The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 10:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The Clerk: Documents are tabled pursuant to statute and returns to order. Details will be recorded in the Journals of the Senate and on the Dynamic Red.
Details of the documents also appear at the end of today ' s Hansard.
COMMITTEES
Meeting
The Clerk: Proposals to meet have been lodged as follows:
Education and Employment Legislation Committee—public meeting during the sitting of the Senate today, from 11 am, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into the provisions of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 16 February 2017, from 5 pm, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Digital Readiness and Other Measures) Bill 2016.
Joint Standing Committee on Treaties—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1), private briefing and public meeting during the sitting of the Senate today, from 11 am.
The PRESIDENT: Does any senator wish to have the question put on any of those proposals? There being none, we will proceed.
BILLS
Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (10:01): When this debate adjourned last week I was speaking about the nature of this bill, the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill, specifically about the fact that it extends the minister's power to cancel visas and, in fact, not only allows him to overrule decisions made by officials of his department but gives him the power to overturn a decision of a review tribunal. As I was pointing out, that exempts him from the rules of natural justice.
It is also worth the Senate's noting that these amendments also mean that those subject to a minister's cancellation power could be detained if there is a mere reasonable suspicion that the minister might cancel their visa—in effect, allowing the government to pre-empt a ruling by the judicial system. Another way of putting that, of course, is to presume a person guilty before they have an opportunity to prove their innocence. In that context, it is worth noting also that in Australia these days you can be retained in prison for something you might do in the future. It is an incredibly Orwellian series of amendment bills that we are seeing this government bring before the parliament, that continue an erosion of the human rights and civil liberties in this country that so many Australians have fought to protect over the last century and more, and for which so many Australians have, tragically, died.
This bill removes important procedural safeguards which deprive those affected of information regarding their legal and administrative options. We are talking here about people who are potentially in prison, people who are already extremely vulnerable people and who may not know their rights, who may not know the law and who in some cases may not even speak or understand English to a satisfactory level.
The Refugee Council of Australia summed it up very well, in the Australian Greens view, in their submission to the inquiry into the bill. They said the bill 'compounds the grave unfairness' of provisions introduced in 2014, including:
… automatic cancellation of visas on certain grounds, new personal powers of the Minister to set aside decisions by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or Departmental officers, and increasing the circumstances in which a person would fail the 'character test'.
The powers have the practical effect of depriving a person of liberty and the right of residence in this country at the virtually unfettered discretion of the Minister, without any real review.
That is the problem in this bill, articulated in a nutshell, very succinctly and clearly, by the Refugee Council of Australia. It is the Greens submission to the Senate that there is a lack of procedural fairness in the amendments proposed and an absence of appropriate safeguards in the new cancellation process. Of course, submissions to the inquiry into the bill reflect that. Those submissions include that of the Refugee Council of Australia but are not limited to that one. The Greens will not be supporting this unfair bill.
During my second reading contribution last week I foreshadowed that the Greens would be moving a second reading amendment, so now I move the amendment on sheet 8040 revised:
At the end of the motion, add:
", but the Senate is of the opinion that the Australian Parliament should have the right to deny entry to any Head of State or Head of Government on character grounds.".
I want to speak briefly to this amendment. At the moment, character test provisions are indeed in place, thanks to the construct of the existing act. However, they are to be applied by the minister for immigration. We have no confidence that the current minister for immigration will apply the character test as constructed in the act in any reasonable way at all.
We want to be clear that we are only talking here about a potential entry by a head of state or head of government. One of the reasons we think the parliament should have the capacity to make this decision is that visits by heads of state or heads of government are inevitably very symbolic visits. The things that happen while a head of government is here are widely reported in the media, and whether or not Australia as a country allows a head of state to visit our country is something that will influence the political conversation in this country and something that a lot of Australians will feel very strongly about.
Rather than the consideration around the character of a head of state or head of government happening inside the minister's head, which is where it happens at the moment under the current provisions of the act, we think that the parliament should have the right to make that determination. In other words, the parliament should be able to have a debate about whether a head of state or head of government can come into Australia in the context of that person's character. We could have the debate in front of the Australian people, in front of the media who report on what we do in this place. It is effectively a motion which allows for sunlight to be shone on an assessment of the character of a foreign head of state or head of government. We believe an appropriate mechanism would be for any senator to be able to effectively move a disallowance motion that would allow the Senate to reject the entry of a foreign head of state or head of government on character grounds.
I am not going to make any bones about this. This was crystallised for us by the election of Donald Trump as the US president, and I said that publicly last week. We would submit that, on any reasonable assessment of Mr Trump's character, he would fail the character test. He has greenlighted sexual assault on women. He has mocked people with disabilities. He is undermining fundamental rule of law in the United States. There have been any number of actions taken by Mr Trump and words uttered by Mr Trump, whether they be in interviews, press conferences or via his Twitter account, that call into serious question his character. Voting against this motion put forward by the Greens would effectively be the parliament voting to deny itself the opportunity to make their views heard on this matter. So I do commend this amendment to the Senate.
Senator DASTYARI (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (10:11): This is an important piece of legislation, though its consequences are somewhat limited. This is a bill that the Labor Party will be supporting. We will be supporting this bill because it is consequential to the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act 2014, which Labor has also supported. The 2014 act was designed to strengthen the existing character and general visa cancellation provisions within the Migration Act to ensure that noncitizens who commit crimes in Australia and pose a risk to the Australian community or represent an integrity concern are appropriately considered for visa refusal or cancellation.
I want to commend the minister for this piece of legislation and for working with the Labor Party and other parties to make sure it is a reasonable and sensible bill. I want to put on the record that there are red lines when it comes to these types of legislation and the position of the Labor Party. I note this is also the position the government has had very strongly. The idea of banning people outright based on ethnicity or religion as whole groups is not something that should or can be supported. This bill strengthens the provisions that allow case-by-case assessment. There are individuals that should be banned. There are individuals who should not be here. Those people should not be here in their role as individuals. But the idea of wholescale migration bans—Muslim bans, whatever you want to call them—is not something that we support.
But I have to say there has been a lot of talk recently about a Muslim ban. There has been talk of a Muslim ban by other members of this chamber, other senators proposing they want to take this type of legislation further and go all out towards banning Muslims. All of this talk of a Muslim ban has me very worried for my friend Nazeem Hussain. Nazeem is currently stuck in Africa on the show, I'm a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here. While many of us who know him have questioned over the years whether he is or is not actually a celebrity, that is beside the point. Someone needs to get the message to Nazeem that there are people in this chamber who are not only proposing a Muslim ban but, even worse, have told me privately they will vote for Steve Price.
Last night I was devastated to see Tom Arnold get sent home and not Nazeem. Nazeem is being funny, likeable, talented and charming. He does not belong on this show. Nazeem, if we do not get you back to Australia soon, mate, they might get a Muslim ban up here and you will be stuck in Africa indefinitely. Of course, some people might say they want to vote for you to send a strong message about multiculturalism, but that is little comfort when you spend the rest of your life eating non-halal food in Africa, nursing your winning trophy. There are only so many job opportunities for a Waleed Aly impersonator in Cape Town. We need to get Nazeem out of there. So I say to Nazeem's friends, Karl Chandler, Tommy Dassalo and the Little Dum Dum Club, I am going to say something that you will never hear Senator Hanson ever say in the chamber: let's kick this ethnic out, but bring him to Australia. Thank you.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (10:14): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I rise to speak to the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016. This bill is a welcome first step in a set of policies proposed and supported by Pauline Hanson's One Nation party. We see the bill as a beginning in moving the discussion on a core issue of concern to Australians across our nation, from the quantity of immigration to the quality of immigration. When we talk about quality, we talk about the willingness and ability of immigrants to assimilate. May we remind all parliamentarians that governments have three core responsibilities: to protect life, to protect property and to protect freedom. As part of our sworn duties we have a solemn responsibility to preserve social cohesion, which flows from a secure sense of national identity.
I say to the establishment among us in this chamber who want to understand the Trump phenomenon and the Brexit phenomenon and Pauline Hanson's phenomenal success: to understand what drives people's needs, what people are saying to us as we travel and listen across this great country, we all need to get to the root of people's economic concerns. To everyday Australians, jobs matter. That is why we need to cut immigration quantity. More importantly, social cohesion matters—so does trust, so does a sense of belonging. These are all qualities that tap into people's sense of achievement, and if people have no job and the government cannot support them because they are burdened by non-assimilating immigrants, they feel ostracised in their own country, forgotten, taken advantage of.
Culture and integration matter to Australians. These values are undermined by rapid diversity, especially when Islam is in the mix. The Scanlon surveys of social cohesion conducted annually out of Monash University demonstrate our point specifically: social cohesion is important to Australians. Dr Frank Salter, the One Nation academic researcher in sociological matters, has reviewed the international literature on diversity, including extensive studies from Harvard University. The data supports what we say about cohesion. Global studies converge with the Australian data. As much as the Greens try, the data cannot be hidden, because people see it and feel it every day, all around them. Senator Hanson has been talking about social cohesion for as long as she has been on the national stage. In her first speech as a senator, she talked about how precious a sense of belonging really is, as well as trust. She said, 'It is about belonging, commitment to fight for, protect and respect. This will never be traded or given up for diversity.'
Social cohesion comes from national identity, and that is something that grows organically. It cannot be legislated. It cannot be imposed top down by condescending politicians and bureaucrats—the establishment elites. It cannot be created by naming government departments 'Multicultural Affairs'. Social cohesion can come only from the people. But it can be wrecked by sloppy governments, as Minister Dutton courageously admitted last year when he chided his own party for its immigration policies of the 1980s. For his courage Minister Dutton was pilloried by the Labor-Green coalition that fails to understand the essence of national cohesion and identity. Everyone gets it, except for the chattering classes. Instead of no nation, we must have one nation.
My colleague Senator Burston in his first speech noted the social research science on diversity and social cohesion. The research has been done overseas and in Australia. The data indicates that the social fabric in this country is fraying, and that is why voters are deserting the old parties. The fraying of our identity was foretold, was predicted, was warned of. The Liberal and Labor parties imposed permanent mass immigration without taking national identity into account or even asking voters' permission. Senator Burston spoke of the coldness and arrogance of our political elites, and I fully support his views.
Poverty—that is, an individual's economic situation—cannot explain why more Muslims have tried to volunteer to fight in the Middle East for outlawed Islamist forces than are presently in the Australian armed forces fighting in that theatre. Economics cannot explain why Australians are fleeing areas of heavy migrant settlement, especially Islamic settlement. This is not only white flight, it is every kind of flight. Every type of Australian is fleeing these new ghettos. In our fraying society, self-segregation has become a reality. We the people are seeking to protect our children, our daughters, our property, our liberty.
There are solutions to these problems that go beyond what is proposed in this bill. If we applied international standards of social impact assessment to the selection of immigrants, the gradual process of assimilation would begin to restore social cohesion, belonging and trust. How can we expect people who are wedded to an ideology masquerading as a religion that specifically precludes assimilation to assimilate and integrate? We cannot.
Pauline Hanson's One Nation is willing to say the things that need to be said and do the things that need to be done. We listen to the people of Australia across our nation and implement the policies people have asked us to champion. A common question I am asked is: how many Australians complain of or are afraid of Buddhists, who comprise a larger proportion of our nation than those of Islamic ideology? Australians do not complain about Buddhists, or Sikhs, or Hindus, or Jews or Catholics or Protestants and so on.
So it is not only the scale of immigration that counts but the content—the quality. If immigrants are to assimilate we should be choosing those from cultures with a track record of ready assimilation. That is why we need to congratulate the minister for immigration for his success in the implementation of the operational plan to take control of our country's borders, after the open borders policies of Labor-Greens coalition. It is no wonder that a recent Channel 7 poll found the number of supporters of a ban on Islamic immigration all but matched those opposing a ban. Do I need to remind that a poll last year from even the control-oriented Essential polling group found that more people supported a ban on Islamic immigration than opposed it? That Essential poll showed that over one-third of Greens voters supported a ban on Islamic immigration. What was the Greens leader's response? Of course, being left wing—that is, control oriented—Senator Di Natale said his party needed to do more educating. Isn't that so typical of the Greens? Speaking to sell, not listening to learn.
That reminds us all that under the Greens labelling and demonising of those with whom they disagree debate in Australia has been shut down. That is why people across Australia are asking what is happening to our nation. Senator Bernardi rightly said that the political elites and establishment are now being held accountable, and he left his party to join with us in holding the old establishment accountable.
This bill is the first step in the crawl towards the conversation that needs to be had on quality of immigration. The parliament needs to get away from window dressing and face core issues. We need all remember that we do not lock our home at night because we hate the people outside; we lock our home because we love the people inside. The real division in politics is not the confected and vague labels of Left versus Right or regressives versus conservatives; it is control versus freedom. In this case, to protect personal freedoms within Australia we must protect our borders.
We in Pauline Hanson's One Nation party value diverse views, and we welcome those of varied religions and races and skin colours and ethnic groups and political persuasions within our borders who have assimilated. We value our nation, our Constitution our laws and our culture. Assimilation and integration occur only when the pace, or quantity, of immigration does not swamp the host culture and when the quality of immigration focuses on people with the intent, willingness and ability to assimilate. We need to cancel visas of people with a criminal history. This bill is an important first step, and we support the character and visa amendment, because instead of no nation we must have one nation.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (10:25): I thank all senators for their contribution to the debate on the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016, and in particular I thank the opposition for their comments and their support of this particular piece of legislation. It is important to note that the measures in this bill have previously been reviewed by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. I note that the committee recommended that the bill be passed subject to the explanatory memorandum being amended to further clarify the operation of the retrospective provisions of the bill, and I am pleased to advise the chamber that this has been done.
A key amendment made by the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act was the introduction of mandatory visa cancellation for noncitizens in jail serving a full-time custodial sentence of imprisonment and who have been sentenced to 12 months imprisonment or have been found guilty of sexually-based offences involving a child. The vast majority of noncitizens who have had their visas cancelled under the mandatory cancellation powers are repeat offenders with multiple criminal convictions in Australia or serious or violent offenders. The amendments to the bill the Senate is currently debating are important consequential amendments that will ensure that the character and cancellation provisions in the Migration Act operate effectively as intended following amendments made in December 2014 by the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act 2014.
The government will not be supporting the second reading amendment moved by Senator McKim on behalf of the Australian Greens. There is no need for this amendment. There are already robust arrangements in place to prevent a person of character concern from travelling to and entering Australia. Every person wishing to travel to and enter Australia must hold a visa. There are special visa arrangements in place for certain categories of people, such as guests of government and members of the royal family, and this includes heads of state and foreign dignitaries. I commend the bill to the Senate.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the bill now be read a second time.
The Senate divided. [10:32]
The Deputy President—Senator Lines
The Senate divided. [10:37]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
In Committee
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (10:41): I wanted to firstly ask the minister how, or in fact whether, the provisions contained in the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill around expanding the minister's capacity to consider character would apply to the granting of a special purpose visa for a foreign head of state or head of government?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (10:41): I am advised that they do not apply to the granting of a special visa. However, I am advised that they do apply to the cancellation of that particular visa.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (10:42): Just to confirm, then, is there any capacity for the minister to deny a special purpose visa for a foreign head of state or head of government on character grounds?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (10:42): I am advised that the minister may make a written declaration under section 33(9) of the relevant act to cease a special purpose visa if it is undesirable that a person travels to, enters or remains in Australia. If such a declaration is in force section 33(3) of the relevant act provides that the person is taken not to have been granted a special purpose visa.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (10:43): Minister, obviously what you have just been through there relates to the cessation of a special purpose visa, so I take it it would be accurate to suggest that during the process of granting a special purpose visa there is no capacity for the minister to intervene and ensure that that visa is not granted to a foreign head of state or head of government on character grounds?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (10:43): I am advised that a declaration that it is undesirable that a person, or any person in a class of persons, travel to and enter Australia may be made before the person arrives in Australia.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (10:44): Therefore, can you confirm that if such a declaration is made that would actually have the effect of the special purpose visa not being granted?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (10:44): I am advised that the answer to your question is yes.
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (10:44): The Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016 is important legislation which I do support because it will strengthen our national security and it will be safer for Tasmanian families if this legislation passes the Senate. Therefore, I am happy to vote for it. That is not to say that it could not be improved. One of the main purposes of the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016 is to amend the Migration Act 1958 to, principally, amend the definition of a 'character concern' to be consistent with character tests in subsection 501(6) of the act. I agree with the government's proposal to, firstly, provide for mandatory cancellation of the visa of a person who was serving a prison sentence where the minister is satisfied that the person fails the character test as they have a substantial criminal record or have been found guilty of a sexually based offence involving a child; and, secondly, provide that a person does not pass the character test if there is a 'risk' rather than the previous 'significant risk' that they will pose a danger to the Australian community.
I ask the minister: who will be given additional or broadened powers under this legislation to refuse or cancel visas of people wanting to live or visit Australia and to give some thought as to whether those prospective visitors share our democratic beliefs and respect the liberties and human rights which automatically come with our love for a democratic system of government? A prospective visitor or immigrant's attitude to our system of democratic life in Australia should always be taken into account when our immigration minister makes a decision whether to ban a visitor or stop an immigrant from becoming a permanent Australian citizen. After all, our oath of allegiance states that, as an Australian citizen, 'I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share'. If immigrants and prospective citizens do not share our democratic beliefs then it should automatically disqualify them from becoming citizens. That should be no questions asked. If you want to visit Australia and you do not share our democratic beliefs, that should at least ensure our immigration minister has a second look at them and their visa application, asking who they are loyal to and why they do not like democracies. This is the vetting that should be done.
If the answer is that they are loyal to people and organisations that are at war with Australia, our allies, our soldiers, our seamen and our airmen then that person should not be allowed into our country. That is why I believe Donald Trump is on the right track following his temporary ban on people from countries where sharia law is part of that nation's culture. A country which allows sharia law to be practised and enforced obviously does not share our democratic values or respect basic human rights for women, gay people, teenagers, young girls and all Jewish people. Support for sharia law is a clear sign of Islamic radicalisation and support for Australia's enemies, so I ask that the immigration minister consider a better screening process for Australia with regard to those who support sharia law. Why is the question not even asked?
On the shores of Lake Burley Griffin, written into the cement are the words of the oath of allegiance to Australia. I have thought a lot about these words—since I have been in parliament, more so. As an Australian citizen, I affirm my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share. The oath continues, but, for the moment, I would like to talk about this simple but very profound beginning, which I believe has great meaning with regard to this legislation.
It is a sad fact that many people living in Australia, enjoying the safety, benefits and lifestyle of living in a first-world country, are disloyal to Australia and its people. Many people have divided or split loyalties with other countries, as witnessed by dual citizenships or support for Australian enemies. Our Constitution recognises the inherent danger to Australia from people living here who have split or divided loyalties and officially discriminates against those people by stopping them from standing for elected positions in this parliament. The precedent has already been set. Many of those people do not share our democratic beliefs and do not appreciate the sacrifices that previous generations of Australians made to keep our nation free and democratic.
People who support the imposition of sharia law in Australia or any other country obviously do not share our beliefs in democracy or in our rights and liberties. How could someone who thinks it is okay to kill someone simply because they are gay or Jewish share our democratic beliefs?
How could someone who thinks it is okay for women to be treated like possessions of men and like second- or third-class citizens share Australian democratic beliefs? Sharia law is not Australian law. Terrorists want to force it on the rest of the world; that has been made quite clear. It is antidemocratic. Show me a successful democracy in the Middle East that imposes the death penalty on gay people for being gay, imposes the death penalty on women who are unfaithful to their husband and denies the right of the Jewish people to live in peace in Israel. Accepting the supposedly good bits of sharia law gives legitimacy to the bad bits of sharia law. That is rubbish. Sharia law is an antidemocratic cancer that does not belong in a free society and fails to respect the human rights of women, gays and Jews.
All I am asking is that we screen people for their support for sharia law. If they support sharia law and want it in Australia do not let them in—that would be your first mistake. Such people are obviously supporters of the terrorists, their law and their culture.
In closing, I take this opportunity to support Senator Bernardi's call to halve our overall immigration rate, and also to remind people that I want our foreign aid halved. I have one question for the minister, which I would liked answered: how many of the 190 people that ASIO is currently watching—I am going through older statistics here—have had their dual citizenship cancelled, or at least vetted?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (10:51): Thank you, Senator Lambie, for your support in relation to this piece of legislation. On your question, I am advised that that is a matter for ASIO and that we do not have that information, but we can refer it on for you.
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (10:51): Thank you, Minister, I appreciate that. I want to know also how many of those 190 people who are on ASIO's watch are on welfare benefits.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (10:52): Minister, I want to ask about proposed section 5C(1)(bb), which encapsulates the minister coming to a reasonable suspicion that the relevant noncitizen has been or is a member of a group or organisation, or has had or has an association with a group, organisation or person which is involved in criminal conduct. For the purposes of this debate I might call them the association provisions. What is the burden of proof, if any, that the minister has to achieve. I understand that it has to be a reasonable suspicion, but what does 'reasonable suspicion' mean? Can the minister provide the Senate with any case law or jurisprudence on this that can, hopefully, confirm that the minister is cognisant of that case law, if any, when making decisions? Secondly, is the minister able to apply this particular provision to a foreign leader and deny any foreign leader on the basis of his or her associations?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (10:54): My understanding is that in relation to 'reasonable suspicion' there is case law upon which guidance is sought. Obviously, any decisions made would also be based on all of the evidence available to the minister at that particular point in time. I am seeking guidance from the department in relation to your further questions.
In relation to whether or not they are undesirable, that would take into consideration whether or not they are associated with certain people.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (10:55): Minister, I wonder if you could confirm, specifically in the context of a foreign leader of government, what matters the minister would or could consider when considering whether or not a foreign leader or head of government was not a desirable person to have in Australia. Specifically, would those criteria include the association provisions that we are currently discussing and (bc) in schedule 1, which goes to the crime of genocide, a war crime and other matters?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (10:55): I have sought guidance from the departmental officials and I am advised that, in relation to reasons for a declaration, some examples of situations in which the entry of a special purpose visa holder might be declared undesirable are: a person who is listed on the Central Movement Alert List or other agency's alert list; a person who presents a national security risk to Australia, or whose entry would be contrary to Australia's national interests; a person who should not be permitted to enter Australia on health grounds; or a person whose other circumstances would make it undesirable for them to enter. Circumstances in which a declaration may be made that it is undesirable for a noncitizen who is a special purpose visa holder to travel to and enter Australia are also outlined in the policy procedure manual, I understand, in the compliance and case resolution character test—section 501—documents.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (10:57): Thank you, Minister. Could you confirm that that is a public document or not for the Senate. Perhaps you would like to respond to that, and then I will raise my next issue.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (10:57): Again I have sought advice and, in relation to the documents, they are actually a referral back to the section 499 direction. I am advised that, yes, that is a publicly available document.
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (10:58): I have one last question. I think it is about time people were very honest in this place. I simply want a yes or no, because the Australian people want to know exactly where everybody stands on this. Would support for sharia law, for the coalition, be a reasonable excuse to stop someone from coming into the country? That is simply all the Australian people want to know. I am simply asking, through the chair, for a response from the minister—yes or no.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (10:58): Thank you, Senator Lambie, for the question. In relation to the granting or not granting of a visa, there are a number of issues that are taken into account. This might be one of the issues taken into account by the minister, but certainly there are a number of issues that the minister makes the decision based on.
Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (10:59): So this might be one of the issues that the minister looks at, or it is one of the issues? And, if that be the case, is that written somewhere?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (10:59): My advice is that support or not for sharia law is not a specific issue, but, again, I go to the fact that there are a number of issues that the minister at the time is able to take into consideration when determining whether or not a visa should or should not be issued.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (10:59): Minister, I want to take you to the amendments which this bill proposes to subsection 5C(1) on page 4 of the amendment bill. They provide that the minister is able to deny a visa on the basis of a foreign court convicting a noncitizen of certain things. Did the government consider Australia's international human rights obligations, which require Australia not to be complicit in trials that do not comply with accepted fair trial principles? I do not see an exemption in here for a foreign court. You and I and all senators know that there are some so-called legal proceedings in some countries around the world which fail the basic tests of natural justice. If someone is convicted, in effect, by a kangaroo court in a foreign jurisdiction, is the minister able to exercise discretion and ensure that that conviction, if it has been arrived at outside the principles of natural justice, does not automatically mean that a visa is cancelled—so, in fact, the minister has the discretion to ignore such a conviction?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (11:01): In the first instance, I would advise—and I am sure you are aware—that a statement of compatibility with human rights has been completed in relation to the amendments in this bill, and the assessment has been made that the amendments are compatible with Australia's human rights obligations. A copy of that is available, as you would be aware. In relation to your specific question, I am advised by department officials that the answer is yes, the minister can take this into account.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (11:02): Thank you, Minister; I appreciate that clarification. The last matter I want to raise is a matter I raised last week. I am not sure if you were in the chamber or not, so I will go over it very quickly. We have seen an explosion in visas cancelled on character grounds over the last few years. I put the numbers on the record last week; rather than go through them again, I will just say that there has been a very significant increase since the previous round of amendments were made a few years ago. You may or may not have information here. If you do not, I am very happy for you take it on notice and come back to me. I am interested in the workload for the department and also for the minister's office here, given that explosion in the number of visas of various classes cancelled on character grounds. Could you also inform the Senate of the length of time that it has taken the department as well as the minister's office to process such matters. Perhaps you could come back with the average length of time, and what costs there are to the taxpayer, specifically in relation to the potential longer detention of larger numbers of people.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (11:03): Thank you for the questions, Senator McKim, and also for enabling me take some of the statistical analysis on notice. I will take your questions on length of time and cost on notice and provide that information to you.
Regarding the issue that you raise generally, I believe you may have raised it in in relation to the findings of a recent Commonwealth Ombudsman's report. The response I have received from the minister, specifically in terms of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's report into the administration of section 501 of the Migration Act, is that the department has, over the past 12 months, significantly improved its management of the section 501 case load. However, given the time frame in which the report was actually prepared, some of these improvements are not reflected in the final document. The improvements that have been made include streamlining administrative processes to expedite cancellation and revocation decisions, and expanding the capacity to make decisions at an earlier stage in a noncitizen's custodial sentence. The advice I am given is that these initiatives have already seen a gradual decline in the overall number of section 501 cases in detention. The minister's department will provide you with the actual statistical information that you requested.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.
Third Reading
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (11:06): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Bill 2016
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (11:07): I rise to speak on the Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Bill 2016on behalf of the opposition. The opposition will be supporting this legislation. We welcome this bill which has been much delayed in its introduction by this government. We support the bill because it is actually a Labor bill. It is nearly identical to a bill that passed the House with bipartisan support some four years ago, but which lapsed at the election in 2013. It has taken this government that long to re-introduce this bill. Really, it ought to have been one of the first things on the Attorney-General's agenda, but, as we know, he has been distracted with a few other things.
Let me outline why this bill is important and why we thought fit to introduce it four years ago. As it stands, an individual's personal data can be breached by a government agency, a bank or an online store and there be no requirement that the individual be notified so that they can change their passwords or take other measures to protect themselves. A person might be told tomorrow that their data was hacked four years ago, and that organisation would face no consequences for its failure to notify them at the time. This is the situation that this government and this Attorney-General has let linger thanks to an inexplicable inertia on this important issue.
Let us have a look, briefly, at the history. In 2013, Mr Dreyfus, the then Attorney-General, introduced the Privacy Amendment (Privacy Alerts) Bill. That bill, like this one, made it mandatory for regulated entities under the Privacy Act to alert consumers when their personal data had been breached, whether through accident or malice.
The 2013 bill followed an extensive report by the Australian Law Reform Commission in 2008 which recommended that the Privacy Act be amended to provide as follows:
An agency or organisation is required to notify the Privacy Commissioner and affected individuals when specified personal information has been, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorised person and the agency, organisation or Privacy Commissioner believes that the unauthorised acquisition may give rise to a real risk of serious harm to any affected individual.
And a failure to notify would result in a civil penalty. The Australian Law Reform Commission went on to clarify that 'specified personal information' should include personal information as well as sensitive personal information—for instance, a unique identifier that links someone's Medicare number to their name and address.
After extensive consultation, Labor responded to that recommendation with the privacy alerts bill, which was introduced on 29 May 2013. That bill had bipartisan support and passed the House of Representatives, but, sadly, lapsed at the election in 2013 before it could pass in this place. We have all been waiting for this government to do something about this. We waited patiently, but the government was far more interested in picking partisan fights than passing sensible law with bipartisan support. In particular, one would have to say, the Abbott government would have had to be one of the least constructive governments in Australia's recent history.
With the total absence of action from the Abbott government, the opposition introduced a private senator's bill in 2014 to the same effect as the 2013 bill. That lapsed at the hastily organised 2016 election. The best we got from the Abbott-Turnbull government in the 43rd Parliament was a fig leaf of an exposure draft which was released in 2015 but progressed nowhere. That came after a recommendation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on mandatory retention of metadata to the effect that a mandatory data breach notification scheme be introduced by the end of 2015. That was agreed by the government in its response to the committee's recommendation. Yet, here we are in 2017 and we have only just got this bill in the Senate. Given that history, we on this side of the chamber do find it somewhat baffling as to why the government has been so tardy in bringing this bill forward—four years to introduce a simple, straightforward bill that has bipartisan support.
Many Australians would be shocked to learn that it is not already mandatory for agencies or companies to notify them when their personal data has been breached. If consumers are not informed that their personal data has been breached for months or even years after the fact, it certainly removes any capacity to take remedial action. Significant loss of funds and identity theft cannot be easily avoided. Those affected cannot change their credit card details and they cannot keep a watch for suspicious activity. They are powerless, in effect, because they are not aware. That is not unacceptable.
While the government has waited and delayed, the situation has worsened. A prime example is the Catch of the Day case, where the personal data of some or all of its two million customers was hacked and stolen in 2011 but the customers were not told until 2014. This, quite rightly, caused outrage. Moreover, the company did not even report the hack to the Australian Federal Police when it happened but waited three years. This bill is designed to prevent exactly this kind of situation. Corporations, or public service departments, ought not be allowed to delay reporting of a serious breach of personal data simply because of the fear of the damage it might cause to their reputation. They should disclose to affected customers as soon as the breach is known, regardless of any embarrassment to them. Australians are entitled to know so that they can act to protect themselves.
Section 26WA of the bill sets out the threshold test for the eligible data breach. It provides that such a breach happens if it is 'likely to result in serious harm'. In contrast, the threshold test in the Privacy Amendment (Privacy Alerts) Bill 2013 was 'real risk of serious harm'. The test 'likely to result in serious harm' could be seen as a slightly higher threshold than the previous bill, particularly when combined with the list of relevant matters for consideration to help guide whether harm is likely or unlikely.
The Australian Law Reform Commission report For your information: Australian privacy law and practice noted that in international law the terms 'likelihood' and 'real risk' are similar and related. The term 'a real risk of serious harm' has been defined to mean a reasonable degree of likelihood, real and substantial danger, and a real and substantial risk. The law council, in their submission on the exposure draft of the bill, expressed concern that the 'real risk' test, as drafted, was unclear. They view the 2016 bill as an improvement on the exposure draft version of the bill. The new test responds to stakeholder concerns about the practicality of determining what degree of probability and what kind of harm would be captured in the phrase 'real risk of serious harm'. It will provide greater certainty for regulated entities to be able to comply with their obligations.
I want to turn now, briefly, to the handling of personal data. The protections for consumers contained in this bill become even more vital with the worrying trend of this government to outsource the handling of personal data from the public to the private sector. This includes the proposed sell-off of the corporate registry of ASIC, which holds critical information on more than two million companies in Australia. It holds the names of directors, companies, company names and corporate histories. It is a key resource for journalists and members of the public who wish to find out more about Australian companies. Business owners, for example, are required to lodge a lot of detail with ASIC, not all of which is made public, which undoubtedly they would not want to fall into the wrong hands.
In the midst of the election last year we heard that the Turnbull government intended to award the contract for managing sensitive medical records to Telstra, which will be in charge of the new national cancer screening registry from next year. The contract, estimated to be worth $180 million over three years, will be the first time such sensitive data is in corporate hands. Telstra does not have an entirely spotless history in terms of taking care of its customers' data and has had a number of breaches considered by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. In 2014, Telstra was fined for exposing the personal data of nearly 16,000 customers online. The Australian, in March 2014, stated:
The finding is the latest stain on Telstra's lax privacy record. In 2012 the telco received a similar warning from the Privacy Commissioner for publishing the personal information of more than 730,000 customers online. It also received warnings for breaches of customer data in 2010 when a mailing list error resulted in about 220,000 letters with incorrect addresses being mailed out.
In an era such as this, when personal health data is being handed over to a large corporate entity which has, demonstrably, a patchy privacy record, the passage of this bill is more important than ever.
Then we have the proposed privatisation of the Medicare data system, which the government pledges is no longer going ahead. But one wonders whether it will keep to that promise. If it did go ahead it would be possibly the largest transfer of personal health and financial data from public to private hands ever undertaken by an Australian government. It is vitally important that the protections contained in this bill are in place before that happens, if it does.
The passage of this bill also matters because of the singular botching of another bill to do with the protection of privacy and data that is yet to be debated in this place, the Privacy Amendment Data (Re-identification Offence) Bill 2016. Labor proposes to vote against that bill because it is a bad law which does not seek to protect Australians from having their personal privacy compromised; rather, it aims to cover up embarrassing mistakes by government agencies. It was hastily drafted, and regrettably—again—this government has refused to negotiate in order to find a compromise position. Luckily, given the excessively long lead time, that has not occurred with the bill we are currently debating.
The delay of this bill concerning data breach notifications is, one could surmise, symptomatic of a broader problem with this Attorney-General. There are a whole range of essential tasks—filling vacant judge positions, visiting community legal centres and complying with the FOI Act—which he seems not to be engaged in, but he is very intent on pursuing ideological frolics like the destruction of section 18C of the RDA. As I said, it really is inexplicable that this minister and this government have taken some four years to bring forward a bill that has bipartisan support and that Australians and privacy advocates have been seeking for some time.
Concerns about privacy in the digital era will surely grow in coming years, and it is important that Australians have faith that the government and the parliament are responding in an appropriate way. Considering the comprehensive mess this government made of the 2016 census and associated concerns with the safety of data provided to the government, there is a risk that Australians are losing faith in this government's ability to handle their sensitive data. If Australians are to hand over their most sensitive personal information, they must have faith that it will be properly and responsibly handled. If Australians lose that faith then our ability as a government—whoever is in government—to collect the important data which is needed to run good policy is at risk. So passing this law is an important step that will demonstrate to Australians that the parliament recognises their legitimate concerns about the safety of their data and will compel those organisations who handle it to be more mindful.
As I said, we regret that the government has taken so long to act in relation to this legislation but we are glad that it finally has. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (11:19): It will not come as a surprise to any in here that the Australian Greens also support the Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Bill 2016. I think Senator Wong has given a good wrap-up of why the bill has such widespread support in this parliament. The basic principle is so sound that it will probably come as a shock to people to realise that these protections are not already enshrined in law in Australia—the fact that if you hold private information on people and you lose it you should be obliged to let people know so that they can do something about it. That is the principle that is at stake here. At the moment—and I will go through a couple of examples in a second—if the control of information that we hand over to government agencies, private companies and other entities, which records our lives in extraordinary detail, is lost, these entities are under no obligation whatsoever to report it so that we can take remedial action. That information could be credit card records, it could be your medical history, it could be your political views and affiliations, it could be your credit worthiness—anything at all. There have been some extraordinary examples, which I will go through.
I also find it immensely curious that the Australian government has not seen fit in more than three years—in fact, I think it is four years now—to proceed with this measure when the committee that it dominates, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, in the wake of the disastrous debate on mandatory data retention, said that this is something that should happen. Senator Brandis at the time agreed with that, and nothing has been done.
In terms of what is at stake here, this is not a trivial matter. There are trivial examples, if you want to find them. The Australian immigration department, a couple of years ago, accidentally published personal details of world leaders by mistake—so this stuff can affect anybody at all. Much more seriously, they accidentally disclosed thousands of records of people imprisoned in our immigration detention system. These are people who have fled violent and, in many cases, authoritarian regimes and who have then had their private personal details published by the department that is charged with protecting their interests. This can affect anybody at all.
To go through some of the history briefly, in 2008 the Australian Law Reform Commission published a report, which was the first time, as far as I am aware—certainly the first time in my experience in this place—that that organisation had proposed a mandatory data breach notification scheme. As Senator Wong identified, in 2013 there was a bill that was up for debate—it was on the Notice Paper in this place—that lapsed after the election. Senator Singh, I believe it was, introduced a private senators bill to the same effect the following year, and of course during 2013 and 2014 we had the debate in here on mandatory data retention.
The general principle, I would have thought, of reducing the risk of these kinds of disclosures in the first place is, firstly, do not collect more information than you need. That is one of the Australian privacy principles enshrined in legislation: do not collect anything more than you need. Secondly, make sure it is securely protected and encrypted and, thirdly, if you do lose control of it, notify the people whose interests may have been harmed. Those are the three key principles: do not collect it, protect what you do collect and let people know if you have some kind of failure.
In the data retention debate, the government was obviously running directly in opposition to the first and, I would argue, most important principle, forcing telecommunications providers to collect vastly more information than they needed for their business records or the integrity of their networks. They were doing it for what we were originally told was only going to be the most serious national security and terrorism offences, but obviously the way the debate has swung now means we may see this material deployed in civil cases, family law disputes, copyright disputes—that kind of stuff. So this enormous pool of data that is basically worthless to everybody—certainly the telecommunications providers did not want to have to collect it—is being collected. So you have violated the first privacy principle. What happens when agencies or corporations lose control of this material that is being collected?
In 2008 the Law Reform Commission said people should be protected from this kind of disclosure. In 2013 the government introduced a bill. In 2014 a private senators bill was introduced. In 2014 the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security said it was about time this was done, particularly if we were going ahead with data retention, and nothing happened. Nothing was done.
Let's just trip down memory lane. iTnews put together the biggest Australian data breaches of 2015. On 1 October, Kmart revealed it had discovered customers' data had been stolen by external attackers. David Jones disclosed that attackers had exploited a vulnerability in their WebSphere based website to pinch the sensitive personal details of their customers. Aussie Farmers Direct, a little bit later in October, found that it had fallen victim to an attack, according to iTnews, in which the personal details of more than 5,000 of its customers were posted online. In Aussietravelcover's breach, one of the first of 2015, 870,000 records were posted online by a teenage hacker. In one of the more notorious ones, 37 million customer profiles were ripped and posted from the infidelity website Ashley Madison. The US Office of Personnel Management fell for this. Hacking Team is one of the funnier examples, I guess. This is a company that provides offensive IT to governments undertaking dodgy activities. It found itself on the other side of the line when hackers pulled its pants down and disclosed all kinds of information about what Hacking Team was up to. VTech, TalkTalk, Experian—the list is enormous.
Those come just from 2015, and all of those examples happened since this parliament was made broadly aware, and the government has certainly known, that there is cross-party support—government, opposition and crossbench—for precisely the legislation that we are dealing with today. On 2 February last year I actually put a question to the minister, asking, 'Where is it?' A year later, we get around to it. It is really extraordinary.
The issues that I am going to invite the minister to respond to, if he cares to do so in his closing speech or if and when we go into committee, are issues that were raised during the inquiry into the exposure draft that the minister put forward in 2016. The main issues that we are concerned about relate to who the bill applies to. For example, the Privacy Act, which this bill amends, does not apply to small businesses operating on a turnover of less than $3 million. We think that is highly problematic. The threshold determining who this bill applies to should not have anything to do with turnover. It should have regard to how much material those entities are holding. Really, their turnover is irrelevant. There are companies and entities such as researchers operating under much smaller turnovers than that who are still amassing large amounts of private information. So that is one issue that I hope the minister will address.
So is the fact that enforcement agencies will be able to give themselves a free pass. Enforcement agencies such as the police or investigatory agencies can decide themselves, if they suffer a data breach, whether or not to disclose it. We think at the very minimum there should be some kind of reporting obligation so that we know if that is occurring. Some of the submitters to the inquiry suggested that the Ombudsman should play a role.
The third exemption from the Privacy Act, which should affect us all and give us cause to have a serious think, is political parties. They are collecting large amounts of private information on people in the electorate. Even after this bill is passed, they will still have no obligation to disclose any data breaches. We think that that is wrong.
The second issue is the test of seriousness. If you are a company or a government department who realises that a breach has occurred and you are trying to decide whether or not you fall within the ambit of this bill, you will need to pass the 'serious harm' test. This is an issue Senator Wong addressed briefly, but it was an issue that was hashed out by those who made submissions to the inquiry into the bill. We support the view of the Australian Privacy Foundation, who made a very detailed submission on the bill, that the threshold for requiring notification should be based on either of the following conditions being satisfied: a real risk of harm—without qualifying it according to the seriousness of the risk—or a significant breach, whether or not a real risk of harm has arisen.
That will lead us to the third issue that we believe has not been addressed yet: the fact that, if we simplify the test such that the entity does not have to assess whether or not there is a serious risk of harm but whether it is a significant breach or whether there is a real risk of harm, it should not take 30 days to undertake the test. I will read briefly from what is buried in the government's own explanatory memorandum, at clause 80. It says:
Under the voluntary system—
in other words, the system that we have at the moment—
the notification of individuals can be delayed for years, as discussed above. Such a failure to notify an affected individual of a data breach in a timely manner increases the potential cost of the data breach on the individual. For example, a delay in notification increases the risk of an affected individual becoming a victim of an identity crime such as identity theft, as they may be unaware of the need to take action to mitigate the detrimental consequences of the data breach. Summary statistics for the last 12 months presented in IDCARE's submission to the 2015-16 consultation indicated that the average number of days between a data breach and an individual being notified of the breach was 405 days, whereas the average time between a data breach and the misuse of compromised information was 72 hours.
So we have a voluntary system where there is no time threshold at all; people can choose to tell you or not, and it is really up to the company or the department. The average number of days between a breach and an individual being notified was 405 days. The bill, as we read it, would reduce that to a mandatory 30 days. The explanatory memorandum says the average time between a data breach and a misuse of compromised information is 72 hours. My question to the government is: what possible justification do you have for leaving people hanging out for that additional 27 days? Twenty-seven days—or 30 days, as the government has it in the bill at the moment—is an extraordinarily long period of time for material to be abused. If somebody loses control of my credit card information, I do not want legislation that does not force them to disclose that to me for a month, because a lot of harm can be done in a month.
These are the issues that we would like government to address before we put this bill to a vote. Other than that, I look forward to the bill passing into law—it is an essential piece of privacy legislation. As no doubt other speakers will point out, it is long overdue. In fact, we think it has been weakened in some important ways from the original conception proposed by the Australian Law Reform Commission all the way back in 2008. It is time that this bill was put to a vote, but we hope that the Senate will give regard to some of the issues that we have raised on the way through. I now move the second reading amendment standing in my name:
At the end of the motion, add:
", but calls on the Government to extend the Privacy Act 1988 to include political parties and businesses with an annual turnover under $3m, as such organisations have considerable holdings.".
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (11:32): The bill before the Senate today—the Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Bill—amends the Privacy Act to introduce mandatory data breach notification provisions for agencies, organisations and certain other entities that are regulated by the act. The bill requires agencies and organisations regulated by the Privacy Act to provide notice to the Australian Information Commissioner and affected individuals of an 'eligible data breach'. An eligible data breach is one where a reasonable person would conclude that there is a likely risk of serious harm to any of the affected individuals as a result of the unauthorised access or unauthorised disclosure. Failure to comply with an obligation included in the bill will be deemed to be an interference with the privacy of an individual for the purposes of the Privacy Act. This will engage the commissioner's existing powers to investigate, make determinations and provide remedies in relation to non-compliance with the Privacy Act. Entities that are already exempt from the requirements of the Privacy Act, such as intelligence agencies and small businesses, will not be subject to the requirements of this bill, and law enforcement agencies will not be required to notify affected individuals if it is likely to prejudice law enforcement activities.
This bill was introduced to the parliament in October last year—that is more than three years since Labor, in government, introduced a bill to provide for a mandatory data breach notification scheme. That is three years of those opposite dragging their feet while thousands of Australians have been victims of data breaches. In those three years, Labor has consistently called on those opposite to establish a mandatory data breach notification scheme. The introduction of Labor's bill—the Privacy Amendment (Privacy Alerts) Bill—followed lengthy consultation with industry. It was endorsed by a Senate committee and passed the House of Representatives with the support of those opposite, but lapsed with the dissolution of parliament for the 2013 election. In 2014, in opposition, we introduced a private senator's bill which was almost identical to our government bill. In 2015, we made the introduction of the notification scheme a condition of our support for the government's data retention laws. The government undertook to have the scheme introduced by the end of that year.
The bipartisan Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security had recommended in 2013 that, if the government was to pursue any data retention regime, the legislation should include a mandatory data breach notification scheme. In fact, Senator Brandis—the minister now responsible for carriage of this legislation—was a member of the committee at the time. In 2015, the same committee insisted that the government implement mandatory data breach notification legislation by the end of that year. Having missed that deadline, the measure was then thwarted by Mr Turnbull's political stunt of proroguing parliament and calling an early double-dissolution election. After years of dragging their feet, this government has finally caught up with Labor on this issue. All I can say about that is: it is about time.
This is not a particularly controversial measure, so why has it taken this government so long to follow Labor's lead? All they had to do was pick up the legislation that we put to parliament in 2013 or the private senator's bill that we put to Parliament in 2014. In fact, Labor's 2014 privacy alerts bill was still before the parliament when Mr Turnbull pulled his double-dissolution stunt two years later. In government, Labor had already done the hard yards by consulting with industry, drafting the bill and securing bipartisan support. All the Abbott-Turnbull government had to do was pick up the bill and run with it. Had they done so years earlier, the outcome could have been much better for the thousands of Australians who have been the victims of data breaches. Those opposite have dragged their feet on this issue. There have been a number of major data breaches over the past three years—some involving literally hundreds of thousands of sensitive customer records. Without a mandatory notification scheme, we do not know how many other breaches have gone unreported, how many thousands or even millions of customer records are involved, or what information has been compromised.
Had the government introduced the bill earlier, I am in no doubt that many more Australians would have been promptly notified of data breaches involving their personal information.
McAfee Labs' threat report for August 2015 states that there has been a 'monumental increase in the number of major data breaches and in the volume of records stolen' between 2010 and 2015. I will outline a few of the many examples of large-scale data breaches that have gone public, including some that occurred in the three years that this government has been procrastinating on this bill. But I stress that these are just the breaches that we know of.
In 2013, Telstra had to issue a formal apology to customers after phone numbers, names and home addresses were found online during a Google search. While Telstra said that the privacy breach was not acceptable, they had already been investigated by the Privacy Commissioner for two data breaches in the three years prior. One of those breaches, in 2011, resulted in the details of almost 800,000 customers being left online for eight months.
In October 2015, Kmart revealed that it was urgently working to address a privacy breach in which customer data had been stolen during a cyber attack. The customer details taken during the attack included names, email addresses, delivery and billing addresses, phone numbers and product purchase details. Fortunately, no credit card or other payment details had been compromised, as the company used an external gateway for payments and did not store the details internally. A similar breach was reported by retailer David Jones the following day, with the stolen data including names, email and mailing addresses, and order details but no financial information or passwords. Later that year, in November, hackers stole data lodged through online inquiry forms from the Queensland TAFE and Department of Education websites, although the Queensland government said that they were confident the data were not very sensitive and that no financial information had been obtained.
In October last year, the records of 550,000 Australians donating blood to the Red Cross Blood Service were published online. The file included personal details such as the donor's name, gender, residential and email address, phone number, date of birth, country of birth and blood type. It also included sensitive medical information, like whether someone had engaged in at-risk sexual behaviour in the last year.
Australians have also been caught up in larger data breaches involving multinational corporations. In 2011, personal information of 77 million subscribers to the Sony PlayStation network was stolen, including names, addresses, email addresses, birthdates, usernames, passwords, logins and security questions. Sony revealed that the hack may have even resulted in the theft of credit card information. Following the hack, Sony could not guarantee that credit card data was not involved in the breach, but their Australian division was warning Australian customers to check their credit card accounts for suspicious activity.
There are many more examples I could go through. In fact, in the 2015-16 financial year alone, the Breach Level Index report provides 22 reports of data breaches in Australia involving over four million records. It is no wonder the Abbott-Turnbull government has taken so long to introduce a mandatory data breach notification scheme, when they themselves cannot practice what they preach.
In September last year, a group of academics from the University of Melbourne notified the government that it was possible to figure out provider ID numbers from Medicare Benefits Schedule and Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule datasets published on the Department of Health's website. While the government was notified of the issue on 12 September, it took them until the 29th—that is, 17 days later—to admit to the breach. While we welcome the privacy and information commissioner's decision to investigate the breach, it should be remembered that this is the very same commissioner whose position those opposite had been attempting to abolish for two years. Since the data—now removed from the department's website—was published, it has been downloaded 1,500 times.
Only a month after this breach, you may recall that we were debating legislation to outsource the management of sensitive health data on the National Cancer Screening Register to Telstra. As I explained during the debate on that bill, the data to be handed over to Telstra included sensitive data such as Medicare numbers, Medicare claims information and cancer-screening test results. I also mentioned during that debate that Telstra themselves have a poor track record when it comes to the security of customers' information. For example, you only have to look the two massive data breaches Telstra have had in recent history, which I referred to earlier in this speech and in the speech on the cancer screening bill. Despite industry concerns about the arrangement, the bill passed the parliament, giving effect to the $220 million contract which was secretively awarded to Telstra before the last election.
Another serious data breach involved the personal details of world leaders at the 2014 Brisbane G20 Summit being emailed to an external recipient in early 2015. This breach involved the passport numbers of major world leaders such as US President at the time, Barack Obama, and Chinese President Xi Jinping, yet in an embarrassment for the Australian government these world leaders were not immediately notified of the breach.
This was a bad record for the department of immigration, which had inadvertently published the personal information of 10,000 asylum seekers in February 2014. This information was made available for 14 days and accessed 123 times. Many of the asylum seekers affected said that the breach had made returning to their home countries even more perilous. The then immigration minister, Mr Morrison, launched an investigation into how the data breach threatened the safety of the asylum seekers if they had returned home. Sadly, however, a court found that the investigation withheld information from asylum seekers critical to arguing their case, ensuring their claims failed. They were not told what the breach entailed or who might have accessed the information, and they were denied a copy of the KPMG report into the breach. So much for open government. The guidelines set down by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner state:
In general, if a data breach creates a real risk of serious harm to the individual, the affected individuals … should be notified.
Yet the examples I have just given demonstrate a consistent failure by this government to follow this very reasonable guideline. So, not only does the government have a poor track record when it comes to the pace of this important reform; they also have a poor track record when it comes to following the very principles that they seek to impose on others through this bill. If those opposite truly believed in mandatory data breach notification for the private sector then not only should they have acted more quickly on this reform but also they should have set a better example themselves.
The standard they have set when it comes to data breach notification is very, very poor indeed. When I was chair of the parliament's Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety we conducted an inquiry into cybersafety for senior Australians. The report of that inquiry, released in March 2013, made some observations about the issue of mandatory reporting of data breaches. One submission to the inquiry cited 2008 research by the Australian Institute of Criminology that found that only eight per cent of small to medium enterprises reported data breaches, despite security incidents costing those businesses an estimated $600 million. Other research indicated that 73 per cent of small to medium enterprises had experienced at least one data breach in 2010.
We also noted in our report research from the Australian Information Security Association that found that security of information is a low budget priority in most industries. The AISA also said:
Any data breach notification scheme should be part of a broader and "more responsive" regulatory approach supporting information security.
It was noted in the report that the Labor government at that time was working on a scheme for mandatory notification of data breaches. This was the work that led to our 2013 bill.
This bill is based on a very sound principle: that a person has a right to know if the security of their personal information has been compromised, whether it is held by a retailer, a financial institution, a telecommunications provider or any other business. Right now, if any Australian has their personal information compromised either accidentally or through hacking, the company that holds the data is under no obligation to inform the victim that that has occurred. There are, thankfully, many companies who make it their policy to do the right thing and notify customers immediately when their personal data has been breached, but it is not compulsory. When customers have their personal information, such as their name, address, date of birth, passwords and even their banking and credit card details, disclosed or accessed without their authorisation there is no legal obligation for them to know that it has happened.
There are a number of advantages to mandatory notification of data breaches. Mandatory notification allows affected customers to take steps to protect their information. For example, if the breach includes financial information, customers can change bank accounts or cancel their credit cards. If it includes passwords, they can change their passwords. Unfortunately customers cannot readily change other pieces of information, such as their address or date of birth, but at least knowing the information is out there can prepare them and give them the opportunity to discuss their concerns with any institutions that might use that information for identity checking or security. Of course we know about the issues around identity theft, so we need to always bear that in mind.
Mandatory notification also provides companies holding personal information with an incentive to strengthen their data protection measures and to make sure that the breach does not happen in the first place. If a company is compelled by law to notify its customers of a data breach then the risk of reputational damage to the company might make the investment in stronger data security more attractive.
It stands to reason that Labor will support this bill because we have been calling on the government to introduce mandatory data breach notification for over three years. It has been three years in which we have had an Attorney-General who is not interested in protecting the privacy of Australians because he has been a bit distracted. He has been distracted by defending the so-called rights of bigots and those who seek to engage in hate speech, he has been distracted by his ideological attacks on Australia's arts industry and he has been distracted by his public spats with the Australian Human Rights Commissioner and the Solicitor-General. So it is no wonder, with the storm of controversy that this minister creates for himself, that he is too busy to get on with the job of protecting Australians' right to privacy. He is too busy to ensure the timely introduction of this important and well-overdue reform. But, after three years of inaction, we do finally have a bill before the Senate and, as overdue as this bill may be, I guess it is a case of better late than never.
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (11:49): I am very pleased to see the government has kept its promise to introduce the Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Bill 2016 which will enforce mandatory data breach notifications for organisations that inadvertently lose or release sensitive consumer data. Senators will recall that during last year's debate on the national cancer-screening register bills we moved an amendment and sought a commitment from the government to strengthen privacy laws as recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission some eight years ago. Since that time there have been three different data breach models proposed.
This bill currently before us is an important piece of legislation because, in contrast to previous incarnations and the existing voluntary notification scheme, it finally obliges organisations to report potentially harmful data breaches, which is very much an area where Australian privacy laws have fallen well behind. It will ensure the public are notified should there be a breach of personal information, such as that contained in the cancer-screening records managed by Telstra or indeed any other entities subject to and regulated by the Privacy Act.
As we have recently seen with the inadvertent release of passwords and other personal information at organisations as diverse as Yahoo!, the Red Cross Blood Service and Telstra itself in 2011 and again in 2012 and 2013, we cannot assume that electronic data will always be kept safe. As more and more of our personal data is stored online, we also become more susceptible to the risks of identity theft. Whether it is through phishing, hacking, remote access scams, malware and ransomware or document theft, identity theft has become an extremely sophisticated and lucrative business worth upwards of a staggering $1.6 billion per year in Australia alone.
According to the Australian Federal Police, identity crime is also a key enabler of serious and organised crime, costing Australia around $15 billion annually. According to cyber experts, the 2016 Red Cross Blood Service data breach—which, by the way, was Australia's largest security breach—was a perfect example of how the personal data of some 550,000 Australians could potentially have been used for identity theft if it had fallen into the wrong hands and been sold on the underground black market. The data disclosed included personal details and identifying information, including names, gender, addresses and dates of birth—all material that could be easily used to falsify a person's identity to access bank accounts and to obtain loans, credit cards, phone contracts and even government benefits. Luckily, this data breach was well managed by the Red Cross and these potential risks were mitigated.
The proliferation of online personal data storage by public and private entities alike has made it absolutely necessary to ensure that, whenever unauthorised events happen, affected members of the public are informed in a timely manner so that they are aware that their private data has been compromised and are in a position to act as soon as possible and hopefully before any damage is done. It will very much be a comfort for the public to know that the corporations and agencies that are entrusted with their personal data must from now on act with more accountability and transparency in the event of a privacy breach. With these few words, the Nick Xenophon Team supports this bill.
Senator SINGH (Tasmania) (11:53): I rise to speak on the Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Bill 2016 with a sense of relief but also with a sense of deja vu. As the Senate would recall, I introduced a private senator's bill of the very same intent in 2014—the Privacy Amendment (Privacy Alerts) Bill 2014, a bill that was thwarted by this government. So, I would like to take a step back and actually highlight the history of this important issue—and it is an incredibly important issue.
After extensive consultation, Labor introduced legislation in government in 2013 to implement mandatory data breach alerts. This bill was passed on 6 June 2013 by the House of Representatives with bipartisan support. It was introduced into the Senate and was referred on 18 June 2013 to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry. The committee reported on 24 June 2013, its sole recommendation being that the Senate pass this bill. The bill then lapsed, on prorogation of the 43rd parliament, so I reintroduced an almost identical bill—the privacy alerts bill—as a private senator's bill in 2014, a bill to make it compulsory for corporations and governments to notify people if their privacy is breached and personal details are released without authorisation.
At the time, the coalition senators in this place filibustered extensively to ensure that this piece of legislation did not pass. Despite their record of bipartisan support, time and time again they came into this chamber and filibustered on this important legislation—this legislation that today we similarly have in this place. So it is now clear that it was not the piece of legislation that was the issue; it was that Labor had introduced it—clear, plain politics, on such an important issue as people's privacy and the breach of their privacy.
Labor has always been committed to mandatory data breach notification provisions and of course therefore supports that the government is finally enacting these protections. Unlike the coalition senators, we will not play politics with people's lives or with their privacy and the breach thereof. Labor believes that Australians should be told when there has been a breach of their privacy. And at this very moment in time, and since 2013, when Labor first introduced this legislation, there is nothing in place to notify someone if there data has been breached, if their privacy has been breached, in that sense. So it is very much time that companies, corporations and government agencies who are required to protect Australians' personal data should also have the complementary duty to tell a customer when their personal data has been the subject of unauthorised public release.
Businesses that already implement good privacy practices and comply with the current voluntary guide from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner will have little difficulty in transitioning to this new scheme, because they are already showing an obligation towards their customers. But the risk of data breaches and the seriousness of their consequences has grown as new technology has allowed government and the private sector to collect more and more personal information about Australians. A consumer should have the right to know if their personal information has been compromised or if their bank or their telecommunications provider has lax security standards. Consumers need to have the power to change their passwords, improve their security settings online, cancel their credit cards or completely change providers such as banks or telecommunications companies if they need to do so. But how can they do any of that when, at the moment, they do not even know that their data has been released?
That is what this legislation is all about. That is what makes this legislation so important, and that is why Labor introduced it in 2013 and I similarly introduced it in 2014. Yet it did not pass this place, because of those coalition senators filibustering and not having it pass because they did not want Labor to have that win of being the side that introduced it, and that is shameful.
So, let's look at some of the breaches in recent years—and there have been a number, because, as I said, we are living more and more in a digital world, and more and more data and personal information is being collected about Australian families. This bill puts in place some kind of compulsory notification regime in order to strengthen those protections around that information and build on the privacy regime that I talked about that Labor implemented when in government. Some of those highly publicised data breaches have included sensitive and very personal details of customers, such as the 15,775 Telstra customers who were affected by a breach that made their names, telephone numbers and home and business addresses accessible through a global Google search. That was only one example of several Telstra privacy breaches, in fact.
There was, of course, that shocking case of one billion Yahoo customers who were affected by hacks—again, private information including names, email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth and some passwords were accessed—and it took two years for news of that breach to be made public. It took two years before those one billion customers had any understanding that their data had been breached. Aussie Travel Cover, one of Australia's largest insurance companies, had its computer system hacked, and around 750,000 records of personal details were stolen, which included names, phone numbers, email addresses, travel dates and the cost of their policies. Addresses and partial credit card details were stolen, and that company opted not to tell customers about the hacking—it left them completely in the dark. This is why this legislation is so important; and this is why Labor has been pushing it for so many years.
The hacking of Catch of the Day, in which personal information credit card numbers were stolen, took three years to be made public—three years in which customers were unaware that their personal details were not secure. Catch of the Day has not released the number of consumers that were affected by this breach, but Australian consumers reported fraudulent activity on their cards shortly after the breach. So go figure—the poor old consumer had to figure it out for themselves.
These breaches have also affected the government sector. In 2014 the personal details of almost 10,000 asylum seekers were accidentally published on the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's website. The details included full names, gender, citizenship, date of birth, period of immigration detention, location, boat arrival details and reasons for the individual being deemed unlawful. Absolutely appalling!
McAfee Labs Threats Report for August 2015, which reviewed changes in cyber threats and cybersecurity from 2010 to 2015, states that there has been a 'monumental increase in the number of major data breaches and in the volume of records stolen'. There could not be clearer evidence of why this legislation is so important to get through this place. Yet it is now 2017, some four years on since Labor first introduced our bill of similar intent, and finally the government is going to act on it. It should not have taken so long. In fact, if it had not taken so long, a number of data breaches could have been managed much better than they were—they simply left consumers in the dark.
Data breaches are not a concern only for individuals, although first and foremost the individual is of utmost concern. The security of personal data is of commercial importance to Australian companies. Data breaches are simply bad for business and can be incredibly costly. Companies stand to lose not just time and money rectifying a data breach, but also their reputation. In the modern information economy the trust of consumers in a company's privacy compliance is an incredibly important part of a company's goodwill. What happened when Telstra had that massive data breach of thousands and thousands people's information is clearly in people's minds; what happened to those one billion Yahoo customers is clearly in people's minds. Did they want to stay with Yahoo after that?
When Kmart and David Jones experienced data breaches, both companies notified affected customers. That is good corporate policy; it shows a company's goodwill towards its consumers. That is the sort of positive step that some companies adopt; it stands in contrast to those corporations I highlighted earlier that hide the breaches. A mandatory data breach notification scheme is the most basic of privacy protections, allowing consumers to take action such as cancelling credit cards when their data has been hacked. It is that simple, and yet it has taken so long for this parliament to act on it, due to those coalition senators. While it is customary for many banks, government departments, retailers and telecommunications providers to notify customers of breaches, it is not compulsory. They do not have to do it. In practice this means that victims of serious breaches are not aware that their data has been corrupted.
The bill before us today amends the Privacy Act 1988 to introduce mandatory data breach notification provisions for agencies, organisations and certain other entities that are regulated by the Privacy Act. The bill is so important because it requires those agencies and organisations regulated by the Privacy Act to provide notice first and foremost to the Australian Information Commissioner and then affected individuals of an eligible data breach. At the moment that requirement does not exist. I have highlighted some examples of companies which inform their customers and others which have hidden breaches.
A data breach arises where there has been unauthorised access to, or unauthorised disclosure of, personal information about one or more individuals or where such information is lost in circumstances that are likely to give rise to unauthorised access or unauthorised disclosure. The bill will introduce a new consumer privacy protection for Australians that will keep their personal information more secure in the digital age. It will also encourage agencies and private sector organisations to improve their data security practices. It is an important general step that they should be taking any way. If an entity suspects that an eligible data breach has occurred, it must undertake an assessment into the relevant circumstances and, in the event of an actual data breach, an entity is required to notify the Information Commissioner and affected individuals as soon as practicable after the entity becomes aware that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there has been an eligible data breach. To give rise to an eligible data breach, the reasonable person would need to be satisfied that the risk of serious harm occurring is likely—that is, more probable than not. In deciding whether this is the case, entities are required to have regard to a list of relevant matters, which, I understand, are included in this bill. Failure to comply with an obligation included in the bill will be deemed to be an interference with the privacy of an individual for the purposes of the Privacy Act and that will engage the commissioner's existing powers to investigate, make determinations and provide remedies in relation to non-compliance with the Privacy Act.
So despite the delay tactics of the coalition, this important issue has remained on the agenda. There has been a number of reports about it. I know that the Australian Financial Review has reported a number of times about this issue and also the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security recommended in its report on the mandatory data legislation in 2015 that if the legislation went forward, it was vital that data breach notification legislation be introduced as well.
The coalition government, I understand, was committed to introducing mandatory data breach notification provisions by the end of 2015. It is now 2017. It has taken the government more than three years to bring itself to introduce this legislation that it voted in favour of back when Labor was in government in 2013. If the government had introduced that legislation three years ago, thousands of customers would have been promptly notified that their data was breached. If they had put aside their partisan antics, we could have had privacy alerts legislation when I introduced the bill in this place in 2014. I am pleased to see the government has finally caught up with Labor's proposed legislation—the mandatory notification of consumers when their data has been breached. I am very relieved indeed that the government is finally getting on with honouring its commitment but the impact its delay tactics have had on the people of Australia should not be underestimated. That is why Labor supports this bill but notes very clearly that it is long overdue.
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (12:10): It is interesting to listen to Senator Singh. I understand her frustration in respect to one side of politics or the other not supporting an initiative by someone else and then supporting when it is from their own team. I had the same experience with the Labor Party in trying to stop child sex tourism when they were government and it took over 15 months for the then Labor government to see the wisdom of that initiative to adopt the legislation that I put forward as their own and finally bring it into this place. Senator Singh, your frustration—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—is absolutely shared.
I will not delay the Senate more than is necessary but there are a few concerns that I have on behalf of Australian Conservatives that perhaps in the summing up speech or if there is a committee stage the minister might consider addressing. The first of these is the fact that this bill contains provision that the notifications need to go to the Information Commissioner. It is not lost on me and I am sure it is not lost on many in this place where we note that this is the very office that the attorney sought to abolish and was prevented doing so by the Senate crossbench in a previous iteration. There are concerns and reports that have been handed to me that the Information Commissioner is operating with scarce or scant or non-existent—depending on who you listen to—resources. Some have suggested he is actually working from home. So the question I ask is whether the Information Commissioner will be in a position to fully respond to the other onerous requirements which are attached to this bill. I look forward to a response in due time from the minister or from the Attorney-General.
The second concern Australian Conservatives have is about the definition of 'serious harm'. Harm, however you are going to define it, is defined as including serious physical, psychological, emotional, economic, financial or reputational harm. This bill does not strictly define that at all. In fact, it is very subjective. I have been on the record about subjective tests in other legislation that have been enacted in other bills. In this time of extreme political correctness, we have safe spaces and trigger warnings for all sorts of concerns. Do we have the same sorts of implications in this bill? If you are not prepared to define 'serious harm' and if you are not prepared to define what is 'psychological harm', businesses can find themselves in all sorts of inadvertent direct accusations and inadvertent breaches of this bill or this act because what they thought was serious harm or was not serious harm was considered by an individual or another group as being serious harm. So where you are talking about psychological and emotional harm and other varieties of harm, I think the definition needs to be more succinct. Otherwise, we risk of course having the proverbial 'lawyers' picnic', where they will queue up to advise businesses large and small about what could be a serious breach. Of course those who err on the side of caution will say let's report every single breach to the Information Commissioner, who may or may not have the resources required to deal with what could be thousands, tens of thousands or maybe hundreds of thousands of complaints every year.
The other aspect—and I will conclude shortly—is which businesses are exactly captured by this. I recognise that there are some broad parameters in here. My concern is principally for small businesses, who are often ill equipped to deal with onerous regulations and compliances mandated by governments. I believe that small businesses should be able to get on with building their businesses and trying to generate wealth for them and their families, generate jobs and improve the economic conditions for all involved. Sometimes governments can put forward well-meaning initiatives that create an enormous amount of red tape and bureaucracy for small businesses in particular, who then are forced to employ people to comply with various aspects of it or, as I mentioned earlier, maybe get legal advice, which is expensive—sometimes prohibitively so—and end up running their business for the government rather than for the benefit of the country.
I would like to think that small businesses will not be captured here, but those that are captured are:
… those that provide a health service, are a credit reporting body, or trade in personal information.
Political parties trade in personal information. A not-for-profit with a turnover of over $3 million would include the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Greens and maybe some other political parties and organisations. Does that mean, if a fraction of their membership list gets leaked by one of their branch officers, they are going to have to notify the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and have an investigation into how this took place and so forth? Is it going to apply to doctors' surgeries? Will it apply to direct-mailing houses? What is an information breach? Is it just someone's name or a list of names? Or does it have to include personal information such as dates of birth, perhaps, or email addresses? Does it include physical addresses or just a mailing address? These are the sorts of questions that I think people are entitled to ask and have concerns about. Anyone with a mailing list could potentially fall foul of this, depending on the definitions.
As an Australian Conservative, I am concerned about the regulation and red tape. I am concerned about the lack of specificity in this bill, because it does leave it open to a number of subjective assessments and I do not think that it is a positive way to go. Nonetheless it is clear to me that this legislation is going to get through. I hope the Attorney-General and the minister will take on board some of these questions and maybe provide a response but also be aware in future legislation that maybe some amendments will need to be made. I thank the Senate.
Senator SINODINOS (New South Wales—Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) (12:17): I think I am at the summing-up stage now. I want to thank honourable senators for their contribution to the debate on the Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Bill 2016. There has clearly been a lot of interest around the chamber, and a number of issues have been raised during the debate, some of which I have here in front of me. Let me start with amendment C: significant data breach. Section 26WE is already intended to cover incidents that would be considered significant data breaches. The government expects that guidance material from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner will help ensure that entities subject to the bill understand the full range of incidents covered here under section 26WE as currently drafted.
One of the other issues that has arisen is the scope of the scheme. Why are small businesses and other entities covered or not covered? The bill's mandatory data breach notification scheme applies only to entities which are already subject to the Privacy Act—that is, Australian government agencies, other than those exempt from the act such as: intelligence agencies; private sector organisations with annual turnover greater than $3 million; and specific kinds of small businesses such as health service providers, credit reporting bodies and credit providers, and tax file number recipients. The Privacy Act seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between ensuring that entities that hold personal information apply appropriate privacy standards and not imposing unnecessary regulation on small business.
The bill's mandatory data breach notification scheme is linked to the information security requirements which already apply to entities subject to the Privacy Act, in particular, existing Australian Privacy Principle 11, which requires entities to take reasonable steps to secure personal information they hold. Expanding the scheme to cover entities not currently covered by the Privacy Act would apply it to entities who do not have pre-existing information security obligations under the Privacy Act and could not be subject to other enforcement action by the commissioner under the act. It is also not considered desirable to alter existing Privacy Act exemptions which apply to entities such as intelligence agencies or media organisations acting in the course of journalism solely for the purpose of the mandatory data breach notification scheme.
Another issue that has been raised is why the bill does not provide specific assessment notification time frames. The proposed section 26WH applies where an entity has 'reasonable grounds to suspect that there may have been an eligible data breach of the entity'. Section 26WH requires entities to conduct 'a reasonable and expeditious assessment' of whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that there has been an eligible data breach of the entity. A 'reasonable' assessment is expected to be one that focuses on matters that can be reasonably justified as relevant to determining whether a data breach has occurred. 'Expeditious' in this context is not defined. It will depend on all the relevant circumstances, with the intent being that entities should move as promptly as possible in the circumstances to determine whether notification is required.
Section 26WH also includes the additional requirement that entities must 'take all reasonable steps to ensure that the assessment is completed within 30 days' of when the entity first suspected an eligible data breach may have occurred. This is not a hard 30-day deadline but instead reflects the policy intention that 30 days would generally be an appropriate amount of time in cases where there may be a likely risk of serious harm to individuals arising from an individual. Section 26WH recognises, however, that in some cases entities may need longer than 30 days to complete an assessment—for example, where the facts of a suspected eligible data breach are particularly complex, or where completing the assessment within 30 days would require an unreasonable application of resources. This responds to concerns that were raised frequently in the exposure draft consultation, from December 2015 to March 2016, about the potential complexity of assessing whether a breach has occurred. The 30-day requirement must also be read alongside the requirement in section 26WH to undertake an expeditious assessment. This means that in some cases an entity may be required to complete an assessment in less than 30 days—for example, where the circumstances are relatively straightforward.
If when an entity first becomes aware of a data breach it is clear that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there has been an eligible data breach of the entity, then section 26WH will not apply and the entity will be required to move straight to the notification requirements in sections 26WK and 26WL. The proposed sections 26WK and 26WL provide that, where an entity has 'reasonable grounds to believe that there has been an eligible data breach of the entity' the entity must prepare a statement about the breach, provide a copy of the statement to the Australian Information Commissioner, and notify affected individuals of its contents, as soon as practicable. What constitutes a practicable time frame will vary, depending on the circumstances of the eligible data breach, and the entity that experienced the eligible data breach. This flexibility recognises that while in many cases prompt notification will be appropriate, in other cases entities may need additional time to comply with the notification requirement. Guidance materials from the Australian Information Commissioner is expected to provide practical assistance in determining appropriate time frames to notify an eligible data breach. The Information Commissioner could also investigate failure to notify an eligible data breach as soon as practicable or issue the entity with a direction to notify, under proposed section 26WR, if the commissioner became aware of an eligible data breach that the entity had not yet notified.
A number of speakers, principally from the opposition, have raised an issue about the time taken to introduce the bill. The government has taken time to consider the design of the Mandatory Data Breach Notification Scheme contained in this bill and to undertake a proper and adequate consultation process with stakeholders. The time line is this: an exposure draft bill was released on 3 December, 2015, with submissions open until 4 March 2016. A total of 56 submissions were received, including 47 public submissions, which are available on the Attorney-General's Department's website. The bill was scheduled for introduction in the autumn 2016 sittings of parliament, but this did not occur before the election was called. The government introduced the bill in the spring 2016 sittings of parliament and has promptly brought the bill on for debate.
I believe Senator Ludlam has raised an issue about the enforcement bodies exception—section 26WN. The proposed section 26WN provides an exception from the requirement to notify individuals if an enforcement body, such as the Australian Federal Police, experiences a breach, where notification would compromise an enforcement related activity, such as an ongoing investigation. However, section 26WN does not excuse the enforcement body from notifying the Australian Information Commissioner. This should ensure appropriate oversight of data breaches of this kind.
The purpose of the scheme is to ensure that individuals can take steps to protect themselves in the event that their personal information is compromised in a data breach. As such, it implements the government's response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's February 2005 advisory report on the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2015. The bill will create a Mandatory Data Breach Notification Scheme that will apply to Australian government agencies and private sector organisations subject to the act. They would be required to notify an individual whose personal information is subject to unauthorised access, unauthorised disclosure or loss, where a reasonable person would consider the individual is at likely risk of serious harm as a result. The extensive consultation undertaken on this bill has ensured that it strikes an appropriate balance between effectively protecting individuals while remaining workable for business covered by the bill. The bill complements existing information and security requirements in the Privacy Act and will provide individuals with confidence that they will be notified in the event of a data breach that places them at likely risk of serious harm. In an environment where entities collect and use growing volumes of personal information in their business activities, and individuals enter into increasing numbers of online transactions, the bill is an important consumer protection measure that builds on the strong privacy protections already provided in existing privacy legislation. On that basis I commend the bill to the chamber.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator O'Sullivan ): The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Ludlam be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [12:31]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Sullivan)
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator O'Sullivan ) (12:34): The question now is that this bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:35): I have a couple of questions that I would like to put to you, Minister Fierravanti-Wells, recognising that you are here in a representative capacity. Firstly, regarding the issue that we just took the second reading vote on, can the minister explain, just in case senators are not aware, why political parties are exempt from the Privacy Act? The second reading amendment that we just voted on is, as a second reading amendment, basically guidance to the government. It does not oblige the government to do anything, but we believe that political parties and businesses that are carrying large amounts of personal information, whether they are operating above or below a really arbitrary $3 million turnover threshold, should be obliged to notify users if they lose control of their private information. Why are political parties exempt from the parent act that we are amending and, therefore, from the operation of this bill?
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (12:36): I am advised that this has been a longstanding provision since 2001, and that it enables political parties to go out and engage with their membership and the general public.
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:37): Senator Fierravanti-Wells, this is absolutely no disrespect to you: you are well across your portfolios, and this is not one of them. Is there any chance Senator Brandis could join us this morning as we discuss his bill?
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (12:37): Senator Ludlam, I just wanted to advise you: Senator Brandis is on his way. He has just been caught up. So he should be here soon. I am just holding the fort in the interim.
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:37): I mean no disrespect, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. I know that you are also carrying a lot of other issues. Just to confirm then, according to your response if the Liberal Party or the Labor Party, the Greens, the Xenophon party—or anybody at all who is collecting information on the electorate, on their voters, supporters and people who are not supporters—are hacked, and if that information of fairly intimate details of people's political leanings gets into the public domain, are the parties in question still not obliged under any law of this country to disclose that to the people whose interests they might have harmed?
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (12:38): I am advised that whilst no mandatory obligation exists to disclose that breach it is still open for disclosure to occur on a voluntary basis.
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:38): So the status quo remains. I guess that is confirmation. So it is voluntary for everybody at the moment, and we are tightening the net for some entities but not for political parties. Similarly, then, can the minister explain why it is the government's view that there should be an arbitrary $3 million turnover threshold for disclosure rather than relying on whether or not harm is being done to people through the disclosure of their private information? What is with the $3 million?
I think it was the Australian Bankers' Association which made the point that this potentially puts larger entities who will be subject to obligations under the bill at a commercial or a competitive disadvantage. I think this is probably the first time I have ever quoted the Australian Bankers' Association in here, but there you go! They said:
… small businesses often have the least mature privacy and security capabilities; nevertheless, in the information economy and with modern computing tools, a small business may still have a large customer base, or collect personal information about large numbers of individuals.
That is a statement of fact. I hope there is nothing controversial about that. Why are they not included within the Privacy Act let alone within the ambit of this bill?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:40): Acting Chair, I just wonder if the government could indicate how long Senator Brandis would be. In terms of the expeditious handling of this legislation—I do not agree with anything that Senator Ludlam, I am sure, will be putting to the chamber—it just seems that we are in a position where we are likely to have a double handling of it, where the same questions might, indeed, be asked again of Senator Brandis. If he is going to be a while, I wonder whether the government might want to consider how they want to handle that.
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (12:40): I am advised that he will be here shortly. So, in the interim, if Senator Ludlam is happy to continue with the way we have been going then I can get him answers to his questions. You asked about small business, Senator Ludlam. I am told that, in relation to small business, it would impose an unnecessary burden on them. However, in relation to health services, irrespective of turnover, those entities providing health services are bound.
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:41): I understand that there are some carveouts for health service providers and for credit reporting agencies, as well as a couple of other carveouts. In the writs attached to the explanatory memorandum, the government is boasting that the proposed scheme will only apply to around six per cent of Australian businesses. So 94 per cent of Australian businesses will not be caught by this bill. I do not understand why it should relate to turnover rather than the fact that some of these small businesses will hold considerable amounts of people's private information, and, yet, that will be exempt from the bill. Rather than just a blanket statement that it would be unwieldy for them, why not move, as the Australian Privacy Foundation and many others have pointed out, to have the threshold be related to harm to the user base rather than to turnover of the small business? I genuinely do not understand why the government has gone that way.
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:43): Senator Ludlam, some metric or some basis had to be determined. It is better that that be an empirically verifiable basis. The proposal that, I understand, you are putting to me would involve a degree of judgement in relation to the circumstances of a particular business. So the reason that the government has legislated in this way is so that there can be some known and certain basis of discrimination.
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:43): I understand the point that you make. However, that judgement will exist if you are a bank, if you are a government department, if you are a large company, if you are Coles or any of the other entities that I mentioned in my contribution earlier. You are already going to need to be exercising judgement, as is explained in the EM and in the bill, around whether you have caused your user base, or people you have been collecting information on, serious harm. Why not extend that to anybody who is holding considerable amounts of information on their users? I would have thought that the purpose of the bill, which is going to be supported by everybody in here when we come to the final vote, is about protecting people. So we are imposing an obligation on one sector of the economy and on one big part of the public service but not on others not through any arbitrary distinction about whether they are holding information or not but around scale. I would have thought that scale, as the kind of metric that you are describing, is actually irrelevant under this circumstance.
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:44): I suppose, Senator Ludlam, lines have to be drawn somewhere. This is where the government has chosen to draw the line on this issue. Different minds could, in good faith, arrive at different views but that is where the government has landed.
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:45): That being the case, I move, on behalf of the Australian Greens, amendment (1) on sheet 8055:
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 11 (line 19), omit "30 days", substitute "3 days".
This amendment relates to how long entities that are caught by this bill have to notify people that their interests might have been compromised. I quoted from item 80 in the explanatory memorandum a little earlier and pointed out data that was presented there—and I presume that 'the last 12 months' represents 2016 or 2015-16—that shows:
… the average number of days between a data breach and an individual being notified of the breach was 405 days …
So the primary intention of this bill is to bring that notification period way down.
It goes on:
… whereas the average time between a data breach and the misuse of compromised information was 72 hours—
three days. Why has the government set 30 days, which, as its own explanatory memorandum acknowledges, is 10 times longer than the average time between a breach and the misuse of compromised information?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:46): You have moved your first amendment, Senator Ludlam?
Senator Ludlam: Yes.
Senator BRANDIS: Can I indicate to the chamber that the government will be opposing this and the other Greens amendments. The legislation, which I think even the Greens would acknowledge is a step in the right direction—although you do not agree, obviously, with every detail of it—has had to come up with a reasonably complex scheme. This is where we have landed having taken into account all relevant considerations in the interests of the various stakeholder groups and affected parties. We are satisfied that this is the best set of arrangements in the circumstances. They will not be improved by your amendment, so it will be opposed.
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (12:47): We have quite a lot of sympathy for the amendment, as 30 days is way too long and significant damage can be done in that time, but we believe a more practical time frame would be five days.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:47): Just to indicate the opposition's position, we will not be supporting this amendment. This bill, as I outlined in my speech in the second reading debate, has gone through a very extensive consultation process and this is the time frame that has been identified as part of that process. I think it is difficult for senators to determine what is reasonably practicable for some of these entities simply by having a discussion on the Senate floor. I share some of the concerns of Senator Griff and Senator Ludlam regarding expeditious notification. I would note that there were changes to this section, 26WH, as a result of the consultations, so our view is that it would be best at the moment to proceed with the time frame that was the subject of lengthy consultation.
I would add, though, that there are processes in this parliament—estimates committees, the annual report of the Privacy Commissioner—which would enable the Senate to consider, in the future, whether or not the 30-day time frame has proved to be an appropriate one in light of some of the concerns which have been raised.
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:48): Can I just add an observation, please, Senator Griff. The 30 days is a maximum under section 26WH, but section 26WH also imposes a requirement that the party upon whom the obligation is cast must undertake an 'expeditious assessment'. So it may well be that an assessment is able to be undertaken in a much shorter period of time than 30 days. Thirty days is the outside, it is a statutory maximum, but against an obligation to deal with the matter expeditiously. It is the obligation, in fact, to deal with the matter expeditiously that is the governing obligation here, and then some guidance is to be given as to what is beyond reasonable compliance with that obligation of expedition. That is within at least 30 days but it may be sooner.
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:50): I thank the minister for his answer and thank other senators for their contributions. The second two amendments—which I will move shortly, once we have dealt with this one—go to the fact that with many data breaches, such as those that I, Labor senators and Senator Griff identified during our contributions, it takes some time before some of these companies or departments even know that they have had a breach. So the clock is not ticking from the time they realise they have lost control of people's information but from the time that the breach occurs. That could be weeks, months or, in some cases, years after the breach is discovered. I believe that in most cases in the list of examples I read earlier it was a period of weeks before the breach was actually discovered, at which point your obligations begin.
I take Senator Brandis's point; 'expeditious' is entirely appropriate. That implies that the ICT teams get moving and try to identify what has actually happened. What we do not want to have is companies and departments being tied up for up to 30 days, working as rapidly as they can, trying to figure out whether they are obliged to report the breach. We would rather just see, on balance, that the reporting happens earlier. That will go to the second amendment that we are going to move shortly. We think 30 days is far too long and we also believe you have identified the reason that it is far too long in your own explanatory memorandum, where you have said—I am going to put this on the record one last time:
… the average number of days between a breach and the individual being notified was 405 days, whereas the average time between a data breach and the misuse of compromised information was 72 hours—
three days. You have made the case for three days in your EM, probably more eloquently than I am this morning. I am seeking your guidance, Mr Temporary Chair. I am taking Senator Griff's advice in the interests of compromise and wish to substitute 'five days' for 'three days'. Do I need leave to amend 'three days' to read 'five days'?
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Bernardi ): You would need to seek leave.
Senator LUDLAM: I seek leave.
Leave granted.
Senator LUDLAM: Do I need to move that or is that done?
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Perhaps you could explain your amendment for us.
Senator LUDLAM: Amendment (1) on sheet 8055 is substituting 'five days' for 'three days' as circulated.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that that amendment be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye and against say no. I think the noes have it on that amendment.
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:52): In that case I will put the amendment. If Senator Brandis is not interested in even two days—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Just one moment, Senator Ludlam. I think the Attorney may have something to share, so could you resume your seat.
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:53): Senator Ludlam, I thought you were moving the amendment with the 'three' substituted with 'five'. I do not think you needed to move a motion to substitute 'three' with 'five' because the government had given you leave to substitute 'three' with 'five'. So from the government's point of view—and I suspect Senator Wong may be in the same position—our opposition is to your substantive amendment not to your request to substitute 'five' for 'three' within the amendment.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The Attorney is correct. We have accepted that the amendment has been amended by leave. The question being put is that the amended amendment on sheet 8055 be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:54): by leave—I move together amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8053 revised:
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 1), omit "is likely to result in serious", substitute "results in".
[significant data breach]
(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 6 (lines 25 to 28), omit subparagraph 26WE(2) (a) (ii), substitute:
(ii) a reasonable person would conclude that the access or disclosure:
(A) would be likely to result in harm to any of the individuals to whom the information relates; or
(B) is a significant data breach; or
[significant data breach]
(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 6 (lines 32 to 36), omit subparagraph 26WE(2) (b) (ii), substitute:
(ii) assuming that unauthorised access to, or unauthorised disclosure of, the information were to occur, a reasonable person would conclude that the access or disclosure:
(A) would be likely to result in harm to any of the individuals to whom the information relates; or
(B) is a significant data breach;
[significant data breach]
I will explain the nature of the revision because there will be earlier copies of this sheet floating around the chamber. These amendments go to the issues I foreshadowed in my speech during the second reading debate. How serious should the breach have to be before you have to disclose it to the people at risk? This relates to the amendment the chamber has just disposed of relating to how long people should be given to think about whether they are caught by this act or not.
The threshold has shifted around a little bit since the 2013 bill and the exposure draft that informed this bill. The issue to me is crucial. It defines whether the bill works as intended. If the threshold is set too high then almost nothing will get reported and we can pat our backs and say that we all worked here in a very crosspartisan way to improve the law but in real life almost nothing will have changed because these breaches can still occur and people will not be notified. If the threshold is set too low then you risk what some submitters have identified as notification fatigue. If you get emailed by your bank every couple of days that something might have happened then eventually you will start ignoring those messages.
The Australian Privacy Foundation's very detailed submission goes into this issue at length. What they have said really is that the term 'serious' is a big part of the problem. They have said:
In practical terms what is the difference between harm and serious harm?
I think, Mr Temporary Chair Bernardi, when you made a contribution earlier you alluded to this issue as well. There is confusion about whether you have obligations under this act or not. The Privacy Foundation continued:
The intent of this distinction seems to raise the threshold for reporting. What it is more likely to do is to create confusion as to where the threshold lies. Vaguely drafted and ambiguous terms such as this invariably reduce the effectiveness of the operative provisions when enacted.
We do not want to pass this bill into law if the threshold is set so high that people will be given their 30 days and will decide that serious harm has not been done. These amendments effectively amend two different parts of the bill to say that if the disclosure 'would be likely to result in harm to any of the individuals to whom the information relates or is a significant data breach' then you are caught, then you report, then you disclose, then you notify. That should really cut down on some of the red tape that Senator Bernardi was referring to. It should cut down on the need for 30 days. The assumption is one of disclosure, and we think that is entirely appropriate.
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:57): Senator Ludlam, it is a fair point that you make, to which I respond in this way. It is, I hope you would agree, important that legislation that imposes what is potentially 'quite an onerous obligation' on those who hold data applies only to non-trivial breaches, breaches that are causative of harm and are significant. It is very difficult—indeed, I dare say impossible—to legislatively define the threshold at which one considers a breach to be non-harmful or non-trivial and therefore in these circumstances it is necessary to use reasonably generic language.
If it be accepted that the obligations imposed by the legislation should apply only to harmful or to non-trivial breaches then a body of precedent and practice will develop as the legislation operates and the development of those more particular guidelines will be assisted by the publication of compliance guidance by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner so that a clearer picture can emerge as to where one draws the line. I readily acknowledge that different minds will differ as to where the line should be drawn between trivial and non-trivial breaches and harmful and non-harmful breaches, but, as I said, if one accepts that the legislation should apply only to non-trivial breaches and should apply only to harmful breaches then in the absence of any more precise capacity to formulate that in the statute it will be formulated by practice and the development of precedent guided by the guidelines of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:59): Thank you, Minister—that was actually quite helpful, and it feels as though we are not that far apart. In fact, I think I agree with everything that you put. The distinction that I am trying to draw is that, the way the bill is currently drafted, an obligation will not apply to an entity unless it believes that serious harm has occurred. The distinction that you are drawing between trivial or nonharmful conduct and harmful conduct is precisely where I think we should be drawing the line, but the bill, as drafted, does not do that. Presently, an entity can decide—after the maximum of 30 days and after it has expeditiously done its assessment—that it has in fact caused harm and still not be caught by the bill, because it might have decided that it was not serious harm. I am at a bit of a loss, Senator Brandis, because I agree with your description of how the bill should work but I do not think it is how the bill will work. My reading is that the amendment the Australian Greens are putting forward would draw the bill closer to the way that you just described you believe it should operate.
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:01): I think we are not all that far apart. One further point I should have made in the observations that I made a few moments ago is that this is subject to a reasonable person test. In section 26WE the test is whether a reasonable person would likely believe that the data breach would cause significant harm. Senator Ludlam, as you know, it is a very commonplace device in the law to subject these kinds of criteria—which cannot be defined on a case-by-case basis, because of the infinite variety of potential circumstances to which they might attach—to a reasonable person test, and that has been done. I think I will stop there. What we are trying to achieve is not very far apart, if not essentially the same. There are various ways of testing this. As a result of quite extensive consultations, the government has landed at adopting the test that I have expressed. That is a test that is workable and can be informed by practice, precedent and the guidelines of the Information Commissioner.
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (13:02): If I do not have the numbers in this chamber to carry this amendment, I am not going to detain us for too much longer; we will wait until we hear from Senator Wong and then we will put this one to rest. I believe we are fairly close in what we are trying to do and I have no problem with the reasonable person test or with their reasonableness—that is a longstanding practice—but the test that this abstract reasonable person would be applying is not between whether nontrivial or nonharmful and trivial or harmful conduct has occurred; the distinction that they would be asked to draw is whether or not serious harm has been done. That is where I have a problem. As the Privacy Foundation and other submitters suggested, an entity would be able to draw the conclusion that it had caused harm to people and yet still not be subject to the operation of this bill. That is certainly, Senator Brandis, not how you have been describing it. You have been describing it in the way that I would hope the law would operate. Under this bill, an entity would be able to draw the conclusion that it had caused harm to its users but that, because it was not serious harm, it did not need to disclose it. I think that is completely unacceptable. That is all we are trying to fix this morning.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:03): The opposition will not be supporting this amendment for reasons that I think I sufficiently covered in that section of my second reading speech.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Gallacher ): The question before the chair is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8053, revised, be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.
Third Reading
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:05): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2016
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:06): I rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2016 on behalf of the opposition and I indicate at the outset that, with amendments, the opposition will be supporting this bill. We welcome the chance to strengthen Australia's laws to combat firearms trafficking. There is a growing firearms problem in Australia, and there is growing gun crime in our communities. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission estimates that there are as many as 600,000 illicit firearms in the community. Once firearms fall into the illicit market, it is extremely difficult to get them back, and they can all too easily end up, as we know, in the hands of criminals, gangs and terrorists. We can and we must do more to tackle illicit firearms.
The Australian community rightly expects the government of the day to take responsible and effective steps to crack down on gun crime. On this measure, the government is failing the community. We saw this most clearly last year, when this government was at war with itself on firearms policy. It was a government so focused on its own internal division that it could not provide the leadership Australians expect their government to show on matters of community safety. Today we see the Turnbull government trying to distract the community from this division. When leadership is called for, what we see yet again is cheap politics. Instead of putting forward sensible measures which would address this problem, the government continues to put forward failed Abbott government measures in a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that it is hopelessly divided on guns.
The bill proposed by the government would see the introduction new mandatory minimum sentences of five years for the offences of trafficking firearms and firearms parts within Australia; and trafficking firearms and firearms parts into and out of Australia. It would also amend maximum penalties to imprisonment for 20 years or a fine of 5,000 penalty units or both.
This is the third time that this Liberal government has attempted to introduce mandatory minimum sentences for firearms-trafficking offences. On each previous occasion, the Senate has wisely rejected such measures, and I ask the Senate to consider doing so again. The opposition has circulated an amendment to remove the mandatory minimum penalties in this bill. The reason for this is very simple: mandatory minimum sentences do not work. State prosecutors, including the directors of public prosecutions in New South Wales and Tasmania, have criticised them. The legal profession is opposed to them. Experts agree they are ineffective in making the community safer. One would have hoped that that is the measure that the government of the day should apply, not cheap politics.
In fact, in its very own document, A guide to framing Commonwealth offences, infringement notices and enforcement powers, the Attorney-General's own department says that mandatory sentences should be avoided. In that document, Senator Brandis's department states that mandatory minimum sentences interfere with judicial discretion to impose a penalty appropriate in the circumstances of a particular case; may create an incentive for a defendant to fight charges, even where there is little merit in doing so; preclude the use of alternative sanctions; and may encourage the judiciary to look for technical grounds to avoid a restriction on sentencing discretion, leading to anomalous decisions. And reviews of the implementation of such provisions confirm these concerns.
In December 2015, the Northern Territory Department of the Attorney-General and Justice published a review of the Northern Territory Sentencing Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Act 2013. It was assessed that the introduction of mandatory minimum prison terms 'resulted in an increase in the length of time and number of court appearances required to finalise defendants who pled guilty, and may have contributed to a decrease in the percentage of defendants with a final guilty plea'. In other words, you tie up more of the court's time and get fewer outcomes. Not only do these measures drain precious law enforcement resources; they increase the chances of reoffending. It is therefore unsurprising that the government has been unable to provide any evidence in the EM to this bill to support the idea that mandatory minimum sentences for firearms trafficking will enhance or sustain Australia's firearm's control regime by deterring potential offenders.
Of course, this chamber and the Australian people have not forgotten that this government has been playing politics with our world-leading gun laws for more than a year. We all saw just how cynically the coalition could behave when we learnt that the government was trading guns for votes. Trying to use the mass importation of a rapid-fire lever-action for its own political gain has to be one of the low points over the last few years. It was a government willing to trade community safety for partisan advantage—a shameful episode. And, of course, when it suited them, the Turnbull government also welched on its deal with Senator Leyonhjelm. It broke its word to a senator and it failed in its most important duty: to ensure the safety of the Australian community.
Who can forget last year, when we saw Prime Minister Turnbull and his predecessor, Mr Abbott, openly contradict each other on the floor of the House of Representatives? Then, in this chamber, we saw the National Party split from the Liberals on the floor of the Senate, with cabinet ministers being very conveniently absent and Nationals senators voting to let a dangerous weapon into the country. On national television, we saw the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Joyce, contradict Mr Turnbull's position. And we saw members of the government, including Senator McKenzie, Senator Williams, the member for Parkes, the member for Flynn and the member for Moore all calling for a weakening of our gun laws. This bitter division on guns, the way this has played into the Liberal—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Gallacher ): Senator Wong, resume your seat. Senator Williams?
Senator Williams: I have just come into the chamber. I am just gobsmacked by the statement by Senator Wong.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. Resume your seat, Senator Williams. Senator Wong.
Senator WONG: I suppose the truth hurts, Senator Williams. This bitter division on guns and this weakness of leadership and the division inside the government, which was played out so clearly on the floor of both the House and the Senate through that time has very real consequences. We have a government that is much more focused on internal division and on playing political games than on good, strong and effective policy. In fact, on this government's watch, a record number of weapons have flooded into the illicit market. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission estimates that 10,000 of the guns in the illicit market are handguns—the weapon of choice for gangs and criminals.
We can and must do more to stop guns flowing into the illicit market, whether it be through illegal importation, theft or other methods. And we can and must do more to find these guns and stop them being trafficked across state boundaries. The reintroduction of the ineffective measures that are set out in this bill, for a third time, is not amongst the appropriate responses. It is just an attempt to distract from the fact that we see a government still divided on guns.
The opposition has also circulated an amendment to introduce new aggravated firearms trafficking offences, with a maximum penalty of life in prison. I propose to expand on the detail of the amendment in the committee debate rather than in the second reading debate. Labor believe that the amendments we propose, comprising tough new aggravated offences, alongside the higher maximum penalty for the basic firearms trafficking offences in the bill, which we support, will send a clear message that gun trafficking is as serious as drug trafficking and will attract the same severe penalties.
We all saw the government's real commitment to gun control last year, when it was prepared, extraordinarily, to trade guns for votes and water down Australia's gun laws. The opposition had sincerely hoped that the government's approach to our gun laws could have improved this year. Unfortunately, it does not appear to have been the case. That is a disappointment to all Australians who want to see effective action taken against gun crime.
The opposition will continue to fight for tough gun laws. While the Turnbull government reheats failed Abbott government proposals, we are putting forward strong and sensible measures that will actually contribute to the fight against firearms trafficking. I commend the opposition amendments, to be moved in the Committee of the Whole. I would encourage the government to approach this area of policy not with tired political games but with a sensible approach to ensure that we do in fact make our community safer.
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (13:15): When it comes to debating gun control measures, or what appear to be gun control measures, in this house that come from the Turnbull government or from any Liberal-National government, one needs to look at them very closely. Increasingly, this government is seen to walk both sides of the road. They try to make out on the public record that they are concerned about public safety and that they are attempting to deal with gun crime. But, when you look at the actual detail, they have not brought forward measures that would actually deliver in that sense. The question that is very relevant to this debate is why that is. It is because there are competing interests between the Nationals and some Liberals, particularly around the issue of winning support.
I saw this at very close quarters in the New South Wales parliament with the rise of the shooters party. They were first elected to that parliament in 1995. I understand it was the first parliament where they gained elected representatives. From that moment, sadly with the Labor Party as well as the Liberal Party and the Nationals, there was a real courting of the section of the community that votes largely on issues to do with greater availability of firearms. How this will play out is very troubling for the security and the safety of people here in this country.
We need to be very mindful of that factor—that so much of how the government handle firearms issues is now coloured by their interests in trying to make out that they are out there looking after the gun lobby, everything from individual shooters across to the actual industry itself, from the importers to those who sell firearms. They are trying to make out that they are out there looking after the shooters and looking after the industry by weakening gun control measures. We see that so clearly with the National Firearms Agreement being weakened and with the relevant minister recently being outed on how he refers to that fine document. I have put on the record many times that that is one issue that I do pay credit to the former Prime Minister John Howard for. The current minister calls it 'red tape' and is now working with the industry on how they will deal with that red tape. That is the lens that we have to examine in the debate that is before us now.
If the Turnbull government were serious about reducing gun crime, they would toughen up on imports, tighten licensing and increase coordination between state and federal law enforcement agencies. There is a lot of talk these days across so many areas—education and transport—of industry about how we have to have consistency across the country. When it comes to something so obvious as consistency with regard to laws covering firearms and the movement of firearms in their sale, there is virtually no consistency in all.
Having that coordination between state and federal law enforcement agencies would include requiring the various state police forces to have well-functioning digital databases where information could be readily shared between law enforcement agencies at a state, territory and federal level. How logical is that? I am sure there are people in those agencies who have probably been trying to achieve that but are getting stymied because what works for the pro-gun lobby is not having that coordination in place. They do not want the restrictions and they do not want that data to be available on lost and stolen weapons.
There are a lot of wrong things going on in this industry, and I would really ask anybody who comes in on this debate to not try and distort the Greens' position to make it seem like we want to shut down guns and not allow anybody to have a gun, even sporting shooters. We totally acknowledge there is a place for that, but what has to be primary is public safety, and that is certainly not being delivered by the legislation before us.
Just staying with this theme about the need for well-functioning digital databases in Queensland their firearms registry is a joke. It is well known that it is so antiquated that it is virtually useless. It is largely nonshareable and does not capture very important information. This is where we need to identify that it is a priority. What we have is the government coming up with that favourite line of conservatives, banging the law-and-order drum and trying to scare people and talking about increased sentences, when we know for a fact that that will not reduce gun crime. We know that is the case. If you look at some of the work that has come out of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, they have put out a report. They said:
… illegal importation accounts for a comparatively small percentage of illicit firearms.
I put that on the record that. Again, it is about identifying the problem. It is a furphy saying the problem here is external. The problem is internal. We are now into 2017 and we still have not got the coordination of these databases so we know about the movement of guns out into the illegal market. Clearly the government are barking up the wrong tree here. We saw that again with how the whole debate around the Adler played out—about importing that and the magazine extensions that were involved there. They have been very deceptive about how all this is playing out.
I also want to raise that I understand the Labor Party have amendments and that their position on mandatory sentencing is consistent with ours. We are pleased to support those amendments because we know that increased sentences are largely ineffective in reducing crime. There have been so many studies on this, and I really do imagine that most people are aware of this. There was a recent one from BOCSAR, and they said:
Increasing the length of stay in prison beyond current levels does not appear to impact on the crime rate after accounting for increases in arrest and imprisonment likelihood.
Again: is the government really serious about public safety, about ensuring that there are not more firearms moving into the illegal market? When you look into the detail of it you really find it hard to take the government seriously on what they say they want to achieve here.
Each Australian jurisdiction maintains a separate firearms registry and details, and individual licence holders are required to advise the appropriate registry when they dispose of or receive a firearm from interstate. But the accuracy of that is what is being questioned. In fact, in this day and age, having a well-functioning digital database where this information can be readily shared should be the starting point here. At the moment a powerful gun lobby is increasingly operating in this country. We know from various boasts from sections of the pro-gun lobby in this country—some of the statements made in the last federal election—of close contacts with the National Rifle Association in the States, with advice and sometimes personnel coming from that organisation on how to elevate support for a pro-firearm stance, a stance to weaken gun-control measures. That is penetrating the electoral process here.
So, we need to have that awareness, because this bill before us is not going to achieve what the government is making out that it will. Public safety is not the primary factor here. It is really a smokescreen—saying that action is being taken when it is largely business as usual for the firearm lobby and the intersection between the illegal market and the legal use of firearms. This is not the advance that we needed, and the Greens will continue to take up this matter and support a number of the amendments before us. Thank you.
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (13:24): I welcome this legislation, the Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2016, and let me explain why. I supported the gun buyback by the Howard government. At the time I had eight guns and rifles and I had to hand one in, a semiautomatic .22. It did not worry me one bit to get paid to hand it back, because I saw it as a dangerous weapon—a semiautomatic—the reason being that if it holds 10 shots in a magazine then you might shoot off four shots for some vermin or whatever you are trying to kill and then the weapon is left loaded, ready to go—dangerous. I have never been a big fan of semiautomatics.
But I discussed this with one of my state National Party friends some years back. The taxpayer spent over $300 million buying the guns back, the rifles back, from innocent people, who were innocent enough to hand them in. We set up a register of the rifles' and guns' ownership. It did not worry me, when I was a young fella living in South Australia—you had to register your guns back in the seventies. If you bought an air rifle, you took it down to the police station and registered it. They had the name of who owned that air rifle. So, registration never worried me one bit. It was part of my life. And you, Acting Deputy President Gallacher, coming from South Australia: if you ever bought any weapons you would be in the same situation.
What I found frustrating was that the innocent people did the right thing: handed their weapons in. The taxpayers of Australia forked out the $304 million to buy the weapons back when they were destroyed or whatever back then. And we have a situation in which a black market exists in firearms. Now, I think it would be the scariest experience of your life if you were working at a service station at two o'clock in the morning and someone walked in and put a pistol to your face. That would be scary, and, sadly, it does happen. Where does the weapon come from? It is probably stolen or brought in on the black market. So, I think this is good legislation because it has a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for anyone trafficking in weapons or weapon parts.
The reason we have to have this is because of what John Laws calls jelly judges. How often do we see people charged with serious crime and the punishment does not fit the crime? It simply does not. A minimum sentence is a strong message to those out there who are contemplating trafficking weapons and the black marketing of them—bring them in from China somehow in containers stashed away, hidden, and it is up to Customs to keep doing their fine job to keep a close eye on what actually comes into our country as far as the black market goes, and what is stashed, hiding in containers and various packages. But seeing this sends a strong message that if you get involved in the black marketing of weapons and you sell them on the streets—Mr Acting Deputy President, I would say it would be a fair guess that if you gave me $1,000 in cash and I went to some parts of Sydney then within a day I would have a black market pistol. I say that with confidence.
Senator Fierravanti-Wells: A day? A couple of hours!
Senator WILLIAMS: It would not take that long, Senator Fierravanti-Wells? No, it would not take that long. Give me $1,000 cash; I will put on a wig, a beard, an earring, some jeans and thongs and go underground to see if I could buy a weapon in Sydney. I think at the end of the day I would have a black market weapon, for sure.
But the point I make, again, is that the Howard government led the debate with the states to bring in the laws, a register—tougher gun laws. We handed our guns in. Senator Wong was saying that I support slackening the laws. No. With the Adler, under class A—shotguns are in class A—I wanted the Adler seven shot to go into class B. As a farmer, I can have a class B rifle; I can get a 44 Magnum 10 shot repeater under class B. Why wouldn't you put a seven shot shotgun in class B? I see it as a tool of trade for the farmers, especially helicopter shooting of wild pigs. I had one senator say to me, 'You can't shoot wild pigs with shotguns!' I said, 'Of course you do.' In fact, Mark Coulton, the member for Parkes, was telling me that in a helicopter day out over the Gwydir wetlands last year 900 pigs were shot. They use No. 4 cartridges and No. 5, used for shooting much smaller birds or whatever—pests. They use SGs or SSGs—large lead shells. That was a tool of the trade. I would like to have seen that go into category B, as Minister Troy Grant, the police minister in New South Wales, suggested. I think he was right. It was not easing the gun laws. It was in class A and it had been there for many years. Class A is too lenient for a seven-shot repeat shotgun. There is no problem at all for the slow-moving projectile from a double-barrel or single-barrel gun.
Back to this debate, all my life I have heard of people committing various criminal activities—terrible crimes. Then you hear their punishment and you think, 'What is the judge doing? Oh, they were brought up in a single family. They had a bad upbringing; they were neglected; they were beaten or whatever.' The punishment does not fit the crime—we hear of that situation so often. It must be terribly frustrating for the police who get out there and catch the criminals and DPP prosecutors put them through the court. They are found guilty but when it comes to sentencing, it is just a smack on the hand with a feather.
I support this legislation and I have wanted it for many years. I am glad to see it coming through at a federal level. I thought we would have to go through the states, and so it is good it is coming through the federal parliament so that it sends a clear message right across Australia, which says: 'You break the law, you traffic in illegal weapons. You try to bring our society down, you try to make money out of this by putting weapons in the hands of people who should not have hold of them—people who would rob banks or service stations or commit murder and serious harm to fellow Australians.' They should be punished severely, and this legislation does exactly that.
In winding up, I have explained why the gun buyback was there and why the Adler seven shot should have gone into category B. That is the case for the National Firearms Agreement between the states to work through that issue. I am very pleased to see these minimum laws come in, because, as I say for a third time, we see so many judges and magistrates hand out punishments that simply do not fit the crime. If that is going to be the case, we will see more of this legislation come through state and federal parliaments over the years ahead. When we see judges handing out a punishment that is too lenient, too soft, there is no deterrent for the general public to commit that crime. There has to be a deterrent, and then people know that if they go in for trafficking guns or weapons and pistols and if they get caught—and it is highly likely that they will—it is five years in the pen minimum. It is a very good thing to send a strong message to the minority of Australian people who wish to get involved in this industry and do the wrong thing that this is what you are going to face under the legislation. I support the legislation.
Senator SINGH (Tasmania) (13:32): The reintroduction of these measures is clearly a desperate attempt by government to distract from the fact that it is hopelessly divided when it comes to guns—among other things. Of course, Labor supports tougher penalties for firearms trafficking, but we will not support measures which are ineffective. What we seek to do is to remove the mandatory minimum sentences which do not work and instead we propose amendments to introduce new offences for aggravated firearms trafficking with a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Let's recap on the history of this bill. The coalition government introduced it to give effect to mandatory minimum sentences to those found guilty of trafficking illegal firearms, despite the last parliament rejecting these measures twice. Yet here we are again, Groundhog Day, with the introduction of this bill. In February 2015, Labor successfully moved amendments in the Senate to remove the introduction of mandatory minimum sentencing contained in the government's Crimes Legislation Amendment (Psychoactive Substances and Other Measures) Bill 2014. In August 2015 Labor was again successful in moving amendments in the Senate to remove the reintroduction of mandatory minimum sentences, this time in the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015. Now we have the Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2016 before us.
There is no convincing evidence to prove that mandatory minimums act as a deterrent, and presumably that is the whole point of the government's intent in this legislation. We know this because the minister's own department has said that mandatory sentences may create an incentive for a defendant to fight charges, even in hopeless cases. The Attorney-General's Department's document, 'Guide to framing Commonwealth offences, infringement notices and enforcement powers' states at 3.1 that minimum penalties should be avoided. The government is ignoring its own departmental advice. Why did the Attorney-General's Department say they should be avoided? Because they, inter alia, may: 'interfere with judicial discretion to impose a penalty appropriate in the circumstances of a particular case'; 'create an incentive for a defendant to fight charges, even where there is little merit in doing so'; 'preclude the use of alternative sanctions such as community service orders that would otherwise be available in Part IB of the Crimes Act 1914'; and 'encourage the judiciary to look for technical grounds to avoid a restriction on sentencing discretion, leading to anomalous decisions'.
Further to all of that evidence which the government had before it, the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs received evidence from a number of stakeholders in inquiries for the two previous bills, which I outlined earlier, who strongly opposed the introduction of those amendments. The Law Council of Australia referred to a number of unintended consequences of mandatory sentencing, which included 'undermining the community's confidence in the judiciary and the criminal justice system as a whole'. The Australian Human Rights Commission noted that these 'amendments give rise to the potential for injustices to occur' and 'run counter to the fundamental principle that punishment should fit the crime'. There were also concerns previously raised by state prosecutors, who believed that these provisions could lead to unjust results and impose a significant burden on the justice system.
Here we have the government moving into its rhetoric, unfortunately, which it continues to do rather than look at the facts, rather than look at the evidence, rather than a look at its own government department's advice. But this, I think, all comes down to the government's bitter division and disunity within itself on gun control. It has still not come out and supported the measures that we put forward, and now it is 2017. So, yes, Labor will stand on the side of reason and will push for tough new penalties to allow judges to put the worst gun traffickers away for life. And Labor will, as I mentioned, recognise that tougher penalties for firearms trafficking is an important step when looking at the evidence provided.
Last year was a very telling year in gun control. The government lost on gun control last year. Tony Abbott and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull were both willing to let the dangerous Adler A110 lever action shot gun into Australia in exchange of course, as we know, for a vote in this place. The National Party then split from the Liberals on the floor of the Senate, voting to let a dangerous weapon into this country. The Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, then contradicted Malcolm Turnbull's position on national television and members of Malcolm Turnbull's own party came out in favour of weaker gun laws. It was an absolute shemozzle. And that shemozzle has not gone away. That division is still there within this government. If we needed to see any evidence of that division in the last week, it was the resignation of Senator Bernardi from the Liberal Party, who simply could not stomach the rank hypocrisy within this government any longer. But under this government's watch, a record number of weapons have flooded into the illicit market. Right now the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission estimates that there are more than 260,000 firearms in the illicit firearms market and possibly as many as 600,000. The commission estimates that 10,000 of these are hand guns, the weapon of choice for gangs and criminals and the like. But of course the government is too divided to fight it.
The Liberal Party and the Nationals are too divided on guns to take meaningful action to address this issue of illicit firearms. The reintroduction of these very ineffective measures for the third time in this place is just an attempt to distract from the fact that they are still divided. It is about smoke and mirrors to show that they are doing something. Well that something is certainly not good enough.
The Labor Party is the only party that is willing to protect our world-leading gun laws. Coming from the state of Tasmania and recognising the steps that former Prime Minister John Howard made—something very much supported by both sides of parliament after that atrocious and terrible event that occurred in Port Arthur—I have a duty to ensure that we have and continue to have world-leading gun laws, not a weakening of them and not the introduction of these illicit firearms of the magnitude that I just outlined coming into this country.
The proposals put forward by the Abbott and Turnbull governments to tackle firearms trafficking only contain maximum sentences of 20 years. Labor believes that prosecutors should be able to pursue tougher penalties for the worst forms of firearms trafficking. In 2012, Labor introduced legislation that would have created an aggravated offence for firearms trafficking with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, the same as the maximum penalty for drug trafficking. These measures passed the House of Representatives with the support of the coalition at that time. But the bill lapsed in the Senate at the end of the 43rd Parliament. So Labor is seeking to amend this bill to implement these provisions, which we proposed when we were in government. That is the consistent nature, the consistent policy position of this party as opposed to the constant inconsistency that we continue to see from the coalition. These amendments that we put forward are for new aggravated offences for people who traffic 50 or more firearms or firearm parts either within Australia or across its borders in a six-month period. The maximum penalty for these offences will be life imprisonment and this will send a very strong message that trafficking in firearms and the violence that it creates will not be tolerated.
The Liberals are proposing ineffective measures in order to distract from the fact that they are weak on gun control. Labor is proposing tougher measures to create new aggravated offences with the strongest penalties available—that is, life imprisonment. And only Labor can be trusted to protect Australia's world-leading gun laws. The government's fixation on mandatory minimum sentences makes, I think, a hollow mockery out of the Australian people's desire for our community to be safe. It really does make a mockery of it. If the government really does support tougher gun laws, it will vote for Labor's tough aggravated trafficking offences.
I would like to highlight the importance of why we should be delivering this, not just for the community but also because we are a part of something a bit broader. We are part of a number of treaties when it comes to dealing with trafficking of firearms. Looking at it from a criminal justice angle, for example, not only is there the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime but also the Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking In Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime treaty series. I understand we have signed that protocol; I think we have not yet ratified it, and I would hope to see that we do that. There is the Arms Trade Treaty as well. There are a number of instruments other than those important treaties that we also need to take into account as to why this is important when we are talking about the trafficking of firearms, because it could be trafficking within our country, out of our country or into our country; it could be trafficking of parts of guns, whole guns, all of the components or the ammunition. All of that needs to be taken into account. That is our multilateral framework that we act upon when looking into how we form policies to make our community safe and go forward with tougher gun laws.
Finally, I want to highlight the fact that this government, as I think I made fairly clear, is not serious about tough gun laws. Labor are pursuing tough new penalties to allow judges to put the worst gun traffickers away for life because we are serious about tough gun laws. That is the whole point and meaning behind our amendments. We all know that the government trades its vote with some crossbench senators in this place, but I cannot think of a more important issue right now to not trade a vote in relation to than not weakening gun laws. Yet last year we saw the government do just that. We saw the government trade guns for votes. Mr Turnbull and Mr Abbott at that time contradicted each other on the floor of parliament. The Nationals then split from the Liberal Party, voting to weaken our gun laws. Do you really think that division has gone away? The government is too busy fighting within itself to come up with effective policies to fight gun crime.
I outlined figures from the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission of 600,000 illegal weapons in circulation in Australia. The fact that the community is simply at risk with these numbers of guns circulating illegally in the market should be something to cause alarm for this government. That should be a reason in itself for the government to not trade guns for votes. Once guns enter that illegal market, they are difficult to get back. We do not want to see in our community these illegal guns stay on the streets and be available to criminals, gangs and terrorists. That is why we need these tough gun laws, and that is why Labor, in putting our amendments forwards, very much hope the government will support them.
We have had enough, though, of the Prime Minister's weakness on guns. We have had enough of the Prime Minister's backflips on a number of policy issues and the fact that he does not stand for what he believes in anymore, but weakness on guns is simply unacceptable. It is beyond the pale. We are moving these substantial amendments to this bill, to create the new aggravated firearms trafficking offences, because we need serious action, not absurd and childish game-playing within the Liberal and National parties. I hope the coalition stop wasting the time of this Senate and the time of the Australian community and start acting on the tougher gun laws that Labor have put forward. They should stop wasting time on things that simply do not work. I hope that they join Labor in putting serious gun traffickers away for life, and the only way to do that is to support Labor's amendments.
Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE (South Australia) (13:49): I rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2016. This bill is identical to the bill introduced in the 44th Parliament. The bill before us amends the Commonwealth Criminal Code in order to set new mandatory minimum penalties and maximum penalties for the offences of trafficking firearms and firearm parts within Australia and trafficking firearms and firearm parts into and out of Australia. Under the government's proposal, each of these offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code will apply the following penalties:
… a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment for five years, and
maximum penalties of imprisonment for 20 years or a fine of 5,000 penalty units, or both.
This bill and its predecessor have been the subject of two Senate inquiries. During both of the inquiries, submissions raised significant concerns about mandatory minimum penalties. The Nick Xenophon Team supports the intent of this bill but shares the concerns of agencies and state prosecutors about mandatory minimum sentences for firearm trafficking offences.
This is the fourth time the parliament has considered similar provisions related to mandatory minimum sentences to those proposed in this bill. Similar provisions were included in the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Psychoactive Substances and Other Measures) Bill 2014 and the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015. While both bills were passed, in each case this only occurred after amendments in this chamber removed mandatory minimum sentence provisions. The Nick Xenophon Team maintains that mandatory minimum sentences are inappropriate and that these provisions should be rejected once again. Currently, there are no mandatory minimum penalties in the Commonwealth Criminal Code. Mandatory minimum penalties do exist in the Commonwealth Migration Act, at section 236B, which contains mandatory minimum sentences for certain people-smuggling related offences. However, this is a rare example.
There is no doubt that firearms cause serious harms and that firearms trafficking offences are serious crimes that pose a significant threat to community safety. The Nick Xenophon Team acknowledges the government's objective of ensuring that sentences reflect the seriousness of the offences they relate to. However, we cannot support the provisions relating to mandatory minimum penalties, because to do so would contravene the separation of powers by limiting the role of the judiciary. The mandatory minimum sentence provisions in this bill would thereby operate as a partial restriction of judicial discretion that would hamper the sentencing judge's ability to hand down a sentence that is appropriate after taking into account all of the circumstances of the individual case. It is the role of the legislature to forbid certain conduct through laws. The community relies on us to strike the right balance when passing laws designed to keep them safe. The role of the judiciary is to apply those laws with the expertise and knowledge they have acquired as judicial officers to each and every case on an individual basis. In doing so, they are utilising their judicial discretion to determine what penalty should apply for contravening those laws.
Mandatory minimum sentences depart from the fundamental principle that punishment for criminal offences should fit the crime. By arbitrarily establishing a minimum sentence in advance for every case of a particular type, mandatory minimums risk disproportionate outcomes in individual cases where the specified minimum is not justified in the circumstances. Unjust outcomes result from mandatory minimums where the circumstances of a particular case indicate that a lesser penalty is in fact appropriate.
I bring to the attention of the chamber the current version of the publication A Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers produced by the Attorney-General's Department advising that minimum penalties should not be used. Specifically, at page 38 the government's guide states:
While there are some examples of minimum penalties for Commonwealth offences, fixed or minimum penalties should also be avoided for the following reasons:
Fixed and minimum penalties can interfere with the discretion of a court to impose a penalty appropriate in the circumstances of a particular case.
Defendants may be less likely to cooperate with authorities if such cooperation cannot be reflected in sentencing. Fixed and minimum penalties create an incentive for a defendant to fight charges, even where there is little merit in doing so.
Fixed and minimum penalties preclude the use of alternative sanctions available in Part IB of the Crimes Act, such as community service orders. In particular cases, these alternatives provide a more effective mechanism for deterrence or rehabilitation.
Industry confidence in an enforcement system directed at industry regulation is undermined where less serious cases do not result in lesser penalties.
The judiciary may look for technical grounds to escape restrictions on sentencing discretion when faced with minimum penalties, leading to anomalous decisions.
These guidelines illustrate that the contentious element of this bill remains the introduction of mandatory minimum sentencing. Mandatory minimum sentences are uncommon in Australian law with only a handful of examples in state legislation and in the example I previously noted.
The research is clear on mandatory minimum sentences that show they disproportionately affect poor, minority and disadvantaged groups in society. There is no evidence that mandatory minimum sentences reduce crime, but there is much evidence that it can lead to manifest injustice. Despite strong criticism from criminology experts, judicial officers and the legal profession it is concerning that this government remains determined to remove the courts' power to impose a penalty it sees fits, even though all the evidence suggests that this does not actually assist in crime prevention. There is no evidence that mandatory minimum sentences act as deterrents to firearms trafficking. The explanatory memorandum to the bill asserts that these amendments will achieve 'reductions in gun-related violence', without producing any evidence from Australia or overseas to justify such an assertion.
We believe that effective deterrence is achieved by increasing penalties applicable to the most serious firearms offenders rather than the imposition of mandatory prison terms at the other end of the scale. Increasing maximum penalties for firearms trafficking would adequately reflect genuine community concern about the consequences of firearms offences. We understand the government wanting to send a strong message to criminals about the consequences with this bill, although we believe that increasing the maximum penalties is appropriate, necessary and sufficient to achieve the government's aim here. For the reasons I have outlined, the Nick Xenophon Team will be supporting Labor's amendment to remove the provisions in this bill for mandatory minimum sentences.
The Nick Xenophon Team will also be supporting Labor's amendment to introduce new offences for aggravated firearms trafficking. These offences would apply to the trafficking of 50 or more firearms or firearm parts in a six-month period, with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment or 7,500 penalty units or both. This would make the maximum penalty for trafficking in firearms the same as the maximum penalty for trafficking in drugs, with no mandatory minimum for these offences. There have been a number of high-profile matters, like the 120 Glock pistols that found their way to New South underworld figures after being illegally imported by a gun-smuggling ring, or the cache of six fully automatic assault rifles and 96 semi-automatic handgun frames that were due to be imported to Australia last year, if they had not been intercepted in the US. The infiltration of these illegal firearms into our society could have had catastrophic consequences. The Nick Xenophon Team acknowledges that these new offences are designed to tackle the worst types of gun trafficking and for that reason we support Labor's amendment.
On behalf of the Nick Xenophon Team I will be moving an amendment to Labor's amendment that will increase the maximum penalty for the basic firearms trafficking offence from 20 years to 30 years imprisonment. The Nick Xenophon Team believes that increasing the maximum penalty for this offence sends a strong, decisive message to both the community and potential offenders that trafficking firearms is not acceptable and the consequences for doing so will meet with harsher penalties.
Debate adjourned.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Pauline Hanson's One Nation
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:00): My question is to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Senator Sinodinos. I refer to his statement in relation to One Nation:
The One Nation of today is a different beast … They are a lot more sophisticated.
How is the One Nation of today a lot more sophisticated? Does the minister believe warnings about being swamped by Muslims are more sophisticated than warnings about being swamped by Asians?
Senator SINODINOS (New South Wales—Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) (14:00): I thank the honourable senator for her question. Let me begin by saying that they are more sophisticated because in this chamber, since they have been here, they have supported important pieces of government legislation. They have been prepared to cooperate with us, and if the opposition were prepared to cooperate with us on more legislation not only would the opposition be more sophisticated but also we would not have to rely on the crossbenches as much. It is important to understand that. In those same remarks on that program yesterday I made the point that when it comes to values there is a clear divide. For example, I said that on this side of the House we believe in a non-discriminatory immigration policy very strongly. We do not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, race, creed or colour in our immigration program. I made that very clear.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a supplementary question.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:01): I refer to the Prime Minister's statement, reported on 1 June 2016:
Pauline Hanson is, as far as we're concerned, not a welcome presence in the Australian political scene.
Has the minister explained to the Prime Minister why he considers the One Nation of today to be 'a lot more sophisticated'?
Senator SINODINOS (New South Wales—Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) (14:01): In Australia, the people speak and when they speak we have to listen. We have a parliament that has been thrown up to us by the Australian people. It includes representatives of the Greens, One Nation and the opposition. We have to work with all sides, and when they are willing to approve or support our legislation we will work with them. As I said before, if the opposition wants us to do less business with One Nation they should support more of our policies—the policies which we promised at the last election. Please help us keep our promises to the Australian people.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a final supplementary question.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:02): I refer to the minister's earlier answer where he justified his change of position on the basis that One Nation votes with the government. Isn't the real reason that Malcolm Turnbull is cuddling up to One Nation that the Turnbull government not only need One Nation to govern but now think they need One Nation to get re-elected?
A government senator: Mr Turnbull.
Senator SINODINOS (New South Wales—Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) (14:02): One of the other points I made yesterday is that we are in the business of taking votes away from One Nation, away from the Greens and away from the opposition. In the next two years before the election we will not be cuddling up to anybody. We will be out there arguing the case that a vote for the Liberal-National Party coalition is a vote for economic stability, economic growth and economic development. It will be a vote for Australian jobs.
The PRESIDENT: I remind senators to address members in the other place and in this place by their correct titles.
Economy
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (14:03): My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. Can the minister update the Senate on how the Australian economy has been performing in comparison to other advanced economies?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:03): I thank Senator Bushby for that question. The Australian economy is growing faster than all but one of the G7 economies, at twice the rate of the US and Canada and at well above the OECD average. We are, right now, in our 26th year of continuous growth. On Friday Australian time, the IMF released its regular review of the performance of the Australian economy. Their assessment is very compelling indeed. The IMF points out that from mid-2015 the Australian recovery advanced with a marked pickup in activity. The report points out:
… Australia’s robust economic growth and low unemployment during the current terms-of-trade adjustment reflect the resilience of the economy and strong policy frameworks.
But there is more. It says the IMF directors:
… supported the government’s plans to balance its budget over four years and make its expenditure composition more growth-friendly.
And, of course, we continue to work with the Senate to give effect to our efforts to balance the budget. The report also observed that front loading the consolidation path is appropriate and prudent under the current circumstances. Finally, the report says:
Directors welcomed the government’s structural reform agenda to boost productivity through fostering innovation and strengthening competition, especially in the services sector. They commended the authorities for their commitment to an open economy in trade, foreign investment, and immigration.
This is a massive endorsement by the International Monetary Fund for the national economic plan of the Turnbull government—our plan for jobs and growth that we took to the last election. We look forward to the Senate working with the Turnbull government to give effect to our plan for jobs and growth, so that Australians have the best possible opportunity to get ahead.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Bushby, a supplementary question.
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (14:05): Minister, how will the government continue to strengthen the economy and create jobs?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:05): I thank Senator Bushby for that supplementary question. The Turnbull government has a comprehensive national economic plan, which involves making our tax system more growth friendly. The next instalment is our Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan, which seeks to reduce the corporate tax rate to 25 per cent for all businesses. That is because we understand that in order to ensure that we can create as many jobs as possible in this economy we need businesses across Australia to be as successful and as profitable as possible, so they can hire more Australians and pay them better wages over time. Every respected economist in the world will tell you that a more competitive business tax rate will help you to boost investment and boost productivity, and will help more successful businesses across Australia to hire more Australians. The Labor Party does not get this. The Labor Party seems to think that jobs grow on trees. No, jobs do not grow on trees; jobs are created by hardworking businesses across Australia. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Bushby, a final supplementary question.
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (14:06): Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches, and what would their impact be on economic growth and jobs.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:07): Sadly, I am aware. Sadly, there is an alternative approach that is promoted by the Labor Party. Under Mr Shorten's leadership, the Labor Party has become the most left-wing Labor Party in the history of the Commonwealth. The Labor Party in Australia today stands for higher taxes, higher energy prices, less trade and more red tape. The Labor Party went to the last election promising more than $100 billion in additional taxes. Senator Bushby asked me about what the implication would be. The implication of higher taxes, higher energy prices, less reliable energy supply, less trade and, indeed, more red tape is less investment and fewer jobs. If you make it harder for business to be successful, which is the Labor Party policy approach, business will be able to employ fewer Australians, which means that unemployment would go up. (Time expired)
Western Australian State Election
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (14:08): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. I refer to the Prime Minister who, in relation to the Western Australian Liberal Party's decision to preference One Nation above The Nationals, said:
It is a matter for the WA division. They have got to make their judgement based on their assessment of their electoral priorities.
Why has the Prime Minister refused to show some leadership and rule out any preference deals with One Nation?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:08): The answer to your question, Senator Sterle, is that these decisions are made by the state executives and the state divisions of the Liberal Party. Senator Sterle, that is a fact. It is entirely a matter for the state executive of the Western Australian division of the Liberal Party to decide whom it should preference. The Liberal Party and the National Party, I am advised, will be preferencing one another in every lower house seat. I am also advised that, in relation to upper house seats, it has not been uncommon for the National Party to preference the One Nation party ahead of the Liberal Party, as occurred in the 2008 election.
As you know, Senator Sterle, being a Western Australian yourself, the Liberal Party and the National Party are not in coalition government in Western Australia. They are in alliance for the purposes of forming a government but they are not a coalition. There have been occasions in the past, in particular in 2008, when the National Party in Western Australia has, in the upper house, preferenced the One Nation party ahead of the Liberal Party. These decisions are made by the state divisions of political parties, depending on the political circumstances at the time. But I can assure you, Senator Sterle, one thing the Liberal Party in Western Australia is determined to do—and although I do not speak for them, I am sure one thing the National Party in Western Australia is also determined to do—is keep out of office the job-destroying, ruinous policies of the Australian Labor Party.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Sterle, a supplementary question.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (14:10): I refer to former Prime Minister Tony Abbott who, in relation to preference deals, said: 'The National Party above everyone.' Why does the Prime Minister disagree with Mr Abbott and think it is appropriate for One Nation to be preferenced above the Liberal Party's coalition partner, the Nationals?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:11): Senator Sterle, you seek of me a knowledge of the intricacies of Western Australian upper house politics that, I am afraid, I do not possess. Suffice it to say, in the lower house, where it matters, where governments are formed, the Liberal Party and the National Party will be preferencing one another in every seat. In relation to the recondite science of preferences in the upper house, it is a matter for the state executives of the respective parties to make their own determinations.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Sterle, a final supplementary question.
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (14:11): Maybe I should have directed my questions to Senator Cormann or Senator Cash, but, anyway, I will have another go. Does the minister agree with the principle of preferencing One Nation ahead of your colleagues, the Nationals?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:11): I am sorry, Senator Sterle. I have already told you that this is a matter for the Western Australian division of the Liberal Party and the Western Australian branch of the National Party. It is entirely a matter to do with state politics. It is entirely a matter for party organisations. I am not privy to decisions made by the organisational wing of the Western Australian division of the Liberal Party.
Native Title
Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:12): My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. Can the Attorney-General update the Senate on the full Federal Court's recent decision in relation to the single Noongar Settlement?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:12): Thank you very much, indeed, Senator Smith. That is a very important question because on 2 February—that is, at the end of the week before last—the full court of the Federal Court delivered an important decision called McGlade v Native Title Registrar in relation to the single Noongar Settlement. The effect of that decision was to overrule an earlier decision of a single judge of the Federal Court in 2010 in a case called Bygrave (No. 2), which had settled the law in relation to the necessary requisites for an Indigenous land use agreement to be registered. In short, what Justice Reeves had held in Bygrave, which until the week before last was understood to be settled law, was that it was not necessary for all members of the claimant group to consent to the registration of the Indigenous land use agreement, or ILUA.
The McGlade decision some 13 days ago overruled that decision and decided otherwise. This is a very significant development in relation not only to Indigenous land use agreements—of which there are 123 registered in Australia at the moment—but to all Indigenous land use agreements seeking registration because the effect of it is to enable a single member of a claimant group, by withholding their consent, to prevent the registration of the ILUA. This is, as I say, a very significant development in the law. It had not been anticipated.
Then, if Senator Smith cares, in his supplementary question, to ask me, I will advise him what the Commonwealth is doing about it.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Smith, a supplementary question I presume?
Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:14): Well, yes actually. My question is to the Attorney-General. Can he advise the Senate what the government is doing in response to the decision of the full Federal Court?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:14): Thank you very much indeed. I can. The Commonwealth will introduce legislation urgently to reverse the effect of the McGlade decision and to restore the status quo ante represented by the Bygrave decision.
I was first made aware of the decision of the full Federal Court the weekend before last. Last Monday I sought urgent advice from my department and arranged a briefing for myself and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion. I also brought the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister, and last week the Prime Minister authorised the introduction into the parliament, as soon as may be, urgent legislation to legislatively reverse the effect of the McGlade decision. Those instructions were given to my department last week. The matter is now in the hands of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, and I am advised that draft legislation will be ready perhaps as early as this afternoon.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Smith, a final supplementary question.
Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:15): Can the Attorney-General describe the features of the government's proposed bill?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:15): Yes, I can, Senator Smith. That is a very helpful question, thank you. Its effect essentially, as I said a moment ago, will be to legislatively reinstate the Bygrave decision. It will remove, for all such agreements in future, the requirement that all registered native title claimants sign an ILUA.
In respect of agreements that have been lodged with the Native Title Tribunal but not registered, the amendments will provide that such agreements are not taken to be invalid because they have not been signed by all registered native title claimants. Similar amendments will be made with respect to ILUAs that were registered on an understanding of the law as it stood on the basis of the Bygrave decision.
I should add that among those whom I arranged to be briefed on the matter last week was the shadow Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus. The Premier of Queensland, Ms Palaszczuk, has called upon the federal opposition to support the federal government's amendments to reinstate the Bygrave decision, and I also ask that the federal opposition cooperate in facilitating support for the legislation.
Climate Change
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:17): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. I refer to the resignation of Professor Clive Hamilton from the Climate Change Authority. Professor Hamilton resigned saying that it was 'perverse' that the government would be boosting coal when 2016 marked the hottest year on record. He also bemoaned the fact that the Climate Change Authority no longer had any role in the development of climate policy in Australia. Minister, with Sydney just having experienced its hottest month on record and New South Wales now in the midst of climate change related bushfires, do you accept the independent advice of the Climate Change Authority that burning more coal will lead to more extreme weather and bushfires such as those being experienced currently in New South Wales?
Government senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my right! Senator Back! Senator O'Sullivan!
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:18): Senator Di Natale, with all due respect to Professor Clive Hamilton, I doubt his resignation from the Climate Change Authority is going to increase the temperature, any more than I think his continuation as a member of the Climate Change Authority was going to reduce the temperature. Nevertheless, I have been advised that Professor Hamilton has resigned as a member of that authority. But I point out that his appointment was due to expire on 30 June in any event. So the departure of Professor Hamilton from the Climate Change Authority has brought the matter forward by some 4½ months. He has served on the Climate Change Authority since 2012.
I am aware as well that Professor Hamilton has expressed some very, very strong views on the issue of climate policy. We on this side of the chamber welcome all views on this important issue of public policy. We welcome all views, including the views of Professor Hamilton. We welcome the views of people we agree with and we welcome the views of people we disagree with, because that is the way policy and legislation should be formed in a liberal democracy. The fact is, Senator Di Natale—as you should know—that as a result of our signature to the Paris climate change convention Australia has adopted, per capita, the most ambitious emissions reduction targets in the world. And Australia is on track to meet its emissions reduction targets. So, Senator Di Natale, we do not believe, as you do apparently as a matter of ideology, that renewable energy—
Senator Di Natale: It's called science. We call it science.
Senator BRANDIS: No, not as a matter of science, Senator Di Natale; as a matter of ideology. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question?
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:20): Speaking of independent advice, freedom of information requests reveal that the Prime Minister's office knowingly deceived the Australian people by stating on numerous occasions that clean energy was responsible for South Australia's blackouts, when the advice clearly showed it was transmission failure. Minister, can you explain why the Prime Minister lied to the Australian people?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:20): Senator Di Natale, I reject that entirely. I reject that entirely, and it has also been rejected, by the way, by the AEMO, which investigated the matter and said:
A number of wind turbine generators in the mid-north of SA exhibited a reduction in power or disconnected as the number of faults grew.
… … …
The significance of the event and the intensity of review has brought to the fore a range of broader issues associated with the changing generation mix across the NEM—
the network—
The generation mix now includes more non-synchronous and inverter-connected plant, which has different characteristics to conventional plant and uses active control systems to ride through disturbances.
The growing proportion of this type of generating plant within the generation portfolio is leading to more periods with low inertia and low available fault levels—
The PRESIDENT: Pause the clock. Order! Senator Di Natale on a point of order?
Senator Di Natale: A point of order on relevance, Mr President: my question stated specifically that there was independent advice provided to the Prime Minister, which he ignored. He went on to make false assertions about the role of renewable energy in South Australia's power blackouts. I point Senator Brandis to that independent advice and ask him why the Prime Minister ignored it.
Senator Ian Macdonald: On the point of order, Mr President—perhaps it is another point of order—was the supplementary question in any way related to the original question?
The PRESIDENT: I will deal with Senator Macdonald's point of order first. I have noticed in recent months—in fact, probably in recent years—that supplementary questions have not strictly been related to the primary question exactly. However, I have allowed a lot of latitude and I think that is something that I will continue to allow, because it is on topic although not directly related to the primary question. So, Senator Macdonald, in that sense you are right, but I have allowed this to happen for some time.
In relation to the first point of order, Senator Di Natale, apart from your preamble, your sole question was: can you explain why the Prime Minister lied to the Australian people? The Attorney-General up-front rejected that, so the Attorney-General has been relevant to your direct question. Attorney-General, you have the call.
Senator BRANDIS: I am simply pointing out to you, Senator Di Natale, that the Australian Energy Market Operator's analysis supported what the Prime Minister had to say. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Di Natale, a final supplementary question?
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:23): With regard to climate change policy, has the Prime Minister now adopted a leaf out of the Donald Trump handbook? Does he have two folders on his desk, one labelled 'Facts' and the other labelled 'Alternative facts'?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:23): Well, Senator Di Natale, with a question as broad as that, you do give me a lot of latitude, so let me take advantage of the latitude you have given me. As I said in answer to your primary question, under the leadership of Mr Turnbull, at the Paris climate change conference Australia adopted per capita the most ambitious emissions control targets in the world—the most ambitious targets in the world. But also under the leadership of Mr Turnbull the Australian government takes a technology agnostic approach, not an ideological approach, as you do—the very opposite of the science which you constantly invoke, Senator Di Natale, but an ideological approach which refuses to countenance the fact that the best results will be delivered to the Australian public, as they ought to have been delivered to the public of South Australia, by a multi-technology mix that includes renewables but also includes traditional sources, including coal.
Defence Land Acquisition
Senator WATT (Queensland) (14:24): My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. On what date did the minister's department first advise her of the possibility of compulsory acquisitions as part of the expansion of the Shoalwater Bay training area and Townsville Field training area under the military training agreement with Singapore?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Defence) (14:25): I am, I must admit, slightly bemused by the opposition's approach to this. Usually, traditionally, they would have a firm commitment to matters concerning national security, but that is glaringly absent in this case, for what appears to be the sake of puerile local politics, as far as I can tell. There is not a lot more to it than that. In fact, the government has been quite clear in saying that the concerns which were raised by landowners and the process of planning that has been underway by the Department of Defence are what led to the decision that I announced last week in relation to the acquisition of land.
The PRESIDENT: Pause the clock. Senator Gallagher, a point of order?
Senator Gallagher: A point of order, Mr President, on relevance. The question was very specific. It was: on what date did the minister's department first advise of the possibility of compulsory acquisition as part of the expansion of Shoalwater Bay? It was a very specific question.
The PRESIDENT: The minister has just over a minute to answer the question. I remind the minister of the question.
Senator PAYNE: It is very disappointing that those opposite have not been able to take a strategic view of the comprehensive strategic partnership and military training initiative which sits underneath it. As we know, the Prime Minister announced the comprehensive strategic partnership in May of last year, which includes a strengthening of the defence partnership and the joint development of military training facilities in Northern Queensland. Following the announcement of the comprehensive strategic partnership in May, the Department of Defence commenced—
The PRESIDENT: Pause the clock. Senator Wong, a point of order?
Senator Wong: Mr President, the minister is manifestly avoiding the question. She was asked one question: on what date did her department first advise of the possibility of compulsory acquisition? It is a very simple question. She ought to answer it.
The PRESIDENT: I will again remind the minister of the question. Minister, you have 44 seconds.
Senator PAYNE: As I said, following the announcement of the comprehensive strategic partnership in May, the Department of Defence commenced detailed planning for the joint development of military training facilities. I, as the Minister for Defence, was preliminarily advised about the potential requirements for training area expansion in June. Detailed planning continued, which led to the finalisation of and signature of the memorandum of understanding with Singapore on 13 October 2016, which formally set out the agreed parameters of the increased training access that Australia would offer and represented the formal agreement by both countries to the scale of the increased access Singapore would be offered. Following the signing of the MOU— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, a supplementary question?
Senator WATT (Queensland) (14:28): I thank the minister for finally advising that she was first advised by her department about the potential for expansion in June 2016. Did the advice the minister was provided in June include the possibility of compulsory acquisition?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Defence) (14:28): As I indicated in my previous answer, I was preliminarily advised about the potential requirements for training area expansion in June 2016. That goes to all aspects of the processes under the Lands Acquisition Act.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, a final supplementary question?
Senator WATT (Queensland) (14:28): I thank the minister for finally telling the Senate that she was advised by her department of the possibility of compulsory acquisitions before the July election last year. Why has it taken four sitting days for the minister to come clean with the Senate about what she knew and when she knew it?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Defence) (14:29): As I was saying, this is a very complex process. It is a process which has been underway for some time between the Department of Defence and other parties, of course including the government of Singapore. The detailed planning which took place and led to the finalisation and signing of the memorandum of understanding with Singapore on 13 October 2016 actually formally set out the agreed parameters of the increased training access that Australia would offer. It represented the formal agreement by both countries to the scale of the increased access Singapore would be offered. That was not finalised until October of last year. Following the signature of the MOU, Defence was then able to begin the process of detailed master planning so that the precise requirements could be clarified and engagement could begin with stakeholders.
Climate Change
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (14:30): My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Environment and Energy, Senator Birmingham. As servants to the people of Queensland and Australia, I and people in the One Nation party have repeatedly advocated the need for lower energy prices. These prices are out of control, and an understanding of energy production and its supposed market is clear: it is being distorted by subsidies, the renewable energy target, regulations, bureaucracy, politics and vested interests. Senator Hanson-Young made a brave attempt to patch over her failed policies by trying to blame the renewable energy market but did not succeed. Could Minister Birmingham advise the reasons for the Prime Minister's change of mind and the energy minister's change in policy? Is it politically driven or economically motivated?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (14:31): I thank Senator Roberts for his question. Senator Roberts, I can assure you—as I can the entire Senate and all Australians—that everything the Turnbull government does in relation to energy prices, energy reliability, energy affordability and energy security is driven by a desire to ensure that Australia has the most affordable and the most reliable energy possible. We are driven by a desire to make sure both that Australian households, Australian families—be they in Queensland, South Australia or anywhere else—can feel comfortable turning the air conditioning on in summer and turning the heating on in winter and that Australian businesses can feel comfortable knowing that they can invest with confidence, grow and create jobs, whether that is an aluminium smelter in Victoria; Nyrstar, in my home state of South Australia; or any of these businesses.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Pause the clock. Senator Whish-Wilson, a point of order?
Senator Whish-Wilson: I do not think Senator Birmingham is correctly addressing the question from his new coalition partner.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hinch, a point of order?
Senator Hinch: When you are way up the back here, it is very hard at times to even hear the question, despite the stentorian tones of Senator Birmingham, with the Labor opposition and the Greens interjecting all the time.
The PRESIDENT: Order! In relation to the two points of order: firstly, the noise can be unbearable at times and it can make it difficult for senators to hear not just the question but, importantly, the answer, so I remind all senators to bear that in mind. Secondly, in relation to the primary point of order from Senator Whish-Wilson, Senator Birmingham is in order. I call the minister.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: Thank you, Mr President. I will do my best to make sure that Senator Hinch can hear us as well, because it is important for Senator Roberts and all senators to appreciate that, during the six years of the previous Labor government, electricity prices across Australia rose by 101 per cent. There was a 101 per cent growth in electricity prices during that time, but, under the coalition government—as demonstrated by ABS data released in June 2016—it is clear we have seen the largest fall in electricity prices on record. That, of course, was driven in part through the abolition of the carbon tax and in part through reforms to network regulation that our government has overseen. We are determined to keep working on measures to bring down prices. Of course, our reforms to the renewable energy target to ensure that we have a target that is achievable without the types of pressures that were in place before are further measures in place to try to make sure that electricity generation is more affordable in the future, and we will keep pursuing—as we are through the Finkel review and other mechanisms—means to do so.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a supplementary question.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (14:34): After 10 years of demonising carbon dioxide, following former Prime Minister Rudd's fabrication of an election-winning scare in 2007, and with President Trump's imminent withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, is the Prime Minister's reversal of policy flagging a reversal of climate policy so that it becomes based on empirical evidence?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (14:34): Our energy policy will be driven by a desire to ensure it is affordable, reliable and meets Australia's emission reduction targets and commitments. We will be ensuring that energy policy in Australia does not play favourites between technologies and is not driven by ideology—like the 50 per cent renewable energy target of those opposite, made with no modelling, no costing and no details but just a random ambit claim that they take out at election time. We will make sure that energy policy is informed by evidence—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a point of order?
Senator Roberts: My question was simple: will the policy be based on empirical evidence, solid data and physical observations?
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I believe the minister was indicating a move towards answering your question directly, but the minister still has just over half of his time to answer.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: I think the very last word I spoke there was 'evidence'. Our policy will absolutely be driven by evidence—evidence of what can guarantee reliability, affordability and meeting our emissions reduction targets. It will be driven not by ideology like those opposite, but by ensuring that investment, whether it is in storage capabilities such as pumped hydro or in cleaner coal capabilities, meets our commitments to the world as well as our commitments to Australian consumers, households and businesses for affordable and reliable energy.
Senator Dastyari: What about sovereign citizens? It is my will!
The PRESIDENT: On my left! It is unfortunate you are closer to me now, Senator Dastyari. Senator Roberts, a final supplementary question.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (14:36): The Prime Minister, after 10 years of demonising carbon dioxide, is now like a shag on a rock. What we need to see is a policy based on empirical data on climate.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: On my left, order! Senator Roberts, you have about half your time left to ask a question. You gave a statement, but I did not pick a question up in that. The question, Senator Roberts?
Senator ROBERTS: Will the Minister confirm that the Liberal Party will embark on a campaign to actually implement policy based on climate science?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (14:37): We will, and, indeed, as my colleague Senator Sinodinos alluded to in his earlier answer, there are clear points of policy difference between the coalition and One Nation. We are committed to ensuring that Australia meets its emissions reductions targets—as Senator Brandis acknowledged earlier, our world-leading emissions reductions targets on a per capita basis. Australia has of course always done so. We have met our targets and exceeded them at every juncture. We will do so again with the 2020 targets, and we will ensure that we do so again with the 2030 targets. But we will be doing so with a firm eye as a government, as we always have, on how it is you do so while ensuring affordability and reliability. That is why our government will meet the 2020 targets without Labor's carbon tax, without that job-destroying carbon tax, which we removed, putting downward pressure on electricity prices, because we have implemented more cost-effective policies that deliver for the Australian people—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Pause the clock. Senator Roberts, a point of order?
Senator Roberts: Again, Mr President, I requested an answer to the question, 'Will the policies be based on hard evidence on climate science?' not as Senator Birmingham is discussing.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. The minister has five seconds in which to complete his answer. I remind the minister again of the question. Minister.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: Our policies are absolutely based on evidence about climate science, affordability and reliability for Australians and their energy bills. (Time expired)
Dairy Industry
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria) (14:38): My question is to Minister for Resources and Northern Australia representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Senator Canavan. I have just completed chairing a series of roundtables on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture, Barnaby Joyce, in Camperdown, the Kiewa Valley, Congupna and Gippsland. My question relates to the Australian dairy industry, which employs over 140,000 Australians, contributes $13 billion to our economy and is the No. 1 exporter off the Melbourne docks every day. What is the Turnbull government doing to support the dairy industry in my home state of Victoria?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:39): I thank the senator from Victoria for her question and recognise her longstanding support for our dairy industry and also the work she has done over the past couple of months to get out and about and listen to the dairy industry. Senator McKenzie has been hosting roundtables on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister in rural Victoria over the past few months to listen to the industry and hear from them how they are responding to what has been very tough and a struggle for many farmers, given the low prices we have seen.
It is important to listen, and Senator McKenzie has done that. But it is even more important that a government acts after listening to those concerns. Having spoken to Senator McKenzie after her roundtable, I know that she did hear from dairy farmers about how waiting times were too long to receive assistance through Centrelink and that sometimes the assets tests and how they were applied were not well suited to the farm sector—that they were more designed for non-farm individuals trying to access assistance. Because of that, the government has acted on those concerns.
On 9 February last week an amendment bill was introduced into this parliament proposing that farm household allowance recipients not be required to serve waiting period before they commenced receiving payments. Furthermore, the bill proposes clarifying the treatments of certain assets, such as water assets, to ensure that these are recognised as an essential operation of a farm enterprise. This will mean that more dairy farmers will be able to receive assistance more quickly. It is a sign of a government that is acting on the real issues and concerns that face average Australians in the real world. We do rightly offer generous assistance to those farmers that find themselves in difficulty, but we also must recognise that sometimes that assistance does not flow on the ground. I congratulate and again recognise Senator McKenzie for her work in making sure that the decisions made here do flow through and help people out there in the real world.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie, a supplementary question.
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria) (14:41): Can the minister explain how the government is providing assistance to the dairy industry at a time when it needs it most?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:41): The changes I mentioned in response to the first question build on the assistance of government announced last year—a package of nearly $600 million, a $579 million dairy support package, which the government announced very shortly after it became evident that farmers were facing unexpectedly lower prices in the dairy sector. This package included $555 million of dairy recovery concessional loans, which provide loans at a rate of 2.47 per cent over 10 years—a very generous rate—to help dairy farmers get back on their feet. It involved providing $2 million for a milk commodity price index to improve transparency and predictability in the marketplace, and the government is also putting more resources into rural financial counselling.
As I mentioned earlier, it has been a very difficult period for our dairy sector, but the government has responded to those concerns and done all we can to help and support our farmers in the dairy industry, which, as the senator said, is a very important industry in our country.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie, a final supplementary question.
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria) (14:42): Can the minister outline what the government is doing to assist the industry for the future?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:42): I recognise, from talking to Senator McKenzie, that there are additional concerns and issues out there in the dairy supply chain. There are concerns about behaviour of processors and some retailers. There are remaining concerns about dollar-a-litre milk in the marketplace as well. That is why the government has announced an ACCC inquiry into the supply chain. At the same time as Senator McKenzie was conducting roundtables, the ACCC was conducting symposiums with the dairy sector to feed into that supply chain inquiry, and the government will be considering very carefully any recommendations that flow from that inquiry.
It is also the case that the government is ensuring that our dairy farmers have access to world markets to maximise the price and benefits they have for their product, and it is happy news to report that our exports of dairy products to China increased by more than 100 per cent since the signing of the ChAFTA agreement. These are all measures that are helping our dairy sector and making sure we have a strong farming sector in our country, and the government will remain committed to ensuring that occurs.
Banking and Financial Services
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:44): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. The damning report of the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Kate Carnell, into the big banks found that they have been unacceptable and possibly unconscionable in their dealings with small businesses. Given that Ms Carnell, like thousands of Australians, is 'fed up' with the banks, when will the government admit that the banks will not change their ways, and establish a royal commission?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:44): We want practical outcomes. We want practical outcomes which will address the very kinds of problems that not only Ms Carnell but also many other commentators and several inquiries have pointed to. Senator Gallagher, you seem to have, if I may say so, a very, very, very insouciant faith in royal commissions to change culture.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator BRANDIS: We do not think that having a royal commission that will no doubt go on for years—
The PRESIDENT: On my left!
Senator BRANDIS: and which will no doubt cost hundreds of millions of dollars in lawyers' fees is the way to change the culture. Rather, what the Turnbull government announced last year is that it would bring the banks, through their CEOs, on a regular basis right before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics and put them on the mat in that public forum regularly. That, in our view, is a much more effective way in which to change the culture to which you have pointed.
Senator Gallagher, you might like to kick this issue into the long grass and rely on a royal commission to come back to us in perhaps five years time or so, having wasted hundreds of millions of dollars in enriching lawyers and enriching expert witnesses, but we want a practical answer that will have an immediate and measurable effect and will be able to deal with particular cases. That is why we have opted for the course that we have taken—
Senator Gallagher: To protect the banks!
Senator BRANDIS: not as you interject, Senator Gallagher, to protect the banks but to put them in front of the parliament—to put them in front of opposition and government senators alike—to give an account of themselves right now.
Senator Cameron: Like being flogged by a wet lettuce!
The PRESIDENT: Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:46): In her report, the small business ombudsman said that the big four banks believe that they can:
… continue with business as usual and they don't have to change.
Minister, why is the Turnbull government protecting the banks and refusing to establish a royal commission?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:46): I have told you, Senator: because we think that there are more effective ways and more immediate ways to achieve the outcome that you seek. Your colleague Senator Doug Cameron, who is not a shy person by any manner of means, interjects that 'they will be flogging them with a wet lettuce'. Well, if it is a wet lettuce, Senator Cameron, you are one of the wet lettuces because we will be putting them in front of the entire parliament and we have begun to do so.
Senator Cameron, you may have no confidence in your capacity to pin witnesses down in parliamentary committee hearings. You may have no confidence in the capacity of your Labor colleagues both here and in the other place to put witnesses on the mat, but I have lots of confidence in the capacity of people such as Senator Ian Macdonald or Senator Linda Reynolds, for example, to pin witnesses down, to put them on the mat and to expose them if something needs to be exposed and to do it in real time. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:48): Given the findings of this report and the important role that small businesses play in the economy by contributing more than $343 billion each year, Minister, why won't you stand up for small business and establish a royal commission?
Senator Dastyari: Hear, hear! Good question!
The PRESIDENT: Order on my left!
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:48): Why won't you, Senator Gallagher—
The PRESIDENT: And my right!
Senator BRANDIS: if you believe what you are saying? I know that not believing what you say is the endemic culture of the Labor Party under Mr Bill Shorten.
Senator Wong interjecting—
Senator BRANDIS: Senator Gallagher, if you really believe this then why will you not support the government's decision—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, a point of order?
Senator Ian Macdonald: I hate to interrupt the leader on what was a very good answer but, again, I can barely hear him because the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Penny Wong, has continued to shout at the leader consistently through this question and most other questions. Can you please bring her to order, treat her like other senators and ensure that she does not interject continuously.
Senator Wong: Mr president, on the point of order, I do concede I did respond to Senator Brandis's suggestion that the entire Labor Party are liars. Perhaps what I ought to have done is taken a point of order.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Wong.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! For all senators, interjections are disorderly. It has been rather noisy on both sides from time to time, so I will ask all senators to listen to answers in silence.
Senator BRANDIS: I, in fact, do not use unparliamentarily language, as you know, Mr President. I merely pointed out that saying one thing and doing another is part of the custom of the Labor Party led by Mr Bill Shorten. Senator Gallagher, if you believe this, why will you not support the government's decision, which has already been put into effect, of bringing the CEOs of the banks before the relevant parliamentary inquiry, not in an endless process that will take years to resolve but immediately on a regular basis every year? (Time expired)
Child Care
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (14:50): My question is for the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. Will the minister inform the Senate what the government is doing to support working parents through its Jobs for Families Child Care Package?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (14:50): I thank Senator Paterson for his question and his concern for hardworking families in Victoria and indeed all around Australia on the support they receive to be able to go to work, juggle the family bills and, particularly, meet their childcare expenses. The Turnbull government's comprehensive reforms of Australia's childcare system will help the most hardworking Australian families to meet their bills. They will ensure that around one million Australian families benefit from comprehensive reforms restructuring childcare services which will empower families to choose the days they work and the hours they work to suit their personal circumstances and, in doing so, to be able to do so without fearing about falling off a cliff in terms of their childcare support.
Our estimates are that around 230,000 Australian families will increase their participation in the paid workforce because our childcare changes will make the system fairer and more flexible for those who need it most. In particular, we will end the cliff that many families fall off midyear in terms of the childcare support they receive. Around this time of year, many Australian families start to find they run out of subsidy under the $7½ thousand cap. Our changes for families earning less than $185,000 per annum will see that cap abolished completely. That will help around 90,000 families who hit that cap at present and of course empower many more to be able to choose to work more hours.
We will better target support to those on the lowest incomes so that families earning less than $65,000 a year will see the weight of subsidy paid for child care going up from 72 per cent to 85 per cent—
Senator Cameron: You're full of rubbish!
Senator BIRMINGHAM: something I would have thought Senator Cameron and the Labor Party, who pretend to care about low-income families, might actually support—that they might support the fact that we want to give more help to those hardworking Australian families who are earning the least but working the longest hours.
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
Senator BIRMINGHAM: Yet there they are opposing these reforms. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson, a supplementary question.
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (14:52): Can the minister explain to the Senate the benefits from the Turnbull government's reforms to the childcare system?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (14:53): Thanks, Senator Paterson. And to help Senator Collins, let me give the Senate a couple of examples. Let's take a single-parent family earning $50,000 a year, with one child in long day care for three days a week. That family, that single parent, will be around $2½ thousand a year better off net of the family tax benefit changes, net of the entire package. A hardworking family earning around $80,000, with both parents working and two children in long day care for three days a week, will be around $3,000 better off in net terms. Yet the Labor Party sits there and says that they will oppose, they will vote against, reforms that in totality will ensure that those hardworking Australian families who are juggling work and family responsibilities are going to be denied additional support because of the Labor Party's votes. But thankfully, hopefully, those on the crossbench will be more considerate, will help us to deliver for those hardworking families. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson, a final supplementary question.
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (14:54): Can the minister advise the Senate of any alternative policies?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (14:54): At the last election those opposite went along saying that they had no changes, no policies, no suggestions. They were going to put another tweet to the childcare rebate cap, just lift that a little bit. Of course, the last time the Labor Party did that we saw that completely gobbled up through price rises in the childcare sector. What we instead are proposing is to put in place an effective rate cap that will constrain future price rises and ensure that the additional support we give to hardworking Australian families will actually benefit those families, not simply flush through taxpayers hands and straight into the hands of childcare operators instead.
Labor have now talked—at the National Press Club the shadow minister spoke—of starting a national consultation about child care reform. Well, the coalition government has already done that. We had a comprehensive Productivity Commission inquiry that recommended the exact type of approach we are adopting. We have undertaken the regulatory impact statements. We have had multiple Senate inquiries. As Goodstart Early Learning has said, now is the time to act; now is the time to get these reforms passed and implemented. (Time expired)
Renewable Energy
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (14:55): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. I refer to media revelations today of departmental advice to the government that the cause of blackouts in South Australia during last September's storm was indeed because of the storm and the damage. This advice showed that the Prime Minister and his ministers were told from the beginning that the power outage was not the fault of wind power. The Prime Minister and his government ignored that advice, opting to attack South Australia's renewable energy industry instead. The Prime Minister has now been caught lying. When will the Turnbull government stop lying to South Australians by falsely claiming renewables on our state's energy crisis and start being part of the solution?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, you will need to withdraw the direct reference about the Prime Minister.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I believe it was lying. I believe it was fibbing. I am prepared to rephrase. When will the Turnbull government—
The PRESIDENT: No, I am asking you to withdraw the comment.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I am happy to withdraw.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young. I call the Attorney-General.
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:56): Senator Hanson-Young, I think I really answered that question to your leader, Senator Di Natale, because he asked the same question. So, forgive me if I go over some of the territory that I covered in response to Senator Di Natale. First of all, it is absolutely false to say that the Prime Minister lied or misrepresented the position. The Prime Minister always acknowledged that the storm knocked out transmission lines. He acknowledged that. But he went on to observe, as is the case, that South Australia's over-reliance on intermittent energy and renewables created vulnerabilities in the system. And so it did. And let me read just a little of the report of AEMO, the Australian Energy Market Operator, into that event. This is what AEMO said:
The growing proportion of this type of generating plant within the generation portfolio is leading to more periods with low inertia and low available fault levels, hence a lower resilience to extreme events.
That is what AEMO said, and that supports what the Prime Minister observed as a matter of common sense—that if you create vulnerabilities then, if there is an unpredictable event such as a storm, the system will have less resilience; it will have less capacity to respond to a black swan event like the storm that knocked the physical facilities in the South Australian network. That is what caused the problem, and there is no doubt that, as AEMO found, over-reliance on intermittent energy sources was a contributing factor.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, a supplementary question.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (14:58): Well, of course, we know liars never like admitting when they have been caught out. Following—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Hanson-Young, that is exactly the same reference as I pulled you up for in your primary question. You cannot impugn that. So, you will have to withdraw that.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I think it is ridiculous that the Prime Minister can mislead the Australian people and he cannot be called out for it. It is unacceptable to continue to mislead—
The PRESIDENT: Order! A point of order, Senator Bernardi.
Senator Bernardi: Mr President, you have already identified that Senator Hanson-Young has used unparliamentary language. You have asked her to withdraw, and she has refused to. Surely, the Senate's standards require her to adhere to your ruling.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Bernardi. Senator Hanson-Young, I was giving you a couple of moments, thinking that you were going to withdraw that comment. You will need to withdraw first and then you can continue with your question.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Thank you, Mr President. I withdraw. I would like to point out that following the blackout on Wednesday last week, again the Prime Minister and his ministers attempted to blame the renewable energy industry in South Australia for the power outage. Again, the Prime Minister and his minister failed to inform the parliament and the public that part of the shortage was due to the lack of power stations running from fossil fuel companies. When will the government—
Government senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my right! Senator Hanson-Young, there were a few seconds with me asking you to withdraw. You can continue your question, if you are very brief.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: When will the Turnbull government stop using the SA power crisis for its own political gain and do something to fix the problem?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:00): Well, Senator Hanson-Young, we are not playing political games in pointing out that the South Australian Labor government, because it has adopted the wrong generation mix, has been unable to keep the lights on in South Australia, and that is a violation of the most fundamental obligation of any government. This has been an abject policy failure by Premier Weatherill and his ministers—an abject policy failure. A very important reason for it is that there is not enough resilience in the South Australian network. That is because there is not enough redundancy in the South Australian network so that when an event of the kind that we saw in South Australia occurs the network is unable to respond. It is unable to respond, and that is what you get, Senator Hanson-Young, when you favour ideology over science, as you do. We believe in a technology-agnostic approach that will keep—(Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, a final supplementary question.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (15:01): The Prime Minister has been caught out again not telling the truth to the Australian people. Many Australians are wondering: does the Prime Minister even understand or is he capable—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Hanson-Young. A point of order, Attorney-General?
Senator Brandis: You have already required Senator Hanson-Young to withdraw the allegation she made against the Prime Minister. She is making precisely the same allegation that you ruled must be withdrawn in only slightly different words and she should observe your earlier ruling.
Senator O'Sullivan: Test the floor!
The PRESIDENT: I did let Senator Hanson-Young get away with that, but it is sailing very close to the wind. Senator Hanson-Young, in the context of your previous two questions, it does follow suit that that is what you are indicating. However, if I take it in isolation, it did not directly impugn the Prime Minister. I will allow you to continue with your question, but I advise all senators that matters, comments and phrases that directly go against and impugn members of the other place and, indeed, this place are disorderly. Senator Hanson-Young, you can continue your question.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: A question to the minister: is the Prime Minister capable of telling the difference between the truth and alternative facts?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:03): Well, Senator Hanson-Young, these are the facts: your party is wedded to an ideological policy based entirely on commitment to renewables that the economy of no state in Australia is ready for. That is fact No.1. Fact No.2: the Turnbull government is committed to the most ambitious emissions targets per capita in the world, which we committed to at the Paris climate change conference. You can hardly impeach the Turnbull government for not implementing policies to encourage the renewable sector. But fact No.3: unlike you and unlike the Australian Labor Party, we take a technology-agnostic approach because we acknowledge that the most important obligation of all is for a government to preside over an energy policy that will keep the electricity generation network on stream and that will keep the lights on. It is because of your failure—(Time expired)
QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT
Photography in the Chamber
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (15:04): Madam Deputy President, I wonder whether the President has made a ruling in light of a recent event to do with photographs being taken within the chamber. Perhaps it might be pertinent at some point for the President or the Deputy President to remind senators about whether it is possible to take photos within the chamber.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Bernardi. The President will contact you.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Pauline Hanson's One Nation
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:05): I move—
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science (Senator Sinodinos) and the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to questions without notice asked by Senators Wong and Sterle today relating to preference arrangements with Pauline Hanson's One Nation.
Last week in this place I described the Prime Minister as
… a man who has sold his soul for leadership. A Prime Minister so weak he’s only allowed to remain in the job for as long as he betrays virtually everything that he ever stood for.
Now, with Malcolm Turnbull's capitulation to Senator Hanson, we can remove the word 'virtually' and confidently declare that this government is undeniably led by a man who has betrayed everything he has ever stood for. Last year in the middle of the election campaign, Mr Turnbull said of Pauline Hanson:
Pauline Hanson is, as far as we are concerned, not a welcome presence on the Australian political scene.
Now he boasts that he and his government will work very closely with One Nation Senators. He defends his Western Australian Liberal colleagues in doing a deal that not only preferences One Nation above Labor but against his own coalition colleagues, the Nationals.
I say to the National Party: I suppose you are experiencing what everybody who has dealt with Mr Turnbull is now finding out about him. That is, he stands for nothing but himself and he will junk any cause, any belief, any friend and even members of his own government if it stands in the way of Malcolm Turnbull's one and only interest, and that is Mr Malcolm Turnbull. This is the man who used to believe in marriage equality; this is the man who used to believe in the Australian republic; this is the man who said that he would never lead a party that was not as serious about climate change as he was. We now see him leading the charge against serious action on climate change. And now, today, the man who just nine months ago promised the Australian people, declared to the Australian people that Senator Pauline Hanson was 'not welcome' is now bending over to do deals with Pauline Hanson, even at the expense of his own coalition colleagues here in Canberra.
Senator Sinodinos defends this backflip because he insists that Senator Hanson and her party are now 'more sophisticated'. Well, you have to wonder whether this is yet another thing that Senator Sinodinos might not be able to recall in the future, because you would have to ask: what is more sophisticated? Is it Senator Hanson's plan to scrap the GST and replace it with a two per cent tax on everything including pensioners and the poor? Is it One Nation's plan to force everyone to sign a prenuptial agreement? Is it her plans to fingerprint everyone in the nation and then force them to provide their fingerprint before they can access Medicare? Maybe it is her belief that vaccines cause autism or that fluoridation amounts to the mass poisoning of the population. Maybe it is her plan to set up a patriotic broadcasting commission or her belief that Australians should be allowed to keep military style firearms in their homes or her admiration for President Putin. Or is it that she is now targeting Muslims instead of Asians?
I thought it was very significant this morning when asked to provide evidence, an answer to the question as to where One Nation had become 'more sophisticated'—to use the words of Senator Sinodinos—the Prime Minister could not name a single policy, not a single one. Because the truth is, when it comes to One Nation, nothing has changed. Nothing has changed since another Liberal leader, with a lot more conviction and more principles than the current leader, declared in 1998 of the then member for Oxley and I quote Mr Howard: 'She is fanning racist sentiment. She is, I believe, appealing to racist sentiment.' And he went on to describe a speech she had given as 'not only an inaccurate, dishonest speech but it verges on the deranged in various places'. As Senator Hanson herself said, just last month, 'my policies have not changed over the years'. At least she is up-front. It is not One Nation who has changed; it is Malcolm Turnbull. He is so desperate to hang on to office he will trade any belief, any conviction and even his own colleagues if he thinks it will buy him a little time.
Today in question time, Senator Sinodinos told the truth. When asked why he believes that One Nation was 'more sophisticated', he said this: 'Let me begin by saying they are more sophisticated because in this chamber since they have been here they have supported important pieces of government legislation.' That is what it all comes down to. This is a government that is prepared to sell out on its principles to do what John Howard was not prepared to do, to trade with One Nation and Senator Hanson, because they are desperate to govern with them and they now believe they will not be re-elected without their support.
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:10): Senator Wong, I know you have a sensitivity about One Nation. I know that you have what is bordering upon an unhealthy obsession with Senator Hanson but, Senator Wong, get used to it. You do not decide who gets to represent the Australian people in this chamber any more than I do. The Australian people make that decision and they made that decision at the 2016 election.
At the 2016 election, the Australian people decided to elect four One Nation senators including two One Nation senators from my state of Queensland.
Senator Dastyari interjecting—
Senator BRANDIS: I will come back to you, Senator Dastyari. And it is our obligation as senators to deal with all of the people that the Australian people send to this chamber. The Australian people decided that the government should not have a majority in the chamber. The Australian people decided that the opposition should not have a majority in the chamber so they gave the balance of power, as they more often than not do, to the crossbench. One of the largest elements of the crossbench is the One Nation Party. We are not doing our job if we do not respect the fact that the Australian people sent every one of the 76 of us into this chamber with the expectation that we would deal with each other, not that we would agree with each other, because there are many issues—I daresay most issues—in which I profoundly disagree with Senator Hanson. But, nevertheless, unlike Senator Wong, I do find it perfectly easy to treat her with professional courtesy. Unlike Senator Wong, who, in an unprecedented display of petulance, actually walked out and boycotted Senator Hanson's maiden speech.
Senator Wong: Dead right.
Senator BRANDIS: Dead right, she interjects. This chamber, ever since 1948, has been elected on a proportional representation franchise and that means, as we know, that it is a rare occasion that the government has a majority. So every government whether it be Labor or whether it be Liberal has an obligation, not out of anything other than respect for the Australian people, to deal with all elements of the crossbench and in doing so—unashamedly doing so—we do not say we agree with them. There are occasions on which the government last year accepted support from the Greens. We do not have any time for the Greens either but that does not mean to say that we do not respect our constitutional obligation to respect the wishes and the decision of the Australian people.
As for you, Senator Sam Dastyari, clownishly yelling out 'shame, shame'. What were you doing last Thursday, Senator Sam Dastyari? Because I am reliably informed that you were in Senator Hanson's office trying to do deals with her. So let us not have any crocodile tears from you, Senator Sam Dastyari, because that is what I am told.
Senator DASTYARI (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:14): That is completely and utterly factually incorrect. You cannot just make things like that up in the chamber. I want an apology.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am sorry, Senator Dastyari, that is a debating point.
Senator BRANDIS: That, Senator Dastyari, is what I am told.
In the short while left to me, let me touch on one issue that Senator Wong raised in her contribution, and that is the question of marriage equality. She attacks Mr Turnbull for allegedly reversing his position on marriage equality; he has done nothing of the sort—unlike Senator Wong, who in 2010 was an advocate against marriage equality and has now rediscovered herself as an advocate in its favour. Last Saturday was 11 February. That was the date on which we were supposed to have a plebiscite on the question of marriage equality—
Senator Hanson-Young: The lights have just gone out in the Senate—must be wind power's fault!
Senator BRANDIS: Another Labor administration in the ACT cannot keep the lights on.
Nobody doubts that, had there been a plebiscite, there would have been a vote in favour of marriage equality, and we would have had marriage equality legislation before this chamber today. But, because Senator Wong with overwhelming moral cowardice was prepared to sacrifice the interests of gay people to the political games that Shorten bade her play, we do not have marriage equality today. That is thanks to the likes of you, Senator Wong. (Time expired)
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (15:16): What an extraordinary rant we just saw there from Senator Brandis. It goes to show that he misses the point of what this is all about. Once upon a time there were Liberals and Nationals in this chamber who were prepared to stand up and call Senator Hanson out when she was making racist and bigoted comments. That is not what we see from the Liberals and Nationals today. Instead we see the complete opposite. They are prepared to go out of their way to do deals and legitimise One Nation. We will absolutely stand up against them and highlight the damage that they will do to Australian society.
What we have seen over the last 24 hours is an astonishing about-face from the Liberal Party in a concerted effort to justify their decision in Western Australia. It is pretty obvious that the key word from the Liberals has been 'sophisticated'. They have used that repeatedly in the media and they have also used it in this chamber today. They claim that One Nation is more sophisticated. Let's look back to 1998 when we were last dealing with One Nation. What did we see? We saw racism, cheap populism and demonising of minorities. We still see exactly the same today, only with some conspiracy theories added to the mix. Even the discredited two per cent 'Easytax' has made a comeback. This is what we are seeing from One Nation. The only thing that is more sophisticated is that they use Facebook Live to espouse these same views. Use of a social media platform does not make one more sophisticated, especially when those views belong deep in the dark ages of Australia.
It is not One Nation that has changed; it is actually the modern Liberal Party. Senator Wong hit this nail right on the head. It is ironic that the leader of this effort to make a deal with One Nation has been Senator Sinodinos. Senator Wong correctly identified that he has at times had a dodgy memory. We are all well aware of this. Clearly he remembers none of the lessons from when he worked with former Prime Minister John Howard. John Howard was someone who was prepared to stand up and advocate that all Liberal parties—not only the national Liberal body but also all state Liberal parties—put One Nation last. That is what a leader of the Liberal Party did at the national level back in the nineties.
But in question time Senator Sinodinos let the cat out of the bag. He was clear that his view of their being 'sophisticated' is based on One Nation's support of the government in the Senate. That is what the government are relying on. They are so desperate to keep their threadbare agenda going and to stave off leadership tensions inside the Liberal Party that they are willing to deal with anyone to keep the government afloat. Senator Brandis's performance was very, very mediocre. When you compare it to Liberal leaders of the past, his failure to condemn what the WA Liberal Party has done was a very, very poor effort.
Today we have also seen Nationals speak out about this deal, but they are not speaking out about the Liberals doing a deal with One Nation; all they are speaking out about is that they put One Nation ahead of the Nationals. Once upon a time you used to have giants of the National Party like Senator Ron Boswell, who was prepared to come in here and fight One Nation. Indeed in his farewell speech to the Senate this is something that Senator Boswell said:
In the fight of my life, against Pauline Hanson, I risked everything to stand up against her aggressive, narrow view of Australia. Defeating Pauline Hanson and One Nation in 2001 has been my greatest political achievement.
What a sad bunch this current group of Nationals are in this chamber. They once had a giant of conservative politics in Queensland and in Australia whose defining legacy when he left the Senate was defeating One Nation, whereas all we see here from the current mob are people who are tripping over themselves to do a deal with One Nation and govern with their support.
Again, look at what John Howard said when he was asked about the Western Australian Liberals and whether they should put One Nation last in 1998: 'Yes, I think it was the right decision so you have a uniform, consistent position in the Liberal Party throughout Australia in both lower and upper houses.' He went on to say: 'Let's not deal with the periphery. The Liberal Party which I lead will put One Nation last.' (Time expired)
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (15:21): Isn't it amazing what comes across this chamber? Wow, you must be really worried about One Nation, because you have spent your time on this—that a preference deal has been done. The whole fact is that Labor have approached One Nation for preferences.
Senator Dastyari: No, we haven't.
Senator HANSON: You do not want to talk about that. How about Evan Moorhead, the Queensland state secretary?
Senator Chisholm: We'll put you last.
Senator Hanson: You should know him, Senator Chisholm; you were a former state secretary in Queensland. He called up my staff on 25 January this year and wanted to do a grubby deal with us. Listen to this: Evan Moorhead wanted One Nation to run dead in all Queensland Labor seats and in return Labor would run dead in One Nation strongholds or in seats they had no chance of winning. So don't talk about grubby deals.
The fact is, I will not apologise for being a patriotic Australian—for standing up for Australian values and for the Australian people. So you can do your deals with the Greens, and all the rest of it, who want to see Australian coal destroyed, jobs destroyed and opening up for extremists in this country. Do your deals with them—that is absolutely wonderful! That is not what the people want. It was right when Senator Brandis said that 600,000 Australians voted for One Nation at the last election. Are you saying they all got it wrong? I don't think so.
You should get out your tissues for the tears running down your cheeks, because you have not been able to do preference deals with us. The fact is, you have lost your way in this nation. Whether you have held government in the states or federally you have run this country into the ground. You have gone so socialist with your policies. You have the CFMEU, the unions, running you, so you have no control over your own destiny. People cannot rely on you at all, so don't talk to me about grubby deals.
I have worked hard and I have put my policies out there to the Australian people who voted for One Nation—not only myself, but two senators in Queensland, one in New South Wales and one in Western Australia. It was based on our policies—what the Australian people want.
The Labor Party has well and truly lost its way. I am not going to stand here and support the Liberal or National parties either, because I think they all have a lot to learn about what grassroots Australians really want. From the very beginning I said that when it came down to doing preferences in Western Australia I was going to do what I thought best for getting One Nation candidates elected to the floor of parliament, and that is exactly what I am doing.
I am not here to prop up the Colin Barnett government, and I am certainly not here to ensure that Mr McGowan is elected into the parliament either. That is a decision for the people. When they go to vote their preferences belong to them. The how-to-vote cards are only a recommendation. They belong to the voter. That is my message to the people. I will put myself out there with my candidates. We will put our policies up and the people will decide.
You waste time in this chamber talking about this when we have over 200,000 homeless. I am fighting for the cane farmers up in Queensland who are about to go under—the cattle producers and everyone. And here you are in this chamber talking about One Nation and the preference deal in Western Australia. That is a state issue. It has nothing to do with matters federally. I really think it is pathetic. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves for the people watching this to think that you raised this as an issue. The people of Australia will be watching this and they know that I am out there fighting for them and their issues. If I say anything extreme they will judge me. But it is a shame that you have actually judged me because you are in fear of losing your seats to One Nation. I will put myself up against you any time—the Labor Party, the Liberals, the National Party or the Greens—based on my policies and how I fight for the Australian people.
Senator DASTYARI (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:26): I am going to get in trouble for saying this. My issue is not with One Nation or with Senator Hanson. One thing that Senator Hanson has said is true: this is the same party that it was 20 years ago. They are the same policies and the same views. They have stayed true to what they said 20 years ago as an organisation. My issue is with a Liberal Party that will fundamentally change. Bill Shorten could not have been clearer about this: we will never do a preference deal—have not, will not, shall not and cannot. It is in our platform that we will not.
I quite like Senator Roberts. We disagree on, I think, everything. We have never done a preference deal with them and we will never do a preference deal with them. I cannot believe that it has fallen to me to talk about the great legacy of John Howard when it came to preferencing One Nation.
Senator Brandis: Tell us about Arthur Calwell.
Senator DASTYARI: I know that the Leader of the Government in the Senate has had some choice words in the past about the former Prime Minister. But on this issue the former Prime Minister was incredibly strong. Yes, it took Prime Minister Howard a while to come around, but when he did in 2001 he said, 'My view on one nation preferences is very clear. They should be placed last on every Liberal Party how-to-vote around the country.' He even went on to say, 'Flirting with One Nation will damage the Liberals.' But it is this notion that these extremist views are acceptable, that they are mainstream.
My issue is not with them. They are entitled to those views, and they have been strong and consistent. What has changed? The only thing that has changed is that you have become desperate. The only thing that has changed is that you need them in this chamber. It's funny how none of the National Party senators are here defending it. The National Party in Western Australia has most definitely been thrown under a bus. National Party in Western Australia was the long-term coalition partner with the Liberals. We heard what Barnaby Joyce had to say this morning about all of this—they certainly were not the nicest of words. But to do that based on no principle! How is it okay that, 'We are being swamped by Asians,' has now been replaced by, 'We are being swamped by Muslims'? How does that make it acceptable? How does that make it okay? How does a party policy platform that has been consistent for 20 years and holds views that are abhorrent make it okay?
There was this notion that was being projected by Senator Sinodinos on the weekend, which I found despicable—the idea that it is because they have changed They have not changed. They will tell you they have not changed. They are the same party they have always been. And that is why since 1996, on every single how-to-vote, the Labor Party has seen to it that the One Nation party is placed with the other fringe bottom dwellers at the bottom of our how-to-vote ticket—every single one. We have been clear with them and they have been clear with us, because the ideological divide could not be greater. I respect them as individuals. I quite like some of them as individuals, but that does not mean that our policy agenda, their views and my views are alike.
Senator Brandis, I actually think you have had quite a respectable tenure, but if this is a Liberal Party that will go that far, to that extreme, I think you are going to look back on this period and it is not going to be a period of pride for the Liberal Party, just as in the Labor Party, when we look back on eras like the Calwell era, we look back with a sense of shame. Prior to the Whitlam resurrection, if you will, the Labor Party was founded with White Australia as our founding principle. It is not something we are proud of. We should acknowledge that. I believe this will be looked back on as the Labor Party looks back on that dark chapter of our own history.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania) (15:31): I am disappointed that Senator Hanson is not still here, because I had to commend her on the smackdown and the refreshing honesty, injecting a bit of history and truth into this debate.
Senator Dastyari: It is not true. It is just not true.
Senator DUNIAM: So say you, Senator Dastyari. I want to start with the points that Senator Brandis made and this convenient ignorance around democracy and the fact that there were enough Australians who voted for One Nation senators to represent them in this Senate.
Senator Dastyari interjecting—
Senator DUNIAM: You do not like that, and I am glad that you conveyed your message to One Nation voters that their votes are worth nothing. It is quite disappointing that you have lowered yourselves to that level, that this is the disappointing point you made in the debate today and that you have highlighted this as the most important take out of question time—some insider political deal that you have asked your first two questions about. You are making this the issue you want to talk about. I understand that is what the MPI is about this afternoon. But to suggest that because the government, because of what democracy has delivered on the crossbench, needs to work with crossbenchers, a mature parliament—
Senator Dastyari interjecting—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order
Senator DUNIAM: that actually tries to get legislation through in the interests of our country and our future—to suggest that by working with parties of all persuasions on the crossbench—
Senator Dastyari: Was Howard wrong?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Duniam, resume your seat. Senator Duniam has the right to be heard in silence. I would ask all senators to refrain from continually calling out. Thank you, Senator Duniam.
Senator DUNIAM: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy President. I have to confess that I did not give Senator Dastyari the silence he probably deserves. The point I was making is that to suggest that because a government which recognises democracy, given a vast array of different views on the crossbench, is working with them we are somehow 100 per cent agreeing with what they believe in and stand for is just ridiculous. I cannot overstate my disappointment when it comes to the fact that the Labor Party in this place, the alternative government—maybe one day—have chosen this issue to spend time on today. It goes to exactly what people are sick and tired of hearing of in this place.
Today I had the opportunity to reflect on an article in The Australian. In fact it was yesterday. It referred to a couple of comments that the opposition leader, Mr Shorten, made with regard to some activity in the other place last week. It refers to Mr Shorten trying to reset the political debate by pledging to take the high road:
Conceding he did not always stick to the standard he sought to apply, the Opposition Leader declared the government was "on notice" and Labor would not "take the low road".
I must have missed something, because here you have the opposition picking something, an insider issue that actually does not matter to Australians. It is not health, it is not education and it is not jobs. It is insider political deals that they are worried about today. How is that going to advance our cause? He says in the same article:
… voters were "sick and tired" of the leaders' "petty schoolyard arguments" and squabbling over issues "that has nothing to do with them".
Mr Shorten said:
The message is loud and clear to me since I left parliament (on Thursday) and people here today—
wherever he was—
were reiterating it: Bill we want the politicians, you and Turnbull, to focus upon our issues, the issues of the people.
I want to know which people they went to meet with over the course of the weekend, since he got this message loud and clear from voters, who wanted to bring up what is happening in Western Australian politics and whether the coalition is doing a deal with one party or another. I do not think many punters raised that with them.
I am pleased that Senator Polley is here, and Senator Urquhart as well, because in my home state of Tasmania a well-known radio presenter, Brian Carlton, made mention of this this morning. He sort of roughly echoed Mr Shorten's sentiments, which sadly have gone out the window insofar as Labor tactics today have gone. But on his program just this morning, he said, 'Just on politicians who tell us they understand, they get what we are banging on about when we say, "Guys, guys, you've lost touch; you're really not dealing with issues that affect people."' 'So what are they doing today?' he asks. 'They will go: "Yes, yes, yes, we will pay more attention. We'll get things right. It's all about you guys."' 'So what are they arguing about today?' he asks. He says, 'Today's big argument is preference deals, preference deals for the Western Australian election.' And he expresses nothing but disappointment in the fact that the political representatives from his home state are spending their time talking about this. And here we are today, using up the take note debate, to talk about this specific issue. So while power prices are spiking, as he says, the NBN switch is going to cost extra, fuels are up et cetera, he says, 'This is what opposition politicians are asking about: preference deals in Western Australia.' And I say: get out of the gutter and start focusing on real issues like you said you would. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, the time for this debate has expired.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:37): I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order (111) not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:
Agriculture and Water Resources Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017
Customs and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 2016
Excise Levies Legislation Amendment (Honey) Bill 2016
Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Bill 2017
Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017
Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017
Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill 2016
Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016
Transport Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Treasury Laws Amendment (2016 Measures No. I) Bill 2016
Treasury Laws Amendment (Bourke Street Fund) Bill 2017
I table statements of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statements incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statement s read as follows—
AGRICULTURE AND WATER RESOURCES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2016
EXCISE LEVIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (HONEY) BILL 2016
Purpose of the Bills
The Agriculture and Water Resources Amendment Bill 2016 will make amendments to a range of portfolio legislation and repeal redundant legislation.
A companion bill called the Excise Levies Legislation Amendment (Honey) Bill 2016 will make minor amendments to the Primary Industries (Excise) Levy Act 1999 and to the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act 1998 to remove unnecessary regulation relating to the giving of certificates that are no longer used by the honey industry.
The Agriculture and Water Resources Amendment Bill 2016 will amend 13 portfolio Acts to cease four redundant statutory bodies, remove unnecessary regulation and improve the operation of existing legislation.
The Agriculture and Water Resources Amendment Bill 2016 will also repeal 12 Acts that are redundant or no longer required relating to legislation covering agricultural and veterinary chemicals, the national residue survey, export charges and quarantine fees, rural adjustment and the meat and live-stock and wool industries.
Reasons for Urgency
Passage of the Bills in the 2017 Autumn sittings will enable a number of portfolio industries to directly benefit from the removal of unnecessary regulatory burden, streamlined government administrative practices and reduced legislative complexity.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY (IMPROVING PRODUCTIVITY) AMENDMENT BILL 2017
Purpose of the Bill
The bill would amend a provision of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016 that transitionally exempts building industry participants from the requirement to comply with the enterprise agreement content rules in the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work 2016 (the Code) as a condition of eligibility to submit expressions of interest, tender for or be awarded Commonwealth funded building work. The exemption currently runs until 28 November 2018 and the bill would bring this forward to 31 August 2017. The bill would also provide that building industry participants could submit expressions of interest and tender for Commonwealth funded building work within this shortened exemption period, but it would no longer extend to being awarded that work if the relevant enterprise agreement is not compliant with the Code.
Reasons for Urgency
The timely introduction and passage of this bill would bring forward the full implementation of key provisions of the Code that seek to improve productivity and reduce costs in the building and construction industry.
CUSTOMS AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2016
Purpose of the Bill
The Customs and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 (the Bill) amends the Customs Act 1901 (the Customs Act) the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act 1905 (the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act) and the Maritime Powers Act 2013 (the Maritime Powers Act).
The Bill amends the Customs Act to:
Allow the Governor-General to make regulations for the purposes of section 112 to permit the revocation of a licence or permission to export goods if the Defence Minister is satisfied that the exportation of the goods would prejudice the security, defence or international relations of Australia;
Remove the requirement in Part XA of the Customs Act that the Comptroller-General of Customs enter into an interim trusted trader agreement with an entity;
Allow for the exemption from paying import declaration processing charge;
Extend the circumstances in which an application can be made to move, alter or interfere with goods for export that are subject to customs control;
Clarify and simplify the provisions concerning the making of tariff concession orders for made-to-order capital equipment;
Remove unnecessary and outdated provisions.
The Bill amends the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act and the Maritime Powers Act. The Bill also repeals the Customs (Tariff Concession System Validations) Act 1999 and the Import Processing Charges (Amendment and Repeal) Act 2002 as these Acts are now obsolete.
Reasons for Urgency
The amendments made by Schedule 1 of the Bill support the security, defence and international relations of Australia. The amendments made by Schedule 2 of the Bill confer on industry the deregulation benefits that will flow from not having to enter into an interim trusted trader agreement with the Comptroller-General of Customs.
The amendments made by Schedule 3 of the Bill give effect to Australia's international obligations regarding the exemption of payments of import declaration processing charge.
CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL 2016
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 2016 (the Bill) is to make a number of minor amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 (the Tariff Act) to:
a) Repeal Schedule 1 of the Tariff Act;
b) Repealing section 16A of the Tariff Act;
c) insert three new Additional Notes into Chapters 7, 8 and 19 of Schedule 3 to the Tariff Act; and
d) Close the Enhanced Project By-law Scheme.
Reasons for Urgency
The Bill gives effect to a 2016-17 Department of Industry, Innovation and Science Budget measure to close the Enhanced Project By-law Scheme and provide certainty to importers.
These amendments are also urgent as they are required to align the Australian classification of provisional preserved fruits and vegetables and certain pastas with our major trading partners, following recent interpretation by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Australian classifications of such goods are currently misaligned with that of our major trading partners and international commitments, and present administrative problems for importers of such goods.
INDEPENDENT PARLIAMENTARY EXPENSES AUTHORITY BILL
Purpose of the Bill
To establish an independent parliamentary expenses authority to monitor and adjudicate all expenses claims by parliamentarians, ensuring that taxpayers' funds are spent appropriately and in compliance with the rules.
Reasons for Urgency
On 13 January 2017 the Prime Minister announced the establishment of an independent parliamentary expenses authority to improve transparency and accountability of the parliamentary work expenses system. The bill needs to be passed as soon as possible to expedite the implementation of this reform.
INDEPENDENT PARLIAMENTARY EXPENSES AUTHORITY (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2017
Document not available at the time of printing.
PARLIAMENTARY ENTITLEMENTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
Purpose of the Bill
To amend the Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990 to implement the reforms announced by the Government on 9 November 2013 to:
impose a 25 per cent loading on travel claims submitted after 1 January 2014 that require subsequent adjustment; and
limit the travel provided to the dependent children of Senior Officers to those who are less than 18 years of age.
To give effect to changes to the Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) Act 2002 to:
cease Life Gold Pass travel of spouses and de facto partners of Life Gold Pass holders, other than the spouse or de facto partner of a former Prime Minister who has left the Parliament;
cease Life Gold Pass travel of former parliamentarians, other than Ministers, Presiding Officers and Leaders of the Opposition (Senior Office Holders) who left the Parliament on or before 13 May 2011;
cease Life Gold Pass travel of former Senior Office Holders who qualified for a Life Gold Pass when they left the Parliament on or before 13 May 2008;
phase out Life Gold Pass travel of former parliamentarians, other than Senior Office Holders, to five return domestic trips per year from their retirement date to whichever is the earliest of:
- three years from the date of their retirement;
- the expiry date of the next full parliament after their retirement; or
- the day after the Bill receives the Royal Assent
phase out Life Gold Pass travel of former Senior Office Holders to 10 return domestic trips per year, from their retirement date to whichever is the earliest of:
- six years from the date of their retirement;
- the expiry date of the second full parliament after their retirement; or
- the day after the Bill receives the Royal Assent
reduce Life Gold Pass travel of former Prime Ministers to 30 return domestic trips per year;
reduce Life Gold Pass travel of the spouse or de facto partner of a former Prime Minister
to 20 return domestic trips per year; and
require that all Life Gold Pass travel be subject to a public benefit test in that it may not be used for private or commercial purposes.
The effect of these changes will be that Life Gold Pass travel will cease upon commencement of the Bill for all current pass holders with the exception of former Prime Ministers and their spouses.
Reasons for Urgency
On 9 November 2013, the Government announced that changes to the Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990 would take effect from 1 January 2014. The changes to the Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) Act 2002 took retrospective effect from 14 May 2014.
SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT (PSSAP MEMBERSHIP) BILL 2016
Purpose of the Bill
To extend Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan (PSSAP) membership eligibility to allow a PSSAP member to choose to remain a contributory member where they move to non-Commonwealth employment and have been an ordinary employer-sponsored member of the scheme for a period of twelve months or more.
Reasons for Urgency
To allow eligible members to continue their PSSAP membership from the earliest time, reducing the need for members to consolidate accounts and incur fees associated with this process.
TRANSPORT SECURITY AMENDMENT (SERIOUS OR ORGANISED CRIME) BILL
Purpose of the Bill
This bill will amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 (ATSA) and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 (MTOFSA) to:
1. create an additional purpose in the ATSA and MTOFSA to prevent the use of aviation and maritime transport or offshore facilities in connection with serious or organised crime;
2. clarify and align the legislative basis for undertaking background security checking of individuals under the ATSA and MTOFSA;
3. support the strengthening of the eligibility criteria for the aviation security identification card and maritime security identification card schemes to target serious criminal offences; and
4. support machinery of government changes to transfer administrative responsibility for the discretionary card scheme to the Attorney-General's Department.
Reasons for Urgency
This bill lapsed when the previous Parliament was dissolved. Its urgent re-introduction and passage will ensure the earliest possible implementation (and consequential impact) of legislation to combat serious or organised crime at Australia's airports and ports.
The passage of this bill will help give effect to the Government's election commitment to strengthen background checking regimes to ensure that individuals with links to serious and organised crime cannot gain access to secure areas of our airports and ports (the Coalition's policy to keep illegal guns off our streets and our communities safe).
The amendments supported by this bill will also implement a key action in the Government's response to the final report of the National Ice Taskforce, strengthening the Government's ability to disrupt the supply of the drug ice. Prior to the dissolution of Parliament, these changes were expected to commence on 1 July 2016.
TRANSPORT SECURITY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2016
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of the Bill is to allow people, vehicles and goods to undergo aviation security screening within an area or zone at a security controlled airport. The Bill will also allow the Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (the Department) to delegate his powers in the Aviation Transport Security Act 2005 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Act 2003 (Aviation and Maritime Acts) to lower level Australian Public Service employees.
Reasons for Urgency
These airside security components of the Bill, once passed, will assist in reducing the risk of an insider attack against passenger aircraft. Such an attack could result in loss of life, severe economic consequences, public loss of confidence in both the Government and the aviation sector, and damage Australia's reputation as a safe and secure destination for international air travel.
The Bill is crucial to Australia demonstrating that it is meeting its obligations under Annex 17 (Security) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention).
Passage of the amendments to the delegations in both the Aviation and Maritime Acts are required by the end of April 2017 to enable a new, more effective and efficient way of regulating transport security to be put in place by 1 July 2017.
TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (2016 MEASURES NO. 1) BILL 2016
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016 is to:
amends the Terrorism Insurance Act 2003;
improve employee share schemes;
add six organisation as deductible gift recipients;
provide income tax relief to eligible New Zealand special category visa holders; and
provide greater protection for retail client money and property held by financial services licensees in relation to derivative products.
Reasons for Urgency
Introduction and passage of the Bill during the 2017 Autumn sittings is required to give taxpayers and the Australian Taxation Office sufficient time to put in place systems and processes to allow for the efficient administration of the tax system and a smooth roll out of Tax Time 2017.
TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (BOURKE STREET FUND) BILL
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of the fund is to provide financial support to the immediate families of the deceased and injured individuals and their immediate families affected by the 2017 Bourke Street tragedy (Bourke Street, Melbourne, on 20 January 2017).
Reasons for Urgency
The Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, with the support of the Prime Minister, has told the Victorian Government that the Bill will be introduced as an urgent priority in the 2017 Autumn sittings.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator Whish-Wilson: to move:
That paragraph 23(b) of the Superannuation (prudential standard) determination No. 1 of 2016 - Prudential Standard SPS 510 - Governance, made under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, be disallowed
Fifteen sitting days remain, including today, to resolve the motion or the instrument will be deemed to have been disallowed.
Senator Di Natale: to move:
That items 1 and 4 of Schedule 1 of the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016, as contained in Select Legislative Instrument No. and made under the Crimes Act 1914 and Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, be disallowed.
Senator Di Natale: to move:
That the Senate—
(a) condemns the actions of Mr Christensen, MP and Senator Bernardi in attending the Q Society of Australia Inc fundraising dinner in Melbourne even after learning of the deeply homophobic and lslamophobic nature of the Sydney event
(b) notes that Prime Minister Mr Malcolm Turnbull's failure to rein in Mr Christensen MP fails to reassure the LGBTI community and people of Islamic faith that the Prime Minister and the Coalition value diversity and equality;
(c) notes that Senator Hanson was expelled from the Liberal Party for her racist views;
(d) calls on the Prime Minister to expel Mr Christensen MP from the Coalition Party Room; and
(e) calls on all leaders of all political parties to condemn hate-speech in all forms.
Senator Smith: to move:
That the Senate—
(a) congratulates the 48 worthy Western Australians who were recipients of Order of Australia awards on 26 January 2017 for their outstanding achievement and service; and
(b) particularly notes the following recipients:
(i) The Very Reverend Dr John Harley Shepherd AM, for significant service to the Anglican Church of Australia through senior liturgical roles, and to the community,
(ii) Mr Graham John Cooper OAM, for service to local government, and to the community of Cunderdin,
(iii) Mr Ronald Charles de Gruchy OAM, for service to the superannuation industry, to seniors, and to the community of Joondalup,
(iv) Mr Jack Miller Fletcher OAM, for service to the primary industry sector in Western Australia,
(v) Mr Vaughan Mark Harding OAM, for service to aged care organisations,
(vi) Mr Graham Noel Lewis OAM, for service to the community through a range of volunteer roles,
(vii) Mrs Kaye Florence Lewis OAM, for service to the community of Moora,
(viii) Mr Neil Hugh MacDonald OAM, for service to the community ofVasse,
(ix) Mr Andrew John Newland OAM, for service to the Crown, and through support for charitable organisations,
(x) Mrs Alice Lillian Rule OAM, for service to the community of Albany,
(xi) The Honourable Barbara Mary Scott OAM, for service to children, and to the Parliament of Western Australia, and
(xii) Mrs Marion Frances Sewell OAM, for service to the community of Albany, and to youth.
Senator Moore: to move:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges female genital mutilation (FGM):
(i) comprises all procedures that involve altering or injuring the female genitalia for non-medical reasons and is recognised internationally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women,
(ii) reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women and girls, and
(iii) violates women and girls' rights to health, security and physical integrity, their right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and their right to life when the procedure results in death;
(b) recognises that a commitment to promote the abandonment of FGM will require:
(i) a coordinated and systematic effort that will engage whole communities and focus on human rights and gender equality, and
(ii) communities to act collectively to end the practice, as well as address the sexual and reproductive health needs of women and girls who suffer from its consequences; and
(c) notes that:
(i) globally, it is estimated that at least 200 million girls and women alive today have undergone some form of FGM,
(ii) FGM is mostly carried out on young girls sometime between infancy and age 15 and that girls 14 and younger represent 44 million of those who have been cut,
(iii) FGM can cause severe bleeding and health issues including cysts, infections, infertility, as well as complications in childbirth and increased risk of newborn deaths,
(iv) the Sustainable Development Goals calls for an end to FGM by 2030 under Goal 5 on Gender Equality, Target 5.3 Eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation, and
(v) the elimination of FGM has been called for by numerous inter-governmental organisations, including the African Union, the European Union and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, as well as in three resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly.
Senator Rhiannon: to move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Bathurst community in New South Wales is leading the way in creating an innovative and non-lethal solution to wildlife conflict management at the internationally renowned Mount Panorama car racing circuit,
(ii) Mount Panorama's car races are internationally significant in motor racing and are of important economic benefit to Bathurst,
(iii) councillors from Bathurst Regional Council recently reiterated unanimous strong support for the relocation of over 150 kangaroos from Mount Panorama and is funding basic upfront costs,
(iv) the relocation project is being delivered by donated expertise from scientists, veterinarians, darters and kangaroo rehabilitators, and has some 300 community volunteers registered to help,
(v) 17 local businesses, community clubs and non-government organisations (NGOs) are supporting the project, and
(vi) kangaroos are one of the world's iconic animals and the non-lethal management of kangaroos at Mount Panorama is of national and international interest; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) congratulate Bathurst Regional Council and its achievement in leading the way in kangaroo management based on real community participation and engagement, and robust science and principles of species ecology and behaviour, and
(ii) provide the support needed for other communities to adopt similar non lethal approaches to our iconic kangaroos.
Senator Ludlam: to move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes, in relation to the Perth Freight Link 'Roe 8' Highway extension, significant breaches have been documented and reported to the Minister in relation to approval conditions and management plans, relating to dust suppression, asbestos management, and trapping and relocation of endangered species;
(b) orders that there be laid on the table, by no later than 12.45pm on 15 February 2017, by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy, the following documents:
(i) a summary of correspondence or reports made to the Minister for the Environment and Energy or the Department of the Environment and Energy with evidence of compliance breaches with approval conditions since construction commenced, and the response to each, and
(ii) a record of the dates, times and locations where state or federal compliance officers have been on site since construction began; and
(c) calls for construction to cease until Condition 2 is met and all such breaches with approval conditions have been investigated by the Minister.
Senator Dastyari: to move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes speakers at a Q Society of Australia Inc fundraiser in Sydney said "I can't stand Muslims", "The NSW Division of the Liberal Party is basically a gay club" and, in relation to ISIS, "They are not all bad, they do chuck pillow biters off buildings";
(b) notes the Government was represented at the fundraiser by the Member for Dawson;
(c) rejects these comments which have no place in modern Australia or respectful political discourse; and
(d) calls on all parliamentarians to repudiate such remarks and sentiments.
Senator Whish-Wilson: to move:
That paragraphs 23(b) and 23(g) of the Superannuation (prudential standard) determination No. 1 of 2016 - Prudential Standard SPS 510 - Governance, made under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, be disallowed.
Senator Wong: to move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes the failure of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Brandis) to:
(i) provide answers to questions on notice numbers 67, 69, 70, 126, 127, 129, 138, 152, 158, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 242, 272, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 306, 309, 310, 312, 313 and 324 within 30 days of the asking of those questions, and that answers to these questions are still outstanding,
(ii) provide answers to questions on notice from legislation committees following the 2016-2017 supplementary Budget estimates hearings by the date set by the committees for the provision of answers, and
(iii) provide a response to the order for the production of documents agreed to by the Senate on 30 November 2016 relating to the Bell Group liquidation;
(b) calls on the Leader of the Government in the Senate to provide the answers to outstanding questions on notice and respond to the order for the production of documents to the Senate by 9.30 am on 15 February 2017;
(c) requires the Leader of the Government in the Senate to attend the Senate at 9.30 am on 15 February 2017 so that, prior to government business being called on, any senator may ask for an explanation for the failure to provide answers and responses in accordance with the timelines established by the Senate; and
(d) resolves that:
(i) in the event that the Leader of the Government in the Senate provides an explanation, any senator may, at the conclusion of the explanation, move without notice—That the Senate take note of the explanation, or
(ii) in the event that the Leader of the Government in the Senate does not provide an explanation, any senator may, without notice, move a motion with regard to the Leader of the Government in the Senate's failure to provide an explanation, and
(iii) any motion to take note under paragraphs (d) (i) or (ii) have precedence over all other government business until determined.
Senator McKim: to move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Papua New Guinea Government has commenced the removal of detainees from the Lombrum Regional Processing Centre for the purpose of forcibly deporting them from Papua New Guinea, and
(ii) advice from Professor Jane McAdam of the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at the University of New South Wales, states:
(A) "Papua New Guinea's refugee status determination process is inconsistent with international law in a number of significant respects",
(B) "As United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has noted, the Regulation [Papua New Guinea's Migration Regulation] incorrectly applies the limited exclusion provisions of the Refugee Convention to ordinary criminal matters more properly dealt with under Papua New Guinea criminal law, which could lead to wrongful denial of refugee status", and
(C) "There is a serious risk that the forcible removal of an asylum seeker from Papua New Guinea may violate international law"; and
(b) agrees that the Papua New Guinea refugee status determination process is inconsistent with international law, and opposes the forced deportation from Papua New Guinea of people who have sought asylum in Australia.
Senator Brandis: to move:
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:
Agriculture and Water Resources Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017
Customs and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 2016
Excise Levies Legislation Amendment (Honey) Bill 2016
Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Bill 2017
Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017
Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017
Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill 2016
Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016
Transport Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Treasury Laws Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016
Treasury Laws Amendment (Bourke Street Fund) Bill 2017.
Postponement
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (15:37): by leave—I move:
That general business notice of motion No. 201 standing in my name for today, relating to Port Augusta ash dams, be postponed until the next day of sitting.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:38): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Moore for Wednesday 15 February 2017, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Finance and Public Administration References Committee
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee
Reporting Date
The Clerk: Notifications of extensions of time for committees to report have been lodged in respect of the following:
Finance and Public Administration References Committee—
operation of the Administrative Arrangements Order—extended from 24 February to 23 March 2017.
gender segregation in the workplace—extended from 30 March to 11 May 2017.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Digital Readiness and Other Measures) Bill 2016—extended from 14 February to 20 February 2017.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (15:39): Thank you, Clerk. I remind senators that the question may be put on any of those proposals at the request of any senator. There being none, we will move on.
MOTIONS
Bowel Cancer Australia
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (15:39): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 189 standing in my name for today, relating to Bowel Cancer Awareness Month.
Leave granted.
Senator POLLEY: I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that Bowel Cancer Australia's Don't Wait Until It's Too Late campaign runs through the month of February 2017,
(ii) the campaign for 2017 urges Australians not to wait until it is too late, because 90 per cent of cases can be treated successfully if detected early, and
(iii) over 15 000 people are diagnosed with bowel cancer each year – Australia's second biggest cancer killer; and
(b) urges Federal, state, territory and local governments to help change the way bowel cancer is perceived by encouraging Australians to recognise and talk about the signs of bowel cancer, and to get checked before it is too late.
Question agreed to.
Carers
Grandparents
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (15:40): At the request of Senator Smith, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) congratulates Grandparents Rearing Grandchildren Western Australia (GRGWA) on winning the group category in the Western Australia Council of the Ageing (COTA) Senior Awards for 2016;
(b) commends the staff of GRGWA, all of whom are volunteers, for their tireless work in supporting those grandparents, and their families, who take on the role of primary carer for their grandchildren; and
(c) notes that the numbers of grandparents taking on the full-time care of their grandchildren continues to grow, and reaffirms the recommendations contained in the report of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Grandparents who take responsibility for raising their grandchildren.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Restoring Shortwave Radio) Bill 2017
First Reading
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (15:41): I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983, and for related purposes. Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Restoring Shortwave Radio) Bill 2017.
Question agreed to.
Senator XENOPHON: 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 XENOPHON (South Australia) (15:42): by leave—I present an explanatory memoranda and I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have a second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
This Bill is in direct response to the decision of the Board and management of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) to cease its shortwave transmission radio service to international audiences and to the Northern Territory on 31 January 2017.
The purpose of this Bill is to require the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to restore its shortwave transmission services, following an announcement by the ABC in December 2016 that it would end its shortwave transmission service in the Northern Territory and to international audiences from 31 January 2017.
The ABC's shortwave transmission service is the only option for many people who live, work and travel through rural and remote areas, including in the Northern Territory, South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland. It is a vital service for emergency broadcasts, news and weather. Shortwave transmissions are reliable, long-range and are not interrupted by adverse weather conditions unlike FM radio.
The decision to cease the shortwave transmission service from the Northern Territory will mean ABC programs from Radio National and ABC local radio will no longer be available to those in vehicles and with portable radios from the remote parts of Australia referred to, including the top two thirds of South Australia. It will also significantly impact on our near neighbours in the region, where these broadcasts have been a reliable source of news and current affairs, including emergency information. Ceasing these broadcasts diminishes Australia's role in the region.
For instance, shortwave radio played a valuable role in providing information to communities during the civil disturbance that occurred in East Timor in the lead up to independence.
Truck drivers use the shortwave service on their regular trips from Adelaide to Darwin and back. Having no access prevents these drivers from having easy access to essential news, emergency announcements and weather information. Gary Williams, a long-haul truck driver based in Adelaide, who does about 40 trips to Darwin each year, is one of the thousands of people who relied on the ABC's shortwave service.
The cost cutting decision will save $1.9 million a year — a tiny fraction of the ABC's $1 billion plus annual budget.
The Bill will require the ABC to maintain its shortwave transmission services so that people in rural and remote areas in the Northern Territory and South Australia have access to a reliable radio service.
The Bill will also require the ABC to maintain three international shortwave transmission services for Papua New Guinea and parts of the Pacific so that people living in areas such as the Solomon Islands have access to reliable emergency broadcasting.
This is an important piece of legislation for those people who live, work and travel through rural and remote areas of Australia, and I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to support it.
Senator XENOPHON: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
MOTIONS
Palliative Care Tasmania
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (15:42): I seek leave to amend general business notice motion No. 193 standing in my name and in the name of Senator Polley for today.
Leave granted.
Senator BILYK: I, and also on behalf of Senator Polley, move:
That the Senate—
Senator Bilyk, also on behalf of Senator Polley, amended general business notice of motion no. 193 by leave and, pursuant to notice of motion not objected to as a formal motion, moved—That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Labor in Government provided $2.67 million over four years to Palliative Care Tasmania to deliver the Networking End of Life Care Across Tasmania project as part of the $63.2 million Better Access to Palliative Care (BAPC) program,
(ii) the project has delivered education on end of life and palliative care, death, dying, grief and bereavement which has reached more than 15 000 Tasmanians,
(iii) the BAPC program has increased the number of Tasmanians dying at home, in their preferred setting, to 26 per cent compared with 14 per cent nationally,
(iv) prior to the last federal election, Labor committed to provide funding of $2.3 million over three years to allow Palliative Care Tasmania to continue its important work, and
(v) in the absence of any funding commitment from the Australian Government, Palliative Care Tasmania is expected to close its doors due to a lack of funding; and
(b) condemns the Turnbull Liberal Government for its failure to secure the future of Palliative Care Tasmania.
Question agreed to.
Myanmar
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (15:44): At the request of Senators Fierravanti-Wells, Moore and Smith, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges the advancements toward democratisation made by Myanmar's civilian government, which was elected in 2015;
(b) reaffirms Australia's support for genuine democracy and institution building in Myanmar;
(c) expresses its sadness at the murders of Mr Ko Ni and Mr Nay Win;
(d) acknowledges that:
(i) Mr Ko Ni was a legal adviser to Myanmar's leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and an expert in constitutional law who visited Australia last year, meeting leaders in the legal and political community, including at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Australian National University and University of Melbourne, and
(ii) Mr Nay Win was a taxi driver who attempted to restrain Mr Ko Ni's attacker before being killed himself; and
(e) sends condolences to the family and friends of Mr Ko Ni and Mr Nay Win, as well as to the people of Myanmar on these tragic losses.
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:44): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DI NATALE: The Greens fully support this motion. Mr Ko Ni is being remembered in Myanmar as irreplaceable. He is a lawyer who stood up for Muslim rights and who criticised the military's influence. Amnesty described him as 'a tireless human rights campaigner' and said that his death had 'all the hallmarks of an assassination'. Mr Nay Win was a taxi driver who sacrificed his life to try to save another's. The world needs more of them, and I extend the Greens' deepest condolences to their families.
Motions like these do highlight the importance of ensuring that we do have the opportunity to put forward issues of foreign policy in this chamber. We should be raising issues like suspected assassinations in Myanmar and like the plight of the Rohingya minority in that country. I do hope sincerely that this motion signals that those opposite, the government, are now willing to allow these sorts of motions in the chamber.
Question agreed to.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory) (15:45): I, and also on behalf of Senator Xenophon, move:
That the Senate—
(a) affirms its support for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) as the national broadcaster;
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) take note of the concerns of Senator McCarthy, Mr Warren Snowdon MP and Mr Luke Gosling MP, and those expressed by other senators and members of the House of Representatives, on the impact of scrapping the ABC's shortwave service in the Northern Territory, and
(ii) explore all options available to it, including working with the ABC Board and management, to recommence shortwave services to the Northern Territory and the Pacific region as soon as practicable; and
(c) calls on the ABC to:
(i) recognise that it provides vital services and programs including emergency information to remote communities, pastoral stations, Indigenous rangers, travellers and people who work remotely, as well as people in the Pacific region,
(ii) recognise that alternative platforms, such as AM/FM radio, digital radio, online streaming and Viewer Access Satellite Television (VAST), are not available to remote listeners in a range of circumstances, and
(iii) recognise that the provision of digital media services should not undermine the provision of comprehensive broadcasting services to Australians living in remote areas.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Joint Standing Committee on Treaties
Meeting
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (15:46): At the request of Senator Fawcett, I move:
That the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties be authorised to hold private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1), private briefings and public meetings, during the sittings of the Senate, from 11 am to 1 pm, as follows:
(a) Monday, 13 February 2017;
(b) Monday, 20 March 2017; and
(c) Monday, 27 March 2017.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
AFL Women's League
Senator SIEWERT ( Western Australia — Australian Greens Whip ) ( 15:47 ): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 204 standing in the name of Senator Rice for today, relating to the AFL Women's League, before asking that it be taken as a formal motion.
Leave granted.
Senator SIEWERT: At the request of Senator Rice, I move the motion as amended:
Senator Siewert, at the request of Senator Rice, amended general business notice of motion no. 204 by leave and, pursuant to notice of motion not objected to as a formal motion, moved—That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Australian Rules football fans have wholeheartedly embraced the AFL Women's league, which drew crowds exceeding 50 000 people in its first week and secured bumper television ratings, and
(ii) women's and girls' participation in Australian Rules football has seen enormous growth in recent years, and the launch of an elite level national competition provides an inspiring level to which players can aspire;
(b) congratulates the players, coaching staff, supporters and clubs involved in the inaugural season of the AFL Women's competition; and
(c) calls on the Government to take action to support women's participation in Australian Rules football and to support fair pay for its professional players.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill Select Committee
Reporting Date
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (15:48): At the request of Senators Fawcett and Pratt, I move:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on the Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill be extended to 15 February 2017.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Indigenous Incarceration
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:49): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the adult incarceration rate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples increased by 77.4 per cent from 2000 to 2015;
(b) acknowledges the growing incarceration rates of our First Peoples is shameful;
(c) notes the Redfern Statement, which was released in 2016 by over 55 Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal organisations and peak bodies, sets out a plan for addressing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' disadvantage;
(d) notes that the Redfern Statement calls for justice targets to help focus the effort to reduce Aboriginal incarceration; and
(e) calls on the Government to listen to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community and adopt justice targets as a matter of urgency.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:49): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The government is committed to reducing Indigenous offending and incarceration by tackling the underlying disadvantage that increases the likelihood of a person coming into contact with the criminal justice system. The key to this is increasing educational training and employment opportunities for Indigenous Australians while reducing the misuse of alcohol and other drugs.
The government do not support this motion, as we do not support a Commonwealth justice target that will do nothing to address the issue. States and territories are responsible for their criminal justice systems. That is why we are working with state and territory governments to introduce justice targets—because they have the levers to effect change.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 208 as moved by Senator Siewert in relation to the incarceration of Indigenous people be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [15:55]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
DOCUMENTS
Perth Freight Link
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:57): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 186 standing in my name for today relating to the Perth Freight Link.
Leave granted.
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:58): I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the Abbott-Turnbull election commitment that infrastructure projects attracting more than $100 million of federal funding would require a full cost benefit analysis,
(ii) that the Abbott-Turnbull Government has committed funding now worth $1.2 billion to the Perth Freight Link for which no business case has ever been provided, for which Stages 2 and 3 have not even been planned or assessed, and which does not reach the Port,
(iii) that it is important that Federal money granted to a state be spent in a manner that represents value for money and that the Senate has an oversight obligation in this regard, and
(iv) public interest immunity in response to Senate orders for the production of documents must not just be asserted, rather established;
(b) rejects the grounds for public interest immunity made in relation to six previous Senate orders for production of documents relating to the project, concerning the release of the business case, and specifically those made by the Minister for Finance on 19 April and 1 September 2016;
(c) orders that the full business case and cost benefit analysis for the Perth Freight Link be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance by no later than 12.30 pm on 14 February 2017;
(d) resolves that, if the documents specified in paragraph (c) are not laid on the table by 9 February 2017, the Minister for Finance be suspended from the sittings of the Senate except for attendance in divisions but not for any other purpose, until the documents are produced or by 9 May 2017, whichever occurs earlier; and
(e) calls on the Government not to effect any transfer of funds for the Perth Freight Link until such time as paragraph (c) is met.
Statement by leave: The Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister (Senator McGrath), by leave, made a statement relating to the motion.
Documents: Senator McGrath tabled the following documents:
Transport—Western Australia—Perth Freight Link—Extracts from Hansard, and documents previously tabled concerning related orders for the production of documents.
Question put.
The Senate divided. [15:57]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:58): I seek leave to make a short statement for 90 seconds.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for 90 seconds.
Senator McGRATH: The Senate previously passed orders for the production of documents relating to the Perth Freight Link business case and the cost-benefit analysis, which was part of the business case on five occasions. In addition, on 12 November 2015, the Senate agreed to an order seeking the modelling and forecast of freight figures, as well as peer reviews undertaken of freight figures. That motion also implicitly relates to material relevant to the business case. The government has provided responses and some documents in response to those requests, which I now again table, together with those various previous orders of the Senate. I also table an answer to a question on notice provided by the Minister for Finance on 21 December 2016. These responses explain that the documents sought in the Senate's orders were either cabinet in confidence for the WA state government or contained information that is commercial and sensitive in nature, and their release in a full unredacted form would prejudice commercial negotiations and/or would potentially damage the relations between the Commonwealth and the WA government.
These are public interest immunity grounds that have long been recognised by the Senate to justify the refusal to publicly release certain information and documents. In particular, it should be noted that the release of the documents could prejudice settling the contract for section 2 of the Perth Freight Link, which is not yet contracted. I would note that a summary of the business case was publicly released in December 2014 and further information on the project has been subsequently released by the WA government. The business case summary contains a substantial portion of key information from the business case. I also table that document again for the information of senators.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the amended motion moved by Senator Ludlam be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:01]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
MOTIONS
Illicit Drugs
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:03): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 190 standing in my name for today relating to illegal substances.
Leave granted.
Senator DI NATALE: I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) sends its sincere condolences to the families and loved ones of the three young Australians who tragically died last month in Melbourne after overdosing on pills they believed to be MDMA;
(b) notes the recent reports that Victorian Police tested the pills subsequent to the deaths, but current government policy prevents the release of this information which would prevent people from taking these extremely dangerous substances; and
(c) calls on the Government to urgently introduce effective harm minimisation strategies and work with state and territory governments to introduce pill testing trials and early warning systems to allow young Australians to access critical information about the drugs they are considering taking.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the amended motion moved by Senator Di Natale be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:05]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
DOCUMENTS
Roe Highway
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:08): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 202 standing in my name for today concerning an order for the production of documents relating to the Roe Highway extension, before asking for it to be taken as formal.
Leave granted.
Senator LUDLAM: I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) notes Condition 4 of the federal approval decision for the Roe Highway Extension, which specifies that all potential nesting trees are to be investigated to detect the presence of black cockatoos using hollows within 7 days prior to clearing, and that the investigation must be undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced person; and
(b) orders that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy, by 5 pm on 13 February 2017, the following information:
(i) the date the investigation of nesting trees was completed,
(ii) how the investigation was undertaken,
(iii) the qualifications of the person/s who undertook the investigation, and
(iv) a copy of the investigation, including all results.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Housing Affordability
Senator RICE (Victoria) (16:09): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Melbourne is currently facing a housing crisis, with record numbers of people experiencing homelessness and sleeping rough in streets and parks,
(ii) over 100 people are turned away from crisis accommodation every night in Victoria, and there are 32,000 people on the public housing waiting list,
(iii) emergency housing services and other frontline services are operating above their capacity, and
(iv) across Australia, almost 200,000 families are on housing waiting lists and yet only a small fraction of this need was addressed via new public and community houses made available last year; and
(b) calls on the Government to take urgent and meaningful action to end homelessness and housing distress being experienced by thousands of Australians.
Question agreed to.
President of the United States of America
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:10): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Trump Presidency is causing deep concern and unease in the Australian community, and
(ii) the Speaker of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, Mr John Bercow, said on 7 February 2017 that speaking in Westminster Hall "is not an automatic right, it is an earned honour", and that he would not issue an invitation to President Trump;
(b) affirms the principles expressed by Speaker of the House of Commons; and
(c) resolves that senators will act in accordance with these principles, and reject any invitation to attend an address by Mr Trump to the House of Representatives.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:11): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: Australia's alliance with the United States is based on deep and enduring strategic and economic interests and respect for share values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. This motion is a cheap political stunt. The Greens' reckless approach would damage Australia's prosperity, harm our national security and jeopardise the wellbeing of the community.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Ludlum be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:13]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
Schools
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:16): At the request of Senator Collins, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the Turnbull Government's $30 billion cut from our schools which broke an election promise to match Labor's funding plan dollar for dollar,
(ii) the refusal of the Government to fully fund year 5 and 6 of the Gonski needs-based schools funding model,
(iii) that while some schools are over-funded, many others, particularly in our most disadvantaged communities, are struggling without adequate funding,
(iv) the Prime Minister's abandoned plan to cut all federal funding from public schools, and
(v) the tearing up of agreements negotiated by the previous Labor Government that required states and territories to grow their investment in schools and improve teaching quality, literacy and numeracy; and
(b) calls on the Minister for Education and Training (Senator Birmingham) to:
(i) immediately table in the Senate the Government's plans for funding Australian schools in the coming years,
(ii) make an explanation to the Senate about how the Government intends to provide for each state and school system, and
(iii) provide clear information as to how much funding the Government intends to provide to each and every school.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:16): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is leave granted? Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: School funding under the coalition is at record levels and continues to grow—from $16.1 billion in 2016 to $20.2 billion in 2020. There are no cuts. Despite total school funding doubling in real terms from 1987-88 to 2011-12 and continuing to grow in real terms at 27.1 per cent, Australia's student performance in international literacy and numeracy tests has declined. That is why the coalition government is making sure its future school funding is needs based and is conditional upon practical, evidence based classroom reforms such as early literacy and numeracy assessments and phonics teaching that help improve student results.
Question agreed to.
Electricity Infrastructure
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (16:17): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes the spectacular failure of privatisation of the electricity network in South Australia; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to explain its own failures, as well as those of the national regulator, the Australian Energy Market Operator, to ensure reliability of electricity supply in South Australia.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:17): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is leave granted? Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: With respect to networks, the Australian Energy Regulator, in their benchmarking studies, have consistently found that privately owned networks are more efficient and productive than government owned ones. Regarding generation, at the time of the blackout wind was supplying around 2.5 per cent of demand. Had wind been producing at its capacity, it would have supplied over half of South Australia's electricity needs and there would have been around 1,400 megawatts of spare capacity. The other 97.5 per cent was being met by gas fired generation and brown coal from Victoria.
Question agreed to.
Schools
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (16:19): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the Government's refusal to commit to the final two years of Gonski funding, which has established a funding cliff in 2018, will cut billions of dollars from Australian schools, and
(ii) that some of the wealthiest private schools in Australia are over-funded while many public schools are struggling without adequate funding; and
(b) calls on the Turnbull Government to prioritise equality in Australian schools by committing to a genuine needs-based funding model.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 200 under formal business listed on today's Red and moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:24]
(Deputy President—Senator Lines)
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Western Australian State Election
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (16:26): I inform the senate that at 8.30 am today Senators Gallagher, Roberts and Siewert each submitted a letter to the President in accordance with standing order 75 proposing matters of public importance. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Gallagher:
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
Prime Minister Turnbull's failure to uphold former Prime Minister Howard's position that One Nation "should be placed last on every Liberal Party how-to-vote card around Australia".
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
Senator DASTYARI (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:27): I have to say what is so amazing about this preference negotiation—'deal', if you will—that we are here to talk about today is the fact that the Liberal Party has chosen to put One Nation ahead of not just the Labor Party but the National Party, as well. What an indictment on the incredible work of Senator 'Wacka' Williams over such a long period of time. What an indictment on Barnaby Joyce, the national head of that party. What an indictment on the relationship between the Liberals and Nationals. This shows what they really think of each other—and that, clearly, is not very much at all.
There has to be a line somewhere. We are all into politics. We are all professional politicians. We are all here. This is our career.
Senator McGrath: I'm very unprofessional!
Senator DASTYARI: 'Mr Milo Man' over here was calling himself unprofessional!
Senator McGrath: I'm an amateur!
Senator DASTYARI: That is not what your bio says. Everyone here has won an election or has been elected to be in this chamber at this point in time. People are pragmatic about politics, but there are red lines. John Howard placed a red line when he said that the party that he led would not be preferencing One Nation.
You have to ask yourself: What has changed since that period? What has changed in the past 20 years? One Nation have not changed. They will tell you that they have not changed.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): Senator Dastyari, I am sorry to interrupt you. I have just received the speakers list, and the timing is not the same as the clocks.
Senator DASTYARI: Five minutes?
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. I would be happy, Senator Dastyari, to give you the whole time but I do not think everyone else would be, so we will reset the clocks. There are three minutes to go.
Senator DASTYARI: I have to regain my composure. I was so excited with the seven- or eight- minute speech I had ready.
John Howard turned around and said there was a line, and the line for John Howard was that he would not be preferencing One Nation. So you have to ask yourself: What has changed in the past 20 years? What has changed since John Howard came to that conclusion?
Senator Bilyk: Leadership.
Senator DASTYARI: Leadership! What has changed is leadership. One Nation themselves will tell you they have not changed. Their policy agenda now is the same policy agenda they had them. Sure, it started off with bashing Indigenous Australians, then they were being swamped by Asians, and now, of course, that has been updated and upgraded to being about the Muslims—there are clearly too many of them. I say to my friends from the subcontinent: watch out; you are next! That has not changed. The racist policy agenda has not changed. The economic madness of a lot of what they suggest has not changed. What has changed is that we have a weak, pathetic Liberal Party leader who does not have the strength or stamina to actually stand up to anybody. We had the Prime Minister come out last week and say, 'I'll look billionaires in the eye; I am so tough,' and yet at every opportunity he folds; at every opportunity for leadership he collapses. It is weak. It is pathetic. It is not the type of leadership that this country needs. The policy agenda has not changed; the only thing that has changed is that we have a Prime Minister who is too weak to stand up to it.
The Western Australian Liberal Party has effectively said: 'We will do anything we can to try to hold on at this point in time. Even if it means we will have an unworkable upper house, even if it means we are handing the balance of power to One Nation, none of that matters. Even if it means destroying a long-term coalition, none of that matters, because the act of attaining power is everything.' We have two obligations in this place. Of course we all want to win votes, but there has to be a red line somewhere. John Howard, Ron Boswell—the leaders of those opposite a generation ago—were people of principle who were prepared to stand up. On so many different policy areas you would not find me agreeing with Ron Boswell or former Prime Minister Howard, but where we would agree is that there are some fundamentals of Australian society, a core set of values we have in this country, that have to be protected, and we have to work together to achieve that. Legitimising extremist views is not a way of achieving that.
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia) (16:33): I too rise to speak on this matter of public importance. There are two main points that I would like to discuss today. The first is the nature of the arrangements in Western Australia, about which there has been a lot of misinformation today; the second is the gross disrespect shown by my colleagues in this chamber to our One Nation colleagues. I think it is quite appalling. I will come back to that but first of all I will speak about preference arrangements in Western Australia.
We do things differently in Western Australia on many issues, and our relationship with the National Party is one of those different arrangements. In Western Australia we do not have a coalition; we have an alliance arrangement. The Liberal Party and National Party are not in coalition with each other in Western Australia, and that is because the Western Australian Nationals have preferred that arrangement to preserve their independence. It is quite unlike the coalition arrangements that we have in other states. My own view is that a strong and united coalition like we have at federal level, with direct preference flows between our respective candidates, is always preferable, but I respect the right of the WA Nationals to make their own arrangements with the WA Liberal Party organisation. Again, this is a direct state party to state party arrangement and has absolutely nothing to do with the Prime Minister or the federal Liberal Party.
Upper house voting tickets are officially registered with the Electoral Commission, so it is a matter of public record that, in practice, Brendon Grylls and the WA Nationals have preferenced other parties, including One Nation, ahead of the WA Liberal Party since the 2008 election. Following the 2008 election, both the WA Nats and WA Liberals preferenced other parties—the Shooters and Fishers, the Australian Christians party and Family First—ahead of each other. Finally, and I think very importantly, contrary to some other inaccurate stories earlier today, of course the WA Liberal Party will provide the preferences of our own candidates to the National Party in all the seats the WA Nationals are contesting. My understanding is that our arrangement with our alliance partners in Western Australia, the National Party, are actually no different from those at the last election—our arrangements with the National Party are actually the same.
What I find particularly disturbing about the behaviour of those opposite on this topic is that they would use a state preference decision made by a state Liberal organisation to criticise the Prime Minister. Not only that but, as we heard in the chamber today at question time and just now from Senator Dastyari, they are using this opportunity to blatantly demonise three of their colleagues here in this place—three of their colleagues who were duly elected by nearly 600,000 Australian voters. Even if those opposite have no respect for their Senate colleagues, they should have respect for the 600,000 Australian voters who voted for them.
It is the right of every Australian to have their voice heard in Australian politics and to vote in accordance with their own choice and their own free will. No matter how uncomfortable it may be for some in this place to hear it, it is incumbent on us all to respect alternative points of view. Every one of us in this chamber should know that as parliamentarians it is not our duty to condescend to and dismiss Australian voters or to tell them how to think. Instead, it is our duty to listen to the people who voted for and represented them.
We have seen time and time again in this place, and in the other place, that Labor does not respect the will of the people. They continue to block and frustrate the mandate of this government. They carp, they whine, they block and they say no, but they fail to offer any other solutions. Again today we have heard the Leader of the Opposition claim that he is above the fray. Unfortunately, I do not think that message got delivered to this place and to the Labor senators here today.
Those opposite are continually so afraid of public opinion and so committed to scoring political points that they blocked the plebiscite on same-sex marriage. Had you not done that, had you actually had the will to listen to the voices of Australian people, by next month gay couples in this country would have been able to get married. But you were so afraid of the debate and of listening to what Australian people had to say, you closed it down. You were so afraid and so intolerant of those opposite, of listening to other points of view—remember that shameful episode when Senator Hanson was delivering her first speech. All of us in this place are duly elected by Australian people and have the right to be heard by all of us in this place. But when the Greens walked out en masse in an absolutely cheap stunt, I do not believe I heard anybody in the Labor Party criticise the Greens for it. Everybody else paid due respect to Labor senators and to Greens senators for their first speeches. We might not agree with what you have to say, but we respected your right to say it and we listened to it. Again, that shows how disgracefully intolerant those on the other side of the chamber actually are. You are so full of your own opinions and your own self-righteousness that you cannot tolerate any other points of view. In fact the Greens walked out. They have such sensitive ears that they could not even sit here and listen to Senator Hanson give her first speech. That is a disgraceful situation for this democracy.
Unlike those opposite, we actually do respect the mandate and the people who voted for One Nation. The other thing we respect is that One Nation's policies are resonating not only with coalition voters but with Labor voters. And I think it is incumbent on all of us to listen to what those ordinary Australians are saying. I might disagree with much of what they say, but that is actually irrelevant. We actually have the right to respect their party and respect the people who voted for them.
Labor's sanctimony on preferences is yet another manifestation of their hypocrisy. Labor rallied against the policies and values of former Senator Steve Fielding, when he was in this place; some of you here will remember that. But it was Labor who ensured his election by directing votes to him in a preference deal. Who here remembers what the Greens did at the last election? They voted in Clive Palmer's party and gave him preferences, ensuring that Clive Palmer's party actually got elected and got seats in this chamber. That was on the back of—guess what?—Greens preferences.
So please do not come in here and almost drive one of your Senate colleagues to tears by basically saying that they have no right to be here and degrading the people who voted for them. If you had no pity for Senator Hanson after listening to her speak in response to your attack on her at question time, I do not know how you can possibly look at yourself in the mirror. You might not like what she has to say but she has the right to say it. Many Australians—even though I do not necessarily agree with a lot of what they say—we have the right to discuss it and to respect that.
If you are really true to what you are saying about One Nation, I would really like to see Labor come out and say that they are not going to do preference deals with the Greens anymore—not only because of the Greens' hypocritical deal with Clive Palmer ahead of the 2013 election—
Senator Bilyk interjecting—
Senator REYNOLDS: Sorry, what was that interjection?
Senator Bilyk: I don't know who wrote your speech but it's pretty hopeless and sanctimonious.
Senator REYNOLDS: Sanctimonious? What else have we heard? Senator Dastyari was just up here attacking One Nation as if they do not have any right to be in this place—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): Senator Reynolds, resume your seat just for two seconds. I would urge you to just ignore the interjections and direct your comments through the chair.
Senator REYNOLDS: As I said, the WA Liberal agreement, as it has been reported, with One Nation is completely different from any other arrangement. It has nothing to do with the Prime Minister and it is absolutely nothing that the Liberal Party has not done before with the National Party in Western Australia. The fact that you are trying to drag up a situation with John Howard from over 20 years ago, I think, is really quite pathetic. With all of the other issues we have on our agenda here and the things in this place that we should be talking about—child care, national security, employment, education—you are sitting up and dragging three of your colleagues through the mud. You are condemning them for absolutely no reason. They were elected by over half a million people and they have a right to have their voices heard in this place. So, if you are going to be true to your word that we should not in Western Australia do a deal with the National Party or with One Nation or with the shooters and fishers or any other party, have a look at your own preference records; you are completely hypocritical on this, as are the Greens.
The Greens are the party that got Clive Palmer elected with their preference deals. So what are you going to do? Are you going to keep doing preference deals with the Greens? What is the difference? You are completely and utterly hypocritical. This sort of sanctimony and game playing is why the Turnbull government acted to put the powers of preferences federally firmly in the hands of voters with our Senate reforms last year. We believe that voters should choose where their preferences go.
Finally, what also disturbs me is that not only are you going back to 20 years ago, to a completely different political environment, but you clearly do not understand the difference between state and federal election arrangements, because this is a WA state party arrangement with a party that has every right to campaign, exist and seek government in Western Australia. Just because we respect the voters and what the voters are telling us does not mean we have to agree with their point of view.
I want to put on the record how disgraceful I thought Labor's performances were here today. It was wrong for them to attack three of their Senate colleagues on the basis that they have no right to go into negotiations or to deal with any other political parties, and it was wrong that Senator Hanson had to come here to justify her humanity and her existence. Instead of playing the person, instead of vilifying them, why don't you start playing the politics and start coming in here and debating the issues? Come in here and debate the issues they and we are raising, rather than just attacking individuals in the Senate. It is demeaning, and I think it is beneath us all. (Time expired)
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:45): This preference deal is an attempt from a desperate Barnett government to cling onto power. That is what it is about. Senator Reynolds commented that it is a WA issue, so perhaps Senator Sinodinos should not have made the comments that he made yesterday about One Nation being more sophisticated and evolved. Let me read you a couple of the comments from the 'sophisticated and evolved' candidate for One Nation in the Pilbara in Western Australia. On the comment that Tony Abbott made about lifestyle choices, Mr Archibald wrote:
The first that springs to mind is single motherhood. These are women too lazy to attract and hold a mate, undoing the work of possibly three million years of evolutionary pressure.
Maybe that is why Senator Sinodinos was commenting about their evolution as a party. He went on:
This will result in a rapid rise in the portion of the population that is lazy and ugly. We know what causes pregnancy these days, so everyone who gets pregnant outside of marriage is a volunteer. This is an easy one for defunding.
Mr Archibald also used the article to suggest defunding the disability support pension and child care. He said:
The 800,000 Australians on the disability pension. OK, not all of them. But a good proportion are able to drive cars, bash police and each other, go fishing and so on.
He also then went on to have a go at federally-funded child care. He said:
This is a lifestyle choice. Looking after children is very labour-intensive … If society wishes to encourage childbearing, it should reward that with tax rebates to the childbearing pair and leave it at that.
Perhaps Senator Sinodinos did not read those comments and was not aware of those comments. What about their continual denial of climate change? At a time that we are all suffering the effects of it being either unseasonably hot or unseasonably cold, they are still denying climate change.
This is about Barnett's desperate attempts to cling to power when the broader community is saying: 'No, thank you. We've had enough of your failed policies. You're building monuments to yourself in Western Australia, wasting the money that came from the mining boom in WA and failing to see the flaws in this approach.' (Time expired)
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (16:48): Rarely do I come into this chamber expecting to have a lecture from someone like Senator Reynolds. I am used to it from Senator Brandis—we can even have a bit of banter about it between us. But for Senator Reynolds to jump up and spend a good 10 minutes of her speech so sanctimoniously telling us what we do wrong on this side and how everyone should be more tolerant is just beyond belief. I would like to reiterate everything Senator Siewert said. I was going to mention some of that, but I will not go over that as well. Senator Reynolds obviously did not watch Insiders yesterday and did not see Senator Sinodinos talk about how sophisticated One Nation have become. I will leave that at that.
Rarely do we get senators on this side of the chamber standing up to defend the words of former Prime Minister Howard. We heard Senator Dastyari do that, and I am also going to, because one of the few wise things Mr Howard said was that One Nation should be placed last on every Liberal Party how-to-vote card around Australia. We know that some people on that side, including Senator Brandis, are not that keen on Mr Howard—Senator Brandis famously referred to him as, shall I say, an unflattering member of the animal kingdom—but even Mr Howard did not stoop as low as the level that we have seen in Western Australia, that I think we will probably see in Queensland and that I will be very surprised if we do not see nationally. It is a sad day when the Liberal Party show such poor leadership that they cannot even listen to a piece of advice from one of their elder statesman.
Last week I made a contribution to the debate about the lack of leadership within the Liberal Party. With this recent announcement from Mr Barnett and the Liberals, perhaps I made my contribution to that debate a little bit too early. I do not think those who hold the government benches both in Western Australia and in this parliament could show worse leadership than in that decision. Mr Turnbull does not have the leadership to actually stand up and say he will not deal with One Nation, and Senator Sinodinos would not actually say yes or no on Insiders, but this is what I reckon: they will do a national deal with One Nation and they will do over their National Party colleagues. I think we are seeing the extraordinary weakness of Malcolm Turnbull once again. He is beholden to the right wing of the Liberal Party and this is just another example of his weakness showing through.
Only Labor has shown leadership on this issue. We will not be cosying up to One Nation nationally, in Western Australia, in Queensland or wherever it may be. Labor will not make those deals. The Liberal Party leadership has become so feeble that a member of the Queensland parliament elected for the LNP has defected to One Nation. We have to remember that, after 10 years as an LNP MP, Mr Steve Dickson, the member for Buderim on the Sunshine Coast, has left the LNP and joined One Nation. Obviously this is for political gain. In fact, I am sure the whole deal is just for political gain; it is for power at the expense of some of your own colleagues. Who cares as long as they can get and hold power? That is what it is all about. I do not see those on the Nationals side in this chamber jumping up and down, being happy about it and thinking that it cannot happen to them. I think they have probably worked out that pretty soon the same thing might be happening to them.
Despite being in a coalition with the National Party for decades, the Liberals have chosen to preference One Nation even over their national coalition partners. That is the gist the whole debate. Murdoch University political lecturer Ian Cook said that 'the Liberals' jumping into bed with One Nation could backfire and jettison the party out of power. He further said, ' For the Liberals, it looks like a desperate move to hold onto power at any cost. I'd be surprised if it worked.' The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Joyce, from the other place, is warning of an all-out brawl, so we know they are not happy. Mr Joyce described the outcome as 'a disappointing move'. He said he hoped its architects 'clearly understand the ramifications of the decision'. He raised the prospect of retaliation against the move by the Nationals: 'The Nationals could stand in every lower house seat in Perth and preference another party. What would that mean?' (Time expired)
Senator BACK (Western Australia) (16:53): Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive—reference Wong, Senator P, 13 February 2017, Senate of the Australian parliament. What confected outrage did we hear from Senator Wong and Senator Chisholm from Queensland in terms of apparent deals for preferences. But wasn't Senator Chisholm cut down instantly by none other than the architect of all this—Senator Hanson herself. Let me quote from only a few minutes ago in this place. This is Senator Hanson responding to the outrage of Senator Chisholm: 'Thank you very much. Well, isn't it amazing what comes across this chamber? You must be really worried about One Nation.'
The whole fact is that Labor has approached One Nation for preferences. Oh, but you do not want to talk about that one. 'How about Evan Moorhead, the Queensland state secretary?' she said to Senator Chisholm. 'You're a former state secretary. Well, he actually called up my staff on 25 January this year and he wanted to do a grubby deal with us.' What a web we weave in this place. So it has come home to roost, has it not—all the confected outrage from Senator Wong and Senator Chisholm, and all we see of course is the hypocrisy, which has been exposed so brilliantly by Senator Hanson. When I say 'hypocrisy', do I think back to some of the preference deals that have been done in her own home state of South Australia—the deal done between the state Labor government of then Premier Wran—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): Senator Back, I am sorry to interrupt you, but it has just been brought to my attention that on the speakers list you were allocated 11 minutes but the clocks were set at 13 minutes.
Senator BACK: I am happy to take your direction. Thank you very much, Mr Acting Deputy President.
I then go to the deal between the Labor Party and the National Party which caused Minister Karlene Maywald, the then member for Chaffey, to be in the Labor ministry from 2004 to 2010. We know of the deal done between Labor and the Greens political party in Tasmania. In fact, the Senate has two previous members of that ministry, in Senator Singh and Senator McKim, under the premiership of David Bartlett. So bad a government was it, of course, that it delivered government to Mr Will Hodgman. Then of course we know of the deal done between Labor and the Greens to deliver government for Ms Gillard 2010. So let us not worry too much about the confected hypocrisy of the Labor Party in this particular position.
What it has done, through you, Acting Deputy President, to Minister Payne, is to give a very good understanding of how things are run in the Labor Party. I know, from when I was there last—I have not been for some period of time—that it is the Western Australian division, the lay party itself, the executive, that makes the decision. As we know from out of the mouth Senator Wong today, if the Labor Party nationally were a horse, you would say it were owned, trained and ridden by the CFMEU. Of course, the poor victim of it is Mr Shorten. We know that Mr Shorten, in his turn as the puppet of the CFMEU, directs the Labor Party in Western Australia. So we know how it happens in WA. Well, it does not happen like that in the Liberal Party in Western Australia. It is done of course by the state executive. The second point to be made so strongly is the fact that, as Senator Reynolds said, in Western Australia the relationship between the National Party and the Liberal Party is not a coalition; it is an alliance.
I go back to the election of 2008, which was a cliffhanger and nobody could form government. So what did Mr Grylls, the now member for the Pilbara, as the leader of the party do? Senator Reynolds knows. He entertained the possibility of forming government with the Labor Premier, Mr Carpenter. We know of course, because they are friends of mine, that 'Tuck' Waldron in Wagin, Max Trenorden in Northam, Grant Woodhams in Moore, Phil Gardiner in the midwest and Terry Redman down in Denmark all said, 'We couldn't walk down the main street of our towns.' They said to the leader, Brendon, 'If you decide to join forces with Mr Carpenter, we will cross over and we will form government with Liberal Party.' So do not be too concerned about all these things.
We then go forward to 2010, when the National Party stood a candidate against a sitting member, Mr Tuckey. That led to Mr Tony Crook not coming to Canberra to represent the National Party at all; he sat as an Independent for two years. He never ever sat in the coalition party room. He did sit with the National Party for a while. He never sat with the coalition. So we are talking about that excellent relationship that you have up and down the east coast of Australia. We have not been a party in coalition. If time permits, I will get back to the nonsense of the grubby production deal, the slug, that Mr Grylls is trying to do to rump out our two major iron ore producers—again, not consistent with the policy of the government.
In 2013, when, indeed, in a landslide the people of Western Australia quite rightly returned the Barnett government, Mr Barnett could have governed in his own right, but, being the statesman that is, he said, 'No, we have had this alliance with the National Party—I will continue to include the National Party in the ministry.' So that is the standard of excellence of this man.
Let us then turn to what the actual arrangements are in Western Australia. Let me make these points very, very clearly. The first point is that the Liberal Party will preference the Nationals first in every lower house seat in which the National Party is running but have promised that the One Nation party will not be placed last. So with all of this outrage and nonsense that has been going on, we have the simple fact of the matter that, in those non-metropolitan seats in which the National Party is putting up candidates, the Liberal Party will preference them first.
The second point that must be borne in mind is that of history. For those who choose to ignore it, they are bound to repeat it. Let me tell you what did happen in 2008. In the 2008 election, when I was a candidate myself in the state election for Western Australia for the seat of Alfred Cove, the National Party in all rural upper house regions had preferenced the Christian democrats, Family First and One Nation ahead of the Liberal Party. Where was all this confected outrage then? In 2013 both of our parties—the Nationals and the Liberals—preferenced the Christian democrats, Family First and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party ahead of each other.
There is nothing unusual about all of this, but what have we done so that of course we can contest this election and hopefully keep out an underperforming what is now opposition led by Mr McGowan and the recycled Ms Alannah MacTiernan if she gets another go? It is critically important that— (Time expired)
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (17:01): What an extraordinary display this morning. I want to thank Senator Back, actually. It is good to follow-up after a set of comments like that where he has reminded us of the seething hypocrisy of the Labor Party coming in here and lecturing the coalition.
Senator LUDLAM: No, fair is fair. Absolutely, fair is fair.
Senator Ian Macdonald: That's the first time you've ever said that!
Senator LUDLAM: No, it is not. He has reminded us of the seething hypocrisy of the Labor Party coming in here and lecturing the Liberal Party about having done a deal with One Nation when actually they were playing footsie with One Nation until somebody, whether on the west coast or the east coast, told them to cease and desist. But, the fact is, who was in the frame today? The Liberal Party of Western Australia—the desperate Premier Colin Barnett, who has thrown his Nationals colleagues under the bus not for the first time, as Senator Back has said, but probably the most consequential time because this could deliver balance of power in the Western Australian Legislative Council—the upper house—to One Nation.
What did we hear from Senator Sinodinos when he was asked about this yesterday? He said, 'One Nation has evolved since Prime Minister Howard took a principled stand and said that they should be preferenced last.' And Senator Sinodinos said, 'Today, it is a very different beast.' No, Senator Sinodinos, you are. It is not the One Nation party that has evolved—the Liberal Party has devolved. The standing and morals it had have evaporated.
Mr Barnett has, for eight years, led a completely pointless government. The only achievement that they have to point to after eight years is coming out of the greatest commodity boom in the state's history $40 billion in debt. They have nothing to show for it. They are an empty government with no plan for the next four years for Western Australia and so they have cut this slimy deal with One Nation, a splinter party that has generated support across Australia by promoting race hate and white supremacy—the kind of white nationalism that has now reached such dangerous threshold levels in the United States and elsewhere. Premier Barnett is playing with fire in doing this deal. If it was a government worth saving maybe you would sort of understand the fact that they would cut some slimy preference deals, but this is a government not worth saving.
Polling was conducted, and we released this information over the weekend, by Essential asking, 'If the party you were going to vote for in the upper house was swapping preferences with Pauline Hanson's One Nation, would that make you more or less likely to vote for them?' Thirty per cent of Liberal voters said they would be less likely. They will regret this deal. (Time expired)
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:04): There has been some discussion today about the return of One Nation as a force in Australian politics. I think at the start of this debate we ought to be very clear where responsibility for this return lies, because it is true that One Nation is receiving some level of support in some parts of Australia. The real responsibility for the return of One Nation as a political force lies with the Liberal-National coalition and with the Greens. It lies in the events at the end of the last session when a deal was put into this chamber to ram through legislation to achieve Senate voting reform, as was referred to by Senator Reynolds in her speech, that ultimately delivered One Nation back to this chamber with three at the moment but ultimately four senators. So we now have four One Nation senators eligible to sit in this chamber from a pre-election position of absolutely none.
Now to respond to that, do we see the Liberal-Nationals pushing back on this? No, we do not. What we see is an attempt to actually consolidate their position and assist One Nation in holding this foothold within Australian politics. I will say this to Senator Reynolds, who urged us to respect the voting system, the process of democracy and the outcome of the election: I do respect the political process. I absolutely respect what voters have said, and I respect the things that they say are important to them, but that does not mean that I or anyone else in this chamber ought to assist One Nation by delivering them political preferences in state elections. Respect is just not the same thing as this. Respect, incidentally, does not mean adopting the world view that One Nation advocates and advocating for this in this chamber. Respect is not the same as sitting passively by while One Nation reviles whole sections of the Australian community. And respect is certainly not the same as sitting by passively while we see a state branch of the Liberal Party delivering preferences to One Nation.
What I will say, because it has been brought up already in the debate, is that there has been a false report about the behaviour of the Queensland Labor Party. Evan Moorehead, who is the secretary of Queensland Labor, has gone on the record this afternoon saying that those reports are absolute nonsense. He said to the Guardian:
Ashby rang me looking for preference discussions and I said no. I said the issue is that in a lot of the places that they’re talking about, the two-candidate preferred battle will be between One Nation and the Libs. And we’ve always had a position on putting One Nation last.
So, let's hear no more of that story. That is the position that the Queensland secretary has put on the record this afternoon.
It is the position, of course, that should have been taken by the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull. Last year, Mr Turnbull said that Pauline Hanson was 'not a welcome presence' on the Australian political scene, but we do not hear any more of this now, do we? In January this year he ducked it, saying that preference deals with One Nation are a matter for the state branch and for the premier. Well, it is a shame he does not have the courage to express now the position he held such a short time ago. Even Barnaby Joyce is willing to put a more principled position on the table, saying:
It seems a bit desperate I've got to say and when you go and make friends with people who don't share the same values of you, it makes it very hard to form a government.
The defence, of course, put by Senator Sinodinos is that these guys are 'more sophisticated' now than they were before.
Well, is it sophisticated to express admiration for Vladimir Putin, saying, 'I like him as a person; he's a strong leader'? I do not think that is sophisticated; I think that is appalling, when six New South Wales residents in the state I represent were among the 298 people who died when a surface-to-air missile hit MH17 in 2014. Is it sophisticated to say that multiculturalism has failed? Is it sophisticated to run candidates who describe single mothers as 'too lazy to attract and hold a mate'? None of this is sophisticated. None of this represents the best traditions of Australian politics.
Labor has never preferenced One Nation. We will never make deals with people who espouse xenophobic and sexist views. Australia's major political parties once shared a broad compact, and that was respect and empathy for all people, regardless of their cultural background, regardless of their religion. And this Liberal deal undermines those values and the very principles of equality that build the best of Australia. (Time expired)
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (17:09): On 25 January this year Evan Moorehead, the state secretary of the Labor Party in Queensland, speaks with a One Nation official: 'Hey, mate, here's the deal: One Nation's to run dead in Queensland Labor seats and in return Labor'—that very principled party—'will run dead in One Nation strongholds or seats where the ALP has no chance of winning'. Now, this is the team who has the hide to come into this parliament and blame the coalition for doing deals with One Nation. When it comes to the question of whether you believe Mr Moorehead—who I confess I do not know—or Senator Hanson, I will go with Senator Hanson all the time. You may not agree with what she says, but you always know that she speaks her mind and she speaks it truthfully.
We have just heard from Senator McAllister a third-hand assurance by the Queensland Labor Party—that principled group up there in Queensland—that they are going to put One Nation last. Okay, I do not believe it, but the proof is always in the pudding. But as anyone in this chamber knows, the Labor Party in Queensland and elsewhere does not run the campaign. The campaign is run by the CFMEU, the CPSU and all of the other unions who run around Queensland saying, 'Put the LNP last.' I will repeat that. This is the Labor Party's main campaign arm—the unions—running around Queensland saying, 'Put the LNP last.' Now, how does that coincide, how does that gel, with what we have just heard—that the Labor Party is going to put One Nation last?
It just shows the abject inability of the Labor Party to tell the truth, to have any semblance of honesty and forthrightness. If there are Labor Party Queensland speakers to speak in this debate today, I challenge them to say here and now that not only will the Labor Party put One Nation last but that our minders—the people who run us, the people who provide all of our money, the people who provide all of the thugs on the polling booths—will also put One Nation last. And I will bet that there is not a Labor person here who is prepared to say that, because Labor is controlled by the unions. They run the campaign. They know that they will run around at the next Queensland election with a slogan of putting the LNP last. And you can judge from that the absolute hypocrisy of the Labor Party in Queensland. (Time expired)
Senator HINCH (Victoria) (17:12): I am actually going to agree with Senator Hanson on one thing here today, and that is that I do not find that this is actually a compelling matter of public importance—but I shall grab my two minutes and 30 seconds as I can. I also do not blame her for cracking the best deal she could do in WA, and I think she will definitely get three seats in the upper house. She may even get six, or even more. And Hinch's hunch—I am often wrong—is that this deal will put the Labor Party into government in the lower house in WA.
My fight is with Senator Sinodinos and his pathetic attempt on the ABC to try to justify all of this by saying, of One Nation:
The One Nation of today is a very different beast to what it was 20 years ago — they are a lot more sophisticated, they have clearly resonated with a lot of people …
Now, 'more sophisticated': as I said on Sunrise this morning, with Senator Hanson, I do not think it is sophisticated when 20 years ago your main kick was that you had been swamped with Asians and now your main platform is that you are being swamped with Muslims. But my fight is not with One Nation here. My fight is with the Liberal Party, who have thrown the Nationals under the bus. We heard Senator Back saying how wonderful it is, the agreement with the Nationals, and how they would support them elsewhere et cetera. On this occasion, they have thrown them under the bus, and I think it will come back to bite them. Senator Ludlam's time ran out before he quoted all of that poll that said that if people were asked, 'If your party were to vote for One Nation, would that make you less inclined or more inclined to vote?' On the Liberal poll—I saw the same poll—it was, as he said, 30 per cent of Liberals who said they would consider changing their vote, and I think it was actually 50 per cent of Nationals. That is why I say here on this occasion it is so cynical that you had the Prime Minister there virtually saying, 'It is a state matter, and it shouldn't be for us to justify it.' But you had Arthur Sinodinos at the weekend offering a great apologia about how wonderful One Nation is now and how they can lie in bed with them. As old Joh Bjelke-Petersen said: 'You lie down with dogs and you get up with fleas.' I think they will find out that is the situation in WA. I do not even need the whole 2½ minutes.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (17:14): It is of no surprise to me that the Barnett government has done this dirty preference deal with One Nation in Western Australia. It is exactly what it appears to be—a sneaky and desperate act from the state Liberal Party. It shows very clearly that the Liberal Barnett government is tired and out of touch and it will do absolutely anything it can to stay in power. It is a deal hammered out behind closed doors in secret. It seems that Premier Barnett is so worried about losing government and so worried about his own failings as premier that he knows the only chance he has of staying in power is doing this deal with One Nation. It is not a deal that is in the best interests of Western Australia. It is simply about getting Premier Colin Barnett re-elected at any cost.
Make no mistake: if this deal goes ahead, a vote for One Nation in Western Australia would be a vote for the Liberal Party, if people follow their how-to-vote cards. A vote for One Nation is a vote for the same old tired policies of this very tired government. A vote for One Nation in Western Australia would be a vote to privatise Western Power. Prime Minister Howard made a promise to the Australian people that One Nation should be placed last on every Liberal Party how-to-vote card around the country, and the Liberal Party should continue to uphold his promise to the Australian people.
Prime Minister Turnbull should be condemned if he fails to uphold the same promise. Prime Minister Turnbull should stand up against Colin Barnett and this dirty deal. Is it perhaps something that Prime Minister Turnbull will do too? The Prime Minister's failure to rule out a deal with One Nation demonstrates what he is prepared to do to cling to power amidst the chaos of his own government. As we know, Prime Minister Howard would not preference One Nation and Labor will not preference One Nation, but Colin Barnett will. So today I ask: will Prime Minister Turnbull rule it out? Will Prime Minister Turnbull do a preference deal with One Nation? I ask him where his integrity is on that matter.
Our colleague Senator Sinodinos has said that One Nation has changed in the last 20 years, but how has it changed? Has it changed from discriminating against Asians to discriminating against Muslims? Is that the kind of change Senator Sinodinos is referring to? As we all know, Senator Hanson used her maiden speech in this place last year to call for a ban on Muslim immigration. It is a party that supports divisive policy, and there are many examples—Senator Wong referred to some in question time today. Is this something that the Liberal Party supports? It certainly seems that way in Western Australia. What is really true here is that the Liberal Party has changed, and Senator Hanson has not changed. Her policies have remained entirely consistent. What is really true is that the Liberal Party has changed and this is not the party of John Howard anymore. And so we have this insidious deal before us. It is time for Barnaby Joyce to come out and say whether he agrees with the WA Liberals to put One Nation above the nationals in WA.
Let's be clear about this: supporters of all parties should be able to make up their own minds about who they vote for and who they preference. Voters should make their own decisions when they are at the ballot box, and any government must work with whoever is elected. So it is disappointing to me that the Liberal government in WA would do this sneaky deal behind closed doors. With the double dissolution election last year, One Nation now holds seats in this place just, as it held the balance of power in the upper house when Labor was last in power in WA. In 2001 One Nation surged in the state poll, and both Labor and Liberal put One Nation last. What we saw was the election of a number of One Nation MPs—MPs whose time in One Nation did not last very long because they defected and left the party. All this illustrates is the ongoing dysfunction and chaos—(Time expired)
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (17:20): I just cannot get over the sheer arrogance of senators in this place. It is like: 'You can't come in here. You're not allowed to. This is our territory. This belongs to the Liberals, Labor and the National Parties.' It has been a two-party system in this country for so long, and the public has had a gutful of it.
Earlier I raised the issue of Evan Moorhead; he rang and spoke to us about preferences. Labor was trying to get other preference deals with One Nation. It was Labor's slippery suggestion to meet and discuss Western Australian preferences to us through the Mineral Council. They wanted to have an underhanded meeting with us through the Mineral Council because they did not want to approach us directly. He actually said to my staffer: 'This is going to be off the record. If ever it is raised and I am asked the question "Are we going to do preference deals?", I am going to say, " No".' My staffer said in return, 'Well, we don't play those sorts of games. We are up-front and honest.'
Senator Dastyari interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ): Order!
Senator HANSON: That is what they were wanting to do. The Labor Party through the Mineral Council approached us to do a preference deal with them when we were over in WA. That is the case.
You are trying to make out that you are all so goody-two-shoes in this chamber but the fact is that what both sides of the parliament have done to me over the years—and I will tell you what Peter Beattie did too. After I was chased and hounded and criminal charges were laid against me, Peter Beattie changed the laws in Queensland just prior to my trial to make the jail term seven years retrospectively instead of six months. You have bent over backwards to try and get rid of me all these years because you never wanted to see One Nation in here. You knew the support that we were getting then and you know the support that we are still getting in this country right across the board—the polls are showing it—and you are terrified of it. Yes, we are a threat to you and it is about time because people want a change. They are sick and tired of it. You have a go at me and my policies about multiculturalism. We are multiracial, but, at the end of the day, we should all be treated the same equally under the one law. We are Australians. I have never ever said any different. (Time expired)
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (17:22): Now let's be absolutely clear. The key issue that has gone on in this debate is the lack of speakers from the Nationals. Not one of the Nationals has come in and talked about this issue. Imagine if this was 20 years ago. Ronnie Boswell would have come bustling through those doors and he would have been the first one to speak about this, condemning One Nation and leading the charge for the Nationals in Australia to put One Nation last. Instead, we see a poor imitation representing the Nationals in the Senate chamber today. In Queensland, Senator Hanson had another go there. Let's be absolutely crystal clear. The current state secretary, Evan Moorhead, has put out a statement saying it was absolute nonsense. That was the statement from the former secretary. As his predecessor, I am sure he has got big shoes to fill but he has now put out a statement denying that any discussion like that took place.
What we have seen in this chamber on this Matter of Public Importance is a good effort by the Liberals to avoid speaking about the key point—that is, the federal Liberals, led by John Howard, took the principled position to put One Nation last and they advocated that across all their state and federal branches. That was what the leader John Howard did when he was Prime Minister. What we now see is a decision by the Western Australian Liberals to do a deal with One Nation. We have seen nothing similar from the federal Liberals in the House of Reps or in the Senate. That is how far this discussion has come. The Nationals are just a poor imitation of what we saw all those years ago.
Let's compare the debate inside the coalition compared to where they were 20 years ago. Twenty years ago, they debated whether to put One Nation last with the eventual decision that they would. Whereas now we have the current day Liberal Party arguing not about whether they would be placed last but whether they would be placed ahead of the Nationals. The emerging issue from this decision by the Western Australian Liberals is the leadership tension that is on display within the Liberals and the Nationals.
One of the first people to come out and talk about this was the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, Tony Abbott. He said that the Nationals should always be above One Nation in Liberal preferences—just to ingratiate himself with the Nationals in any forthcoming leadership dramas. But what we have seen from the federal Liberals has been a really disappointing effort today.
Queensland in particular should know better. We are really proud within the Queensland Labor Party of the stance that we took on One Nation. Senator Hanson mentioned Peter Beattie. He was the first one to say as a matter of principle that One Nation would be last on our how-to-vote cards. That led to him becoming Premier in 1998 and it was a stance that he maintained while he was there. Queensland Labor has always maintained that view. Indeed, at the recent state conference held on the Gold Coast last year, I moved a motion that One Nation be placed last on all how-to-vote cards at the upcoming state election. That was some months ago. That is something we stick to now and that is something that is an article of faith for the Labor Party in Queensland. We are proud of our role in defeating One Nation in Queensland and we will double our efforts at the state and federal elections in the coming months.
But when you do a deal like the One Nation Party and the Liberals have, you have to own it. That is the problem for Senator Hanson; she has not owned it. What that means is that they are helping to re-elect the Barnett government. What are the consequences of that? The consequences will be more debt—I am sure Senator Roberts would be greatly concerned about that—and the privatisation of the electricity assets in Western Australia. The deal that One Nation has done will make it more likely that those things will occur. That is actually what that means. And we will see similar result as this relationship develops at the federal election. We are already seeing harsher industrial relations laws. We are already seeing support for more cuts to welfare and we are seeing attacks on the social safety net including Medicare. This is what we are seeing when One Nation and the LNP vote together.
The reality is that when it comes to the Liberal Party, this is a poor imitation compared to 20 years ago led by a Prime Minister who is just a shell with no policy beliefs. He is a leader who is willing to trash his own brand to cling to power. (Time expired)
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ): The time for this debate has now expired.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Audit report no. 37 of 2016-17
Consideration
Senator DASTYARI (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:27): I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I would like to speak to this document and seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
DOCUMENTS
Attorney-General's Department
Consideration
Senator DASTYARI (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:28): I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
DOCUMENTS
Consideration
The following documents tabled earlier today (see entry no. 2) were considered:
Auditor-General—Audit report no. 37 of 2016-17—Performance audit—Australian Taxation Officeʼs implementation of audit recommendations: Australian Taxation Office. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Dastyari. Debate adjourned till the next day of sitting, Senator Dastyari in continuation.
Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse—Royal Commission—Report of case study no. 36—The response of the Church of England Boys' Society and the Anglican Dioceses of Tasmania, Adelaide, Brisbane and Sydney to allegations of child sexual abuse. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Dastyari. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Dastyari in continuation.
Roe Highway
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (17:29): I table a document relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the Roe Highway extension.
BILLS
Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (17:29): I 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 RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (17:30): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Government has no greater responsibility than keeping Australia safe and secure. As a result, we have committed to strengthening Australia's aviation and maritime infrastructure against serious or organised crime. We will strengthen background checking regimes, to ensure that individuals who pose a security risk or have links to serious or organised crime cannot gain access to the security-sensitive areas of our airports and ports.
The Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016, will address these issues and will ensure we keep illegal guns off our streets and our communities safe.
This Bill was previously introduced into the House of Representatives on 11 February 2016. It passed the House on 16 March 2016, but lapsed at prorogation on 17 April 2016.
Following referral to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee in the last Parliament, the Bill was recommended to progress to the Senate without amendment.
The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission has determined that organised crime groups are a threat to the Australian way of life, and estimate that organised crime costs the Australian economy $36 billion annually. In 2015, the Government committed to a comprehensive package of action to tackle the growing problem in our communities of the crystalline form of methamphetamine (commonly known as the drug 'ice'). The National Ice Taskforce, in its final report released late 2015, estimated that there are currently well over 200,000 Australian users of the drug. This is a significant increase compared to the reported less than 100,000 users in 2007.
As a key priority, the National Ice Taskforce identified the need for targeted and coordinated law enforcement efforts to disrupt the supply of ice. Of note, was the recommendation that we harden the aviation and maritime environments against organised crime by strengthening the eligibility criteria for the aviation and maritime security identification card schemes (also known as the ASIC and MSIC schemes). This recommendation echoes those from several independent inquiries. These inquiries identified that the inadequacy of our aviation and maritime security measures to combat serious or organised crime, is an increasing risk to our communities.
The Bill introduces the additional purpose to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 (as I will now refer to as the Aviation and Maritime Acts) of combating serious or organised crime at our airports and ports. The additional purpose will apply solely to the ASIC and MSIC schemes, adding to their current purpose of safeguarding against unlawful acts of interference with our aviation and maritime infrastructure.
The ASIC and MSIC schemes are an important part of securing the aviation, maritime and offshore oil and gas sectors. Under the schemes, any person with an operational need to remain unmonitored in security-sensitive areas at Australia's airports, ports, Australian flagged ships and offshore facilities, must hold a valid ASIC or MSIC confirming they have passed a background check.
The primary purpose of the background check is to establish whether an applicant poses a security threat to aviation and maritime infrastructure. However, this check does not currently consider whether the individual poses a serious criminal risk within the security-sensitive areas of our transport infrastructure. This Bill will correct this by establishing the regulatory framework for introducing new eligibility criteria, which will be harmonised across both the ASIC and MSIC schemes.
The eligibility criteria under each scheme currently refer to a range of offences relevant to unlawful interference with aviation and maritime infrastructure as per the purpose of the existing Aviation and Maritime Acts. The criteria do not include offences arising from serious criminal activity, such as anti-gang or criminal organisation legislation, illegal sale and possession of firearms and other weapons, illegal importation of goods, or interfering with goods under Australian Border Force control. These will be included in the new harmonised eligibility criteria.
Under current eligibility criteria, an ASIC or MSIC applicant's status is based solely on the presence of a relevant offence in the applicant's criminal history. Under the new proposed criteria, less serious criminal offences will only become an aviation or maritime-security-relevant offence when a significant term of imprisonment has been imposed, while more serious offences will only require conviction. This approach places emphasis on the judgement of a court in determining the seriousness of the offence and hence its significance to the ASIC or MSIC scheme. This is a significant improvement to the transparency and accountability of the ASIC and MSIC schemes.
Shifting the focus from low level or minor criminal offences to higher risk offences is expected to provide positive employment outcomes because more applicants will be found initially eligible for an ASIC or MSIC. These applicants may be issued their ASIC or MSIC faster than current timeframes, reducing the impact to their employment and increasing the staff available to employers. However, strengthening the schemes will mean people with serious criminal convictions will no longer be eligible to hold an ASIC or MSIC.
Importantly, the changes presented by the Bill will not only improve the Government's ability to combat transnational and domestic organised crime, but they will also strengthen the schemes' existing national security purpose of protecting Australia's airports and ports against acts of terrorism and unlawful interference. The inclusion of new offences, such as foreign incursion and recruitment, will enhance the schemes ability to exclude persons convicted of offences of the highest severity.
Debate adjourned.
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (17:30): I move:
That resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.
Question agreed to.
Transport Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (17:32): I 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 RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (17:32): That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
It is important that the Government's transport security regulatory activities remain effective and fit for purpose in an evolving security environment.
The Bill I present today, the Transport Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2016, will ensure that the transport security regulatory framework remains responsive to changes in the security environment.
The Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 (which I will now refer to as the Aviation Act) establishes a regulatory system to safeguard against unlawful interference with aviation. This regulatory system aims to prevent conduct that threatens the secure operation of aircraft and airports. It is continually reviewed to ensure it mitigates current threats and the Australian public is provided with safe and secure air travel.
As part of this continual review process, we are introducing measures at Australia's major international airports to mitigate the insider threat. Airport workers such as baggage handlers, caterers, cleaners and engineers have special access to passenger aircraft so that they can carry out their important roles. However, there is potential for this access to be exploited, either willingly or through coercion, to facilitate a terrorist attack against a passenger aircraft.
Serious international security incidents targeting aviation, such as the bombing of Metrojet flight 9268 in Egypt on 31 October 2015 and the attempted bombing of Daallo Airlines Flight 159 in Somalia on 2 February 2016, have highlighted the continuing threat to the global aviation environment, in particular the insider threat. There is growing concern about the insider threat among the global aviation community and the Convention on International Civil Aviation, to which Australia is a signatory, places obligations on States to have measures in place to address this threat.
The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (my Department), in consultation with the aviation industry, has developed a new model for strengthening airside security at Australia's nine major international airports to address the insider threat and ensure Australia meets its international civil aviation obligations for airside security. The measures introduced through the Bill are part of a broader suite of regulatory amendments that give effect to the model's three components, those being:
1. controls to ensure people, vehicles and goods entering airside areas at Australia's major international airports are authorised to do so;
2. random screening of people, vehicles and accompanying goods entering and within, the airside areas of the major international airports to detect unauthorised weapons and explosives; and
3. security awareness training for airport and airline employees, including contractors, that regularly work within airside areas at the major international airports.
The Bill will introduce regulation making powers into the Aviation Act that will enable people, vehicles and goods to be randomly selected for security screening when they are inside an airside area or zone at security controlled airports. This complements existing provisions in the Act that provide regulation making powers for the screening of people, vehicles and goods before they enter an airside area or zone.
Together, these provisions will give airports the ability to decide the best way to implement security screening controls for their airside areas. For example, for airports with few airside tenants, it may be more efficient and cost effective to apply screening controls at all airside entry points. However, for airports that host large numbers of airside tenants, each with their own access point into the airside area, it will be more practical and cost effective to apply screening controls only at some access points, and to complement this with mobile screening patrols inside the airside area.
Separate to the strengthened airside security amendments, the Bill also makes further amendments to the Aviation Act and amends the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 (which I will now refer to as the Maritime Act) to allow the Secretary of my Department to delegate his powers in these Acts to lower level APS employees. This will give the Department greater administrative flexibility and capacity to manage predicted industry growth, particularly in a changing security environment.
The amendments will remove the references limiting delegations to Executive Level 2 APS employees, allowing the Secretary to delegate to lower level employees. The amendments will not expand the statutory powers of the Secretary in the Acts. The proposed changes will ensure the Government has the ability to make quality decisions while managing industry growth and responding to the changing security environment.
I commend the Bill.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Membership
Message received from the House of Representatives notifying the Senate of the appointment of Mr Leeser to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, Mr Goodenough and Ms Ley to the Joint Select Committee on Government Procurement, Ms Ley to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network, Mr Morton and Ms Ley to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories and the discharge of Mr Hastie from the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories.
BILLS
Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016
Report of Legislation Committee
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (17:33): On behalf of the Chair of the Economics Legislation Committee, Senator Hume, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016, together with the documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2016
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (17:34): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I rise to strenuously oppose the Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2016. This bill amends the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Criminal Code) in order to impose mandatory minimum sentences of five years jail for buying or selling guns or gun parts across state or national borders and doubles maximum penalties for the offence to 20 years jail. The justification for these changes is purportedly to:
… reflect the serious nature and potential consequences of supplying firearms and firearm parts to the illicit market.
The introduction of a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment for five years for these purported 'firearms trafficking offences' implements the government's ridiculous so-called 'Keeping illegal guns off our streets and our communities safe' election policy released on 26 June 2016. This repressive Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2016 is just the latest illustration of the sanctimonious and illogical anti-gun philosophy pervading a significant part of the Liberal Party.
This bill obviously raises two separate issues. The first issue is the imposition by this bill of draconian penalties, including mandatory jail terms and up to 20 years maximum jail for any offence, even for a victimless crime. The second issue is the obsessive ongoing effort by enemies of freedom in this country to undermine the inalienable right of private citizens to possess firearms, of which this legislation is but the latest iteration. Throughout history, disarming citizens has always been a high priority for tyrants and totalitarian collectivists.
First and foremost, Pauline Hanson's One Nation is utterly opposed to mandatory jail terms under any circumstances. We believe it should be up to the courts to impose the appropriate penalty. Secondly, we are implacably opposed to the imposition of jail terms for deemed offences and other victimless crimes, and certainly the idea that there should be a 20-year potential jail sentence for a victimless crime is utterly offensive for a nation that claims to be a liberal democracy. In terms of firearm laws, One Nation is absolutely opposed to efforts to undermine this crucial freedom. Unfortunately, it seems that fewer and fewer political parties share this view.
It may be hardly surprising that the feral, pest-hugging collectivists in the Greens hate the idea of private ownership of firearms, just as they hate all other individual freedoms. The Labor Party, too, has in recent years leaned further and further to the Left and in the process has become more and more hostile to firearm ownership. However, I am afraid to say that the Liberal Party has a sorry recent history on supporting firearm ownership, and in recent years has actually been worse than Labor.
Let us not forget that in 1996 former Prime Minister John Howard, now a hero of the Labor Party, wasted nearly $400 million of taxpayers' money to forcibly acquire the registered legal guns of hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Australians as a half-baked, knee-jerk, populist reaction to the tragedy at Port Arthur. The repressive gun laws that subsequently resulted were made subsequently worse by various anti-individualist state governments, which apparently saw the victimless crime of unregistered gun possession as a more and more heinous sin.
Let us consider what actually happened in Port Arthur. A violent mental patient slaughtered scores of innocent people with an illegal weapon that had been previously surrendered to police in Victoria, a weapon that was sold back into the illegal gun market, apparently by a corrupt policeman. What rational reaction should we have had to this? Did the former Prime Minister conclude that dangerous mental patients need to be committed, corrupt police need to be severely punished, and illegal weapons need to be cracked down upon? No, he did not! Instead, the former Prime Minister cracked down on legally registered weapons owned by law-abiding citizens, none of whom had anything to do with a crime! He might as well have banned bicycles for all the relevance of this action. The absurd fallacy, apparently shared by many in this chamber, is that all guns are equally likely to be used in a crime and all gun owners are equally likely to commit one—an absolutely absurd contention. In fact, licensed firearm owners and registered weapons were not only not involved in the Port Arthur tragedy, but they continue to be uninvolved in almost all gun related crime.
Many lies continue to be told regarding the effect of this gun buyback, but here I would like to put the truth on record. Apologists for firearm restrictions have repeatedly claimed that the 1996 buyback resulted in a significant decrease in firearm homicides, but this is actually total nonsense. Prior to 1996, there was already a clear downward trend in firearm homicides, and this pattern simply continued after the buyback. The same pattern occurred in New Zealand, which continues to have liberal firearms laws, which do not even require firearm registration. Again, as with suicides, both non-firearm and firearm homicides fell by similar amounts. In fact, the trend in non-firearm homicides shows a much larger decline between the pre-buyback and post-buyback periods. This clearly indicates that crime has been falling for other reasons. It is therefore true to say that firearm homicides declined after 1996 but completely false to say that the buyback had anything to do with it. I would like the Senate to note in particular that the decline in the rate of homicides has not followed the rate of gun ownership. The number of licensed firearm owners has greatly increased since 1996, while the rate of gun related crime has declined.
I would also like to debunk another of the myths of the anti-gun lobby here, and that is the claim that there is a major risk of legally registered guns being stolen by criminals. In fact, the Australian Institute of Criminology reports that only one in every 2,500 guns is stolen, a rate of four-hundredths of one per cent. Of the 664 guns stolen, as described in their recent report only three were used in the commission of a crime.
The firearms phobia that began with John Howard's forced buyback culminated in that state of affairs that former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, in a fit of self-righteous indignation, called 'our gold-standard gun laws'. All I can say is that if our repressive gun laws are a 'gold standard', then by the same criteria Stalin's Russia would have been considered the 'platinum standard'.
The truth is that legal firearms ownership not only does not lead to gun related crime, but it actually reduces it. More legal guns actually mean less crime. It is no coincidence that the state of Illinois in the United States, which has some of the most restrictive gun laws, has one of the highest rates of gun crime, whilst the state of Texas, which has some of the most liberal gun laws has one of the lowest rates of gun related crime.
If we look at the details of the latest attack on firearms ownership in the Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2016, we find the confected crime of 'firearms trafficking', for which these draconian penalties are proposed. The phrase 'firearms trafficking' immediately conjures to mind images of cut-throat smugglers with crates of Kalashnikov assault rifles and RPG-7s in the hold of a rusting cargo ship bound for somewhere in deepest, darkest Africa. However, in fact in this bill it turns out that what is called 'firearms trafficking' may consist of nothing more than buying or selling interstate a single gun part—for example, a firing pin—or buying a shotgun or bolt action rifle not used in any crime, or even carrying an unregistered gun across state borders and letting someone else borrow it. In this bill, use of the term 'firearms trafficking' is ridiculous anti-gun propaganda. Deeming buying or selling a single gun or gun part as firearms trafficking is like calling buying a single joint 'drug dealing'. The intentional misuse of the term is simply an attempt to dramatise the offence to help to justify the absurdly harsh penalties. Worse still, this bill will have unintended consequences in which law-abiding, licensed firearm owners may face up to 20 years jail simply by ordering a small part for one of their registered guns from a website which, unbeknown to them, sources its stock from interstate or overseas.
In addition to the confected nature of the victimless offence, the penalties too are something that might be expected for a horrendous crime: minimum five-year mandatory jail terms and maximum penalties of 20 years prison—is the government serious? Imposing mandatory minimum five-year jail terms and 20-year maximum penalties, as proposed, are penalties which may well be in excess of those imposed on people who commit sexual assault, robbery or even, in some cases, murder. These unbelievably severe mandatory minimum and maximum penalties for a victimless crime must be considered a new low for this very illiberal Liberal government and are totally out of all proportion to the seriousness of the offence.
Sadly, and in many ways reflecting the progressive shift to the left—to the control side of politics—of all mainstream political parties, the penalties that this bill proposes reflect the socialist approach of assuming that everyone is equally likely to commit a crime and trying to prevent the actions of a criminal minority by punishing everyone indiscriminately. If we are to still claim Australia is a liberal democracy that values the rights of the individual, it is incumbent on us to promote freedom over control. That is what Pauline Hanson's One Nation is all about—individual freedom and responsibility—and the voters are getting it.
I further draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that the imposition of increased maximum penalties and mandatory jail terms set out in this bill are opposed by both the Australian Human Rights Commission and the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, while the mandatory minimum jail sentences are opposed by the Law Council of Australia. So, even if these organisations may not share One Nation's unqualified support for law-abiding ownership of firearms, they do at least share our implacable opposition to the severe penalties that the bill automatically proposes.
In the final analysis, however, this terrible legislation reflects the Liberal Party's complete acquiescence to the left-wing agenda—to the control side of politics—of prioritising punishment for politically incorrect victimless crimes, while going soft on violent offenders. If this bill is passed, people who use guns to commit serious crimes, including drug dealing and armed robbery, may actually face significantly lesser penalties than someone simply buying a gun part from a website. Instead of imposing draconian penalties on people who simply possess firearms, the government should be imposing stronger penalties on people who actually use guns to commit crimes. Accordingly, we urge all our fellow senators to join our One Nation colleagues in denouncing this draconian, Stalinesque bill and vote against it.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I make the comment that some of your speech bordered on unparliamentary language, if you can take that into account in the future.
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (17:48): The government bill before us today, the Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2016, seeks to introduce mandatory minimum sentences for firearms trafficking. I opposed it last time it was before the Senate; I oppose mandatory sentencing. The sentence for individuals found guilty of firearms trafficking should be set by a judge—not by a politician and not by a shock jock, but by a judge. Only a judge can know all the circumstances of the guilty individual and their deeds: whether they were the ringleader or the accessory, whether they were coerced, whether they have done it before. The punishment cannot fit the crime unless factors such as these are considered. Mandatory sentencing is an attack by the executive on the judiciary.
We have seen attacks on the judiciary by the executive recently in the United States. Such attacks can be popular, but they undermine one of the safeguards keeping us from an authoritarian society. When the executive attacks the judiciary, they undermine the rule of law. This is an attack on our civil society and on our freedom. I call on all parties in this place, each of which has been dipping into President Trump's playlist, to resist the temptation to attack our system of law for cheap political points.
The government bill before us today also seeks to increase maximum sentences for firearms trafficking. The maximum term of imprisonment would double from 10 to 20 years, and the maximum fine would double from $450,000 to $900,000. Not to be outdone, the Nick Xenophon Team is pushing for an amendment to triple the maximum term of imprisonment to 30 years. Also not to be outdone, Labor is pushing for an amendment to increase the maximum penalty for extensive firearms trafficking to life imprisonment and a fine of $1.35 million. Neither the Liberal-National government nor the Nick Xenophon Team nor Labor have pointed out a single case where the current maximum penalties have been applied. In fact, they have failed to point out a single case of a successful conviction for firearms trafficking. And nobody has paused for even a second to consider whether firearms trafficking is a problem or why it might be. Could it possibly be similar to the situation with recreational drugs? Drug trafficking would not be a problem if our national policy was not one of prohibition. Just ask Portugal. Could it be similar to trafficking in illicit cigarettes and tobacco, something that did not even exist until tobacco taxes were jacked up so high that cheap smuggled cigarettes became attractive? Nobody has demonstrated why the problem of firearms trafficking is sufficiently serious to justify this bill. In fact, nobody has talked about how serious it is at all. The suggestion is that it is not at all serious. It looks to me as if the bill's only purpose is to appear tough on crime—and, of course, tough on those wicked, wicked evil guns.
I do not like to see firearms in criminal hands. They give law-abiding firearms owners a bad reputation. But this bill will do nothing to keep them in safe hands. If you really want to deter firearms trafficking, you have to make the trafficker think there is a strong chance they will be caught. Instead of doing the hard yards of working out why firearms trafficking might be more attractive than it used to be, if, indeed, it is, and why our customs and police forces are failing to stop firearms trafficking, if, indeed, they are, and then instead fixing the problem, we have the Liberal-National government, the Nick Xenophon Team and Labor just fiddling with the statutes, as if the problem of firearms trafficking can be eliminated at the stroke of a pen. This is lazy and deceitful.
The Liberal Democrats reject the idea that you can increase a maximum penalty and a problem goes away. I reject this bill. I reject the silly amendments and I am dismayed by the parties in this place who support them.
(Quorum formed)
Senator BRANDIS ( Queensland — Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate ) ( 17:55 ): I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the second reading stage of the bill, which will increase maximum penalties for firearms traffic offences. The risk posed to community health and safety by trafficked firearms endures over time. Due to their imperishable nature, firearms can remain in the illicit market for decades and be used in the commission of countless crimes over their lifespan.
It is regrettable that the opposition has not supported mandatory minimum sentences. Although the opposition claims to oppose mandatory minimum sentences, it has support them on several occasions—for example, in 2010 with people-smuggling offences in the Migration Act. As a general rule, mandatory minimum sentences ought not to form part of our criminal law, except in exceptional circumstances. It is the government's position that these circumstances are exceptional and mandatory minimum sentences are reserved for the most serious crimes. And, as Senator Williams noted, firearms trafficking is a serious offence for which the penalty must fit the crime. Not only is it, itself, a serious offence but it provides the gateway for the commission by those who traffic in firearms for the commission of other serious offences. So the government is unconvinced by the argument that this case—that is, the serious offence of trafficking in firearms—does not fall within the exception to the general rule against mandatory minimum sentencing.
The government appreciates the support of Senator Xenophon and senators from the Nick Xenophon Team for strong maximum penalties for firearms trafficking offences. However, once again, it is unfortunate that they do not see the benefit of taking a similarly strong approach to enforcing minimum sentences for such grave offences.
I commend the bill to the Senate. I look forward to the committee stage of the debate. But the resolution of the government to deal appropriately with what I think most members of the Australian community do regard as a serious matter which regards serious treatment, particularly in the sentences which the courts should award to those convicted of such crimes, is something the government is determined to deal with.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (17:59): by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8037 together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 4 to 8), omit the item, substitute:
1 Subsections 360.2(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code
Repeal the subsections, substitute:
Basic offence
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person engages in conduct that constitutes an offence (the underlying offence) against a firearm law; and
(b) the person does so in the course of trade or commerce:
(i) among the States; or
(ii) between a State and a Territory, or between 2 Territories; and
(c) the primary element of the underlying offence involves:
(i) the disposal of a firearm or a firearm part by the person; or
(ii) the acquisition of a firearm or a firearm part by the person.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 20 years or a fine of 5,000 penalty units, or both.
Aggravated offence—disposing or acquiring 50 or more firearms or firearm parts in 6 month period
(2) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person engages in conduct on one or more occasions that constitutes an offence (the underlying offence) against a firearm law; and
(b) the person does so in the course of trade or commerce:
(i) among the States; or
(ii) between a State and a Territory, or between 2 Territories; and
(c) the primary element of the underlying offence involves:
(i) the disposal of a firearm or a firearm part by the person; or
(ii) the acquisition of a firearm or a firearm part by the person; and
(d) the conduct on any occasion, or on 2 or more occasions taken together, results in the disposal, or acquisition, by the person of:
(i) 50 or more firearms; or
(ii) 50 or more firearm parts that might be used to constitute one or more firearms; or
(iii) a combination of firearms and firearm parts such that the sum of the actual firearms and the firearms that might be constituted by the parts is 50 or more; and
(e) if the disposal or acquisition of the firearms or parts mentioned in paragraph (d) resulted from conduct on 2 or more occasions taken together—the occasions of conduct occurred during a 6 month period.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life or a fine of 7,500 penalty units, or both.
Provisions relating to basic offence and aggravated offence
(2A) There is no fault element for any of the physical elements described in paragraphs (1) (a) and (2) (a), other than the fault elements (however described), if any, for the underlying offence.
(2B) To avoid doubt:
(a) in determining whether the conduct referred to in paragraph (1) (a) or (2) (a) constitutes the underlying offence, any defences or special liability provisions (however described) that apply in relation to the underlying offence have effect; and
(b) a person may be convicted of an offence against subsection (1) or (2) even if the person has not been convicted of the underlying offence; and
(c) for the purposes of subsection (2)—it is immaterial whether:
(i) the underlying offence is the same on each occasion; or
(ii) the conduct constituting the underlying offence is the same on each occasion; or
(iii) the firearms or firearm parts to which the conduct relates are of the same kind.
(2C) Absolute liability applies to paragraphs (1) (b) and (c) and (2) (b), (c) and (e).
Note: For absolute liability, see section 6.2.
(2D) Strict liability applies to paragraph (2) (d).
Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1.
Definitions
1A Before subsection 360.3(1) of the Criminal Code
Insert:
Basic offence
1B Paragraph 360.3(1 ) ( a) of the Criminal Code
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(a) the person takes or sends a thing from one State or Territory to another State or Territory; and
(aa) the thing is a firearm or firearm part; and
(ab) the person does so in the course of trade or commerce:
(i) among the States; or
(ii) between a State and a Territory, or between 2 Territories; and
1C Subsection 360.3(1) of the Criminal Code (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Penalty: Imprisonment for 20 years or a fine of 5,000 penalty units, or both.
1D After subsection 360.3(1) of the Criminal Code
Insert:
Aggravated offence—taking or sending 50 or more firearms or firearm parts in 6 month period
(1A) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person takes or sends (on one or more occasions) one or more things from one State or Territory to another State or Territory; and
(b) each thing is a firearm or firearm part; and
(c) the person does so in the course of trade or commerce:
(i) among the States; or
(ii) between a State and a Territory, or between 2 Territories; and
(d) the person does so intending that any of the firearms or parts will be disposed of in the other State or Territory (whether by the person or another); and
(e) the person knows that, or is reckless as to whether:
(i) the disposal of any of the firearms or parts; or
(ii) any acquisition of any of the firearms or parts that results from the disposal;
would happen in circumstances that would constitute an offence against the firearm law of that other State or Territory; and
(f) the conduct on any occasion, or on 2 or more occasions taken together, results in the taking, or sending, by the person of:
(i) 50 or more firearms; or
(ii) 50 or more firearm parts that might be used to constitute one or more firearms; or
(iii) a combination of firearms and firearm parts such that the sum of the actual firearms and the firearms that might be constituted by the parts is 50 or more; and
(g) if the taking or sending of the firearms or parts mentioned in paragraph (f) resulted from conduct on 2 or more occasions taken together—the occasions of conduct occurred during a 6 month period.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life or a fine of 7,500 penalty units, or both.
Provisions relating to basic offence and aggravated offence
(1B) Absolute liability applies to paragraphs (1) (ab) and (1A) (c) and (g).
Note: For absolute liability, see section 6.2.
(1C) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1A) (f).
Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1.
(1D) To avoid doubt, it is immaterial for the purposes of paragraphs (1A) (b) and (f) whether the firearms or firearm parts are of the same kind.
Definitions
1E Subsection 360.3(2) of the Criminal Code (at the end of the definition of firearm )
Add "or (1A) (e) (as the case requires)".
1F Subsection 360.3(2) of the Criminal Code (definition of firearm part )
Omit "(1) (c)", substitute "(1) (c) or (1A) (e) (as the case requires)".
(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (lines 17 to 21), omit the item, substitute:
3 Before section 360.4 of the Criminal Code
Insert:
360.3AB Double jeopardy and alternative verdicts
Double jeopardy
(1) A person who has been convicted or acquitted of an aggravated offence may not be convicted of a basic offence relating to the aggravated offence that is alleged to have been committed in the period during which the person was alleged to have committed the aggravated offence.
(2) However, subsection (1) does not prevent an alternative verdict under subsection (4).
(3) A person who has been convicted or acquitted of a basic offence relating to an aggravated offence may not be convicted of the aggravated offence if any of the occasions relied on as evidence of the commission of the aggravated offence includes the conduct that constituted the basic offence.
Alternative verdict—aggravated offence not proven
(4) If, on a trial for an aggravated offence, the trier of fact:
(a) is not satisfied that the defendant is guilty of the aggravated offence; but
(b) is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he or she is guilty of the basic offence relating to the aggravated offence;
it may find the defendant not guilty of the aggravated offence but guilty of the basic offence, so long as the defendant has been accorded procedural fairness in relation to that finding of guilt.
Definitions
(5) In this section:
aggravated offence means an offence against subsection 360.2(2) or 360.3(1A).
basic offence relating to an aggravated offence means:
(a) if the aggravated offence is an offence against subsection 360.2(2)—an offence against subsection 360.2(1); or
(b) if the aggravated offence is an offence against subsection 360.3(1A)—an offence against subsection 360.3(1).
3A Subsection 361.2(1) of the Criminal Code (heading)
Repeal the heading, substitute:
Basic offences
3B Subsection 361.2(1) of the Criminal Code (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Penalty: Imprisonment for 20 years or a fine of 5,000 penalty units, or both.
3C Subsection 361.2(2) of the Criminal Code
Repeal the subsection.
3D Subsection 361.2(3) of the Criminal Code (heading)
Repeal the heading.
3E Subsection 361.2(3) of the Criminal Code (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Penalty: Imprisonment for 20 years or a fine of 5,000 penalty units, or both.
3F Subsections 361.2(4) and (5) of the Criminal Code
Repeal the subsections, substitute:
Aggravated offence—importing 50 or more prohibited firearms or firearm parts in 6 month period
(4) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person imports (on one or more occasions) one or more things; and
(b) each thing is a firearm or firearm part; and
(c) the person imports each firearm or part with the intention of trafficking in the firearm or part; and
(d) importing each firearm or part was prohibited under the Customs Act 1901:
(i) absolutely; or
(ii) unless certain requirements were met; and
(e) if subparagraph (d) (ii) applies in relation to an occasion of importation—the person fails to meet any of those requirements; and
(f) any occasion of importation, or 2 or more occasions taken together, results in the importation by the person of:
(i) 50 or more firearms; or
(ii) 50 or more firearm parts that might be used to constitute one or more firearms; or
(iii) a combination of firearms and firearm parts such that the sum of the actual firearms and the firearms that might be constituted by the parts is 50 or more; and
(g) if the importation of the firearms or parts mentioned in paragraph (f) resulted from 2 or more occasions of importation taken together—the occasions of importation occurred during a 6 month period.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life or a fine of 7,500 penalty units, or both.
Provisions relating to basic offence and aggravated offence
(5) Absolute liability applies to paragraphs (1) (d), (3) (d) and (4) (d) and (g).
Note: For absolute liability, see section 6.2.
(6) Strict liability applies to paragraphs (3) (e) and (4) (e) and (f).
Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1.
(7) To avoid doubt, it is immaterial for the purposes of paragraphs (4) (b) and (f) whether the firearms or firearm parts are of the same kind.
3G Subsection 361.3(1) of the Criminal Code (heading)
Repeal the heading, substitute:
Basic offences
3H Subsection 361.3(1) of the Criminal Code (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Penalty: Imprisonment for 20 years or a fine of 5,000 penalty units, or both.
3J Subsection 361.3(2) of the Criminal Code
Repeal the subsection.
3K Subsection 361.3(3) of the Criminal Code (heading)
Repeal the heading.
3L Subsections 361.3(3) and (4) of the Criminal Code (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Penalty: Imprisonment for 20 years or a fine of 5,000 penalty units, or both.
3M Subsections 361.3(5) and (6) of the Criminal Code
Repeal the subsections, substitute:
Aggravated offence—exporting or entering for export 50 or more prohibited firearms or firearm parts in 6 month period
(5) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person (on one or more occasions) exports, or enters for export from Australia, one or more things; and
(b) each thing is a firearm or firearm part; and
(c) the person exports, or enters for export, each firearm or part with the intention of trafficking in the firearm or part; and
(d) exporting, or entering for export, each firearm or part was prohibited under the Customs Act 1901:
(i) absolutely; or
(ii) unless certain requirements were met; and
(e) if subparagraph (d) (ii) applies in relation to an occasion of exportation or entry for export—the person fails to meet any of those requirements; and
(f) any occasion of exportation or entry for export, or 2 or more occasions taken together, results in the exportation or entry for export by the person of:
(i) 50 or more firearms; or
(ii) 50 or more firearm parts that might be used to constitute one or more firearms; or
(iii) a combination of firearms and firearm parts such that the sum of the actual firearms and the firearms that might be constituted by the parts is 50 or more; and
(g) if the exportation or entry for export of the firearms or parts mentioned in paragraph (f) resulted from 2 or more occasions of exportation or entry for export taken together—the occasions of exportation or entry for export occurred during a 6 month period.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life or a fine of 7,500 penalty units, or both.
Provisions relating to basic offence and aggravated offence
(6) Absolute liability applies to paragraphs (1) (d), (3) (d), (4) (d) and (5) (d) and (g).
Note: For absolute liability, see section 6.2.
(7) Strict liability applies to paragraphs (3) (e), (4) (e) and (5) (e) and (f).
Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1.
(8) To avoid doubt, it is immaterial for the purposes of paragraphs (5) (b) and (f) whether the firearms or firearm parts are of the same kind.
(3) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 7), at the end of the Schedule, add:
6 Section 361.6 of the Criminal Code
Before "A person", insert "(1)".
7 At the end of section 361.6 of the Criminal Code
Add:
(2) A person who has been convicted or acquitted of an aggravated offence may not be convicted of a basic offence relating to the aggravated offence that is alleged to have been committed in the period during which the person was alleged to have committed the aggravated offence.
(3) However, subsection (2) does not prevent an alternative verdict under subsection (5).
(4) A person who has been convicted or acquitted of a basic offence relating to an aggravated offence may not be convicted of the aggravated offence if any of the occasions relied on as evidence of the commission of the aggravated offence includes the conduct that constituted the basic offence.
(5) If, on a trial for an aggravated offence, the trier of fact:
(a) is not satisfied that the defendant is guilty of the aggravated offence; but
(b) is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he or she is guilty of the basic offence relating to the aggravated offence;
it may find the defendant not guilty of the aggravated offence but guilty of the basic offence, so long as the defendant has been accorded procedural fairness in relation to that finding of guilt.
(6) In this section:
aggravated offence means an offence against subsection 361.2(4) or 361.3(5).
basic offence relating to an aggravated offence means:
(a) if the aggravated offence is an offence against subsection 361.2(4)—an offence against subsection 361.2(1) or (3); or
(b) if the aggravated offence is an offence against subsection 361.3(5)—an offence against subsection 361.3(1), (3) or (4).
I want to make some brief comments about these amendments. As flagged in my speech in the second reading debate, the opposition proposes to amend this bill to create aggravated offences for firearms trafficking. I have referenced previously the government's deep division and disunity on guns, and Labor is in the position of having to push for tougher rules against firearms trafficking.
This amendment would create aggravated offences for cross-border firearms trafficking and international firearms trafficking under divisions 360 and 361 of the Criminal Code. These offences would target the worst forms of firearms trafficking and attract a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, 7,500 penalty units or both, which would bring the maximum penalty for firearms trafficking up to the maximum penalty for drug trafficking. The opposition believes that the serious nature of supplying firearms and firearm parts to the illicit market warrants this significant penalty. The imperishable nature of firearms also means that illicit firearms remain a serious threat to the Australian community for many years. During this time they can all too easily fall into the hands of criminal gangs or terrorists.
Labor sought to pass these measures some five years ago as part of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Organised Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2012, a bill which passed the House with the support of the coalition, then in opposition, and the crossbench. Although the bill did not pass the Senate prior to the 2013 federal election, the Senate committee inquiry into the 2012 bill, conducted by both government and opposition senators, supported the introduction of such aggravated offences for firearms trafficking. As I said, these measures were introduced five years ago. It is disappointing that this work was not taken up by the coalition when they won government. With growing gun crime in our communities and continual reports of mass firearms trafficking through the media and otherwise, we believe that toughening our firearms trafficking laws as laid out in the amendments is appropriate.
The offences would capture trafficking of 50 or more firearms, 50 or more firearm parts that might be used to make one or more firearms, or a combination of both firearms and parts such that the sum of actual firearms and firearms that might be constituted by the parts is 50 or more. This could occur all on one occasion or on two or more occasions. This will target firearms trafficking enterprises engaged in the mass distribution and exchange of firearms. The threshold quantity of 50 or more firearms or firearm parts for the aggravated offences is identical to that in the bill that Labor introduced in 2012. It is a threshold quantity significantly higher than those in existing state or territory offences. That is because the aggravated offences attract a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, which is obviously a very serious penalty. Basic offences for firearms trafficking will still apply to trafficking which does not reach this threshold, which attracts a maximum penalty of 20 years, 5,000 penalty units or both.
As I referenced earlier today, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission estimates there are up to 600,000 illegal guns in our community. Ten thousand of these are predicted to be handguns, which, of course, are the weapon of choice for many criminal elements. The amendments that the opposition is proposing will send a strong message about the seriousness with which the parliament views firearms trafficking and allow our courts to lock up the worst traffickers for life. I commend the amendments to the chamber.
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (18:04): Unfortunately, notwithstanding the attempt to characterise the Labor Party 's position as a strong one, this is a weaker position than the government's. Senator Wong has indicated that she opposes mandatory minimum sentences and seeks to offer an alternative, and that is the creation of a circumstance of aggravation with a higher maximum sentence. There is no question whatsoever that prescribing mandatory minimum sentences is a much clearer indication of the parliament's view of the seriousness of an offence than creating a new, aggravated offence, particularly in view of the fact that courts, in sentencing, already take into account circumstances of aggravation when determining where within the sentencing range a particular penalty of imprisonment should be imposed. So Labor's attempt to portray themselves as taking a tough position will convince no-one. What Senator Wong is in fact doing is seeking to weaken the position by opposing the one effective measure, the one effective signal, that this parliament can send, and that is a mandatory minimum sentence so that no gun-trafficking offender will escape a term of imprisonment. That is a strong message. Anything less than that is a weaker message.
I appreciate that the Labor Party support the principles of this legislation. I accept that they take a serious view of the nature of the crime, that overall they are supportive, and that they will get their amendment passed given the state of the numbers in the Senate on this issue. But I regret to say that what the Senate, if it passes Senator Wong's amendment, will have done will have been to settle for a weaker message than the government would wish to see.
Senator HINCH (Victoria) (18:06): I am of two minds here. I support Senator Wong and her appeal to get the maximum sentence increased to 30 years. If our magistrates and judges were doing their jobs properly, we would not need any minimum sentences. We see, in court after court, maximum sentences where state governments are bowing to popular pressure and increasing maximum sentences, but still you are seeing people walk free with suspended sentences, no sentences, short jail terms or what. On the other hand, I agree with the Attorney-General when he says that with the five-year minimum no drug trafficker will escape jail.
You would assume in this day and age—in this post 9/11 climate, and after the Lindt Cafe siege et cetera—that no judge would ever in Australia let a gun trafficker walk free with no jail. But, sadly, some of our judges and some of our courts are such bleeding hearts about such issues that it would not surprise me, and that is why I will be supporting the government today.
The CHAIR: Senator Kakoschke-Moore.
Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE (South Australia) (18:07): Thank you. I am just seeking your guidance for a moment. I have an amendment to Labor's amendments that we are debating at the moment. Should I move those now or wait until the question has been put on Labor's amendments on sheet 8037?
The CHAIR: If you want to move an amendment to the amendments that are being put by Senator Wong on behalf of the Labor Party, you need to do that now.
Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE (South Australia) (18:08): Thank you. On behalf of the Nick Xenophon Team, I seek leave to move amendments to the amendments proposed by the opposition on sheet 8037.
Leave granted.
Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE: On behalf of the Nick Xenophon Team, I move amendments (3) to (8) on sheet 8051:
AMENDMENTS TO OPPOSITION AMENDMENTS [SHEET 8037]
(3) Amendment (1), item 1, subsection 360.2(1), omit "20 years", substitute "30 years".
(4) Amendment (1), item 1C, omit "20 years", substitute "30 years".
(5) Amendment (2), item 3B, omit "20 years", substitute "30 years".
(6) Amendment (2), item 3E, omit "20 years", substitute "30 years".
(7) Amendment (2), item 3H, omit "20 years", substitute "30 years".
(8) Amendment (2), item 3L, omit "20 years", substitute "30 years".
The Nick Xenophon Team believes that increasing the maximum penalty for this offence sends a decisive message to both the community and potential offenders that trafficking illegal firearms is not acceptable and that the consequences for doing so will entail harsher penalties.
The CHAIR: Thank you. Senator Brandis.
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (18:09): Can I indicate that the government will be supporting the Nick Xenophon Team's amendments. The Nick Xenophon Team's amendments do strengthen the legislation. We have no objection to that. Our opposition is to the weakening of the legislation that the Labor Party is trying to bring about. But, because of the effect of your amendment, Senator Kakoschke-Moore, and having regard to the considerations you and Senator Hinch referred to, we think this is a good proposal and we support it.
The CHAIR: Senator Rhiannon.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (18:10): Thank you, Chair. The Greens do support Labor's amendments to introduce new offences to manage the new offences that are encapsulated in the bill. I note that the minister's response really just relied on saying 'Labor has a weaker positon', without really backing that up. I think this is actually an important debate when we come to deal with the issue of mandatory sentencing. It is worth reflecting on and giving that some time, because it is an important issue when it comes to delivering fair justice in our society.
But, first off, just on mandatory sentences, this is something that the Greens have long had concerns about, because they take the power away from the judge, the person best placed to pass a sentence. Mandatory sentences are not effective at deterring crime. I would like to again share some advice from experts in the field because, as I said, it is a very important matter and when we have the Attorney-General actually arguing for mandatory sentencing, I think it is worth fleshing this out.
More police powers are rarely the right answer to problems. We have seen that in New South Wales with a very strong law and order approach from Labor, Liberal and National parties over the years. We are seeing it with the failure of terrorist laws that take a similar approach. I just want to put on the record yet again that the Greens—while we are supporting Labor amendments, really there is a major failure with this legislation overall in its approach to public safety when it comes to firearms. We need a national firearms agreement that works and that is strengthened. We still do not have that national firearms integration system. We still cannot trace firearms from the cradle to the grave.
We hear from the coalition that this is about public safety. But, unless we have the means to be able to track firearms that are already in this country, the hypocrisy of the government talking about their commitments is really on display. Because this is also a debate about one's position on mandatory sentencing, it is worth noting what some of the experts have said on this. The Law Council has voiced its unconditional opposition to mandatory sentencing as a penalty for any criminal offence on the basis that it raises the potential for unintended consequences. They have set that out in detail in many documents over the years. The Law Council goes on in their submission on this bill to say that imposing mandatory minimum imprisonment sentences is contrary to other sentencing provisions which judges apply. They point out that section 17A of the Crimes Act provides that a sentencing court shall not pass a sentence of imprisonment unless, having considered all other sentences, it is satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate in the circumstances.
All that ability—the nuances that judges need in determining the human aspect of it, the circumstances that cannot be encapsulated in law—is lost if you go down the path of mandatory sentencing. That is why I wanted to speak further on this, because it is a very, very serious move that the government is attempting to use here, again just to bang the drum that they are doing something about firearm violence when they are not addressing the main game.
To stay with some of the advice from experts on this issue, it is also worth noting that the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has been very informative on mandatory minimum penalties reducing or deterring the importation of illegal firearms. This is a quote from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute:
… if the desired outcome is to reduce the availability of illegal firearms in Australian communities the focus needs be on strategies which increase the likelihood that a firearms trafficker will be caught. Those strategies should focus on continuing to enhance our border agencies' capabilities to detect and investigate illicit firearm trafficking at the border.
Mandatory sentencing of illicit firearms traffickers … won't deliver the desired results.
It is very emphatic. The people who work in this field—and the Attorney-General would clearly know this—have rejected this approach time and time again. Considering the strength of the body of evidence from experts that mandatory sentencing does not work, I would like to ask the Attorney-General why he is persisting to use this discredited approach to firearm crimes. Why does he persist? I am interested in your response, Attorney-General.
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (18:15): Because, Senator Rhiannon, it is not a discredited approach. If you knew anything about this area, you would know that among criminologists and penologists there is a debate about the efficacy of various sentencing models and sentencing tariffs. There are some criminologists and penologists who agree with you, but, like those who invoke the language of experts in this chamber so commonly do, you entirely disregard the very relevant fact that there is a vigorous debate in that discipline among scholars and among experts. There are some who agree with you and there are others who vigorously disagree with you, but I think you will find, Senator Rhiannon, that among those who practise in the criminal courts and among judges who conduct criminal proceedings the overwhelming weight of opinion is that in appropriate cases, particularly in cases of premeditation such as trafficking in arms—which is classically an offence of premeditation rather than an offence which may be committed by an individual on impulse or in the heat of the moment—the prospect of an inevitable jail term does have a measurable deterrent effect. So, please, Senator Rhiannon, do not be so intellectually dishonest as to say, 'The experts say this,' when the fact is that there is a vigorous debate among scholars and practitioners. But the preponderant view is that in relation particularly to offences of premeditation the inevitability of a jail term does have a deterrent effect.
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (18:17): Attorney-General, you really should not verbal me. I have not ignored the debate; I have not ignored it at all.
Senator Brandis: You didn't even refer to it!
Senator RHIANNON: I acknowledge your interjection. All I have done is inject into this debate some balance, because you should not be imputing to me exactly what you have done. You are the one who, in the context of advancing your arguments, has been banging the drum about mandatory sentencing rather than acknowledging that there are a range of opinions here. All I was doing was injecting into the debate some of the views that you have failed to bring into this discussion. Again you fall back on attacks and personal abuse, rather than giving the evidence that surely you should be. If you say that there is this body of experts who support mandatory sentencing, what is the evidence that that system works? All I was doing was injecting the other side, which is what you failed to do.
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (18:18): I have barely spoken in the debate, so how you can say that is beyond me.
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (18:19): Precisely—you have given further weight to your failure in how you have prosecuted the case. You come in here and attack me about being unbalanced, which is precisely how you have approached this.
The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (3) to (8) on sheet 8051, moved by Senator Kakoschke-Moore, which seek to amend the amendments as put by Senator Wong on sheet 8037, be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The CHAIR (18:25): The question is that the amendments, as amended, on sheet 8037 and 8051, be agreed to.
The committee divided. [18:25]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
The CHAIR (18:27): The question now is that the bill, as amended, stand as printed.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (18:27): by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8036:
(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 9 to 16), to be opposed.
(2) Schedule 1, items 4 and 5, page 3 (line 22) to page 4 (line 7), to be opposed.
I do not propose to re-traverse the argument in relation to these amendments. I think I canvassed it in detail in my speech on the second reading.
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (18:28): These amendments relate to the removal of the mandatory minimum sentence provision. The government has put its position in relation to that. I will not canvass the arguments either. The amendments do weaken the legislation. Given the point of the legislation is to send a very strong signal to firearms traffickers, that is a great shame. The government will be opposing these two opposition amendments.
The CHAIR: The question is that items 2, 4 and 5 on schedule 1 stand as printed.
The committee divided. [18:34]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (18:38): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the bill be now read a third time.
Sitting suspended from 18:43 to 19:43
The Senate divided. [18:40]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill 2016
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (19:43): I rise to speak in opposition to the latest government attempt to reduce wages and conditions and set up a system that exposes young workers to exploitation and exposes existing employees to unfair competition from exploited workers. Young Australian will be denied award wages and conditions. They will be classified as interns and not employees in a not so subtle expression of coalition contempt for decent wages, decent conditions and health and safety on the job.
The latest iteration of the government's antiworking agenda is this bill, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill 2016. It continues the coalition tradition of attacking worker protections. This bill sits comfortably in the tradition of Work Choices and the ABCC.
The bill is designed to give effect to so-called internships and provide wage subsidies, which were elements of the Youth Jobs PaTH measure announced in the 2016-17 budget as part of the youth employment package. The Youth Jobs PaTH program is being marketed as providing job seekers aged 17 to 24 years who have been in receipt of jobactive services for six months with work experience and to allegedly maximise their prospects of subsequently gaining employment. The reality is that it will expose them to unscrupulous employers with no access to workers compensation, no award wages and no union protection.
This bill will amend the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 so the miserly $200 payment that interns receive is not counted as income for social security or veterans entitlements purpose. Secondly, it will amend the Social Security act to allow young people to suspend their payments if they are employed. They can then restart without reapplying if they lose their job internship through no fault of their own within 28 weeks. How this no fault of your own will ever be analysed and determined, I do not know.
These job seekers will be placed into so-called voluntary internships, working for between 15 and 25 hours a week for between four and 12 weeks. For this they will receive payments of $200 per fortnight—not a week, a fortnight—on top of their income support payments. For many this will not be sufficient to cover the cost of travelling to work and the extra expenses associated with work. Businesses will be looked after; they will be paid $1000 to take on an intern and will receive a wage subsidy of between $6500 and $10,000 if they have participants at the conclusion of the internship—with an offer of a job that is expected to be ongoing and for an average of 20 hours a week over the six-month period. So they get well rewarded for exploiting young workers. That is the reality.
Instead of tackling the real issue of youth unemployment, the government has come up with a hastily cobbled together scheme that offers no solution to the problem of youth unemployment. Minister Cash was completely at sea during the estimates hearings when asked for details of how this bill would operate in real life. This bill, if passed, creates a pool of cut-price young workers who will be working at a rate that is less than the national minimum wage. The government is arguing that PaTH is needed to fix youth unemployment. Despite promising it would tackle youth unemployment, an incompetent Turnbull government has failed to deliver.
On the Turnbull government's watch, youth unemployment has climbed to 13.3 per cent, double the overall rate of unemployment. According to their own figures, there are nearly 300,000 unemployed young people between the ages of 15 and 24. More than one million Australians are underemployed. On top of this, the department acknowledges there are another 170,000 people who have been unemployed for more than a year and who are discouraged from seeking jobs that are non-existent.
This government has left young Australians high and dry. It is unable to come up with a real plan to find jobs for our young people. In the meantime they are trying to sneak through changes in their Omnibus bill which will see young unemployed people left without any form of income for a month when they come to the government seeking assistance to survive. This mob has an absolute contempt for the unemployed, an absolute contempt for working-class kids and an absolute contempt for fairness and reasonableness in their dealings with young people.
This will simply be another failed coalition policy where they push young unemployed people into programs that do nothing to assist them into real, meaningful employment. You only have to look at the Work for the Dole program, where almost 90 per cent of the participants did not get a full-time job three months after finishing the program. Remember the Work for the Dole program and all the great speeches we had from the other side of the chamber? What a great thing Work for the Dole is! What a great program—just get these kids into some work and everything will be okay. It has been a massive failure in similar terms to this government as a failure.
What has been the response of the Turnbull government to this failure? They have taken over $752 million out of Work for the Dole and shifted it into PaTH—that great successful program, let us take $752 million out and try and do something else. That is the reality: you fit one failed program into what will be another failed program. The very serious risk is that PaTH will displace people who would otherwise be employed to fill genuine vacancies. PaTH will take in 30,000 young Australians, classify them as interns and place them in businesses around the country in an already weakened labour market. Young people trying to get into entry-level employment will be competing with the people in the PaTH program, operating as cut-price labour for government subsidised employers.
The Turnbull government's definition of an intern is not going to match the public's idea of what an intern is. These young people will not be working in the white-collar roles with which interns are typically associated; in professional services or law firms. I do not think there will be any movies made about these interns. I do not think Hollywood will be looking at all the glamour for these young workers forced into below award wages, below poverty line wages. There will be no movies made about these interns. This is another example of an uncaring government with no answers for the unemployed, no answers for young Australians.
What we will see are these interns working as waiters, working as shop assistants and even working as builders' labourers—areas where young people would get a chance, get an opportunity to get an award wage and maybe even a bit better than an award wage if they happen to have a good union like the CFMEU. But what are we going to get here? We are going to get young kids put into an area where there is already massive exploitation so more intern waiters, intern shop assistants, intern builders' labourers—the traditional employers of young people looking for their first full-time job. The fast food chains, the big retail stores are going to be supplied with a steady stream of interns, who will be working at a rate that is less than national minimum wage. The national minimum wage is $17.70 an hour but a PaTH participant, who works 25 hours a week and who receives all of their Newstart payments plus the $200 payment, will earn just $14.50 an hour. This is simply exploitation of young people.
People have rightly been concerned about the cases of workers exploitation when wage scandals come to light. Can you imagine being an intern at 7-Eleven? Can you imagine being an intern at Pizza Hut? Can you imagine being an intern at Baiada Poultry? Imagine the exploitation that will go on there under this proposal. Cleaners working in Myer stores are exploited yet young people are going to go in there as interns and Myer is going to get paid by this mob to rip young workers off; that is the reality. Most recently we have seen Dominoes Pizza. How many young people have started off in Dominoes Pizza to go into their first job? We have seen Dominoes Pizza are ripping off young people yet they will be eligible to get this PaTH payment. It just beggars belief.
There are examples of apprentice exploitation. Even when legally established wages are in place, employers exploit young workers. The Fair Work Ombudsman, in response to the constant flow of complaints received from the domestic building industry and in response to the vulnerable nature of apprentices working within the industry, audited Victorian building firms between 2011 and 2012 and found that 94 per cent of the 164 employers broke laws covering apprentices. Fifty-seven per cent of them failed to pay apprentices properly. And an ombudsman's random audit in 2013 of 142 businesses in Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory found that more than half breached workplace laws and almost a quarter had underpaid their apprentices by a combined total of $67,180. These are apprentices who would have a contract for employment and a contract for training yet what we are seeing is systematic exploitation of these young workers.
What we are hearing from this mob on the other side is that they want to put some of the most disadvantaged young kids into a situation where there will be even more exploitation even more on vulnerable young Australians. Why would our community stand for government program that sanctions undercutting the minimum wage?
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has made a submission to the Senate inquiry into the PaTH program stating that the industry has the places to meet the demand of the program. I say to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry: why are you not filling these places by hiring the many young jobseekers who need the work right now? I can tell you why, it is because the biggest advocates, the biggest cheerleaders for PaTH—big business—can see a pool of young unemployed Australians working at cut-price rates below the national minimum wage being used in a way that could potentially undercut jobs and undercut wages.
What happens to interns who are involved in a workplace accident? Will they be covered by worker's compensation? According to the government, that will depend on the worker's compensation regime that operates in the particular state or territory in which these interns find themselves. Are you kidding me? You cannot make workplace safety in a program you devised someone else's problem. You cannot push 30,000 young people out into internships earning below the minimum wage with no guarantee of a job after the internship and palm off the fundamental issues of protecting young workers to the states. In some states and territories, an intern may be considered a volunteer, not actually an employee, and therefore unable to access worker's compensation. And it is not just Labor that has these concerns. ACOSS were damning in their assessment of participant protections.
There is no legislative assurance that the health and safety of participants in the internships will be adequately protected.
That is what they told the Senate inquiry. This is an issue that cannot be ignored but the government is not really stepping forward with clear assurances.
There is the more important question: after being used for up to three months at a rate below the national minimum wage, will these interns actually get a job? Interns Australia wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald that unpaid interns are only offered employment with the same organisation 20 per cent of the time. Their conclusions about the PaTH program are absolutely scathing. They said:
It creates an Australia where exploited interns are widespread but entry-level jobs are scarce, where business either flagrantly exploits its newest workers or doesn't know whether to hire them, and where the rights of interns are more confused and muddled than ever before.
PaTH interns were supposed to be placed into businesses where there were real vacancies. That is the way it was described when this program was announced. But since announcing PaTH the Turnbull government quickly watered down this pledge to 'a reasonable prospect of a job'. There is genuine concern that young Australians participating in PaTH could be used and discarded every four to 12 weeks. For all they may deny it, this government share these concerns. Why else would this legislation provide a fallback position where the jobseeker payments are only suspended in cases where they lose their job through no fault of their own from the business that receives a youth bonus wage subsidy in relation to them under the Youth Jobs PaTH program? Interns Australia noted to the Senate inquiry:
… we have concerns this provision may encourage employers to hire an employee to receive the subsidy, terminate their employment, then hire another employee to receive the subsidy again.
How is the government going to test or sanction employers that might churn through a PaTH participant after the engagement with an intern concludes and the wage subsidy ends?
I move the following amendment:
At the end of the motion, add:
", but that further consideration of this Bill be an order of the day for the first sitting day after the Government has tabled a statement outlining how it intends to ensure that, under Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire:
(1) jobs will not be displaced by cheaper labour;
(2) wages will not be undercut and participants will not be paid below minimum award wages;
(3) participants' safety will not be compromised and adequate insurance arrangements will be provided; and
(4) small to medium enterprises will be prioritised in 'Prepare, Trial, Hire' as they have a demonstrated track record of employing more job seekers through their jobactive program.
Labor is opposed to this bill. This is a bill that is simply about exploitation. As I have said, this is a bill that stands alongside the Work Choices and ABCC bills as bills that are designed to exploit workers and vulnerable people and are about denying workers access to decent union representation and decent rights and conditions on the job. There is no convincing or effective argument that I have heard for this bill.
This is the Turnbull government again in failure mode. Everything was going to be rosy when they had bills that would force young workers into work. But, when that failed, they had to move to this approach. This approach is really concerning because it exploits young people and advantages unscrupulous employers. No-one can convince me that this is going to work effectively, and the government should hang their heads in shame for exploiting young Australians.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (20:03): Unfortunately, unemployment in our nation is an issue that disproportionately impacts on young people. Youth unemployment is at double the national unemployment average—that is, nearly 300,000 young people across our nation are unemployed. We all know that this is an unacceptable statistic and, sadly, it is rising. But the primary cause of this unemployment is a lack of economic growth. Low-skilled and inexperienced young people are particularly vulnerable to these conditions in the job market. There are poor economic growth in particular pockets around our nation where this is a problem.
It is a particular problem in my home state of Western Australia, where youth unemployment, I am sad to say, is reaching crisis point. The unemployment rates are still above global financial crisis levels. In some parts of Western Australia, unemployment is more than double the national average. All over my home state of WA, people are feeling it, from our southern metropolitan suburbs like Pinjarra, Mandurah, Rockingham and Kwinana right up to northern suburbs like Yanchep, Wanneroo, Joondalup and through our wheat belt region. This, I believe, is because the Barnett government has squandered our mining boom. It has hollowed out our economy. It did not invest in jobs and training for the future, and young people in WA are now, very sadly, paying the price for that.
This is very much why I am glad to see the work that Labor has done, with Bill Shorten and WA opposition leader Mark McGowan announcing in Perth earlier this month that they are working together on that job creation. It is about diversifying our economy and ensuring that we have jobs for the future. What we have seen under the watch of the coalition, both at a state and at a federal level, is a complete lack of commitment to diversifying the economy and looking to the industries of the future. My good colleague Senator Doug Cameron's remarks really highlight that.
What we want to see in our nation is an opportunity for people to go to university or TAFE being confident that they will have a high-skilled, well-paid job at the end of it. What we have seen in our nation is a government in Western Australia that has been very focused on making sure that these jobs, frankly, go offshore. Each year they send a list here to Canberra promoting overseas workers into Western Australia in traditional trades where we already have large numbers of unemployed people back home. The Liberals are continuing to send these jobs overseas. The latest example is the Malaysian footbridge. That bridge could and should have been built in Western Australia, and the fact that the WA Liberal government contracted for that bridge to be built overseas is a disgrace. I cannot really fathom why the state government would do that when workshops in our home state are empty and young people are in desperate need of work. So I am really pleased to highlight the state Labor commitment to putting local jobs, training and apprenticeships at the heart of everything we do.
This stands in stark contrast to the legislation before us tonight. What we really want to see are commitments like making it law that government departments, including health, education, transport and housing are required to provide more apprenticeships for local people; and putting in place Western Australian industry participation plans that require as a part of all bidding processes for construction work across government a consideration of apprenticeships and traineeships. These are the commitments that state Labor has made in Western Australia and these are where you will find solutions to youth unemployment nationally, not in the kind of misplaced legislation that we have before us tonight. These are the real solutions to unemployment in our nation. They are the right approach. This is the approach that you should be taking at a national level.
But, sadly, where is the Turnbull government on this question? In our country we need a solution to unemployment that is much better than the lazy policy approach that simply provides employers with free Labor. That is the solution you have put forward in this place. We need a solution that goes beyond your mantra of jobs and growth. We keep hearing this from a government—that their priority is jobs and growth—but, sadly, you are failing on this front. You are failing to tackle unemployment, which is why you are creating in the legislation before us these proxy jobs that are not real jobs at all.
Our nation is desperate for solutions to unemployment. I meet young people all the time in Western Australia who are extremely concerned about their future. This bill is not providing a solution for them. The introduction of a 12-week internships for jobseekers is a major change to employment program arrangements, and it is one that needs to be scrutinised very carefully by this place. It is a major change that should not be introduced until the concerns of the community have been resolved, as Senator Cameron outlined.
We have before us a really poor attempt at resolving the issue of youth unemployment. It will not improve outcomes for jobseekers. It is unlikely that it will make a difference to the unemployment rate for young people in our country.
The government is claiming that the measures in this bill are non-controversial, but in actual fact they form part of a much broader new program design that undermines the workforce standards that we here in Australia hold dear. A similar program in Ireland has been discontinued and one in the UK has been the subject of much controversy.
In theory, what we have before us is something that is supposed to prepare young people for work by providing young job seekers aged 17 to 27 with pre-employment training and placement in voluntary internships of between four and six weeks. In this time they may work from 15 to 25 hours a week and will receive bonus payments of up to $200 a fortnight on top of their current income support payments. If you do the maths on that, an intern who works 25 hours per week but receives only their Newstart payments plus an extra $200 payment will earn just $14.50 an hour, and that is $3.20 less than the minimum wage. This means that young people participating in this program will be paid less than the minimum wage. Young people who are working, providing value to employers, contributing to a workforce and contributing to our economy will be paid below the minimum wage. This is simply not good enough.
If someone is working they should be paid properly for that work, regardless of the circumstances. If a young person is going to be making any meaningful contribution to an employer they should be fairly remunerated. This has been and should be a basic tenet of workplace rights in our country. What we see here, sadly, is a classic race to the bottom attitude. It is an attitude we have seen time and time again from this Liberal government and the ones who came before them.
What we also see here in the race to the bottom and the displacement of wages is the displacement of young people who would be paid properly to do those jobs. As Senator Cameron highlighted, there is nothing in this legislation that provides any guarantee that what you are putting forward is just providing a cheap labour subsidy to employers while displacing real people from real jobs. So this is not a fair deal for young jobseekers. In fact, it could make the situation much worse. It opens the door to the exploitation of young people who are already vulnerable and often in desperate circumstances. There are no restrictions on the times that interns will be required to work, leaving them open to working beyond ordinary working hours, with no penalty rates in recognition of evening or weekend work.
Interns under this program will not be classified as employees and, such being the case, will not be covered by occupational health and safety laws. What an appalling part of the legislation before us. This puts their safety at significant risk. It means there is no guarantee of a right to workers compensation should an intern injure themselves at work. It also seems that there are no provisions for checks to ensure that workplaces hiring interns are meeting health and safety requirements. We should not be allowing our young people to enter into the workforce without adequate protections for their health and safety.
This program also provides little protection from unfair dismissal. Increasingly, we are seeing people in our country, especially young people, feeling less and less secure at work. This is something that government should be addressing by providing more secure employment. There has been no detail from the government on what the work will actually entail. They cannot even tell us whether the participants will simply be observing the workplace or actually working.
There are also no assurances that employers will not be able to take advantage of the program. What is to stop employers cycling through young interns every 12 weeks to make the most of free labour and incentive payments from the government? We will see young jobseekers across the country stacking supermarket shelves or washing dishes in restaurants for below the minimum wage, gaining no skills, and with no extra incentive for the employer to keep them on long term or provide them with any training. Is this what this program will see? And, whilst the program opens up the potential for these kinds of exploitation, there is no provision for advice or support for young jobseekers going through the program. It does not outline how participants will be supported to get to and from their internships or the required training. Travel costs have the potential to be a huge burden on young jobseekers, particularly from our outermost metropolitan or rural areas and the areas that most need that support. Other additional costs such as appropriate workwear or safety gear are also a consideration for how they will be able to meet the costs associated with the program. I am looking forward to an explanation from the government on these issues.
What we want is a fair deal for young jobseekers in the legislation before us, but I do not believe that is what we have. It is putting existing jobs at risk, with the potential for existing workers to be replaced with cheaper labour. While the government claim that internships will be monitored to ensure that this churn will not happen, it is not clear how they are actually going to do this. There is no limit on how many participants can be used in any one company, so there is nothing stopping employers from using interns to complete their work rather than using permanent employees. This has the potential to undercut the workforce and force even more people into unemployment. We have no sanctions for employers who do this. What is to stop employers using this legislation and this program from using free labour instead of their existing workforce? Why would an employer pay their existing workforce weekend or night time penalty rates when they can use an intern under this program who is being paid by the government not only below the applicable penalty rates but below our country's minimum wage? The PaTH program could allow all of that to happen.
In addition to all of those issues there is no evidence that the program will even work. There is no provision for evaluation or review—no standards by which to measure the success of the program. The program also does not specify where or how participants will acquire the necessary skills to gain long-term employment. Evidence shows that formal training providing skills and knowledge is the key to better outcomes for jobseekers. In order for a program such as this to be successful, the training provided must be meaningful and linked to jobseekers' work experience. There are many such programs that have proven their worth in our nation's history, but it is an area that has not been adequately considered in this program.
As I have already said, in the UK a program similar to this was introduced in 2013. Fewer than half the estimated placements were made, and, I am sad to say, there was no identifiable increase in real job placements as a result of that. I really do not see how, as result of adopting a failed program here in Australia, there will be a different outcome. What we see is a program that has been put together quickly and without the thought or consultation that is required. Rather than quickly putting together a program with no long-term plan for its success, the government should be delaying the implementation of the program and be clear about the program's objectives, as well as providing proper evaluation and review processes. These elements are captured in the motion that Senator Cameron moved this evening.
The program we have before us looks like it has been designed to be a quick-fix solution to cover up the government's failure to fix unemployment in our country. It is being used as an excuse to cover up the failing of other government job programs, such as Work for the Dole. Work for the Dole programs required young people who were unemployed for more than six months to participate in an approved activity for up to 25 hours a week for six months of the year. These programs, which paid participants only $10.40 a week on top of their income support payments, have demonstrably failed at getting people into paid employment. The government's own figures show that 90 per cent of Work for the Dole participants are not in full time work three months after finishing the program. Irrespective of whether participants have been in or out of the program, their employment prospects are probably much the same. What we lack is real training, real engagement and real jobs for these people.
While this program shows some improvements on the Work for the Dole disaster, such as increasing the wage bonus to $200 a week, it is not ready to be implemented and it does not adequately protect the rights of young jobseekers in our country. This program is diverting funding from one ineffective program to another ineffective—and potentially exploitative—program. The government could fix some of these issues by increasing the rate of the bonus payment to meet the minimum wage, by decreasing the maximum hours worked, by ensuring that workers are covered by workers compensation, and by making the objectives clear. These are all things that Senator Cameron has called on the government to do.
This all really does beg the question: why has the government refused to do this? I guess it comes down to the government's appalling record on jobs. They are a government that time and time again have attempted to undercut the rights and conditions of workers. We saw this with their attacks on penalty rates, we saw it with their anti-union ABCC agenda, and we saw it in their unfair public service bargaining framework. Again we see it here tonight in our chamber. The government show complete disregard for young people and a complete misunderstanding of the complexities of youth unemployment. Indeed, it was this government who were considering cutting all benefits for jobseekers for six months while they were looking for work. What an appalling thing to do. Here in question time today we had a rush to come to the aid of farmers in need but not a rush to come to the aid of young jobseekers facing unemployment. It seems like the government have a framework for the worthy and unworthy poor in our country, and it is one that I very firmly reject. It is a disgrace for this government to say that young people have an obligation to look for work, whilst taking no obligation themselves to create jobs so they can find that work.
In conclusion, this Youth Jobs PaTH Program is an ill-considered, ineffective and potentially exploitative response to the growing issue of youth unemployment in our country. Young people in our country deserve better than this. Labor is demanding a better deal from this. Labor is calling for the PaTH program to be deferred until the issues we have raised and the issues the community have raised have been squarely addressed. Continuing with this program despite its obvious flaws is doing a disservice to those people who are in desperate need of a real solution to unemployment in our country. This program, introduced by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, is not creating jobs. It does not give young jobseekers the skills and opportunities they need for long-term work. This program is simply subsidising employers to place jobseekers into cheap work with no protection.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (20:23): I rise tonight to also contribute to the debate on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill that was introduced in 2016. This bill contains two measures that relate to the Youth Jobs PaTH Program, announced in the 2016-17 budget. These include the exemption of the fortnightly incentive payment of $200 from being counted as income so as to not affect the income support payments of the internship participants and the suspension of income support for up to 26 weeks for young people hired under a youth bonus wage subsidy so that they are not required to reapply if they find themselves unemployed through no fault of their own within the 26-week period. I will come back to that through-no-fault-of-their-own clause.
The Greens will not be supporting the passage of this legislation. We have a number of concerns with this legislation. Our key concerns with the PaTH program are related to: the limited remuneration the internship participants would receive; the possibility of existing employees being displaced and 'interns' being churned; the limited protections provided to the internship participants; and whether the internships are genuinely voluntary. We are also concerned that much of the PaTH program is not covered by the legislation. The bill is lacking a lot of detail. That is a key concern, as well. For example, the fortnightly incentive payment of $200 is not provided for in this bill. The Department of Employment, in answer to one of my questions on notice during the inquiry into the bill, said that this measure would not be included in legislation. This should ring alarm bells for everybody as it means that a future government, or this one, for this matter, at some point in time could decide to reduce the amount of incentive payment to be paid to internship participants.
Given we have concerns that internship participants may receive less than the minimum wage—in some cases as little as $4 an hour for their labour under the proposed parameters, the amount participants would be paid without the incentive payment or with a reduced incentive payment would not be acceptable. Because the incentive payment is not included in the legislation there is also no provision for it to be indexed over time. This means that the real value of the payment may not be maintained into the future and young jobseekers will be expected to live off even less. It would be even lower than the minimum wage.
The legislation also does not prescribe when a business hosting an 'intern' can ask the young jobseeker to work. This means the business may require an intern to work outside standard hours without having to pay them any prescribed penalty rates. This could lead to businesses overlooking existing employees for overtime or for work outside standard powers and, instead, require an intern to work. This will lead to employees conditions being undermined and interns being exploited. It could also lead to existing employees being displaced for interns, as the business will be in receipt of a youth bonus wage subsidy of up to $6,500 for intern participants that they offer an employment position to. For more disadvantaged jobseekers, this subsidy goes up to $10,000. The possibility of such displacement increases in workplaces where levels of employment fluctuate frequently and where there are a large number of casual workers, as these factors make it difficult to identify where displacement is occurring.
There is also concern that instead of a business filling a vacancy in the workplace following an internship placement, they may just continue to engage interns under the trial stage of the PaTH program, receiving $1,000 for each intern they engage. If this happens, businesses will be abusing the public purse in order to save a few pennies. It will also undermine the highest stage of the program, which is supposed to see young jobseekers employed by the businesses they intern with. We are not convinced that the checking processes will be adequate to identify this churn process. The bottom line is that youth unemployment should not be used as an excuse to provide cheap labour sources for business. This is a poor way to address the fact that there simply are not enough jobs for young people.
One way to ensure the participants are paid minimum wage would be to limit the number of hours internship participants could work in a fortnight. It is proposed at 50 hours. It would need to be kept at 30 hours to meet minimum wage standards. There should also be rules around when intern participants can work to ensure that they are not pressured into working non-standard hours.
The Australian Greens are deeply concerned about the lack of protections provided in the legislation and, otherwise, to intern participants because they are not classified as employees. The health and safety protections for the participants are, in our opinion, inadequate. Given the participants are not employees, it is possible they will not be covered by laws governing health and safety in the states and territories. There are concerns regarding insurance cover that will apply to the participants, including that it will not be to the same level of cover as is provided to employees under the schemes of the states and territories.
As ACOSS said in its submission to the inquiry into this bill:
The Department has its own scheme for participants in employment programs but we understand this generally providers lesser benefits than State Workers Compensation schemes, no periodic payments, and no entitlement to rehabilitation.
In this regard it is necessary that internship participants have access to adequate compensation cover in the event of an accident. The department's current cover for employment program participants is inadequate, in the view of the Australian Greens. We have seen the problems with Work for the Dole. As an aside, I am pleased the government has recognised that Work for the Dole has been an inadequate, unsuccessful program and cut it back quite a bit, but this program is not an adequate alternative.
There is also the question of whether the internships are genuinely voluntary. This is a really important point because it is a point that the government stresses. I have raised concerns about this previously, including at estimates last year. We are concerned that young jobseekers may be forced to include an internship placement in their plan. They would be required to do that by their jobactive service provider, meaning that the young jobseeker might face penalties if they did not comply with the requirements of their plan.
The government has legislation—one of its many pieces of legislation around jobseeker compliance—where people would possibly subject to further penalties if they did not agree to their job plan. If job service providers say something should be part of a job plan, what leg do young people have to stand on in the event that they disagree? There is nothing in the bill before us today to alleviate this concern. Nowhere does it state that placements are voluntary and there will be no penalties for failing to attend or withdrawing from a placement. This also rings alarm bells because it means a future government, or in fact this government at some later stage, could decide to make the trial stage of the PaTH program mandatory or dispense penalties to young jobseekers who fail to comply with the government's wishes.
In their submission to the inquiry into the bill, the Multicultural Youth Advocacy Network Australia and the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia raised concerns regarding the authority some migrants and refugees confer upon service providers acting for the government, and the potential for those migrants and refugees to 'regard the presentation of what is actually a voluntary option as a requirement that must be followed'. It is imperative that it is appropriately communicated to all potential internship participants that the trial stage of the PaTH program is voluntary and they can choose whether or not they wish to participate.
A number of other measures have been left out of the legislation. These include any details regarding the Prepare stage of the PaTH program, a definition of the term 'internship', any details about penalties for the displacement of existing employees and/or churn of interns, and an evaluation strategy for the PaTH program. All the measures outlined so far should have been included in the bill to ensure that they are scrutinised properly and subject to legislation. We need to be able to scrutinise those measures that have been left out but were clearly outlined by government as part of this program. By excluding them from the legislation, the government is keeping the details of the PaTH program hidden from the parliament, in the sense that we cannot scrutinise them properly. Nor can we ask questions, and the public are not able to comment on that process officially. Given its potential to impact young people significantly, this detail should be in the legislation and the information should be publicly available.
I note that the majority committee report of the inquiry into the bill says that the Department of Employment is adjusting the design of the Prepare stage of the PaTH program based on the feedback it received to its discussion paper on that stage. It is a shame that feedback was not requested on the other two stages of the PaTH program. Based on the submissions to the inquiry into the bill, I imagine a number of concerns would have been brought to the department's attention. The PaTH program focuses on the employability of young people, which demonstrates that the PaTH program is another example where the government is ignoring the real problem, and that is the lack of available jobs for young people.
We know from Anglicare Australia's jobs availability snapshot, published just last year, that there were 6.33 people for every low-skilled job available in May last year. The situation is even worse in Tasmania and South Australia, where there were 9.39 and 10.62 people respectively for every low-skilled job. This alone disproves the government's rhetoric that if jobseekers just tried hard enough they would be able to get a job. Jobseekers are disproportionately affected by the lack of low-skilled, entry-level jobs, as they often have limited work experience. Those from regional areas, migrants and refugees have it tougher still. The government's response by way of this PaTH program is unlikely to lead to the creation of the new jobs that are so desperately needed in order to provide ongoing employment opportunities for young people. This program employs people for less than the minimum wage in areas where there simply are not enough jobs. What example does it set for young people when we push them out into these so-called internships for below the minimum wage?
The PaTH program is not a novel idea either. It has been based in part on two programs from overseas: the UK YES scheme and the Irish JobBridge program. Both of these schemes have had significant problems, and the Irish scheme has been discontinued. I understand there have been significant problems with the UK scheme and significant changes. This does not provide us with much hope for the success of the PaTH program, particularly given the unfavourable outcomes of the Irish JobBridge program, where participants were exploited and existing workers were displaced. I personally had an example given to me of a young woman who was displaced from a job in the UK under the UK scheme. The Greens have raised concerns that the PaTH program is destined to experience the same outcomes.
The government has cut funding to genuine apprenticeships and is now putting in place this poor substitute to proper training. It should instead be investing in wraparound, individualised supports and quality training programs. Reinvesting the money cut from apprenticeships in the VET system would be a step in the right direction. It should also abandon its enduring plans to throw young people off income support for four weeks plus the ordinary waiting period, which is five weeks. This place has shown time and again that it does not support this policy, and yet the government still will not abandon it.
When the government talks about a young person leaving a job 'through no fault of their own', this is another poorly defined example of 'through no fault of their own'. Young people, if they are being bullied and harassed in work, if they are being asked to do unreasonable activities, if they are being asked to work non-standard hours, it is highly likely that they will be worried and scared and might leave that job, and will that be defined as 'through no fault of their own'?
The unfortunate part is that, the longer the government waits to act in relation to youth unemployment and to genuinely develop the jobs that young people can go into it, the worse it is going to get. Youth unemployment will continue to grow until policy settings are corrected to enable an alternative outcome. If the government does not act soon, they will be locking this generation out of secure work for a long time to come. More and more young people, and also as they grow older, are continuing in temporary, insecure, part-time work rather than secure, longer term work. That is what we are locking this future generation into.
We will have many questions in the committee stage because, as I said, this legislation only implements a part of the PaTH program. It also does not guarantee the $200 into the future. There is no indexation there. We are not convinced by the government's responses to the question of what they are going to do about addressing issues like churn, like ensuring that existing employees are not put off so that younger people—being paid less than the minimum wage while doing 'training' and getting work experience—can have a job.
If I was working in one of those areas that are likely to take on these internships, I would be very worried about my future employment, because, if an employer can get a younger person, get $1,000 and get a worker much cheaper, that is probably going to be incentive enough, for some of these businesses that will only take these people on, for existing employees to lose their jobs and be replaced by these interns.
It is good that the government is looking at how they can address youth unemployment and get experience for young workers, but this is highly likely to result in young people, young workers, being exploited and does not address the issue of jobs into the future. It does not develop new jobs into the future. When you have 6.33 people applying for each job, it is quite depressing, and this does not fix that.
I will be taking this into the committee stage. I am sure there are a lot of other senators who have a lot of other questions about this legislation.
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (20:41): I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill 2016. I want to say at the outset that I believe this legislation to establish the Youth Jobs PaTH program is, as many other speakers before me have indicated, poorly constructed, and I fear that it will place young Australian jobseekers at risk of exploitation.
Doing all we can to provide young people with opportunities to find work will always be worthy of our time and consideration in this place. Youth unemployment is a huge problem. In my home state of Tasmania we have among the highest rates of youth unemployment in Australia. In some parts of Tasmania the unemployment rate among 15- to 24-year-olds is as high as 27 per cent. We have a youth unemployment crisis.
We are failing our young people. The Liberals' youth PaTH program will put young jobseekers at risk and is fundamentally flawed in its approach to addressing youth unemployment. The program does not create additional jobs for young Australians. It merely places our young people on temporary internships without proper wages or conditions. Labor believes that the pathway to good, well-paid and secure jobs for young jobseekers is best done through investing in early childhood education, university and TAFE and genuine experiences that come from traineeships and apprenticeships. We want programs that genuinely help our young people find work. But this legislation that is before us here tonight does not provide sufficient safeguards for young people, who are among the most vulnerable workers in today's labour market. It has many, many deficiencies.
There is, as has already been said in the debate here tonight, very little detail on just how the Prepare Trial Hire program, the PaTH program, will operate in practice. While I understand the need for flexibility, too much is left to regulation and administrative discretion. You would think that the government would have tried to get such important legislation right. You would think that the government would have tried to get this legislation right. But, while they talk about jobs, they do not have a very good record on creating jobs. We know that the Work for the Dole scheme has not had much success. On the government's own figures, nearly 90 per cent of participants in the Work for the Dole scheme are not in full-time work three months after completing the program. We must not see a situation where young unemployed Australians are given false hope and work for under award wages. This program does not create additional jobs; instead, it will subsidise employers to hire interns who will not have sufficient protections. We have heard about that in this debate tonight.
These shortcomings and the many concerns from a range of community groups were outlined in submissions to the Senate's Education and Employment Legislation Committee received in the short amount of time the committee was given to look at this legislation. In their dissenting report, Labor senators noted that the government had not provided adequate legislative support to assure members or the community that this program will operate well. Labor's dissenting report made five recommendations, including that the bill not be supported in its current form until the genuine concerns about the overall program have been completely addressed. As I have said, there are many concerns about this legislation and, if it was to be passed in its present form, it would see a flawed program come into effect. We want to do everything that we can to improve the job skills of young people, but this program falls well short. We must take note of these concerns and act on them. The government wants to rush this program through this place, and that was highlighted when the Senate committee refused to hold public hearings into this legislation.
One of the major concerns about this program is that the payments that would be received by participants would be well below the national minimum wage. Participants would be paid an extra $100 a week on top of income support. This would mean they would be performing work in companies making a profit, but they would be earning less than the national minimum wage. As the submission to the Senate committee from the Australian Council of Social Service noted:
Payment rates and hours of work for the internships mean that many people will work for less than (the equivalent of) the minimum wage:
Since participants will be working whether 'employed' or not, they should be properly remunerated.
Fortnightly hours for internships should be capped at 30 instead of 50, so that participants are remunerated at least to the equivalent of the relevant hourly minimum wage.
In its submission, the Australian Council of Trade Unions said that youth unemployment was one of Australia's biggest challenges and that the Youth Jobs PaTH program would be ineffective in dealing with it. The ACTU went on to say:
There must also be significant concern however that PaTH may serve to undermine the minimum wage system. The current program settings, hours worked and additional payments per fortnight, mean that the interns in this program are paid below minimum wage, potentially creating pressure on existing employees' wages or conditions. The ACTU is concerned that the scheme may encourage employers to replace existing minimum wage workforces with government sponsored interns or to reduce their wages or conditions. Interns are not paid superannuation or subject to worker's compensation and so represent a significant saving to employers when compared to regular employees.
The ACTU was also very fearful about the exploitation of vulnerable young people by unscrupulous employers. It feared that many young people may receive little or poor training on the job and that, when they finish their poorly-paid internship, they would be no more employable than they were when they started. The ACTU was worried that employers may take on many interns just to get the $1,000 sign-up fee. The union body also detailed a similar scheme in the United Kingdom, and we have heard about this in the debate that has thus far been held tonight. The United Kingdom scheme, launched in 2013, was ended 18 months later with fewer than half the estimated placements being made and with no clear increase in real job placements, but here we are in Australia with the minister putting forward a program that is clearly lacking. A number of concerns have been expressed by community groups and the labour movement, and this government is moving forward with no response to the concerns that have been put forward.
Jobs Australia also raised concerns with the minimal rate of pay. It pointed out that all Australian workers are legally entitled to receive the minimum wage and that, if this does not happen, young people in the program would be at increased risk of being exploited. Jobs Australia recommended that the payment should be legislated fully and not in the undefined manner of the legislation before us today.
I want to turn now to the inadequate protections in the bill. There are concerns that young people who take part in the Youth Jobs PaTH program may not be adequately covered by state workers' compensation and other legislated workplace protections. As I understand this legislation before us, interns will be classified as volunteers, despite the fact that they will perform work tasks, and this throws their protections into doubt. It is vital that a program designed to put 120,000 young jobseekers into workplaces has adequate protections for them. The Australian Council of Social Service said:
There is no legislative assurance that the health and safety of participants in the internships will be adequately protected …
… … …
The Department has its own scheme for participants in employment programs but we understand this generally provides lesser benefits than State Workers Compensation schemes, no periodic payments, and no entitlement to rehabilitation.
Either participants should be covered by State Workers Compensation scheme or equivalent coverage should be negotiated by the Department.
The bill before us and the trial stage of the PaTH program seek to introduce government subsidised internships. Yet they fail to give legal definition to the term 'intern'. Labor, along with a number of organisations, believes this is problematic. Uniting Care Australia noted in their submission that they are concerned about how these internships will be viewed and treated in employment terms. Interns Australia were worried that, because the term 'intern' is not defined in Australian employment law, there would be great confusion about the rights of participants in the Youth Jobs PaTH program. This gives us nothing but uncertainty in regard to the legal rights and legal consequences that may affect young people and workforces. It fails to prescribe the standards and workplace protections that are offered to ordinary Australian workers. As highlighted in the submission made by Interns Australia:
If interns are to be considered as legally different to employees, their rights must be clearly stated.
Failing to give clear definition to the terms under the scheme creates an environment of great vulnerability for young workers.
Labor will not stand by while young interns may be required to undertake the same work as other employees for little or no pay, where there is no further skill, training or education on offer. Already, we have seen many employers and industries adopt the trend of offering young people internships that do not have clearly defined employment relationships. As parents and as members of this place, we should be incredibly cautious about this trend, which is fast becoming part of a widespread culture in Australian workplaces. Many of these emerging internships are unpaid and target vulnerable young people with little or no experience in the paid workforce.
As I said previously, the bill in its current form is poorly constructed. In particular, it does nothing to address the 'churn and burn'—which we heard about in previous contributions tonight—of young workers by employees and businesses, which allows them to exploit one worker after the other to milk the program for their benefit. Instead, it provides both financial incentives through subsidies, and vulnerable labour to workplaces to exploit. These concerns were highlighted by Interns Australia, who noted that many employers under the program would be encouraged to hire an individual and receive a subsidy, only to terminate their agreement in order to hire someone else and receive the subsidy again.
On top of this, the government has still failed to explain how they will prevent employers from churning through interns every 12 weeks. The Liberals' Youth Jobs PaTH Program may cause systemic, long-term and cultural damage to the job market for other young jobseekers. To allow this to happen would be a betrayal of our young people. ACOSS have made clear their concerns, saying that the 'internship positions created under this program are likely to displace paid jobs for other young people'.
Mr Acting Deputy President, I know you are very familiar with the Liberal Party policies at the last federal election. During the election campaign the government talked about the jobs and growth that they would create. Regrettably, it was all talk. They have failed dismally. The problem is not just unemployment but also underemployment. As the Australian Unemployed Workers Union pointed out in their submission to the Senate inquiry, it is not a matter of making young people more employable; it is about having the jobs for them. It said:
Currently according to the most recent data collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Employment, there are 19 job seekers competing for every job vacancy. When you consider low-skill jobs— the sort of jobs young unemployed Australians will most realistically be considered for—this rate is even higher. Clearly, it is this dearth of low-skill jobs in the Australian labour market that has been the leading cause for Australia's youth unemployment crisis.
It is clear we have a youth unemployment crisis. The Liberals' Youth Jobs PaTH Program is a path to nowhere. There are over 260,000 young people unemployed in Australia. These young jobseekers need real support and real solutions. The creation of opportunities for young people in the workplace, however, is never achieved through exploitation. I doubt that this program will see any more young people getting full-time work. In fact, if you look at the record of the Abbott-Turnbull government, you will see programs that they have implemented or raised as an option that have not worked. They do not work. This, again, is a program that will not see any more young people getting full-time work. I fear it will put young jobseekers, who are already vulnerable, in positions where they will be exploited.
In drawing my contribution to a close, I will outline the main concerns the Labor Party has with the bill before us. There is no firm definition of an intern. The participant is likely to have only a reasonable prospect of a job. A large number of participants could be used within companies at the one time, with little sanction for employers that might churn through PaTH participants after the engagement concludes. Large numbers of interns could completely negate the need for existing employees in certain sectors to work at certain times—for instance, on weekends, which would reduce access to penalty rates for these employees. PaTH participants are considered to be volunteers in some jurisdictions, and I have talked about that, as have many other senators in this debate. They are considered to be volunteers in some jurisdictions, affecting the way worker compensation systems would treat participants in the event of a workplace incident. In concluding, I fear that this bill will put young jobseekers who are already vulnerable in a position where they will be exploited, and our young people deserve better than this bill that is before us.
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (21:01): Our entrenched high rate of youth unemployment is a social travesty, especially when it is a product of generational welfare dependency or leads to long-term unemployment. We can never rest in our efforts to tackle this. This Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill is a positive step in helping alleviate this by putting in place formal steps, incentives and protections. We are therefore supportive of it in principle, particularly given that the government could implement this program without legislative reform. If the government went down that path, it would mean the fortnightly incentive payments the scheme provides to participants will be treated as additional income and taxed accordingly. It would also potentially impact their Centrelink payments. This would undermine the intention of helping the jobseeker afford the costs that come with applying for or starting a new job.
As it stands, the PaTH program aims to give underskilled young people the abilities and confidence they need to approach a potential employer and secure a job. This is a modest ambition perhaps but one which, for some of these young people, probably seems unattainable. It is something other people can do, not them. The program provides eligible young jobseekers with intensive job-hunting and interview preparation training, followed by a short internship placement. It provides $200 a fortnight to offset travel and other job related costs, such as appropriate work wear, and it provides incentives for employers to take a chance and hire someone with no experience and little to recommend them other than a willingness to succeed. We think this is a very good start.
If it is well implemented and well used, the youth jobs PaTH program will also benefit businesses by linking them to enthusiastic young people willing to learn and who can grow with the business. These are all positives in our book, but we do have a few concerns and will seek assurances on these from the minister during the committee stage of the bill. For instance, the 26-week suspension of a young jobseeker's income support may become problematic as this is also how long the wage subsidies to an employer will run. We know that most employers will engage with this program for the right reasons, but we have also seen too many instances in recent times where major youth employers, such as Grill'd, 7-Eleven and Pizza Hut, have underpaid staff and appear to view young people not as a valued resource but as a source of expendable cheap labour.
Whatever safeguards we put in place, there will undoubtedly be employers who will be lured by the subsidy on offer and will be intent on exploiting it. This makes the 26-week period for both the duration of the subsidy and the young employee's income support suspension problematic in instances where the employer takes on an intern as cheap labour and then dumps them soon after the wage subsidy ends. To avoid disadvantaging young people who have entered these positions with the best intentions, we would prefer to see the suspension period for income support extended beyond 26 weeks. Nine to 12 months would be appropriate if they remain employed with the same eligible employer. This small change would avoid vulnerable young people having to reapply for their income support and serve out a waiting period should they lose their job through no fault of their own after the 26-week suspension period ends.
Given these jobseekers are not classified as employees and, in many cases, may be ignorant of their rights, there is potential for the jobseeker to be exploited in other ways too—for example, by being asked to work excessive or non-standard hours or undertake potentially risky tasks without sufficient training. We would expect that each jobseeker's training will include instructions on their rights as well as their obligations in the workplace and anticipate that the minister will provide a guarantee that this will be the case. We will also be seeking assurances that providers will work with young people to determine what industries or roles appeal to them, even in the face of a 'dunno', and steer them towards suitable internships that will spark their interest and keep them engaged in their new-found job.
While the scheme will be voluntary, it is important that this does not become simply a placement program where jobseekers are just slotted into available positions without due consideration of their aspirations. While many people view employment as black and white, that a job is a job and that you should be thankful for anything you can get, the reality is people do not tend to stay in jobs when they are unhappy. We should not set these young people up for inadvertent failure by pushing them into training and a job in which they have no interest or desire to engage. To do this would be a waste of taxpayers' $752 million investment in the program. For this program to have the best chance of success, we must not only empower these young people with enhanced skills and confidence about their ability to win and keep a job but also importantly ignite their passion by helping steer them towards industries and jobs where they can see themselves in the long term. We want these jobseekers to feel inspired to keep building their skills and create previously unimagined career paths that ideally will keep them off benefits and help break the suffocating cycle of intergenerational welfare dependency that so often only serves to steal the aspirations and futures of our young people.
In closing, this bill has the potential to change the life path of young people for the better. That said, it is crucial that we do not take our eyes off the ball once the scheme is up and running. To that end, I indicate that I intend to move an amendment to have the program reviewed within two years to ensure there are no unforeseen and harmful circumstances.
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria) (21:07): It gives me great pleasure to rise tonight to speak on the government's Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill 2016. I think this is one of the hallmark aspects of our government's agenda in our commitment to reducing youth unemployment across this country. I think all submitters to the Senate inquiry are absolutely united in acknowledging the scourge that is youth unemployment, particularly for those young people located in regional Australia, where unemployment rates are much, much higher than they are in urban areas. And when you go out and speak to employers, when you speak to young people, when you speak to careers teachers in schools and across universities, one of the key reasons for young people finding it hard to get secure ongoing employment is the fact that they lack the requisite work experience in the particular area or industry in which they are seeking to set out a career path.
Indeed, that is what is key and at the heart of this particular policy initiative—ensuring that young people actually get the work experience they need in the area they are interested in and that employers are incentivised to take on that young person, who may not have the full skill set required to fulfil that task. Employers, equally, are supported so that the young person can get experience, because finding your way as a young Australian, or a young person anywhere, through the myriad study options and employment options can be a tangled path, a long and winding road. Many young people, as we have seen with our university data, think that a particular course is going to provide them with satisfaction and ongoing enjoyment. However, once they embark on that course they find that it is actually not for them and they go on to find another course that will fulfil their particular needs and interests.
So, too, it is for employment. Giving young people the opportunity to participate in industries and areas that they may not have come across in their particular region or school setting will I think lead to increased employability of all young Australians. So, I completely support the minister and really appreciate her bringing this initiative forward, because at least we are doing something.
Senator Cameron: Oh, that is as good as it gets!
Senator McKENZIE: You want to talk about apprenticeships—and Senator Cameron, I am happy to have that conversation anytime you like—but your government ripped millions out of apprenticeship programs and indeed in your own campaign documents actually had no budgeted forward estimates for what you had put back in. At least we are actually looking at creative and innovative ways that we can get young people right across the country those key skill sets they need to be employed and to contribute—and not just to contribute to the national economy and pay their taxes and go to work each day but to actually enjoy it. That is why getting out there and having a crack is important.
PaTH is about preparing young people, giving them the opportunity to trial different work options, and then hopefully that young person and the employer will have a meeting of minds and the young person will be offered an ongoing job, which this program supports employers to do—to offer a wage subsidy should that young person fulfil the employer's needs in an ongoing way. I find it quite disingenuous that the Greens are not supporting this initiative. They are out there trying to ramp up a $50-a-week increase to the Newstart allowance. This program offers a $100-a-week increase in the Newstart allowance plus valuable work experience that will assist that young person going forward.
When we were looking at preparing young Australians we were wanting to increase their employability skills training to help them understand the behaviours that are expected by employers in the workplace, which will provide tailored industry-specific training that will prepare our young people going into jobs. We are offering voluntary internships for up to 12 weeks to give our youth a chance to show what they can do in a real, live workplace. And then, as I mentioned, there is a new youth bonus wage subsidy to support the employment of young people. The government is committed to addressing youth unemployment by assisting vulnerable young Australians who are at risk of falling into the welfare trap at an early stage in their lives. You leave school, you are looking around for options, you are not quite sure where life will take you. This program is exactly designed to assist that young person who is not quite sure what the future offers them a pathway to ongoing, sustainable employment.
We recognise that some young people require additional assistance in getting those relevant work-ready skills that they need, and this initiative is backed by data and evidence. As I said, I chaired the Senate inquiry into this bill, and all 15 submitters are committed to addressing the scourge of youth unemployment and commented on our budget allocation of $850 million to the youth employment package. This package was developed by the department though a consultation process in which we went out to the community, to a range of stakeholders, and sought their comments on our program, and we incorporated that in the final package.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry submitted that it strongly supports the Youth Jobs Path initiative 'as an important avenue to secure jobs for young unemployed Australians'. And I think we all acknowledge that this program will give young people real-job work experience. It is not just some tick and flick. It is not just some tokenistic effort. This is about placing young people with real employers so that they can get that hands-on experience.
The Brotherhood of St Lawrence also supported the bill and made some key recommendations. They commented on how rapidly the modern employment environment is changing within Australia and across our economy. It is profoundly testing for a significant proportion of young people—around 30 per cent of young people. The youth unemployment rate sits at double the rate of overall unemployment. As I said, all submitters, including ACOSS, are committed to addressing the issue. The government is to be commended for putting something on the table for consideration.
I want to address a couple of the criticisms that those opposite have raised. One of them was that there is not a decent wage and that is primarily because interns are actually interns. They are not employed as Australian workers. I do not hear anybody opposite critiquing any of the universities in this country that have embedded internship programs in their coursework requirements. University see internships as a valuable opportunity for young people to gain skills and experience in their chosen industry. Why won't you accept that this is an opportunity for young people to trial something that may be of interest to them? I will clarify the payment issue: the $200 fortnightly incentive paid to PaTH interns is on top of their income support. The incentive is paid by the government and is not a wage. If a host organisation paid a PaTH intern, the internship would cease immediately because—you know what?—it would become a job; it would not be an internship. That is the difference.
Senator Brown mentioned the churn culture and the submission from the Department of Employment went exactly to the heart of that by setting out measures to protect against the churn in the PaTH program. They include:
… program guidelines, in combination with the jobactive Deed 2015-2020 and the Transition to Work Deed 2016-2020, to make clear to employment service providers the parameters of the program. Department of Employment monitoring activities will help ensure that host organisations appropriately use the program. … The department's program assurance strategy will be applied to PaTH internships.
In addition the department currently provides program assurance of employment services through a range of prevention, deterrence and detection and correction methods, and these will similarly be applied to the PaTH program.
I think it is quite disappointing when we look at what the alternatives may be. There has been a lot of brouhaha recently around the value or otherwise of internships. I would remind Mr Shorten that he does not mind the odd intern; the Greens, either internationally or here, at home do not mind the odd intern; Lisa Chesters and Brendan O'Connor do not mind the odd intern. In fact many parliamentarians—
Senator Seselja: Andrew Leigh had to write his book.
Senator McKENZIE: There you go. Thank you for that interjection—I will take that interjection from the good minister. Not only do interns gain valuable experience, but they can also provide valuable support to employers or, in this case, the parliamentarians they serve. We have heard a lot about class warfare particularly from Senator Cameron earlier. It is a tired old argument by Labor. I don't know why it is okay for those who are in Young Labor and who are moving up in the world to get priority internships in ministers' or shadow ministers' offices in the Labor Party or are spokespeople with the Greens, but it is not okay for country kids to head down to their local manufacturer to get some decent work experience. It is not okay for other young Australians who are experiencing chronic unemployment in their regions to get the work experience that they need. It is okay for the political class if you are from the Left, but it is not okay for others across the economy.
I would call on both the Greens and Labor to support this innovative initiative by the government. I hope we are all troubled by the tragedy of youth unemployment in this country. We need our existing programs and we need to grow and develop our economy so that jobs are available locally. We also need to recognise that some young people in our communities need that additional support. This program goes to the heart of addressing that—what those young people need to go out there and secure job in what can be a very daunting scenario for them as they leave school. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (21:19): What you do when you cannot keep your promise to tackle youth unemployment? Well, this government opens young people up to exploitation to their mates in big business instead. This government has comprehensively failed the youth of Australia. At the moment, there are almost 300,000 young Australians between the ages of 15 and 24 out of work. That is a shocking statistic. Youth unemployment has climbed to 13.3 per cent—well over double the general unemployment rate. Many of these young people have been unemployed for more than a year and are understandably disillusioned by the act of looking for jobs that simply are not there. On top of this, 20 per cent of young people are underemployed—they want to work more hours but there are simply no opportunities to obtain extra hours.
This is just disgraceful and is indicative of a pattern of neglect by this government towards young Australians. They have a lot to be disappointed about from this government. Whether it is the Centrelink robo-debt disaster, $100,000 degrees, the unaffordability of housing or the bill we are debating today, the government has really let them down. The government knew that it had no policies to help young people. That is why they threw this rushed policy into the last budget. It was a hastily cobbled together program, announced at the time of the 2016 federal budget to make it sound like they are doing something for young people, but in reality it only helps their mates. It is a thought bubble that may look good at first glance, but has been terribly implemented.
The bill before us today is designed in part to support the introduction of the Turnbull government's Prepare and Trial, Hire program or PaTH. PaTH is supposedly designed to prepare young people for work by providing jobseekers aged 17 to 24 with pre-employment training and placement in voluntary internships of four to 12 weeks. During that time, they may work between 15 to 25 hours a week. Jobseekers will receive payments of $200 a fortnight on top of their current income support payments, while they are participating in the PaTH program. Businesses will be paid $1,000 to take on an intern and then receive a wage subsidy of between $6,500 and $10,000 if they hire them at the conclusion of their internship.
The government is expecting the program will take effect from April 2017. I and my Labor colleagues and many others in our community have serious concerns about whether this program represents a fair deal for Australia's young unemployed. The PaTH program is being introduced at the same time that other government job programs such as the Work for the Dole are hopelessly failing our young unemployed. In the case of Work for the Dole, even the government's own figures show nearly 90 per cent of its participants are not in full time work three months after exiting the program. The sad truth is Australia's youth are counting the cost of the Turnbull government's failure to develop a real jobs plan for the nation.
Under the PaTH program, the opposition is concerned that young people will be forced to pay an even heavier price through the program's apparent flaws. I will just take a moment to outline what the bill before us contains. The bill enacts the changes needed to provide support to participants in the program. It does this via two measures: first, a provision will be inserted in the Social Security Act and Veterans' Entitlements Act so the $200 payment interns receive is not counted as income for social security or veteran's entitlements purposes. Secondly, it amends the Social Security Act to allow young people to suspend their payments if they are employed. They can then restart them without re-applying if they lose their job through no fault of their own within 26 weeks.
Taken in isolation, the government will claim the measures in the bill are non-controversial. But the reality is they form part of a broader new program that the opposition is concerned about, which could see young jobseekers exploited and could undermine workforce standards. Chief amongst these criticisms is the fact that, unlike with Work for the Dole, for the first time participants would be placed in the private sector and would be paid below award wages. The opposition is concerned that PaTH could be used to displace jobs with cheaper labour.
There have been very real concerns raised that participants may be working for below minimum award wages. The national minimum wage is $17.70 an hour. But an intern who works 25 hours a week and receives only their Newstart payments plus the $200 payment will earn just $14.50 an hour. This program could very well see young Australians stacking supermarket shelves for less than the minimum wage. Australians have rightly been concerned about cases of worker exploitation when events like the 7-Eleven wage scandal come to light. Why would our community stand for a government program that undercuts the minimum wage?
This is something that is entirely within the government's power to fix. The bonus payments could be set at a rate which is equivalent to the minimum wage, or the maximum hours could be reduced to ensure this is met. But this is a government that is constantly trying to undercut rights and conditions for workers through its attacks on penalty rates, its anti-union ABCC agenda and its unfair public service bargaining framework so we will not hold our breath for them to put this right.
At a time where wages growth is at its lowest rate on record, we are concerned that PaTH could be used to undermine wages across industries for all Australian workers. Despite repeated questioning by the opposition, there are few assurances that interns will be covered by appropriate workers compensation schemes in the event of an accident. That is because PaTH participants will be considered volunteers, not employees. In some jurisdictions this could affect the way workers compensation systems would treat participants in the event of an accident. This is simply not good enough. All workers should have the right to workers compensation should they be injured at work.
The program does not specify real areas job seekers will acquire skills. In Senate estimates last May the clearest outline of training and skill outcomes Minister Cash offered was, 'We will give you the skills that employers tell us you just do not have.' And while the program was announced in May 2016 and is scheduled to start in April 2017, the government can't even tell you how it has defined what an intern is. The government has had trouble explaining what jobseekers will be doing in the internship phase of the program, even down to the basic level: whether they would be working or just observing. '
Large numbers of participants could be used within companies at any given time, with little sanction applied to employers that might churn through PaTH participants after the engagement concludes. Imagine what would happen if a major supermarket or fast-food chain decided it would employ tens of thousands of Interns. Large numbers of interns could also completely remove the need for existing employees in certain sectors, for example, hospitality to work at certain times. Imagine large numbers of PaTH participants being used over weekends, removing the need for regular employees at those times, and also removing the need to pay penalty rates for those employees. This program could be used in a systematic way to attack workers' ability to access penalty rates.
There are so many holes in the program that it cannot be taken seriously unless the government can demonstrate how they will fix them. That is why Labor is calling for the legislation and the PaTH program to be deferred until those concerns are addressed. To wave PaTH and this legislation through, without demanding a better deal for young Australians, would not be fair to those young jobseekers.
The Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee has conducted an inquiry into the bill at Labor's referral.
There were concerns with this bill by many bodies that made submissions to the inquiry. I noticed Senator McKenzie could not quote anyone from the inquiry but I can. A number of the submissions made to the committee highlighted serious deficiencies in the PaTH framework. I would like to spend a while outlining some of the evidence given to the inquiry to highlight the flaws in the legislation. Interns Australia, the peak support and advocacy body for interns and students undertaking work placements in Australia said: 'Interns Australia does not support the... bill.' That is a pretty blunt assessment from the peak body for interns in Australia. Perhaps the government should have consulted them before the policy was announced?
Another submitter, Jobs Australia, drew the committee's attention to the way exploitation and displacement could take place by asking vulnerable young Australians to work during unusual hours, or during times, when penalty rates would apply:
… to ensure that times of "work" or unpaid work experience are restricted so that interns are not required to "work" during times which would attract penalty payments under relevant awards—(the risks of exploitation and displacement of existing workers are extremely high in these circumstances and particularly in industries with highly variable levels of employment and of casual work—where it could be difficult to discern whether displacement is occurring).
The ACTU put up the best possible scenario for the 120,000 young jobseekers who could take up the program:
When these concerns have been raised in the past, much has been made of analysis which will be done to detect employers who are abusing the program and prevent them from hosting further intern placements. It seems that the absolute best outcome such a system could achieve would be that thousands of vulnerable young people are only exploited, for profit, once.
I do not think that is good enough. I do not think it is good enough to wait for young workers to be exploited before acting; we should act before the program begins to ensure exploitation does not happen at all.
Anglicare Australia also gave a stunning rebuke of this program within the context of the current jobs market that continues to deteriorate for young Australians under this government:
In the context of a serious shortage of entry-level vacancies, we do not accept that internships alone will help many people overcome structural exclusion from the workforce. We can see no evidence that this program will do anything to ease the existing pressures created by the decreasing number of entry-level jobs. In this respect we also hold serious concerns that introducing up to 30,000 government-subsidised interns to this market will make an already grim situation worse.
ACOSS made a point, seemingly clear to everyone except the government, that legislation is needed to protect young jobseekers:
There is no clear legislative protection against exploitation of interns to the extent that they are not classified as employees. Either participants should be classified as employees (with a wage subsidy) or the program should not allow work beyond standard working hours (averaged over a fixed period) or a times that would attract penalty rates of pay if the person was employed (such as weekends).
As I said earlier, I am concerned about the protection of the workers' rights for these young interns.
The Children and Young People with Disability submission shares my concerns about the vague definitions which leave it unclear what protections participants would receive. They said:
CYDA has some concerns regarding the internships component of the Youth Jobs PaTH initiative. 'Internships' have not been clearly defined within the Bill, aside from being referred to as "unpaid work experience" within the Explanatory Memorandum. It is therefore unclear how appropriate protections will be afforded for young people with regard to working conditions.
Further to this:
Jobs Australia noted that legislation is needed to ensure participants receive all the relevant protections that employees get, whether they are officially recognised as employees or not:
Other aspects of Youth Jobs PaTH internships, in addition to those set out in the Bill, should therefore be the subject of legislation which can be considered and scrutinised by the parliament, rather than being implemented by administrative means which might seek to exempt interns and the employers providing placements from the provisions of the Fair Work Act and other relevant legislated workplace protections and requirements.
I believe, rather sadly, that young people may be pressured into taking these 'internships' without understanding what their real rights are.
ACOSS told the committee that clear requirements are needed for explaining the rights and expectations of a participant before they begin a placement, saying:
Employment services providers (or better still an independent mentor) should be required to explain to participants their rights in the workplace before an internship commences (both verbally and in writing), and offer advice and assistance in the event that those rights are at risk.
Finally, Jobs Australia noted that the voluntary nature of the placement phase of the program must be made extremely clear:
Incorporate a clear stipulation that participation in internships is voluntary and that there will be no income support penalties as a consequence of failure to attend or participate or for ceasing a placement (to ensure there are no subsequent adjustments to administrative arrangements which would result in participation being mandatory and relevant job seekers being subject to penalties).
Unfortunately, the government has not made any real attempt to address these problems during the debate in the House or the Senate inquiry process. Many of the issues raised in the Senate inquiry process should be addressed by legislation or regulations tabled in parliament, rather than relying on assurances from government that they will do the right thing. This program the government want to implement is vague and has not been thought through properly. The only details they have released are in the flimsy glossy brochure from budget night. That is no basis for a program of this scale or importance.
In summing up, we can and must do more to help young Australians. However the government's PaTH program is a desperate and cynical attempt to divert attention away from their poor record in generating jobs for young Australians or preparing those young Australians for work. Their Work for the Dole program is evidence of that failure. From what we can see at this point, PaTH is poorly planned, full of holes and ripe for exploitation. As we can see from the now defunct green army debacle, this government has absolutely no idea about creating policies that help young people enter the workforce. It could leave thousands of young Australians working for below the minimum wage before being thrown onto the scrap heap to be replaced by another cohort of below-minimum-wage labour. It could see injured young workers unjustly left with no recourse to the compensation entitlements that other workers enjoy. The Turnbull government has failed to address the concerns the community has about this hastily put together PaTH program that, as I said, has more holes than the Midland Highway. I call upon the Senate not to pass the legislation at this time.
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (21:36): As a servant of the people of Queensland and Australia I want to lay bare this window-dressing. The more we tax and regulate things the less we actually get of them. Someone has to pay a tax for this subsidy to work. I can speak on the benefits of an internship to my own son when he was 21 years of age. He took the initiative to get an internship in the United States in a field in which he had done some study but had not actually worked. Because of that six months of study and the success that he gave that company a few months later they offered him a full-time job at a very good salary for someone with his qualifications. So, I get the concept of an internship. But what we need to understand here is that this is simply a subsidy to make work, and not a fulfilling job. My son Shane had a very fulfilling job and he went to work and did real work every day. Taxation, though, is killing employment in this country. So let's get away from the window-dressing and get to the core issues that we face.
Our constituents in Queensland and across Australia repeat this same comment: taxation is killing employment. Why do we tax payroll? We all know in this country that when we tax something we decrease its use. So why are we taxing payroll? It is bizarre. I had a meeting with Dave Oliver, the head of the ACTU, who seems like a nice bloke. We went round the room talking and I asked him what his main themes were and he talked about compliance and raising wages. I asked him in all sincerity if he was aware that when a person gets an increase in take-home pay it requires an even greater increase in gross pay and that, combined with regulations, is driving employment down. That is not to say that people do not deserve higher incomes, but they must be earned in a way that increases productivity. But the taxation system is killing productivity in this country. Every time Dave Oliver is successful in getting a gross pay raise it kills a job if there is not the matching productivity, and the taxation system makes it very difficult for people to be productive.
We have fine workers in this country. I know from my own experience being an underground coal miner and an open cut coal miner managing people in this country and overseas that our workers are among the best in the world. They are very committed, have a lot of initiative and take great pride in their work. But when taxation is killing their employer it is difficult to sustain work.
I am wondering what will be taxed next. PAYE tax is killing jobs and payroll tax is killing jobs. Will we tax the air that we breathe? Oh, I'm sorry, that's right: we are already taxing the air we breathe. The carbon dioxide in the air is being taxed, thanks to the Liberal/National coalition putting in place an emissions trading scheme by name. To those who deny its existence, if it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck and looks like a duck, it is a duck. There is an emissions trading scheme in place in this country now. It started on 1 July last year.
At this time in Australia we are facing increasing competition from the United States. President Trump is going to cut tax. He is not just going to fiddle with it; he is going to cut company and personal taxes dramatically. Then we have the other side of the issue, and that is the waste of taxpayer funds. Here we are going to have a subsidy that is going to require more taxpayer funds, and that will increase taxes or cut back other services. How many jobs will be destroyed in this country to pay for this window-dressing?
Moving from the complexity of our taxation system, let's look at the complexity of our regulatory system. Again, we all know that the more we regulate things the less you get of them. We have red tape—the bureaucracy. Everyone is familiar with that. It is choking our industry and choking our employment. Then we have green tape—pseudo-environmentalism gone mad. And, yes, we see people agreeing and almost everyone understands what green tape does: pseudo-environmentalism and fancy campaigns dressed up—they are just political games.
Then, we have another colour emerging in this country. It actually has been underway for 20 years or more: blue tape. Blue tape is the bureaucracy that has been brought in by the UN. We have the UN pushing biodiversity, in which fungus, plants, critters, bunks and animals are treated as superior to humans and given priority to humans. And in the name of biodiversity farmers and coastal residents have their land and property rights stolen. That is a cost to industry. Just ask the farmers of Queensland who have had their farmers' property rights stolen. Then we have another form of blue tape from the UN: sustainability. The funny thing is that according to the UN their sustainability programs are sustainable only with subsidies, meaning they are not sustainable. That is how they get in place regulations to take control of people's lives: where we can live, what we can do, what we cannot do, how we can travel, how we can eat—almost everything is in their sights. Then we have the UN's climate change claims, never based on empirical evidence. The UN's latest report contains, just as the previous reports contained, one core chapter claiming warming and attributing it to human production of carbon dioxide. Nowhere in that chapter is there any empirical evidence that human sourced carbon dioxide affects the climate and needs to be cut. Nowhere in its key chapter is there any evidence—no evidence anywhere in their reports—and yet all the groups in this parliament have swallowed that myth. The RET is based on that myth—killing industry and killing jobs. More window-dressing so as to appear to be doing the right thing by our planet when it is actually harming the environment, harming the creation of jobs and harming people's lifestyles. Again, tens of billions of dollars have been wasted on window-dressing and people in this Senate know when I am looking at them that there is no evidence to support it. This window-dressing then creates pretend jobs.
Let's get back to basics. Let's look at our immigration quantity and cut it back so that we can increase employment through real jobs. We have people who are under-working—they are working for one hour a week and they are treated as employed. Then we have the issue of immigration, in terms of the quality—look at the 457 visas that are stealing people's jobs. Farmers across rural south-west Queensland, where I listened to people just a few weeks ago, see unemployed people in their regional towns and yet cannot get labourers—they cannot get workers. Worse, due to the taxation system and due to the regulations, mums and dads have to be the entire workforce for their farms. There is a massive investment in capital at risk in a variable market with variable weather and they have to do all the work. They cannot afford to hire anyone because of the regulations. People would love to hire people, but it just becomes too onerous with the regulations and too expensive with the taxation. And we are going to have a lot more to say about this in Pauline Hanson's One Nation as we march towards a Queensland election. Again, farmers are being hurt by window-dressing. All taxpayers are being hurt by window-dressing.
In this specific bill, where is the value for money? We have an apprenticeship scheme, which the leader of our party, Senator Hanson, will be discussing in more detail. But I ask now: where is the cost-benefit analysis for this bill? Why does the government expect us to merely pass this bill when it has given us no cost-benefit analysis, no financial and economic analysis, no financial and economic justification and not even some qualitative justification? We cannot even understand the thinking that goes on. How can they possibly convince people and sell people on this when there is no salesmanship going on? Where is the accountability that comes from having a cost-benefit analysis that not only justifies expenditure but then enables something to be measured against it? The government has rarely given any cost-benefit analysis, and yet that is its fundamental responsibility. The people in the Labor Party and the Labor Party and Greens coalition were even worse at this—again, window-dressing and no cost-benefit analysis. We need to stand up for taxpayers in this country, and that is what we are doing. We are calling out the government and the opposition parties for putting our country, after seven decades, in a deplorable position—more window-dressing. That is what we see: decades of window-dressing.
And then we come across the ultimate window-dressing. I touched on it a minute ago. We are wrecking energy in this country. We are wrecking the energy industry and that is wrecking all industries—service industries, manufacturing industries, rural industries and mining industries. On an app we can get the cost of electricity on any one day at any one time. Today we have Queensland, the state with the best quality coal reserves in the world, abundant quantities of coal, and it has an electricity price of $13,000 per megawatt hour. That is mimicking South Australia. And while we are doing that we sending electricity south to New South Wales because the pseudo-markets that have been created by both sides of politics in this country are destroying and enabling people to game the system. South Australia is being destroyed. Manufacturing is being decimated in that state. Victoria is about to shut down 20 per cent of its electricity supply. What will happen then to South Australia? What will happen then to Victoria when they come looking for power from New South Wales and Queensland? Our prices will go up in Queensland. It is a disaster and it is making employment highly expensive and unreliable and making industry unreliable. Why? Because we have subsidies piled on regulations piled on pseudo-markets piled on vested interests piled on renewable energy targets piled on renewable subsidies piled on political interference—destruction, destruction, destruction.
And this is a reversal of history, the secret to lifting billions. It has never happened before in the history of humanity. Billions of people have been lifted out of poverty by cheap energy. It started 167 years ago with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and the key to that was hydrocarbon fuels: coal and later oil. They provided high-quality and high-energy-density fuels that dropped the price of energy. That dramatically increased productivity, and that dramatically increased prosperity. And from that came the protection of the environment. The whales, instead of being chased to provide lighting fuel, are now secure because we have coal to provide lights. We do not have to burn the timber in the forests, because we now use coal. We now have 30 per cent more forestry area in every major developed continent, thanks to coal and oil.
We need to go back to Sir Joh's days, when energy was amongst the cheapest in the world, when business flourished and employment flourished. Instead, we get the coalition government giving us window-dressing. There is no cost-benefit analysis, no accountability and no value for money—yet another churn with the money going from the right pocket of the taxpayer into the left pocket of the taxpayer, and we have increasing underemployment. It all comes back to tax. Instead of window-dressing, let's get down to the root cause of what is keeping people out of work long-term. Let's fix the tax system. We do not support this bill.
ADJOURNMENT
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Reynolds ) (21:50): It being 9.50 pm I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Bombing of Darwin
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory) (21:50): Tonight, I would like to speak on a significant event in the Northern Territory's history, or indeed in Australia's history: the bombing of Darwin in 1942. This weekend on 19 February, we will be commemorating the 75th anniversary of the bombing of Darwin. What I would like to do this evening is to just remind the Senate, if ever we needed to be reminded, of the importance of our strategic position in this country in terms of the North, but in particular to reflect on the many lives that were lost in a battle that the rest of this country is completely unaware of and never fully realised the significance of in terms of the number of casualties until well after the fact. I would like to go through a time line and take the Senate back through the history of 1941 through to 1942 and also to have a look at a royal commission that took place less than a month after the attacks occurred on Darwin.
If we look at our time line for the bombing of Darwin, in December 1941 Japan formally enters the Second World War, declares war on Britain and the US, launches aerial attacks on Pearl Harbour, Guam and Hong Kong, and invades Malaya, the Philippines and Thailand. On 10-11 January, Japan begins its campaign in the Dutch East Indies, attacking Manado in Sulawesi, and also Borneo. By 30 January, the invasion of Ambon begins in the Dutch East Indies. Gull Force, the Australian battalion defending Ambon, surrendered four days later. On 8 February, Japan begins its invasion of Singapore. On 10, 16 and 18 February 1942, Japanese reconnaissance aircraft are seen over Darwin. On 15 February 1942, Allied military forces in Singapore surrender to the Japanese. 130,000 Allied personnel are taken prisoner, including 15,000 Australians.
On 19 February 1942 at 9:37 am, a missionary on Bathurst Island, just north of Darwin, attempted to report a large number of aircraft heading towards Darwin, that his warning was discounted as a result of a mistaken belief that the aircraft were returning Allied aircraft. The bombing commenced at approximately 10 am on 19 February 1942, with the first wave of raiders gone by approximately 10:30 am. A second wave composed of land-based bombers arrived just before 12 pm and bombed the RAAF base for 20 minutes. Evacuation of the remaining women, children and older men took place later in the afternoon of 19 February. On 23 February, the government uses the national security regulations to put the military and control of all the Northern Territory north of Birdum.
When the first wave hit Darwin, it consisted of some 188 Japanese aircraft launched from four aircraft carriers in the Timor Sea. This was the same carrier force which had been responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor. The bombing commenced just before 10 am. There were 10 US Kittyhawks who attempted to intercept the Japanese bombers. All but one were shot down before they were able to engage the Japanese bombers. The second wave consisted of 54 bombers, which bombed the RAAF base just before noon. This raid lasted for approximately 20 minutes. The Japanese lost between five to eight aircraft in this raid. It is estimated that the Japanese lost between five to 10 aircraft in all the raids, but Australian losses were much higher. There were some 97 air attacks on Northern Australia during World War II. The first prisoner of war to be captured on Australian soil occurred when a Japanese Zero pilot was detained by Tiwi person on the Tiwi Islands—a First Nations person.
Of all the losses, eight ships were sunk in Darwin Harbour and 15 were damaged. Two merchant ships were sunk near Bathurst Island, just north of Darwin. At least 243 people were killed. The Northern Territory News records one of the first bomb severed the wharf from the shore and killed 22 waterside workers. Nine post office workers were killed after a direct hit on the trench they were sheltering in and approximately 17 were killed on the merchant ships at Bathurst Island.
Our country did not know the extent to which Northern Australia—in particular Darwin itself, but also the Darwin through the Adelaide River region—was being bombed by the Japanese. A commission of inquiry was held in the month following the attack. This was by Mr Justice Lowe. I had a chance to have a look through our archives here in the parliament to actually have a look at what this royal commission had to say. I must say, it is certainly not like royal commissions are today. In the few minutes I have left, I will read about some of the things that Mr Justice Lowe, the commissioner of this royal commission in March 1942, had to say about the injured, the accuracy of the bombing and the warning for the raid:
There was a general consensus of opinion that the general alarm sounded proceeded the falling of the first bomb by a very short space of time, probably seconds. A warning that a large number of aircraft had been observed passing overhead at a great height over Bathurst Island and were proceeding southward, was received by the officer-in-charge of the Amalgamated Wireless Postal Radio Station at Darwin at 9.35 a.m. on the morning of the 19th February. That officer repeated the message to Royal Australian Air Force Operations at 9.37 a.m. No general alarm was given in the town until just before 10 o'clock.
Evidence was given before me that according to the routine usually observed, Royal Australian Air Force Operations would communicate a message to A.C.H. (Area Command Head-quarters) and that A.C.H. would communicate to Navy and Army are to Head-quarters. Royal Australian Air Force Operations would also, in the normal routine, communicate a message to A.R.P. Head-quarters.
On full consideration of the evidence, I find that the failure by Royal Australian Air Force Operations to communicate with A.R.P. Head-quarters is inexplicable. The excuse given in evidence for the delay was based upon the fact that earlier that morning a number of United States planes—P.4O's had set out, for Koepang and, meeting with adverse weather, ha d returned. Some discussion , it is said, ensued as to whether the planes referred to in the above message were the American planes returning or enemy planes, and that this discussion accounted for the greater part of the delay which ensued.
It is quite powerful to be reading through this royal commission report from 1942.
I must just say in closing that the commissioner did point out some very positive observations about the characters of people involved. I will give you an example here:
There are some observations in conclusion, which I wish to make. A prisoner in the Fanny Bay Gaol, Sinclair by name, was released with others during the raid. He had had experience of first-aid work, and according to all witnesses, performed magnificent service in the town in the treatment of the wounded. On the conclusion of this work, he reported back to the gaol, and was told that he had been released. Since the day of the raid he has performed further excellent service in Darwin, helping the police and the A.R.P. organization. His sentence still had some months to run when he was released. In view of his conduct, I recommend him for a pardon.
Many acts of heroism were performed by individuals on the ships in the harbour, and on the land, particularly by the nurses in the hospital. To discriminate would be invidious, but I wish to record the fact that evidence of their conduct was brought before me.
I would just like to say that our thoughts are with all of the families of those descendants as we reflect this Sunday on the 75th anniversary of the bombing of Darwin.
Homelessness
Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE (South Australia) (22:00): Last Friday, I stood in Rundle Mall with Steve, a vendor for The Big Issue, to help him sell this fortnight's edition of the magazine. It was 38 degrees that day, but you would not have known it by looking at Steve. With a damp towel draped around his neck, he was upbeat and definitely up for a chat. Truth be told, we only sold one copy of the magazine in the 45 minutes I shared with him, and that sale was to my chief of staff. In hindsight, I think there were a couple of reasons why we did not break any sales records that afternoon.
One possible explanation was the fact that Steve was very keen on having the ear of a politician. The other reason was the invisibility effect the bright yellow vests we were wearing had—and I will return to that second reason shortly. Of all the things that Steve and I chatted about that day, it was the very first thing he said to me that struck me. After shaking my hand, Steve took me directly in the eye and said, 'Please do all you can to help the homeless.' His plea was as sincere as it was moving. It came from a deeply personal place. That is because Steve knew what it meant to face homelessness.
Steve and his twin brother were born with cerebral palsy. Tragically, he lost his mother and his brother to suicide. He endured a deep depression, surviving his own suicide attempt. But, with the help of a support worker and carers, he now has his own apartment, is studying and is a vendor for TheBig Issue, which he loves. Some days Steve sells The Big Issue for more than eight hours straight, and some days he does not even make a sale. His work ethic and his attitude should be an example to us all.
I did not ask him. but I am sure Steve does not care whether our Prime Minister called the Leader of the Opposition a sycophant last week. And he probably would be gobsmacked to hear a senator essentially claim, 'Won't someone think of the politicians?' when it comes to losing gold card entitlements. And Steve probably could not fathom how the CEO of Australia Post, just one man, could pocket more than $5 million a year.
Steve's plea to me about helping the homeless echoed in my mind as we stood together in the mall. He had been so open with me. And do you know what? That made me feel guilty, because there was something I did not want to tell him—something, quite frankly, I did not have the heart to tell him. That was that, according to a news report that day, the National Affordable Housing Agreement—the agreement that is meant to increase social housing, reduce homelessness and help alleviate rental stress—is rumoured to be being scrapped by the federal government in the upcoming May budget.
In South Australia, more than 70 non-government organisations in metropolitan and country areas receive a share of this funding. All up, more than a billion dollars is injected into homelessness services and affordable housing by the federal government each year through this agreement and the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness. Should these devastating cuts go ahead, crisis accommodation services, outreach programs and domestic violence support services will be in jeopardy. National Shelter has described the move as 'absolutely crippling' for homelessness services, predicting that the cuts would result in 'unmitigated disaster'. Reasons cited for cutting homelessness funding include that it has not achieved certain targets, such as improving affordable housing stocks and reducing homelessness.
Now, I will be the first to say that there is a lack of transparency in the spending of these funds. After questioning the Department of Social Services during Senate estimates in October last year, their answers made it abundantly clear that this lack of transparency must be addressed. Being a COAG agreement, these funds are handed to the states and territories with little oversight of how they are spent.
In fact, the department and minister admitted to me that they have known for years that there needs to be a review of the National Affordable Housing Agreement, also known as the NAHA. But, in reviewing whether these priorities of the NAHA are being addressed, the baby must not be thrown out with the bathwater. The mother and her children fleeing a violent household would not say the support services that put a roof over their heads that are funded by the NAHA have not met their target—nor would the young person suffering mental health issues who found themselves in crisis accommodation after being kicked out of their rental, not having been able to hold down a job and afford to pay rent.
The government needs to commit to the NAHA funding. A review should aim to improve service delivery and outcomes, particularly in priority areas such as domestic violence, and not justify the removal of billions of dollars because targets allegedly are not being met.
Looking back on my afternoon with Steve, something that will stay with me is the way we practically disappeared when we put on our bright yellow vests. This was quite confronting. When I spoke to one of the other Big Issue representatives that day, they said this kind of thing happens all the time. In fact, the representative told me that when the CEO of a major company in Adelaide stood in the foyer of his own building selling The Big Issue and wearing the bright yellow vest, many of his employees did not recognise him. They walked past, only stopping when their boss called them out. Well-known sports personalities had similar experiences.
For some vendors of The Big Issue, this kind of invisibility is a daily occurrence. When I stood with Steve, passers-by avoided eye contact. Others pulled out their phones to look busy. Some just looked the other way. It seemed the prospect of interacting with someone who was potentially homeless was unsettling to the mallgoers that day.
But as MPs and senators we cannot look the other way when it comes to addressing homelessness, and what the public should really find unsettling is the prospect of the government ripping funding away from essential homelessness services on the basis that it does not know whether they are achieving value for money. Improved transparency, clearer targets and better communication between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments will determine whether this much-needed funding is achieving its stated aims; simply tearing up these funding arrangements will not. We must do all we can to help the homeless and those at risk of finding themselves without a safe and secure place to sleep. As elected members we must listen to our constituents. I listened to Steve and, on his behalf, I hope the government hears his plea. And to anyone else listening tonight, if all you can do is buy a copy of this month's The Big Issue and help improve on the sales that Steve and I didn't make, then please do.
Senate adjourned at 22 : 08
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The following documents were tabled by the Clerk pursuant to statute:
[Legislative instruments are identified by a Federal Register of Legislation (FRL) number. An explanatory statement is tabled with an instrument unless otherwise indicated by an asterisk.]
Customs Act 1901—
Customs By-law No. 1700051 [F2017L00108].
Customs By-law No. 1700052 [F2017L00110].
Customs By-law No. 1700053 [F2017L00107].
Defence Act 1903—Section 58B—Disturbance allowance and vehicle allowance – amendment—Defence Determination 2017/4 [F2017L00106].
Dental Benefits Act 2008—Dental Benefits Amendment Rule 2017 (No. 1) [F2017L00105].
Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991—Food Standards (Application A1117 – Extension of Use of L-cysteine as a Food Additive) Variation [F2017L00104].
Plant Health Australia (Plant Industries) Funding Act 2002—Plant Health Australia (Plant Industries) Funding Repeal Determination 2016 [F2017L00109].
Tabling
The following documents were tabled pursuant to standing order 61(1) (b):
Auditor-General—Audit report no. 37 of 2016-17—Performance audit—Australian Taxation Officeʼs implementation of audit recommendations: Australian Taxation Office.
Department of the Senate—Register of Senate senior executive officers' interests incorporating statements of registrable interests and notifications of alterations of interests of Senate senior executive officers lodged between 8 October and 31 December 2016, dated February 2017.
Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse—Royal Commission—Report of case study no. 36—The response of the Church of England Boys' Society and the Anglican Dioceses of Tasmania, Adelaide, Brisbane and Sydney to allegations of child sexual abuse, dated January 2017.
Treaty—Bilateral—Consequences of termination of the Treaty between Australia and the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste on Certain Maritime Arrangements in the Timor Sea—Text, together with national interest analysis.
Tabling
The following documents were tabled by the Clerk pursuant to the order of the Senate of 25 June 2014:
Estimates hearings—Unanswered questions on notice—Budget estimates 2016-17 (Supplementary)—Statements—
Agriculture and Water Resources portfolio.
Department of Social Services.