let's put that into some sort of context. What are we looking at here? Labor has promised $9 billion by 2019, which is six years away. There is a dramatic difference between what Mr David Gonski recommended by way of an injection of funds towards the restructure of the education sector and what we see before us.
As Senator Mason commented earlier, the issue here—and this applies to absolutely every issue that the government touch—is that they think, if you throw a bucketload of cash at something and make a huge injection of cash, that will produce the best outcome for whatever area it is. It is such a typically Labor and Greens' view that the solution for absolutely everything put before us is to throw money at it. I would proffer that that is not the solution. Whether under the former Rudd government or under the current Gillard government, there is example after example where throwing good money after bad did not return good public policy. It did not come up with the outcome. We only have to go back and look at the school halls that were built across the country in a flurry. Some $14.5 billion was thrown at building new school halls.
In fact, I visited a number of schools during the construction program. One small school in a small country town in northern Victoria that had fewer than 200 students had $1 million directed to building a new edifice for the Gillard government. They said that in the history of the town they had never seen such a cash flow into their small country town—this was $1 million. If you translate that across fewer than 200 students it does not take much to work out whether or not that was an effective way to increase the education outcomes for each of those children. I have to say that the parents I met at the school on that day were highly questioning of the appropriateness of the way in which that was being delivered. They said, 'If the government wants to throw $1 million at us we are hardly going to say no to it.' The point was that there was no real belief that it was going to change the education outcomes.
That is just one example. Look at the computers in schools program. Every student would have a computer on their desk. When Prime Minister Gillard was education minister, we remember that. It changed over time. How did that improve the standards of the kids? Not one person on the other side of the chamber could attest to the fact that this program in any way demonstrably increased the education outcomes for those students. We have already seen $14.5 billion—we are talking here about $9 billion by 2019—spent in building structures with no suggestion that this has in any way improved the education outcome of a single student. If the government is serious about increasing education outcomes for all Australian students they would have had a far more comprehensive and appropriate look at the way in which they do it. History suggests that this is not going to be the case.
The federal budget impact shows that we are actually looking at a $315 million reduction in school funding over the forward estimates for the next four years. I have with me some four pages listing Victorian schools and the way they will be affected by this funding decision. They will be dramatically affected by this funding arrangement.
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
Senator KROGER: I would be delighted to take the interjection I have just heard across the chamber, because I would like to ask why it is that small Catholic schools with very low funding thresholds are able to deliver higher education standards than so many other schools that have a higher and stronger funding model. There are many Catholic schools and independent schools operating on small and tight budgets that successfully come up with good education outcomes. In my mind there is one real reason for that: it is to do with teacher quality. During the recently concluded 'Teaching and learning—maximising our investment in Australian schools' Senate inquiry—and, Madam Acting Deputy President, you participated in this inquiry—we heard about the critical role of the teachers in terms of the education outcomes of the kids; it is by raising the standard of the teachers and actually rewarding them and rewarding the very good, effective and committed teachers who have the greatest impact on the students. During the inquiry you will recall a young man, a refugee, who I think was from a school in Cranbourne, Victoria, who was so concerned about marginalisation within the school that he took it upon himself, with the support of teachers, to run programs within the school. This was out of left field. It was the teachers themselves who identified the strength of what he was doing and supported him. It has made a difference to that school today.
I hate to say it, but this policy is not worth the paper it is printed on. The government is a disgrace. This is another public policy that should be tossed out the door. (Time expired)
Senator MADIGAN (Victoria) (12:06): I rise to speak about the Australian Education Bill 2013. The education bill is to be commended for identifying five key areas needing reform. There is no doubt that education reform is necessary. Teaching standards need to be improved. Some students are missing out on a quality education. More opportunities must be provided for students with disabilities. The objectives are praiseworthy. But there is no consensus that the Australian Education Bill provides a solution.
This bill has caused enormous dissension in the community. It has created a division between primary and secondary schooling and tertiary education by stealing from Peter to pay Paul. The increased funding to schools is at the expense of the university sector. This has alienated both the vice-chancellors and the Tertiary Education Union.
There are still many unanswered questions in relation to primary and secondary education. I have had overwhelming representation from constituents concerned that their questions relating to the bills have not been answered by the minister, despite representation from parents, schools and organisations as significant as the Catholic Education Office. The Catholic education sector is responsible for educating 23 per cent of Australian students. It does so on 90 per cent of what is spent per capita on students in government schools. This 90 per cent comprises government funding and parental fee contribution. These schools still have questions in relation to funding under these bills. A considerable number of its schools are disadvantaged and in low-socioeconomic areas. There is clearly a need to provide additional funding to close this gap between Catholic schools and government schools. Further, there is no guarantee that government funding to Catholic schools will keep pace with the cost of educating children in government schools.
While the bills propose higher levels of funding for students with disabilities, this must be guaranteed for all students, regardless of the school that they attend. It is not clear to parents or to schools as to how these bills will assist students in Australian schools. It is not clear as to how this will occur through increasing the level of government bureaucracy. What is needed is a real improvement in teacher education so that the needs of all students can be met. Educational theory outlines many modes of learning and assessment. Despite this, focus on teaching and assessment is becoming narrower, as evidenced by NAPLAN testing, which ignores the needs of visual, manual and practical learning. Most schools have responded by narrowing their teaching to drilling students in order to maximise NAPLAN results.
Interestingly, those schools that have improved their NAPLAN performance are those that have broadened their curriculums along the lines of inquiry based learning. One of these schools is a Catholic school in a low-socioeconomic area in Ballarat. All teachers need training to identify even common learning issues such as dyslexia, which affects 10 per cent of students in schools. Teachers need to be trained in appropriate strategies to assist these students. Until this happens, many students will continue to disengage from the education system because it does not meet their needs.
The answer to improving education is more diversity and broader choices in education. One of the aims of these bills is to empower school leadership. Again, it is hard to imagine how this will occur when schools are burdened with additional bureaucracy and greater compliance measures. These bills, combined with the introduction of a national curriculum, can potentially narrow schooling and education choices. What is needed is imagination and innovation.
One way of encouraging diversity is to give families more choice in the type of education provided to their children rather than simply a system that concentrates power in the hands of the federal government. A voucher system or tax credits to parents to enable them to choose their child's school would both empower parents and promote excellence in education. The schools providing appropriate and targeted education would receive greater patronage.
The UK has moved in the direction of community involvement and community responsibility for education by the mutualisation of schools. The schools are run by stakeholders—parents, teachers and even students—who have a direct interest in the outcomes. It is early days but such innovations are showing great promise. We do not need more of the same. We do not need more bureaucracy. We do not need greater federal control of education. I will not be supporting these bills.
Senator NASH (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (12:12): I rise to make some comments on the legislation before us today. The amended Australian Education Bill 2013 and related bills establish a new federal funding model formula for non-government schools. The legislation has also been amended to include different funding arrangements for government schools dependent on whether their state government has agreed to the changes. The states and territories, as we all know, have until 30 June to agree to the new school funding model. Only New South Wales, the ACT and South Australia have entered into an agreement with the federal government to date.
Under the schooling resource standard, all participating schools—and all non-government schools are deemed to be participating schools—are entitled to a base amount of funding for every student. The base amount of funding per primary student is $9,271 and per secondary student is $12,193. The SRS amount is indexed annually by three per cent.
I will confine my remarks to a shorter period of time today to leave as much time as possible for other colleagues to make contributions, given that we are being guillotined and are ceasing this debate at one o'clock. The fact that we have such a limited time—as other colleagues have said—to debate these bills is absolutely deplorable. It comes back to the fact that this government has no ability not only to run the country properly but to run the chamber and the process of parliament properly. This does an absolute disservice to particularly our families and students around this nation, who deserve to have the parliament be given the opportunity to properly scrutinise this legislation.
And it has indeed been a shambolic process. In 2012, the original Australian Education Bill was just nine pages long. It contained myriad motherhood statements. The amended legislation being rushed through the parliament is now 129 pages long. We simply cannot give this new legislation that is before us an appropriate level of scrutiny in the short amount of time available.
And it is a shambolic process. We have only three of the states lined up, as I said. They have until 30 June to agree or disagree with the federal government about whether or not they are going to sign up. Yet we see the legislation coming before the parliament today to be finalised. It is a completely shambolic process. And Western Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory still have real concerns. I understand that Tasmania has concerns about the power that is going to sit with the federal minister, and I understand that is on the record. I will make some brief comment on the position of New South Wales. My good friend the minister in New South Wales, Adrian Piccoli, has indeed signed up—in good faith, from his New South Wales perspective. But from my perspective as a federal senator I have to look at the entire nation and how this piece of legislation is going to affect all states and territories.
This is all far too late—this last-minute rush. We are talking about an incredibly and complicated new process to be applied to our schools through this piece of legislation, and this model is to begin on 1 January 2014. That is an extraordinary ask on those schools, and on those who run the schools—who, as I understand it, say that this type of process normally takes 12 to 18 months to bed down. Yet, because of the shambolic nature of this government, we are now looking at a mere few months by which this model is supposed to be in place. But look at this government's history of implementing policy. Perhaps if it had been a government—as my good colleague the shadow minister, the member for Sturt in the other place, said—that had a track record of good delivery of good policy, we might perhaps not be quite so concerned about the short time frame. But think about this government's history—and I keep using the word 'shambolic', because it is the one I find most appropriate—of policy implementation, such as the pink batts debacle, the absolute disaster of the overpriced school halls and the snap ban of the live export trade; in terms of a policy disaster, that one has to be one of the worst we have seen from this government—but that is a discussion for another day.
So on this side of the chamber we certainly do not have any confidence that this government can have this model implemented, have this policy properly run through by the due date of 1 January. Interestingly, in the Gonski report we saw that $6½ billion was supposed to go to this. Over the forward estimates, over the four years, the expectation then would be $26 billion. But what we have actually seen from this government over the forward estimates is a $325 million cut. Then we are supposed to believe that this is going to turn into some sort of river of gold—$7.8 billion—in years 5 and 6. Again, on this side of the chamber we just have no confidence in this government that they will be able to either (a) deliver the model in time or (b) deliver the funding that is indeed necessary.
And the lack of clarity that we have seen continues. There has been a lot of confusion and concern in the community. Through the Senate estimates process I have tried over a long period of time now, as has my very good colleague Senator Mason, to ascertain some detail as to how this model is going to work. And I have to say, until very recently there was very, very little information. There is now, of course, some information in the amendments—on the loadings and the relevant definitions for regional and remote schools—and also information available on the Better Schools website. But there is still a real difficulty in deciphering how the new funding system will actually operate—how it is going to translate into dollar terms for individual schools. And there is still a lot of confusion in the school sector as to what the funding changes actually mean.
In the recent budget estimates I asked where I personally could go to see the actual impact on regional schools—my specific area of interest—and was told that anyone trying to decipher the impact of the changes would have to know the school's current finances, size, location and so on and then refer to the complex amendments to the bill and apply some very confusing formulas. So it is not at all surprising that there is a pervasive belief out there in the community that there is still such a lack of clarity around this.
The Council of Catholic School Parents and the NSW Parents' Council indicated earlier in June that it is an overly complex, convoluted model that lacks transparency, that they cannot see what the school's actual funding is. The president of the NSW Parents' Council, Stephen Grieve, said:
If a doctor of mathematics cannot understand the model and what funding our children will get next year, how are parents meant to comprehend the bill?
I think that is one of the real flaws: we do not have the transparency necessary to see how this is going to operate. Unfortunately, words of comfort and surety from the government just do not cut it on this side of the chamber, because we simply do not have the confidence in this government that what they are saying will actually happen.
We also have some concerns around the new tool that is apparently coming in in 2017, around the individual parental capacity to pay. Now the minister has said that what he actually meant was the aggregate parental capacity to pay. But the legislation still says 'individual'. How is this going to play out for those parents and families out in our communities? Is this going to be a means test? And how is it going to work? We have no problem, on this side of the chamber, with improving outcomes in education for students. But we do not want to see this lack of clarity resulting in negative impacts on those families and students in the school sector—particularly, from my point of view and from that of many of my colleagues, those in the regional school sector.
Money itself is not going to solve these problems. As my very good colleague Senator Mason said earlier, a bucket of money is not going to solve this. And unfortunately this government relies all too often on a bucket of money, thinking it is going to solve a problem. Indeed, we only have to look at the NBN to see that this is a principle that this government has tried time and time again. Money itself is not going to solve these problems.
While I understand that a lot of the schools realise, as we do, that financial assistance is going to be necessary for some of this improvement, we actually need to look at and focus on things like principal autonomy, parental engagement, a strong and robust curriculum and teacher quality. If those things are not improved, no amount of money thrown into the system is going to make the slightest bit of difference, unless attached to that is the deliberative and proper assessment of how we actually improve those things for students in those schools.
I was going to go on with a number of other areas but, as I say, in deference to other colleagues who I know want to speak, I will cut my comments short. But I do have to say that I believe that there has been a real lack of consultation with and information provision to, in particular, the regional communities, in terms of this government getting out there and communicating and properly consulting with regional communities. The information that has come through to us in the Senate estimates process has been very weighted to the city areas, and that is absolutely not acceptable.
The other thing that is not acceptable is the $2.8 billion worth of cuts that the government has put in place, hitting the university sector and our students, to try and pay for this. If this government had not racked up around $256 billion worth of debt, now heading towards $370 billion, we would not be looking at the funding cuts that we are seeing in the university sector and for those students. That is simply wrong and just shows that this government has absolutely no ability to manage money. Our students should not have to be cash cows for this Labor government to pay for a policy that it wants to put in place.
On this side of the chamber, as I say, we are absolutely supportive of making sure that our students get the best opportunities they possibly can through their schooling life—particularly those students in regional schools, right across those regional areas. That is my particular focus. We will continue to support those students and families to ensure that they have better outcomes in the future.
Senator BACK (Western Australia—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:24): It was the Chinese philosopher Confucius who said this: 'If your plan is for one year, plant rice; if your plan is for 10 years, plant trees; if your plan is for 100 years, educate your children.' Nobody in this chamber would argue with the point on which Senator Nash concluded: that all of us have a very keen interest, obviously, in the best education for our children.
It is with great disappointment that I rise to oppose the Australian Education Bill 2013 and its associated legislation. As the deputy chair of the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee, it is a great disappointment to me that a circumstance developed that in the other place there was less than two hours debate on 70 pages of amendments associated with the legislation. It was only last week, on 18 June, that the Senate referred the bills to the committee of which I am the deputy chairman, with the need for an inquiry and a report by 20 August 2013—an entirely reasonable time. Unfortunately, that was cut short by the majority members from the Labor government, to the extent that there would then be only three days—three days!—of opportunity for parties to make a submission, which concluded on Friday, 21 June, for a report on Monday, 24 June. In other words, there was to be expenditure by state and federal governments—in other words, taxpayers—of some $100 billion over the forward estimates, and there was only three days' opportunity for people to place submissions, and no time at all for there to be a hearing or hearings held. That is the disdain in which this government holds the people and the parliament and, more particularly, this Senate.
People might say, 'Look, there've been plenty of opportunities to debate the issues over time.' But there simply has not been put before interested parties and those vitally affected by this legislation anywhere near the documentation necessary for them to become informed and to advise their own constituents. So we have had a totally and utterly limited period of time. We have had no chance to scrutinise the submissions. We have had no chance to test the witnesses. And we are now being asked to approve this legislation. This is just totally and utterly unacceptable.
I will go very briefly to some of the submissions placed in those 72 hours. The themes of the complexity of the legislation and the lack of clarity ran through nearly all of them. The Independent Schools Council of Australia said:
The timing of the passage of these pieces of legislation is critical for non-government schools, as current Commonwealth Government funding arrangements expire at the end of 2013.
That is a mere six months away. The complexity of the legislation, particularly as it related to indexation, was a matter of enormous concern, and still has not been answered. Criticism of the lack of clarity also came from state governments, the Queensland government pointing out the plethora of detailed examples of the lack of clarity, the following being just one of them:
The Bill sets out a complex set of authorities and relationships, which is compounded when overlaid with participating and non-participating status. In parts, the Bill switches between concepts of 'participating schools' and 'participating states and territories'.
And on it goes. There were also pleas that the government would release the year-by-year figures for the next three years, where Commonwealth education funding goes backwards in each state and territory; they were unaddressed.
Submissions also mentioned the lack of consultation. I will illustrate the way in which this government consults with some newspaper headlines. For example, under the headline 'Gillard to punish Gonski hold-outs' we read:
JULIA Gillard will punish recalcitrant states that refuse to sign up to the government's education reforms with lower funding for their schools.
In a Victorian paper, under the headline 'Schools face burdens irrespective of the Gonski deal,' we read:
Brighton Secondary College principal Julie Podbury said state schools already wrote plans for improvement.
So why is there the necessity for a Canberra bureaucrat or a plethora of Canberra bureaucrats? As to the Northern Territory, Prime Minister Gillard not only threatened to impose difficulties for the Northern Territory government in the education space, but also made it very clear that other funding from the federal government to the Northern Territory may be adversely affected. As to Queensland, under the headline 'Gonski gets zilch, state goes local', we read that:
THE Newman government will forge ahead with its own education reforms, refusing to allocate funds to support the commonwealth's Gonski blueprint …
This is the way in which this federal government consults. 'Private schools tucked into Gonski'—Catholic and independent schools will be locked into the Gonski funding model regardless of whether Prime Minister Julia Gillard can convince more states and territories to sign up.
I come to my own state of Western Australia, which was offered a paltry $138 million over six years to sign away its schools to federal control in Canberra at a time when the New South Wales government was offered $5 billion. When I asked in estimates how this could be, do you know what the answer was? The answer was that because, over time, failed Labor governments in New South Wales, some of them led by now Senator Bob Carr, had failed to invest in state education in New South Wales and therefore they needed extra funding to bring them up to a standard at which they should always have been. In our state of Western Australia, under Premier Barnett and premiers before him, including Labor and the Liberal coalition, there was heavy investment.
In estimates I challenged the minister about how it could be that one state could get $5 billion and the other $138 million. Prime Minister Gillard rushed over to WA and she would appear to have increased the $138 million to $900 million. We have no idea where the money is coming from, but who cares with this mob when we have $300 billion of debt and we are paying a billion dollars a month interest on the debt at the moment. It turns out that the $900 million was actually $300 million of state money. Take that away, Senator Mason, and there is $600 million left. It sounds wonderful, doesn't it? How many years was it over? Six years. Premier Barnett told us the other day that the Western Australian budget for running the state schools is $4 billion a year, and Prime Minister Gillard, in return for the states handing over control, was throwing around $600 million of money she did not have and certainly gave no indication of where it was coming from.
'Review for rebel state schools'—the list goes on. This is how this government consults with its stakeholders. Breaches in previous undertakings by the Commonwealth was evident in submissions from witnesses to this particular inquiry who could not appear at a hearing because one was not permitted. The Tasmanian government, a Labor government, submitted that the bill as drafted ignores the roles and responsibilities as agreed, providing the Commonwealth with the ability to impose prescriptive policy and operational requirements on school systems and schools, both government and non-government.
I propose to conclude on this matter, if I may, to allow others to speak, by drawing attention to an inquiry which you, Madam Acting Deputy President McKenzie, were a participant in recently: the teaching and learning inquiry of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee. I am proud to say that the report and recommendations were unanimous from everybody who participated. These were the principles that we considered were necessary to improve teaching and learning in this country. The first: active involvement by parents from the youngest age of their children. That is not a high-cost factor; it does not get a guernsey in this funding. The second: the need for school autonomy, as exhibited, for example, in Finland. What does this legislation do? It takes school autonomy away. A principal cannot employ a teacher or sack a teacher; they have to put a plan to a bureaucrat in Canberra. Where would decisions be best made for the Turkey Creek school in the Kimberley? Where would decisions best be made for the Mukinbudin Primary School in the wheat belt? Not here in Canberra. The committee rejected the concept that, by definition, low socioeconomic students must be automatically disadvantaged in their education outcomes. That is something that our committee came up with. I must say, in deference to the recommendations of Gonski and his colleagues, that was a matter that they picked up.
Other principles included: professional learning by teachers practically in the schools, day to day; and curriculum and curriculum development devolved down to the level where the principal and the staff are best equipped. Senator Mason, through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, the unfortunate thing is that, once again, an opportunity has been missed, money has been grossly wasted, and there has been a lack of consultation with the stakeholders, be they state, Catholic or independent schools, and there is a circumstance where we will not receive the outcomes. We will have growth management by Canberra and a waste of taxpayers' money.
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (12:35): I indicate that I share the concerns of Senator Mason and Senator Back in relation to the lack of appropriate process in the way that these bills have been rushed through and the lack of adequate debate. This is not the way to run a parliament. Respectfully, this is not the way to deal with such an important package of legislation.
There is a wonderful quote from WB Yeats that sums up how I feel about education. He said:
Education is not the filling a pail but the lighting of a fire.
My fear with this bill is that the government is too narrowly focused on filling a pail full of money rather than igniting the debate we must have about better outcomes for students. Sometimes one can lead to the other, but, without a clear policy framework and the right objectives, we will continue to fail our students and ultimately the nation.
A lot has been said about the decline in Australia's literacy and numeracy levels. There are many different arguments about how we should fix this: more tests, fewer tests, more money for students, more money for teachers—the list goes on and on. Something that is often forgotten is how we value learning and education as a nation. Governments value it because—forgive me for sounding cynical—there are votes to be won when you promise to fix a problem. Academics and commentators value it because they know its importance to our nation. And teachers and educators value it because they know what it is like to see a child or an adult gain understanding—the light that goes on when something suddenly becomes clear and it all makes sense. But do we as a nation value it? Do we value our teachers, our schools and our capacity for higher education? In my view, we do not—not enough.
In December last year the Australian Council for Educational Research released a report on the most recent international studies of student achievement. The council stated:
The study revealed that many Australian Year 4 students have substantial literacy problems, with around one-quarter of students not meeting the Intermediate benchmark – the standard generally considered in international achievement studies to be the minimally acceptable standard of proficiency.
The report went on to find that Australian students achieved a mean score of 505 in year 8 mathematics. South Korea, which was a top-performing country, achieved a mean score of 613. Further, 37 per cent of Australian students did not meet the Intermediate benchmark, 26 per cent achieved the Low international benchmark and 11 per cent were below this level.
How do we make up this lost ground? Ben Jensen, the director of the Grattan Institute's School Education Program, wrote an excellent opinion piece for the Weekend Australian earlier this year, in February, in which he called for better support and skills development for teachers, rather than more funding for schools. Jensen has approached the problem in a way that I find non-ideological and nonpartisan. I think we need to listen to voices such as his in this debate. Jensen said:
For decades, politicians and educators have argued over funding, and whether more money should go to public or private schools. As they did, children's learning was neglected. Our primary school students have the lowest literacy levels of any country in the English-speaking developed world. The performance of our secondary students is falling. The average 15-year-old maths student in Australia performs at a level two years below their counterpart in Shanghai.
Jensen goes on:
It is an appalling situation. The schools debate in Australia has always focused on money: how much and who gets what. How children learn and how to help them learn better, has been pushed aside.
It is time for a new story in Australian school education. Not whether public or private is better or deserves more funds, not whether teacher and principal performance pay, school autonomy or computers will lift the quality of our schools. Not wasting money on reducing class sizes.
None of these policies has been found to do much at all for student learning. Instead, the world's best school systems—in Finland, Ontario, Singapore and Shanghai—focus relentlessly on how to improve what happens in the classroom.
To me, that makes perfect sense. Of course schools need funding to meet their needs. But, in my view, there is no point in having an iPad for every child if their teacher does not have the skills or support to teach them to read. What is more, teachers are no longer just educators; they are adjudicators, psychologists, enforcers, philosophers, even nutritionists, sports coaches and career counsellors.
Our expectations of what teachers should do have gone far beyond 'the three Rs'. Instead, they are expected to coach and support children in all facets of life during their time at school. But, too often, what they spend their time doing is everything but teaching basic literacy and numeracy skills. The ever-growing gap between the haves and have-nots in Australia means that many children are simply slipping through the cracks. Teachers have far too little support when it comes to dealing with the complex problems children often bring with them to school, and that lack of support means other children sometimes just do not get a look in.
Of course I support a better and fairer funding model for our schools. But if it is not linked to meaningful outcomes, and it does not teach more kids to read and add up, then this policy, in itself, will not work. It is not a simple equation. Money in does not equal education out. That is why the focus, after this bill is passed, must be on making sure that Australian kids not only do not slip further behind internationally but also are given a chance to reach their full potential.
Finally, Madam Acting Deputy President, often a work of fiction has a ring of truth to it, and I know you are a fan of this particular program. I would like to finish off with a quote from Sam Seaborn of Aaron Sorkin's The West Wing. Justifying his position on education funding, he said:
…education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don't need little changes, we need gigantic, monumental changes. Schools should be palaces. The competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be making six-figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge to its citizens, just like national defense. That's my position. I just haven't figured out how to do it yet.
Seguing from The West Wing to what we are dealing with here, I am not convinced, sadly, that this bill has figured out how to do it either. But I hope this legislation can be used as a building block to achieve the reforms every Australian child deserves.
Senator BOYCE (Queensland) (12:42): I did not want to spend too much time, in the very limited time we have, making the point that, yet again, there is legislation being rushed through here. But, perhaps quoting from the Premier of Queensland, the Hon. Campbell Newman, in a submission he made to the education, employment and workplace relations committee inquiry, will suffice to give people the details of how appalling the inquiry into this bill has been. I quote from the letter, which says: 'The fact that your committee received a reference for an inquiry on 19 June requiring submissions by 21 June 2013 and reporting by 24 June indicates their contempt for the business of government and of the Australian parliament by the federal government.' It is impossible to disagree with that. I think it succinctly puts the very poor process that we have in place, and we continue to have poor processes all over the place in terms of this legislation.
I am particularly interested in the effect of this legislation on students with disability. As an unintended consequence, this legislation may be causing a preference for special schools over mainstream schools. There is no explanation anywhere for why the loading for students with a disability in special schools should be 20 per cent higher than the loading for students with a disability in mainstream schools. The suggestion seems to be that this is a temporary loading for special schools, but this is not spelt out, and a number of people who submitted in the lightning-fast time they had to address this inquiry were not confident that this was the case. But, even so, why is it there?
There is nothing specific in the bill or in the regulation that creates any concrete expectations that education systems will be able to delivery fully on the national disability standards, or that Australia's obligations as a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities or the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child will be met. It would seem quite relevant to me, and it was certainly a position put by Children with Disability Australia that, at the very minimum, the obligations of this government to meet those standards should be referenced somewhere in the bill.
We have the situation where the loadings appear to be set up in such a way as to encourage short-termism and encourage lack of resources in the sector of education for students with a disability. There is a high degree of difficulty associated with the development of a disability loading, and there is a lot yet to be finalised and introduced. There is no clarity around the reform package, but there is also no clarity around how it will apply to students with a disability. Of course, the odds of us getting a successful outcome on this are very low. I would have thought that the government could have acknowledged—in what has been referred to as the rhetoric and aspiration in this document—that, as Senator Xenophon was pointing out earlier, not just the academic performance of our schools across the board as something to be ashamed of, but our treatment of children with disability is something to be particularly ashamed of.
Children with Disability Australia described it as a national disgrace. They pointed out that 63 per cent of school children with a disability experience difficulty fitting in at school, 29.6 per cent of people between 15 and 64 with a disability completed year 12 compared to 49.3 per cent of people without a disability—that is almost half. They added that 12.7 per cent of people with a disability have a bachelor's degree or higher, and for people without a disability that figure is 19.7 per cent. Around 15 per cent of Australia's students require additional assistance, but only five per cent receive funded support. Clearly, improving these measures over time is complex, but getting a start on it is urgent. Students with disability have been marginalised in our system for long enough, and it beggars belief that, in 2013, this government would think that a system that somehow preferences special schools over students with disability in mainstream schools is a good thing. It is just unbelievable.
As I said, the loading system has been set up in such a way that it would appear to disadvantage mainstream schools which make the effort to follow the law and do their job of accepting students with a disability. The funding is on a per-student basis. There is no requirement for how the funding would be distributed within systems, and the loading appears to be payable for the year's enrolment that you have now. Whilst extending the national partnership agreement for More Support for Students with Disabilities is a start, it does not help with the issue of stop-start funding and no funding to improve the resources or the learning. It is just funding per student per year with nothing into the future. It is not endemic, it is not recurrent and it is not permanent. It is an unusual and difficult mess. I would urge the government to keep in mind that we must not end up with a system that has the perverse effect of giving special schools higher funding than mainstream schools that have students with a disability.
I would like to conclude my remarks so that others can speak by pointing out another comment from the Queensland Premier, the Hon. Campbell Newman, who makes the point that, I think, Ms Gillard continues to forget. The Queensland government is the owner and manager of state schools and is the regulator of non-state schools and provides nearly 90 per cent of government funding for state schools. The Queensland government aims to remove needless red tape and regulation in general and will not support the federal government adding even more regulation. I have no idea why Ms Gillard would be surprised that the majority of states have not signed up to her 'con-ski' reform, as has been referred to by the shadow education minister, Christopher Pyne. It is disappointing that this government have gone about it in this way. I would urge them to have a look at the way they are intending to fund provisions for disadvantaged students and for students with a disability and to make sure that, if this were to occur, there would be no adverse consequences.
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria) (12:51): I rise to speak on the Australian Education Bill 2013, the related bill, and the 70-odd amendments. I think it is a record, and I would appreciate somebody telling me whether it is, but it is one of many records for this government. The thematic approach we have heard this morning from the speakers in this debate is one of waste, lack of consultation and disregard for good governance and for good parliamentary process. It is a thematic line that this Gillard government and the Rudd government seem to have lived by and will die by.
In its politicised DNA, partisan to the end, the Gillard government is using education policy to divide. As a former educator I am greatly disappointed to be standing here now, after work has been done on a needs based model to ensure that education right across our nation is of a high standard and quality, with state pitted again state, system against system, in a bidding war.
The Prime Minister's approach to premiers has just beggared belief throughout this. We have heard some representations about that here today in the states' house. Tasmania is going through a grab for cash. I am sure at the ALP state conference on the weekend there will be the wrapped-up-in-a-box signature that everyone is looking for, but that will not happen before the Premier of Tasmania has sought to ensure that it will not lose the $105 million of extra GST funds it already receives for education.
In media reports there were comments earlier from the Northern Territory about how the Prime Minister is approaching a co-operative and supportive conversation about something of such national significance as a 'once-in-a-generation change to our education system'. She has asked for a response by the NT and has warned that funding under the national partnership agreement may be reconsidered if the Territory government does not cooperate. Federal education minister, Peter Garrett, says that the Territory government is playing a dangerous game by refusing to cooperate in negotiations.
My home state of Victoria has been in the media raising concerns that it has had with this negotiation. I use the term 'negotiation' lightly because it implies a conversation. Minister Dixon wrote to the Commonwealth at the start of this month asking to hold joint negotiations. Similarly, there have been concerns raised in the media, from Victoria's perspective, about constitutional issues with the bill before us. We know—it has been mentioned before—that until a couple of weeks ago this was just an aspirational piece of paper that nobody who cares about the future of our nation and the quality of education being delivered to our young people right across this nation could disagree with. Yet, as always, the devil is in the detail—and we have the devil before us today. The constitutional issues were raised by numerous states including, earlier this week in Tasmania, by Premier Giddings.
There are concerns about increased Commonwealth policy oversight of state schools through the National Plan for School Improvement. This is yet another attempt by the Gillard government to grab power from the states and override the states' constitutional obligation to be in control of what happens on the ground within their own jurisdictions when it comes to education.
Haste has meant that none of these issues has been able to be examined and considered by the Senate and our systems. The Australian people expect us to be thorough in this place on their behalf; not to spend their money—$100 billion—without scrutiny. That is exactly why every single one of us is in this chamber. We are here not just to govern but also, on behalf of the Australian people, to consider the devil in the detail, to come to some conclusions and to proceed from there. But this government is careless with our democracy.
Issues were raised. As has been mentioned, I was part of the inquiry into the aspirational four-page document and the much more detailed 129-page document, with its 70-odd amendments—the three-day inquiry, as Senator Back and I like to call it. There was no opportunity to seek clarification on written submissions and to delve further into the detail that stakeholders had raised.
I would like to counter some of the claims that Senator Pratt made in her commentary on regional schools in WA. She said that if the Nationals were serious about standing up for kids attending schools in regional areas then they would be backing this bill. That is exactly why you have to look at the detail, Senator Pratt. When you look at the mechanism that is being used to determine the loading for location under this model you find that it is the ARIA model. That is fine if you are in a regional school in WA but if you are in a regional school in Victoria that has a different meaning and there is a different understanding of it. Under the ARIA model, as we discovered in estimates, relative to regional schools in WA, Victorian regional schools will be worse off. So check the Hansard on that one and get back to me. Unfortunately, in two minutes the time for debate will be over so we will not be able to hear the response from the government on that.
So this debate has been a farce and reduced to emotive slogans that even the owner of the name seems not to back, as these bills—and, more importantly, the negotiated reality—have skewed the report from David Gonski, which I think was delivered in December 2011. So, this is not a new conversation. Whilst we have had 70 amendments, with the devil in their detail, before us for a couple of weeks, we have been talking about this for 2½ years.
A government senator interjecting—
Senator McKENZIE: Minister, you may say, 'Exactly!' but then you are expecting stakeholders and states to back the slogans without being able to go through the detail. It is not an appropriate way to govern and it is not a once-in-a-generation reform.
Finally, I would like to reject outright any aspersions that the coalition does not back, as the birth right of every single citizen of this nation, the right to a quality education, private or public. For people across the way to assume that, because we want to scrutinise this—because state governments that are governed by parties that are on our side of politics are not rushing to sign up, because we have some questions we want to prosecute, because we do not want potentially to throw $100 billion away, because we want to get right—we do not think it is the birthright of every young Australian to receive a quality education, is offensive in the extreme.
Those of us on this side of the chamber know that, of the million young people that attend school in this country outside metropolitan cities, 660,000 attend state schools. So how can we back our communities without backing quality education in the regions in state schools that are focused on student outcomes? That, again brings me to the objectives in part 3(1)(i). As an educator I have real issues with a quality education being determined by a PISA result. That concern is actually shared by the AEU and the IEU, and I suggest you check out their quotes in our report to this bill. A quality education cannot simply be measured by statistics. The top five, by 2025—what a ridiculous measure to ascertain the quality of our education and—
The PRESIDENT: Order! The time allotted for the consideration of these bills has expired. The question is that the amendment on sheet 7404 moved by Senator Mason be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [13:04]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
The PRESIDENT (13:07): In respect of the Australian Education Bill 2013, the question is that the amendment on sheet 7429 circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.
At the end of the motion, add "but the Senate notes that:
(a) the bill is an important step towards establishing an enduring schools funding model, where public money is equitabl y provided to schools according to need, to ensure a universally accessible school education system;
(b) needs-based funding is necessary to ensure public schools are funded to provide a world-class education to any student regardless of their background;
(c) a genuine needs-based funding model would ensure all resources of a school are taken into account in determining need; and
(d) the Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling concluded that an independent and expert national schools resourcing body should determine the applicable schooling resource standards."
Question negatived.
The PRESIDENT: The question now is that these bills be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.
The PRESIDENT: In respect of the Australian Education Bill 2013, the question is that amendment (1) on sheet 7410 and amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7409, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.
(1) Clause 77, page 78 (after line 28), after paragraph (2)(e), insert:
(ea) the approved authority complies, and ensures each school complies, with relevant anti-discrimination laws of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, and does not rely upon sections 37 or 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to exempt discriminatory practices from such law;
(1) Page 92 (after line 9), at the end of Part 6, add:
Part 6A—Accountability for approved authorities and bodies
96A Report about financial assistance and financial operations
(1) An approved authority, block grant authority or non‑government representative body for a school must give the Secretary a report for each year that includes the following:
(a) the total amount of financial assistance paid to the authority or body, and allocated to the school, for the year in accordance with the Act;
(b) for an approved authority—the total amount mentioned in paragraph (a) broken down into the school's base amount, and loadings as referred to in any of paragraphs 35(a) to (f), for the year;
(c) in any case—a statement by the board (however described) of the authority or body about how the financial assistance paid in accordance with the Act was used, or is intended to be used, by the authority or body, and the school;
(d) a statement by the board (however described) of the authority about whether the authority or body, and the school, has in place satisfactory internal accounting systems, controls and procedures for records kept by the authority in compliance with section 34;
(e) a statement by the board (however described) of the authority or body about the financial operations (including the financial viability and funding sources) of the authority or body and the school, and includes the following:
(i) recurrent income and expenditure;
(ii) capital income and expenditure;
(iii) trading activities;
(iv) loans for recurrent or capital purposes;
(v) assets and liabilities;
(vi) bequests;
(vi) any other financial information required by the Minister;
(vii) for approved authorities—refundable enrolment deposits.
(2) The report must:
(a) identify any records kept by the authority or body in compliance with section 34; and
(b) include a copy of any financial statement prepared in compliance with section 35; and
(c) include a copy of any audit document prepared in compliance with section 35.
(3) The report must not include any information that would identify a donor as a funding source of the school.
(4) The report must be given to the Minister no later than a day or days (if any) determined by the Minister.
96B Public information about financial assistance
(1) For the purposes of paragraphs 85(2)(c) and 93(2)(d), a non‑government representative body for a non‑government school must publish the following information each year:
(a) the amount of financial assistance (if any) provided in the year under Division 4 of Part 5 (funding for non‑government representative bodies) and the application of that financial assistance;
(b) information about the way a school applies to be allocated financial assistance in relation to capital expenditure (as the case requires);
(d) how decisions of the authority or body to allocate financial assistance are reviewed.
(2) The information mentioned in subsection (1) is the minimum information required, and this section does not prevent body from making other information publicly available.
(3) The body must:
(a) make the information publicly available on the internet; and
(b) make arrangements to provide the information, on request, to a person who is responsible for a student and is unable to access the internet.
Note: The authority or body may have obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 in providing information.
(4) For the purpose of paragraph 93(2)(b), a non‑government representative body for a school must spend, or commit to spend, financial assistance that is payable to the body under Division 4 of Part 5 (funding for non‑government representative bodies) for the purpose of supporting school education.
(2) Page 92 (after line 9), at the end of Part 6, add:
96C Further review of operation of amendments
(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be undertaken of the operation of the issues provided for in this Act.
(2) The Minister must appoint at least 3 people with expert knowledge in the field of education to undertake the independent review.
(3) The review must consider at least the following matters:
(a) the model for providing financial assistance to States and Territories as provided for in this Act; and
(b) the effectiveness of the model for providing financial assistance to States and Territories as measured against the principles of needs based funding; and
(c) any other related matter that the Minister specifies.
(4) The review must be undertaken during the period 1 July 2018 to 30 April 2019.
(5) The person who undertakes the review must give the Minister a written report of the review by 30 June 2019.
(6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving it.
Senator Wright: I had understood that they were going to be moved separately.
The PRESIDENT: Not that I know of.
Senator Wright: In that case, I would seek to have a division on them.
The PRESIDENT: You want to divide on the outcome?
Senator Wright: Yes.
The PRESIDENT: I will put the vote again. The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 7410 and amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7409, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.
Senate divided. [13:10]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
The PRESIDENT (13:13): The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013
Public Interest Disclosure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (13:15): I rise today to discuss the issue of whistleblowers and the Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013. The Greens have long had a keen interest in seeing that we advance the national interest by having strong whistleblowers legislation. It has been a frustration of ours for a considerably long time that we have failed to have that, and Australian democracy has not been served well by the fact that people who blow the whistle end up being the victims in those circumstances and subject to a shoot-the-messenger strategy rather than others actually learning from the messages that they have to convey.
Our view is that whistleblowers are essential to advancing our national polity. When police officer Col Dillon spoke out, he caused the Fitzgerald commission, which in turn changed the entire system of governance in Queensland. Similarly, there were years of political resistance to examining the scourge of institutionalised child sexual abuse until Peter Fox broke ranks and spoke out last year. His actions are already changing the course of history in Australia in relation to that particular issue.
The Greens are concerned about the needless complexity of the bill that is in front of us, particularly when a template for best practice and simplicity already exists in the ACT legislation that was introduced under the Greens-ALP agreement. Nonetheless, we will support this bill because it improves workplace rights for public servants and it will increase efficiency and minimise public expenditure waste. I have to say that I was really disappointed that, after the government said it would act on whistleblowers, it did not do so for a very long time and that the bill that was brought forward was in fact a pathetic piece of legislation. I congratulate the current Attorney-General for turning his mind to this and significantly improving the bill that first came forward. Unfortunately, this bill is a lot more complex than it needs to be. Nevertheless, I want to acknowledge the work that has been done by the Attorney-General to get this onto a reasonable frame.
Having said that, the Greens did secure an amendment in the House of Representatives. That is because, in the bill as it stands, there is provision for emergency whistleblowing when it comes to the issue of public safety, human safety, but there was nothing in the legislation which provided for an imminent risk when it came to the environment. As people would be aware, there are always situations where you might end up with people knowing—in the case of the Gulf of Mexico, for example, there was that oil rig. We had the Montara spill here in Australia. There are many other examples where people may have known and would have liked to blow the whistle and be safe and able to do so before disasters occur or know that disasters are imminent which will have significant impact for the environment. So I am pleased that the government accepted that amendment. It will allow the whistleblower to go public immediately, instead of having to wait over 100 days, if they have knowledge of a significant threat to the environment. Someone who knows of regulatory failure or a compromised EPBC assessment threatening our places that are too precious to lose will now be able to expose it publicly before the damage is done.
The passage of this bill will plug one more leak in the accountability wall. In so doing, the parliament has left the biggest gap to be the last one to fill—that is, a national anticorruption commission. The Greens have long said that we need a national anticorruption commission. We have not got it as a result of this legislation, but of course it is something that we will keep on campaigning for. A permanent commission as embodied in the Greens' National Integrity Commissioner Bill would complement this whistleblowing scheme. I note, of course, that the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity already overseas the Federal Police; nevertheless, I do not think it is enough.
We need, as I said, a national anticorruption commission that could pursue wrongdoing exposed in our Public Service, particularly if our amendment to include MPs in the legislation is successful. We are putting that up as an amendment because we think it is important that people who know of wrongdoing in parliamentary offices, not just ministerial offices, be covered by whistleblower protection. We cannot continue to rely on ad hoc responses to corruption like we saw with the Customs review announced last December after the exposure of corrupt officials. It is time that there was a systemic process that covered everybody under whistleblowers so that they had their cases, the allegations that they made, fairly assessed.
Just how far we have to travel for proper scrutiny on the activity of MPs is demonstrated by the blanket exemption from these whistleblowing laws of MPs, ministers and their staff. Our amendments place MPs and their staff in the scheme. How can politicians garner public trust when they exempt themselves from the standards of scrutiny that they apply to others?
This issue goes to the heart of what has changed in recent years—that is, the contractual arrangements for senior people in the Public Service. Changing them from permanency to contractual arrangements means that they know full well that their contract has to be renewed under a change of government or even in the course of a period of government, so the community does not have the same confidence that it might once have had in the independence of the Public Service. In fact, people would now argue that we have a ministerial service.
Equally, during the years of Prime Minister Howard, we had the ability to prevent staff of members of parliament from appearing before inquiries. Of course, we will remember that forever in the children overboard affair, where members of staff were prevented, or protected, from attending investigations of committees into those matters. One cannot help but assume that they knew and did not want to have to say what happened, but also, if they had wanted to say what happened, they would not have been covered by whistleblower legislation—and I think they should have been. The Greens also want to remove the affected blackout of external disclosures for employees of intelligence agencies, but we want to keep in place the extensive list of exemptions relating to investigations, operations and national security.
This bill will make our intelligence organisations the most vulnerable of all the public sector agencies because wrongdoing is least likely to be detected. For instance, in 2011 security clearance documents used by ASIO were falsified at the instruction of senior Defence staff to speed up the backlog of applications. Internal complaints yielded nothing, so they went public. The civilian whistleblowers who exposed this fraud have in fact strengthened our national security. What this blanket exemption on external disclosures will do is weaken the integrity of our national security—and that is why we want that changed. Our amendment is for the minister to have broad, non-compellable power to make payments to those who expose wrongdoing. Jurisdictions providing whistleblowers with a cut of any recouped public money has been very successful as both an integrity and a public review measure. This clause would simply allow an act of grace payment in these circumstances or where there is a public interest in doing so.
The example I want to give here is following home affairs minister Jason Clare's refusal to grant a pardon to Allan Kessing. The Special Minister of State could make a payment in recognition of his contribution to public safety and his $70,000 of legal expenses. I still believe a major injustice was done to Allan Kessing, who blew the whistle on security concerns at Sydney airport. It cost him $70,000 in legal fees and he has a criminal conviction. He applied for a pardon for that criminal conviction because it was shown that his issues were not vexatious. What he stood up and said occurred was actually shown to be so.
I have said in the Senate before and I say again today: there should be an explanation from Minister Anthony Albanese, but it has not eventuated. Mr Kessing has always maintained that he did not publicly release the material that resulted in his criminal conviction. He went to his local member for Grayndler with that information, then somehow it made it into the Australian. The ALP used Mr Kessing in their 2007 election campaign to hammer the Howard government's treatment of him. Then they tossed him away, effectively, after he served their purpose and refused him a pardon. I find that disgraceful. To this day I say that Allan Kessing ought to be given a pardon. The amendment the Greens are putting forward would allow not just for him to receive a payment but for the minister to have an act of grace capacity to make payment to anyone who does blow the whistle in the future and is subsequently financially disadvantaged.
Our final amendment removes any shadow of a doubt that the Ombudsman can investigate the way that agencies treat an employee and their disclosure. The government believes it has already achieved this by inserting notes at the end of the relevant provisions, but the Greens do not share this optimism of statutory construction. The explicit prohibition in the Ombudsman Act is not clearly displaced and will probably be determined in court. Why not remove the uncertainty for no public cost and do it now?
I want to refer briefly to the Australian Federal Police. While the parliament may change the law for whistleblowing, what legislators cannot do is change the culture within agencies to encourage and support those who expose wrongdoing. The bullying, marginalisation, humiliation and threats to security of employment will continue, even with the passage of this legislation, unless senior management in the Australian Federal Police take active steps to encourage a new culture in their workplaces. Some agencies will not require much work at all, while others, like the Australian Federal Police, have a lot of reflecting and implementing to do. In fact, the AFP demonstrates the point that having all the right management processes, professional standards, codes of conduct and statutory powers in place means nothing for employees unless senior management embody and actively promote those principles.
There have been two recent AFP whistleblowers whose disclosures were stonewalled by their chain of command and internal complaints systems, so they went to the media. Ross Fusca was a decorated, 30-year veteran who headed the AWB oil-for-food task force. He blew the whistle because the inquiry was shut down when there were many lines of inquiry open. The other is Sergeant Brendan Thomson, who repeatedly warned his special response group management of the heightened risk of rioting and self-harm in the Christmas Island detention centre. After his team was removed from the island, he contacted Commissioner Negus directly, saying his reports were being ignored because they wanted to get off the island. As well, as we all know, the riots ensued.
These two men were both marginalised and humiliated in the workplace. They were offered no official support, yet they both received private text messages and emails from their colleagues congratulating them and apologising for not speaking out themselves for fear that the same treatment would put their mortgages and children's schooling at risk. They are both now in legal disputes with the AFP. Both claim that the legal tactics used are underhanded and breach the model litigant guidelines. Those tactics involve running up costs to place a huge financial burden and the threat of crushing costs orders. As one of the whistleblowers has informed us:
I can guarantee that if the commissioner had to cash in his leave, sell off his personal investments and mortgage his property to finance this course of action he wouldn't be so quick to jump on the litigious merry go round. However it appears when the Australian tax payer is covering his ride it is nothing more concerning than a stroke of his pen.
One of these whistleblowers has spent over $100,000 of his own money, while the other was advised that he will have to spend around $140,000 on his dispute. These two people are at the mercy of the AFP's legal strategy, which is determined by their deep pockets.
Following their treatment by the AFP, we have lost two highly dedicated officers. They have the highest sense of duty and honour to their work, which is why they chose to speak out and challenge mismanagement and cover-ups. As Lieutenant General David Morrison now famously put it this month when challenging sexism in the Defence Force:
The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.
You can tell when the leaders like him really want to change the culture, and no such leadership is apparent in the Australian Federal Police.
Based on testimony in Senate estimates, AFP senior management are more in denial that a problem exists rather than being willing to accept that the culture needs to change and that they need to do something about it. After Sergeant Brendan Thomson contacted Commissioner Tony Negus directly criticising the conduct of his superiors, an email went around saying that any current SRG member who has any contact with Brendan Thomson should report such contact as you would if you had contact with criminal entities. What sort of behaviour is that, coming from a senior officer saying that if you have contact with this person, who has been one of your colleagues, treat him as if you had had contact with criminal entities?
Commissioner Negus denied this email related to Sergeant Thomson, claiming:
It was a broad-based email reminding people of their responsibilities.
Deputy Commissioner Peter Drennan also replied:
Yes, there was an email that was sent around. It actually had nothing to do with Sergeant Thomson at all. It was reminding them of their responsibilities and reporting obligations. Unfortunately, it was misinterpreted by one of our officers, who then on-forwarded it and made reference to Sergeant Thomson.
We have copies of the email chain, which were obtained under FOI. The subject heading of the email reads 'SRG members in contact with former AFP member Brendan Thomson'. That hardly leaves room for misinterpretation. As Deputy Commission Drennan stated:
The member who forwarded it to Sergeant Thomson did not edit the original email. He on-forwarded it.
Here we have the public humiliation of a current member of the Australian Federal Police. Instead of reprimanding Assistant Superintendent Greg Corin and the other officers responsible for sending out the email, senior management confronted the officer who forwarded the email. Deputy Commissioner Drennan confirmed:
He has been spoken to. He realises the error he has made. He has withdrawn that.
The AFP continue to deny the psychological impact an email like that can have on someone. With management priorities like that, it is no wonder no-one is willing to speak out.
The AFP have a lot of work to do to inform employees of their right to speak out. He was admonished for contacting the commissioner directly, after his chain of command failed. But that is his workplace right under section 40SA of the AFP Act. Let's hope that this legislation on public interest disclosure that is before the parliament today is the impetus for a cultural change in the Australian Federal Police.
To conclude, although this legislation is late, it is better late than never. It is legislation the Australian Greens had been hoping we would see in here earlier in this period of government. Nevertheless we are now dealing with it. As I indicated earlier, I think it is a lot more complex than it needs to be. We would have liked to have seen something more similar to the ACT legislation, but, nevertheless, what we have is what we are dealing with. I also want to acknowledge those people in Minister Dreyfus's office and in the department who have worked tirelessly for whistleblower protection here and around the world.
With those remarks I thank the government for accepting our amendment on putting in whistleblower protection for notification of an imminent threat with regard to the environment, in addition to what they have done themselves on an imminent threat with regard to human life and safety. I look forward to the passage of the bill, and I hope we can persuade the members of the coalition to support our other amendments that we have indicated we will move, and have circulated.
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:34): The coalition strongly supports this bill. As those listening to the broadcast would be aware, the coalition has led the field in Australian politics in advancing the cause of whistleblower protection. In making these remarks I would particularly like to acknowledge Professor AJ Brown from Griffith University, who has consulted me frequently in relation to the development of this bill and who has played a distinguished role in this area of policy. I acknowledge the warm concurrence in my remarks of the minister, Senator Ludwig.
As I said, the coalition for many years has been the leader of the field in this area of policy. I remember going to the Right to Know conference organised in Sydney some years ago by John Hartigan, then the CEO of News Limited in Australia, and speaking on that occasion on this subject. I noticed there were no Greens representatives at the Right to Know conference, but, as in so many things, the Greens are very long on the rhetoric but very short on the performance when it comes to pursuing beneficial public policy reform.
The bill in the form presented to the chamber, and, ultimately, with the benefit of the considerations of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee, will create a legislative scheme for the investigation of alleged wrongdoing in the Commonwealth public sector. It will provide for protective mechanisms for current or former officials who make qualifying disclosures under the regime.
The question of the Commonwealth enactment of whistleblowers protection legislation has been agitated for several years. I think it is fair to say that this government has dragged its feet on the issue. The Labor Party announced its policy during the 2007 election campaign. In 2008 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, chaired by the present Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, was asked to examine whistleblower protection models and to report its findings. That report was delivered in January 2009. The government did not respond to the report until fully 14 months later, in March 2010, agreeing substantially with the committee's recommendations and undertaking to introduce a bill in the course of that year.
As we know, there was no bill in 2010, nor in 2011, nor in 2012. I look forward to the minister, in winding up the debate, explaining the extraordinary delay in bringing to the parliament on the 3rd last sitting day of the parliament legislation that was a commitment of the Rudd government in the 2007 election campaign, legislation which is substantially in the form of the report recommended by a parliamentary committee that reported as long ago as January 2009.
Senator Faulkner told the University of Melbourne Law School in December last year:
The Government broadly endorsed the findings of the Committee in 2010, however, no exposure draft of a Bill based on the Report's recommendations has yet been made public – over three years later. And here let me remind you that the Report's recommendations were generally regarded as sound in 2009, and they were generally consistent with the better whistleblower laws of most of Australia's States and Territories which have now been in effect for almost two decades.
So the criticism of the delay by the government in bringing this legislation to the chamber is not just criticism from the opposition but criticism by the Labor Party's senior senatorial statesman, if I may so describe him, Senator John Faulkner.
The bill has now been introduced for debate, as I said, in the final days of this parliament—much too late for the Rudd-Gillard government to have anything to fear from sunlight being shed upon the legislation by its proponents like Senator Faulkner or from the opposition. Operation Sunlight, you might recall, was the much vaunted policy that the Labor Party took to the 2007 election that was designed to promote transparency in the field of both whistleblower protection and freedom of information laws. It has produced this result: information is more restricted today than it was then and whistleblower protection has been delayed through the life of two entire parliaments. So much for heroic rhetoric dressed up in Orwellian phrases.
The objects of the bill are stated to be to promote the integrity and accountability of the Commonwealth public sector, to encourage and facilitate the making of public interest disclosures by public officials, to ensure that public officials who make public interest disclosures are supported and are protected from adverse consequences relating to the disclosures and to ensure that disclosures by public officials are properly investigated and dealt with. The regime operates by providing a framework for the protection of public officials, including former officials, from adverse consequences for disclosing information that in the public interest should be disclosed. It also provides for the investigation of matters that are so disclosed.
A public official for the purposes of the bill includes the secretary of a department, an APS employee or an employee of an executive agency; an individual, principle officer or member of the staff of a prescribed authority; a member of a prescribed authority other than a court; a director of a Commonwealth company; a member of the Defence Force; a parliamentary services employee; an individual employed by the Commonwealth other than an APS employee who performs duties for a department, executive agency or prescribed authority; a statutory office holder; and a contracted service provider for a Commonwealth contract where the services are provided principally for the benefit of an agency.
A public interest disclosure is a disclosure of information by a public official that is a disclosure within the government to an authorised internal recipient concerning suspected or probable illegal conduct or other wrongdoing; a disclosure to anybody if an internal disclosure has not been adequately dealt with and if wider disclosure satisfied public interest requirements; a disclosure to anybody if there is a substantial and imminent danger to health or safety; or a disclosure to an Australian legal practitioner for purposes connected with one of the other three bases of disclosure. However, there are also restrictions, which are designated publication restrictions, security classifications and when a disclosure is made to a foreign public official.
The central concept here, then, is what is disclosable conduct. Not all conduct is wrongdoing. Therefore, not all conduct ought to be disclosable. Conduct is only disclosable if it falls within the broad conception of wrongdoing within the public sector. Conduct is not disclosable conduct if it relates to political or expenditure matters with which a person disagrees such as the conduct of a judicial officer performing judicial functions or the conduct of intelligence agencies in the proper exercise of their functions and powers. These exclusions are proper and necessary and the coalition supports them.
I want to emphasise in particular clause 31 of the bill, which provides for the avoidance of doubt that conduct is not disclosable conduct if it relates only to a policy or a proposed policy of the Commonwealth government or action that has been, is being or is proposed to be taken by a minister or the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the President of the Senate or amounts, purposes or priorities of expenditure or proposed expenditure relating to such a policy or proposed policy or such action or proposed action with which a person disagrees.
The point of that is to make it clear that the purpose of this legislation is not to provide a platform for people to agitate political grievances or to provide a forum for people to use to tie up political or administrative decision making merely because they may disagree with the decision that has been made. The purpose of whistleblower protection legislation is and only is to protect whistleblowers who disclose wrongdoing. I am well aware of concerns held by some, particularly in the business community, that political activists may try to use the whistleblowers protection regime embodied in this legislation as a vehicle to collaterally attack political decision making for political purposes only. The legislation is so written that that is not possible. To abuse the process of the legislation, which evidently the Greens would encourage people to do, would itself be a wrongdoing. Whistleblower protection legislation is justified because it provides the opportunity to expose wrongdoing, not because it provides a platform to agitate political grievances.
Now, protection does not extend to the making of a statement that is false or misleading and also does not affect liability for the discloser's own wrongful conduct. The protective mechanisms include orders for restatement, compensation, apologies and injunctions. It will also be an offence to take reprisals against a person who has made protected disclosure. There is, for the reasons I indicated a moment ago, always the great risk of the vexatious or improper use of these mechanisms. And those who use them vexatiously, for purposes for which the legislation does not allow, should feel the full weight of the law upon them. The Ombudsman and the IGIS, in the case of the intelligence agencies, have additional functions to ensure the proper implementation of the scheme.
The bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which reported earlier this month. Coalition senators joined with the majority recommendation that the bill be passed, subject to a number of amendments. Some 73 amendments were moved in the other place, and the coalition supports them. We think this is a tighter and more focused scheme in consequence of those amendments. In particular, the requirement for a review of the operation of the scheme within two years of its commencement is, in our view, a sensible amendment.
I wish to turn briefly to the amendments foreshadowed by the Greens and by Senator Xenophon. The coalition opposes the Greens amendments. A provision for an act-of-grace payment is unnecessary, because that is already provided for under section 33 in the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997—something that no doubt escaped the attention of the Greens. The Greens amendments, which are seeking to narrow the exemption in relation to the intelligence sources, technologies and operations—reflecting the Greens's trademark paranoia about those who protect our country—also cannot be supported. The intelligence community is subject to its own special oversight regime through the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security—a fact that also has obviously escaped the Greens. As the committee heard, the inadvertent or inappropriate disclosure of intelligence information may compromise national security and potentially place lives at risk—conduct in which Mr Julian Assange, Senator Scott Ludlam's great friend, of course rejoices.
Australian intelligence agencies have obligations to our foreign partners to maintain confidentiality of information shared for the purpose of assisting those agencies to fulfil their national security functions. Mr Lambie has written in my script here that the Greens amendments failed to grasp those facts. I suspect the Greens grasped them all too well and are happy to see national security compromised in the pursuit of ideological whimsy. The coalition rejects the amendments proposing to extend the regime to members of parliament and their staff. This is an unacceptable incursion into parliamentary privilege and the role of the parliament itself. The appropriate institution for the supervision of members of parliament is the parliament itself. This is where the conduct of members and senators is exposed, reported and made accountable. If the Greens do not accept that parliament is up to the task, they should say so.
In relation to the amendments proposed by Senator Xenophon, I understand his concerns. However, the coalition does not agree that his amendments, while worthy, are properly located within this legislation. Rather, they should be considered when the matters that were recently the subject of the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security arise for consideration of the next parliament. With those observations, and in the proud Liberal tradition of championing open government and whistleblower protection, the opposition is pleased to support the bill.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ): Senator Xenophon, before you commence your address I might just advise you that at 1.55 the Senate will be considering these bills, and I suggest you tailor your remarks accordingly.
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (13:49): I will try to do this in 60 seconds or less, because I know Senator Sinodinos has a contribution to make. I support these bills. I believe these matters should go further. I note the work that a number of successive ministers have done on this, including Senator Ludwig and Senator Faulkner as well as Mr Dreyfus, the Attorney-General. I am concerned that these bills would still fail the litmus test—the Allan Kessing case. Whilst the legislation provides a mechanism for greater internal scrutiny, it does not protect those whistleblowers who feel that they must go public in relation to their concerns. I want to correct something, not in a dismissive way, but just to clarify what Senator Milne said. I admire and am grateful for her support of Allan Kessing, whom I know very well and who I believe does deserve a pardon. Mr Kessing maintains his innocence, maintains that he never leaked those documents, and I believe him. Although he was convicted, the issue is that if we had appropriate whistleblower protection laws he never would have been prosecuted in the first place. My fear is that this bill, whilst an improvement—much work has been done—will not deal with the fundamental issues at stake in relation to people who have information, such as Mr Kessing.
Finally, I note that the coalition will not be supporting the amendments. Perhaps I could get a quick indication from Senator Ludwig, from the government, in relation to this. At least Senator Brandis said it was worthy. I guess I will have to take that compliment, and maybe the amendments I am seeking to move will find another place through the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act.
Senator SINODINOS (New South Wales) (13:51): As stated by Senator Brandis, we will be supporting the Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013 and the Public Interest Disclosure (Consequential Amendments) Bill. I welcome these bills. As someone who has worked in government administration I am well aware of the difficulties whistleblowers face. The fact of the matter is that in many organisations, particularly at the senior levels, you do face a culture of group think and a very strong push towards conforming and telling people up the line what they want to hear. Often, that can lead to a situation where people go along with things that perhaps they should not go along with, and therefore you have a situation where other people of conscience or those who feel strongly about something want to have a capacity to express to someone their concern about what has happened within their organisation. It is always a very sad thing when you feel you cannot go to someone more senior in your organisation in order to make a point or disclose something that you believe should be disclosed. It goes to the point that I think Senator Milne made in her contribution: that, over and above whatever laws we have—and certainly we support the strengthening of the laws in this regard—it is about how you get cultural change in organisations so that people feel they can have the confidence to talk about these matters to more senior people or that all people in the organisation, for want of a better description, share a certain moral compass on issues.
A very big responsibility is placed on the chief executives of organisations and on their boards, to not only talk the talk but also to walk the walk when it comes to these matters. Those who transgress should be seen to be punished, so that everybody within the organisation gets the very strong feeling that those who do wrong will be punished and that senior people will not turn a blind eye to things.
I am aware of a number of whistleblower cases in the past, under both this and the previous government, where it would have benefited those individuals if this legislation had been in place. But, as I say, I think it is quite important that we get cultural change, and that goes to the way that some organisations constitute themselves. It is clear at the federal level that there have been a number of organisations over the years where dysfunction has seemed to continue, for all sorts of reasons, and people on both sides of politics, as ministers or whatever, have been unable to bring those organisations to heel and sort them out. So I think that is an ongoing challenge.
I am also aware of some cases where, as in the case mentioned by Senator Xenophon, I believe the persons involved have some right to feel aggrieved at the way they have been treated. It is not for me to make judgements on the matter here. I cannot go into it. But I do feel the person in question in that case was operating from the best of motives. So we have to support people who are trying to do the right thing. But, as I said, ultimately it is not just about laws; it is about the way organisations conduct themselves, and that is really the responsibility also of the leaders of those organisations.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The time allotted for the consideration of these bills has now expired. The question is that these bills be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.
The PRESIDENT: In respect of the Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013, the question is that amendments (1) to (10) on sheet 7420, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.
Australian Greens ' circulated amendments—
(1) Page 22 (after line 7), at the end of Division 1, add:
24A Act of grace payments
(1) The Minister may authorise one or more payments of an amount or amounts specified in the authorisation to a person who has made a public interest disclosure (even though the payment or payments would not otherwise be authorised by law or required to meet a legal liability), if:
(a) the Minister is satisfied that the disclosure resulted in protection or the reclaiming of public money; or
(b) the Minister considers, in the Minister's absolute discretion, that there are reasons of public interest for making the payment or payments.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) has the effect of appropriating the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purposes of making a payment under that subsection.
(2) Clause 31, page 31 (lines 31 to 34), omit paragraph (b).
(3) Clause 36, page 35 (line 29), before "An", insert "(1)".
(4) Clause 36, page 36 (line 3), at the end of the definition of authorised officer, add:
; or (c) in the case of a House of the Parliament:
(i) a Senator or Member who belongs to that House or a public official who belongs to the Finance Department; and
(ii) is appointed, in writing, by the principal officer of that House (with the agreement of the principal officer of the Finance Department, if the public official belongs to the Finance Department), as an authorised officer for the purposes of this Act.
(5) Clause 36, page 36 (after line 3), at the end of the clause, add:
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (c) of the definition of authorised officer, the Finance Department means the Department administered by the Minister administering the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.
(6) Clause 41, page 36 (line 7) to page 36 (line 16), omit paragraphs (1)(a) and (b), substitute:
(a) information that has originated with, or has been received from, an intelligence agency that is about, or that might reveal:
(i) a source of information; or
(ii) the technologies or methods used, proposed to be used, or being developed for use, by an intelligence agency to collect, analyse, secure or otherwise deal with, information; or
(iii) operations that have been, are being, or are proposed to be, undertaken by an intelligence agency;
(7) Clause 41, page 36 (line 32), omit "(b),".
(8) Clause 69, page 61 (after table item 12), insert:
12A |
A Senator. |
The Senate. |
12B |
A member of the House of Representatives. |
The House of Representatives. |
12C |
A person employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 . |
Whichever of the following agencies is applicable: (a) the Senate; (b) the House of Representatives. |
(9) Clause 71, page 65 (after line 15), after paragraph (b), insert:
(ba) a House of the Parliament; or
(10) Clause 73, page 67 (after table item 2), insert:
2A |
The Senate. |
The President of the Senate. |
2B |
The House of Representatives. |
The Speaker of the House of Representatives. |
Question negatived.
Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (13:55): Could I just have it noted that only the Australian Greens—
Senator Xenophon interjecting—
Senator MILNE: sorry—and Senator Xenophon supported that?
The PRESIDENT: That will be noted in the Hansard. The question now is that amendment (1) on sheet 7424 revised, circulated by Senator Xenophon, be agreed to.
Senator Xenophon ' s circulated amendment —
(1) Page 74 (after line 7), at the end of Part 5, add:
84 Interception and access
(1) Subsection (2) applies if the Minister is required to prepare a report for the purposes of section 99 or 161 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979.
(2) The report must set out, for each enforcement agency, statistics about applications, warrants, interceptions, notices and authorisations made in respect of persons who are:
(a) members of either of the Houses of Parliament of the Parliament of Australia; or
(b) members of a parliament of a State or Territory of Australia; or
(c) journalists.
Question negatived.
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (13:56): Can I have it noted that only the Australian Greens supported me on this particular amendment, for the record.
The PRESIDENT: That is noted. In respect of the Public Interest Disclosure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013, the question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7421, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.
Australian Greens ' circulated amendments—
(1) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 15), after item 7, insert:
7A After subsection 5(4)
Insert:
(4A) Paragraph (2)(d) does not prevent the Ombudsman from investigating action that, under subsection 5A(1), is taken to relate to a matter of administration.
(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (line 29), omit "it", substitute "the conduct, and any action taken by the agency in relation to the disclosure,".
Question negatived.
Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (13:56): Could I ask, again, that it be noted that only Senator Xenophon supported the Australian Greens on those amendments.
The PRESIDENT: That will be noted.
Third Reading
The PRESIDENT (13:56): The question now is that the remaining stages of these bills be agreed to and that these bills be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Malcolm, Mr Terry
The PRESIDENT (13:59): Order! Today is a significant day for the Senate. After 37 years in the radio commentary booth, Terry Malcolm is about to retire. His last question time from the Senate is today. Terry began parliamentary broadcasting in 1976 when presenters were confined to a tiny booth overlooking the chamber at what is now known as Old Parliament House. Terry has ridden a wave of change since then, including the establishment of the radio service at what we know today as New Parliament House.
Terry Malcolm has an abiding affection for Australian democracy. For a decade, he was the chief of staff for ABC NewsRadio's parliamentary broadcasting team. He was also a parliamentary guide for a similar length of time. For more than a third of a century, it was a rare parliamentary year that ended without Terry Malcolm's voice featuring in it; a year without Terry on ABC Radio at all was even rarer. Even after 37 years, Terry Malcolm has approached each day's broadcast with the same rigorous commitment to detail, clarity and professionalism. On behalf all senators, I wish Terry the very best in his retirement.
For the sake of the Hansard record, whilst clapping cannot be recorded in the Hansard, neither can the nod of appreciation from Terry, but that should also be included.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (14:01): I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of the Australian Political Exchange Council's 17th delegation from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and in particular to the Senate.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
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): For the information of senators, I inform the Senate that Senator Bob Carr will be absent from question time today and tomorrow. He is visiting Indonesia on foreign affairs, on official business. For question time this week, Senator the Hon. Penny Wong will take questions on foreign affairs and trade, and Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig will take questions on defence and veterans' affairs.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Federal Government
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:02): Mr Rudd must be confident about his numbers. My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Conroy. Can the Minister assure the Senate and the Australian people that the government, of which he is a member, is united and cohesive?
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) (14:02): Once again, those opposite have an opportunity to take advantage of the democratic process in this country—question time—and they could ask about any topic that they want, but as always they want to go the low road. They could ask, 'How robust is Australia's economic growth and performance?' and they would be told that we are the envy of the Western world. They could ask, 'What have you done in the health area?' and they would be told that we have significant reforms for more doctors, more nurses and more bed time. They could be asking about education; they could have the opportunity to support the single biggest reform in education—
Senator Ian Macdonald: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I ask you whether this is directly relevant to the question.
The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order.
Senator CONROY: They could ask a question about the levels of debt in this country, because they like to talk about it all the time, and they would be told that we have one of the lowest net debt ratios to GDP in the OECD. They could ask about our credit rating and they would be told that we have a AAA credit rating across all three of the agencies. They could ask about the unemployment rate and they would find out that we are at 5.5 per cent, well below the OECD average. They could ask about job creation. Those vandals over there were happy to see 200,000 Australians thrown on to the scrap heap, onto the dole, but this government stood firm during the global financial crisis and supported Australian families. We have, according to the February— (Time expired)
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:04): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note the question was completely avoided. Was it the low road for Mr Bob Hawke to say: 'If you can't govern yourselves, you cannot govern Australia'? Does the minister agree? Given the continuing chaos and dysfunction of the government and the instability and uncertainty surrounding the Prime Minister's continuing tenure in her high office and, hence, the tenure of all her ministers, how can the government claim to be putting the interest of all Australian people before its own?
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): This government is absolutely focused on delivering for Australian families; absolutely focused on addressing the real issues. That is why we are building the National Broadband Network. That is why we have created DisabilityCare, a national disability insurance scheme. That is why we are building a world-class education system through the National Plan for School Improvement. That is why we are focused on creating 950,000 jobs since we came to office, despite 28 million jobs being lost world wide. That is why we are keeping downward pressure on inflation, at 2.5 per cent, below the 10-year average of 2.8 per cent. That is why, because of the economic policies that we are focused on— (Time expired)
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:06): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Let's see if we can get an answer to this one: does the minister have any conception of how incompetent and untrustworthy he and his colleagues appear to Australian families in their self-interested manoeuvrings over the government's leadership? Does the minister understand that the Australian people deserve to be properly led by a competent and trustworthy government that keeps its promises, does what it says and always puts the interests of all Australians first?
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) (14:07): Those opposite introduced Work Choices with no notice to the Australian public. Mr Abbott cut health funding massively, after looking down the barrel of a camera and saying, 'I won't do it. I won't do it.'
Senator Fierravanti-Wells: That is not true.
Senator CONROY: It is true, Senator Fierravanti-Wells, because Mr Abbott was asked about it after the 2004 election. What do you think Mr Abbott said? 'I did think about resigning over that one, because, you know, I clearly got rolled in cabinet later. But, no, I decided to stay in the government.' You have got Mr Tony Abbott, who stared down the barrel of a TV camera and said, 'No, I will never do this, will never do this, while I am the health minister.' So, do not come in here—the party, with John Howard, that supported carbon pricing, the party that, during the election campaign in 2007, campaigned for carbon pricing, and the party that continues to want to bring back— (Time expired)
Climate Change
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (14:08): Mr President, my question this afternoon—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Pratt is entitled to be heard in silence. When Senator Pratt can be heard in silence I will give her the call. When there is silence we will proceed.
Senator PRATT: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation, Senator Lundy. Can the minister outline to the Senate the actions being taken in Australia and around the world to tackle what is dangerous climate change? How does this compare with predictions?
Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Territory—Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Sport) (14:09): A price on carbon is working to reduce emissions. Emissions in the National Electricity Market have fallen by 7.4 per cent in the first 11 months of the carbon price being in place. This action is not being taken in isolation.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Lundy is entitled to be heard in silence. If you wish to have private conversations, I invite you to go outside, but do not do so across the chamber.
Senator LUNDY: As I was saying, this action is not being taken in isolation. By the end of this year, around one billion people around the world will live in a city, province or country with a price on carbon. This includes provinces in China, our largest trading partner. Last week, the first of China's seven pilot emissions trading schemes kicked off in Shenzhen. The scheme will cover 600 companies responsible for 40 per cent of the city's emissions. The start of the scheme was not marked by the city being wiped off the map. Nor has the Shenzhen stock market crashed. In fact, at the end of the first day of the scheme, it closed not down but up.
For years the opposition has claimed that the rest of the world is not acting on climate change, and on more than 50 occasions they have said that China would never act. What we know is that a leader of the opposition is on the record as saying: 'China is never going to hit themselves with an emissions trading scheme.' Well, that is wrong. It is absolutely wrong, and we can see action taking place in China now. The fact is that the rest of the world is acting. With one billion people living in a place now with an emissions trading scheme in effect, this shows that the world is acting not only to contend with climate change but, of course, acting in line with Labor's approach. It is about time that those opposite started acknowledging the fact that this is part of a global movement to tackle climate change. It is the responsible thing to do, and, of course, that is why it is left to the Labor government to take this important action. (Time expired)
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I will give you the call, Senator Pratt, when there is silence on my left. If you wish to debate the issue the time is at three o'clock.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (14:12): Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Having spoken about international action, can the minister please advise what other world leaders are saying about climate change and what actions are being taken?
Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Territory—Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Sport) (14:12): Overnight, the President of the United States has made it clear, and I quote:
We don't have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society. Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it's not going to protect you from the coming storm. And ultimately, we will be judged as a people, and as a society, and as a country on where we go from here.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! If you wish to debate it, as I said, you debate it after question time, on both sides. When there is silence on both sides, we will proceed.
Senator LUNDY: Contrary to claims of those opposite, President Obama still prefers a market based approach, as he stated today.
In my State of the Union address, I urged Congress to come up with a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one that Republican and Democratic senators worked on together a few years ago. And I still want to see that happen. I'm willing to work with anyone to make that happen.
But this is a challenge that does not pause for partisan—
(Time expired)
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (14:14): Mr President, I have a further supplementary question. Can the minister advise how emissions can be reduced in alternative ways, and what might the costs be of such policies?
Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Territory—Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Sport) (14:14): As we can see, President Obama is working down the same path that Labor has. We are now approaching this in the only economically responsible way to reduce it, which is through a price on carbon. But we know these facts are an anathema to those opposite.
To achieve the same emissions reductions as our package the opposition would slug households $1,300 per year. Today, it has been revealed that they have dug another budget hole. Apparently Mr Abbott will repeal the carbon price immediately, and under the Liberals' plan the vast majority of industry assistance for the coming financial year will have already been paid out, yet the polluters will no longer be obliged to surrender their permits for their pollution. That is a $10 billion hit to their budget. They need to explain where that shortfall is coming from, otherwise they will be further exposed for their dishonesty in relation to their climate change policies.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The PRESIDENT (14:15): Order! I draw honourable senators' attention to the presence in the President's gallery of former Senator Ross Lightfoot. Welcome, former Senator Lightfoot.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Carbon Pricing
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (14:15): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I remind the minister of the Prime Minister's commitment that 'there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'. Why, then, does Australia have the world's biggest carbon tax?
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Wait a minute, Senator Cormann. Order! On my right. Senator Cormann, like every other senator, is entitled to be heard in silence. When there is silence we will proceed. On both sides.
Senator CORMANN: Thank you, Mr President. I again remind the minister that the Prime Minister made an emphatic promise before the last election that there would be no carbon tax under a government she leads. Why, then, does Australia have the biggest carbon tax in the world? It is a tax which is about to get bigger when Labor will hit families and businesses with yet another five per cent increase in the carbon tax.
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) (14:17): I thank and congratulate the senator on memorising that, this morning, in front of the mirror. In the election three years ago the Prime Minister said, 'Australia needed to act on climate change,' which is something that was not dissimilar to what Mr Howard said in 2007 and which was signed off by all of those deniers today. The Prime Minister said that our country needed to put a price on dangerous carbon pollution. That is exactly what John Howard wanted to do in 2007. It is what Mr Tony Abbott agreed when he was in cabinet. It is what Mr Abbott said in 2009. Just last week, as has already been mentioned by my colleague, China put a price on carbon. Last night President Obama set out how the world's largest economy is tackling climate change. We welcome President Obama's comments. They show that the world's largest economy is committed.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Conroy, just resume your seat. On my left and my right, if you wish to debate it, you debate it after three o'clock. I am entitled to listen to Senator Conroy in silence. Senator Conroy, continue.
Senator CONROY: Thank you, Mr President. As I was saying, we welcome President Obama's comments. They show that the world's largest economy is committed to tackling climate change. President Obama's plan takes action to cut carbon pollution in America. It prepares the US for the impacts of climate change and to lead international efforts to address global climate change. He said that he would establish carbon pollution standards— (Time expired)
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (14:19): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister explain why the Gillard Labor government designed its carbon tax, already the biggest carbon tax in the world, as a tax which will go up and up every year when families are already struggling to cope with cost-of-living pressures and businesses are already getting hit with massive increases in the cost of doing business in 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) (14:20): An oldie but a goodie is back—that python squeeze; that wrecking ball; Whyalla wiped off the map—they are all back over there. What we know is that this is just more proof that those opposite have no plan to deal with the challenges of global climate change. Their direct action plan just will not work. It is another reason that Mr Abbott will not live up to his blood oath to repeal the carbon price—he will not. The climate change departmental officials have told Senate estimates that soil carbon measures can only reduce emissions by around four million tonnes in 2020, which is less than five per cent of what Mr Tony Abbott is claiming for his plan. (Time expired)
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (14:21): Mr President, I ask a second supplementary question. Is there any chance that the Prime Minister will legislate to rescind the planned increase in the carbon tax on Monday to help struggling families and to help make business in Australia more competitive again?
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) (14:21): It is not surprising that those opposite do not want to talk about their plan. This is what Mr Tony Abbott said in November 2009.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Conroy. Senator Cormann.
Senator Cormann: Mr President, I rise on a point of order in relation to the requirement to be directly relevant. The minister has not been directly relevant in either the substantive or the supplementary question before us. This question was very specific about whether there was any scenario in which the Prime Minister would consider rescinding the increase in the carbon tax, which is planned for Monday. He is talking about Mr Abbott. That has nothing to do with the plans that the government may or may not have in relation to the planned increase in the carbon tax.
The PRESIDENT: I remind the minister of the question. You still have 43 seconds remaining.
Senator CONROY: As I said, those opposite do not want to talk about their plan. They will not acknowledge the following facts about the government's position. Emissions in the national electricity market were down 7.4 per cent in the first 11 months—that is 12 million tonnes less carbon pollution than for the same period last year. Renewable energy generation is up by almost 30 per cent.
Senator Brandis: I rise on a point of order on the requirement that the minister be directly relevant to the question asked. The question was: would the government consider rescinding the increase in the carbon tax to take pressure off families and businesses? The minister has not addressed that question. He has addressed, in general, the question of carbon pricing. He was asked whether the government would do one thing—that is, rescind the upcoming rise in the carbon tax. He has not addressed himself to that question.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: When there is silence—
Senator Jacinta Collins: On the point of order, Senator Conroy is being relevant to the government's policy position, which is clear and which he has outlined.
The PRESIDENT: With 43 seconds remaining in the question, I did ask the minister to address the question. I remind the minister of the question. The minister has 13 seconds to address the question.
Senator CONROY: Those opposite refuse to acknowledge the fact that their scare campaign about the impact of the carbon tax has been seen through by the Australian public. With all of the measures— (Time expired)
Climate Change
Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:24): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation, Senator Lundy. Is the minister aware that President Obama said, in his major speech on climate change:
Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation's interests.
And:
Our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.
If so, does the minister agree that allowing projects that exacerbate carbon pollution are not in the national interest? If she does agree that they are not in the national interest, will the government now reject coal extraction from the Galilee and Bowen basins because they significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution?
Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Territory—Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Sport) (14:25): The vast majority of coalmines in Australia are not emissions intensive, and will not face materially increased costs under a carbon price. Treasury modelling projects that under a carbon price the coal industry will grow. In addition, there is currently a $99 billion pipeline of investment into the coalmining sector, with 93 new projects either just completed, under construction or awaiting approval.
Therefore, the government recognises that there are a small number of gassy underground mines that have high methane emissions and will face increased costs under a carbon price. We have addressed this in the coal sector jobs package. After taking into account the assistance for gassy mines, the average impact of the carbon price on coalmines will be reduced. So the answer to your question is that we believe strongly that we are able to manage our plan to reduce the emissions from the coal sector in Australia over time. We will be able to do this with the carbon price in place.
Going back to the point you made about statements from the President of the United States, we warmly welcome the US President's commitment to reducing emissions across the US. We know that the President said that the science is unequivocal and that the US plans to take a leadership role in acting, and, most importantly, that the best policy for reducing pollution is through a market mechanism.
Any claim, as we have heard from those opposite, that the President does not support emissions trading, is just one more mendacious claim to add to a growing list of— (Time expired)
Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:27): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister well knows that the reference is not to fugitive emissions but to burnt coal exported from Australia. So I ask her again: does she accept that coal from the Galilee and Bowen basins extracted from Australia and burnt wherever in the world will exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution, and is therefore not in our, or anybody else's, national interest? Is that the case, Minister?
Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Territory—Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Sport) (14:28): Australia is of the view that all nations should be taking action on climate change. That is why we have welcomed the action that has taken place recently in China. That is why we welcomed the statement of the US President just yesterday. That is why when we act we do so with leadership, knowledge and understanding that we are acting amongst a growing number of nations around the world.
I mentioned in an earlier answer that some one billion people around the world now live in a province, region or country where an emissions trading scheme is in effect, is in operation. We will continue to promote and propagate our view around the world that all nations need to take action on climate change in conjunction with us. I think the recent actions, as I said before, show that Australia— (Time expired)
Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:29): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Is the minister aware that Senator Obama also called for Congress to end the tax breaks for big oil companies? If so, does the government agree it is time to end tax breaks for fossil fuel companies, in particular the $2 billion fuel tax credit for the big miners in Australia?
Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Territory—Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Sport) (14:29): Can I answer the question this way. I do not know how many more ways I can describe the Labor government's commitment to taking action on climate change. We are doing so in a responsible way that allows our industry sectors to transform to a low-carbon future. We have done that with a comprehensive plan of an emissions trading scheme, which is not only implemented but also is going particularly well. We are doing it with a renewable energy target, and we are doing it with a series of investments through our Clean Technology Program in businesses to help them reduce their carbon footprint. With these mechanisms in place, along with investments in companies that are seeking to reduce their carbon footprint and improve their technologies, we believe we have the balance right. Mr President, can I remind you— (Time expired)
Carbon Pricing
Senator RYAN (Victoria) (14:31): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Conroy. I refer the minister to comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business earlier this week:
Small businesses don't pay the carbon price - it is a price paid by Australia's biggest polluters.
Given the Prime Minister confirmed last week that, as of July 2014, transport fuels are covered by the carbon tax, doesn't this mean that thousands of additional small businesses in the transport sector will now actually be paying even more for Labor's carbon tax through higher fuel prices?
Government senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order, on my right! Senator Ryan has asked a question and I need silence on both my right and my left.
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) (14:32): Once again those opposite seek to misrepresent the facts to the Australian public. Those opposite continue with their fear campaign. They deliberately misrepresent and overstate the impact of the carbon tax. The carbon tax, according to those opposite, was going to wreak havoc across the economy. What have we seen?
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order, on both sides!
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: When there is silence on both sides we will proceed. Order on my right and on my left!
Senator CONROY: Those opposite have no end to their misleading and deceptive discussion on this issue. As the Council of Small Business Australia data shows, the electricity cost of a typical small retail business makes up less than two per cent of total costs—less than two per cent. So a 10 per cent price increase would be less than 0.2 per cent of total costs. For a typical small business using 10 megawatt hours of electricity per year, this is around $5 per week.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator CONROY: In most cases, business electricity costs are expected to be passed on, and have been taken into account in the design of the government's Household Assistance Package, which is delivering tax cuts, higher family payments and an increase in pensions.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator CONROY: And we have put in place a range of programs.
The PRESIDENT: Order! It is not much use, if you are asking for an answer to the question, debating it whilst the question is being answered. There should be no-one interjecting from the other side as well. Senator Conroy, continue—you have 15 seconds.
Senator CONROY: We have put in place a range of programs to support small business. For example, we have increased the instant asset write-off to $6,500. So, for those opposite to continue— (Time expired)
Senator RYAN (Victoria) (14:34): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware of ASIC data which shows that small business insolvencies have hit a record high over the past 12 months, since the carbon tax was introduced? When will the government finally concede that its carbon tax has made the operating and input costs of running a small business more expensive at a time when few have the capacity to absorb this impost or pass it on to consumers?
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) (14:35): Never let the facts get in the way of the opposition's propaganda. I will repeat myself, because it is clear that, despite the fact that I have already answered this, those opposite are reading out their pre-prepared questions. So let me again state: the Council of Small Business Australia data shows the electricity cost of a typical small retail business makes up less than two per cent of total costs.
Senator Ryan: You have no idea.
Senator CONROY: Oh, it is not what you hear—well, you should get out more. A 10 per cent price increase would be less than 0.2 per cent of total costs. So I repeat: for a typical small business using 10 megawatt hours of electricity per year, this is around $5 a week. So those involved in this hysterical, deceitful—(Time expired)
Senator RYAN (Victoria) (14:35): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. The minister is right, I was reading. I can read, and I can also count. I refer the minister to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Small Business Pre-Election Survey, which reported that 63 per cent of small businesses nominated abolition of the carbon tax as the most important thing the government could do to help their small business—63 per cent. Why won't the government rescind the planned five per cent increase in the carbon tax due next Monday in order to give small business some help—or do we have to wait for tomorrow morning's ballot?
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) (14:36): As I said, never let the facts or the truth get in the way of an opposition in question time. The fact they do not like—more than any other—is that the carbon price is working.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator CONROY: It is driving investment in new renewable energy sources and it is reducing emissions. Emissions in the national electricity market fell by 7.4 per cent in the first 11 months—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator CONROY: I know those opposite do not want to accept simple, straightforward facts. The emissions in the national electricity market fell by 7.4 per cent in the first 11 months of carbon pricing. That is a reduction of 12 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. We have also seen electricity generation from renewable energy that is sold on the national electricity market increase by almost 30 per cent. It is doing this— (Time expired)
Science and Research
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:38): My question is to the Minister for Science and Research, Senator Farrell. Can the minister explain to the Senate why the strategic research priorities are important for supporting Australia's ongoing research excellence?
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Minister for Science and Research and Minister Assisting on Tourism) (14:38): I thank Senator Polley for her very good question and her ongoing interest in the world-class science research that Australia conducts under this government. Last Friday I joined the Prime Minister, the Chief Scientist and Minister Emerson at the Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, where we launched the government's strategic research priorities. These strategic research priorities took the place of the national research priorities. This change was foreshadowed in the Australian government's National Research Investment Plan released in November 2012.
There are 15 priorities and they are designed to drive Australia's research investment. The priorities align with the societal changes covering issues of immediate and critical importance to Australia. These challenges addressed the priorities of living in a changed environment, promoting population health and wellbeing, managing food and water assets, securing Australia's place in a changing world and, most importantly, lifting productivity and economic growth.
Senator Abetz interjecting—
Senator FARRELL: I am glad you agree, Senator Abetz. Universities Australia chief executive, Belinda Robertson, welcomed these priorities. She said: 'The priorities provide a focus to support prudent research investment decision making and will help to ensure that the return to the nation on this investment is maximised.' These priorities— (Time expired)
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:40): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister outline how the Gillard government has invested in the science, research and innovation sector to ensure all Australians benefit from our world-class research?
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Minister for Science and Research and Minister Assisting on Tourism) (14:41): I thank Senator Polley for her very insightful supplementary question. Under this government, investment in science, research and innovation has increased by nearly 30 per cent compared with the previous Howard coalition government. In the 2013-14 budget we committed $185 million, over two years, to continue with the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, or NCRIS. NCRIS funds projects in support of important research work that will benefit future generations. We have also committed a further $135 million over the next five years to extend the Future Fellowship Scheme, which will provide for 150 more scholarships. The Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, based in Hobart, received an extra $25 million over the next five years. We have invested $200 million— (Time expired)
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:42): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister outline how these investment support our economy and our jobs?
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Minister for Science and Research and Minister Assisting on Tourism) (14:42): I thank Senator Polley for another very good supplementary question.
Senator Abetz interjecting—
Senator FARRELL: Yes, well researched, as Senator Abetz said. Our investment in the Hobart based Antarctic CRC will support Tasmanian jobs. The Antarctic sector is very important to the Tasmanian economy and is worth nearly $200 million per year. Around 1,000 people are employed in this sector supporting nearly 100 small and medium enterprises. You may laugh about it, Senator Abetz, but this is very important to the people of Tasmania and it is a good decision for this government to make. Our $100 million investment in the new health and biomedical facility, supporting life-saving research and training for the next generation of healthcare professionals— (Time expired)
Carbon Pricing
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:43): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Conroy. I refer the minister to the confirmation given by the Prime Minister last week that, if Labor is re-elected, the carbon tax will be expanded to include coverage of heavy on-road vehicles—truckies—from 1 July next year when the carbon tax will increase to $25.40. Will the minister inform the Senate exactly how much extra truck operators will be paying per litre of diesel in 2014-15 under Labor thanks to the continued expansion of the carbon tax?
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) (14:44): I thank Senator Williams for his question. All fuel for passenger motor vehicles, including petrol, diesel and LPG, and fuel for light on-road commercial vehicles is not subject to a carbon price. Households and most small businesses already pay fuel excise on their transport fuel and do not face a further carbon price. That is because the government knows that fuel costs are a major expense for family budgets. The government has carefully considered the treatment of fuel to balance the needs of households and most small businesses, who already pay the highest rate of excise, and those who pay little or no excise. The combustion of fuel creates carbon pollution, and putting an effective price on that pollution through the excise system for some fuel users plays an important role in creating an incentive to switch to lower emission fuels, use zero emission biofuels and use fuel more efficiently. Biofuels will not be subject to an effective carbon price. There is no adjustment of fuel tax credits for heavy on-road vehicles for the first two years. This has given trucking businesses time to get their systems and contractual arrangements in place. The government's comprehensive Household Assistance Package takes full account of the extent to which these modest increased costs flow through to household budgets. It will have a very modest impact on transport costs, adding around 29c to the cost of moving a tonne of goods 100 kilometres. The transport industry already deals with the frequent movements in international fuel prices, which regularly have a much greater impact than are proposed for the effective carbon price. (Time expired)
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:46): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, which, if any, trucks will be exempt from paying more for their diesel fuel under the new carbon tax diesel cost plan by your government?
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): Transport is not directly subject to a carbon price under the government's carbon pricing mechanism. They do not need to buy and surrender permits. However, some businesses get fuel tax credits, which means they pay no excise or just pay a road user charge. Fuel tax credits have been reduced for some businesses, such as mining businesses, who use fuel off-road so that they face an effective carbon price. Heavy on-road vehicles will be exempted for the first two years, as I have said, but the government does intend to bring them into the system from 2014-15.
Senator Williams: Mr President, I raise a point of order on relevance. Which if any trucks will be exempted from the carbon tax fuel levy? It is a simple question. Are there any, and which ones?
The PRESIDENT: I believe the minister is answering the question. The minister still has 15 seconds remaining.
Senator CONROY: Fuel tax credit entitlements will not change for agriculture, forestry and fisheries, meaning they do not face an effective carbon price. As aviation does not receive fuel tax credits, the government increased domestic— (Time expired)
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:48): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Are industry estimates of the tax being more than a $500 million slug on Australian truck operators accurate, and are these increases supported by key stakeholders such as your beloved Transport Workers Union, who have described the carbon tax as a death tax?
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) (14:48): Those opposite will continue to spread any disinformation that they can. Already today we have seen claims about job losses and we have seen claims about companies being closed, all ignoring the fundamental facts of the economy: the growth in the economy, the growth in jobs, the growth in economic activity and the growth of our economy overall. So those opposite have no real interest except in trying to mislead the Australian public consistently. They want no-one to examine their alternative policy. They want no-one to examine what Mr Abbott has consistently said on this issue because Mr Abbott has changed his position time after time. (Time expired)
National Security
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (14:50): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Senator Ludwig. It follows a series of questions I asked last week. Has the Australian Signals Directorate or another intelligence agency directly or indirectly obtained access to strategic components of the National Broadband Network in order to facilitate surveillance or monitoring of Australians?
Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery) (14:50): I thank Senator Xenophon for his continued interest in Australian Signals Directorate. All communication interception activities by government agencies are conducted in strict accordance with Australian law. In Australia the privacy of communications is protected by the telecommunications interception and access regime—it is referred to as the interception act. I think it is worthwhile repeating that—many in this chamber would have been on many committees that have firsthand knowledge of this, including Senator Xenophon—the interception act prohibits the listening to, copying or recording of a communication as it passes over an Australian telecommunications system. Communications in Australia can only be intercepted under a warrant. Agencies such as the police must obtain and independently issue warrants for the investigation of serious offences. ASIO, itself, has to obtain the authorisation of the Attorney-General for its warrants on matters pertaining to national security.
Senator Xenophon: Mr President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question was very clear: has the Australian Signals Directorate or another intelligence agency sought to have access to the NBN in order to facilitate surveillance?
Senator Wong: On the point of order, Mr President: Senator Ludwig is outlining the framework which applies under the law to any surveillance activity. What I would suggest is that that is entirely relevant to a question that is all about whether or not any such activity may or may not have been undertaken.
The PRESIDENT: I believe that the minister is answering the question.
Senator LUDWIG: What I was doing was providing the answer, which is in this framework: as a matter of principle and of longstanding practice, may I say, the government does not comment on intelligence matters. However, having said that, I can say that communications interception activities carried out by government agencies are conducted, as I said, in strict accordance with Australian law. I can also say that we do have a very strong legal framework, particularly to protect Australian citizens, around this area. Intelligence Services Act 2001 agencies, such as the Australian Signals Directorate and the Australian geospatial intelligence organisation, are required by law to obtain specific authorisation. (Time expired)
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (14:53): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The question was: has the Australian Signals Directorate or any other intelligence agency sought access to the NBN for the purpose of surveillance, not just interception, as defined in the legislation, but also metadata collection? That is the nub of it. Can the minister answer directly a very direct and discrete question on this issue?
Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery) (14:54): It is the same answer that I have given. This is a repackaged version of the primary question. Again, I will belabour this point, it is a longstanding practice of successive governments not to comment on intelligence matters. Having said that, we do have a very strong legal framework for the protection of Australian citizens in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act. It is and has been very longstanding. Both ASIO and Defence Signals Directorate have a strong legislative framework that ensures the Australian public are protected in privacy matters. There are requirements, as I was saying earlier, for specific authorisation, either from the minister, the Minister for Defence or the Minister for Foreign Affairs to produce intelligence on an Australian. (Time expired)
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (14:55): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Does the minister acknowledge that you do not actually need a specific authorisation for metadata collection, that you do not need a warrant? And given that United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18 defines interception as occurring not when phone calls, emails and electronic data are stored but when a human actually accesses that information, is it the case that Australia's Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act and the Surveillance Devices Act provide no oversight at all of any mass surveillance of Australians, including surveillance via the NBN?
Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery) (14:55): Again, Senator Xenophon does want more information, and of course we do have a committee which has oversight of this area, the PJCIS. They are in what I would call a unique place in this parliament to provide information from these particular agencies.
What I am not going to do on behalf of the defence minister is get into an argument about what type of intelligence material is dealt with. As I have said, there is a longstanding policy, and I am not going to go into the detail. What I will say about that policy is not only is it a policy that both this government and successive governments have abided by in not talking about intelligence matters; it does seem to be a tiff between Senator Xenophon and Senator— (Time expired)
Carbon Pricing
Senator RUSTON (South Australia) (14:56): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Conroy. I refer the minister to Labor's planned review of the carbon tax required to be undertaken in the next term of parliament under Labor's own carbon tax laws. It requires consideration of the effectiveness of the coverage of emissions and potential emissions under the carbon tax. Will the minister rule out a re-elected Labor government ever expanding the coverage of the carbon tax to the agricultural sector or the family car?
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) (14:57): The government has made its position on these issues very clear. Agricultural emissions are excluded from the carbon price mechanism and the sector will receive significant assistance to transition to a low-carbon future. Agricultural emissions from livestock and fertiliser use and fuel used by agricultural activities are exempt from the carbon price.
The Carbon Farming Initiative will create new economic opportunities for farmers and other landholders who take action to reduce emissions. The CFI is supported by a $1.5 billion Land Sector Package, which reinvests carbon price revenue in our land sector, including through the Biodiversity Fund and Carbon Farming Futures program. The coalition plans to rip up these programs and cut the essential capacity-building and research which they support through regional Australia. Treasury modelling shows that, with agricultural emissions excluded from a carbon price, gross output in the agricultural sector is projected to be higher with a carbon price than without. The sector is projected to grow by over 130 per cent by 2050, and this modelling does not take into account all of the programs that will assist the sector in the CEF package. For example, the $200 million Clean Technology Food and Foundries Investment Program is providing funding to assist food processors improve their productivity through investments in low-pollution capital equipment, and in the budget the government announced it will bring forward $160 million in Clean Technology Investment Program funding to 2014-15. (Time expired)
Senator RUSTON (South Australia) (14:59): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer the minister to government plans—and his answers to previous questions here today—to expand the coverage of the carbon tax to heavy on-road vehicles. Given you admit to extending the tax to trucking operators, can you confirm that this will cost the trucking industry over $500 million next year; and why should Australian families have any confidence that the family car will not be next?
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) (15:00): I would make the point that some of my colleagues have—that that is almost identical to Senator Williams's question. I repeat: transport is not directly subject to a carbon price under the government's carbon-pricing mechanism.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia) (15:00): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given the Prime Minister's promise immediately before the last election—
Senator Birmingham interjecting—
Senator Conroy: Senator Birmingham, couldn't you get a question up today?
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Order, on my right and my left. Senator Ruston is entitled to be heard in silence—on both sides.
Senator RUSTON: Given the Prime Minister's promise immediately before the last election that there would be no carbon tax under the government that she led—which was broken in spectacular style—coupled with the government's existing plans to extend the carbon tax to the Australian trucking industry, why should Australian farmers or families believe any assurances Labor gives that it will not extend the carbon tax beyond that in the future?
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) (15:01): Those opposite continue to try to airbrush out of history their own, Howard government position on this issue. It is just, 'Nothing to talk about over here; move on, move on,' because Mr Howard took, to the 2007 election, a carbon price.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator CONROY: I know it's hard!
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Order on both sides.
Senator CONROY: Because this is what Mr Abbott said—this is what he said; he just airbrushed it out of history:
The Howard Government proposed an emissions trading scheme because this seemed the best way to obtain the highest emission reduction at the lowest cost.
That was from his own book, on page 171. Then, of course, he said that the politics of this issue have changed. I think the politics of this issue have changed dramatically, because he had already described in very unflattering terms, which I suspect you would make me withdraw if I repeated— (Time expired)
Senator Conroy: Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Question No. 2980
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (15:03): Mr President, pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask Senator Conroy, the Minister representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, for an explanation as to why an answer has not been provided to question on notice No. 2980, asked on 16 May 2013, relating to the Point Peron canal development in the Perth metropolitan area.
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) (15:03): I have no advice at this point in time, Senator Ludlam. I am happy to take that on notice to see what I can find for you. I have not received any information.
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (15:03): I move:
That the Senate take note of the minister's failure to provide either an answer or explanation.
Obviously, it is not Senator Conroy's fault if the minister that he represents in here has not sent across a brief. But we have been in touch with the minister for environment; we gave them plenty of notice that I was going to put this matter to the chamber. As everyone in this chamber knows, answers to questions on notice are due within 30 days and the clock is running down on this parliament, and I am very keen for an answer to this question because it pertains to events occurring right now in my home state of Western Australia. This question, having been asked on 16 May 2013, should actually have been answered last week. It concerns a recommendation in April by the Western Australian EPA that the unwanted and obsolete Point Peron canal development should proceed so long as it meets certain conditions.
I would like to categorically emphasise the absolute rejection of this approval by the scientific community and the broader community of the region. Three hundred and eighty individual questions and matters have been submitted as part of the EPA appeal process. It is not just me who is keen for an answer; there are at least 8,000 people in Rockingham also waiting on an answer about the future of their backyard.
Point Peron is a place that they consider and we in the Greens consider is too precious to lose. This is a place that they and we will fight ferociously to defend from Premier Barnett's absolutely preposterous and obsolete 1980s-style canal housing development, which nobody in the region wants. If it is allowed to proceed, it will see the regional park on Point Peron bulldozed; the seagrass meadows and marine habitat of penguins, dolphins, fisheries and countless species in Mangles Bay dredged; and the adjoining freshwater Lake Richmond, which is home to one of just two surviving ancient thrombolite communities in WA, impacted very severely upon.
Question 2980 has several components, on all of these issues, and environmental vandalism is part and parcel of the Barnett government's unhappy reign. These issues are raised every day by the Greens across Australia as the only voice in parliament that is actually standing up for our precious environment.
This particular case is very different. The land in question was transferred from the Commonwealth to the state of Western Australia in 1964 on the strict condition that its future use be restricted to a reserve for recreation and/or parklands. The Commonwealth in 1968 then confirmed that the land must not be used for private industrial, commercial or residential development—a good commitment. Will the Commonwealth require the Western Australian government to honour these commitments—these commitments that were signed? The minister for finance in 2011 indicated in written correspondence, which I will quote: 'The Federal government has an expectation that the WA government will acknowledge the undertakings previously given in relation to the site.'
So it is a very simple question: will a written agreement signed between the state of Western Australia and the Commonwealth be honoured or not? Is a signed agreement an agreement or not? I expect an answer to my question 2980 very soon, and I ask that the government treat this particular development with the utmost caution. I would particularly commend Senator Conroy to bring a brief from the environment minister while this parliament still stands. It is not good enough for the campaigners, led by the inexhaustible Dawn Jecks, who has been pursuing state and federal governments on this matter for years; or my state Greens colleague Lynn MacLaren MLC, who has been working on this issue for years, representing the broad interests of the community of that part of the Perth metro area who do not want an unwanted and obsolete eighties-style canal development rammed into the coastline that they treat with such respect and regard.
This is a matter that the Commonwealth environment minister could put to rest very, very easily by simply noting that the Commonwealth will expect the Western Australian government to honour its agreement that was signed so many years ago when these agreements were exchanged. That is something that we believe should be clarified and resolved in this parliament and set to rest. Otherwise, we will continue to run the campaign all the way through and out the other side of the federal election, until this place is given the regard and the protection that it so richly deserves.
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (15:08): I wish to speak on the motion to take note as well. I say to the previous speaker—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, Senator Macdonald; I will just clarify. It is not a motion to take note; it is a motion that the minister has failed to supply an answer.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: I thought the senator moved that they take note of the minister's lack of answer.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, it is failure to supply. In the standing orders, there are two distinct motions. This one is not taking note of the answer.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Whatever the motion, that is the one I want to speak to.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You can speak to it.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Mr Deputy President, thank you for that guidance. I say to the previous speaker that the arrogance shown by Minister Conroy and Minister Burke just shows the contempt in which this government holds the Australian public, and yet this is a government that Senator Ludlam and his team have kept in power for the last three years. Fancy the hypocrisy of the Greens political party in complaining about Senator Conroy and Mr Burke, when they have kept them in power in the last three years!
This refusal, the cavalier way in which ministers in this chamber simply ignore the rules of the Senate and ignore senators who ask questions and expect answers and the way in which they simply do not follow the forms of a democratic parliament—that contempt is typical of the contempt with which the Labor Party have treated Australians in the last three years, from the time when the Prime Minister promised solemnly, hand on heart, that she would never introduce a carbon tax, and then immediately and capriciously and knowingly broke that solemn promise, until today, when ministers completely ignore the processes of democracy by refusing to answer questions. When Senator Ludlam, as a Greens senator, as part of the Labor-Greens alliance, gives notice to the minister that he is going to raise this, does the minister do anything about it at all? Absolutely nothing. The contempt and the arrogance with which the Labor Party treat this parliament is palpable.
If the people of Australia need any other reason, any other evidence, of how poor this government is, they only have to look at the way in which the Labor Party treat with contempt the people of Australia in the way they run this parliament.
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia) (15:11): I was not intending to contribute on Senator Ludlam's motion regarding Senator Conroy, but I was inspired by Senator Macdonald to do so and indeed inspired out of deep concern about the pattern of behaviour that Senator Ludlam's motion highlights with regard to Senator Conroy and the approach that he and his office take to the answering of questions.
Senator Ludlam may come into this chamber today and complain that Senator Conroy's office and Senator Conroy have failed to answer questions in a timely manner, but this is hardly the first occasion on which such a failure has occurred. We have had countless instances, both through the chamber and in particular through the Senate estimates process, where Senator Conroy has proven himself to be a serial offender in failing to answer questions in a timely manner or within the time limit set by the standing orders for this chamber or by the committees with regard to the return of questions on notice.
I can recall sitting in Senate estimates committees where Senator Conroy has provided answers to questions that had been asked three, four or five months previously—and he has done so not weeks, not days, not even hours before the committee is to meet again but while the committee is meeting. While the committee is meeting, some months after the preceding Senate estimates, we get answers to questions asked at the previous Senate estimates. It is a completely contemptuous approach, a terrible precedent that this minister sets as the Leader of the Government in the Senate for all his fellow ministers in terms of the standards that they should be adhering to in being accountable to the parliament. That is what questions are for—a level of accountability, accountability through questions without notice and questions on notice in this chamber and of course accountability through the Senate estimates processes.
On all of these levels, Senator Conroy is a demonstrated failure. He fails in this place to give answers to the questions that are asked of him, he fails to answer questions on notice in any sort of timely way and he fails abysmally to provide any type of answer in relation to Senate estimates proceedings. I am pleased that Senator Ludlam has called Senator Conroy out today and brought attention to this one instance, but I would hate for anybody to leave here thinking it is just one instance. There are many other instances that Senator Conroy and other ministers in this government are guilty of, and it is to their shame, just as it is to the shame of the Australian Greens that it is only now, in the dying days of this government, that they have started to highlight such failures on the government's part.
Question agreed to.
Carbon Pricing
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia) (15:14): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to questions without notice asked by Senator Cormann, Ryan, Ruston and Williams today relating to the carbon tax.
Three years ago, we were told by Ms Julia Gillard, the then new Prime Minister, that she was taking charge of a good government that had lost its way. That was the justification given by Ms Gillard for her unprecedented seizing of the reins of the Labor Party leadership and the prime ministership of this country from Mr Kevin Rudd. She claimed that it was a good government that had lost its way; that caused people like Senator Farrell, Senator Feeney and Mr Shorten to engineer unprecedented change; and that saw the Australian people effectively go to bed one night with one prime minister and wake up the following morning to discover they had a different prime minister. The Australian people had absolutely no say in the matter, which was decided by the factional controllers of the Labor Party.
It may then have been a good government that had lost its way, but now it is simply a government that is lost. Whether it is under Mr Rudd or Ms Gillard, this Labor government long ago lost any sense of unity. As the old saying goes: 'If you can't govern yourselves, you can't govern the country.' That is clear from what we see from those opposite. The ongoing civil war in this government really knows no boundaries. Long ago, this government equally lost any credibility for its financial management of the country, with the record debts we have seen, the record levels of deficit and the promises to return the country to surplus this year, only to have those promises broken. This government long ago lost the confidence of the Australian people in its ability to successfully deliver any of its programs—be they the school halls program, which saw massive cost blow-outs and caused a great waste of taxpayer money; be it the pink batts program—
Senator Carol Brown: On a point of order, Mr Deputy President: my understanding was that Senator Birmingham was taking note of the answers by Senator Conroy to questions in question time today, except for Senator Abetz's question. So far, Senator Birmingham has got nowhere near the questions or the answers given. I ask you to draw him back to the questions.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham is in order. He is responding to some of the content of the answers given by Senator Conroy. As you know, there is some latitude to the debate, providing you stick to the topic. Senator Birmingham is relevant.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: This government long ago lost any ability to claim to be making Australia more competitive, especially because of its carbon price. It is one of the many features of how this government has lost its way and its credibility—the carbon tax, the mining tax and making Australia's business environment one of the least cost competitive places in the Western world to do business. It is to the shame of this government that its policies, including those discussed today, are such a demonstration of how much it has lost its way. We now have the reality that this government has lost any sense of moral compass whatsoever, as each of its members spends far more time worrying about their own jobs than they do about the jobs of other Australians. Every single member of this government seems completely preoccupied, not with the impact of the carbon tax, not with the hurt to levels of confidence in the Australian business community and not with the hurt to the competitiveness of Australian business but with the bad polls that are afflicting their government and what they can do about it by changing the Labor leadership. Now, to be frank, the government have reached the point where they have lost any right to be taken seriously at all.
The cannibalisation of the Labor government is an amazing feat to watch. We have now seen leadership ballots and battles in June 2010, in February 2012, in March 2013 and now, again, in June 2013. It would all be a big joke if it were not so serious in terms of the harm it is doing to the country and if it were not for the fact that, with the sideshow happening opposite, the government have completely lost sight of the important policies and the harm that some of their policies, like the carbon tax, are doing to the Australian people. While the sideshow continues, Australia continues to suffer, with the highest carbon tax in the world and the broadest coverage of any carbon tax in the world, with an increase next year, an increase the year after that, with the expansion of the coverage to the trucking industry and with Senator Conroy today failing to rule out hitting the family farm or family car as well.
Senator FURNER (Queensland) (15:20): Once again, today in question time we heard a perpetuation of the fear and smear campaign that those opposite have delivered consistently, along their path of opposition, as critics of the emissions-trading scheme that we have introduced as a government. Many years ago, the Senate Select Committee on Climate Policy that Senator Feeney and I were both on heard at first-hand evidence from economists explaining why we needed to introduce a emissions-trading scheme in our country, to serve it well and look after our unique environment.
Let us look at the report card on the scheme, what this scheme has delivered since 1 July. For a start, emissions in the National Electricity Market are down now by 7.4 per cent. Renewable energy generation is up almost 30 per cent. I recall, during those inquiry hearings, people coming to us and explaining the renewable energy possibilities in this country, as far down south as the Great Ocean—wave energy, solar energy, wind technology. But all of those possibilities have generated one thing that I know those opposite have an issue with, and that is jobs. They will stop the jobs in this country if they are elected, because they will wind back all our renewable energy targets and accomplishments.
According to the report card, as a result of our emissions-trading scheme, there have been 150,000 new jobs created. If it were not for our scheme, those 150,000 jobs would not have been created. We know those opposite will stop the jobs if they are elected, as a result of them winding back the emissions-trading scheme. We also know that they will claw back the good household assistance packages that were provided to many low-income earners and pensioners around the country. Those opposite claim that they will not take those amounts back off them, but we know that is a fallacy. We know that that is the situation their actions will lead to.
Recently, I was privileged to visit a sauce manufacturing company in the southern industrial areas of Yatala, on the way down to the Gold Coast. I was down there a few weeks ago. It is only a small company—and we heard today in the chamber questions about the impact of emissions trading on small businesses. This is a small business of a little under 70 employees. But, as a result of our assistance as a government in granting them a bit over $109,000, accompanied by their own contribution, they have installed renewable energy technologies. There are solar panels on the roofs of the factory building now, generating solar energy back into the enterprise to make sure that they are getting the benefit out of doing something for the environment, because in doing that they are cutting their emissions. In addition, that is helping them to reduce their power bills by $19,000 and they are intensifying their operations by 31 per cent. That is what this sort of scheme is all about—assisting small businesses, assisting the environment and protecting people from the effects of climate change.
I want to address what is happening in my own state. Up there we have a conservative government. I have never seen such a conservative government in my life. The Liberal National Party up there—
Senator Sterle interjecting—
Senator FURNER: Senator Sterle, I will take that interjection. It would be a stark comparison between the two states to see which is the more conservative. Up there they are increasing electricity prices twofold. We have people out on the streets after the Premier up there sacked over 25,000 employees in that state. They are struggling on their knees, yet the Liberal-National Party Premier in Queensland wants to jack up electricity prices. You can imagine what that is doing to the economy and what it will do to people in that area. It is disgraceful that we see that sort of conduct from a Liberal-National Party government in my home state of Queensland. That is just a curtain-raiser for what we will see in this nation should we be extremely unfortunate and see those opposite form government in this nation. (Time expired)
Senator EDWARDS (South Australia) (15:26): I rise to also take note of the answers given by Senator Conroy to questions asked by Senators Cormann, Ryan, Williams and Ruston. I want to take the chamber back—and it is good to see a couple of TWU old fellows on the other side here to listen—
Government senators interjecting—
Senator EDWARDS: Three of you, sorry, I apologise, Senator Furner.
Government senators interjecting—
Senator EDWARDS: Senator Feeney, the soon-to-be member for Batman I think. Of course, it would have been far better if you were a woman, Senator Feeney; it would not have caused anywhere near the controversy. But I digress. Three years ago on Monday last was the changeover to the now Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. What time is it? Is she still the Prime Minister? It is half past three. I am not quite sure who is the Prime Minister.
Senator Furner: I rise on a point of order, Deputy President. It is the same point of order that Senator Brown took earlier. The questions that were put to the government in question time related to the carbon price. The question that related to leadership and other speculation was from Senator Abetz to Senator Conroy. I draw your attention to the fact that the senator over there is misleading the chamber with regard to taking note of answers.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you for the point of order. You are starting to debate it.
Senator Feeney: I rise on the same point of order, Deputy President. From the government's perspective this performance is so terrible that I have no desire to interrupt it.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order, Senator Feeney. Senator Edwards, I draw your attention to the motion before the chair. You have not addressed the substance of the motion in your opening remarks. I am sure you are about to move there.
Senator EDWARDS: I am. In relation to the carbon tax questions, I am not quite sure where I can go back to, whether to Prime Minister Rudd's ETS proposal for which he was axed and brought down without an election or whether to Prime Minister Gillard's carbon tax that she introduced after going to the election saying, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'. However, we have got a carbon tax. In actual fact it is the biggest carbon tax in the world by far. I point out that this week the price of carbon in Europe is around five euros, which is around $6.87 in our money. And you are proposing to put it up. I was very pleased to hear that the opposition climate spokesman, Greg Hunt, moved to suspend the standing orders to allow him to call on the government to scrap the increase which is proposed for 1 July, a five per cent increase on the biggest carbon tax in the world.
I really find it quite amusing when those on the other side, the Labor Party, talk about small business. They are the only government in this country that has taken big business to small business. I know because I still am involved in business. I do not know too many small businesses that use 10 megawatt hours a year. It must be somebody sitting at home with their computer on. It works out to a $260 increase. That is a lot of hot dinners. You can dumb it down. It is called reduction to the ridiculous: $5 a week, yes. Let us just reduce it. What is that a day? It is less than a dollar a day. It does not really matter, but, on top of all the other dollars a day that have gone on in the reign of this Rudd-Gillard government, there are just so many of them.
In answer to Senator Williams on fuel for heavy transport: 'Oh, it's only 29c.'
Senator EDWARDS: He said 29c a tonne per hundred kilometres. I am quite happy for you to take it up with him, Senator Gallacher, if you think it is 27. But I will only apply it to my own experience: for 7,000 tonnes of grapes coming through a winery with an average trip of about 200 kilometres per trip, that is an increased impost on that business of $4,060 per annum. But let us just reduce it, dumb it down, to that argument where the punters out there will not have any idea as to what on earth you are talking about. Anybody that drives a truck—
Government senators interjecting—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! You continue, Senator Edwards. Order on my right!
Senator EDWARDS: Thank you. These trucks are going to be exempt, aren't they? For what? For two years. Okay, but it is coming at you like a tsunami. Where is Tony Sheldon on this one? Where is Tony Sheldon, your boss, on all these things? He is nowhere to be seen. It is—what do they call it?—a death tax. Road users get a carbon tax. How ridiculous. They are already paying an excise, and so are mums and dads, but you did not rule that out. Senator Conroy did not rule that out in his answers, did he? And look out for the farmers: you are coming after them as well.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (15:32): It is always a pleasure to follow Senator Edwards—and I say that tongue in cheek, Mr Deputy President. I just think we have to clarify a couple of silly statements from Senator Edwards. We are 'coming for the farmers'—what a ridiculous statement. The minister has made that very, very clear. You know that that is a mistruth, Senator Edwards, so just keep stirring up the scare campaign.
But can I go to another point where Senator Edwards, in his stumbling five minutes—I do not know what it was, actually; it was something to do with grapes—actually attacked the good persona of the National Secretary of the Transport Workers' Union, Tony Sheldon, when he said, 'Where is Tony Sheldon?' Let me just remind those opposite where Tony Sheldon and thousands of Australian truck drivers were, along with this side of the federal political sphere, probably about 18 months ago when we were introducing, through the other House, through Minister Shorten, the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. Let us have a little walk back through history, shall we, when in this place none other than the good Senators Gallacher, Feeney and Furner and I stood up here for hours and batted. There were 30 years of my previous life, and a lot longer for the good Senator Gallacher, to bring a safe, sustainable rate to Australia's truck industry, where our truckies could go out, leave home, kiss the kids goodbye, wave goodbye to the wife, head off up north or across the Nullarbor or wherever it might be, knowing that they could have a rate that would bring them home safely, a rate that would give them the—
Senator Edwards: Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I see no relevance in the subject matter of safe rates to the taking note of questions. Nothing you have said has even attempted in the nearly two minutes that you have—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Senator Edwards: And I ask you to direct him to the noting of questions.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Edwards. Senator Furner, I really do not need assistance, but if you want to speak to the point of order—Senator Furner.
Senator Furner: On the point of order, Mr Deputy President: certainly during question time Senator Williams asked questions in relation to the transport industry. Senator Sterle is clearly answering the taking note of answers provided here today, based on what was provided during question time. Even Senator Macdonald had his little toy truck out there in front of him, playing with it.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Furner. Senator Sterle, you are in order. You are sticking within the realm of the debate. You have the call.
Senator STERLE: Thank you very much for that protection.
Senator Edwards interjecting—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Edwards, that is disorderly. Senator Sterle, you have the call.
Senator STERLE: Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I think the five minutes of Senator Edwards was disorderly, but that is not casting aspersions on your good self. I would not do that, Mr Deputy President.
As I said, on this side of the chamber, there are those of us who fought for years to give our Australian truckies the opportunity to leave home and get home safely in one piece and to be sustainable, because they are constantly faced with a barrage of challenges and costs. We talk about this side of the chamber. May I—through you, Mr Deputy President—mention Senators Williams, Cormann, Ryan and Ruston, who all of a sudden, in a one-hour period today, have all become friends of the trucking industry. I sit here and I do listen at times. I actually do listen if I can stay awake long enough with some of the rubbish that goes on in here. But how dare they in one hour today decide to become friends of the trucking industry, to be worried about the on-road costs of Australia's heavy vehicle industry, when in this chamber last year every man and woman of them, to a T, voted against the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal? They voted as a bloc, proudly, after filibustering debate, against safe rates for Australia's truck drivers. I find it highly hypocritical. In fact, the level of hypocrisy in this place does not surprise me, but today it did tweak a little nerve.
I have to just continue there. I think to myself, 'Are they standing up for Australia's trucking industry, or are they standing up for Australia's transport operators, those small businesses like I was for 11 fantastic years?' I built my own little business; I fed my family; I built a house—with the great support of my wife. I could not have done it without her. She was home bringing up two babies while I was away every fortnight running between Perth and Darwin on my own. There was no fatigue management in those days. There were no safe rates. There was no Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. There is now today. I say thank you to the Labor government, thank you to the Greens for their support and thank you to those great Independents, who realise that truckies do deserve to get home safely to their families.
I will come back to the accusations from those four senators. How dare they pretend to be friends of the trucking industry! I invited the Leader of the Nats to have a debate—I will not use the word 'blue' because there are sooks on the other side who want to report me—in any trucking yard in Australia with any trucking operator about the value of safe rates. None of you picked it up. The Leader of the Nats did not have the intestinal fortitude to bring on a debate with me, at his calling. None of you stood up for Australia's trucking industry. You are friends of the trucking industry? Who are you really friends with? The ATA? Is it the major operators? Or is it Coles and Woolies? (Time expired)
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (15:38): I also rise to take note of answers given by Senator Conroy to questions asked today by Senators Cormann, Ryan, Williams and Ruston. I rise to talk about the people who create jobs in this country, particularly those who create jobs in South Australia, and provide a future for our young people, our children.
The problem with this government, according to Mr Crean, one of the previous ministers who was sacked, is that the Prime Minister has a tin ear because she does not listen. When it comes to the carbon tax, we see no clearer case of this tin ear. On radio in South Australia, the Prime Minister was asked by Mr David Basham, head of South Australian dairy farmers, about the impact of the carbon tax on dairy. He highlighted the fact that this was costing small businesses in South Australia between $14,000 and $25,000, which is a significant impact. The Prime Minister's response? Did she listen? Did she care? No, her response was mere rhetoric: 'Oh,' she said, 'the industry will thrive.' Have all those scary stories come true? Here was somebody telling her about the real impact on small business and about the fact that dairy farmers were losing money. When they go out of business, not only is that product not available but the jobs that are supported, both on the farms and in the associated industries, go with it.
In terms of small business, we heard Senator Conroy today say, 'Oh, well, that impact is only about two per cent to a small business.' Does he not understand that the net profit margin for many small businesses is well under 10 per cent? That is a significant hit to a small business looking to fund investment in the business and growth, as well as quite often taking their salaries out of their profit margin. It is small business that creates jobs and opportunities for young people in South Australia and it is small businesses being impacted by the carbon tax, particularly when it goes up by five per cent in July. Small businesses are often the ones who are driving vehicles powered by diesel. With the abolition of the diesel rebate in July, their costs will increase further. In a competitive market, they have very little opportunity, if any, to pass that on to their customers, which means that there are more jobs at risk.
With small businesses in South Australia that work in the area of refrigerants and with the gas R404A, the ACCC has found that, of the original price of $98 per kilogram, the carbon tax was directly responsible for a 76 per cent rise in the price of that gas—some $74.98 that the ACCC found was directly attributable to the carbon tax. For larger business, just this month the head of GMH in South Australia, responding to the closure of Ford and to calls by unions that they should manufacture the Captiva SUV in South Australia, was talking about the fact that the input costs for manufacturing in Australia are too high for them to remain competitive. He was looking at all sorts of options, including reducing wages of both executives and workers, to achieve that. But the alternative, he said, would be for the Gillard government to scrap the carbon tax. From small business, from the agricultural sector with dairy farmers through to large business, people who create jobs for South Australians have one message for this government, which is demonstrating yet again its tin ear: the carbon tax is hurting business and damaging jobs for people in South Australia.
Lastly, I come to BHP and Olympic Dam. South Australia was devastated in April 2012 when BHP announced that they were shelving plans to expand Olympic Dam. There was a lot of talk about why that might be. One of the factors people do not often look at is that in the electrolytic refining of copper, which was one of the main products coming out of Olympic Dam, electricity availability and price is one of the top considerations for the viability of that copper-mining activity. You only have to go online and look at prospectuses of people who are looking to set up mines in places like Laos and South America and you see that availability and price of electricity rates very high. When BHP made that decision to shelve their option for expanding Olympic Dam, the carbon tax was $23 a tonne and it was planned to increase by 2020 to $37 a tonne. Just at a time when BHP would be hoping to see a return on their investment and the creation of lots of jobs, the carbon tax will be $350 a tonne by 2050. Is it any wonder that industry, from miners to big business to small business, is saying that the carbon tax is a job-destroying tax for South Australians?
Question agreed to.
Climate Change
Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:43): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Sport (Senator Lundy) to a question without notice asked by Senator Milne today relating to climate change.
President Obama last night made a major speech on climate change. Everyone has been waiting for this speech because he has on several occasions referred to the action he will take on climate change, and people have been waiting for him to make this a legacy issue. As we all know, he has not been able to get emissions trading through the parliamentary processes in the United States and so the upshot of this is his major speech.
In that speech, he made a few points which are extremely relevant to Australia. The first is in relation to the Keystone pipeline. He said that he would have to take into account in determining whether to approve that pipeline whether it is in the national interest to do so, because it would not be in the national interest if it exacerbated carbon pollution. When I asked Minister Lundy today whether it is in Australia's national interest to exacerbate carbon pollution, in particular in relation to the Galilee and Bowen basins and extraction of coal, Minister Lundy really insulted the intelligence of everyone campaigning on global warming by suggesting that in fact the fugitive emissions from coal in Australia were small and therefore this was not a problem. It is a major problem. It is estimated that the coal extracted from the Galilee Basin will be of such volume that if it was a separate country it would be the world's seventh largest emitter. If ever there was a project that exacerbates carbon pollution in a global context, it is the Galilee Basin. If you take seriously the notion that it is not in the national interest to exacerbate climate change by approving projects that do, you would be immediately out there opposing the Galilee and Bowen basins and any new coal projects and expanded coal mines and coal projects. They are built for export. Australia is actually pushing global pollution on the rest of the world by expanding its coal exports.
Secondly, President Obama made very clear that it has to stop: giving tax breaks to the big oil companies in the United States, which he recognised as some of the wealthiest companies in the world. That is why I asked the minister: when are we going to stop giving tax breaks to the big fossil fuel companies in Australia? In fact, we spend $2 billion every year in fuel tax credits to the big miners alone. That is a fossil fuel subsidy.
In November next year we are hosting the G20, in Brisbane. Under former Prime Minister Rudd we have already signed up with President Obama to cut fossil fuel subsidies. And what have we seen? No, not a cut in fossil fuel subsidies but in fact a refusal to cut fossil fuel subsidies and a refusal to stop giving $2 billion a year to the big miners and instead taking the money out of the pockets of single parents, refusing to increase Newstart and now cutting university funding by $2.3 billion. So you would rather give a fossil fuel subsidy to the big miners, 80 per cent of whose shareholders are overseas, whose overwhelming shareholder value and profit goes out of the country, and rather than support our own universities you come back and say, 'We are going to slash universities rather than end fossil fuel subsidies.'
So what was the value of then Prime Minister Rudd signing on the line with President Obama to cut fossil fuel subsidies? At the time Treasury indicated there were 17 fossil fuel subsidies in Australia. But, guess what? They changed the language and decided they were only going to end 'inefficient' fossil fuel subsidies, and, hooray, Australia does not have any inefficient fuel subsidies, so the need to get rid of them was over. Those are the kinds of semantics that are betraying the climate. That is why this generation is now suffering extreme weather events. Whenever I hears speeches from the coalition talking about the costs of action on climate change to address it, we never hear about the costs in terms of the deaths and infrastructure destruction because of more extreme weather events and the intensity of those weather events. It has already cost us billions in Queensland after the flooding there after Cyclone Yasi, not the mention the fires, the heatwaves and all of the other major events. The Climate Commission has just come out recently saying it is going to get worse. The government needs to stop increasing coal exports. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Milne be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator Williams to move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act relating to maritime safety to ensure the maintenance of standards of training and certification of marine engineers. Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill 2013.
Senator Ludlam to move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the ethnic and sectarian unrest in parts of Myanmar, including in the states of Rakhine, Kachin and Shan, in the Mandalay, Bago, and Yangon regions,
(ii) that in Rakhine State in particular, this has created significant humanitarian concerns given the current monsoon season,
(iii) that Human Rights Watch recently released a report on the unrest in Rakhine State in 2012 and the situation of Rohingya Muslims there,
(iv) that the Australian Government continues to assist affected people in Rakhine State through direct humanitarian assistance, and in 2012-13 provided over $5.79 million in humanitarian assistance to Rakhine State, making Australia one of the largest donors to the crisis, and
(v) that the Myanmar Government and the Kachin Independence Organisation recently reached an agreement on 30 May 2013 following peace talks in Myitkyina (Kachin State), to de-escalate and cease hostilities; and
(b) calls on the Australian Government to:
(i) urge the Myanmar Government to:
(a) redouble its efforts to resolve ethnic and sectarian unrest in parts of Myanmar,
(b) resolve the underlying causes of unrest,
(c) bring to justice those responsible,
(d) ensure proper judicial procedures are applied, and
(e) support the reconciliation of local communities, and
(ii) continue to urge the Myanmar Government to provide appropriate humanitarian assistance, including adequate shelter, and access by humanitarian organisations, to those affected by the unrest.
Senator Ludlam to move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) Stage 8 of the Roe Highway:
(a) threatens the Beeliar wetlands and its regionally significant vegetation, banksia woodlands and the habitat of fauna, migratory birds and the endangered Carnaby cockatoo, and
(b) would dissect North Lake and Bibra Lake, recognised as valuable biodiversity sites by all three levels of government, and one of the most significant Aboriginal historical sites within the Perth metropolitan area south of the Swan River, and
(ii) the Western Australian Environment Protection Authority received 449 submissions, 29 from organisations and government agencies and 420 from the public opposing Stage 8 of the Roe Highway extension; and
(b) calls on all political parties to:
(i) recognise widespread community opposition for this project, and
(ii) affirm that Commonwealth funding for this project will not be forthcoming.
Senator Ludlam to move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) Western Australia has the fifth largest reserve of shale gas in the world, and
(ii) the Western Australian Government is providing significant subsidies and royalty reductions to incentivise the gas fracking while failing to establish environmental assessment processes to assess its impact on groundwater, environmental integrity and agricultural productivity; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) explain why the Commonwealth Government deems coal seam gas dangerous to ground water and agricultural productivity but not shale gas fracking, and
(ii) amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013 to apply equivalent Commonwealth regulatory oversight to shale gas as coal seam gas.
Senator Humphries to move:
That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 September 2013:
The operation and effectiveness of customs functions within the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, with particular reference to:
(a) the effectiveness of controls in place to prevent goods from entering the country illicitly;
(b) issues of alleged misconduct, bribery and corruption in the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service;
(c) any links between staff of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service and organised crime;
(d) the extent to which criminal gangs use the proceeds of smuggled goods to fund their activities;
(e) an assessment of the current division of roles and responsibilities of different levels of government (federal, state and local) to respond to smuggling and the integration of these roles to ensure best outcomes;
(f) the incentives and disincentives for criminal organisations to engage in illicit trade;
(g) the levels of illicit tobacco products coming into Australia and the cost to the Australian taxpayer;
(h) options to improve border security and control; and
(i) any related matter.
Senator Milne to move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the concern of Hansard editors about their trial changes which have reduced their presence in the Senate and House of Representatives chambers, and
(ii) that this trial, if made permanent, has a number of serious implications for the social, legal and historical value of Hansard in the future; and
(b) calls on the Presiding Officers to:
(i) not make decisions which adversely affect or compromise the quality of Hansard services, and
(ii) ensure that the integrity and quality of Hansard is their foremost consideration.
Senator Birmingham to move:
That the Senate calls on the Government to bring forward urgently a bill to provide that the legislated increase in the carbon tax from 1 July 2013 does not proceed.
Senator Xenophon to move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Reserve Bank Act 1959, and for related purposes. Reserve Bank Amendment (Australian Reconstruction and Development Board) Bill 2013.
Senator Ludlam to move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) over one year ago the Australian Heritage Council found that the 30 000 year old rock art complex on the Dampier Archipelago and Burrup Peninsula met two World Heritage criteria, and
(ii) construction of the Yara Pilbara Nitrates ammonium nitrate plant began in November 2012, in breach of approval conditions under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, as a survey of rock art within a 2 km radius of the site has not been completed and no air quality monitoring instruments are in place; and
(b) calls on the Minister to:
(i) commit to taking all necessary steps to have the Dampier Archipelago, which includes the Dampier Archipelago Rock Art Province with its uninterrupted rock art collection spanning 30 000 years, placed on the World Heritage List by 2016,
(ii) confirm that the Dampier Archipelago is on the Tentative List for World Heritage Nomination, and
(iii) urgently suspend construction of the Yara Pilbara Burrup Nitrates ammonium nitrate production facility until approval conditions are met.
Senator Collins to move:
(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Cyber Safety be appointed to inquire into and report on options for addressing the issue of sexting by minors.
(2) That the committee present its final report on or before 13 September 2013.
(3) That the committee consist of 6 senators, 3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and 1 to be nominated by minority groups or independents.
(4) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.
(5) That the committee elect as chair one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
(6) That the chair of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the committee to be the deputy chair of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as chair of the committee at any time when there is no chair or the chair is not present, at a meeting of the committee.
(7) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.
(8) That the quorum of the committee be 3 members.
(9) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.
(10) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider, and that the quorum of a subcommittee be a majority of the senators appointed to the subcommittee.
(11) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.
(12) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to move:
That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 19 July 2013:
All matters relevant to the impacts of imposing on Telstra Corporation Limited a carrier licence condition that would require it to produce printed and online national number directories within Australia.
Senators Madigan, Xenophon, Smith and Di Natale to move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Sleep Health Foundation is one of Australia's foremost authorities on sleep disorders and their effects,
(ii) the Foundation aims to raise public awareness of sleep health issues and to improve public health and safety through the treatment of sleep disorders and sleep deprivation, and
(iii) the Foundation's report, Re-awakening Australia: The economic cost of sleep disorders in Australia, 2010 (dated October 2011) estimates the total cost of sleep disorders on the Australian health system in 2010 at $5.1 billion, with a broader economic cost to the community of $31.4 billion;
(b) recognises that reducing the incidence of sleep disorders and sleep deprivation would have a positive effect on the wellbeing of the Australian community as well as on the economy; and
(c) calls on the Government to review the findings of the Foundation's study and consider the inclusion of sleep health issues as part of a broader preventive health strategy.
Senator Xenophon to move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Government has indicated, in a fact sheet, 'Emissions from landfill facilities', available online, that landfill waste projects approved under the New South Wales Government's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme would receive Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) credits for emissions abatement from 1 July 2010,
(ii) the Government has since informed industry participants that they are not able to backdate an abatement that has been registered but not sold or retired under these schemes, and so cannot claim credits under the CFI, despite what is indicated on the fact sheet, and
(iii) the Government has stated this is due to double counting, when in fact the abatement in question has been registered but not sold or retired under any other scheme, which does not constitute double counting; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) stand by the position outlined on the fact sheet and allow companies to backdate certain abatements that have been issued but not sold or retired under other schemes, and to claim this abatement under the CFI where they relate to eligible offset projects, and
(ii) amend the relevant regulations to this effect.
Senator Hanson-Young to move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to establish an independent Office of Guardian for Unaccompanied Non-citizen Children, and for related purposes. Guardian for Unaccompanied Children Bill 2013.
Senator McKenzie to move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that Australia is a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, confirming Australia's commitment to sustainable development through the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of resources, and specifically notes Article 10 of the Convention and its focus on:
(i) encouraging cooperation between government and the private sector in the sustainable use of biological resources,
(ii) protecting and encouraging customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices that are compatible with conservation or sustainable use requirements, and
(iii) supporting local approaches to remedial action in areas of reduced biological diversity;
(b) supports the sustainable use of Australia's national parks and reserves to conserve biological diversity; and
(c) notes the Foundation for Australia's Most Endangered Species recognition of value of hunting in protecting biological diversity, particularly in relation to feral control.
Senator McKenzie to move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes the significance of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention), an intergovernmental treaty, which centres on the concept of 'wise use' to promote the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands and their resources, through ecosystem approaches, for the benefit of humankind, and specifically that:
(i) the Ramsar Convention aims are to halt the worldwide loss of wetlands and to conserve through 'wise use' management those that remain, and
(ii) that 'wise use' means the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands and their resources for the benefit of humankind;
(b) acknowledges that:
(i) the Ramsar Convention stresses the importance of maintaining 'ecological character' and that this should be done for the peoples' benefit, and
(ii) the natural environment has inherent value, and value in relation to peoples' relationship and interaction with it;
(c) supports the wise use of wetlands; and
(d) congratulates Field and Game Australia for the conservation of the Heart Morass, the largest habitat conservation project in Australia.
Senator Milne to move:
That the Senate congratulates the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, on his speech about climate change.
Senator Boswell to move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the importance of the London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism, an essential document which asserts the need for global cooperation in the fight against antisemitism and draws the democratic world's attention to the resurgence of antisemitism in politics, international affairs and society,
(ii) the preamble to the London Declaration which notes the 'dramatic increase in recorded antisemitic hate crimes and attacks targeting Jewish persons and property, and Jewish religious, educational and communal institutions', the 'resurrection of the old language of prejudice and its modern manifestations in rhetoric and political action—against Jews, Jewish belief and practice and the State of Israel', and 'Government‑backed antisemitism in general, and state‑backed genocidal antisemitism, in particular',
(iii) over 300 parliamentarians in over 40 countries have signed the Declaration and, in particular, that it has received overwhelming support from all parliamentary parties in Australia other than the Australian Greens,
(iv) that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel targets Jewish businesses in Australia and around the world and plans to end the State of Israel's existence as a Jewish state,
(v) that according to the European Union's working definition of antisemitism adopted by the London Declaration, one example of antisemitism includes, 'Denying the Jewish people their right to self‑determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour', and
(vi) that the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney, whose directors Jake Lynch and Stuart Rees are strong proponents of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel, has been supported with Commonwealth funding;
(b) condemns the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign;
(c) condemns the Australian Greens for refusing to sign the London Declaration and for wrongly suggesting that the London Declaration equates criticism of the State of Israel with antisemitism; and
(d) condemns Holocaust denial and antisemitism.
Senator Fifield to withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion nos 1 and 2 standing in his name for the disallowance of the following instruments:
Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Amendment Regulation 2013 (No. 1), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2013 No. 23 and made under the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012.
Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Regulation 2013, as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2013 No. 22 and made under the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Senator KROGER (Victoria—Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:49): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Scullion for today on account of parliamentary business.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Postponement
The following items of business were postponed:
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 4 standing in the name of Senator Xenophon for today, proposing the disallowance of Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013, postponed till 27 June 2013.
General business notice of motion no. 1281 standing in the name of Senator Madigan for 27 June 2013, proposing the introduction of the Fair Trade (Australian Standards) Bill 2013, postponed till 26 August 2013.
General business notice of motion no. 1302 standing in the name of Senator Ludlam for today, proposing the introduction of the Copyright Legislation Amendment (Fair Go for Fair Use) Bill 2013, postponed till 27 June 2013.
Withdrawal
Senator MADIGAN (Victoria) (15:50): I withdraw general business notices of motion Nos 607, 1078 and 1243 standing in my name for today relating to the introduction of bills.
BILLS
Overseas Aid (Millennium Development Goals) Bill 2013
First Reading
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (15:50): I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to require Australia to meet United Nations targets for official development assistance and to establish an Independent Commissioner on Aid Effectiveness, and for related purposes. Overseas Aid (Millennium Development Goals) Bill 2013.
Question agreed to.
Senator RHIANNON: 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 RHIANNON (New South Wales) (15:51): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
Senator RHIANNON: I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
OVERSEAS AID (MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS) BILL 2013
As the Greens spokesperson for international aid and development I am proud to introduce this Greens bill into the Senate to ensure that Australia pays its fair share towards alleviating global poverty.
Good aid, spent well has helped reduce the number of people living in extreme poverty by 200 million over the last 5 years. But there are still 1.2 billion people living on less than the equivalent of $2 per day. As a rich and caring country Australia has a moral duty to help bring that number of people down to zero.
The Overseas Aid (Millennium Development Goals) Bill will enshrine that moral duty into law by requiring the Australian Government to meet the aid targets it has already signed up to. It will improve the quality and effectiveness of Australian aid so that the Australian community can be assured that aid money is spent on ending poverty overseas and not to fill domestic budget gaps. It also establishes an independent aid watchdog to hold the Government to account for its aid spending decisions.
It is unfortunate that we can no longer take the major parties at their word when it comes to their commitment to international aid. At the 2010 federal election both Labor and the Coalition stood on election platforms promising to increase aid to 0.5% of Australia's gross national income by 2015-16. As recently as November 2011 both Labor and the Coalition voted in support of a Greens motion in the Senate reaffirming this commitment.
Yet at the May 2012 budget the Labor Government postponed the 0.5% deadline for a year and in response the Coalition dropped its commitment to a timetable altogether. This was followed by the December 2012 decision to divert $375 million out of the overseas aid program to pay for onshore immigration detention – a gross misuse of aid money that flies in the face of the Government's own aid spending guidelines which it set out just one year ago.
In May the Labor Government postponed the deadline for a further year, which means its 0.5% target now won't be reached until 2017-18.
These are not just broken promises to the Australian voters. These are promises that Australia made to the international community, the United Nations, and to women, men and children, who are forced to do what they can to survive each day on less than the price of a cup of coffee.
And they come with a financial cost. The May 2013 budget cut real aid spending by $2.9 billion over the next 4 years, compared to what was promised just one year previously. That includes $1.9 billion cut by postponing the 0.5% target to 2017-18 and $1 billion diverted to onshore immigration detention. That diversion has now been made a permanent feature of Labor's aid budget.
Just think about what $2.9 billion could do for people living in poverty and how much of a difference it could make.
The Government's 2011-2012 Annual Review of Aid Effectiveness found that Australian aid spending in that year had paid for life-saving assistance for more than 16 million people caught in disasters, clean water for 2.5 million people, immunisations for more than 2 million children, better sanitation for 1.6 million people, schools for more than 1 million children, and skilled birth attendants to deliver the babies of 230,000 women. Thanks to the efforts of the End of Polio campaign, Australian aid is helping to eradicate polio once and for all.
The case for increasing foreign aid is clear: aid money, spent effectively, can make a difference to people's lives. With a bigger program we can help more people and put an end to scourge of extreme poverty within a generation.
Some will argue that the United Nations target to spend 0.7% of Australia's gross national income on foreign aid is unaffordable. I argue that it is easily affordable for a country such as Australia which has largely weathered the global financial crisis, has not suffered a recession for more than two decades and which is ranked second in the UN's Human Development Index, which compares global living standards.
Far poorer countries than Australia already give more in foreign aid than we do. Australia is currently ranked 12th out of 24 donor nations – we spend only 0.37% of GDP on foreign aid.
This puts us behind the UK, France and Ireland who have all recently experienced recession and are struggling economically. Luxembourg, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands have all been meeting the 0.7% target for many years. This year the UK joined them for the first time – the culmination of a 44-year community-driven campaign.
It is disappointing that Australia lags well behind the Millennium Development Goal target which asked countries to devote 0.7% of GNI to overseas aid by 2015. The Greens would much prefer to see Australia joining other countries to meet this 0.7% target by 2015, but ongoing cuts and set-backs to the aid budget mean that our government is far from reaching this target. What the Australian Greens want to do with the bill is put forward a responsible and realistic timeline for up-scaling aid, year by year, that we think Labor and Coalition MPs will be able to support. A timeline the government of the day cannot justify shying away from.
The Greens bill ascribes a legally-binding timetable for Australia to reclaim our place in the world as a progressive nation that seeks to give everyone a fair go. It sets out annual minimum targets for aid spending that would ensure the Government reaches the UN target of 0.7% of gross national income to be spent on foreign aid by 2020-21.
However, it is not just the amount of money that is important but how it is spent and what it is spent on.
The Australian community rightly expect that foreign aid should be spent on alleviating poverty overseas. Australian Governments past and present have agreed to this by signing up to the Millennium Development Goals which set eight objectives for the world: to halve extreme poverty and hunger, to achieve universal education, to promote gender equality, to reduce child mortality, to improve maternal health, to combat HIV/AIDS and other diseases, to ensure environmental sustainability, and to build a global partnership for development.
These goals should be the key drivers of the Australian aid program, not promoting our national political and commercial interests.
I have already mentioned the fact that onshore immigration detention will rob the aid budget of $1 billion over the next 4 years. The government has also been accused of double-counting our climate aid. That is, reporting the same pool of climate aid as a contribution to both the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) financing and as ODA, which contravenes UN requirements that climate finance be additional to ODA. The Australian government has also come under heavy criticism for so-called military aid, where ODA is channelled through the Australian Defence Forces with the purpose of winning hearts and minds in conflicts such as Afghanistan, rather than putting in place sustainable and appropriate projects developed in partnership with local communities to alleviate poverty.
The Bill sets up a new category of excluded official development assistance to ensure that such expenditure that does not serve to alleviate poverty is not counted towards the annual aid targets, including the 0.7 per cent by 2020-21 target. Excluded official development assistance is defined in the bill as money provided by the Australian Government for climate finance, asylum seeker assistance in Australia or in another country that is a regional processing country under the Migration Act, or military assistance.
In addition to this legal protection, the Bill creates an independent aid watchdog – the Independent Commissioner on Aid Effectiveness – to police aid spending and ensure that the Government is adhering to the spirit, as well as the letter, of the law. It is essential that Australia's aid program is transparent and accountable to the Australian government and to recipient communities. In 2006 AusAID established an Office of Development Effectiveness but this office has been a disappointment. Sitting within AusAID, it is less able to offer a robust unbiased critique of AusAID programs and it does not report directly to parliament. It is lacking teeth compared to Britain's Independent Commission on Aid Impact.
The Independent Commissioner on Aid Effectiveness, as defined in this bill, would sit at arm's length from AusAID and act as an independent watchdog to ensure Australia's aid is spent effectively to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. The Commissioner would be independent of AusAID. It would report to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and its reports would be tabled in parliament.
The Independent Commissioner's role is essential to reassure the Australian community that aid money is being spent effectively to end poverty in developing countries. The bill is essential to make sure that we stick to our commitments on aid spending.
Many people have written to me in support of this bill and a push for Australian to give its fair share in aid. I would like to share some of their concerns.
Mark from Epping in NSW asked how can we say we are a caring country when we spend so much money on ourselves and our military and mining but not support the many countries and communities who are much worse off than us and struggling to survive?
Andy from Corinda in Queensland said that giving aid to those that need is not something we can just stop whenever it's inconvenient, it's a policy we need to continually enforce to develop our world and strive for equal opportunities everywhere.
Pip from Hurstville in Sydney summed up many people's feelings about the revelations that aid spending was being used for offshore detention centres. She wrote:
"I was shocked and disgusted when I found out that our 'overseas aid' budget is being diverted to keeping refugees in truly inhumane conditions in our offshore detention centres. Who needs these funds most? It's not big business or even middle-class families. It's the world's poorest and most vulnerable who will benefit the most from our assistance. Australia may pride itself as being the 'lucky country', but if we're too selfish to commit our wealth to ending extreme poverty and hunger, I don't think we've got a lot to be proud of."
When considering this bill I ask all Senators and Members to consider that we live in a region with some of the highest rates of poverty and child malnutrition in the world.
This sentiment from Elizabeth in South Australia captured simply the humanity and generosity that inspired me to introduce this Greens bill following the announcement in 2012 that Labor and the Coalition would walk away from a bipartisan commitment to increase overseas aid to 0.5 per cent of gross national income by 2015, effectively a cut to the aid budget. She said:
"When we in Australia are so much wealthier than most other nations, the least we can do is maintain, if not increase, our overseas aid."
I would like to take this opportunity to table below some more of the hundreds of messages of support I have received from many caring Australians which illustrate the depth of public support for a generous overseas aid program. I will table more supporting comments in further speeches as debate on the bill continues.
Edward from the Tweed said: "Australia has been blessed with all the good things on earth that we, as humans, need: clean air, water, sunshine, space and grace. Most of our citizens would applaud any party that was seen to share our good luck with the millions around the world who do not.
Signe from Liverpool in Sydney said: "Great initiative. Aid saves lives and having a dedicated office to examine and confirm aid is reaching those most in need is a positive step that we as one of the richest nations on earth should and can provide."
Ben from Adelaide said: "Having an effective aid program with Australians out there working alongside people in host countries sounds like a much better strategy for peace and international goodwill than our current overseas military campaigns. Right now only the insiders see any worth in what we are doing in Iraq or Afghanistan. Let us put that destructive and wasteful money into activities of strategic and sustainable development."
Taegan from Sydney said: "We are wealthy. Others are not. Increase overseas aid."
Joy from Morphett Vale said: "We need to commit to ending extreme poverty and hunger."
Denise from Far North Queensland said: "Aid should not end up in the pockets of western corporations or oppressive regimes, but in programs that actually help the poor in tangible ways."
Sarah from Perth said: "Thanks for your work on Australia's aid obligations - both moral and legal!"
Heather from South Australia said: "Australia could aim to bring the best maternity services to all of those countries where having and rearing children means risking women's lives."
Fiona from Perth said: "I definitely support an independent office to ensure that Australian aid goes to those who need it and to ensure that it is not frittered away on administration or sidelined by grasping governments here or in other countries.
Joan from Westlakes in South Australia said: "Australia should be a leader in Overseas Aid so we can stand up and be proud."
Willy from near Brisbane said: "Thanks for standing up for our overseas aid budget when the major parties fail the compassion test."
Janet from Adelaide said: "Overseas aid is vital to the existence of people from poorer countries. Wake up Australia."
Gosta from the ACT said: "I have been involved with Plan International for 45 years and visited projects in Ecuador, Colombia, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Burkina Faso. Every visit has made me convinced that our aid gives children a chance to grow up healthier, better educated and with a more positive outlook towards the world and its future; this is very worthwhile. That Australia is far from filling the UN goal of 0.7 per cent of its budget makes me quite sad."
Bob from the Sunshine Coat said: "Australia needs a strong commitment to the Pacific Island neighbours."
Ted from Adelaide said: "The 0.7 per cent target has been talked about for a long time. It is disappointing that growth in our overseas aid is not really seeking to meet this target. It is time to review this situation - especially as the government is so proud that our economy is doing so well."
Siobhan in Melbourne said: "I would much prefer that CEO's and parliamentarians perks were capped than stop aid to poor countries."
Richard from Evans Head in northern NSW said: "I support your goal for Australian Aid. Overseas aid is critical to our future as a nation and is a moral imperative for a rich country like ours."
Craig in Blackwood near Adelaide said: "Cut fuel subsidies to mining companies. Increase the tax on superannuation for the wealthiest. Just don't disadvantage those who are already the most vulnerable and needy. There are, literally, lives at stake."
Patricia from the Sunshine Coast said: "Increasing overseas aid in a transparent way, improves global equity and may address some of the pressures which force people to become refugees."
Elizabeth from Sydney said: "Will we show our true strength of character and maturity as a nation and help those with less? Those without clean water and without food, and those who are living in tragic conditions of war or disease? Or will we be immature and keep everything for ourselves, without concern for the plight of our fellow humans? The choice is ours, and the world will remember Australia and Australians by the choice we make."
Jim from Henley Beach near Adelaide said: "Our two major political parties find easy targets to reduce funding when they try to win points off each other."
Claire from Melbourne said: "Climate change exacerbates existing problems such as poverty, lack of food security and political instability. Australia has a moral and ethical obligation to provide aid to countries with some of the most vulnerable people in the world."
Anna from Toowoomba said: "We are blessed to live in Australia, often simply through the luck of being born here. The wealth we have should be shared and is not ours alone."
Piers from Falls Creek said: "Despite the rhetoric from politicians, I consider Australia is well able to sustain this level of Aid. The UK has just lifted its Aid level to 0.7%. Australia is far better off than UK."
Mark from near Adelaide said: "I support increasing Australian government aid to overseas countries to help alleviate the suffering of millions of people who lack good food, water, housing, education, health, working conditions and other things that we Australian take for granted."
Lynn from Perth said: "Cutting foreign aid reflects poorly on our maturity as a nation. Using part of the foreign aid budget to fund our approach to the management of asylum seekers is reprehensible. I call on the Australian Government to increase the foreign aid budget, not reduce it. This cause should be beyond party politics."
Sue from near Adelaide said: "Australian people want an end to world poverty. We don't want to be a nation that turns its back on suffering whether it's human suffering through hunger, or animal suffering. We want a compassionate nation, and are willing to forgo some of our own "frills" to bring about more justice. This is why I would welcome an independent Office of Aid Effectiveness."
Anna from St Kilda said: "Cut Australia's aid budget and you undermine the good work that has been done to date. Cut foreign aid and you forfeit our international humanitarian obligations. Cut foreign aid and you send a message to the world that Australia's priorities lack humanity. Cut foreign aid and you dismantle the concept of a sustainable global community."
And finally a comment from Mark, north of Perth, who was excited by the opportunity to have his voice heard in Parliament and hoped there were enough politicians of any persuasion to support the Greens bill. He said: "Why should we increase Australian Aid and make it more effective? Because the Australian government, on behalf of the people of Australia, committed to the Millennium Development Goals. Because keeping promises is an important value, not just for Australia but for the millions of people affected by extreme poverty around the world. Because Australia should lead by example. We have the means more than any other country right now. If we act to reduce overseas aid in times of great prosperity, we have failed to set an example. Because extreme poverty is the kind of poverty that is human misery, starvation, hopelessness, drought, disease and is inescapable. Because overseas aid is part of a solution that empowers people in extreme poverty to help themselves. Because we are human, because we care and know in our hearts that extreme poverty is an unnatural state of existence and it is wrong."
I commend this bill to the Senate.
Senator RHIANNON: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
MOTIONS
National Transport Commission
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (15:52): I move:
That that there be laid on the table, by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, no later than noon on Thursday, 27 June 2013, the overdue report by the National Transport Commission, 'Review of the Australian Road Rules and Australian Vehicle Standards Rules: Draft Evaluation Report', which was due for release in March 2012.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (15:52): by leave—The government opposes the motion. I am advised by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport that the release of the National Transport Commission draft report on the review of the Australian road rules and vehicle standards rules has been delayed. The report was delayed due to competing high priority Council of Australian Government projects. The National Transport Commission has played a critical role in the establishment of the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator and National Rail Safety Regulator. The national approach to regulation will boost the Australian economy by up to $30 billion over the next 20 years and enhance safety within the industry and within the Australian community generally. The National Transport Commission expects, however, to release the draft report on its website next week.
Question agreed to.
Great Barrier Reef
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (15:53): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1304 standing in my name for today relating to the Great Barrier Reef in the terms circulated in the chamber.
Leave granted.
Senator WATERS: I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the government estimates that the Reef Rescue program has stopped the equivalent of over one million wheelbarrows worth of sediment run-off entering the Great Barrier Reef,
(ii) that at least 193 times that amount of sediment has been approved by this Government for offshore dumping in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, and
(iii) scientific understanding, that added sediment in the marine environment has destructive impacts on seagrasses and corals; and
(b) calls on the Government to prohibit offshore dumping of dredge spoil within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.
Question agreed to.
Universal Periodic Review Working Group of the United Nations Human Rights Council
Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (15:54): At the request of Senator Singh, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) Working Group of the United Nations Human Rights Council will review the implementation of recommendations which emerged from the first UPR cycle of 14 states, as well as human rights developments since the first review of these states, in its seventeenth session commencing in October 2013;
(b) urges the full and transparent engagement of all states with the UPR process and consideration of the recommendations arising thereof; and
(c) notes that China is scheduled in this session for review, and:
(i) supports China's participation in the UPR,
(ii) notes the ongoing tension in the Tibetan regions, and nearly 120 deaths by self-immolation in protests against China's policies in those regions, and
(iii) endorses Australia's efforts to promote human rights in Tibet.
Question agreed to.
Minimum Employment Standards
Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (15:54): At the request of Senator Moore, I move:
That the Senate calls on the Federal Government to:
(a) work cooperatively with the states through the Council of Australian Governments and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, in order to get agreement among all states on a minimum standard of entitlements for all workers in all industrial relations jurisdictions across Australia, particularly around reflecting Australia's international obligations in respect of consultation, dispute resolution, general protections, major organisational change and entitlements;
(b) commence the process of ratifying the International Labor Organization's Collective Bargaining Convention 1981 (No. 154) and Collective Bargaining Recommendation 1981 (No.163); and
(c) explore options to:
(i) deal with the growing problem of indirect employment relationships, particularly through labour hire arrangements used by state governments and the Commonwealth, and
(ii) ensure all Australian workers, including those in state public sector employment, have adequate and equal protections of their rights at work.
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:55): by leave—This motion is another example of Labor helplessly doing the bidding of the extreme elements of the union movement and setting aside the national interest. The coalition will oppose this motion because Australia's international obligations are already met and reported against by all states and the Commonwealth. ILO conventions should be considered through the proper channels and not rushed into the parliament under the cover of a notice of motion. This particular convention has been around for over 30 years and even the governments of messieurs Hawke, Keating and Rudd have rejected ratification and here, on possibly the last day of the Gillard government, those opposite are demanding ratification. The Senate recently had an inquiry into state government employment arrangements. It should also be noted that it was state Labor governments that decided against referring their powers for employment laws relating to state public servants. In short, the opposition will oppose on the voices.
Question agreed to.
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria) (15:56): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1307 standing in my name for today relating to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora in the terms circulated in the chamber.
Leave granted.
Senator McKENZIE: I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) notes the importance of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and specifically that signatories to the convention:
(i) are conscious of the value of wild fauna and flora from aesthetic, scientific, cultural, recreational and economic points of view,
(ii) recognise that peoples and states are and should be the best protectors of their own wild fauna and flora, and
(iii) recognise that wild flora and fauna are an irreplaceable part of the natural systems of the earth, needing conservation for generations to come;
(b) acknowledges that flora and fauna have value to recreational users of our national parks; and
(c) supports the different values that are placed on flora and fauna by different people and groups, and agrees those different values should be balanced through sustainable usage approach.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion as amended by Senator McKenzie be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:01]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
Coal Seam Gas
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (16:04): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that coal seam gas mining threatens our land, our water, our communities and our climate; and
(b) calls on all parties to commit to not approving any more coal seam gas developments in Australia.
Question negatived.
Senator WATERS: I ask that it be noted in the Hansard that only the Greens supported that motion.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It is so noted.
Occupational Health and Safety
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (16:05): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that in 2011, the Government passed the Work Health and Safety Bill 2011 which removed the term 'control' from the Duties of Care which changed the longstanding principle that responsibility for safety under the Act should be allocated according to what was within reasonable and practicable control,
(ii) that this principle was established in the 1972 Robens Review which recommended that responsibility for safety be allocated according to reasonable and practicable control and enshrined in the International Labor Organization Convention 155, article 16,
(iii) that the Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations, Senator Collins, confirmed in the 2011 Senate debate that a principal contractor retains responsibility for all safety down the contractual line with the new person conducting a business or undertaking test,
(iv) the numerous reports of exposure to asbestos in telecommunications pits while rolling out the National Broadband Network,
(v) evidence from the Chief Executive Officer of Comcare at Senate estimates that the Commonwealth Government may be liable for these exposures under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, and
(v) further evidence that more than half of all asbestos cases since 1996 involving telecommunications pits have occurred in the past 6 weeks;
(b) calls on the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to provide the Senate with a detailed report before 27 June 2013 on asbestos in telecommunications pits and the responsibilities of the Government, the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and the National Broadband Network Corporation under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011; and
(c) supports moves to protect workers by the Government and Telstra, and recognises the longstanding contribution of the trade union movement towards awareness and identification of asbestos.
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (16:06): by leave—I move an amendment to the motion:
Omit paragraphs (a) and (b), substitute:
(a) calls on the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to provide the Senate with a detailed report before 27 July 2013 on asbestos in telecommunications pits and the responsibilities of Telstra, the Government, the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and the National Broadband Network Corporation under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011; and
Just so that senators are aware, we support the motion Senator Abetz has brought to the chamber. We think a two-day reporting obligation is, frankly, unreasonable. We disagree with some of the contentions in the preamble. We have added the word 'Telstra' to the list of entities whereby we are seeking to establish responsibility. Other than that, I commend this amendment to the chamber.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (16:07): I seek leave to make a brief statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS: This motion seeks to perpetuate the Liberal myth that the government is somehow liable for the incidents arising from Telstra's work on their telecommunications pits. Telstra CEO David Thodey has made it clear. He said: 'We own the infrastructure; it is our responsibility.' When Malcolm Turnbull was asked on Sky News to justify the assertion of government liability for work done by Telstra, he would not back it up. NBN Co. will, of course, have a responsibility for the safety of work that it has commissioned through contractors, but Telstra is not a contractor when it comes to the pits; it is the landlord.
Asbestos is a serious issue and it deserves a serious approach, not political game-playing. Instead of trying to politicise this issue, the coalition should work with government to ensure asbestos is always handled and disposed of safely wherever it is found. There has been no hand-washing here.
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (16:08): I seek leave to make a brief statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator ABETZ: In response to the parliamentary secretary, can I indicate that the parliamentary secretary herself confirmed in the Senate debate in 2011 that a principal contractor retains responsibility for all safety down the contractual line with a new person conducting a business or undertaking a test. Furthermore, evidence from the chief executive officer of Comcare at Senate estimates that the Commonwealth government may be liable for these exposures under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. Further, there is evidence that more than half of all asbestos cases since 1996 involving telecommunications pits have occurred in the past six weeks, and that is why, reluctantly, we do agree with the Greens' amendment to ensure that this Senate does get a report.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendment moved to notice of motion No. 1299 by Senator Ludlam be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question now is that the motion as amended be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Marine Parks
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (16:09): I, and also on behalf of Senator Singh, move:
That the Senate—
(a) supports the world's largest network of marine parks put in place by this Government; and
(b) supports the management plans for the marine parks.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that notice of motion No. 1301 standing in the names of Senators Pratt and Singh be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:14]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (16:16): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria board meeting, held in the week beginning 16 June 2013, approved the first funding grants under its new funding model,
(ii) one of the first three countries receiving funding is Myanmar, with which Australia has established significant ties, including support for its health sector and efforts to tackle HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis,
(iii) the Australian Government has been a significant supporter of the Global Fund since 2004, contributing $310 million to help the Global Fund save an estimated 8.7 million lives to date,
(v) this money has been leveraged in the Asia Pacific, where between 2002 and 2012 the Global Fund has invested $3.1 billion, and
(vi) the Global Fund remains the biggest international funder for the three diseases, providing 80 per cent of international funding for tuberculosis, 50 per cent for malaria and one fifth of international funding for HIV;
(b) calls on the Government to consider the request of the Global Fund and civil society health professionals to significantly increase Australia's financial support to the Global Fund to help address the funding gap that has grown between patient needs and resources available to meet those needs, as part of the fourth Global Fund replenishment at the end of 2013; and
(c) reiterates the commitment of all parties to Australia's ongoing financial support for global efforts to eradicate HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.
Question negatived.
Whaling
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:17): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that Australia's legal action against Japanese whaling will begin in the International Court of Justice, The Hague, on 26 June 2013, and will be followed closely by all Australians who have expressed significant concern about the annual slaughter of whales in Antarctic waters; and
(b) urges the Government to outline how a positive result for Australia in this court case will be enforced by Australia and what financial provisions have been made to resource the enforcement efforts.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (16:17): by leave—While the government agrees with part (a) of this motion, it is unable to support part (b). Should Australia be successful in its action against Japan in the International Court of Justice, Japan would be bound to comply with the judgement of the court by order 94 of the United Nations charter. Although Australia is disputing the legality of Japan's so-called scientific whaling practices, under the terms of the International Convention for the Regulation Of Whaling, Japan is a responsible member of the international community and has acceded to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
Report
Senator HEFFERNAN (New South Wales) (16:19): I present the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on its inquiry into the Foreign Investment Review Board natural interest test, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
Senator HEFFERNAN: I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
This is a report that the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee has completed over the duration of a couple of years. During that time, there has been a change of attitude and an awareness across the government of a lot of the findings of this committee. The committee has made a series of recommendations—there are 29 in the final report and six in the interim report—which cover a range of issues that certainly identify that the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act is a creature of the past. It has not kept up with modern communications and transport of the financial world. This report emphasises the absolutely critical importance of foreign investment and capital coming into Australia—in the case of agriculture, it is obviously a need for patient capital—but at the same time it emphasises the need for long-term foreign investment in Australia to be on a level playing field and that the present legislative and international tax conventions have not kept up with the modern transportability of capital and revenue.
The committee notes the current progress of the government, the OECD and G20 in this area and urges the government to continue pursuing international reforms. Amongst the key findings of the committee, the committee especially notes information gaps under five headings. There is a clear information gap in foreign acquisition. There is no national register. Obviously, land titles are registered on state databases. We think there is a need, with modern technology, to join the databases. It has been an ongoing argument as to what the threshold ought to be in defining sovereign investment and also corporate foreign investment, and how many million dollars it should be. This report has made a recommendation along those lines. But, in reality, if we set up the right titles registers, which will take a bit of doing, and connect them, then we ought to be able to, if we want to know everything over five million or anything over 10 million, say, press a button and there it is.
The present arrangement is certainly antiquated, and the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act is completely out of date. The committee was advised of that by the former chairman of FIRB. The new chairman, Mr Brian Wilson, has adopted a new attitude to the need to rejuvenate and make some recommendations to update the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act. He has a positive view of encouraging foreign investment into Australia, while at the same time protecting Australia's sovereignty, because the challenge for the G20 nations, and the challenge to not having to redefine sovereignty, is to capture the revenue base. At the present time, there is something like $3 trillion annually, globally of tax avoidance through the incapacity of countries in the G20 to monitor and audit transfer pricing without any other tax avoidance measures.
This is a positive report for Australia's future. It emphasises that:
The committee considers that foreign investment can make a major contribution to future agricultural developments in Australia, including the Ord irrigation area.
… … …
However, the committee also considers that to maximise the benefits of such developments there are challenges to be overcome such as: limited access to long-term capital investment; restrictions from land tenure arrangements; and the trade and transparency of water entitlements.
In regard to the transparency issue, at the present time Australia has no idea of what is happening in Australia. What Australia should do is get the right database. Certainly the ABS, in its evidence to the committee, demonstrated that they do not have the capacity to know what is going on. In fact, the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act is so antiquated that, although it defines agricultural land, all land other than defined agricultural land in Australia is defined as urban land. Under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act, in theory, you have to go to FIRB if you want to buy five acres in the Simpson Desert because it is defined as urban land. Yet you can buy half the Riverina, as long as you do not hit $248 million in one sale, and not bother reporting it to anyone.
That is the stupidity of legislation—the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act—which was written in the seventies, just after telegrams started to look a bit out of date. We need to move into the 21st century. Part of moving into the 21st century is having a database, regulations and rules that capture the revenue base. Only this week we have had a bit of an adventure with Archer Daniels Midland, which was an interesting excursion into the world of transparency of corporate dealings, tax avoidance, price fixing and God knows what.
It is fair to say that this report challenges the thinking of a lot of Australians. It has been well put together, and I would like to congratulate everyone on the committee for the work they have done. I would certainly like to congratulate the professional staff, including Dr Curran and Stephen Palethorpe and their offsiders. Later this afternoon we are going to have a quiet farewell drink for Dr Curran as he is moving on to much higher and more important career decisions. It is a great pleasure to be able to present a document which I could not speak to fully today in two or three minutes. It absolutely encompasses the challenges of the future, and, I have to say, very importantly, it should be read by people before it is editorialised or commented upon.
It is quite a challenge to the western world, as G20 now knows, to have solid foreign investment on a level playing field, which would include investment from the new player in the field, which ABS identified to the committee early on, the day President Obama was here down in the Old Parliament. That is the advent of foreign sovereign investment. We met some serious challenges there, and there are serious tax avoidance measures under the present legislation for sovereign investment. We want to provide encouragement, especially if we are going to develop Northern Australia, and people decide that agriculture is not about retiring to the coast, resting on your laurels and thinking of the past. We want to make sure it happens in a market that is fully commercial, that there is not a distortion of the capital market through capital coming in for a second purpose of a safe haven, rather than a commercial return, that we do not distort the capital market, that we do not distort the commodity market and that we capture the revenue base.
With those few words, I would like to thank everybody, and I would like to thank the chamber for the opportunity to present this report. It is sowing the seeds for the future of a strong Australia which can compete internationally and, at the same time, not have to redefine sovereignty as we know it. If we do not find out what is happening now, model it out for 20 or 30 years, and then say to ourselves as a nation, 'Is that where we want to be if we continue to do what we're doing now and don't make any changes? Is that where we want to finish up, and would that be in the national interest?' That is absolutely what, as a nation, we have got to do. We have to make sure we think beyond the next election and beyond tomorrow morning's headline. We have to think where we are going to be in 30 or 40 years time. If you look back 30 or 40 years we have come a long way. I offer my sincere thanks to the chamber and to the committee.
Senator NASH (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (16:29): I rise to make some comments on the Foreign investment and the national interest report tabled today by the Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. I thank the committee secretariat who, as always, do an incredibly good job, led very capably and ably by Mr Stephen Palethorpe. I thank Dr Chris Curran for his work on this report and I also thank the rest of the secretariat team. This committee is incredibly fortunate to have the support from what, I believe, is probably one of the best committee secretariats in the building. So, I thank them very much.
This has been a most interesting inquiry, as Senator Heffernan said, but they are always interesting when Senator Heffernan is chairing. It has been running for quite some time. The committee recognised that this is an incredibly complex issue and, prior to this report, the long-term implications and the long-term impacts of foreign investment in this nation had not been given the level of scrutiny needed. I do not say that as a partisan comment. My views on foreign investment are fairly well known. From the committee's and my perspective, it is not a partisan comment. We believed that it was really important to properly and objectively look at issues that surround foreign investment and foreign ownership in Australia.
In regard to agricultural land and agricultural business, there is no doubt that we do not know at this stage the level of foreign ownership and investment in that agricultural land and business. That absolutely has to be the starting point and, as noted in the report, we put forward recommendations for mechanisms to do that. It is absolutely vital that we get an understanding of where we currently sit so that we are able to figure out where we are likely to be in the future. That is what has been missing from the scrutiny into foreign ownership and foreign investment.
What we have seen to date are a lot of short-term reactions responding to immediate capital injection from foreign entities. The committee agrees that foreign investment, where appropriate, is absolutely fine. The nation has relied on it in the past and will continue to rely on it in some ways, shapes and forms. What we need to know for the future of this nation is how we want the country to look, particularly in relation to agricultural land and agribusiness. How do we want the future of agriculture to look in this nation 20, 30 and 40 years down the track? The decisions we make now are going to affect how the nation is going to look in 30 or 40 years time in a policy sense. I think we need to be smarter and we need to be more forward thinking and step outside the immediacy of looking at this issue in terms of foreign investment as being good—we get the capital injection, we cannot do without it and that is the end of the story. Certainly that capital injection plays a part, but it is not the whole story. We have to stop being so short-sighted in thinking that that is the whole story. That is a lot of what this report is about and a lot of what the inquiry has been about.
I have to commend the chair, Senator Heffernan, for his leadership on many of the issues that we traversed during the course of the inquiry, particularly the taxation issues. There are those in government and in other high places who now have a much greater understanding of the potential ramifications of foreign investment in the construct of the current taxation system than they would otherwise have had if it had not been for Senator Heffernan so robustly raising many of these concerns throughout the course of the inquiry.
The issue is, as I say, one of identification, of actually figuring out how much foreign investment and ownership there is in our nation to start with. The Foreign Investment Review Board needs an enormous amount of work done. There certainly need to be changes done because, in my view and in the view of many of my colleagues, it is not operating as effectively or as efficiently as it should. When we look at the Foreign Investment Review Board there is nobody with agricultural expertise on that board. When you consider the number of proposals regarding agricultural land and business that come through for approval by the Foreign Investment Review Board, to not have somebody on that board with agricultural expertise is simply stupid. It is unacceptable because, in my view, there is not the appropriate level of scrutiny that we should have in relation to those areas.
In fact, an application for foreign ownership of agricultural land or business has never been rejected by the Foreign Investment Review Board. That concerns me because I suspect there have been a number of instances where it should have been rejected. A couple of instances particularly come to mind. I think that the sale of Cubbie Station should have had a lot more scrutiny. The other that comes to mind is the approval from FIRB to the Treasurer for the potential takeover of SunRice by the Spanish company Ebro. It was recommended to the Treasurer as absolutely fine, tickety-boo, hunky-dory. This was a Spanish company about to own 100 per cent of SunRice, the Australian rice industry. Anyone who thinks that that would have been in the national interest simply does not understand the industry and certainly does not understand the agricultural sector. It took the industry itself to reject the proposal, recognising that it was not in their interest nor was it in the national interest.
It was subsequently good to see that SunRice is going from strength to strength. Had they sold it and had FIRB, in their wisdom, got their way then we would have seen a sensational Australian business fall into foreign hands when the necessity was simply not there. The limit for FIRB, the $244 million, as the chair has pointed out, is senseless. You are virtually only going to get one or two properties in the nation that are going to fall at that level or above which are going to trigger the scrutiny of the Foreign Investment Review Board.
What we have is the issue of accumulation. We have foreign entities coming into the nation and accumulating acquisitions. None of those individual purchases of parcels of land ever trigger the interest of FIRB. That is wrong and absolutely needs to be addressed, which is why we are recommending a drop of that trigger level to $15 million. In my view the trigger should probably be a lot lower or at zero, but, for the purposes of trying to get some forward movement, I think $15 million is certainly appropriate. And, being cumulative, any purchase after an entity has hit that level should trigger the interest of FIRB.
There are a range of recommendations that we have put forward. We certainly believe that this is an issue that, as an nation, we have to start paying attention to. As I said in the beginning, this is about the future of Australia, particularly how the agriculture sector is going to look.
We on this committee completely understand that, while a lot of these foreign entities are operating under commercial interests, they are also looking at Australian productive capacity—our paddocks—as a starting point to creating a food security pipeline back to their home nations. And fair enough—why wouldn't they? If I were another country around the globe that was looking at food security issues down the track, I would absolutely be trying to secure land in Australia to make sure that I could shore up the food security for my people of my country. It is a no-brainer. But we are not paying attention to that here. We are not looking long term. We are not looking down the track and saying, 'All right, at what level is this appropriate? At what level is this acceptable? How much foreign ownership is too much?'
We might have this debate and decide that 100 per cent of foreign ownership is absolutely fine. My argument is that as a nation we have not had that debate yet. That, by the way, is not my view on foreign ownership but it may well be a majority view at the end of the day. The issue is that we have not had the debate. We are not thinking like grown-ups. We are not thinking like mature people—looking down the track and asking, 'How do we want the nation to look?' That is what is so important.
I believe that this report gives very good guidance in terms of those issues that, whoever is in government over the next period of years, we need to look at in a policy sense to get the policy settings right so that we have the sustainability in the agricultural sector of this nation into the future. That should be absolutely one of our key priorities.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (16:40): I just want to say a few words on this report from a Greens perspective. Unfortunately I missed out on the trip to the north-west of Western Australia. Having been brought up there I would have loved to have gone back for the week.
The Greens have long held very similar views in terms of the scrutiny that is required for direct foreign investment, particularly in agricultural land. Just over two years ago we introduced the concept of a register of agricultural land, in terms of policy. We would have liked to see a model very similar to the New Zealand model in terms of an acreage basis for acquisitions but we ultimately settled on $5 million. It was good to hear Senator Nash agreeing that the limit should be lower than $15 million. We felt $5 million was a good place to start in terms of setting up that register. I also concur with Senator Nash that the creeping acquisition of land is a problem, which is often not picked up except by ex post assessments of these types of arrangements.
The issue of Foreign Investment Review Board trigger thresholds was also important for us in the context of free trade agreements, which we know are being negotiated at the moment. We have two very significant free trade agreements being negotiated: RCEP and the TPPA. We have seen previously that in free trade agreements, such as the free trade agreement with the US, the Foreign Investment Review Board trigger thresholds were significantly increased to facilitate, shall we say, or grease the wheels of those free trade agreements. United States companies had the limits, where they were not subject to FIRB approval, significantly raised. We do not want to see—we have certainly expressed concerns which have been incorporated in this report—the FIRB levels being sacrificed at the alter of free trade agreements and traded off for other benefits, because they are there for a reason, and they are very important.
Lastly—because I understand other people want to speak—I want to thank Stephen, Chris and the team for a fantastic effort. A lot of work went into this. Although he is not in the chamber any more I obviously want to thank Senator Heffernan for all his hard work.
Senator EDWARDS (South Australia) (16:42): I rise to speak on the same report from the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, and join with my Senate colleagues, Senator Whish-Wilson, Senator Nash and Senator Heffernan, in taking note of this report.
I will not rehash too much any of the issues that my colleagues have covered but before I get underway I also acknowledge the dedicated, intelligent hard work of the secretariat led by Mr Stephen Palethorpe and the departing Dr Chris Curran, who are present in this chamber—and rightly so. There have been nearly two years of hard work culminating in this report. They deserve much credit for cutting through and trying to find a balance in this very important and quite emotive issue for Australia. Thank you, fellows, and your team at the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee.
I now move onto putting this into some perspective. I touched on this issue of emotion. Senators in this chamber and those listening to this contribution would know that last year there was a great deal of community sentiment expressed about the passing of one of the largest water and land holdings in this country, as a single entity—Cubbie Station—into foreign hands. It was quite a divisive debate and it remains a divisive debate. I hope to put that debate and the findings that we were able to come to into some perspective.
The United States, in 2011-12, was again the largest source of proposed investment in this country, at $36.6 billion
Other major source countries of proposed investment in that same year, 2011-12 were: the United Kingdom, at $20.3 billion; China, with $16.2 billion; Japan, with $13.9 billion; and Canada, with $8.9 billion. As you can see from those figures from last year, there is a lot of money spent by a lot of countries in this, our land of Australia. There were 49 foreign investment approvals in agriculture, forestry and the fishing sector, worth $3.6 billion in the same year, 2011-12. This represents just two per cent of the approved foreign investment in Australia—two per cent, in the agriculture, forestry and fishing sector. The largest source country of investment by value in the agricultural sector was Canada, at $1.4 billion, followed by the United Kingdom, at $0.6 billion, and the United States, at $0.5 billion—$500 million. Over the last five years the average level of foreign investment in the sector has been just over $2.5 billion.
There are 29 recommendations in this report, and I will touch on the one that I feel has a lot of relevance with regard to that emotive debate and trying to ensure that a rational debate can happen from here on out in this country about the way in which we source capital to fund our food security—and, keeping it in perspective—our resource community and so on. The committee made a recommendation that the government further strengthen Australians' tax regulations in order to protect against the erosion of Australia's tax revenue. In particular, the government should develop a more rigorous approach to prevent revenue leakage that may occur due to the business structures and practices used by foreign investors in relation to the transfer pricing of goods, the capital gains they pay, passive income, thin capitalisation and any other tax measures that may be deployed.
The issue is, of course, that you can have a company in this country and own farming property, and the principals can be Australian residents based in this country, but 100 per cent of the funding can be from an offshore base. That can be a sovereign wealth fund or a private fund from any of the countries which I mentioned earlier. They, effectively, are the owners. We need to look at those issues and tighten those loopholes to ensure that those who own the company are not necessarily those who can control it.
One of the other recommendations was that we commission an independent and wide-ranging review on Australia's regulatory network. We also thought that the national register for foreign ownership of agricultural land should be the primary mechanism for collecting and publishing information about foreign investment. That is very important, because we found out through the review process that there is a complete vacuum of information available to states and territories and the federal parliament to be able to make informed, realistic views on what is and is not good for this country. The register would include divestments as well, and the integrity of the register would be maintained so that public policy could be framed and gazetted to ensure that our food security was not under any threat.
The interpretation of 'agricultural land' came in for some scrutiny. What is agricultural land? What defines it? It is arguable from state to state and region to region what is and is not prime agricultural land. That needs to be identified. We also thought that it may be an idea to map the trends of foreign ownership of land in this country so that we can predict what policy instruments we need to employ to ensure that we do not get imbalances and that the government's and our expectations do not get out of step with those of the broader community. It should also aggregate the lands over five-year periods. My colleagues here earlier laid that out, so I will not go over that again. The other thing is that this information should be published. There is no better disinfectant than sunshine, and we think that information going regularly into the public domain will ensure that everybody can have a calm and reasoned view of who is investing, and why they are investing, in this country.
The big question was: is Australia able to feed itself into the future? Australia has a diverse and plentiful food supply, with enough food available from domestically produced and imported food to feed its population of nearly 23 million people. Even with a projected population of 30.9 million to 42.5 million people by 2056, food availability is not likely to become a problem for Australia. Australia produces enough food today to feed approximately 60 million people, so we do have a very high level of food security in this country.
In 2010, Australia was ranked the 16th biggest world food exporter by value and eighth in the world in terms of food trade surplus—the value of exports compared to the value of imports. During 2010-11, Australia imported $10.6 billion worth of food products—much less than the $27.1 billion of food exports. Asia receives between 55 and 60 per cent of Australia's agrifood exports, or about 40 per cent by value of our annual farm and fisheries food production. Australia has an abundant and diverse food supply. Over 90 per cent of fresh produce, including fresh fruit, vegetables, meat, milk and eggs, sold in Australia is domestically produced. Australians have the resources and wealth to import food to complement domestic supply and meet consumer preferences.
In closing, the wine industry in Australia has had a massive amount of foreign investment over the last 20 years. Without that foreign investment, the wine industry would be a vastly different business from it is today. I commend everybody for this report. (Time expired)
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (16:52): I believe that our current national interest test is very much a 'known unknown'—it is vague, it is imprecise and it is not in the national interest. It pains me to say it but I think we can learn from the New Zealanders, who have a much clearer national interest test—it is prescribed, it is set out, it is a much more efficient system that we have here, and I think it serves that nation much better than our test serves us. I also think it is important to note that credible potential Australian purchasers for Cubbie Station were overlooked in favour of a foreign based consortium because there is not a level playing field when it comes to comparing local investors against a foreign investment syndicate. I think it is a matter of shame that local investors missed out on Cubbie Station.
I want to finish by referring to the evidence of David Farley, the chief executive of AACo. What he wrote last year in the national media sums up the dilemma and the challenge that we have. He said:
Why isn't a pathway being engineered for local investment, ahead of international?
Why has the government lost confidence in local agribusiness developing our agricultural future?
There is no doubt that the world is facing an explosion in the demand for food, the global population forecast to peak at 9 billion within 38 years.
Australia has a critical role to play in meeting the demand created from that expected 40 per cent increase.
… … …
I would say more respect should be paid to the expertise contained in our own agricultural industry and more effort put into making sure that Australia is equipped to play its role in the global demand for food.
That is the challenge: it is not just about foreign investment rules; it is about encouraging local investment in agriculture.
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria) (16:54): It gives me great pleasure to make a short contribution on the tabling of the rural and regional affairs references committee report into foreign investment and the national interest test. I note that the secretariat are sitting over on the benches. I thank them for their hard work on a report that I know has taken a long time. And I thank the hard-working and dedicated members of the committee, who approached their work from a bipartisan perspective. This inquiry, chaired by Senator Heffernan and supported ably by Senator Nash, Senator Edwards and others, looked at something which is of key interest to Australians—and not just those in regional Australia. It does not matter whether I go to branch meetings or town meetings in country Victoria or to state council meetings in Melbourne, who owns what, where and how much in our nation has become an increasingly contested space. It is a much debated and discussed issue throughout the nation. For instance, talkback radio is full of listeners ringing in—and they are not all from the regions—wanting to put forward their views on who should be able to own Australian land and agribusiness and who should not.
This is a timely report and it makes some very good recommendations which I will briefly touch on. In Victoria we have had some discussion within our own borders as the result of drought and high levels of debt within certain areas in our own local industry. That has meant our own local agricultural industries have sought buyers and they have been more than happy to take some of the figures offered to them, which are way beyond what other farming enterprises—maybe those next door—are able to pay, therefore pushing up the price. It is good for the seller but it is not so good for others in the market. One of the sad things about the foreign investment conversation nationally is that international companies, agribusinesses and, sometimes, nations see investment in agriculture in Australia as a good thing, and sometimes we find it difficult to generate that level of local support when it comes to who is holding our land and agribusinesses. That is something I think talking about this issue can actually raise and encourage.
One of the highlights that came from one of the hearings that I was able to participate in is that we actually do not know what we do not know. In my own state of Victoria we do not collect this sort of data. We want to base foreign investment decisions on fact, not fear. That is very important going forward in this discussion. Until we are collecting the types of statistics that are going to allow us to know who owns what, where and how much they paid for it, we are not going to be able to have a sensible debate about this. We are not going to be able to put it into a context where we can discuss what the national interest looks like and what decisions around the national interest look like. I do not think we should be afraid of basing decisions on the national interest, but we need to be able to be united on what the national interest looks like.
I want to go to some of the recommendations. Recommendation 6 is that the review that Senator Heffernan touched on should specifically consider the definition of rural land and urban land. At present, if there is a foreign acquisition of a property in, say, Sydney or Melbourne it automatically comes to the attention of the Foreign Investment Review Board. But, unfortunately, you can buy 16 or 60 houses in Wycheproof and it will not come to the attention of the Foreign Investment Review Board. So there is a little bit of an inequity in what people are concerned about. I do not think we need to be afraid to stand up for our national interest and be concerned. But until we know what we do not know at the moment in terms of statistics, we are not able to make those sorts of decisions.
When we look at definitions of rural land, it has been incredibly difficult to actually get a concise definition. The definition of rural land is quite a contested space. Is it based on what it is used for? Is it based on geography, demographics or distance from a capital city? For instance, as we increasingly look at the way different land is used, you can have quite highly intensive primary production industry located quite close to urban centres. I am thinking particularly of maybe poultry, for instance—much different to broadacre farms. But we do need to get workable rural and urban land definitions so that we can start dealing with foreign investment.
Other nations have a variety of regimes to regulate and understand the level of foreign investment in their nations. We could be looking—and that is what part of Senator Heffernan's inquiry has done—at articulating and collating the different regimes that exist right throughout the nation on how they deal with foreign investment.
Another recommendation that particularly took my fancy was:
The committee recommends that the government require that any non-commercial production from agricultural land and businesses by foreign government entities (including for the purposes of food security) is undertaken within relevant Australian Government foreign aid programs.
This is a significant recommendation. If you go to the detail behind that recommendation in the report—and I note that the galleries are waiting for speakers a lot more eloquent than I am, but I would recommend to all of you that, when you get home, you download from Hansard this—
Senator Boswell: Compulsory reading!
Senator McKENZIE: compulsory reading—thank you, Senator Boswell; I will take that interjection. Currently, the FIRB review process takes place when the Foreign Investment Review Board is notified of foreign investment proposals that are above relevant thresholds. We have heard a bit of discussion about thresholds today. Obviously, when a property like Cubbie Station does not make the cut, we have serious problems with our threshold here in this nation.
I really congratulate the coalition on their approach to foreign investment. I am finding, when I go out particularly into regional Victoria and talk about the coalition's plan about foreign investment, that people on the ground are extremely interested in the fact that that threshold has to be looked at and that we want to reduce it, because out in the regions they know that there ain't too many properties at $248 million for foreign investment. I might leave my comments there.
The PRESIDENT: Are you seeking leave to continue your remarks later?
Senator McKENZIE: Yes, thank you, Mr President.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Report
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (17:03): On behalf of the Chair of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Senator Crossin, I present the reports of the committee on the provisions of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2013—
Senator Fifield: Mr President, on a point of order: the guillotine motion which is currently in effect, which the government and the Greens passed in this place, specifically provides for the first speech of Senator Lines and the valedictory speeches of Senator Humphries and Senator Joyce at five o'clock, so I would have thought that the opportunity to seek to table reports has concluded.
The PRESIDENT: 'Approximately' is the word that is used in the resolution, as I understand it, Senator Fifield. I am just trying to get the business of this place disposed of very quickly. It is my intention, as soon as this report is tabled, to go to the appropriate business—and that is in accordance with the resolution of the Senate.
Senator Fifield: Mr President, on a further point of order: could I suggest then that it would be more appropriate to follow the reports as listed on the red?
The PRESIDENT: We would have had it tabled now if we had not had this discussion.
Senator CAROL BROWN: and the Migration Amendment Offshore Resources Activity Bill 2013, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the reports be printed.
FIRST SPEECH
The PRESIDENT (17:04): Order! Before I call Senator Lines, I remind honourable senators that this is her first speech; therefore, I ask that the usual courtesies be extended to her.
Senator LINES (Western Australia) (17:05): Thank you, Mr President. I have some stiff competition today, and I feel that perhaps I should have written two speeches, but I have what I have and I will proceed with that. I would like to acknowledge that I am standing on the traditional lands of the Ngunawal people, and I pay my respects to elders past and present and any elders present today.
I pay my respects to the Hon. Chris Evans, who entered parliament in 1993 and resigned in 2013, a stellar 20-year career. Prior to entering parliament, Chris worked as an industrial officer at my union, United Voice. Chris and I worked together at the union, Chris as an experienced industrial officer and me, a new starter. And here I am again, following on from Chris. In his first speech, Chris said the principles of basic human rights would be his guiding light, and in his valedictory speech he said the memories he would take with him were more about the people he had met—sitting on the ground with Aboriginal people, talking about native title, or at the University of Western Sydney, meeting with the parents of young people, the first in their family going to university, getting that opportunity. Chris emphasised that it has been the contact with people that has mattered most to him, that has left an impression. Chris leaves me with very big shoes to fill.
My father was sent to Australia as part of the UK child migration scheme. William John Henry Lines, Jim, was just 12 years old when he arrived at Fairbridge farm in Western Australia. Dad describes himself at 12 as a city urchin, used to city life. I cannot imagine what a 12-year-old in 2013, separating from their family, being sent halfway across the world, away from everything familiar, would think and feel. Yet Dad says he was intrigued on arriving at Pinjarra to find it all bush and open spaces.
Dad left Fairbridge at 15 and was sent to work as a farm labourer in WA's wheat belt, where he quickly became disillusioned and, after a time, put his age up and joined to fight in World War II. Jim was a commando in the 2/5th Commando Squadron and served in New Guinea. After the war, he retrained, first as a baker then as a carpenter, and spent the rest of his life in the building trades. Dad is now retired and lives in Mandurah. At 91, he has a Facebook page and is a great internet user.
My mother, Nancy McRae, was an exceptional student and won scholarships to high school and university. Nancy was a schoolteacher and ended her career as a deputy principal at a time when women were required to give up their jobs once children were born. During her teaching career, Nancy taught at Queens Park Primary School. Nancy taught many of the children from Sister Kate's Children's Home, now known as Manguri. These children, stolen Aboriginal children, were sent from all parts of Western Australia to live at Sister Kate's. During her time at Queens Park, Nancy made lifelong friends with many of these children and the community. Nancy passed away in 1976.
My stepmother, Mary Davies, was an inspiration to me, being brave enough, against the wisdom of her close friends, to take me in as a troubled teenager. But Mary persevered and showed me kindness, compassion and unconditional love. Mary passed away in 2003. My parents and my stepmum taught me resilience, compassion and to stand up for my beliefs. They showed me that education and politics matter.
For the past six years, I have led United Voice's Big Steps in Early Childhood Education and Care campaign and aged-care campaign. Both of these campaigns focus on winning wage justice for low-paid early childhood educators and aged-care workers. I am pleased to say that the workforce compact bill passed this place today. These campaigns go to the heart of why I am here today: the issue of fairness. I am a feminist and I am strongly motivated around issues of social justice. I have been active around Aboriginal land rights and, unfortunately, Aboriginal deaths in custody. I proudly joined the hundreds and thousands of Australians in the bridge walks, apologising to the stolen generations, when John Howard steadfastly refused to do so. I stood silently and proudly on the lawn of Parliament House when the Labor government gave its heartfelt apology to the stolen generations. I have stood side by side with large groups of people, groups that understand the need to act collectively to make positive change. As a senator I want to work on building coalitions of support—large groups of people standing together with support from the trade union movement, community organisations and other progressive groups.
Politics matters. Who is in government matters. Government policy shapes our country, our communities and our lives. Right now, I look at my state, Western Australia, and I am saddened to report that, despite the riches from the resources boom, we have a state government crying poor and a state government refusing to sign up to historic reforms such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the National Plan for School Improvement. The Liberal Party made many commitments to the voters of Western Australia during the recent election campaign and is now reneging on those commitments. Western Australians are asking why Colin Barnett will not sign up to the NDIS. People with disability want a national insurance scheme—a scheme based on need, not on budget allocation; a scheme which recognises and makes an assessment across a person's lifetime; and, most importantly, a scheme which gives choice to individuals.
The Gonski review was the most comprehensive review of education in 40 years, based on ensuring real opportunity for all of our children in education, yet the Premier refuses to sign on and the coalition is on record as saying there is nothing wrong with the current system. The Gonski review found that we are investing far too little in our schools, that too many students are missing out and that our school system is not efficient, effective or fair. Alarmingly, there are gaps in student achievement. Australia's overall performance has fallen in the last 10 years. Postcodes are defining academic outcomes. Students in disadvantaged areas are up to three times behind students who live in wealthy areas. One in seven 15-year-olds does not have basic reading skills. These are not the statistics we should see in a country as wealthy as Australia. We need to act now and yet Premier Barnett sits on his hands, despite David Gonski warning that Australia will only slip further behind unless as a nation we act and act now.
Here in this place, if elected a future coalition government will turn its back on the most sweeping review of education this country has seen. The federal member for Sturt, Christopher Pyne's, commitment to education is, 'Same old, same old,' continuing with falling standards and growing gaps in student outcome. My grandchildren, Aiden and Charlie, will miss out on an additional $11.2 million across the next six years in their two schools if WA does not sign up to the school improvement plan.
Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members; the last, the least, the littlest.
The authorship of this quote has been attributed to many, including Gandhi. Despite its loss of authorship, the meaning continues to ring true. Over the past month I have been listening to various groups and peak organisations in Western Australia. I have asked them to give me their sense of our community. I have learnt that there are over 22,000 applications for public housing. This represents around 55,000 individuals, whilst public housing accounts for just four per cent of WA's housing stock. Added to this, of the available private rentals just one half of one per cent were affordable for low-income people. Almost 20,000 people are accessing specialist homelessness services. Of those, 41 per cent were children. Sixty per cent were seeking ongoing accommodation. The majority were women, mainly escaping family and domestic violence, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were over-represented in the 20,000. Every day in Western Australia around 1,200 people, including many with children, request new or ongoing accommodation. Most are turned away.
In May of this year the Australian Institute of Criminology released its report on Aboriginal deaths in custody. The report is alarming. The number of deaths in prison has increased, with deaths in the year 2009-10 equal to the highest on record. The proportion of Aboriginal prisoners has almost doubled in the last 20 years, since the royal commission delivered its recommendations.
In Western Australia, Aboriginal juveniles account for two-thirds of the whole juvenile population. Young Aboriginals are placed in detention at 31 times the rate of non-Aboriginal youths. Across the country Aboriginal people are 11 times more likely than whites to be imprisoned, and in Western Australia it is 18.3 per cent more likely. These statistics are stark because they represent real people, their families, their friends and their communities.
Obviously, more attention needs to be paid to those in our community who need a helping hand. Our society needs to be geared towards ensuring that all of its members are able to prosper. This means our economic agenda must be about people, not the state of the NASDAQ or the Dow Jones Index. Imagine if on our nightly news, along with the value of shares and the dollar being reported, we measured how many people were living rough and how many children were living rough. We measure the road toll. It is time that we measured the real state of our economy.
There are of course opposing views on economics. I do not subscribe to the theory that working harder produces better economic outcomes. In my time at the union I have seen aged care workers, early childhood workers, cleaners, security officers and others working really hard and yet they failed to lift their economic prospects because it is not possible to prosper on rates of less than $19 an hour.
Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, and others, argue that inequality leads to inferior economic outcomes. Key indicators such as health and education are poorer for those living in poverty. In fact, Stiglitz argues that great inequality and concentration of wealth distort political processes. The wealthy elite are able to secure political outcomes in their own interests rather than in the interests of most people.
As private and social interests diverge, more and more of society's resources are devoted to seeking rewards that do not actually add to the wellbeing of all, the cost of which is that some of our smartest minds are used on activities that do not lead to good government or innovation for all. As people live secluded, segregated lives there is less understanding of how others live, and a sense of entitlement, and the rhetoric grows that the well off have created their own good fortune through their own initiative. In the end the result of a lopsided wealth distribution in society means that there is less investment in critical public resources such as health, education, transport and so on. The wealthier a society becomes, the more reluctant the well-off are to spend money on common needs. The rich do not need to rely on governments for parks, education, health and personal security. They can buy all of that for themselves.
There is no definition of poverty in Australia. Different benchmarks are used. What is stark, however, is that, whatever measure is used, Australia is not an egalitarian, fair-go-for-all country. Leading agencies the Australian Council of Social Service, the Salvation Army, NATSEM and others all agree that the poor are middle aged, more women than men, from non-English-speaking backgrounds, and many support children. They all agree that poverty is associated with unemployment or insecure work and is exacerbated by housing costs, which can lead to homelessness and overcrowding.
The picture I painted for Western Australia is, I believe, replicated across the country. As a senator I want to spend my time on building coalitions of support for making our economy fairer, about measuring the economic outcome against the wellbeing of all.
I want to acknowledge and pay tribute to my family, whom I am extremely proud of. They are in the gallery today: my daughter, Renee, my son, Mark, my grandchildren Aden and Charlie, and my partner, Rory Lambert, who, without hesitation, agreed and proudly supported me in my preselection and my appointment as a senator for Western Australia. I thank them for their love and support and for enduring my political involvement in their lives.
I thank my union, United Voice, and I acknowledge my union colleagues in the gallery. I have worked for the union for the past 26 years, the last 11 of which have been in elected positions in Western Australia and in the national office in New South Wales. I want to thank and pay tribute in particular to Dave Kelly, now the state Labor member for Bassendean, Carolyn Smith, the branch secretary of the Western Australian branch, Michael Crosby, the national president of the union, and Louise Tarrant, the national secretary, who today celebrates 20 years at United Voice. These are some of the finest union leaders in the country: people of integrity, passion and commitment who every day work hard alongside some of Australia's lowest paid workers to improve their lives and communities.
To work for a union is a privilege. To work for United Voice is both an honour and a privilege. One of my first experiences at the union was on a picket line outside the Reserve Bank, where a decision had been made to privatise the security staff, resulting in insecure work. That was in 1987. I am sure that this threat to workers' jobs was there before my time and no doubt privatisation will continue to be a threat. Yet United Voice members who experience insecure work and low pay in unrecognised and often unrewarded jobs are incredible people. In my time at the union, I have seen members risk their livelihoods and the livelihoods of their families to take strike action to improve pay and conditions, to stop privatisations and to fight harsh industrial laws. I have shared stories and food in the middle of the night on picket lines and in the heat and the cold and the pouring rain stood shoulder to shoulder with workers as we fought for justice. It is these experiences that have shaped my views, sharpened my sense of justice and made me the leader I am today. It is these experiences that I bring with me to the Senate.
I am immensely proud to be a Labor senator. I thank United Voice for their unswerving support. My selection as a senator is one of my proudest moments. I know that I am taking the views and aspirations of working people with me into the Australian parliament.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Valedictory
The PRESIDENT (17:26): Pursuant to the order of the Senate agreed to on 24 June 2013, the Senate will now move to valedictory statements.
Senator HUMPHRIES (Australian Capital Territory) (17:27): On the night 10½ years ago when I gave my first speech in this place, I was unfortunate enough to have that speech coincide with the decision of then government to go to war in Iraq, which rather deprived my speech of some of the attention that it deserved. Another war seems to have conspired similarly tonight. I must be cursed in some way, I suppose!
I was preselected for the ACT Senate seat made vacant by Margaret Reid retiring in late 2002 after the last sitting for that year of the legislative assembly. I resigned from the assembly before its first sitting in 2003 before it had a chance to say goodbye and so, with your indulgence, Mr President, I will make this my valedictory from two parliaments not one.
I entered the Senate in 2003 as the 500th Australian to do so since 1901. I would have mentioned that fact in my first speech if I had been aware of it. Obviously, I am employing better researchers today than I did back then. I first entered this chamber with a sense of pride and of awe but wondering how I would translate from being a big fish in the nation's smallest pond to being a small fish in its biggest. I confess to more than a few moments of dislocation and bewilderment in those early days. Coming from a place where I had been in charge, I found it hard to work out just how things got done up here on the hill.
In fact, it was the then arts minister, Senator Rod Kemp, who provided me with the breakthrough insight I needed. The National Film and Sound Archive had suddenly announced that it was sending part of its function to Sydney and I was mightily upset by this. In a rather agitated state, I rang Rod and said: 'Mate, this is just dreadful. What can we do about this?' He responded by saying calmly: 'Well, Gary, you're the local member. If you don't like it, it's not going to happen.' I put down the phone and thought, 'Well, that's how you get things done; you throw a tantrum.'
Getting things done is, of course, the business of politics. Every one of us blessed with the honour of holding a seat in parliament knows that the honour comes with a responsibility. We need to make a difference with the time we are granted. Change in the world around us is inevitable, and the rate of change seems to have accelerated in the 24 years I have served in these two parliaments. Managing this change—ensuring that it best serves the people we were elected to look after—is a deep responsibility. The biggest change this community of Canberra has had to deal with, perhaps, has been the advent of self-government, back in 1989. The citizens of this territory were quite determined that they would not be detached from the teat of a bountiful Commonwealth. And when they were, they expressed their disgust—in no uncertain terms—at the inaugural election of that year. The major parties managed to scrape up just nine seats between them, out of an assembly of 17, and a period of uncertainty and two changes of government in less than three years followed. It was a strange experience to enter a parliament that most citizens did not want. And so began the long, slow grind of persuading our reluctant population that it was actually better to have a local person deciding which potholes would be filled and which bus routes would be diverted than to have a person who flew in each week from Melbourne or Hobart deciding that.
That was a real baptism of fire for a 30-year-old newbie politician. After being a salesman for self-government, WorkChoices was a cinch. The responsibilities I was given in successive ACT governments were extraordinarily broad, since everybody in the phone-box government that is necessary in a boutique parliament has to wear a lot of hats. I personally wore just about every hat there was to wear. I particularly enjoyed the challenge of being the Territory's Attorney-General for five years. But, for a man who always got his wife to do the annual tax returns, the prospect of being appointed Treasurer in 1999 was the most daunting. The role appealed more to my children than to me. When the Chief Minister told me about her intention, I went home and into my then six-year-old son, Felix's, bedroom to tell him about what the Chief Minister was about to do and how I was about to become the Treasurer. He sat up in bed, his eyes as wide as saucers, and asked, 'Daddy, are you gonna be a pirate?' I thought, 'Very perceptive kid, at that age'!
Representing the ACT at both levels of government has been a challenge and a privilege. I make no bones about it: this is a special community. This is the Australian treasure house. The great national institutions around us are the repository of the things that describe the achievements, the aspirations, the challenges and the uniqueness of the Australian experience. And the community in which they are set is highly educated, has a high disposable income, is highly politically literate and has a social conscience—and I would not have it any other way. What a glorious privilege it has been to be a parliamentary guardian of this community set in the bush, the largest inland city in the nation, a place that in significant respects has lived up to the ambition Lord Denman described for it in 1913, when he hoped it would be 'the city beautiful of our dreams'. I was appointed to the Senate just days after a hellish bushfire burnt through Canberra, destroying 500 homes and killing four people. The 'city without a soul', so called, bared at that moment a beating heart to the rest of the nation as we suffered together and reached out to those who had lost so much. Ten years later, this same city proudly celebrates its centenary.
I know Canberra baiting is a national sport, but amid the send-ups and jibes let none of us forget how much of our past and our future as a nation is tied to this city's destiny. As far as our past is concerned, I remind my colleagues in the Liberal Party in particular that we are the party that overwhelmingly has shaped the Canberra of today. The three greatest builders of this city were, in order, Bob Menzies, John Howard and Malcolm Fraser. Go to the roof of this building and look out across the landscape and what you will see is an almost uninterrupted vista of projects and institutions initiated by Liberal-National governments. To run down Canberra is to sell short the proud legacy of this side of the chamber. Menzies, the greatest Liberal of all, was passionate about Canberra and accelerated the relocation of some 5,000 public servants and their departments, such as Defence, from places like Melbourne to Canberra. Canberra's population grew from 28,000 in 1954 to 93,000 by the time Menzies retired in 1966.
Canberra is pivotal to the future we make for our nation. Central to that proposition is the Australian Public Service. No less than any mineral sitting in the ground, no less than any produce from the land, the APS is an asset owned by and of enormous value to the Australian people. It is the vehicle through which every national government since Federation has delivered on its promises and will again be central to the great changes we in the coalition will need to effect if we are honoured with the privilege of government after September, as those of my colleagues in this place who have been ministers before know full well. The APS was a trusted and professional partner when coalition governments of the past delivered the Colombo Plan, state aid to non-government schools, the ANZUS and SEATO treaty agreements, the Medicare safety net and work for the dole. This is not to deny that a coalition government should and will find savings, including by reducing the size of the Commonwealth payroll. That is, without any shadow of doubt, an essential step in restoring the budget surpluses that will be the vehicle to deliver on our national ambitions. I argue merely that quality should not be sacrificed when quantity is cut.
I spoke about the responsibility we all have in politics to make a difference with the time we are granted. I recently asked myself what difference I have made with my time. There was, in the early days of ACT self-government, so much to be done. I am proud to point to a number of things that I as a minister initiated and obtained recurrent funding for in the territory: the ACT Hospice, the Tuggeranong Arts Centre, the consolidation of the city's two major public hospitals on to one site, allowing for a teaching hospital to be developed, nation-leading defamation laws, the Territory's first 24-hour mental health crisis service, the city's first birthing centre, and many others. I am perhaps most particularly proud, however, of the Snowy Hydro SouthCare Rescue Helicopter service, perhaps because everyone said it would never happen—particularly the public servants who were supposed to be making it happen. There is no record of how many lives this service has saved in the last 14 years of its existence.
At the federal level, achievements for those who are not ministers are more fine-grained and collegiate. Two such achievements stand out. I put my shoulder to the wheel with other senators during the inquiry into mental health in 2006 and various inquiries into children in institutional care, leading, respectively, to a blossoming of new mental health services in 2006 and the apology to the Forgotten Australians in 2009—seminal achievements, I believe, of the last decade.
I hope that my contribution to the development of coalition policies for this year's election will lead to other achievements, albeit ones that others will deliver. I am proud to have been part of this great chamber of review for this past decade, and I have tried to uphold its best traditions and advocate for its relevance and purpose.
One of the weapons used against me in the recent ACT Senate preselection was that I had crossed the floor to vote against the party, the implication being that, by doing so, I was not quite an authentic Liberal. Can I take this opportunity tonight to remind my party that the ability of its members to cross the floor to defend the primacy of their conscience and judgement occasionally, against the dictates of the whips' call, is a practice that defines Liberalism in this country and sets it apart from the Labor Party. Sometimes we need to stand up for a higher principle, and our ability to do so underscores that, essentially, Liberal MPs and senators are the products of their communities, not of a party machine, and that this device is a strength, not a weakness. Although I was the only Liberal senator to cross the floor in the life of the Howard government, I am pleased to say that I have led something of a revival of the tradition in subsequent days—a trendsetter, if you like! Even as late as this week, some of our colleagues have taken the opportunity to exercise that very important right, and I remind all of us that none of them are less a Liberal for having done so.
In any case, I think I have enough brownie points to warrant some indulgence. I roughly estimate that, over the last 24 years, I have voted in divisions and on the voices in accordance with the whips' direction approximately 55,272 times. That is a lot of loyalty. I have a perfect attendance record in the Senate; I have never missed a day of the Senate sitting. And I have only ever missed one division in this place in 10½ years. Okay—it was for the sale of Telstra, I admit! But nobody is perfect.
I am, and always have been, a Liberal to the core. I have, for more than three decades, been investing in an enduring message—not a slogan, but a conviction—that the Liberal way is about creating communities that are stronger, more prosperous and more secure, and that this message has a relevance at every level of Australian government. That investment has paid dividends. I am proud, for example, that former Gary Humphries staffers now sit in three Australian parliaments, with more yet to come.
There are many tonight I need to thank. So many have lighted my way or lightened my load. I acknowledge my predecessor, Margaret Reid, who is here tonight. The first woman to be President of the Senate, she was a paragon of hard work and dignity. I acknowledge Amanda Vanstone, who first brought me to the Senate as a staff member and who taught me the value of a sense of humour in politics. My predecessor as Chief Minister, Kate Carnell, is also here tonight. She was an extraordinary woman to work with, and an exceptional person in so many ways. I have never seen a more courageous politician—a compliment meant only slightly in the Yes Minister sense. My little place in history is secured by having served as deputy leader to the first, and so far the only, woman to head a Liberal government in Australia.
I pay tribute to those who served as my ministers in the brief but glorious Camelot that was the Humphries government. I do not know why you are laughing! But I think you are on side. The Territory has been exceptionally lucky to find many fine ministers in each administration, despite the ridiculously small gene pool from which they are drawn.
My time here in the federal parliament has been enriched by the privilege of working with some exceptional people. Attempting to pick out all of those people would be sheer foolishness. Allow me to mention a few. To the four shadow ministers I have served as shadow parliamentary secretary, Scott Morrison and Kevin Andrews, and, more recently, George Brandis and David Johnston, I pay tribute. These men will, I feel, be called on to play great roles in the affairs of our country in the near future, and they have the heart and character to carry off that great responsibility. I also acknowledge Luke Hartsuyker, who I represent in this chamber on matters youthful and sporty.
Heart and character lie thick on the ground in this Senate. It has been an extraordinary experience to serve with the remarkable people who make up this place. I single out only one for mention tonight, and only because he is about to bail out of this place: Barnaby Joyce. In the version of this speech I saved last night before going home, I was going to say that Barnaby is about to attempt the political equivalent of Daniel Craig leaping from a speeding Bentley and landing on a moving train. I have had to modify that slightly as a result of today's events; perhaps it is more a case of stepping off a stationary train on to a platform now! I hope I have not jinxed you, Barnaby; I am sorry.
I put on record my thanks to the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, for his loyalty and support during my recent preselection battle. On the day in 2009 the Liberal Party elected Tony Abbott as its leader, I thought it had made a serious mistake. Today, I see in Tony Abbott a man ready in every way to lead this nation and who will confound his critics to make a fine Prime Minister.
The people who power this building and keep it running smoothly, despite the politicians, are owed a great deal by all of us. The gracious Senate attendants, the cheeky security staff, the omnicognisant procedural officers, the Hansard staff who practise the dark art of turning our gobbledygook into statesman-like addresses and the drivers who are always the first to know, I thank them all most sincerely.
I have been blessed by truly exceptional staff members of my own over those 24 years. I was inspired years ago by the American movie Dave to always choose staff who, if I fell into a coma, would do my job in the interim better than I could. My present staff fall very much into this mould: Danielle, Pat, Cam, Jules and, above all, the indefatigable Ross. I owe them and all who sailed with me over the years, and there are more than a few in the gallery tonight, more than I can say. I hope your talents and loyalty are not lost to the Liberal Party. Of my former staff, I need to particularly thank Rowan Greenland and Stephen Forshaw for outstanding service.
My family has shared this journey with me every step of the way. My wife married a politician and my sons were born to a politician. In fact, Cathy has trod these halls and those of the Old Parliament House for longer than I have. I thank her for her wise counsel and unfailing support. To my sons, Felix and Owen, thank you for standing up for me, even when I missed so much of your growing up because of the job that I did.
I wish Tony Abbott and my party colleagues the best of luck at the coming election. I will take this opportunity, however, to offer some advice to my colleagues in the event they are favoured by the Australian people with the privilege of government later this year. As the only person on this side of the chamber to have actually led a government—there are three on the other side of the parliament but only me on this side—I think I am entitled to offer a little advice.
Set yourselves sensible nation-building goals in government worthy of the best traditions of the coalition but not beholden to the values of a former age. Having chosen those goals, stick to them; talk about them with passion so that the Australian people never fail to associate you with those goals. They may not always share those goals but they will give you credit for having convictions that do not crumble in the face of an adverse opinion poll. Listen carefully to the voices of those affected by those goals, remembering that in such exchanges there is sometimes no voice for the greater public interest. Above all, take full and careful stock of the cold, hard evidence in all its comfortless ugliness. A government that continually skips that stage of the process, relying instead on hunches and focus groups, is destined for grief. Calibrate your actions not by the next news poll but by what historians will say about those actions. After a period in office, measure success or failure by whether, objectively speaking, Australians have more control over their lives—whether more of what they earn stays in their pocket, whether they have more chance of building something or producing something or achieving something worthwhile than they had before you came along, and whether they are more hopeful about their future. In that process, however, remember that there are many Australians who will never have effective control over their lives. Ensure they too have a respectable share of the choices this great and wealthy nation confers on its citizens.
Mr President, I thank you, my Senate colleagues—the visitors from the other place have obviously just gone to something much more important—and the many family and friends who have travelled here to be with me and my family on this special night. I particularly thank the many members of the ACT Division of the Liberal Party who are present here tonight. Of course, if you had been here on the night of my preselection, I might not be giving my valedictory speech tonight, but que sera, sera! I thank you all for your loyalty and support of me over a long career. It would not have been possible without that affectionate support from a party and a community which have obviously shared so many steps along the way. Thank you.
The PRESIDENT: Senators not partaking in the further valedictory speech will leave the chamber or resume their seats. That would be helpful.
Senator JOYCE (Queensland—Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:53): You will have to give me some latitude tonight because, on the other side of the building, we have what is obviously of momentous effect to our nation, in that we are about to go through the process of changing prime ministers again, we have the State of Origin on television, and I have just listened to a speech by Pliny the Elder. It reminds me very much of what the Grateful Dead said when they came on between The Who and Jimi Hendrix. They said they were the most forgettable act at Woodstock, and I think I will be too.
I have not written a speech, because there has been so much that should be in it that I could not really do it justice. But it has been a great honour to be a part of this collegiate atmosphere which is the Senate. It has been an incredible honour to represent Australia, to wear this pin—as I always have—in my lapel, and be one of 76 Australians who have the right to go beyond the bar and come into this chamber and vote. That honour comes with immense responsibilities—immense responsibilities, because it determines the texture and nature and culture of our nation. We are reflections of that nature and its diversity.
I would like to acknowledge, most importantly, my colleagues around the chamber and the work that they have done. Although you might not presume it, I hold you in the highest respect. There are people that I have worked with, and, without mentioning all, I just wanted to mention a few—not the ones you would suspect—for the certain things that they take to this chamber. As we go around, and in no particular order, I would always like to acknowledge the work that people such as Senator John Faulkner have done—the fact that he has always held this chamber in respect. He is a person of incredible decency, a person that I do not necessarily agree with on virtually anything, but you always knew that he took the job seriously, that he held the office with respect, that he added to the office and that he was the person you could trust.
I would like to thank the vitality that Senator Doug Cameron has, and the fact that he is always getting rolled on everything—but not tonight. Tonight, Dougie wins! I would like to thank—and I really mean this—the work rate that is shown by people such as Rachel Siewert. Senator Siewert and I started at the same time and I have always looked across and thought, 'Now there is a person who is always doing their homework.' They are always across it and not acknowledged in the form that they should be for the immense work they do. Behind me is Senator Nick Xenophon. When you are busting for a pizza and you need someone to go out with, someone to bounce a few ideas off, someone you can hold in your confidence, Nick Xenophon is the person that you recognise.
Obviously, I would have to go through my own team. Not only have I had the chance to be a senator, but I have had the chance to work with an incredible team, a team that for our own part, have never leaked—and that should be advice to some on the other side. It is not that we did not have our differences. At times we did. But we always worked together in a form of collegiate experience. It was a representation within the National Party that I had, and I loved it. There was me as a little old bush accountant, I had Fiona as a farmer, I had Wacka as an ex-shearer, I had Bozzie as a paint brush salesman and I had Nige—who is not here—who was a fisherman. We managed to work together in such a way as to do the job of the representation of the people of our respective states and, most specifically, the people of regional Australia. There is also Bridget McKenzie who has now climbed to the rank of wanting to be on every possible committee that has ever been devised in this building.
There are so many others of my Liberal party colleagues that I would like to acknowledge. I would like to acknowledge them all, but time does not permit. But I would like to make special mention of those with the courage to stand up on issues where they get derided, because I have had that experience myself. So I have great empathy for people such as Cory Bernardi. I have great empathy, as I have said, for the tenacity of Bill Heffernan. When he was not haunting me and trying to track me down, he was generally focused on something that was going to bring about a better outcome for regional Australia. It is my colleagues from Queensland, most importantly, Bretto—Brett Mason—because every day is fun if Brett Mason is there. Everything is always about looking to the better angels of the people that he is with. With Macka, it is his parochialism for North Queensland—not that North Queenslanders are parochial—and the representation of that. George has perfected the form of the erudite salesman for the coalition, and, with his work as the shadow Attorney-General, he will make a great Attorney-General of this nation. These were people at the start, and I had a very peculiar start.
People talk about doing the James Bond act, and it was done before when the National Party tried to win back the Senate seat. It was a time when nobody gave us a chance. It is so confronting when not one paper writes you up as having a prospect of winning back a Senate seat that had been previously lost. We were up against everybody from the Greens to Pauline Hanson, from the Labor Party to the Democrats, from One Nation—and because we had to stand on our own barrel—to John Howard. They were all campaigning for their turf, and into that environment we had to try to win. When we did win it was an amazing experience. From that I did carry a sense of combativeness, which I have probably expressed a range of times. If Senator Humphries was the trendsetter for crossing the floor, I can assure you I verge on Coco Chanel. It was the time to make sure, in that iteration, that the National Party never lost that position again. We made sure that we were relevant to the people who had elected us.
I would also like to reflect on the people who have supported me so well through that path. They are here tonight. It is incredibly humbling for me to see Lenore Johnson from Longreach. Lenore and I basically drove a bus around Queensland numerous times. We thought it was a huge hit if we got on a community radio station. We thought that was really cutting the mustard. Lenore has been my friend, guide and philosopher for so many years, with Bill Taylor, and with Denise Jeitz, who is also here. These people are like gold. They are called branch members and they are like gold because they are the ones that carry you along. There are so many people's names that I could go through. I can see Llew O'Brien and Bruce McIver, President of the LNP. I call these people friends because we work together in a team as friends. We could always trust each other's confidences as we went through the difficult times and the not-so-difficult times as we combined two different parties into one organisation with all the contentions that that involved.
During the election campaign of trying to reclaim this Senate seat, you had to make every item work on your behalf. I remember at one stage being in Paul Neville's seat and I saw an opportunity. We were at an air show and I saw a camera crew filming a skydive which was about to happen, and I knew that I had to insert myself into play between that skydiver and that camera crew because that is how I would get coverage, so I did. I said to my colleagues, 'Guys, I'm going to ask these people for their vote, and just watch this.' So, I looked up and I saw two dots come out of the plane. As they got closer I noted that they had, obviously, lycra on and were coming down at a rate of knots and, as they were coming down, I thought, 'This will work well.' As they got closer I saw that it was mottled lycra of a pinkish colour. As they got even closer I noticed that one of the lycra-people had something that looked awfully like a penis—they were nude! They landed, and they did not particularly want to meet a politician. They most certainly did not want to meet a camera crew, and I do not think they ever voted for me. These are part and parcel experiences of being a senator.
During this time I have had some great staff. I have never asked my staff which way they vote. They vote whichever way they are inclined; it is their right. I have always believed absolutely in the liberty of the individual and their expression of how they vote. I do not know, but I think I have crossed the floor 19 times or something, and if you add up some others it gets into the high 20s. That is important because we are in a chamber that is supposed to express the nation's freedom, and if we do not have it, then who does have it? Where does that freedom reside? This is no longer, to be honest, a states' house, but it should be. I thought it would be a states' house but it is not. It is a house made up of party bodies. If it were a states' house we would sit as states and not as political parties, so there must be other virtues to this house. I think one of the important ones is that there must be the right of philosophical freedom, of your capacity to express your views, as ardent as they are, you should have the right to do it. If your argument is not sustainable, then you will be torn to pieces by right of argument but not by right of intimidation. That is what this place should provide.
I remember Karen Lee, who came to me from the Democrats, and was my chief of staff at one stage. I am pretty sure that if Karen had voted for me she would not have voted for my party. We had a good working relationship and she would always make me aware that you have to know how to step off your left and your right if you are going to make your way through. I have had some brilliant other staff members. I can see Matt Canavan who is going to be a senator for Queensland. He will be a great contributor to the debate in this chamber, and he has already earned himself laurels around this chamber. I have had Scottie Buchholz who obviously is a typical representative of the other chamber—oh, there he is! It has been a joy to be able to work with these people and see their careers progress. I would like to make special mention of the staff members who were there day after day. Alana Brosnan who started with me from day 3 and is still with me today. Hayley Winks, who is now Haley Wildman, who left and came back, so we must be doing something right. She is a person who could get you in and out of purgatory or in and out of hell. She is the most incredible person who can organise someone's life. They have all of my bank account details—the whole lot—so I will never sack them!
I want to acknowledge Robyn Mills, Raelene McVinish and Sam Muller. This is a great story. Sam Muller went for an interview with us when our plane landed at Toowoomba. She got on. I said, 'The plane is taking off; you will have to come with me for the interview.' By the time we got to Dalby her dog had just about given up trying to keep up with the plane! We got back to Toowoomba and I said, 'You've got the job,' and she's been there ever since. These are the sorts of people I have in my office. There is Deborah Dennis and Jenny Swan. As you would note, the vast majority of my staff have been ladies. I am thankful for that because they take the harder edge off so much of what I say and do.
Some of the formative debates probably left people a little bit perplexed. I know I had a lot of friends on the right when we took on the ETS. We took on the ETS when the polling said only seven per cent of people agreed with our position. But with tenaciousness dedication and support from Senator Boswell and so many others we managed to change the position of the National Party and change the position of the coalition. And then we changed the position of the nation. That shows that every person in this chamber is given the keys to affect the nation, at times against impossible odds. If you wish to do it, you can, but you must have the fortitude to pursue that course. And that right should be yours, because it is vital for our nation that you have it.
The Birdsville amendment is something that I worked on with Frank Zumbo—a great guy—to try and reinvest in the liberty of the individual as expressed in small business, because small business is where you can be who you really wish to be, where you do not have to follow the corporate manual, where you can set up the time that you come to work and the time that you leave, where the sweat of your brow is reflected in your bank balance and you are not guided by others. Therefore it must be precious and something that we must always stand behind.
I acknowledge the corporate interests that come in here and say that that is not the case. They always try to cajole us into moving away from the protection of the rights of the individual. But we must stand behind those small businesses because they are the powerhouses that are the expression of the philosophies that we hold in this chamber. And I believe those philosophies are held, in many instances, by senators from both sides.
There is more room to move on that issue, and we must go into that space to battle for the things that I spoke about in my maiden speech—such as the over-centralisation of the retail market—and that we do not find excuses to remove ourselves from that battle. We need to step into that space and say, 'Big business is great. It has a role—and congratulations to it!—but it must not compromise the rights of individuals in the expression of their freedom in that space.
The nation has to take the next step. I have been very lucky to have been part of the process of being deputy chair of the dams committee, as we move the nation into what is our new horizon—our new agenda. We have to make that next step because the world is changing around us. We say we live in the Asian century but we have to start understanding what it is that we are going to do in that area. If we are going to survive in the service industry it is going to be difficult, considering many of the people we will compete with—because the internet is ubiquitous—will not necessarily by in Sydney and Brisbane but will be in Singapore, Taipei and Shanghai. And those people will be on a lower wage structure than ours. And to be honest, their standard of education in many areas is now higher than ours. The standard of English in Singapore is better than our English, and we are supposed to speak English! And as well as English they speak Bahasa, Cantonese and Mandarin.
So we must read into this Asian century what it actually means. We must understand that other nations are more proximate to the major markets. And we must understand that in many instances they have developed trade agreements which give them greater access to the world they live in.
So, where do our strengths lie? We have been blessed in this nation with mineral wealth and agricultural potential, and we have to make sure that we do not lose sight of our strengths. Sure, the others will grow. They will grow in the tertiary sector. We acknowledge that. But we must not lose sight of our strengths because, as any accountant will tell you, you must not lose sight of your strengths.
I was instructed in my accountancy by another gentleman who is here today—Phil Mortley, who I started with. Through that form of accountancy I carried certain fears. I had two groups of people that I was always very aware of—the ones who were the roaring successes and the ones who were the unmitigated failures. The rest were kind of irrelevant. The roaring successes and the unmitigated failures had one thing in common—their capacity or the lack of capacity to manage money. That is why I am almost apoplectic about our nation's debt. I have watched it and watched it because it concerns me deeply. If you do not manage debt, debt will manage you. It will become your master. The hardest task master you will ever have is trying to pay off debt.
I acknowledge the work of my parents who instructed me in that. Marie and Jim are here today. I can see my daughters there as well. My parents were not parsimonious but they were most definitely frugal. They made you respect the dollar. They made you account for what you did. They made you note that the money you spent was the sheep that you would have the shear, the steer that you could sell. And money can be saved by being completely diligent about how money is spent around the property. That stayed with me. So when I saw our nation going down a path where we were getting ourselves further and further into debt I remembered the experience of working under Phil Mortley and others, and how hard it is to pay it all back. That task will be before us in the future. It will be a massive task. I firmly believe that none of the people in this chamber—none of us—will be here by the time we have got on top of the debt we currently have. And I find that to be an incredible indictment and legacy for our nation. On other issues, on sideline issues, I hope that in the way I have conducted myself I have brought a form of pragmatism into how we see things.
There is no such thing as a free trade agreement. There are things euphemistically called free trade agreements, but there is no such thing as a free trade agreement. The world works pragmatically. It is ruthless. It is governed by commerce. We have to also acknowledge where we are. We call BHP the big Australian . It is not; it is 60 per cent foreign owned. We say Rio is another Australian company. It is not; it is majority foreign owned. The biggest farm in Australia is foreign owned. If you look around the skyscrapers and look for the neon sign that is a reflection of the Australian owned international champion—what is it? Where does our success lie if all the international champions are someone else's international champions? We must deal with them, and they will be part of an open marketplace.
But we must realise that it is not selfish to want to have one of our own. It is actually wise and diligent, if we want to be a strong nation—and we must be a strong nation—to have our own champions in our own country. I do not see that happening. I see us more and more becoming the servants of other people. We romanticise it, but we will be working predominantly for others. What we must do is create a culture to create our own champions. The latest iteration of that, obviously, is ADM and GrainCorp. We say we are going to live in the agricultural century. Well, where is our international agricultural champion? Which one is it going to be?
I just want to remind the people on my own side of three issues that they probably disagreed with me on. Much to the disgust of so many of my colleagues, I supported David Hicks getting a proper trial. I strongly believed, and I was guided by my mother, that a person deserves their day in court, that we cannot abscond from the legal process. It is for people to be proven guilty or innocent by the legal process, not by our beliefs. Obviously VSU got me lots of friends, but not on this side of the chamber. That was an issue about the provision of services to regional universities—that is how we saw it. We saw it as being about football fields and—
An honourable senator interjecting—
Senator JOYCE: Yes. Obviously, the other one was the West Papuan boat issue. We are the neighbours of West Papua, so when the West Papuans turn up here it is different from when other people decide to make their way here through myriad countries.
Why do I bring these issues up? It is to try, as I leave, to reinvigorate your beliefs as senators, no matter which side of the chamber you are on. If you have a belief that you strongly hold, that might not be the belief of the colleagues beside you, it is your right—in fact, it is your duty—to stand up and say something about it and to express your view. If you do not, you are letting yourself down and, worse than that, you are letting your nation down.
I have enjoyed my time here. My final thanks go to the most important group. I want to thank deeply, with the most conviction I can possibly muster, my wife, Natalie. Natalie is a person who shuns the public spotlight. She does not want to be the politician's wife. She was dragged there, unfortunately, by a person who wanted to be a politician. She has been both mother and father to my children as they have been brought up. Everybody says what a good job we have done. We did not do much of a job at all—she did a very good job. I apologise to Natalie for all the times that I have spent away and for the times that, basically, I have been the absent father and the absent husband. I was reminded that, in the first six months of last year, I spent eight days in my own bed. Natalie would get to the end of the year and remind me how many days I had been home, and it would be 25 or 28. When I had a good year, it was 42. As I was out saving the planet, Nat was managing the house. I apologise to Natalie and also to my daughters, Bridgette, Julia, Caroline and Odette, for not being there as much as I should have been.
Likewise, you cannot do this job without a support crew. To see the Travises here tonight is to see an incredible part of that support group. When you live in a country town, you can just go to someone and say, 'We're dropping our kids off.' Sometimes we did not come back for weeks.
The final group is obviously my National Party colleagues, who are around me here. This is going to be, I believe, a momentous time. We are coming to an election. The Australian people, whatever choice they make, will make the right one, and then once more we will be servants of those people. I thank you all for your tolerance of me over so many years. If I am successful, if I do the right job and walk humbly with the people of New England, I may get the opportunity to represent this great nation in another place. But I will always hold in fondness and admiration my time here. I hope I have not disgraced you too much. All the best and God bless.
Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Territory—Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Sport) (18:24): Senator Joyce, I understand that your valedictory speech was your second chance today to reflect on your time in this chamber and on how you are hoping to move the other place and represent a seat in another state. I would not be the first to note the irony of this choice given your passion for the states' house, although I also note with interest your lament this evening that you think this place has lost that role in the way that it represents. As it is Origin game 2 tonight, I think the question on many, many people's minds is: what colour scarf will you be wearing?
Senator Joyce, your presence in this place has added a great deal of colour in its own right, whatever that colour is. Your wonderful nature, the garrulous, friendly way in which you approach your work, will be sorely missed. You have always been prepared to express a very independent sentiment, and often in a very unique way. But the character you bring to this place brings so much to the Senate as a whole and, indeed, to the parliament. I am delighted that you have noted that the persuasion of the Labor argument managed to grab your attention, and you have indeed chosen to cross the floor from time to time. As an illustration of your independence, you understood the impact of abolishing student fees on university campuses, and you crossed the floor to vote against legislation that nonetheless passed. I note that in 2006 you crossed the floor again, unsuccessfully moving amendments to cross media ownership laws. Both of these are issues that I know you feel passionately about. But you were not always swayed by the arguments put forward by the Labor Party; you have never been captured by the logic of Labor arguments. Without pre-empting the electors of New England, I presume that your inclination for independence of thought might be a little constrained in your future career. I guess we will see how that plays out.
In your Senate career you have participated in an enormous range of committees. You were dedicated to your committee work. I had the pleasure of serving with you on the national capital and external territories committee, and we shared many an adventure in many an exotic location—our external territories. I think it is reasonable to say that you are leaving before your time; you are doing this by your own volition in pursuit of a different kind of opportunity. On behalf of the government, I wish you and your family all the best for your future endeavours. Who knows what will come to pass. With Mr Windsor's decision today not to stand at the next election, your fortunes have changed come what may. Senator Joyce, thank you for your contribution and thank you for your friendship. Perhaps we will see you again.
I would now like to make some comments with respect to my ACT Senate colleague, Senator Humphries. I respect the fact that Senator Humphries has made it clear that he would like to focus on the future and not dwell on the way in which his time in the Senate was prematurely ended. I would like to say that I personally thought it was unfair and certainly undeserved. I will leave it at that.
As a territory senator, I would like to reflect on the departure of my friend Senator Trish Crossin. We have often found ourselves working collaboratively on issues that are dear to our hearts with respect to the territories we represent. I note with interest that you made reference to the crossing of the floor—somewhat enthusiastically given that, on many a Friday morning with Ross Solly on the political panel, you have rubbed my nose in the fact that I am not able to cross the floor because of the rules of my party. I will talk a bit more about that shortly. But you are entitled to do so because that is in fact the way it is: as a member of the Labor Party I am bound by its rules. I certainly stand by and that respect that. But I also acknowledge your inclination on at least that occasion, as so eloquently expressed tonight, on the nature of your party's approach to such matters.
For Senator Humphries and me, our shared interest in our constituencies in the ACT has manifested itself in a number of ways. The first thing I want to mention is the cultural institutions, our national treasures, most but not all of which call Canberra, the national capital, home. Senator Humphries' support and appreciation of the arts and culture generally is very well known throughout the Canberra community, and it is reflected in his diligence with regard to holding the government to account through Senate estimates. I know that it was a genuine and abiding interest for him as a territory senator representing a Liberal government.
The other area of intersection has been on planning policy, with your active interest and involvement in the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, which in fact Senator Trish Crossin also shared for a deal of time. That has been another area of great intersection and concern for many of our constituents. Navigating what is often a complex demarcation between the roles and responsibilities of the Commonwealth in planning for the national capital and the roles and responsibilities of the ACT government is something that your experience in the ACT government brought invaluable insights to in the respective deliberations over many, many years on that joint standing committee, and I would like to acknowledge that tonight. We certainly have not always agreed on those issues. We have had many complex discussions about them, but on all of those things I know you to be someone who is extremely well motivated in the way that you see things and very focused on getting a constructive outcome.
We have not spent too much time on committees really, you and I, other than that, but I want to also acknowledge the work that you have done, particularly with Senator Trish Crossin, on the both the legislation and references committees of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Your contribution to reviewing legislation and developing policy agendas in that area of the law and how that applies to the reform process of keeping this country's laws updated is well respected and observed formally this evening.
I also would like to make a note, as you did, of your work on both the Senate Select Committee on Mental Health and the 'forgotten generations' inquiry. I think, having taken part in many a debate and many a forum with you on various election campaigns, that there is no doubt that your proficiency and expertise in both of those areas are second to none and well respected, again, in our constituency.
There are another couple of roles that I think it is important to mention—and this would go, I know, for many senators—but they are often an invisible role that senators play. Senator Humphries has played two important ones that I would like to mention and has probably played many more. One is, of course, as the co-chair of the parliamentary interfaith group; the other is as co-chair of the parliamentary friends of people with multiple sclerosis. I know that we are having a morning tea with the friends of people with multiple sclerosis tomorrow morning, so I will not say too much more about that other than that, again, your role with both of these organisations has been highly respected and will be sorely missed. As an ACT senator, your connections with many of the national advocacy groups are very strong and very real and have been for many years. In that respect, you will be missed. These groups play a significant part in ensuring that parliamentarians remain literate and educated about the issues affecting their respective constituencies. In this way, we are very proud as parliamentarians about how we keep our parliamentarian colleagues up to date with those issues.
Perhaps, in all of this, where I will miss Senator Humphries the most is probably, I reckon, those Friday mornings in the ABC studio with Ross Solly. The regular session with a political panel on Friday mornings on our ABC local radio was something of an institution, and it is just not going to be the same without you! I remember bringing in coffees one day, which totally flummoxed Ross Solly. He said, 'How can you bring your political opponent a coffee?' Anyway, it started a great tradition of bringing coffees, at least for a while. I think I spoiled it by moving to decaf and not wanting to drink it anymore.
Senator Humphries, I think those debates showed that not only is it possible to have a fiery debate with you but you are the sort of person who can walk out of the room and be entirely civil. This is not a characteristic shared by all colleagues. It is certainly a characteristic shared by most, but it is most certainly a characteristic that you have displayed over many years, and I appreciate that in this place, as I know everyone does.
So, Senator Humphries, I take this opportunity to say that I am sorry to see you go. I wish you all the best in your future. I am not going to say 'your retirement', because I have no idea what you are going to do next. From reading the paper this morning, I think you obviously have some really positive things in your mind about how you can keep contributing to the Canberra community. I would also like to acknowledge Cathie, Felix and Owain. I know the political life is very tough on families. I have met them a number of times over many years. I have seen your boys grow up over those years. To your family as well, I would like to pay my respects, and on behalf of the government I wish you all the best for the future.
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (18:35): 'Solid', 'dependable', 'a good thinker' and 'capable' are all words that easily come to mind when you seek to describe the contribution of Gary John Joseph Humphries. I did not know that was his full name until I did some research for this evening! Senator Humphries's contribution as a Liberal senator for the Australian Capital Territory has been one of absolute distinction. Not only has he held the position but he has served in the position with absolute distinction. Above all these descriptions, he has been a true gentleman of the Senate whose effectiveness was not through bluff and bluster and overblown rhetoric but through considered, sound contributions.
I got to know Gary through student politics—10 years ago, was it? All right, it was 30 years! That was through that great, formative and character-building organisation known as the Australian Liberal Students' Federation. He was always polite and decent, even way back then. Google the good senator's name, and there is not one nasty website dedicated to criticism of him. Gary's thoughtful and unassuming style as a servant of the people saw him rewarded at the ballot box time and time again both in the Legislative Assembly of the ACT and more recently as a senator on three separate occasions, in circumstances where, I might say, the Liberal Senate seat can never be—nor was it ever, by Gary—taken for granted. His capacity for marginal seat campaigning is reminiscent of a skill set usually found in the other place—albeit that I sometimes think we Tasmanian Liberal senators have a bit of a feel for it, though nowhere near your ability. I, for one, enjoyed the electorate visits. When I found myself lost in Canberra for an afternoon, going on the small-business visits with you was enjoyable and informative but also very instructive in relation to the high regard in which you were personally held by the people of Canberra and the ACT.
Gary's first speech in this place contained this wonderful passage of his intended approach:
I am here to argue for the enduring relevance of Liberal values as tools in facing up to the problems of this nation and indeed our world: the values of independence, self-reliance, tolerance, the pursuit of excellence, choice, equality of opportunity and individual freedom. In turn I reject as bankrupt the socialist alternative. That alternative fails to appreciate that people who have no incentive to work and invest will not create wealth. It thinks that collectivism and standardisation in the workplace are a substitute for hard work and innovation. It sees government as a better solver of people's problems than they are themselves.
His speech continued:
I have no truck with those who elevate Australia's shortcomings above our successes … I refuse to be apologetic about the kind of country we are today.
His approach throughout his 10-plus years in this chamber has been true to those principles that he enunciated in his first speech.
His love of Canberra shone through as well, although I fear his passion for his city and territory was often lost on those of us who did not harbour as wild a fondness for Canberra as did the good Senator Humphries. For many of us, Canberra is the necessary evil in the equation of serving our nation. It is the word that means painful separation from loved ones. It was therefore vital that the ACT had a strong voice in the coalition party room, and Senator Humphries provided it with eloquence and common sense. Not only was it a strong voice; as he told us this evening, it was also a very effective voice.
But Senator Humphries was at his best when he was campaigning against the Greens. His Senate campaign in 2010 was truly effective. He restricted the growth in the green vote in the Senate to what we could put down to a simple margin of error. To limit the green vote, as Senator Humphries did right here in the ACT, was a colossal effort, a gutsy effort and an effort that was rewarded at the ballot box. He showed we have nothing to fear by taking on the Greens and the Greens have everything to fear when we do.
Senator Humphries's other substantial success—among the many others, might I add—and one of which I am also particularly fond was his ability to bring transparency and openness to the dark CFMEU-Graeme Wood-bankrolled abomination of an outfit known as GetUp. GetUp's sickening hypocrisy, its wholesale deceit and its blatant misinformation—do you remember the vote generator?—became fully exposed with Simon Sheikh's Greens candidacy for the Senate. In true alliance style, the captain's pick for Territory Senate candidates has not been that flash. It would have been true justice had Senator Humphries being given the opportunity to see off Simon Sheikh on 14 September. Whilst we on this side will work to see Mr Sheikh off, we regret it will not be with Gary as part of our team. While Senator Humphries and I may have sat at different desks from time to time politically, within the broad church of the coalition, I am sure we shared the same pen and rule book when it came to dealing with the Greens and with GetUp.
Amongst his colleagues, especially his marginal electorate colleagues in the other place, Gary was a real asset with the provision of his real-time information updates in his role as the shadow representative for Emergency Management Australia during national disasters of fires and flood.
In less happy days, I recall Senator Humphries being on the other side of a contest which is now well and truly forgotten. Suffice to say, in its aftermath the Senate leadership team actively advocated for Gary to join the front bench, which he did very ably, hardly surprising given his previous ministerial and chief ministerial experience. It was an indication of the high regard in which Senator Nick Minchin and I held Senator Humphries that, despite those unhappy circumstances, we were more than willing to advocate for Gary's ascension to the front bench.
Gary, if we may, we pay tribute to your wife, Cathie, a wonderful human being in her own right. The two of you were a team and remain a team. To you, Cathie, and the boys, Felix and Owain, thanks for lending Gary to the ACT and the nation for public service for just shy of a quarter of a century altogether, I believe. Knowing Gary's civic-mindedness, I have no doubt he will continue to serve his community even if it is no longer in an elected representative role. Gary, all your colleagues wish you and your family nothing but good health, good fortune, happiness and fulfilment for the future. As someone who shares the Christian faith with you, can I say, on a personal basis, God bless.
I now turn to my friend Senator Barnaby Joyce. Nationals Senate Deputy Leader Nash will speak on behalf of the coalition. Suffice for me to say it was a pleasure to work with Senator Joyce as my fellow party leader in the coalition Senate team. And, 'Bosie', I always knew you would see him off. Who would ever have thought upon with Senator Joyce's arrival in the Senate that Senator Boswell would still be here when Senator Joyce left this place. It is an amazing thing how events turn out.
Barnaby: how would you describe him? Forthright, usually right and always of the right. The values for which you stand are the right ones for our community. You can look back on your time of service in the Senate with thankfulness that you made a difference for the good, as do all your coalition colleagues. Above all, as we farewell you from the Senate, we trust we will be able to welcome you as the next member for New England. To Natalie and the girls, thanks for sharing him with us in the Senate, and for your willingness to share him in the House of Representatives. Just quietly, I think he is trading down. I say to Natalie and to Cathy and the children of both Barnaby and Gary that the politicians in a family are the volunteers, and the spouse and the children are the conscripts, and they often have a lot harder and heavier load to bear. So, as we farewell Gary and Barnaby, can I also say a special thanks to Cathy and sons and Natalie and girls. God bless you, Barnaby.
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (18:46): My contribution will be brief, because there are so many other speakers, but I do want to make the point that the length of my contribution is inversely proportional to the regard I have for the two senators who are leaving this place. Firstly, in relation to Senator Gary Humphries, it was a magnificent, inspiring and moving speech, not just by the benchmark of valedictories. It was a great speech that I will be keeping for years to come. It was a benchmark of a great speech. Thank you for that inspiring contribution. I wish you and your family well for the future, but I get the feeling that your contribution to public life is not yet over. I am sure we will see you popping up making a contribution to public life in another forum and I look forward to that.
In relation to Senator Barnaby Joyce, I say this: Bill Hayden once said something along the lines that there is no such thing as a friendship in politics, just passing acquaintances. Well, he is not right. I regard Senator Joyce as a mate. He was one of the first people who contacted me after I was elected, along with Senator Williams. Senator Joyce flew over to Adelaide to talk shop with me, to talk about issues, to talk about the Birdsville amendment, to talk about competition law and to talk about common ground. I think that was the beginning of a good friendship that I hope will continue if he goes to the other place, which I think many expect now. If he is elected as the member for New England, hopefully he will not pass me in the corridor and sneer and say something like 'unrepresentative swill' to me!
I got some perverse satisfaction having Senator Joyce and Senator Bob Brown co-sponsoring bills I put up on country-of-origin food labelling and on palm oil labelling. It was a wonderful thing to see both Bob Brown and Barnaby Joyce co-sponsoring legislation together. The legislation did not get up, but nevertheless it indicated his commitment to issues beyond those of ideology about farmers getting a fair say and about consumers getting a fair say in relation to country of origin.
I also want to say that I was lucky enough about four and a half years ago now to go to St George to see Barnaby and his family there. I got to know his wife, Natalie—Saint Nat I call her—of St George, and his wonderful family. That was a privilege indeed.
I will finish off by making this final observation, which just struck me recently: Senator Joyce can count himself as part of an exclusive, elite group internationally, along with Madonna, Britney, Kylie, Cher and of course Kevin. He is instantly recognisable by his first name only. For almost all Australians there is only one Barnaby, and I warmly wish him well and all the best in the next exciting chapter of his life.
Senator NASH (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:50): What do you say when your best buddy in the Senate leaves? Bye! No, not at all. Eight years ago Barnaby and I entered the Senate together and we now get on extremely well. It was not always the case. When we first came together it was actually for a Page Research Centre inquiry into regional telecommunications, where we both learnt a lot about telco and about each other. Barnaby describes our relationship then as being a bit like two cats in a cage that did not get on. When we were just about to release the report I can remember this absolutely screaming argument we had one day on the phone as I was driving between Boorowa and Yass. It was a very interesting start.
But along the way we did develop a very strong respect for each other. It was not all that long after the eight-year start that we really did develop a very close working relationship and a very strong friendship. There are not too many really strong friendships formed in this place. There are some, and it is always great to see. We are very fortunate to have one. In all this time we have watched each other's back. In a place where often you can have people watching your back one minute and not the next it has been a really extraordinary thing to have that sort of friendship where we know that we really will look out for each other.
He has certainly always been very colourful. Sometime early on after a very long and late passionate discussion dealing with deep policy challenges on all things rural with Dave Toller, Barnaby and Nigel were admiring the recently shaved hedge near the Senate entrance. While the details of why they fell into the hedge are sketchy at best, they both appeared in the Senate the following morning looking like they had been attacked by identical hedgehogs. The two body shapes imprinted in the hedge for several days soon grew back. The mystery of the hedge fairies was eventually solved. They do assure me that they have now both grown up.
The stories from Barnaby are just part of him. There was this one story that Barnaby was telling me that I will relate. He had been away from home—as he indicated earlier, he often was—for quite some time. He was out near Lightning Ridge and was driving home to see Nat. He picked up the phone and he called Nat and he said: 'Nat, I am so looking forward to getting home. I can't wait to see you.' That is the Hansard version. It was a little more colourful. The person on the other end of the phone said, 'Who is this?' Barnaby, of course, had neglected to put '07' in front of the number and rung some random woman and told her how much he was looking forward to 'seeing her' and that she should be looking forward to 'seeing him' too. The colour always associated with Barnaby is legendary. I have a long list of achievements that I was going to read out and I am not doing so. I am really conscious of other colleagues in this place.
Speaking of colleagues in this place, I want to associate myself with the remarks by the leader with regard to you, Senator Humphries. You know the regard in which I hold you. You will be very sorely missed in this place.
I also want to take the opportunity to make some remarks regarding Senator Trish Crossin, who I think has made an extraordinary contribution in this place and who is leaving under very, very cloudy circumstances. We will miss her contribution also.
The achievements that we have seen from Barnaby are long and lengthy. I will save those for another day, actually, and do a specific adjournment speech during which I can spend some time going through all of those things. He has not put them all on the record.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator NASH: I will indeed. I will do all of those things at that point in time. At the federal council in 2009, in the midst of the ETS debate, Barnaby, as part of his speech, was relating the story of the deeds of Hernan Cortez in 1519 in the conquest of the Aztecs. Cortez ensured the resolve of his troops by burning the boats and in doing so cutting off any means of retreat. The only way his men could ensure their survival was to achieve victory. It struck me that that was exactly what he was doing in terms of leaving this place and going to New England.
I have to tell you that the conversation that we had the night it became very apparent that we were going to need a new candidate for New England was all about the National Party having to win the seat. It was not about Barnaby having to win the seat. I can clearly remember walking down the corridor after we had been to the party meeting at which we had heard the news and saying: 'Do you want to do it? Do you want to put your hand up for New England?' He said, 'I have to. The Nationals have to win the seat.' It was not about him. It is a real measure of the man that it was all about the party and not about him as an individual.
And he took a huge risk, with his family having to make potentially an enormous change to accommodate this. With the percentage that he was up against it, he was on the most difficult campaign trail that you could possibly imagine. And yet he chose to take the risk and do it because he knew that it was the right thing to do. I do not think any of us should ever forget that. We now have some changed circumstances, though: following on in the vein of my good colleague Senator Humphries, I was going to make this great analogy with Hernan Cortez but now it is a little more like Barnaby in a dinghy with a fishing line and a stubby rowing gently to another shore. But he still has to win the seat and I know that he will not back off one spec in trying to win that seat.
Barnaby has taught me a lot. He has taught me how to have courage and how to be determined. He has taught me about having the courage of your convictions. He has taught me that just because you are a girl does not mean you can't be tougher than the blokes. And he has taught me to never, ever give up. One example around at the moment and that Barnaby referred to earlier is the issue of Archer Daniels Midland potentially taking over GrainCorps. I will prove the case that that is not in the national interest and I know that my good colleague Senator Heffernan, who I have to acknowledge as well in this, will be right there with me. For the future of our farmers and the future of this nation, we have to make sure that does not happen. It is not in the national interest.
To Nat, Bridgette, Julia, Caroline and Odette, thank you for sharing him with us. It must have been incredibly hard along the way. But thank you so much. More than just sharing your husband and your father with us in this chamber, you have shared him with the Australian people. For that, on behalf of them, we really thank you. Bridgette, Julia, Caroline and Odette, just remember that your father will have a place in history that nobody else could possibly have. When the history books look back at politicians, your father will be one of the most amazing people who is referred to. While it is hard, I thank you, Nat, and all four of you for sharing your husband and your dad with us and the Australian people.
It is absolutely an honour to be deputy. People used to come to me occasionally and ask whether I could get Barnaby to do something, get him to that, get him to do this. It was not that I had any magic wand; I think that they thought I had some magic power. It was just that I really nagged him a lot—although my wonderful, wonderful husband used to say that that was fantastic, because while I was nagging Barnaby I was leaving him alone! He has been the most extraordinary leader; the most extraordinary friend. He is a great leader, a great fighter and a great friend. We are going to miss you in this place; we are going to miss you terribly. It is not going to be the same. It is going to be a very different place without you, but somehow we will manage.
We think, though, that he has already moved on. We were discussing a little earlier in our Senate party room the makeup of the Senate after the election and Barnaby said: 'Senate? I always wondered what those senators did.' We figure that he has already moved on. We will really miss you in this place. You truly are a great Australian. Thank you for your contribution. Go forth and conquer.
Senator BOSWELL (Queensland) (18:59): Strange things happen when you are in politics. I campaigned with Barnaby the first time, and he did not get close. I campaigned with him the second time, and he did not get close. But he had the tenacity to keep going, and the third time he got there. I remember going into the counting room. The computers were going around and around in circles and spitting out various names, and I saw his name come up—number 5. I had the great satisfaction of picking the phone up, and I remember these words: I said, 'Barnaby, you have won; go down to your church and thank God, because you have won.'
We did not start off too well. In fact, it was a tussle over whose way was going to take precedence in the Senate, and it was a huge battle. But I believe we have both learnt from each other. I have certainly learnt from Barnaby. I was a bit backward in coming forward on right-to-life issues, but I saw him stand out there and run up the flag and not take a backward step. I saw him stand up for what he believed in, and I learnt a lot from him. I remember counting the votes. We were taking bits and pieces off, and we came to the one where you give your preferences out. I found one guy, and I asked, 'Who do you represent?' He said, 'I'm a sort of right-wing Catholic', and I said, 'Well, give your preferences to Barnaby.' That guy got to the extreme left-hand side of the ticket and got a donkey vote of 8,000. And that went to Barnaby.
I believe he was anointed to go into this place. I remember he went through one gate—with three million votes out there or whatever it is—with 167 votes. He then picked up and became the fifth senator from Queensland and gained the majority in the Senate. Then he made a statement: 'I am for the bush'. And what bigger statement could you make? He said, 'I'm going to open my office in St George', and everyone said, 'Barnaby, you can't get there, you can't get away, you'll drive yourself made trying to get to places—don't do it.' But he ran that flag up and said, 'I'm for primary industry, I'm for regional Australia, I'm for rural Australia, and there is no better way to say it than to go and find myself a position and a home and an office in the middle of the bush.' That is where his love is.
My time is nearly over. I will be exiting this place in 12 months time. But I know Barnaby loves the National Party. He loves what it stands for, he loves its history, he loves what it can do for people. And he has defended that National Party for the six or seven years that he has been on central council. We stood shoulder to shoulder to defend the National Party and keep it as the National Party, and in the end circumstances moved differently. I remember the debate we had on regional universities. His view was that they had to be protected, that we had to provide playing fields, and if we voted for this legislation we would not be able to do it. I could not understand why the Liberals were getting so excited. But to them, the bill was their single desk, and they would die for it. That was the highest priority of the Liberals. I could not understand it, but that is what they wanted. So, we had a diversion of views on that. But over the period of the last six or seven years we have become very close friends. I know as I go out that he will carry that banner for the National Party. I believe we will see Barnaby Joyce in the lower house, and he will be holding, in time to come, one of the highest positions in this land. He goes with my blessing, and I wish him all the best.
To Gary: you were the right fit for a senator for the Australian Capital Territory. I do not think you would fit in Queensland, but you certainly fit like a glove in the Australian Capital Territory. And yet you married a National Party girl! And she could not bring you over! I had a function the other night. A lot of people came, and they said it was a wonderful function. I said, 'You've seen politics at its best, but politics can be cruel, and it can be vicious.' Gary, you have experienced that. You do not deserve it; we think you deserve better. But that is the game we play, and we willingly play it.
I wish you all the best. To Barnaby and Gary, good luck, and God bless you both.
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (19:05): I rise tonight to join with the remarks of my leader, Senator Abetz, and others who have spoken to make my tribute to Senator Gary Humphries and to Senator Barnaby Joyce—two very, very different men and two very, very different senators, but both of whom have made a conspicuous contribution to this place and with both of whom I have worked closely in different capacities, and I have come to regard them as friends.
Let me start with Gary Humphries. And let me say at once, Gary, that the fact that you are leaving this place when you are is a matter of not just regret but grief to your colleagues. As Senator Boswell said a moment ago, politics can be cruel. But the cruel blow that you suffered in the preselection in the ACT division recently passed was a particularly unfair and unjustified one.
I have worked with Gary most particularly since he became my parliamentary secretary after the 2010 election, and I must say I was rather flattered as a shadow attorney-general to have as my parliamentary secretary somebody who had actually been an attorney-general! I remember, when Tony Abbott was elected as the Leader of the Liberal Party in December 2009, at the first full shadow ministry meeting that we had in Sydney, Tony, who had promoted Gary to the front bench, made a few remarks about each of the colleagues and, when he came to Gary, he said: 'Well, thank goodness we have Gary Humphries here, because he is the only person in this room who has actually run a government!' And that is true. It is not to be forgotten that Gary is the only person in the Liberal Party room who has been a head of an Australian government.
In the Attorney-General's portfolio, we have had to deal with a lot of very difficult issues in the last three years. One of the most difficult issues we have had to deal with has been the question of marriage. The Labor Party has sought to, on occasions, place a wedge, as they say, in the coalition so as to divide us on the question of the definition of marriage. The way they chose to do that was, in the ACT assembly, to attempt to change the definition of marriage there. That was, obviously, designed to create a situation in which Gary's obligations, as a senator for the ACT who had always been an advocate of the autonomy of the ACT to legislate within its appropriate jurisdiction, were placed in tension with his support for the coalition's definition of marriage. Gary handled that particular difficulty with enormous integrity, and with calmness and wisdom the like of which I have seldom seen in this place.
Gary has been a colleague you could absolutely trust—one whom you could trust with your life. He has shown, if I may say so, that in politics courage is one of the quiet virtues. It is not a virtue that is bombastic. It is a virtue that he has displayed with quiet and firm deliberation and commitment to principle.
So, Gary, thank you very much, not only on my behalf but also on behalf of my staff with whom you have worked so closely as well, for what you have done for me. Thank you for what you have done for the Liberal Party over all of these years. You have been an exemplary colleague. I cannot speak highly enough of you. Thank you.
Let me turn now to Barnaby Joyce, with whom I have had a relationship different from my relationship with Gary Humphries. The relationship began in a slightly inauspicious way, I am bound to say, because, the first time I ever heard the name Barnaby Joyce, to be blunt I was trying to keep him out of this place, in the 2004 election for the Senate in Queensland—where the Liberal Party had, since as long ago as 1980, run a ticket separate from the National Party; there was always competition between the Liberal Party and the National Party for the second and third positions on the ticket. In the early days, when the National Party was ascendant, the Liberal Party got one senator and the National Party got two. Then, throughout the 1990s, the positions and the respective political strength of the parties reversed themselves and the Liberal Party got two senators and the National Party got one. But it was always one of the holy grails of the Queensland Liberal Party to win three senators on one cycle. I think it is fair to say that, going into the 2004 election, nobody predicted—certainly I did not and I do not know anybody who did predict—that we would win four senators. So it was a choice between, at least as I assessed it, a race for the third non-Labor spot between Barnaby for the National Party and our esteemed former colleague Russell Trood for the Liberal Party. Of course Senator Mason and I, who were on that ticket, were doing everything we could to get Russell Trood elected. There was of course—and you know this, Barnaby—no malice in it. In fact, we had not even met. The first time you and I met was at the declaration of the poll. We were backing our man and you were backing yourself in. It was a very spirited campaign. There was a particular brochure circulated during the course of that campaign, at which Barnaby took some umbrage, which constituted an endorsement by the then Prime Minister John Howard of Senator Mason and me as the two incumbent senators but left Barnaby off because he was not an incumbent, and I know that wounded you, Barnaby. But, in any event, it was a win-win situation. Barnaby was elected and Russell Trood was elected. It was the best Senate result the coalition had ever had in any Australian state ever. And had Barnaby not been competing as hard for that spot as he was, and had Brett Mason and Russell Trood and I not been competing for the Liberal ticket as hard as we were competing, then it would not have happened. So, Barnaby, I suppose that is an example of the benefits of competition.
Once you arrived in this place it did not take very long, I think it is fair to say, for our relationship to settle down. We did not see eye to eye on some issues but we saw eye to eye on most, and when we disagreed we disagreed as friends. In the spectacular events of December 2009 when the coalition came to the brink on the issue of emissions trading, Barnaby and I travelled down from Brisbane on the plane the night before that famous week, and we decided that, even though we were on opposite sides of the argument, we would enjoy a Christmas drink together, regardless of the outcome. I certainly did not anticipate quite how spectacular the outcome would be, but we did so.
Let me wind up because others want to speak. I finally say this about you, Barnaby: it has been an absolute pleasure to serve with you in the shadow cabinet. You have always brought to the shadow cabinet a very, very individual voice, a very individual point of view. One of the great things that one can say about a colleague in this place is that nobody has ever doubted your good faith. While they may have disagreed with your views or your conclusions, as on occasions we have, nobody has ever doubted your good faith. I thank you for your contribution in the Senate. I thank you for your contribution to our Senate leadership team. I wish you great success in New England and, when you are in the other place and you have descended from the empyrean heights of the Senate to the lower house, I look forward to working with you in whatever capacity is vouched safe by the electorate upon us to work together in the future.
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (19:15): I would like to add a few words, because I know my colleague Senator McKenzie would like to speak. I first met Barnaby Joyce in late 2005, early 2006. I was driving him from Inverell to Moree. As we were driving along, I said, 'Can you keep a secret?' He said 'Yeah,' and I said 'I'm going to run for the preselection.' He looked at me and said, 'You are?' I said, 'That's right.' He said, 'I hope you win it. I'd have a mate to have a beer with me down there. No-one speaks to meet down in that place'—I think it was in some of his early days of crossing the floor and causing a few rumbles in the place, and of course that is all behind us.
I said in my maiden speech that where I sit in the chamber is unique, because when I am seated I look at the head of Barnaby Joyce. I said then that I had not worked out what goes on in that head. I can say with confidence tonight that I still have not worked out what goes on in that head, except for the fact that he has courage and a passion for regional Australia and for what is right. I said to Barnaby when he took on the challenge for New England, 'It's a classic case of no guts, no glory.' This man has shown the most courageous thing I have ever seen in my time following politics: to stand down from the Senate, in what is clearly a safe position, elected six years at a time, to put his whole political career at risk. I think that says it all.
You have been a great friend, a great leader and we have had a lot of laughs. We rarely had an argument, although he gave me a roasting at Bathurst; he was being a bit precious! We have enjoyed your friendship, your leadership, your company, the laughs and the good times, and you have had a real effect in the Senate and a real effect on our nation. That will go down in history and you can wear that with pride. Barnaby Joyce, I look forward to working with you on the New England campaign. I hope the people of New England see that in Barnaby Joyce they have a real fighter for regional Australia and for the people there.
Senator MASON (Queensland) (19:18): I rise to pay sincere tribute to my two friends, Senator Gary Humphries and Senator Barnaby Joyce. Gary, when I think of you I cannot help thinking of you more than 33 years ago, in March 1980 in the Union Court at the Australian National University here in Canberra. There you were in a pair of blue shorts and a T-shirt, berating the Left on campus. I then was a shy bystander with braces, long hair and sporting a black beanie. I remember going up and saying, 'Hi.' My recollection is that you thought I was one of those unwashed Lefties. You were half right.
Gary was a leader of the Liberals at university in 1980 when it was not that easy. He would not forget what it was like then. The Vietnam War was over by only less than five years, Margaret Thatcher had just been elected and Governor Reagan was just another Republican candidate. The Left were rampant internationally and they were rampant on campus. You never, ever failed to take them on. I was always in awe of that. In many ways you showed enormous courage then and you have not changed. The character of the man—the honesty, the loyalty and, Gary, most recently the grace you have displayed—is a lesson to us all. Tony Abbott always says, 'In this place, character trumps position.' So, Gary, you leave at the very pinnacle, with our great respect and the great affection of all of us.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Mason, just at this juncture, I do have to propose the question that the Senate do adjourn. I understand that, in doing so, you may be the first adjournment speaker.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (19:20): Order! I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Joyce, Senator Barnaby
Senator MASON (Queensland) (19:20): Thanks, Mr Deputy President, and I thank the Senate. There are some people who believe that senators cannot communicate with the public—that they are very poor retail politicians. Many of my friends in the lower house belief that, but then along came Senator Barnaby Joyce, one of the greatest retail politicians of our age. He touched and gave voice to Queenslanders that most of us could never, ever reach. He gave voice to the outsiders—those outside the cafes, those outside the cities, those outside the universities, those outside the chattering classes—and gave voice to those conservative, often rural, blue-collar families that Labor has increasingly forsaken. He has always done that and done it so convincingly. He spoke to them and he spoke for them. There is another side, too: the well-read, the inquisitive, the passionate bloke who arrived in the Senate with something to say and then had the gall to say it.
Barnaby taught me about courage. He might easily have remained in the Senate, safe and secure forever, but he took on Mr Windsor with a majority of 72 per cent, and today, well, he is one step closer. Finally, Barnaby taught me all about conviction. Early on, he opposed the Rudd government's CPRS. That leadership was critical. We would never have come so close in 2010, and we certainly would not be in the position we are today, if Senator Joyce had not led us.
Barnaby, I know this is not goodbye, perhaps it is au revoir. We will see you again. Be gentle, mate, when you go to the lower house, because they do not know what is about to hit them.
Humphries, Senator Gary
Joyce, Senator Barnaby
Senator CASH (Western Australia) (19:23): In the interests of time, I would seek leave from the chamber to incorporate my remarks in relation to Senator Humphries, given that he has had to leave the chamber.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
VALEDICTORY SENATORS HUMPHRIES AND JOYCE
I also rise tonight to pay tribute to the significant contributions made by my colleagues Senator Gary Humphries and, Senator Barnaby Joyce to the Parliament of Australia, during their time as members of the Australian Senate.
HUMPHRIES
I turn to Senator Humphries.
In my time in this place I have had the privilege of serving with Senator Humphries on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Senate Committee.
Senator Humphries has always demonstrated professionalism, competence and an extraordinary understanding of Parliamentary practice and procedure in his role as Deputy Chair of this Committee.
All Australians, but Canberrans in particular, have been the beneficiaries of the many political achievements of Senator Humphries both when he was the Chief Minister of the ACT Parliament and of course during his time in the Senate.
When you speak with colleagues about Senator Humphries one thing is clear: throughout his time in the Senate, he has worked diligently and with great distinction.
Gary— it has been an absolute pleasure to serve with you and I know that given you live in this great Territory where you live and breathe politics every day, there is no way your service to public life can possibly come to an end and neither should it. You still have much to contribute and I look forward to continuing to work with you albeit in different capacity.
I congratulate you on your long and distinguished service to the Parliament and people of Australia.
Senator CASH: I turn to the fantastic Senator Joyce. What do you say about Senator Joyce in the short time that we have? In the time that I have been in this place Senator Joyce has demonstrated, as other speakers have said tonight, what can only be described as a uniquely flamboyant style. It is one that will be greatly missed from here. Senator Joyce will not recall, but, when I was senator elect, I had the honour of having dinner with my colleagues on a Wednesday night at a restaurant in Kingston. I did not know anybody other than Senator Cormann. I was seated next to—low and behold—the famous Barnaby Joyce. I had heard about Barnaby, but I had not had the pleasure of meeting him. All I can say is your warmth towards me and your enthusiasm in relation to me becoming a senator for Western Australia I will never forget, and I thank you for welcoming me with such open arms.
Barnaby, there is no doubt that you have worked with great distinction and flair. I too considered my comments before Mr Windsor's announcement earlier on today. I believe all of our comments in relation to the decision you made to leave this place and to take, without a doubt, what is going to go down in history as one of the most courageous decisions a politician has ever made shows this chamber, the people of Australia and, in particular, the people of New England that, without a doubt, you are a man of principle, a man of integrity and a man who is not afraid of a challenge. That will stand you well when you go to the other place. Barnaby, you do not take the easy path in life. You are a man who is prepared to fight for what you believe in, even when there is no guarantee of success, and, prior to Mr Windsor's announcement today, I think we all knew there was no guarantee of success in relation to the fight in New England. But the mere fact that you were prepared to take on that fight commands the respect of all of us in this chamber, and, in particular, the respect of the people of New England.
Barnaby, you are a conviction politician, there is no two ways about that. As someone who sat beside you on the opposite side of the chamber on the vote on the emissions trading scheme in 2010 and was part of a team that ultimately changed the course that this country was going down at the time, I say to you that, whatever happens in the future, there are some bonds that just cannot be broken. Crossing the floor in this chamber with you and the other senators whose names are forever recorded in Hansard on a great matter of principle is one of those bonds. As you leave this place to go to the other place, I remind you of some of the words of Kipling that you quoted in your maiden speech:
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
… … …
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And—which is more—you'll be a Man, my son!
Good luck, my friend.
Joyce, Senator Barnaby
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria) (19:27): I thank colleagues for the opportunity to make some brief comments about my Leader in the Senate, Barnaby Joyce. The first time I heard about Barnaby Joyce was when I read a page review article about small business on a plane. I did not really know the name, but I liked what I read, because he articulated so beautifully for me the reality of living and growing up in small business. That gift of articulation we have heard of from several contributors tonight. I watched from afar with fascination the construction and the selling of the Birdsville amendment and the changes to section 46 of the then named Trade Practices Act as he championed the needs of those mums and dads who strike out on their own to succeed or fail by their own means. It was a message that really resonated with me and right across regional Australia, the home of small business.
Another memory, as I am thinking of today, is a magazine that I kept from 2006 from the AustralianFinancial Review. It was a magazine that discussed power, and it had the top 10 covert power holders in our nation and the top 10 overt power holders. In this book, Robert Manne, bemoaning that business was not stepping up to the plate, identified Barnaby Joyce, after just three years in the Senate, as wielding overt power in the Australian democracy, with Joyce seeing Downer off in a tie-break for the top 10 holders of overt power, reminding government that they were not omnipotent. I think, in that quote, that Barnaby's role here, in reminding government over time that they are not omnipotent, has actually made Barnaby the encapsulation of the Senate itself. As a check against government power concentration, against power concentration in markets and against power concentration right across our society, Barnaby has stood up for those who are unable to stand up for themselves. In that he has been a champion for others in this place.
In the context that Barnaby entered the Senate, the opportunities to pursue agendas were aplenty, and he did. He did not just pursue those agendas for selfish reasons, they were always for the right reasons. They were always on behalf of the people of Queensland, on behalf of the Nationals and on behalf of the nation. Barnaby, I want to thank you. I want to thank you on behalf of Victoria. Thank you for Jeanette Powell's win in Shepparton. Thank you for telling the Tongala dairy farmers how it is. Thank you for working towards restoring faith in parliamentarians because, as anyone who knows him knows, he has no artifice. It is very rare and precious in this game, and we recognise it when we see it, and we covet it. Australians have been mesmerised by your courage to walk the walk, and it is the least that any of us can do. Barnaby, I thank you for your leadership and for living the principles we celebrate every day in this place. I am proud of our National Party Senate team for giving each of us the freedom to be self-determined senators and, as a result, you have had a very cohesive and cooperative team behind you all the way.
All the best, and do not drink the Kool-Aid over there. The Senate and the senators do contribute. I know you will be a strong advocate, if successful, for New Englanders, in continuing the strong contribution and advocacy of the Nationals and driving us forward as a party. What is missing over there, which I am sure you will be able to ensure occurs, is a strong advocate for the Senate and its role. Go well.
Humphries, Senator Gary
Joyce, Senator Barnaby
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia) (19:31): I too rise to share some thoughts of Gary Humphries and Barnaby Joyce, who are two wonderful and greatly valued colleagues. In my six years here we have farewelled quite a number of people and many special people in that time. What I have discovered, particularly in the last few days as we approach the departure of some more valued colleagues, is that the longer you are here the harder it gets to farewell some of them from this place, because you have come to appreciate all that they contribute and to value the unique contribution they make.
I want to quickly touch, firstly, on Gary who is a wonderful Liberal colleague, and I want to touch on some of the attributes that he brought to this place in a very special way. Firstly, there is his humility. He is a modest and humble man, indeed, who demonstrated that trait this evening in his contribution with his admission of a sense of bewilderment when he first entered this place, with his self-deprecating humour and with the fact that he never sought to grandstand or stand over anyone on any issue. He is a man of pride, however, not pride of his own achievements, but pride of his community. He is a proud man in championing his community at every opportunity be it in this place or in the Liberal and coalition party rooms, where he would always stand up for Canberra and for the Public Service. He would always make sure that, for those of us who may from time to time be tempted to use the word 'Canberra' as a catchall for some type of derision of what may happen in this building, he made us understand that there was a far more vibrant society beyond it.
He is a respectful man encapsulated, again, by that sense of pride in his community and especially by the way he referenced the Australian Public Service tonight. He has a very proud record of achievement, not that he would ever boast of it. Tonight, in many ways, he talked down his achievement as Chief Minister of the ACT, as a long-serving minister in the ACT and as a long-serving senator in this place. He should be very proud of all that he did in all of those different roles. He should, as he rightly highlighted tonight, be especially proud of the role he played in the committee process, especially in relation to recognising children who found themselves in institutionalised care and in the most unfortunate of circumstances.
He is a principled man. I think each Liberal comes to this place and defines their Liberal values in their own way. In each of us there will be a sense of liberalism, a sense of conservatism, and each will come up with his own blend. Gary certainly did that, did it in spades, and was I think a true Liberal champion in doing so. He is a man who leaves a proud legacy. It is a legacy not just of the work that he has done across two parliaments but also of having engaged so many others, including so many young people, in politics. As he reflected tonight, he has three former staff members in different parliaments, one of whom I am pleased to count as a very close friend, Stephen Wade, who is a Member of the Legislative Council in South Australia and who travelled here tonight to hear Gary's valedictory. Indeed, Stephen is the shadow Attorney-General in South Australia and, I hope, will continue to provide that link to Gary's wonderful work in the legal sphere by being the next Attorney-General in my home state. I know that he continues to value Gary's counsel greatly.
To my friend Barnaby Joyce—Barnaby and I were the yin and the yang of the coalition on the Murray-Darling and, hopefully, will continue to be so after the election, albeit with Barnaby in the other place. In our roles in the water and the Murray-Darling portfolios we got thrown together by coincidence at a number of events, and we have travelled hundreds of kilometres together. I have learnt that Barnaby is not just a man in the public sphere with a magical turn of phrase, but is also a great storyteller. He is a man of great compassion and humility, as well, when travelling and dealing with people from all walks of life. He, as many others have said tonight, has made an indelible impression on this place, and I am sure he will on the other place. There is only one word that you can say about Barnaby's decision to move to the other place and that is 'gutsy'. It is well and truly gutsy, and good on him for doing so, and I am delighted that it now looks like it will pay dividends.
I wish both colleagues well in what I am sure will continue to be public service in different ways for Gary and Barnaby. We will miss them both, and I will particularly miss Gary's good heart and deep sense of conscience that he brought to this place, and I look forward to still enjoying the benefit of Barnaby albeit from just across the corridor.
Humphries, Senator Gary
Joyce, Senator Barnaby
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (19:36): I want to associate myself with the words of my colleagues, who have spoken at some length and much more eloquently than I can, on the retirement from the Senate of two of my colleagues, Senator Joyce and Senator Humphries.
In what has been a very momentous day, we heard in this chamber two exceptionally fine speeches—not speeches that are great for the fineness of the words, but fine because they encapsulate the character and being of the two person who uttered those words. Gary's speech demonstrated everything we all love and respect about Gary. He is a real statesman. It was a speech full of generosity and humour, and one can easily see why Gary has played such a big part in the governance of the Australian Capital Territory over many years.
I first came into contact with Gary at the time when I was territories minister. I had more to do with his predecessor, Kate Carnell, but I had a lot to do with Gary at the time. His love of and passion for Canberra, and his commitment and passion for anything he has become involved in has clearly shown through. We both had small roles in the defence portfolio in opposition, and he brought the same commitment and dedication to that role as he brought to his role in the ACT Assembly and to his time in this chamber as a senator for the Australian Capital Territory.
I wish Gary and his wife all the very best. As I said to his wife earlier, I suspect we will see a lot more of Gary. It would not surprise me were he to pop up again in public life, but I am sure he will be around for a long time into the future.
Barnaby has been an exceptional Queenslander. Although not originally a Queenslander, he certainly adopted the state and the state adopted him. Others have spoken at length about Barnaby's introduction. I do not think Barnaby has spoken to me since I pointed out that he was not the most western senator in Queensland—that I was, because of the way the Queensland coast is shaped. I only joke in saying that!
Barnaby has been a character—a character to the benefit of Queensland and certainly to the benefit of the National Party. Since the amalgamation of the parties in Queensland he has been a leading force in the LNP in Queensland. I never thought I would be in a position to say that Barnaby and I—and indeed Bozzie, sitting here as well—would be in the same party in Queensland. I know Bozzie often denies it, but the fact of the matter is that we are in the same party, and I am proud to say that I was a member of the same party that Barnaby was in.
Barnaby has made a significant contribution in this place. There is no denying that. He is a bloke that always speaks his mind, and will continue to do so. I know that we will see a lot more of Barnaby in the years ahead. My best wishes go with him and his wife as they move into this new challenge in their lives. Like others, I thought Barnaby was crazy courageous in his decision to take on the seat of New England. There is no doubt that it was exceptionally courageous. It was done in the best interests of Australia, I think, and in the best interests of those on our side of politics.
I am delighted to see, Barnaby, that it has worked out to be perhaps a little easier than we all thought—certainly a lot easier than you thought it would be. I am not surmising on anything, of course; you still have an election to go through, but I am delighted it has turned out that way for you. All the very best in your future in the lower house.
Australian Labor Party
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (19:41): As I rise this evening, as the 43rd parliament draws to a close, I would like to pay my respects to departing colleagues from this chamber. Having already acknowledged the contribution of my colleague Senator Crossin I also pay my respects to Senator Humphries and Senator Joyce. It has been a great pleasure to work with them in this place, and I wish them all the best.
But I rise this evening to talk about the forthcoming election. It is an opportunity for me to reflect on the things that I have been part of. They are things that have been delivered by two great Labor leaders: Prime Minister Gillard and Prime Minister Rudd. I know not, as I speak at this time, which one of them will lead us to the forthcoming election but I know that both leaders, and this great party of ours, have a wonderful legacy which we are all here to fight for. It is a grave reminder to me of what is at risk for this nation should Labor not have the opportunity to implement its future agenda and it gives me an opportunity to reflect on how we formed government in minority and how, despite those nay-sayers opposite, we have delivered a full term and a very full agenda in the best interests of the nation.
This is a government and a country that has not only survived but also thrived. It is an economy that is strong. And despite a withering global financial crisis that has brought nearly every major economy to its knees we have an economy that has thrived. Australia has done better than not only tin-pot economies or minor players on the world stage but also foundation economies—great economies such as America, Great Britain, France, Europe and Japan.
I cannot imagine another government in minority that would be prepared to take the political risks necessary to achieve great things for this country, as this Labor government has done. Through the economic devastation, the Labor government has steered our great nation in a manner that means our economy has not only survived and thrived but is the envy of the world. And we on this side of the chamber have had to wear the irresponsible imputations of the opposition claims that the economy may be ruined. But despite this our government has got on and done the job necessary—delivering for all Australians—and it continues to do so.
We have a strong economy—one that is surviving and thriving in tough times. This means more jobs, better jobs and better conditions, a dividend that delivers increases in health spending. We do not want a strong economy for its own sake. It is about building better lives and opportunities for all Australians. That is what I am in here to fight for, a strong economy to deliver support and help to Western Australian families, through things like: A National Plan for School Improvement, to make every Western Australian school a better school; like DisabilityCare, to bring dignity to people in Western Australia with disability by meeting their everyday needs for support and by meeting the need for respite for their families; and basic things like the schoolkids bonus, which I know the Abbott coalition wants to do away with. The second instalment is out in July and it is something that those opposite say should be cut. That is some $15,000 over the course of the schooling of a child.
WA pensioners on the maximum rate are $5,300 better off due to this government's historic increase to the pension. I will remind the chamber that Mr Tony Abbott opposed this increase. This government is also securing quality retirement for West Australians. We are boosting the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent. I know those on the other side have made a decision to cut super savings and delay this increase indefinitely. So we on this side have cut taxes and increased pensions. We are managing the economy well. We are implementing the Gonski reform, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, support for families, increased super, cut taxes and increased pensions.
But there is more to do. We have started a massive skills program to help West Australian business win contracts and help keep jobs onshore. It is about helping employers skill up their workforces and keep WA people in WA jobs, and helping young West Australians into jobs and study. It is about the paid parental leave that over 26,000 WA women have taken advantage of. It is about aged-care reforms, about giving people dignity in aged care. It is about 21st century broadband to all households. It is about tackling global warming, moving our economy and our environment into a clean energy future. It is also about protecting our marine environment for future generations through a national network of marine reserves. And the list of the important things that we have done, to build a legacy to continue into the future, goes on.
There are important things at stake here for WA: widening the Kwinana Freeway, sinking the Perth to Fremantle railway line, the new Forrest Highway, the Great Northern Highway, and new commitments from the last budget taking federal government infrastructure investment in Western Australia up to a record $6.9 billion. From where I sit, it is vitally important that a state that is growing the wealth to the nation is able to have an investment made in the infrastructure it needs for the future. These are all things that the Labor government has put on the table. They also include a record investment of $418 million into the Swan Valley bypass and $500 million into a Perth metro rail.
I note that Barnett promised to upgrade the Perth rail network, and he now does not know how to pay for it. Like Mr Abbott, he just says no. Urban rail is not in Mr Abbott's knitting. This government is committed to giving all Western Australians the opportunity to benefit from the mining boom and to have access to well-paying jobs, to the NBN, to the National Disability Insurance Scheme and to education equality. All of this has been achieved in what has been a toxic political environment, driven by Mr Abbott and supported by his big miner mates and partisan media barons.
I note what might have been, had the crossbench been persuaded to support a coalition government in 2010. We have an example of this in some of our states. If WA is the model to go off, we would certainly be worse off. What draws me to that conclusion? The Barnett Liberal government has failed its economy. It has failed to pass legislation and failed to invest in public infrastructure required to advance the Western Australian economy. It has failed on major projects. Oakajee has come to a screaming halt. James Price Point has failed. The Muja Power Station has just seen a quarter of a billion dollars wasted on energy blunders. They are failing on economic management. They still have not brought down a state budget. We had an election in February. The state budget was due in May, and they have still not brought down the state budget. This is just the start. There are 1,200 cuts to Public Service jobs expected.
The point I am drawing here is that this is a sign of what we can expect from an Abbott-led government. Mr Abbott has said he respects state government cuts, and he will deal with the federal budget in the same way. He has form when it comes to axing services. As health minister, he ripped $1 billion out of public hospitals under Medicare. (Time expired)
Foreign Investment
Senator MADIGAN (Victoria) (19:51): This speech is one of what I would call frustration, having come up to just on two years in this place. I am frustrated about the fact that quite often what is discussed here is not the issues but the personalities; and the fact that often people in government say, 'We're looking into it,' while Rome burns. The first thing I would like to put on record tonight is that a lot of people in rural Australia are concerned about foreign ownership. On Cubbie Station and the Ord River, $500 million of infrastructure was developed by the government and then just given away to the Chinese. We did not encourage Australians or give them the same consideration that we gave to foreign companies.
There is the wheat belt in Western Australia, which is now somewhat dominated by the Chinese, and the fact that they are able to build a port in Albany for their own exports. We have got the shambles of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We have got people who are proposing man-made deliberate flooding of private land, with no consideration for, and very little input from, the people whose lives are going to be affected by this.
Another topical discussion at the moment is GrainCorp and the fact that the Foreign Investment Review Board is looking into it. Meanwhile, as I said earlier, Rome burns. In today's Weekly Times we see that there is a closing price of $8.85 a share, and now the foreign buyer is offering $13.20, a 49 per cent premium on the closing price. None of us should be surprised by that, when they are basically going to buy a monopoly. And then we will have people coming into the Senate and the House of Representatives to express the concerns of our farmers and our manufacturing exporters about the cost of accessing the ports. But what is $13.20 when you are buying a monopoly.
We have tacit acknowledgement of people's concerns in rural and regional and urban Australia, but they do not get addressed and then the house is sold. And then there is the state of food processing in this country—SPC, the Goulburn Valley and the pictures we see in the paper of them burning trees—and we wonder what is going on. 'We are going to look into it.' Well, it will be too late by the time something is done—in one month or three months it will be 'all over red rover'. The state of citrus, our horticulture, is a shambles—and we have just tacit recognition of what people say.
Going to the state of our manufacturing, we've got the position of Shell and the Geelong oil refinery, and the fact that some people think that the rest of the world is going to give us cheaper petrol, diesel, avgas or whatever. Well, when we do not have the ability to do our own refining, nobody is going to give us a free kick, nobody is going to give us cheap stuff. We are kidding ourselves if we think the rest of the world is going to help us.
When our assets, our land, our infrastructure and our companies are bought overseas, they are given consideration that our own businesses do not get. I am always astounded that, as soon as you want them to play by the rules or you question what they are doing, people scream out about sovereign risk to foreign investment. But what about the risk to Australia's future and the future of all Australians when foreign predators are picking off our nation's resources both natural and man made? Maybe we should be putting more encouragement into investment in Australia by the Australian superannuation industry.
The next big issue on everybody's list, which is often bleated about in this place and the other place, is human rights. But on our very doorstep the plight of the West Papuans and the East Timorese is virtually ignored. We have got the asylum seekers, we have got the Tamils, we have got people coming from the other side of the world to our shores. Frankly, we should be more proactive in our diplomatic efforts and help them so that they do not have to leave their countries and flee to our shores because of the oppression, violence and torture that a lot of these people face. When are we going to question how much foreign aid we spend?—$541 million to Indonesia last year, and in this budget we have rewarded Indonesia, that tortures and kills our neighbours who put their lives on the line for Australian servicemen in the Second World War. What do we do? We give them another $106 million. So now we are up to $647 million to Indonesia.
We had the Barwick theory for our relationship with Indonesia and then the Lombok treaty, and then we had the JSCOT committee findings that said Australian resources were not to be used for the repression of people in the Lombok treaty. But we ignored that. We are training a military that is out of control. They are torturing and killing people. We are complicit in this by our silence.
Our country is subjected to social engineering on a scale that is possibly unprecedented in the rest of the world. We are custodians of Australia and it is our duty to hand it on better than we found it—socially, economically and environmentally. But first and foremost, in all our decisions, we must put the people first—whether they live in rural, regional or urban Australia we must put the common good back into the Commonwealth.
Senate adjourned at 19:59
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The following government documents were tabled:
Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism—Energy use in the Australian Government's operations—Reports for—
2010-11.
2011-12.
Migration Act 1958—Section 486O—Assessment of detention arrangements—Personal identifiers: 741/12, 745/12, 815/12, 818/12, 822/12, 826 and 827/12, 835/12, 837/12, 839 to 841/12, 845/12, 848/12, 852/12, 865 and 866/12, 868/12, 871/12, 877 and 878/12, 949/12, 961 to 963/12, 965 and 966/12, 974 to 978/12, 980 and 981/12, 986 to 988/12, 1027/12, 1044/12, 1046 to 1049/12, 1060 and 1061/12, 1063/12, 1065 to 1072/12, 1101 to 1103/12, 1105/12, 1107/12, 1109 and 1110/12, 1114/12, 1117/12, 1119/12, 1121 to 1126/12, 1132/13, 1135/13, 1139 to 1141/13, 1148/13, 1152/13, 1154 to 1157/13, 1159 to 1165/13, 1168 to 1197/13, 1201 to 1213/13, 1215 to 1220/13, 1222 to 1262/13, 1264 to 1298/13, 1300 to 1335/13, 1337 to 1357/13, 1359 to 1366/13, 1369 and 1370/13, 1372/13, 1374 and 1375/13, 1377/13, 1379/13, 1381/13, 1384 to 1392/13, 1394 and 1395/13, 1407 to 1421/13, 1423/13, 1425 and 1426/13, 1428 to 1437/13, 1458 to 1466/13, 1469 to 1476/13, 1478 to 1480/13 and 1482/13.
Commonwealth Ombudsman's reports.
Government response to Ombudsman's reports, dated 21 June 2013.
Productivity Commission—Report No. 62—Electricity network regulatory frameworks—
Government response, dated June 2013.
Volume 1, dated 9 April 2013.
Volume 2, dated 9 April 2013.
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