The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 9:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The Clerk: I table documents pursuant to statute and returns to order. Lists are available from the table office or chamber attendants.
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:
Environment and Communications References Committee—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 11 May 2017, from 1.15 pm.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement—public meeting during the sitting of the Senate today, from 5.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into human trafficking.
Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories—private briefing during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 11 May 2017, from 10 am.
Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme—private briefing during the sitting of the Senate today, from 10 am.
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 11 May 2017, from 9.30 am.
The PRESIDENT (09:31): Does any senator wish to have the question put on any of those matters? No.
BILLS
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 WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (09:32): I seek leave to move a motion relating to the budget.
Leave not granted.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Whish-Wilson moving a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the budget.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Whish-Wilson, the suspension of standing orders has to be relevant to where we are at now, and we have gone back into a bill. I just advise you of that as you move into your remarks.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: I just want to clarify, Mr President. It was busy, but I was on my feet.
The PRESIDENT: I did see you rise to your feet at the prompting of your whip, after the Clerk started to call on the legislation, and there was time before that. So I think we are treating you very fairly in this instance.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: I appreciate that, Mr President, because this is a very important subject. The day after the federal budget—
The PRESIDENT: Point of order, Senator Fifield?
Senator Fifield: Mr President, my understanding is that we actually need to be between items in order to seek to move such a motion, and the Clerk had already called on the bill.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Fifield. I will go back to what I indicated earlier, Senator Whish-Wilson. You cannot move a suspension pursuant to contingent motion, but you can move a suspension of standing orders because leave was denied. You have used that provision to move a suspension of standing orders, but it must be relevant: you must explain why we need to have a suspension of standing orders at this particular juncture in relation to this bill.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: The bill before us is about social security and young people, and my motion for a suspension of standing orders relates to the budget and the fact that the budget is screwing young Australians. This is a very important issue for a large proportion of our country and for future generations of our country, who rely on us to do our job in here today and make sure they get fair outcomes.
I know I also speak on behalf of all my party when I say that I got into politics to see change. I got into politics to come into this place to see reform, to shake the cage and to make sure that we get the big issues of our day—issues that are important to young Australians and issues that are important to all Australians—dealt with here in the Senate. There is no more important a time than budget day for a government to show its colours and how it is going to tackle the big issues of the day, because budget day is about the management of the economy and the money that we spend and about the decisions that we make on how that money is spent.
The budget yesterday treated problems like housing affordability as a political problem. The solutions that the Treasurer put forward yesterday were political solutions to an incredibly important issue for young Australians. Young Australians do not have the dream that we and previous generations in this country had of affordable housing. It is the single biggest issue. The single biggest issue leading into this budget two days ago, which has been building momentum over years of inaction from various governments, was around housing affordability in this country. That is not to mention the information that we had given to the media in weeks prior to this budget about cuts to higher education spending and more onerous conditions being put on university students to retire their debts earlier than before. If we want to incentivise young Australians to go on to tertiary education, why are we making it harder for them to get university degrees?
In my home state of Tasmania, we have this perverse situation where we have government funding to enhance the university and to turn the town I live in into a university town, yet we are actually making it harder for students to go to university and we are making it more onerous to retire their debts. We are asking these students, these young Australians, to seek higher education, to innovate and to deliver for the future of this country, but we are putting in place political roadblocks to housing affordability, which the government refuses to tackle. I counted 14 different initiatives in the budget speech last night relating to housing affordability, but none of them will tackle the structural issues that we know need to be changed, such as the perverse incentives like negative gearing, capital gains tax concessions, the need to remove stamp duty and move to a broad-based land tax. These are the things that will actually tackle these problems. The Greens do not treat this as just a political problem; we treat this as a real problem for young Australians and low-income Australians right around this country. Those are the kinds of reforms we want to see.
We are pleased that at least in this budget the government has not just tried to raise revenue from the most vulnerable, which it has always targeted in its previous budgets. In saying that, we are still disgusted by some of the measures the government has in place to go after the most vulnerable, but at least it has made an effort to go after the big end of town. The Greens campaigned at the last three federal elections for a bank levy, and good on you for adopting our policy on a bank levy. In saying that, our levy would have raised twice as much. We also applaud you on adopting our policy on bank portability and on putting in place a new financial complaints body to replace the ombudsman. That is straight out of the Greens policy book. Nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction. But why kick the can down the road on other important issues, like delaying the petroleum resource rent tax? Let us get on with some real reform in this country. Today is a day to debate this, especially for young Australians who worry about their future. We are here to make sure it is secure.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. As it is not a contingent motion, if you could provide a signed copy of the motion to the clerk at the table that would be appreciated.
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (09:38): I am not going to detain the Senate for very long. Senator Whish-Wilson, the government is very, very eager and happy to debate this budget, because this is a budget of which we are very, very proud. But I just make this point to you and to other colleagues: there is such a thing as the appropriate order of procedure. The Leader of the Opposition has yet to deliver his response to the budget and, as Senator Whish-Wilson and others would know, the sitting program for this week provides that tomorrow evening there is specific time allocated for party leaders and crossbench senators to make speeches in relation to the budget.
The bills, of course, are not even in this chamber. They will be in the chamber, and there will be a very thorough debate about the budget bills, no doubt, when the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and related bills are introduced. Of course, there are all the other opportunities—including, in particular, question time—for senators to ventilate issues arising from last night's budget. Senator Whish-Wilson, I do not want to be offensive, but I suspect that we have seen this morning just a little bit of grandstanding. You will have—every honourable senator will have—plenty of opportunity to debate the budget at the appropriate time and in the appropriate order provided for by the Senate program and, indeed, by the Senate standing orders. When that debate is engaged, the government is very, very, very eager to spruik from the rafters the virtues of this budget. But this morning, with a busy sitting program, and a lot of other legislation to be dealt with on the red, is not that time.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (09:41): The opposition will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders. We acknowledge that the budget is an important document and should allow, through the procedures of the Senate, for appropriate debate and discussion, but I agree with the Leader of the Government—this morning is not the appropriate time for that debate. The budget was handed down last night. The Leader of the Opposition will make a formal reply on Thursday evening, as is established practice across the parliament. There are also a variety of ways by which members and senators can raise concerns about the budget, debate the budget and draw attention to particular elements of the budget that they may be concerned about. Those are well known—question time, the MPI and senators' statements. In the next couple of weeks we will have estimates, which will allow a thorough examination of the budget, and then we will have the debate on the bills when they come for debate as well.
So there are many ways that we will debate the key issues in the budget, and Labor will certainly be engaging in that very vigorously. There are concerns that we have raised overnight about the tax cuts for millionaires whilst having a tax hike for every working Australian. We are concerned that those who can afford to contribute are getting a tax break, while those who are doing it pretty tough—I think we have all acknowledged that—are having to pay more. So there are really big, national debates that we need to be talking about through this budget. We know that there are hidden nasties in this budget that may not have formed part of the Treasurer's speech last night but will be examined closely over the next few days, including keeping the pension age at 70, new cuts to family payments and to veterans health and the abolition of the energy supplement. At the same time the government is trying to say that pensioners are getting a better deal through a one-off payment, but not saying that they are actually going to lose substantial amounts—four times as much—through the abolition of the energy supplement.
So there are very specific details of this budget which we need to go through and examine closely, but I am not entirely clear why the Greens have chosen this mechanism today, when we have a full program in front of us. We have already had a truncated week, in the sense that we did not have Monday to deal with legislation. There is not a lot of time to progress through the program that is already before us. We have two sitting weeks in June to deal with a lot of legislation, so any attempt to have a long debate on the budget that was handed down last night, prior to a formal response from the Leader of the Opposition, seems to me to be merely attempting to frustrate the program rather than engage in legitimate and detailed discussions on last night's budget. For those reasons, Labor will not be supporting the Greens today.
We would encourage them to use the other established mechanisms in the Senate to raise their concerns and to do so today if they choose to. But the program in front of us this morning, including the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill 2016, followed by the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 and several other bills, only really gives about 2½ hours for the legislation program this morning. I am not discounting the need to debate the budget or the fact that those questions need to be considered and are of national importance. I know there will be areas where we will agree with the Greens on concerns and areas we do not, but this morning is not the right time for that. We need to get to the program and allow the other established ways for discussing, examining and debating the budget to be observed.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (09:45): The reason that the Greens are moving the suspension of this particular bill, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill 2016, is that this bill was a warm-up to the attack on young people. What happened to the days when Malcolm Turnbull as Prime Minister swaggered around in his leather jacket? He has swapped the leather jacket for the Tony Abbott blue tie. He has no care at all for the future of young people in this country, and this pathways bill is an attack on young people. Do you know what it does? It sets up an entire group of young people as a team of slaves to corporate Australia. It says: 'Here is cheap labour and free labour. Work these young people into the ground and we will give you a tick and a flick from the government.' This is the first attempt of the massive attack on young people coming down the line from this government.
What did we see come out of the budget last night? We saw more assaults on young people across this country. We saw a $3.8 billion cut to university education. This, again, is from a Prime Minister who talks about wanting to be the Prime Minister of innovation and of having a future where we are a clever and smart country. Well, no. He is going to drive down the quality of education in this country through these cuts, making it harder for young people to get a university education and harder for them to pay off their debt at the end. Meanwhile, of course, the government is doing nothing, absolutely zilch, zero when it comes to tackling housing affordability and living costs. This government cares a lot about corporate Australia and a lot about wealthy Australians and does not give two hoots about young people. It does not give two hoots about their education. It does not give two hoots about the future of the country for them and what kind of future they are going to have in terms of the health of the planet.
Of course, climate change was not in the budget. It was like the government just searched for the term 'climate change' and pressed delete. It was deleted from the budget in its totality. This is from the Prime Minister who said he wanted to tackle some of the biggest issues facing not just Australia but the globe, and yet he has squibbed it over and over again.
There are some nice, fluffy things in the budget, of course. There is the bank levy, which is good. We give that a tick. Whatever. But of course the Prime Minister had to come up with a nasty sting in the tail to satisfy those grumps on his backbench—the Tony Abbotts of the world. The former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, is still barking away in the background. So what has the Prime Minister done? He has decided to make life tough for young Australians and students. There had to be a nasty sting in the tail, and it ended up being for young people.
This bill is directly linked to the assault on young people in the budget. It is the warm-up. So not only are we going to blame and punish young people now for being unemployed; we are going to then start funnelling them into being trainees and interns where they are not going to get paid proper wages. Do you know that this bill says that young people can be paid $7.60 an hour? That is the equivalent wage. It is disgusting. That is slave labour in this country, and this government should be ashamed of it.
The government is saying to young people that it is their fault they are unemployed and they are going to be punished because we have a massively high unemployment rate. In my home state of South Australia, which has the highest unemployment rate for young people in the country, where are the projects to build jobs for young people? They just do not exist. Young people are being punished for the fact that we have low jobs growth in this country, and now it is going to be much more difficult for them to even get an education and to retrain to get into the jobs of the future.
This government does not give a damn about young people. Malcolm Turnbull has given up on the future generations of this nation. He has given up on tackling climate change, which of course young people are very concerned about. He has given up on investing in our education system, which of course is very important to young people right across this country. Then he says, 'While we're doing all that, you're in trouble because you don't have a job. We'll step on you while you're already down. Then, if you're lucky enough, we'll put you into an internship and you'll get paid $7.60 an hour'—for slave labour! It is absolutely disgusting. (Time expired)
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts) (09:50): Colleagues, I think what we are witnessing here today is something that has become a bit of a post-budget ritual on the part of the Australian Greens—that is, on the Wednesday morning after the budget, when we have limited government business time and an agenda that has already been set, the Greens seek to move a suspension of standing orders to move a motion to address whatever the theme is they wish to prosecute about the budget. I say it is a bit of a ritual; I will not go so far as to say it is a tradition, because that might imply that it is something that will or should become a regular part of the proceedings of this place. It should not, because there are many established forms in this place for colleagues to put their views on the budget.
As the Leader of the Government in the Senate indicated, on Thursday night there is an occasion for budget reply speeches from minor parties and Independents. I am sure my colleagues in the Greens will take that opportunity. Obviously, there is the forum of question time, where colleagues around the chamber will talk about those things and put questions about those things that they think are good, bad or indifferent about the budget. We will have the appropriation bills themselves, which provide ample opportunity for colleagues to talk about the budget. Then there will be the bills giving effect to the individual budget measures that require legislation to establish them. Again, that will be an opportunity for colleagues to put their views. Not to mention, I would hazard a guess that some of the legislation related to individual budget measures may well find itself referred to Senate legislation committees. Again, that provides colleagues with a good opportunity to take advantage of.
We do have a limited amount of government business time in budget week. Obviously, we do not sit on the Monday. Yesterday we had some time; today there is not a lot; tomorrow there is even less. So, as much as I appreciate the ritual that my colleagues in the Greens are undertaking here this morning, as we do have limited government business time, I do not think they have made the case for a suspension of standing orders in order to move their motion. I know they are shocked about that. I would hope that the chamber as a whole would agree with me. I have a suspicion that the chamber might. But, as I started, let me indicate that I do not think that this ritual should change into being a tradition. It is not something that assists the orderly conduct of the business in this place. There is a lot of opportunity, as I have said, for colleagues to put their views forward, to air issues.
In voting against this motion to suspend standing orders, we as a government are not in any way, shape or form seeking to deny the opportunity to examine, to explore and to debate measures in the budget. But what this chamber needs to do is strike a balance between, on the one hand, transacting in a good and orderly way the business that is laid out on the program and, on the other hand, taking the opportunity of the many avenues and forums that will be available to colleagues over the weeks ahead to address the budget and to put their views forward.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (09:54): Perhaps if the government were not handing down such bad budgets we would not need to be trying to bring this issue on for immediate debate so that we can have a strong focus immediately after the government put down these budgets that hurt vulnerable people, that hurt young people, who are some of the most vulnerable members of our community and becoming more vulnerable because of the government's consistent attack on young people. The PaTH bill is actually a result of past poor budget measures that we are debating now that further do over young people. I made a contribution in the second reading debate on PaTH, where I clearly articulated the deep concerns the Greens have about the PaTH bill. And what does the government do now through the budget? They layer on more bad measures that impact on, in particular, vulnerable people. They continue the attack. They just cannot help themselves. And now we are sinking to new lows with the measures that are in this budget, which will significantly further impact on young people. Why are we so concerned that they are being screwed over? Because they are; they are being left behind.
My colleague Senator Hanson-Young articulated the number of young people who are unemployed in her home state of South Australia and also in my home state of Western Australia. There is an increasingly high number of unemployed young people, particularly in some key areas around Western Australia. And the minister says, 'You've got question time.' Well, question time might be useful if they actually answered the questions. But they do not answer the questions. So stop saying, 'You'll get plenty of time in question time.' If you genuinely answered the questions, I would be right with you guys. If you bring in a new process of answering the questions fairly, honestly and correctly—
Senator Duniam interjecting—
Senator SIEWERT: No they don't. I will take that interjection by Senator Duniam. He said they do. Sorry, no you don't. Sometimes they cannot answer the questions—they honestly say that—but most of the time they do not even answer the question that you ask; they answer the question that they wished you had asked or dorothy dixers by a member of their own side. Sorry, it just does not cut it that we can use question time for that. I will take the minister up on his offer this question time and I will expect proper, fulsome and correct answers to the questions that are asked.
Senator Brandis interjecting—
Senator SIEWERT: You just want to reignite that again, Senator Brandis.
Senator Brandis interjecting—
Senator SIEWERT: Come on!
The PRESIDENT: To the chair, Senator Siewert.
Senator SIEWERT: Sorry, Mr President. I think there would be general agreement in this place that question time could do with some improvement—
An honourable senator interjecting—
Senator SIEWERT: to the whole process—so to use that as an excuse is, I think, pretty poor. I do not mean to reflect on the minister, but it is a poor reason for not debating this particular issue now.
I want to get back to some of the measures in the budget that are really hitting a new low for the government and in fact set some very dangerous precedents for where they are going, particularly in the portfolio areas I have responsibility for in terms of income support and family and community services. They are going to bring in drug testing for new recipients. They have extended the cashless welfare card. They have extended the waiting period for income support, which will dramatically impact on some people. They continue the punitive approach that has been a consistent measure through the budgets since that punitive 2014 budget. Yes, they have got rid of some of those zombie measures, but they have replaced them with their own zombie measures which pick on young people in particular at just the moment when we need to be taking a much more supportive approach that does not mark the rest of their lives. A poor experience through the income support system at those times when they need that vital support will mark their engagement with the system for the rest of their lives. That is why it is urgent that we address this issue now. (Time expired)
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (10:00): We make no apologies for seeking to suspend standing orders this morning to debate the budget, because this is less a federal budget than it is a blueprint for ongoing intergenerational theft in this country. Make no mistake, this budget continues to rob from the future to pay for today, and of course it is young Australians who will overwhelmingly bear the brunt. This budget continues to shaft young Australians. It continues to shaft them around uneven and inequitable wealth distribution and it continues to shaft them around inequitable property ownership opportunities in this country—and the great public policy challenge of our time, which is climate change, barely rates a mention in this budget. It is fiddling at the margins on things like housing affordability, while the big levers, like negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount, continue to gather cobwebs.
It punishes young people for not having a job—these jobs that are so scarce. There are not enough jobs in our country for everyone, and many people who are working do not feel they have enough job opportunities. But instead of helping them it seeks to punish them, and it punishes the most vulnerable jobseekers, many of whom have health issues around drug and alcohol addiction. Well, what about a breathalyser on the front door of this place where, if you blow over 0.05, you actually cannot come in here and vote? But we are, of course, not going to have that. We are going to pick on the vulnerable and pick on the marginalised and then, if they do fail these tests—which I might add are the result of profiling, through the Department of Social Security—we are not going to help them but instead are going to punish them further by putting them on the cashless card. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Whish-Wilson to suspend standing orders be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [10:06]
(The President—Senator Parry)
The PRESIDENT ( 10:09 ): Prior to the motion on the suspension of standing orders, the bill had been called upon, so I invite Senator Hanson-Young, if she wishes, to move her second reading amendment to the bill.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:09): I move the motion as circulated in the chamber:
At the end of the motion, add:
", but the Senate calls on the Government to cap the fortnightly hours of the PaTH program at 30 to ensure participants in the program are receiving the minimum wage for the hours of work undertaken.".
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [10:14]
(The President—Senator Parry)
The PRESIDENT (10:18): The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
The Senate divided. [10:18]
(The President—Senator Parry)
In Committee
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (10:21): I move Nick Xenophon Team amendment (1) on sheet 8034 revised:
(1) Schedule 2, page 5 (after line 27), at the end of the Schedule, add:
5 At the end of Part 7
Add:
243A Review of operation of Youth Jobs PaTH program
(1) Before the end of the period of 2 years after the commencement of Schedule 2 to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Act 2017, the Employment Minister must cause to be conducted a review into the operation of the program established by the Commonwealth and known as "Youth Jobs PaTH".
(2) The Employment Minister must cause to be prepared a report of a review under subsection (1).
(3) The Employment Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the completion of the preparation of the report.
(4) In this section:
Employment Minister means the Minister administering the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012.
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (10:22): In relation to the NXT amendment, I need some clarity from the Xenophon party. The proposal is for a review by the minister after two years. Given the history of the problems that have arisen with Work for the Dole, even to the extent where a young person was killed in Work for the Dole, despite the checks and balances that are supposedly there to look after not only the conditions that these young people would be working under but also their health and safety, from Labor's point of view we have severe concerns that they will not be carried out effectively or properly.
An example is that, under Minister Cash, apprentices, who get far more checks and balances in their employment conditions than anyone would have under this bill, are still being ripped off mercilessly by employers around the country. In fact, the Fair Work Ombudsman has conducted two investigations into the pay and conditions of apprentices, and what it found was that about 50 per cent of apprentices were not receiving proper wages and conditions. It also found that, even though that was the situation, only one out of 100 apprentices actually complained, because they are in a power situation with the employer that leaves them in a weak and exposed position.
I am concerned that this bill does not even have the checks and balances that are available to apprentices. The NXT amendment for a review after two years might be fair enough, but if the experiences of what we have seen in Work for the Dole and with apprentices are correct, surely there has to be something more than relying on estimates, where we will be given the run-around by the minister and the department, as we have been with the apprentice concerns and a number of concerns elsewhere. Why are we waiting two years, and why would there not be a more independent review, given the concerns that have been raised by the submitters to the inquiry? Why would we not do something earlier and more independent, rather than simply wait for the department to do a report for the minister that covers up all the blemishes, all the problems and issues that people are concerned about? I am concerned that we need to do something more than simply wait for two years. I would be interested to find out why NXT would wait two years for this and not do something more quickly—say, in 12 months—or something independent or, when the problems start to arise, deal with it in a more effective way than simply questions without notice or the estimates process.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:26): I would like to follow up on Senator Cameron's questions and the points being made there. I think they are very important in relation to this. If this piece of legislation to implement these slave wages for young people is now going to pass because of the support from the Nick Xenophon Team, I think we need to be really clear about what the review includes and to ensure that it is as independent as possible. I look at what happened in the VET sector, where we know the rorting was rife. The last thing we want to see is a situation where this scheme becomes the next absolute rort and exploitation of young people. If you look at the detail of this bill, it is absolutely ripe for the rorting. We need to make sure that we have those checks and balances and that the process is as transparent as possible. I am hoping that the Nick Xenophon Team can give us some more information about what their review will include. Would they consider making sure there is more transparency there? By just asking the government or the minister to do their own review without some points of pressure, I really fear that we are setting ourselves up for another massive exploitation, as we saw under the VET FEE-HELP scheme.
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (10:28): I rise to speak on this very worthy amendment of my colleague, Senator Griff. A review process, by implication from the discussions we have had with the government, must be comprehensive and must rely on independent experts. I would like to hear from the government on this. I think that the points made by Senator Hanson-Young are fair enough. My clear understanding is that any review will involve speaking to a broad range of stakeholders—including young people who are part of this program, independent experts and employers—having a robust analysis and tabling the report. That is how the independent review would operate. Fortunately, in this parliament we have estimates three times a year, in contrast to the South Australian parliament, where there are woeful accountability measures. We have a process where, if there were concerns, the Senate could support a specific references committee inquiry or indeed a select committee inquiry looking into these issues. So it would be helpful for the minister to confirm that such a review would be independent of the minister's office, and that it would include terms of reference which would allow a robust examination of the scheme, and that it would seek evidence not just from those young people and employers involved in it but also from unions that may be concerned about it—so that it will be a fair and comprehensive review process. That is why we are advocating so strongly for this amendment.
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (10:30): I would like to put on notice that the Australian Conservatives will support this amendment. Perhaps for different reasons, Senator Hanson-Young happens to agree with me. We think schemes like this are open to abuse and open to all sorts of rorting. I have given the government the benefit of the doubt; the minister has given us various assurances that any potential loopholes have been closed. I think it is a precautionary measure to have a scheduled review, and so I am delighted to be supporting this amendment.
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (10:30): I must say that Labor is not satisfied with anything we have heard from Senator Xenophon or Senator Bernardi. We will wait to hear from the minister, obviously. But here we are again: the Nick Xenophon Team have done a deal with the government, once again, for another review. This is just their modus operandi. And now we find out from Senator Xenophon himself that the terms of reference have not been determined—that he is hoping they will be robust! Are there terms of reference for the review, Minister? If there are terms of reference, can you table them? And if there are no terms of reference, what are you going to do about it?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (10:32): The government agrees to the amendment put forward by the Nick Xenophon Team and moved on behalf Senator Griff. Before the end of the period of two years after the latter of the bill receiving royal assent or 1 April 2017, the minister will cause to be conducted a review into the operation of Youth Jobs PaTH, prepare a report of the review and table the report in each house of parliament within 15 sitting days of that house after completion of the report.
In relation to the comments made by Senator Xenophon: absolutely, we broadly agree. Without a doubt, if you are going to conduct a comprehensive review into the operation of this program—which, as I have indicated, we are very pleased to support—that would indeed necessitate the reviewer speaking to and taking evidence from a broad range of stakeholders. Those stakeholders would clearly include both employers and the youth who have been through the program. In relation to the terms of reference—no, Senator Cameron, no terms of reference have yet been drafted. But again, the fact that we are agreeing to conduct a review of the operation of Youth Jobs PaTH is self-explanatory.
In terms of a number of the issues that have been raised by both Senator Cameron and Senator Hanson-Young, it is very interesting that they stand up in this place and say to the youth of Australia, 'We are here supporting you.' But when you look at the position that they are taking in relation to this bill, by their actions they shall be judged—because they are doing the exact opposite. This government makes no apologies for the fact that we firmly believe that the best form of welfare is a job. We have a problem with youth unemployment in this country. There are youth out there who would love to get their foot in the door, but because they do not have the skills that employers are looking for they will never be given that opportunity. We as a government are very proud that we are making a total investment in youth employment of approximately $850 million, as announced in last year's budget. Part of that program is obviously Youth Jobs PaTH. We are getting our youth ready, we are giving them a go and we are getting them a job.
I am always fascinated to go online and read about the number of interns that both the Labor Party and the Greens quite literally push through their offices. These interns go online and they are quite happy to extol the virtues of the internship. It is always interesting that those on the other side are prepared to reap the benefits of internships—and in many cases unpaid internships by Labor and the Australian Greens movement—but, when an opportunity is offered to a young person who, but for that opportunity, is probably staring down the barrel of a lifetime of welfare, the first thing Labor and the Greens say is, 'No; we will deny you that opportunity.' Well, guess what? We on this side of the chamber are very proud to stand here and say that we will do everything we can to empower those youth who are on unemployment who do not have the skills and who do not have the opportunity to get their foot in the door.
In terms of the issues that have been raised about safeguards, I will inform the Senate of the safeguards that have been put in place in relation to this program. As I said, the program has started, and we are delighted. The program started on 1 April. There are youth who are currently in receipt of unemployment benefits who are now the beneficiaries of phase 1, the 'Prepare' stage. They are undertaking employability skills training—and guess what? The feedback is fantastic. I am also pleased that a number of youth who have not actually had to undertake the first phase have gone straight into the internship phase. In fact, we have already had one person who was on unemployment benefits offered a job. We make no apologies for that.
In terms of the program itself, as we have consistently discussed at estimates hearings, as we have consistently discussed with the shadow spokesperson, Mr Husic, from the other place, and which we have briefed Labor on in detail—and Mr Husic has actually been very good to work with in relation to this—the program has comprehensive safeguards in place to protect participants from, as those on the other side like to say, exploitation and churning, and to prevent host businesses from terminating or reducing the hours of existing employees.
The department are applying their well-established program assurance strategy—as for all employment services—to the PaTH program. They are doing it, in the first instance, by way of prevention. Program guidelines and the internship agreement will make the obligations and program intent clear to providers, jobseekers and the host businesses. Providers will have access to information on a host business's PaTH internship history, showing how many interns have been employed by the business. The internship agreement itself is clear on the requirements and that inappropriate use could result in exclusion from further access to the program. If you choose to abuse—and, I have to say, I give employers the benefit of the doubt; most employers in this country do the right thing—you can be barred from ever utilising this program.
In terms of detection, this may be through identifying noncompliance or triggering a review of a business's use of the program through data analytics; the tip-off line; the national customer service line; jobseeker surveys; provider audits and the rolling random sample process; and also of course through working with providers and host businesses to ensure that they fully understand the policy requirements—and, if required, terminating internship agreements and preventing access to the program by host businesses that use the program inappropriately.
Employment service providers will monitor how the PaTH internship program is progressing. If their monitoring suggests that an employer is not using the program appropriately; again, they may terminate the internship agreement and report the employer to the Department of Employment. As a further safeguard, jobseekers can raise concerns directly with their employment services provider or the Department of Employment, through the national customer service line, while organising a PaTH internship placement or during a PaTH internship. Jobseekers will stay connected to their provider during the placement, including attending their ongoing appointments. Again, any host business found to be misusing the program will be excluded from future participation.
I also make the point, though, that the intern stage of this program is voluntary. You do not have to undertake an internship if you do not want to; however, there are many youth out there who are quite literally looking forward to the opportunity of getting their foot in the door via this program, like so many people have done through Labor Party offices and through the Australian Greens offices. So many have had an opportunity to showcase their skills. In fact, the intern who went through the office of the current Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten—I think his name was Ben, and I will correct the Hansard if his name is not Ben—has proudly stated that through that internship he was able to contribute to last year's budget-in-reply speech. That was the opportunity offered to him, and he clearly relished the opportunity.
I go back to Senator Xenophon and this amendment. Senator Xenophon, we support the amendment. A review will be commissioned by the minister and tabled in the parliament in the terms in the amendment.
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (10:41): Nothing that has been said there adds anything to what we already know about this program. Nothing has been said that would give me any comfort that this minister can do any better in this area of responsibility than she has done in the area of apprentices. Apprentices are being ripped off mercilessly under this minister's watch. There is nothing being done—there is never a comment, never a statement and never any action—yet this minister comes here and tries to lecture us in her high-handed manner that she can resolve all these problems by data analytics and the employers basically conceding to provide information. Minister, that is not how the world out there works. If you actually did take time to look at the rip-offs of young apprentices that have been happening out there, you would understand why Labor has concerns about what you are saying.
We will not be satisfied with a two-year review that has no terms of reference and that we think will be widespread. Senator Xenophon has simply been making it up on the run. He does not know how this review is going to be undertaken. There are no terms of reference and no agreement. We will wait for two years to find out what happened to young people. Senator Xenophon, this minister cannot look after apprentices properly and yet you are going to give your faith to this minister to look after young kids, who will be exploited even more. Fifty per cent of apprentices feel exploited in this country under the watch of Minister Cash.
Where are they going to work? I like the idea that you can compare what is happening with this program with internships in parliament with departments, shadow ministers or parliamentarians. It is an absolute nonsense. We already have got Subway, a multinational, advertising that it is going to put on interns. What are they going to do? They are going to be sandwich artists.
Senator Cash: That is an absolute disgrace. You should withdraw that.
Senator CAMERON: The minister is saying this is a disgrace. I agree it is a disgrace, Minister. I think you are a disgrace. You cannot look after apprentices, and you are trying to tell us that you can look after internees being ripped off by people like Subway and 7-Eleven and Caltex, all under your watch. And you come here with your bombastic attitude telling us that we do not look after young people, but we do look after young people. You should just learn the same trait of looking after young people.
If you are in here on an internship, what you get from that internship is actually some recognition of the work that you do for your degree. That is what happens. You get some recognition for the work that you do. But this minister and Senator Xenophon have done a deal. Senator Xenophon will get some other deal down the track for supporting this bill. And we have this two-year review with absolutely no terms of reference, just a hope and a prayer that this minister will do the right thing, a hope and a prayer about the checks and balances—and I will come to the checks and balances down the track a little bit—including data analytics.
This is a government that has been using data analytics in the Department of Human Services, and how well has that gone, Minister? I just think the checks and balances in here are absolute nonsense. You do not have the capacity to look after young people that are operating under legislation in your portfolio. That is clear. This is an $850 million investment, and the people who are getting the benefit will be the people like Caltex, 7-Eleven and Subway. These are big multinationals who should actually be employing young people. They should not have to get funding from the federal government to actually put young people in a job. And there will be displacement. We might get some views on displacement from you down the track and on what the checks and balances on displacement are. But there are no comprehensive safeguards, as the minister has outlined.
I put to Senator Xenophon: if we start seeing, as we fear, widespread exploitation under this program, and if we start to see traits that are happening to young apprentices happening to these young people on so-called internships, will you support a Senate inquiry, independent of the minister, prior to the two years? If we see problems starting to arise, which we fully expect, will you support Labor and get an earlier review through a Senate inquiry process? Or will you argue that there is a process in place and we have to wait for two years and let kids be ripped off and exploited for two years, let kids be injured, let a young kid be killed—as happened in the Work for the Dole—in this program before you do anything about it? What is the Nick Xenophon Team's position on getting a review earlier than the two years if, as we fear, exploitation takes place?
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (10:48): I think Senator Cameron knows very well that as a general principle we support Senate inquiries. Even as a general course of the way we operate, we would support Senate inquiries. There is a reason why we do not have specific terms of reference at this stage, which is that there could well be a number of matters that arise in the course of the implementation of the program that need to be looked at forensically by an independent review. In answer to your direct question, Senator Cameron, if others in this chamber have concerns about this program prior to the independent review that will be instigated by the minister and if there is a move for a Senate inquiry—a references committee inquiry, presumably—then of course we will support that. We want to see the terms of reference, but you know that we are quite flexible. Our history in dealing with the opposition and the Australian Greens on these things is that we are amenable to a process that has solid terms of reference so that the inquiry can look at all of the issues. The short answer is yes.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (10:50): I want to go to the issue of the review first. I have quite a bit of experience in this place with reviews. I am thinking of the cashless welfare card. Honestly, the interim evaluation shows that, to the largest extent, it is not worth the paper it is written on. They have done a review and, even with the information that is contained in the review, the minister has just spun that to justify proof of concept. The data they have included does not support the conclusions that the government are drawing and they are using that to justify the expansion of the cashless welfare card trials in the current sites. Also, in the budget there are two new trials. The data simply does not support the conclusions they are drawing. Forty-nine per cent of people have said that their life is worse. The government have spun the so-called figures on drug, alcohol and gambling to the greatest extent possible.
I am sorry, but I do not have much faith in reports or reviews and that the government actually take them into consideration. I am not saying it should not be reviewed, but my point is that this is another ideological program by the government. They will ignore any adverse findings anyway and will continue with it. We need to remember up-front that any review needs to be looked at very carefully so that we ensure that the government act on it. So, while I would have a review, I have little faith that it would be acted on. It is well known that a lot of people within government do not like Work for the Dole, but it continues despite the accidents that have occurred and despite someone losing their life—and we still do not know what happened; we still have not seen that report.
While I am on my feet, I would also like to address the issue of interns. One of the deeply offensive parts of the bill is that it continues to talk about these people as interns. They are going to be exploited workers. The Greens amendment that ensured that people would not work for below the minimum wage was voted down, which is a tragedy. It is quite clear, therefore, that people may end up working below the minimum wage. The government link that to internship when someone will clearly be doing a job that somebody else could do in a paid position. I am still not reassured that people who currently have jobs will not be replaced in this program, despite the government saying that they will not be. The concept of internships under this government has been continually eroded. To compare it to interns in parliamentary offices is, quite frankly, a joke when you compare the exploitation that is going to occur. It is not that it may occur; it will occur in these positions. That is appalling, in my opinion. It is just a cheap political stunt to say, 'You shouldn't complain, because you offer people opportunities to understand the political process.' We are not putting them in workplaces where they work on making a profit for a company. Businesses are already advertising. I know the minister did not like the term 'sandwich artists', but that is, quite frankly, the spin that Subway is putting on it to try to get people onto the superlucrative deal for the big companies. That is the spin they are putting on it. Whether the minister is offended or not, that is the spin that Subway is putting on it, and it is what we can expect from other large employers.
I would also like an assurance from the minister around this whole issue of it being voluntary and being linked to the employment plan. I have had numerous complaints from people who have felt they had no option to argue with their employment plan. In fact, the previous measure that fell off the Notice Paper when the parliament was prorogued for the last election, the stronger compliance for jobseekers measures, sought to make it more difficult, or would have made it more difficult, for people to question and be involved in a good discussion about their employment plan. What guarantees are there—and will the minister commit to this—that no-one will be forced to take on an employment plan where they do not want to do this program but the jobactive provider says, 'This is going to be part of your employment plan'? At what point can they do that, and who can they go to, when the jobactive provider says, 'You shall do it'? It is going to be more and more difficult to discuss and question the employment plan if they do not feel that that position under PaTH is appropriate for them.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (10:56): I know we are being broadcast, and this might be slightly confusing for people who are listening in. This bill is actually a very, very discrete bill, and does two very, very small things that are clearly in the interests of the person who will be voluntarily undertaking the internship. As I have stated, the PaTH program, which we are very proud of, has commenced. It commenced on 1 April. All this bill does—I think most would be at a loss as to why Labor and the Australian Greens are not supporting it, given everything they are standing here today and saying—is ensure that the $200 per fortnight incentive payment is not treated as income, and therefore the intern will get the full benefit of the $200. Also, if during the hire phase the now employee loses their job through no fault of their own within that 26-week period, they are automatically reconnected to the system to ensure that they do not lose any money. So I am a little surprised that the Australian Greens, in particular, given that the program is up and running, are not seeking to ensure that those participating in the program absolutely do get the full benefits of it.
Putting that aside, in relation to Senator Siewert's questions, the internship program is entirely voluntary. Young people will be able to choose the workplace that they go to, with the support of their provider. In terms of what you asked in relation to the job plan, a PaTH internship will be an optional term of the jobseeker's employment pathway plan—or the job plan, as it is colloquially known—not a compulsory one, and therefore a failure to complete the internship will not constitute noncompliance by the jobseeker. The internship agreement itself will inform the jobseeker that PaTH is a voluntary placement and that they may end the placement at any time. In terms of who they are able to go to—in the instance you gave, if the job provider was saying, 'I'm going to make this a compulsory part of your plan'—they will have all the information provided to them to ensure that they know that it is not. Then the usual channels will apply, in terms of the information lines, the Department of Employment et cetera, to ensure that there is a mechanism for them to complain.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (10:59): I want to respond to the minister's comment at the beginning of her answer to that question—and I appreciate the answer. Yes, we do know we are discussing those two parts of it, but of course this is part of the whole concept of PaTH. The government chose to start the program before this legislation had been dealt with. I appreciate the two measures that the minister was talking about, but the simple fact is: the government knew that these measures had not been through the chamber and that they were subject to a great deal of opposition from, at that stage, a number of parties, and now it is the ALP and we who still have very strong concerns about this.
Thank you for the answer, Minister. I appreciate your confirming it is voluntary. In terms of the job plan, the employment plan, the usual method of complaint is the information line. Could you just articulate what other measures there are? Often the people who are using the services of the jobactive providers actually do not know their options for who they can raise their concerns with, and they feel pretty trapped when there is a lot of pressure on them. I know this because people come into my office and tell me. They feel pretty trapped and deeply concerned that they feel that they do not have an option to raise concerns about their plan or question it.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (11:01): You are correct: there is the National Customer Service Line, which is highly utilised by people in receipt of benefits. There is also the tip-off line. There is also the Department of Employment itself directly, by email. And members of parliament themselves are often referring things to us. So it is the avenues that would normally apply in terms of issues that need to be raised.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:02): The other part of the question was: how do people know? As part of the approach in this program, will those be clearly outlined when people are participating in the pre-program and when they are discussing this matter with their jobactive provider?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (11:02): The answer is yes.
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (11:02): Firstly, could I acknowledge the commitments that Senator Xenophon has given in relation to emerging problems and support for a Senate inquiry if required. I think we will be calling on that sooner rather than later. We do not support this bill. We think there are huge problems with the bill. We think that the review has got significant problems, given that there are no terms of reference for the review. But I suppose it is better than nothing. But I would like to use the time when the Xenophon amendment is before the chamber to deal with a number of issues before we go to a vote on that amendment, which we would be inclined to support, given that there has already been a deal done. The deal has been done. It is not a very good deal. There are no terms of reference. There is a nod, a wink and a handshake—typical of the Xenophon team's dealings with this government. Whenever the government is in trouble, the Xenophon team will pull them out of trouble, and we will not explore the real issues; we will just get another commitment for a committee or some inquiry. That just seems to be how it works.
I just want to go into some of the details, Minister. You indicated the program has started. So the program commenced without a legislative framework. Could you explain how that can happen. How many participants are there? What are the ages of these participants? What industries or employers are they engaged with? Are the intern payments being counted as income? And, if so, how will they be reimbursed, if the bill passes?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (11:05): Thank you, Senator Cameron, for those questions and, yes, you are right: the program did not require legislation, as with many government programs, to commence and therefore it commenced on 1 April.
In relation to statistics, I have some statistics with me, which I am sure the department is currently getting for me. If I cannot get them during the term of this debate, I will certainly endeavour to provide them to you later on today. I understand that approximately, at this point in time, 40 per cent of the internships are within tourism and accommodation but, obviously, there are a wide variety of industries that have come on board. I will endeavour to get the statistics on how many are currently in the program, bearing in mind that the program has been up and running now for only five weeks.
In terms of your question, currently, without the passing of the legislation, is the $200 a fortnight top-up payment counted as income? The answer is: yes, it is—hence the reason we are debating this bill—and there will be no reimbursement; there will be none.
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (11:06): So you have actually allowed your department to work with employers to engage young people without all the so-called benefits that you claim the bill will provide—pretty typical. Minister, you indicated in your summing-up speech yesterday that there was feedback from youth who you said had been telling us: 'We would love to get a job, but we don't have the skills the employers need.' Can you advise us: who did you consult to get this feedback? What was the process, and when did the consultation occur?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (11:07): Thank you. As you would know, in relation to government programs, departments undertake ongoing consultation and, certainly, in relation to this program, the department undertook extensive consultation, in particular with employers but also with jobseekers and job providers.
Regarding my own consultation, I talk to youth all the time and I ask them what the barriers are in relation to getting them off welfare and into work. Overwhelmingly, I am often advised that they cannot get their foot in the door. They do not have the requisite skills that an employer requires. That is why the government was very upfront about the fact that this program directly responds to feedback received by youth—and, in many cases, it is their parents who say, 'I do not want to see my son or daughter living a lifetime of welfare, but I don't have the capacity to give them the skills they need.' The feedback has been overwhelming in terms of the government ensuring that these young people to have the employability skills that employers are looking for.
I have some further information about consulting. The department of employment, as I said—it is ongoing consultation, obviously, in relation to government programs with a wide range of organisations and the design of the jobactive PaTH. It, clearly, takes on board all views—in fact, I have to say again: the shadow minister, Ed Husic, was very good in terms of providing me with feedback. I understand that—and I do not have the brief date of this—they consulted with over 50 organisations, including industry peak bodies, industry associations, employment services, peak bodies, unions, employers and state government departments.
The department released a consultation paper to seek stakeholders' views about the employability skills training, which was the first element of jobactive PaTH. More than 70 written submissions were received by the department, with stakeholders providing positive feedback—so extensive consultation was undertaken.
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (11:09): Thanks, Minister, but you have not gone near the question I asked you. I am not surprised that the employers love this program, because what you are doing is subsidising the company to bring young people in to do work that someone could have been employed to do. I am not asking you who you consulted with, but if this was just rhetorical flourish yesterday in your summing up, then do not dig deeper—just tell us it was a rhetorical flourish and that there has not been feedback from youth. I have asked you, given that you made this statement yesterday, and I do not mean you personally: what youth did the department consult with; how many young people did the department consult with; how did you find these young people to consult with; and when did the consultations occur? Maybe I will try again and ask you to deal with that and stop digging a bigger hole. If it was a rhetorical flourish, just tell us that, and we can move on.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (11:11): Senator Cameron, I have clearly articulated the answer to that question.
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (11:11): If that is the type of answer we are going to get, no wonder young people cannot be protected under your watch. That is the problem we have. Why don't you take it on notice to provide us with the detail? I think it is a fair question, as you claim that young people want the program. We are simply saying to you, 'You're saying that you consulted. Tell us who you consulted'—and that is not you; that is the department—'what was the process, and when did the consultation occur?' We have not had any answers to that. I would appreciate it if you tried to deal with that.
In your speech yesterday you went to the issue of an ANU student working in the Leader of the Opposition's office, and you have raised it again today. Do you accept that there is a vast difference in terms of qualifications received and the skills and experience you would have in a professional internship and those you would have as a sandwich artist at Subway? Are you saying that they are both the same and, if you are, can you explain how these would be the same?
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Gallacher ): Minister, you have the call.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (11:13): I will defer to Senator Hanson.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (11:13): One Nation supports this legislation being passed by the government, and I believe that it is a good step in the right direction towards addressing youth unemployment. Many areas that I travel to have a youth unemployment rate of about 25 per cent, or even more. Youth feel that they are forgotten, they are not being listened to and policies have not been put in place. What is also lacking are incentives to give them reasons why they should go and get a job or want to work. I think this legislation is a great incentive. Yes, they are getting the Newstart allowance, but it is also going to allow them $200 extra a fortnight to help them manage to get clothes and to present themselves well. Someone has to do something about it. Not only are kids finding it hard to get jobs; let's be honest about it, a lot of them are unemployable. If some of these young people had walked into my shop looking the way that they do when I had a business, they would not have got a foot in the door with me in the first place.
Someone has taken the initiative to say: 'Listen, guys, get your act together. Clean yourselves up. Presentation means everything to an employer.' I have to acknowledge this and give credit to the government for doing something about it. I have seen photos where kids have been transformed from an appearance of looking unemployable to where they have taken pride in themselves—and now they have a job.
Senator Cameron makes the comment, 'A business is going to rip off the system.' That may be the case, but the biggest rip-off in the system under the Labor Party was the pink batts. Where was their accountability when businesses took on doing the jobs and ripping off the taxpayers for how many billions of dollars?
Senator Cameron interjecting—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Gallacher ): Order on my left.
Senator HANSON: When the Labor Party talks about the youth or the Greens talk about youth employment, wages and everything like that, why would you knock back something like this that has given the kids an incentive to go and work? Would you be happy enough to see them sitting on a Newstart allowance?
Senator Cameron interjecting—
Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order. I remind all senators that interjections are disorderly and that senators are entitled to be heard in silence.
Senator HANSON: I hear the interjections. Of course, I do not know their backgrounds, but how many in this chamber have actually held a small business and employed staff? There are not very many in this chamber. I am speaking from a small business person's point of view.
Senator Cameron: I employed 400.
Senator HANSON: I am not talking about a union rep or a union delegate who pushes the agenda of their own union ahead of what the workers really want and getting jobs. What I am talking about is that this is an opportunity for kids to have jobs. It is going to be reviewed in a couple of years time. It is a four-year program, but it will be reviewed. It is going to actually work. Isn't it best to have kids out there, or our youth, who have the opportunity to get a job? Then they can go on to further employment. That is a start.
Senator Hanson-Young: Give them a job and stop using them for slave labour!
Senator HANSON: The whole fact is that I have spoken to businesses. They want to put it on. Small businesses are struggling, and until we address—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Williams, on a point of order?
Senator Williams: You brought to the attention of the chamber that interjections are disorderly. I ask you to bring standing order 197 to the attention of Senator Hanson-Young. If not, please use standing order 203 in consideration.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Williams. I will repeat that interjections are disorderly and that all senators are entitled to be heard in silence.
Senator HANSON: Can I also express the fact that the interjection from Senator Hanson-Young—she is saying this is slave labour. What a load of rubbish! It is not slave labour. It is about getting to know a trade or to work in one. An employer is struggling these days, and a lot of people will not—
Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—
Senator HANSON: Excuse me, Chair. I am still getting interjections from Senator Hanson-Young and it is disrupting my speech to this parliament, which I think is very important because the Australian people are interested in what I have to say.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I reiterate my third call for senators to extend the right of all senators to be heard in silence. Interjections are disorderly—please desist.
Senator HANSON: As I said, having run my own small business, it is quite expensive to put someone on, especially if they are not very well equipped with the knowledge of how to do that job. There is a training period. This is also involved in a training period: if they are capable of doing the job, the employer will—in my instance, if they are capable of doing the job, I would have put them onto further employment.
Until we address the industrial relations in this country by allowing small businesses to employ a person they wish to without fear of discrimination, and sack that person freely without fear of discrimination because that person is incapable of doing that job, nothing will change in this country. That is why small businesses are stifling—not only small businesses, but also other industries—because they are strangled by legislation. So that needs to be addressed.
This is a step in the right direction to get the youth employed, especially in rural and regional areas. I know that businesses will take them on. They are giving them the incentive to put them on, and the youth are given an opportunity they would never have had. If those on the opposite side and the Greens are going to vote against this bill purely because of the $50, they are, I will say, not really considering the unemployed youth out there. They are not really considering giving them an opportunity. By giving them work like this, they are actually going to pick up an extra $200 a fortnight. If they do not have work, what are they stuck with? Unemployment; on the streets; probably on drugs; tied up in gangs; looking, possibly, at crime; no hope of ever having a job whatsoever in the future. This is, at least, going to give them an opportunity to possibly end up with employment. I am sure their parents would encourage them to take up these jobs.
I think it is a great program. Like I said, One Nation will be supporting this. Shame on those on the opposite side of this chamber, be it the Greens, be it Labor or whoever. If they do not vote for this, they are not interested in youth and they are not interested in getting them off the streets or off drugs, or giving them a future in employment. This is a helping hand up. That is all it is: a helping hand. And they are crying out for it.
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (11:21): Firstly, Minister, can you advise as to whether you have any feedback from the department—it should be pretty easy; you have come in here to debate the bill—as to the numbers and the demographics of people that are on the bill, the industries and those questions that I asked. So I would ask that.
Before I sit down, let me just come to One Nation's so-called contribution. One Nation do not even know what this bill is about. One Nation has just said that this is about work. The minister has been at pains to say that it is not work. This has been one of the big issues. Probably, we would agree with Senator Hanson that, in reality, this is work. Young people are going to be put into a situation in which they will get less than the minimum wage in this country. They will be carrying out work for an employer who will be subsidised by the government. No wonder the employers all say this is a great program. They are being provided subsidised workers. Senator Hanson is correct that this is work. It is not work experience; it is work—and it is being subsidised by the government.
It makes me really wonder about One Nation—even more than I have always wondered about One Nation! The truth came out from Senator Hanson and One Nation towards the end of that contribution. One Nation just wants workers to come to work where they are intimidated by the employer, where they can be stood over by the employer, where the employer can treat them with absolute disdain and with a lack of respect and where the employer can do away with wages and conditions. And, yet, the employer should have the right to sack that worker. That was the contribution, basically, from Senator Hanson. That was the contribution.
How dare One Nation come here and question the opposition's pursuit of fairness in the workplace. Where was Senator Hanson and One Nation when WorkChoices was introduced by this mob across the chamber, when workers were getting their penalty rates ripped away and when their annual leave loading was getting ripped away, when their minimum hours were getting ripped away and when they were casualised and compromised in their conditions?
One Nation were nowhere to be seen. One Nation are not the champion of battlers in this country. And the more working people hear from One Nation about not just their loopy views on a whole range of issues but their aggressive antiworker views the better. The more debates that Senator Hanson contributes to in this place the better it is for progressive politics in this country because we simply see what One Nation are all about, and that is cuddling up to the Liberal Party. They are simply a branch of the Liberal Party to the far Right, working with the Liberal Party to rip working people off.
This is not simply about an opportunity to get jobs; it is an opportunity for employers to rip people off, and none of the checks and balances that are in place are really there to protect young people in this country. Again, One Nation say they are concerned about youth unemployment. Maybe they should come in here and work with the opposition, the Greens and the crossbench to look at how we can actually develop industry in this country, develop jobs, and not simply hand over $50 billion to the big end of town as a trickle-down approach to economics.
One Nation really need to understand these issues a bit better than was demonstrated in that pathetic contribution that they just made. One Nation were dragged kicking and screaming against their will to stand with the majority of senators in this place to protect penalty rates. No-one should forget that Senator Hanson and One Nation's first and foremost position was to support the ripping off of penalty rates from workers in this country. So One Nation have no credibility when they come in here and talk about looking after young people. We got the message right at the end of One Nation's contribution, and that contribution was the employer should be allowed to hire and fire as they like—no protections.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Gallacher ): Is someone in the observers' area taking photos of the chamber? You are not allowed to take photos in the chamber.
Senator CAMERON: Get the Federal Police in and get that phone off them right away! It is a joke.
Senator Dastyari: The best ones have to be explained.
Senator CAMERON: That is right. You would know all about that, Senator Dastyari. Explanations seem to be your forte recently. What we have here is a real problem, that young people are being put in a position where they can be ripped off. Minister, can I ask you: do you have those answers to the questions that I asked?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (11:28): Just before I do provide you with the statistics that I have been provided with to date—which in obviously in two weeks time we will be able to update at estimates—I would just say to any small-, medium- or large-business owner who is listening in to this debate, you should feel personally insulted by the attack that Senator Cameron, on behalf the Australian Labor Party, has launched upon you. The majority of business owners in this country do the right thing. To sit here and to listen to Senator Cameron deliberately undermine and malign them, God help business in this country if the Australian Labor Party and that attitude are ever again elected to govern. Businesses in this country deserve our support. Senator Cameron, I would be embarrassed if the closest I had ever come to a business was to close it down, but I know that you hold that as a badge of honour and shame on you—through you, Temporary Chair.
Senator Cameron: Mr Temporary Chairman, on a point of order: that is disorderly conduct. The minister should withdraw. There is absolutely no way that she can make that assertion. She is breaching standing orders and she should withdraw.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Gallacher ): There is no point of order. That is a debating point.
Senator CASH: As to the statistics, as I said, we have estimates coming up and we can update you, but I am advised that 59 interns have put their hand up voluntarily and have commenced in the program. That means that 59 young people who were looking down the barrel of potentially a life on welfare and who were unable to get their foot in their door are now undertaking the opportunity, as many have done throughout the Labor Party organisation, to showcase their skills to an employer. I also understand that 858 have commenced in employability skills training.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (11:31): I want to reflect on the outrageous slurs on young people across this country that we heard from Senator Hanson, the leader of the One Nation party, in her contribution to the committee stage of this bill. What a disgrace! What an absolute disgrace for the leader of One Nation to stand in here and say, 'Young people across this country deserve to be paid less than the minimum wage and used as slave labour, because otherwise they are all going to turn out to be drug addicts or members of gangs.' That is the type of attitude that we have coming from the leader of One Nation.
The One Nation party need to be exposed for the frauds that they are. They do not give two hoots about young people. They do not care about the disadvantaged and the unemployed. They have supported this government's cuts to education over and over again. In the beginning they championed the cuts to penalty rates—because, of course, 'young people do not deserve to be paid a decent wage on a Sunday'. We also know that they supported corporations and big companies getting tax cuts above and beyond support needed for young people and struggling families across this country.
We see their sheer hypocrisy here with this bill. This bill is all about allowing a loophole and setting up a rort for big multinational companies to exploit dirty, cheap labour off the back of young Australians. That is what is going on here. Big multinational companies are going to squeeze everything they can get out of young people for nothing—for absolutely nothing. The leader of One Nation apparently goes around the country talking about the need to crack down on multinationals, and here we have the bill that is going to hand them the labour that they need for free. It is an absolute disgrace—a protection racket for the multinationals and a well-orchestrated rort.
Young people are going to be screwed over and over again under this piece of legislation. There are no safeguards, and the review is a sham. It does not matter what you have heard from the Nick Xenophon political party—the review that has been negotiated by the Nick Xenophon political party in order to get support for this bill and to flick it through is an absolute sham. And now we have the leader of One Nation kicking young people when in fact they need our help. They need a helping hand. They need to be given the opportunity to get up on their feet; not punished and told, 'Unless you go and work for $7.60 an hour, you are going to end up being a drug addict.' That is not a responsible attitude from a leader of a political party.
One Nation need to be exposed for being a bunch of frauds. This bill establishes a protection racket for multinationals to rort the system and allows young people in this country to be exploited on the taxpayer dime. It is a sham. It is absolute hypocrisy for the leader of One Nation to come in here and cuddle up to the government and say, 'This is a wonderful bill.' She was obviously reading the notes given to her by the minister. That is the independent thought that is coming from her wedge of the crossbench here today. What an absolute sham!
One Nation do not give a damn about young people in this country. When they are doing it tough and they are down on their knees, Pauline Hanson is standing right on top of their heads, squashing them down further and further just for her own political gain. It is absolutely appalling that rather than offering young people assistance, rather than giving them a genuine pathway to education, to training, we are setting up a system that is going to allow big multinational companies—7-Eleven, Subway, Hungry Jack's, McDonald's—to rip off young people on a daily basis. And what do we hear from Pauline Hanson, the leader of One Nation? We hear, 'Oh well, young people deserve it because they are too lazy to go and get another job.' Youth unemployment in this country is rising every day. Rather than creating jobs we are turning young people into a category of slave-labour workers. It is absolutely appalling.
I have a question for the minister, very directly, and I want a yes or no answer. Is the government going to prohibit 7-Eleven from being able to use these internships? Yes or no?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (11:36): 7-Elevens, like any other employer in the country, can seek to access the program. Whether or not they ultimately enter into an internship agreement is clearly a matter for the department. As I have stated, any employer found in any way not to be complying with the program will absolutely be barred from utilising the program.
Given that you have raised 7-Eleven, I am delighted to advise—in particular, to those listening to the broadcast—that, as you would be aware, the government has introduced one of the most comprehensive worker-exploitation policies, directly in response to what happened at 7-Eleven. I understand it is due to go through the House of Representatives this week and, Senator Hanson-Young, I would be delighted to sit down with you to ensure that we have the support of the Australian Greens so that in the final two sitting weeks of the parliament the bill to prevent the exploitation is able to sail through, preferably in a non-controversial manner.
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (11:37): Minister, just on the attack you made on me during your last contribution, I am not too fussed. I dish it out and I expect to get it; that's fine. But I do want to make the point that I do not think my reputation as a union official was for shutting places down. I do not think anyone in any of the industries that I worked in—and I worked in industries across the country—took the view that I was a union official who wanted to destroy companies and destroy jobs. So there is absolutely no basis to the attack that you launched. But that is fine; it is a tough game in here. You have to give it and take it, and I am comfortable with that. I just wanted to correct the record.
Minister, could you provide us with details of the outcomes of the risk assessments that have been done prior to these young workers being employed or engaged through this program? What was the nature of the risk assessments, and can you table the copies of the risk assessments that were done before any of these young people were employed? Could you also give some clarity to what you said yesterday—that is, if a young worker lost the internship through no fault of their own, who will determine whether an intern has lost their internship through no fault of their own, and what criteria will be applied to the no-fault test?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (11:39): Thank you, Senator Cameron, for those questions. In relation to the issue of the risk assessment, I can advise that employment service providers will have to be satisfied that host businesses will have a safe system of work in place. Providers will conduct a risk assessment for each PaTH internship. Providers will consider the level of supervision, work health and safety training, the need for additional material and equipment, and whether the placement is suited to the jobseeker. Before the internship commences, providers will advise jobseekers how to report any work health and safety issues regarding the activity. In fact, I have been provided with a copy of the card that is provided to both the intern and the host to ensure that all the relevant details are provided to the intern, including the details of Safe Work Australia.
If a provider does not fulfil these requirements to ensure the safety of a jobseeker, under the services contract the department may impose remedial actions that are based on the severity of the breach. This could include educating providers, recovering payments, limiting future business or, in the most serious of cases, termination of the contract. Host businesses that do not ensure the safety of an intern may have their internship agreement terminated and will also be excluded from further participation in the program.
Prior to the commencement of any PaTH internship, the employment services provider will also be required to ensure jobseekers understand, and are provided with, documentation that explains their rights and responsibilities during the PaTH internship. Jobseekers will also receive information on who can provide assistance if they require additional support or believe the host business is not meeting the requirements of the PaTH internship agreement. As a further safeguard and in response to questions that Senator Siewert raised much earlier in the debate, jobseekers can raise concerns directly with their employment services providers or the Department of Employment through the national customer service line while organising a PaTH internship placement or during the PaTH internship, and jobseekers will stay connected to their provider during the placement, including attending ongoing employment.
In terms of whether or not I am able to formally table the risk assessment, I will need to take advice on that and get back to you—unfortunately, after the debate has concluded.
Senator Cameron, you also asked a question about what the process is in terms of a jobseeker losing a job through no fault of their own. The secretary is the person who will determine whether or not a youth bonus job lost prior to the end of the 26-week suspension period was lost due to a voluntary act that was not reasonable—in the event that there is a dispute. If you are talking with your jobactive provider about this, the secretary will make the determination.
Senator CAMERON ( New South Wales ) ( 11:43 ): This is my last question. How would the secretary determine a view on this?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (11:43): Consistent with other decisions, the Department of Human Services itself. It may not be the secretary, but the relevant delegate will take into account all relevant factors. But it will be on a case-by-case basis.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the amendment on sheet 8034 revised, moved by Senator Griff, be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question now is that the bill as amended be agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.
The Committee divided [11:48]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
Third Reading
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (11:53): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the bill be now read a third time.
The Senate divided. [11:54]
(The President—Senator Parry)
Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (11:57): The Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017, introduced by the government to the other place on 15 February this year, amends the Native Title Act in an effort to resolve uncertainty that was created by the decision of the full Federal Court in McGlade v Registrar National Native Title Tribunal, handed down on 2 February this year. The Native Title Act was passed by the Keating government in 1993 and gave legislative form to the historic decision of the High Court of Australia in Mabo and Others v Queensland (No. 2) 1992, which held that the doctrine of terra nullius did not apply where there were already people present; it was a legal fiction to justify dispossession of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of their lands and waters. Following the Mabo decision, any Indigenous land rights which had not been extinguished by the Crown continued to exist in Australia. Since 1993 the Native Title Act has enabled the continued recognition and protection of Indigenous peoples' land rights. It has also set out a framework, or a regime, to enable third parties, including governments, to deal with native title applicants or holders.
It is Labor's view that any changes to the Native Title Act must be properly considered and consulted upon with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Such matters should never be taken or treated as if they were just business as usual. The Native Title Act provides a legislative process for native title groups to negotiate with other parties to form voluntary agreements in relation to the use of land and waters. They are referred to as Indigenous Land Use Agreements—ILUAs for short. Currently, under section 24CD of the act, all persons in the native title group must be parties to an area agreement. If there is a registered native title claimant, for the purposes of the act, the native title group consists of the registered native title claimant. A registered native title claimant is defined under section 253 as:
… a person or persons whose name or names appear in an entry on the Register of Native Title Claims …
This enables a person or persons to enter into agreements as authorised by the native title group. Decisions around this are influenced by customary decision-making processes, and they can be quite complex, different and diverse across Australia.
The decision in McGlade found that an area agreement, an ILUA, could not be registered unless all members of the registered native title claimant were parties to the agreement—that is, unless all registered native title claimants had signed the area ILUA, including members of the group who may have died. This ruling overturned the decision in Bygrave, which found that an area ILUA could be registered if it had been signed by at least one member of a registered native title claimant group. Post McGlade, the only alternative available to a registered native title claim group is to reauthorise a new application and make an application under section 66B of the act to remove any member of the group who refused to sign. Stakeholders have indicated that that process can impose high costs on registered native title claimant groups and cause delays. It can also cause confusion, hostility and division.
The McGlade decision has potentially far-reaching implications, with some 126 existing registered ILUAs that have been made in reliance on the decision in Bygrave over the past seven years prior to the McGlade ruling, the validity of which could now be subject to challenge in the Federal Court on the basis of the McGlade decision. These ILUAs include agreements concerning very large areas of land across Australia, including ILUAs made with respect to national parks, agriculture ventures and mining ventures. They also include access over leaseholders. In essence, this bill responds to the McGlade decision by amending the Native Title Act so that any area ILUA which was authorised and registered prior to the McGlade decision will be valid, despite not being signed by all members of the registered native title claimant group.
We have been advised by the government that this change to the law will ensure the validity of approximately 126 registered ILUAs that were negotiated in good faith by native title holders with land users on the basis of the law as it was then understood to be. These amendments will also enable the registration of area ILUAs that were lodged for registration prior to the McGlade decision despite not being signed by all members of the registered native title group.
The further amendments proposed in the last weeks by the Cape York Land Council, the last of which was circulated to us last night, would extend the bill to also validate ILUAs that could otherwise be rendered invalid, if successfully challenged in the Federal Court on the basis that they were not signed by any registered native title claimant. However, I wish to emphasise that, while the potential exists for existing ILUAs to be challenged because they do not comply with the requirements of the law as clarified in the McGlade decision, no such challenges have been mounted. This is important. Registered ILUAs remain valid, unless successfully challenged in the court. Given that no challenges to existing ILUAs have been lodged, and given that it usually takes many months for a matter to be listed for hearing in the Federal Court—let alone a decision—the urgency which has been claimed by the government to pass this bill appears to be greatly exaggerated.
The opposition agrees to the amendments as finally determined by the government, but we express our disappointment with the regrettable way in which the government has managed the process for consultation on the changes contained in the bill, which has been a source of unnecessary angst, confusion and delay. The legislation, hopefully, returns clarity and confidence to the agreement-making process at the heart of the Native Title Act.
Our eventual agreement has been provided, despite major flaws in the process and handling by the government. We have seen an Olympian series of false starts, redrafted amendments at the last minute, policy backflipping and legislative somersaulting as late as half an hour before the budget was released last night. It highlights how inept the government is in consulting with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the low regard they have for the native title rights of Aboriginal people. The issue could have been resolved nearly three years ago, if the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, had picked up the Australian Law Reform Commission report on his now-famous bookshelf, read it and set the proposed reforms into legislation.
The government and especially the Attorney-General have been dragged by Labor into consultations with native title bodies. We pushed in the Senate for a committee process—which allowed only one day for a hearing, but allowed at least a window of opportunity for native title groups and industry to comment on the bill as it then stood. Labor insisted on a full Senate inquiry so that these voices could be heard, and on subsequent consultations with Indigenous Australians and users of the native title system.
As a result of these consultations, Labor has supported changes to the bill to narrow its effect. This is what native title holders have asked us to do. They have been our first concern throughout this process. I have personally met with representatives of native title claimants groups across Australia and I have listened to their issues, their concerns and their hopes. Aboriginal people have a right to object if they believe their native title rights are at risk, especially by extinguishment, and they should be heard. Importantly, Labor has blocked the government's attempt to give itself unfettered power over Indigenous Land Use Agreements. We have insisted on amendments that make sure that control rests with native title holders, not politicians in Canberra. This is about respecting the decisions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and giving certainty to the agreements that native title holders have entered into.
Unfortunately, in my view the government has made a complete mess of its amendments to the Native Title Act from start to finish. In particular, despite extensive past experience, the government has yet to give reasons for the urgency with which it is approaching this bill. Native title is much too important to be treated with such dismissive contempt; even small changes to native title law make significant differences to how the system works. This is one of the reasons why it is vital that native title claimants and stakeholders, for whom the native title system is so important, be consulted. For many of these people the experience of not being consulted shows a high degree of disrespect and disregard. Many of the Indigenous people who are involved, in my view, are terribly experienced and skilled in the operations of the act, and it has basically been the government's blundering in this House that has failed to give significant time to examine all proposed changes to this act and to make sure those changes have the support of the Indigenous people.
That is why elected representatives in this place must be able to speak to what is being done to the Native Title Act, and to any concerns that they may have. Labor has been endeavouring to make sure that these things happen, especially for Indigenous voices—even those who disagree with the negotiated outcomes of their fellow native title holders. I referred this to the Senate committee and, in a very short time, it identified a benchmark for potentially making the legislation workable and coherent. It was not until after some persuasion to the government that the representative bodies were even consulted around the proposal as it then stood.
The fundamental object of the Native Title Act, as introduced and passed by Labor, has always been to respect and protect native title rights. It was the Howard government that introduced the 'bucket loads of extinguishment' concept into the act and its heinous nature and impact upon Indigenous peoples. Native title is not an act of largesse or generosity by the parliament, but recognition of what the High Court found to be a common law right of possession that has survived colonisation and is held by the native title holders—either after gruelling litigation processes in the Federal Court or by way of consent by state governments.
This understanding was turned on its head during the Howard era with a knee jerk response to the Wik judgement, with a legislative intent, as I said, for 'bucket loads of extinguishment'. I recall that the applicants in the McGlade case opposed the South West agreement because they were fundamentally opposed to the permanent extinguishment of their rightful inheritance. I have urged the Western Australian government, in the agreement-making process, to rethink the need for extinguishment in the ILUA processes and move toward the suspension of native title rights only for the purposes of agreement. One impact of this legislation is that the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council will now have to review their decision-making processes and renegotiate the ILUA that underpins the agreement, and that is going to be costly. We have urged the Western Australian government, as I said, not only to reconsider their policy position on extinguishment, but to invest in negotiations and mediation to bring together the parties of the Noongar people around this proposed agreement.
Another native title claimant group that has strong interest in the issues is the Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners Council. The group has several different legal processes afoot to press its disagreement with the Adani ILUA, and they will be entirely unaffected by this bill.
The McGlade issue is only the most recent of many legal issues in dispute with respect to the Adani ILUA, and it arose from an action by the Noongar people of Western Australia in relation to developments there. This legal process and these amendments are not about a coal mine; they are about native title and the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in relation to their lands and waters. This bill is not about one single project that is being negotiated; it is about providing certainty to well over 100 agreements, already struck by native title holders or claimants and in operation for years, and it clarifies the way forward for future ILUAs to proceed. But we might be excused for thinking it is about one project, because everything I have heard from the other side of the chamber has been only about the overseas owners of the Adani mining leases, not about the native title rights and interests.
Under Labor, we will bring the workings of the Native Title Act back to its fundamental purposes—that is, the recognition and protection of native title rights. We will be informed in the first place by the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission and reports to COAG. But, fundamentally, we will be informed by the views of the native title claimants and owners across Australia, rather than just by the views of the powerful and privileged.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:16): I, too, rise today to speak to the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017. The bill responds to the Federal Court decision that places doubt over some Indigenous Land Use Agreements, commonly called ILUAs. They are bringing this forward because there was a recent decision of the full bench of the Federal Court in what is commonly called the McGlade case, where the court found that all individual members of the registered native title claimant, the authorised representatives of the broader native title claim group, must be party to the area Indigenous Land Use Agreement for it to be registered—including those who are now deceased. This decision overturned a previous decision known as Bygrave, from 2010, which held that an area ILUA could be registered if it were signed by at least one member of the registered native title claimant on behalf of the majority.
The decision in McGlade has created uncertainty around the validity of registered area ILUAs that were not signed by all members of the registered native title claimants. There are, we are told, 126 of these agreements on the register, although the list of these agreements has not been made available. It has been requested, I know, of the government, and certainly the committee raised the issue. I understand that in fact there are now more than 126, given the issues that have been raised by Cape York about which amendments have been circulated.
At this stage the Australian Greens cannot support the bill. We understand the complex issues that are involved, but we feel that the bill is still being rushed and that the latest amendments are a further indication of that.
The bill was introduced and rushed through the House of Representatives fairly soon after the Federal Court decision—driven, we believe, largely by the so-called threat that this could pose to ramming the Adani mine through and getting that development up and running. The developers are concerned that the Adani mine may be at risk because the ILUA may be found to be invalid. We understand that the native title rep bodies have raised concerns about the decisions made under Bygrave and the issues around Bygrave for some time. Senator Dodson just referred to that. These issues have been raised with the government. Yet, for years no action has been taken. All of a sudden, now we have to have action.
The lack of consultation that has been undertaken with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities regarding this bill is of serious concern. I do understand that there was a meeting—I think it was last week or the week before—of 15 native title rep bodies. At least that is something. However, that does not mean that all native title claimants have been consulted. They were not consulted prior to the development of the bill. The lack of consultation that has been undertaken with these communities is, as I said, seriously concerning. So too is the short time frame that was provided for the Senate inquiry into the bill. We had concerns about the time frame from the beginning. We attempted to extend the reporting date for the inquiry to 8 May. Unfortunately, this was not supported by the Senate. Consequently, submitters did not have very long at all to develop their submissions. The committee was able to hold only one hearing. This is particularly concerning given the complexity of the native title arrangements, the changes and the significance of these amendments.
I flag here that I have circulated a second reading amendment. We believe that we need to have a look at the amendments that have been circulated, as new matters have emerged on this bill. So not only are we dealing with the complexity of it in the first place; there are also new matters that we need to look at. The bill is in two parts. Part 1 measures will affect the roles for future ILUAs—that is, those that are made on or after the commencement of the bill. Part 2 measures will affect existing area ILUAs made after the Bygrave decision and that were made on or before 2 February 2017.
Firstly, I would like to turn to part 2 measures. Area agreements that were made or registered prior to the McGlade decision will be subject to the amendments contained in items 9 to 13. These include the proposed Adani ILUA. As a consequence of items 9 and 10 of schedule 1, existing ILUAs that are not signed by all individual members of an RNTC will be considered to be, and to always have been, a valid ILUA. Area agreements that were authorised or lodged for registration prior to McGlade will be able to be registered, even if they were not signed by all individual members of the RNTC.
Item 12 relates solely to the agreements that were subject to the McGlade decision. These are the South West WA claimants that were not happy with the outcome of the ILUA process and that took this court action. So those ILUAs—there is a number involved there—are being considered separately. If this bill passes, these agreements will be taken to be ILUAs from the date of commencement of the amending act. However, these agreements will still need to go through part of the process again—the registration process. People who are not happy with the process will be able to lodge complaints again. I think it is very clear from the evidence that the committee received that the claimants who took the court action in the first place are very unhappy with this bill and the approach the government has taken.
As previously mentioned, the National Native Title Tribunal is aware of at least 126 existing ILUAs that were affected by the McGlade decision. I understand that that must be larger now. Some submitters to the inquiry, including the National Native Title Council and National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, supported securing the existing ILUAs and placing their validity beyond doubt. There is some doubt—and doubt was raised—about whether ILUAs will, in fact, be automatically taken off the register. Evidence given to us during the committee inquiry shows that there would need to be action taken, in fact, if you were to come off the register. So this is largely a scare campaign rather than all ILUAs suddenly being thrown in doubt. If it is a good ILUA you would think people would want it to remain registered—say it was a mining company; the claimants would want to keep it there.
Some submitters to the inquiry raised concerns about retrospectively validating the affected ILUAs, however many there may be. One felt it did not have sufficient information regarding the affected ILUAs to determine whether the amendments were appropriate. And because we have not seen the list, we do not know. Mr Greg McIntyre SC said in his submission:
The Committee has an obligation to satisfy itself that the circumstances relating to each of those agreements which resulted in the registered native title claimant group not acting unanimously did not have a justification in terms of declining to agree to an ILUA for a reason which legitimately addressed the rights and interests of the native title claim group. It should not be assumed without investigation that the majority decision of the native title claim group was correct and any view to the contrary has no legitimacy.
There is, however, very little detail available about the affected ILUAs, and while we know that there are at least 126 ILUAs post 2010 that are affected by the decision in McGlade, we do not know the reason for the members of the registered native title claimants not signing the agreement. We do not know the specific numbers that were not signed due to a member being deceased. We also do not know the numbers of ILUAs affected due to a deceased person not signing between 1998 and 2010, the period prior to Bygrave.
It would be helpful to know why all the individual members of the registered native title claimants did not sign on to the affected ILUAs. Is it because the member was deceased or incapacitated? Were they representing the views of their constituency, the group they represented? Did they decline to sign because the agreement related to another's country? Or were they being vexatious? We just do not know.
The Australian Greens also have concerns regarding the scope of the power conferred on the minister via item 14 of schedule 1 and its relationship to item 11 on the same schedule. The EM to the bill does not indicate in what circumstances the rule-making power conferred on the minister would be required; therefore, it is difficult to assess this amendment and its necessity. We know there are amendments related to item 11 and we will be raising issues about this in the committee process of this bill.
The Australian Greens agree with the majority committee report that the government should consider any implications for the right to negotiate agreements. However, more time is needed for any amendments to be considered by the committee and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's communities and organisations. This was raised during the committee discussion. It is an issue that still needs to be looked at. Part 1 measures amended decision-making processes for future area ILUAs to, supposedly, improve the process. However, items 1 and 5 of schedule 1 do not reinstate the interpretation applied in Bygrave. Rather, these amendments will apply a new set of rules to future area ILUAs. Specifically, the native title claimant group will be able to nominate which member or members of the registered native title claimant are required to be parties to the area ILUA or, where no members have been nominated, a majority of the members of the registered native title claimant must be parties to the area ILUA.
The National Congress of Australia's First Peoples strongly opposes item 1, which amends section 24CD(2)(a) to allow for the nominating of members or a simple majority of the members where no members are nominated. In their submission, they said:
No Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person should have their native title rights violated by an ILUA they do not agree to. Allowing in ILUAs where a potentially large proportion of the native title claim group disagrees is unjust and compromises our native title rights.
There is an argument that some decisions are so significant that they should require unanimous support of those affected or, at least, a higher threshold than a mere majority, particularly where they involve significant consequences for native title holders, such as surrender of native title. This is a very important for the southwest groups in WA.
It is worth noting here that, unlike a standard contract, people who hold native title rights and interests who are not a party to the area agreement can be bound by the agreement upon its registration. In this regard, procedural safeguard relating to registration is crucially important. In its submission, the Law Council of Australia said:
The requirement that all the people who comprise the registered native title claimant be a party to the agreement is one of those safeguards and the removal of it should be carefully considered.
The Australian Greens agree with the suggestion in the majority committee report that the Commonwealth look at the proposals put forward to amend the act in relation to ILUAs that involve significant consequences for native title holders like the surrendering of native title rights. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, committees and organisations should be consulted on an amendment related to this.
On the other hand, a number of submitters argued that a single member or small group of members of the registered native title claimant should not be able to frustrate the will of the majority by withholding their consent to being a party to an area ILUA, which is a possibility in light of McGlade. The potential for such a situation will likely reduce the number of area ILUAs being negotiated and entered into. In such a circumstance, the native title group would have to make a section 66B removal application to remove the member or members who refuse to become a party, and it has been pointed out that this process can be costly and time consuming. Conversely, if a member of the registered native title claimant feels that the authorisation has not been upheld, they would decline to sign the agreement, withholding their consent to being a party to the area ILUA. In this regard, the Law Council said:
… one of the advantages of the 66B process is that the person is then made accountable to the community for the action … and if they are genuinely acting outside their mandate, they would be removed.
Following the McGlade, a section 66B process would be required to remove a deceased person from the registered native title claimant. This does not accord with the cultural practice of many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities—specifically, for example, not naming a deceased individual from the registered native title claimant is not explicitly dealt with in the amendments contained in the bill; however the amendments contained in items 1 and 5 of schedule 1 do overcome this issue. At least one submitter to the inquiry suggested that a more streamlined process is needed for removing and replacing a member where they have passed away or lost capacity, and that they would support a bill being put forward to deal with this issue.
A number of alternative proposals were put forward for the consideration of the committee, specifically with regard to the default position of the majority contained in item 1 of the bill. One proposal was that alternative dispute resolution processes should be looked at as a means for resolving disputes within claim groups. Another proposal, from the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, advocates for all RNTCs to sign an ILUA, which was the process prior to Bygrave, and that 'a process be developed for determining voluntary and informed consent to mitigate against exploitation of our peoples'. They too propose an alternative dispute resolution process, specifically mediation, either where the claim group is unable to choose who should make up the RNTCs or where not all the members chosen agree to sign the ILUA. Another proposal is that the traditional owners of the land as a group consent to any action to be taken on the land, similar to the requirements of section 23(3) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. It is argued that such an approach better reflects Aboriginal decision-making processes than the default position contained in the bill, as it requires more than a mere majority.
The Law Council of Australia offered yet another alternative suggestion, specifically that subparagraph 24CD(2)(a)(ii) be removed from the amendments. This would have the effect of upholding the decision in McGlade and require that all individual members of the registered native title claimant be a party to an area ILUA, unless a lesser number is specified by a claim group at the authorisation meeting.
Items 4 and 6 of schedule 1 remove the requirement, under sections 251A and 251B of the Native Title Act, for a group's traditional decision-making process to be used where one exists. This deals with the issues around the utilisation of a non-traditional decision-making process. In any case, the Greens are specifically concerned about that and we will discuss that further, given that there are amendments that deal with that. Setting out in the explanatory memorandum the need for these items does not alleviate the concerns. As I said, I will go further into that when we discuss the amendments.
During the committee inquiry, concerns about ILUAs were raised that were outside the scope of the inquiry, such as barriers to negotiation, the power imbalance between the parties, the ability to apply only once for registration, the role of prescribed body corporates, non-claimant applications and the enforceability of the agreements. Such concerns demonstrate the need for further consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities with regard to changes to not only ILUAs but specifically the broader Native Title Act itself.
The points that were made in the committee and that I have just articulated in my contribution point out the complexity of the issues that we are dealing with and the concerns members of the community have about the rushed nature of the native title changes. I and the Greens acknowledge that we need to address this issue. I have had lots of emails, particularly calling on us not to support these amendments at this stage because there has not been enough consultation. We are unable to support these changes at the moment, although we acknowledge that change is needed.
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (12:36): I want to make a few brief remarks on the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 as I was the Chairman of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee that conducted an inquiry into these proposed amendments. I indicate that my comments will be brief. This is an essential piece of legislation. It is important to so many people, particularly to Indigenous people who benefit from the way the ILUAs were constructed under what everyone believed was the law. It is also particularly important to people looking for jobs in Central Queensland around the Adani project and, I might add, to people in Weipa and Gladstone. For a moment it was thought that the failure to address this court decision would lead to the shutting down of Weipa and perhaps the consequent shutting down of the aluminium industry in Gladstone, so it was very important that that be clarified.
It is also very important for Queensland revenue. As a Queenslander I am very keen to see more development in my state, supported in this instance, I might say, by the Queensland state Labor government. It will not only bring jobs to Queensland and help Queenslanders currently without work but also help the state's revenue. With the government we have in Queensland at the moment, any assistance with state revenue is very important. As I said, it is essential it be clarified so that the Adani process can proceed and that Weipa can go ahead with its work without too many concerns. Of course, it is important for Australia. All Australians need the certainty that this amendment bill will bring.
Senators will understand that after the Bygrave decision in the courts a certain process was put in place. Everyone understood that to be the law to be applied. For six or seven years following Bygrave there was a process put in place where Indigenous groups had to agree to ILUAs and the majority ruled. That was thought to be the law. It was uncontroversial. It is the way we operate as a democracy. But the decision in McGlade changed all that. The judge there determined that, on the law, it required not just a majority but also everybody in that group, even including deceased people. I think the judge, in his commentary, when some comments were made about how this would throw the whole system into chaos, said: 'Well, I'm only here to interpret the law. If that issue needs to be addressed, then that is a matter for parliament.' That is why this bill is here. It is a matter that parliament should and must deal with, and we are dealing with it at the moment. It is important that it be done as quickly as possible. All congratulations to the Attorney-General and his department for getting this to this stage by this time.
As chairman of the committee, I acknowledge and thank all of those who made submissions to the committee, particularly those who were called, came and gave evidence to the committee. A lot of people put a lot of effort into this. The committee particularly appreciates the contributions made by all of the submitters and by those who were kind enough to come to share their views, their understandings and their wishes with the committee at that one hearing in Brisbane. I also thank the members of my committee, particularly Senator Dodson, who has already spoken, and Senator Siewert. Both have played fairly lead roles in the work of the committee to date. I appreciate their contributions, as I do for other members of the committee: Senator Pratt, Senator Fawcett, Senator Watt and Senator Williams. It is good to see that, as a result of the committee's work, an opportunity was given to all of those who had a view on this issue to come forward to give their advice. My understanding of the submissions and of the evidence given directly to the committee was that, by and large, most people understood the need for legislative intervention to overrule the impacts of the McGlade decision.
The committee determined to recommend that the bill be passed. There were, in the original drafts, some elements of the amending bill which were not directly related to McGlade. Members of the committee thought, as some of the submitters suggested, that it was not really germane to this particular issue; it was something that needed to be addressed, but perhaps not with the same urgency that the McGlade aspects were to be addressed. The committee recommended that those that were not directly related to McGlade should be removed. It suggested to the government that they bring them back later when more time is available to fully consider necessary amendments to the Native Title Act.
I understand that it is the government's intention to, at some time in the future, bring forward another bill with a wider range of amendments to the Native Title Act, which have been suggested to the government by Indigenous groups and by all of those involved with native title issues over a long period of time. It does need upgrading. I understand that the government will do that later on and that we will be fully consulted. The committee will no doubt meet at some time in the future when that bill does eventually come forward. But, for the moment, we are just concentrating on the McGlade decision to make sure that Australia, effectively, did not come to a halt. For the last six, seven or eight years since Bygrave, all of these ILUAs were entered into in good faith on the understanding that everybody had of the law—that a majority decision of the Indigenous group was what the law required. That is how it has been actioned and processed for the last seven or eight years—whatever it is—since Bygrave.
Since the committee reported, there have been a number of other issues raised that were not particularly raised in the committee hearings or by the government at that time. They have subsequently been raised. I understand there has been a lot of work done by the Attorney-General's Department and by the Attorney-General himself with Senator Dodson and others, including Carpentaria Land Council, Cape York Land Council and the Northern Land Council, to fine tune, if I could put it that way, some of the amendments—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Back ): Order, Senator Macdonald. If you would resume your seat. You will be in continuation.
STATEMENTS BY SENATORS
Holocaust Remembrance Day
Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (12:45): Every year on the 27th day of the month of Nisan in the Hebrew calendar, the world observes Yom HaShoah, also known as Holocaust Remembrance Day, a time to remember the six million men, women and children who perished in the Holocaust.
Yom HaShoah, which this year fell on 23 April, is an important day, particularly for those in the Jewish community, and it is a reminder of a very dark chapter in all our histories. I was honoured this year to attend the Yom HaShoah Holocaust commemoration at the Sylvia and Harry Hoffman Hall, at Carmel Primary School, in Yokine, in my home state of Western Australia. The commemoration was hosted by the Jewish Community Council of Western Australia. Rabbi Dovid Freilich recited the memorial prayer, with Harry Hoffman reciting the Kaddish. We heard from Sol Majteles, the son of a Holocaust survivor, who read an excerpt from his father's autobiography. We were graced with the presence of Holocaust survivors and their families, many of whom have devoted their entire lives to sharing their experiences, harrowing as they have been. They continue the important work of the state's Holocaust Institute, educating Western Australians about that terrible period in our global history. Perhaps, most significantly, they continue sharing their stories of survival to combat misinformation that still exists about the Holocaust. Indeed, with university campuses in Canberra recently the targets of Holocaust denial material, their work has never been more important.
Yad Vashem, the World Holocaust Remembrance Centre in Jerusalem, set the scene for this year's Yom HaShoah as Restoring Their Identities: The Fate of the Individual During the Holocaust. The centre said:
Restoring the victims’ identities by documenting, remembering, researching and educating not only commemorates the world that was lost, but also makes a substantial contribution to shaping a new and better world. Bonding in this way with specific individuals from the Holocaust enables us, in our post-Holocaust generation, to gain meaning that helps shape our own identities and enrich our world.
And Yom HaShoah commemorations worldwide aim to achieve just that. The act of remembrance is a simple but powerful one. To take a moment to reflect about today or a day in history affords us a chance to be mindful. It shines a light on events past and helps us to determine the trajectory of our future.
The Jewish population in Europe numbered over nine million in 1933. The Holocaust saw mass murders and resulted in the devastation of much of the Jewish community across Europe. From the killing centres in Warsaw to the Auschwitz concentration camp, millions lived through a horror that none of us can imagine. Six million Jews were killed by the Nazis and those who aided and abetted them, as were countless others, including those with disabilities, gypsies and Slavs. Others were targeted on grounds of political, ideological and behavioural difference, including Communists, socialists, Jehovah's witnesses and homosexuals. There are approximately 100,000 Holocaust survivors left in the world today. As the number dwindles with each passing year, their stories of strength, courage and resilience risk diminishing.
After World War II, 27,000 Holocaust survivors migrated to Australia to seek new beginnings. I am pleased to say that almost 100,000-strong Jewish members of our Australian family have flourished in the decades since arriving to our shores. Survivors of the Holocaust and their families contribute to our community, champion their values and, of course, our values, and we are proud of their great contribution in making our country a great one. They have contributed to our democratic traditions, uphold our religious freedoms and have been part of our fair go. Yom HaShoah is of great significance to the approximately 7,000 members of the Western Australian community who are Jewish. In fact, at the 2011 census Western Australia had the third largest Jewish population in the country.
At the Holocaust remembrance event, I was reminded of the work of Elie Wiesel, perhaps the world's most notable and prolific Holocaust survivor, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. He detailed his terrifying experience in the concentration camps at Auschwitz and Buchenwald in the haunting book Night. Elie Wiesel recalled:
I pinched my face. Was I still alive? Was I awake? I could not believe it.
… … …
Never shall I forget that night, the first night in camp, which has turned my life into one long night, seven times … sealed.
Night, which detailed his journey through the camps with his father and the testing of his religious faith and his faith in humanity, is universally recognised as a fundamental text about the horrors of the Holocaust. Elie Wiesel devoted his whole life to remembering those who perished in and were impacted by the Holocaust. Through his words he taught generations about the resilience and importance of survivors, and advocated for a more peaceful, understanding and just society. He said:
Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must—at that moment—become the center of the universe.
The Yom HaShoah commemoration was a stark reminder that we must be ever vigilant in calling out tyranny and persecution. I agree with Elie Wiesel when he said:
We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.
Yom HaShoah is a time of reflection. It is an opportunity to remember the lives lost at the hands of an oppressive regime. It is an opportunity to remember the unprecedented tragedy that occurred and to stay ever vigilant, constantly on guard so that it can never happen again.
Six candles were lit at the Yom HaShoah Holocaust commemoration, a symbol of those six million men, women and children who lost their lives in the Holocaust. We are constantly indebted to those whose bravery compels them to relive their history so that we need not live it again.
Schools
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (12:52): I said yesterday in taking note of answers in question time that I planned to spend this week focusing on education and, in particular, the way the government is conning the public with its school funding changes. I said then that the Prime Minister, along with his education minister, cannot succeed in this conniving way forever. Eventually they will come unstuck. Their dog of a deal will be revealed for what it is, which is, amongst other things, an attack on low-fee Catholic parish schools and a brutal attack on parental choice. Once you apply the blowtorch to the government's changes, it is obvious that the government does not understand or respect the Catholic education mission. It is clear that the government is prepared to spin untruths to hide its real agenda, which is to take the axe to low-fee Catholic parish schools and to severely disadvantage the hundreds and thousands of Australian families who choose this schooling for their children. This will ultimately cost all taxpayers more.
Indeed, is cost shifting to the states on the agenda too? It certainly would not be the first time. Given that state and territory governments fund 80 per cent of public schools and the government is planning to embed that formula with this funding announcement, one has to question the government's motives in passing all of the cost of education to states and public schools. How well this government learned the lessons of the Goulburn schools' strikes back in July 1962 when six Catholic schools closed and instructed their pupils to enrol the following Monday in the government system, such was the anger and frustration of parents who received no government support at that stage for their children's Catholic education. How might an angry Catholic community respond this time to the government's dismissal of their education choices?
I said in the chamber yesterday that I would be taking us all through the book of Gonski, because it is very clear that Mr Turnbull and Senator Birmingham whilst claiming to have had a conversion on Gonski have in fact done the reverse. While Mr Turnbull and Senator Birmingham puffed their chests and sought to co-opt David Gonski into their conniving, all they succeeded in doing was, firstly, revealing their ignorance of the Gonski recommendations and, secondly, tarnishing Mr Gonski's good name and reputation. The key point to make is this: contrary to what this government is claiming, the Gonski review never recommended that the Commonwealth apply a one-size-fits-all model on school funding; never was that recommended. This is all Mr Birmingham's spin. The simple reason it was never recommended is that it does not achieve a fair system, which again is completely at odds with all the overblown rhetoric that this government has been spurting.
Let's further examine the book of Gonski and see how this government has changed the goalposts of education funding by redefining the Gonski needs based funding model, because that is what this budget is about. This budget's measures in education are about shifting those goalposts—don't anyone be disillusioned about that. Make no mistake, this government's package is not Gonski and it is nothing but a con job to suggest that it is.
There are three major areas where this funding deal is not Gonski. It is in fact directly contrary and directly at odds with what David Gonski called for. One wonders how well briefed he was by what this conniving minister was really up to. We know it took cabinet month upon month upon month of deliberations, but were they really well informed? Listening to Senator Brandis yesterday, you would suspect not. So I will take the time to carefully explain where these announcements are directly at odds with Gonski.
The first one I mentioned just before was this 80-20 role for Commonwealth/state funding. Gonski recommended the direct opposite. The second one is the system-weighted average funding model for school systems with a particularly significant impact on Catholic school systems. Gonski directly recommended the opposite. Thirdly—
Senator O'Sullivan: Gonski endorsed this.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS: No, Gonski did not endorse any of these changes. What he said with relief is that finally the Commonwealth government has accepted that there should be a needs based funding formula. He would not have been aware at that point in time of the diddling that has occurred here.
He certainly would not be aware of the third measure that is in direct contrast with Gonski, and that is with respect to a parent's capacity to pay. Gonski was very careful about those measures and the shape of that formula, and the minister has ridden roughshod right over it. The direct target of those changes—and I bet in the party room no-one asked the minister about the shape of the curve here—are parish Catholic schools. Why, I wonder, do government members and senators not understand enough of these issues to even directly confront their minister? They should.
Let us go to the first of these, the Gonski recommendation for a more balanced funding arrangement. The government will be embedding the 80-20 funding split between the states and the Commonwealth, with the states and territories bearing the largest share of funding for government schools. As I said, this is in direct contrast to Gonski. Let me read recommendation 22 from his report:
The Australian Government and the states and territories, in consultation with the non-government sector, should negotiate more balanced funding roles as part of the transition to a new funding model for all schools, with the Australian Government assuming a greater role in the funding of government schools and the states in relation to non-government schools.
This was how he proposed we end the funding wars, and these measures will not get anywhere near to achieving that result. In fact, these measures reignite that war. These measures not only damage the delivery of Catholic education in Australia but damage any consensus, any capacity for all of our school sectors to work together in the future.
I will start on the next measure now, but I am indebted to Senator Roberts for his MPI today, because it will give me the opportunity to fully cover all these differences with the real Gonski. Let me start on the next one. Gonski actually endorsed the system weighted average arrangements that are in the funding model. These are the changes that this government is making that again attack Catholic education systems. It is important to understand that the 2011 Gonski review—this book of Gonski—strongly supported the student weighted average system. Let me quote from page 181 of the report:
Senator O'Sullivan: That's the Old Testament. Go to the New Testament!
Senator JACINTA COLLINS: 'That's the Old Testament,' says Senator O'Sullivan! Oh dear. I did not hear that in the Prime Minister's announcement. All he said was that he was not going to the Orange Lodge. One wonders.
Senator Smith interjecting—
Senator JACINTA COLLINS: That was Mr Turnbull's language, not mine, Senator Smith. He brought that into the debate, not me. But let me quote from the report, from page 181, rather than be further distracted:
… Australian Government funding for all systems should be assessed and calculated at the system rather than the school level.
It added that education systems must be transparent about how they allocate public and private funds and where the money is spent. Indeed, that is the My Schools measure. (Time expired)
Budget
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland) (13:03): It is always important, after expressions of sadness, that we throw some joy and light into our lives, and that is what I have chosen to do. I woke up today one of the most excited men in the Australian bush. Do you know why? It was because of the good news story of last night for all of those terrific people who live in provincial Australia—Western Australia, the western parts of my state and some of the other areas. Senator Collins—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—despite everything positive that you could have said about these changes in education—not just the stuff announced by Senator Birmingham the other day but the $44 million we are putting into supporting isolated families with the education of their children and the $15 million being put into regional university hubs—despite all the positive things that you could have said about education, you did not. I will tell you why you are unhappy. It is because you are now witnessing a government that for the first time can declare, with evidence, that we are going to return the economy of this nation back to a surplus. Remember Mr Swan's assertions?
Forty-seven times he declared we would return to a surplus—47 times—and 47 times he failed. So whether you like it or not, I intend to devote my time to talking about the good news stuff that came in the budget last night for our country, for our nation, and, most importantly, with a slant and an emphasis on what is happening in the bush and in regional and rural Australia—the place that nourishes every single one of us in Australia, the place that produces the great wealth, the place that balances our accounts and the place where we have had an increase in agricultural soft commodities.
I have got to tell you—I am going to lay it on the table and I said it in a radio interview just recently—this is where Barnaby Joyce and the Nationals, with their colleagues here in the coalition and the Liberal Party, have delivered. We have delivered: we are rewarding people in rural and regional Australia for the efforts that they have put in. They have had a tough time of it, and it is about time they can pick up a telephone and use it like every one of you can. That is why we spent $2.7 billion on Sky Muster. It is about time that they can get a good-quality, cutting-edge education for their children. It is something you get for a remote fraction of what it costs our families in the bush.
I know it absolutely irks you to see that we have been able to lift, for example, agriculture, one of the great pillars of this nation's economy. We have lifted its performance by 23 per cent—$60 billion worth of exports of soft commodities. This is in the face of messages that we get from the Labor Party and the Greens, who resist aspects to do with our trade agreements. They were against the TPP. They were against clauses that existed in our Korean, Japanese and Chinese trade agreements. The opposition and the Greens are people who do not want to see people in the bush get ahead. They resent the fact that money has been spent on the inland rail. We have heard them talk about it. All they want to talk about is putting a cross-river crossing somewhere here and a rail link between this suburb and that suburb. They are too tired to pedal their bike out to the airport that is 25 minutes away. They want an eight-lane highway out there but they want our people in the bush to flog themselves to get their commodities.
Do you know what? It costs more to get commodities from some parts of the bush to the Port of Melbourne or the Port of Brisbane than from some of those ports to the Middle East. We are finally about to put an end to that. This is a dream that has come to realisation with our inland rail project and the $8.4 billion commitment from this coalition government. I have to tell you: after this budget came down last night, you people are going to have to work a lot harder. There is not one single vote for you inside the Great Dividing Range any longer, because those people have realised that, with our efforts to try and bring these things into play, all you have done is resist.
We have seen my Senate colleagues from the Labor Party vote in block to support a motion to close down the black coal industry in my home state of Queensland. So I have got to tell you: all the people in central Queensland, all those good people who live in the Galilee Basin, the tens of thousands of businesses in Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton and Gladstone are watching this very closely. For those who missed it, I have made it my mission to go out and fill in the gaps so they know exactly what sort of support they are getting from their senators in Queensland and indeed our federal members up there in the Labor Party.
The benefits of this inland rail are going to be phenomenal. It is a project that will include construction of over 1,700 kilometres of rail. If you happen to be living in these places—Albury, Wagga, Parkes and Moree; in my own home state, Inglewood, Millmerran, Toowoomba, in particular, where I happen to live and all the way through the Lockyer Valley to the port of the Brisbane—you will be celebrating today that, finally, every one of those local communities, every one of those regional and district economies, are going to get a lift here that they have not seen since they settled those districts in the 1800s. This is the biggest uplift they have ever had. If you want to park that beside the $5 billion development of the northern Australia fund, if you want to park it beside the $2.5 billion dams package which is going to store water and bring prosperity to regions at the moment that are struggling from the drought—and I know you hate hearing it—and the cessation of the live cattle—
Senator Farrell: Why didn't you tell the truth?
Senator O'SULLIVAN: No, well you can. Let me say to you, through you, Mr Acting Deputy Chair Back: you people brought thousands of families to their knees. You do not care—you do not even know their names. I can tell you their names. I can tell you the names of their children and their grandparents. You brought them to their knees. You have done nothing but battle against development in the western parts of our nation—absolutely, from top to bottom.
Senator Farrell: Why didn't you tell them you were increasing taxes?
Senator O'SULLIVAN: No, you have done it in this place. In fact, you were here, Senator, and you voted for it. I will tell you what—why don't you go down to the Department of the Human Services and tell them that right from this very second there is no more money to come to you, but you had better turn up for the job. Tell them they had better pay the expenses of bringing themselves there—
Senator Farrell interjecting—
Senator O'SULLIVAN: No, you attacked me and I will respond.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Ketter ): Senator Farrell, a point of order?
Senator Farrell: Senator O'Sullivan is simply not telling the truth in this chamber. He has not told the Australian people why he did not go to the last election telling them about the tax increases.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order, Senator Farrell.
Senator O'SULLIVAN: What a feeble defence. Even when the Senator had an opportunity to make an argument that I did not tell the truth, he did not relate it to the decision of the Australian Labor Party to cease the live cattle export. That is what I was expecting him to say, and there is a reason he cannot. And I have got some respect for this Senator. He will not mislead this place, and if he had said that he would have misled this place.
Under Labor, for so many decades, every time they were office they could not use their telephone. There were no roads built or invested in across the western parts of our country, the bush and the provinces, to develop things. They have no members out there because they would just tar and feather them and run them out of town, between them and the Greens.
I invited the Greens yesterday to come with me up into the Galilee Basin and explain to the 14,000 people who have lost their jobs because of the resistance between them and you people in relation to the coal industry. I could not guarantee their safety, and I mentioned that. They would have to come up and put a false moustache on with a wig. But the fact of the matter is that no-one has taken up my offer. It has been out there for 24 hours, so let me refresh it: anybody on that side of the chamber who wants to roll their swag—now, that might need a bit of explanation. That is a bed-roll that you use when there is not a five-star out the window of your Comcar. If you want to roll your swag and pick up a tin billy—now that is an old cream tin you use to boil water to make a cup of tea when there is no latte shop next to where your office is. If you want to come with me into the bush, I will take you. I will fund you, and we will go up bush and you can meet these people. You can tell them straight up. I will take you to meet the 12,000 people who are employed in the coal industry in the Bowen Basin, and you can meet them and personally tell them. I will take you into the public bar of the Black Nugget Hotel, but I am not going to wait with you. I would be frightened I might get a clip on the ear because they have mistaken me for some big hefty Labor fella. I will take you in there and you can tell the front bar at the Black Nugget Hotel that you are going to do everything within your power to take their jobs away.
Senator Bilyk: They do not know who you are.
Senator O'SULLIVAN: You people know nothing about the bush, you and the Greens, and I am tired of it. I am going to get louder and stronger and I am going to speak as frequently as I can to continue to expose you to the Australian community. They rely upon this government to support them and provide them with the infrastructure and the support they need to underpin the wealth that you enjoy in this nation. Now you have distracted me. Leave me alone for a minute.
We now have $75 billion committed to infrastructure outside the cities of this country. This is going to build an environment where these people can get on with the job. These are people who do not get out of bed when you get out of bed. These are people who get out of bed in the dark and come home in the dark, and they do it seven days a week. I said here recently in a speech that all they do is kneel down and pray for rain. All they pray for is rain and an eighth day. They need an eighth day to do the washing and to get themselves started so they can start their seven-day week again.
I am tired of the resistance that comes from the opposition and the Greens, and particularly the Greens. You can feel good, because I feel less about them. They are one pink feather from being a flock of galahs, that mob. All of you together resist the legislation that comes through this place time and time again. You resist, in a bloc, legislation that would benefit these great people of the west of our country, who underpin the great wealth that you, your families and your communities enjoy. If they were not there, you would not have anything to eat or anything to wear or a floor to walk on. You would not have a tin roof to keep the rain off your heads. So I intend to keep your feet to the flames and expose you for your resistance to country Australia.
Turnbull Government
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (13:14): Can I say—and I have said it before, Senator O'Sullivan—being loud does not make you right. And if you want to talk about the budget and what the budget did, could someone come in here and tell me what it did for Tasmania? We all feel like we were left off the map, except for being slugged with a tax hike. So if anyone can come in here and tell me what Tassie got out of it, I would be very happy to hear it. But I have digressed from my speech for today—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator BILYK: If I could hear myself over the interjections, Mr Acting Deputy President, it would help. But they do not put me off—as you know, I was a childcare worker for many years; I am used to three-year-olds screaming and yelling—so they can continue and I will start with my speech proper.
I want to talk today about a tradition in the Westminster parliaments—one that goes back many decades—and that is that ministers are held to very high standards by the government, the parliament and the community. They are held to high standards because they occupy positions with a great deal of power and responsibility. The penalty for ministers failing to meet those standards is sacking or resignation.
They are the standards that were applied, eventually, when Senator Sinodinos stood aside pending investigations by the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption after it was revealed that he had served concurrently as Treasurer of the New South Wales Liberal Party and chairman of Australian Water Holdings. The same standards were applied when Mr Briggs resigned over allegations of inappropriate behaviour involving a female public servant during an official visit to Hong Kong, and when Mr Brough stood aside pending outcomes of a police investigation into his behaviour in relation to former speaker Peter Slipper and James Ashby, and when it was revealed that Mr Robert had shares in a mining company of a generous Liberal donor, and when the Department of Finance commenced investigations into Ms Ley's use of travel expenses for—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Ketter ): Senator Bilyk, just resume your seat. On a point of order, Senator Smith?
Senator Smith: A point of order, Acting Deputy President Ketter: I was just wondering if Senator Bilyk was going to mention her colleague Senator Dastyari.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order.
Senator BILYK: As I said, when the investigation commenced into Ms Ley's use of her travel expenses for 20-plus visits to the Gold Coast, where she purchased an investment property—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Resume your seat, Senator Bilyk. Senator Smith, another point of order?
Senator Smith: Another point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: I was wondering if Senator Bilyk was going to mention her former parliamentary colleague Mr Craig Thomson.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Again, that is not a point of order.
Senator BILYK: Senator Smith, it is appropriate, I agree, for ministers to resign or be sacked when they fail to meet the standards the community expects of them, or stand aside when they are being investigated for improper behaviour. But there appears to be one minister who, no matter how bumbling or inept he is, always seems to escape the axe. Australians observing the performance of this minister are responding with breathless wonderment, thinking to themselves: 'How many chances does he get before he is sacked for incompetence?' I am referring, of course, to—in my opinion, and in the opinion of everyone on this side, at least, and in the opinion of so many people I know out in the public—the worst Attorney-General in Australia's history, Senator Brandis. The Attorney-General is the first law officer of Australia. As such, he is charged with administering the law. But, sadly, Senator Brandis has spent much of his time as Attorney-General undermining the rule of law. He is a minister who has spent much of his time in office engaging in ideological disputes with public servants. His treatment of both the President of the Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, and the former Solicitor-General, Justin Gleeson SC, has been nothing less than disgraceful.
Mr Gleeson was effectively sidelined by Senator Brandis when Senator Brandis issued a ministerial direction that anyone seeking advice from the Solicitor-General had to seek his permission first. Senator Brandis then tried to claim that Mr Gleeson was consulted on his ministerial direction. He misled the parliament twice on this matter, and when confronted with the facts described it as 'a semantic argument'. To add insult to injury, Senator Brandis failed to consult Mr Gleeson on key antiterrorism legislation, except for the very early preliminary drafts. In August 2015, Senator Brandis told the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security that Mr Gleeson had been consulted on the constitutionality of the bill; however, it was revealed late last year that he had not. We need to remember that in 2009 Mr Turnbull claimed that the penalty for misleading parliament should be resignation or dismissal. Yet Senator Brandis, a serial offender, continues to get off scot-free. And what was it that led to Senator Brandis's public dispute with Mr Gleeson? He picked that fight because Mr Gleeson intervened in a case to protect $300 million of taxpayers' money. In other words, Mr Gleeson was doing his job.
It was also the case, in Senator Brandis's attack on Professor Triggs, that she was doing no more or less than the job she was appointed to do. After seeking to encourage Professor Triggs's resignation by offering her another role, Senator Brandis failed to defend her against relentless attacks by coalition senators during Senate estimates. His attack on Professor Triggs was an attempt to undermine the independence of the Human Rights Commission because the government did not like the advice they were being given. So shameful was Senator Brandis's mistreatment of Professor Triggs that he was censured by the Senate for it—and rightly so. Professor Triggs has acted with integrity and professionalism. It is a great testament to her character that she has been so restrained in the face of such vicious public attacks.
Either of these incidents should have been enough to cost Senator Brandis his job, but they are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this Attorney-General's shameful behaviour. In response to a very reasonable freedom of information request for Senator Brandis to produce his ministerial diary, the senator spent three years and thousands of dollars in taxpayers' money fighting the order through the courts. Senator Brandis made the bizarre claim that the simple act of hitting the print button on his Outlook calendar would be an unreasonable administrative burden for his office. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal found this claim to be baseless. Whatever resources were expended in processing the request paled in comparison to the money spent fighting it.
Senator Brandis lost his final appeal, which went to the full bench of the Federal Court, and yet he took another six months to comply with the order. This delay put the Attorney-General—the highest law officer in this land—in danger of being held in contempt of court. How ironic! How unseemly! How embarrassing! It is fortunate for the Attorney-General that he finally complied and saved himself and his government that embarrassment. But embarrassment is something that seems to follow Senator Brandis and clings to him like a limpet.
The latest in the Attorney-General's string of missteps was his spectacular backflip on funding cuts to community legal centres. Of course, Labor welcomes this backflip, but it comes at the end of three years of fear and uncertainty about the future of the community legal sector in Australia. And, embarrassingly, for these three years, Senator Brandis was trying to claim that this massive 30 per cent cut did not even exist.
It was very real for the community legal centres that I and shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus met with in Hobart. These centres were facing the prospect of cutting staff and turning away hundreds of clients. The people who need the assistance of CLCs are some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in Australia. They seek help for such problems as escaping domestic violence, getting Centrelink payments reinstated or fighting unfair dismissal. Without the safety net of community legal services, they usually have nowhere else to turn. I have to ask: did Senator Brandis initiate this backflip, or was it forced upon him because government backbenchers could no longer cop the backlash from the sheer cruelty of the cut that was proposed?
Senator Brandis's incompetence is not just confined to the Attorney-General's portfolio. He has the distinction of being the first arts minister in Australia's history to anger and alienate the entire arts industry. He did so by slashing funding from the Australian Council and other arts bodies, and diverting much of the funding to his own ministerial slush fund, known as the Catalyst program.
As the lead Labor senator on the inquiry into this disaster, I participated in hearings across Australia where 200 independent artists and arts organisations lined up, one after the other, to criticise Senator Brandis's slush fund. In 65 hours of evidence, the government managed to produce one independent witness—just one—at the final hearing, to support their position. It would appear that the only solution to the Catalyst arts funding debacle was to dump Senator Brandis from the Arts portfolio, with his successor, Senator Fifield, given the unenviable task of cleaning up the mess that was left behind.
My time is running out in this contribution and I have yet to mention Senator Brandis's train wreck of an interview where he failed to explain the concept of metadata, despite having carriage of the data retention bill, or his infamous declaration that Australians have a right to be bigots, which he made while defending proposals to axe section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and allow more racist hate speech in Australia. Nor have I mentioned, so far, Senator Brandis's bungling of the proposed marriage equality plebiscite, where Senator Brandis got every detail wrong—from funding to how the votes would be counted and the wording of the question itself. Mr Turnbull failed to back up Senator Brandis on his pledge to hold the plebiscite by the end of 2016.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Ketter ): Resume your seat, Senator Bilyk. Senator Smith, do you have a legitimate point of order?
Senator Smith: No.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Smith.
Senator BILYK: Senator Smith, you are one of the honest ones on that side, I have to say. Senator Brandis is like an anvil tied to the feet of the Turnbull government, constantly dragging them down with a stream of stuff-ups. If the Prime Minister had any sense of self-preservation he would sack the incompetent Senator Brandis. (Time expired)
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania) (13:25): It is going to be very tough to follow that act. I understand that, before I came in, Senator Bilyk was asking whether there was anything in the budget for Tasmania.
Senator Bilyk: I was—besides tax increases.
Senator Duniam: I am pleased she is here to listen. My very good and hardworking colleague, Senator Nash, was able to point out a couple of things to me very quickly. In addition to the $730 million for the Mersey Community Hospital, which—
Senator Smith interjecting—
Senator Bilyk interjecting—
Senator DUNIAM: It is $730 million, Senator Smith, which is a good outcome. If Senator Bilyk is suggesting we close it, then I am glad she is putting that on record.
Senator Bilyk: I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth.
Senator DUNIAM: The $200 million extra for the Building Better Regions Fund will be available to Tasmania, and that is in addition to the $260 million for the Launceston City Deal and, in the Regional Jobs and Investment Packages, the $25 million especially for Tasmania. With that short summation, I thought I would let Senator Bilyk off the hook from having to read the budget papers for herself by letting her know what is in the budget for Tasmania.
Senator Bilyk: Two things! Two things for Tasmania.
Senator DUNIAM: And, clearly, with her saying 'two things', maths is not her strong point either. I am pleased to be able to continue my pattern of rising to speak on the good and positive things coming out of Tasmania, and I am pleased that Senator Urquhart is also here as a strong representative of the northwest coast.
Today it is my pleasure to speak about two very hardworking Tasmanians: Ben and Sally Milbourne. I want to talk specifically about their vision for Tasmania and how proud they are of what our great state has to offer. Ben and Sally have a passion for quality food, and they know how central this is to Tasmania's brand. As I have said in this place before, brand is extremely important, given Tasmania's status as a food tourism destination and, increasingly, as an exporter of our fine food and produce. Ben Milbourne—who some in this chamber, including Senator Urquhart, may know—attributes his love of food to his grandmother. He says that when he was younger she used to bake each morning for a number of decades for the 40-plus tradesmen employed by the family business. He learned from her how important and how wonderful food could be. Ben grew up on the beautiful northwest coast of Tasmania, as did I. Having done so, Ben learned from a very early age the beautiful and clean taste of Tasmanian seafood, freshly cooked, caught from the sea. He recounts that as a child he would go on family camping trips, and 'would take out Dad's boat, go fishing and cook the fish. We would go diving for Abalone and cook it on the campfire.' That is a wonderful recollection to have about the wonderful produce we have available in our beautiful state.
Cooking has always been a passion of Ben's, but it was not where he was headed initially, with a career in teaching beckoning first. As a teacher, though, Ben used food to teach his students about chemistry. He would explain to his students that there were just over 100 elements on the periodic table, then use an analogy of a pantry to demonstrate all of those elements and make the point that that is how we have built the world around us. The year of 2012, when MasterChef season 4 was airing, proved to be a turning point for Ben. Indeed, Sally, his wife, also saw the opportunity for both of them to pursue their passion for food. The experience allowed Ben to refine his skills, immerse himself in food and be taught by some of the most experienced chefs in the business, and he has been able to bring all of those skills back to our great state of Tasmania.
Since MasterChef, Ben has made regular appearances on Ready Steady Cook and Everyday Gourmet and now has his own TV shows, including Ben's Menu and Food Lab, which both air on Channel Ten. Central to a lot of Ben's TV work has been the promotion of Tasmania's fine produce, food and drink, and I cannot blame him. It is a wonderful thing to be able to use his skills and ability to communicate through the media to promote these wonderful assets that Tasmania has.
On that note, I think this is a good opportunity to touch on a great project that is unfolding in the northwest of Tasmania, the Devonport Living City project, which I know many Tasmanians will support. The redevelopment of the central Devonport business district will accommodate a great facility, which will include what will be known as 'Providore Place'. It will be home to farmers' markets, some top-end restaurants and also a TV studio for filming Ben's cooking show. Right there on the north-west coast of Tasmania we will be able to showcase all of those beautiful things that are on offer in this part of the world. Hopefully, too, we will see a training facility available for hospitality sector students. That is an important thing, because we need to enhance our offering by ensuring we have a good level of skill amongst those working in the hospitality sector.
All of this showcases a brilliant offering of the great north-west coast of Tasmania. Inside one hour from Devonport's Living City, you can get to amazing distilleries, beautiful farms and vineyards and taste all of these fruits. By putting them all in one place, Devonport Living City is going to be a great boon for that community, and we are going to see great economic growth and some opportunities for that region.
All of that is based right where the Spirit of Tasmania docks, on the Mersey River in Devonport, which is where tourists often decide whether they are going to turn left, to go straight to Hobart and bypass the regions, or whether they will turn right and visit some of our beautiful, lesser known places, our better kept secrets along the north-west and north coasts; indeed, down the west coast as well. Living City is one of the many projects that will go a long way to growing the sector, as I have said.
I am looking forward to hosting a forum in the Meander district very soon to enable tourism business operators to have a say about ways in which we can grow the tourism sector for that community, where visitor numbers are not what they are in other parts, particularly around Hobart and Launceston. I am looking forward to having business operators there, along with the Minister for Tourism, Hospitality and Events, Will Hodgman, local government representatives and the Tourism Industry Council. We will be able to talk about projects like the Cradle Mountain upgrade, which I think is a great project and I will be pushing very hard for it in the years to come.
Going back to Ben and Sally Milbourne, the chief reason I wanted to speak about them today relates to training and skills. As I said, Living City may provide an opportunity for them to provide training in the hospitality sector. Ben honed his passion for food while on MasterChef, but anyone who has met Ben and Sally will know that they are a formidable couple. Both are teachers by trade, and they strive for quality in learning and also in food, which is important with our brand. It was great to hear Sally speak recently—in fact, just last week—at the Devonport Chamber of Commerce and Industry women's professional breakfast, on her background and also the journey that she and Ben have made: the decisions they have taken and investments they have made in promoting Tasmania the way they have.
With increased tourism demand for Tasmania comes increased need to ensure that tourism and hospitality services provided in our state are of the highest quality. We need to know that both interstate and international visitors can expect a high level of service. If you have a good offering in the way of food, beverages and accommodation, you need to complement that with highly trained staff to provide what people are expecting and used to in other tourist destinations. You cannot have one without the other. That requires investment in our vocational and education training sector, not only in cooking but also for service staff, transport staff, front-of-house staff and management staff. Ben and Sally recognise this and have seen an opportunity to bring together their passion for food, their love of their home state and their background in teaching. They recognise that we need to grow our ability to train the much-needed workforce for our hospitality sector and are willing to back their ideas with hard work.
This is an important thing to recognise—which I do—at a time when we have high youth unemployment rates in Tasmania, particularly in the north and north-west, and when we have been battling school retention rates as a result of a broken education system where people thought school finished at year 10. That is a problem that is being addressed now. I am looking forward to hosting a forum of interested parties in Tasmania in the very near future, with the Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills, Karen Andrews, to enable people from the sectors that require this training to come along and have their say about how best the system can be structured to enable them to access the skills they need in the workers they want, and enable them to grow their businesses.
The reason I am mentioning this now is that I agree with the Milbournes about the need to ensure that we have training for our youth, to provide them with job opportunities in our regions. I commend Ben and Sally Milbourne for their drive, their commitment and their passion and the goods things they are doing for our community, for investing and backing the local community, for doing something to give others opportunities and for supporting the need to grow skills, particularly where they are needed in the regions.
PETITIONS
Immigration Detention
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (13:35): I returned last week, as members may know, from a trip to Manus Island. While I was on Manus Island I spoke to a number of the people who have been detained there by Australia, many of whom have been detained for nearly four years. These people, along with people detained on Nauru, are Australia's political prisoners. They are people who have been detained with the sole intent of coercing an outcome from them and coercing an outcome from other people who may choose to seek asylum in Australia. Deliberately causing harm to these people on Manus Island and Nauru—as Australia is doing—in order to coerce outcomes from them and from others is torture under international law. Australia is torturing people as we stand here today.
When I spoke to many of these people on Manus Island last week, and I met with many dozens of the detainees there, I was given a petition by many of them who have been given a negative refugee status through the PNG refugee status determination process. Before I read the petition and seek leave to table it, which I will, I want to remind members of the opinion of Professor Jane McAdam, from the Kaldor Centre at the University of New South Wales, in a legal opinion released on 9 February this year. Professor McAdam said this about PNG's refugee status determination process:
PNG’s refugee status determination process falls far short of the standards required by international law … PNG law does not contain any provision protecting people from refoulement (removal to persecution and other serious harm). Instead, the minister has a discretionary power to recognise someone as a refugee … In light of this framework, PNG's refugee status determination process is inconsistent with international law in a number of significant respects.
In this opinion by Professor McAdam, regarding the Migration Regulation 1979 in PNG she pointed out:
As UNHCR has noted, the Regulation 'incorrectly applies the limited exclusion provisions of the Refugee Convention to ordinary criminal matters more properly dealt with under PNG criminal law, which could lead to wrongful denial of refugee status'.
Professor McAdam concluded her opinion by saying there are 'considerable concerns' about the integrity of PNG's system for recognising and protecting refugees; given these, there is significant risk that the forcible removal of an asylum seeker from PNG 'may violate international law'. We have a situation where on Manus Island there are somewhere in the region of 850 of Australia's political prisoners that we are torturing—every day, in that place—under torture as defined by international law.
I had the honour of being given a petition signed by a large number of people who have been given negative refugee status through a process which Professor Jane McAdam from the University of New South Wales says is inconsistent with international law in a number of significant respects and which the UNHCR says could lead to a wrongful denial of refugee status. The petition from refugees with negative refugee status on Manus Island says:
We the undersigned are those who have been given a negative refugee status through an unfair process of assessment. Many of us have refused to have our refugee claims assessed after the attack on 17th February 2014 and some who had started the assessment process discontinued their assessment. We were left with no trust in the system, as we had been attacked by staff of the detention centre, two of whom were subsequently convicted for the murder of Reza Barati. Many of those who were assessed as negative were not given a proper opportunity to describe their situation as they were still traumatised by the attack.
We have been detained here for almost 4 years. Some of the people who came on the same boats as us are now living in Australia. Other people who came on boats after 19th July 2013 are also living in Australia. Condemning everyone who came after 19 July 2013 to indefinite detention is as unfair as the flawed process of refugee assessment. Most of us are now suffering from mental illness as a result of the stress of imprisonment on Manus Island.
We have never chosen to go to Papua New Guinea and we have not committed a crime for which being taken to PNG should be the punishment. We have been taken to Manus Island against our will and we experience this 'transfer' as kidnapping. We request your help with our situation in Papua New Guinea. We cannot live there. There is no law and order in PNG and we are routinely robbed when we go into the Lorengau town.
Additionally, Australia is deporting people back to their countries of origin, which means deporting them to danger. They were not correctly assessed and their lives are at risk. We need to go somewhere safe. As you are aware, we were attacked by sailors from the PNG Navy on Good Friday 14th April 2017. About 100 rounds of ammunition were fired into the walls and ceilings of the detention centre and many people were nearly shot. We did nothing to provoke this attack. No-one is safe here, not asylum seekers and not the staff.
Please give us protection and take us from this dangerous place. We need to settle in a safe country, not PNG and not be dumped back in the dangerous places from which we have escaped. We also need a valid refugee assessment process and all those who have been given negative status or no status must be reassessed by an independent authority like the UNHCR.
There is page after page of signatures on this petition. One of the most heart-wrenching aspects of this petition is that all of the people who have signed this petition have included their boat numbers because in the Manus Island camp they are addressed not by name but by boat number, by their own individual identity number. This is part of a deliberate systematic regime in the camp to dehumanise the people who made no other mistake than reaching out a hand to Australia for protection, a hand that we have ignored and shunned.
I now seek leave to table this petition in the Senate, so that there can be no excuse for anyone in this parliament not to be fully aware of the damage that we are causing people and that is being done to them in Australia's name, and the unfairness of the Papua New Guinean refugee status determination, as confirmed by Professor McAdam from the University of New South Wales, and so that, when, as I believe is inevitable one day, one day there are inquiries and royal commissions into this and when apologies and reparations are made, no-one in this country will be able to say that they did not know the harm Australia was causing to these people that was occurring on our watch.
Leave granted.
Senator McKIM: Thank you. I do appreciate the Senate providing leave. I will conclude my remarks very briefly by issuing a call to the humanity of all senators to think about our fellow human beings today, Australia's political prisons on Manus Island and Nauru, who every day are being tortured in Australia's name.
Brain Cancer
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (13:45): I rise to speak on an issue that has with it much emotion and much passion and about which so much more needs to be done, and that is brain cancer. At the outset, I want to pay tribute to our colleague Senator Catryna Bilyk, whose advocacy for those with brain cancer has been nothing short of magnificent and whose own experiences have, in a sense, given her the strength and focus to pursue the fight for better funding for brain cancer research.
Last Saturday night in Sydney at the International Convention Centre I was fortunate enough to be invited to speak at the Cure Brain Council Foundation's annual fundraising event. It was a great night. The organisation is headed by Professor Charlie Teo, a renowned brain surgeon, who operates in many countries around the world, such is his reputation. The Cure Brain Council Foundation has done so much work and has raised many millions of dollars over the years in order to facilitate further research not just here but also around the world and to collaborate to find a cure for brain cancer. It was an extraordinary night. Jimmy Barnes was there to donate his time and two people each generously put up $30,000 in donations to karaoke Khe Sanh and Working Class Manwith Jimmy. That was a real sight to behold.
The fun of the night also, in a sense, highlighted the seriousness of the issue. We have a situation in this country and around the world where brain cancer kills more children than any other disease; yet 90 per cent of Australians are not aware of this fact. It is deadly and the survival rates are low. Ninety per cent of children survive leukaemia and 90 per cent of people survive breast cancer, but only 20 per cent of people survive brain cancer. And it gets worse: for some forms, such as glioblastomas—or DIPG—the five-year survival rate is much lower, at just five per cent. That is a very sobering statistic.
What concerns me and what concerns Charlie Teo and his team and all of those in this field is that brain cancer survival rates have barely increased in the last 30 years. The survival rates for prostate cancer have increased by 35 per cent; for cancer generally, 20 per cent; for bowel cancer, 19 per cent; and, for breast cancer, 18 per cent—but, for brain cancer, just two per cent. That is just not good enough. Brain cancer kills more people under 40 in Australia than any other cancer. Brain cancer costs more per patient than any other cancer; yet it receives less than five per cent of NHMRC and government cancer research funding. While there were some statements in the budget about that—which obviously I welcome—it is still around that five per cent figure.
I welcome the announcement in last night's federal budget that there will be $68 million delivered to help fund a proton beam therapy facility that will be housed at SAHMRI, the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, in a second building, to be known as SAHMRI 2, in Adelaide. It will not be just South Australia's proton beam therapy facility; it will be Australia's proton beam therapy facility, because it will literally save many thousands of lives in the years to come. It will be a beacon of hope for not just Australians but also people throughout the region.
Importantly, those with very difficult to treat cancers, particularly those childhood and paediatric brain cancers, will be significantly helped by this proton beam therapy facility—the first of its kind in the Southern Hemisphere. At present there is not one proton beam therapy facility in the Southern Hemisphere, and this will be the first. It is a more targeted way to treat cancers that are near vital organs or the spine and is less likely to damage healthy tissue. A particle accelerator targets tumours with the proton beam. It is something that I worked for; it is something that Senator Birmingham and others from the coalition side have advocated for; and it is something that the South Australian Premier, Jay Weatherill has worked for. And we got a good outcome.
The fact that so many people die of brain cancer and that the survival rate has not increased over the years is simply not good enough. The fact that 1,600 brain cancers are diagnosed every year—one every five hours—with the survival rate barely increasing in the last 30 years compared to so many other cancers, is heartbreaking. Brain cancer affects not only the individual but their family and their community. Many submissions to the Senate inquiry into rare cancers several years ago wrote in moving detail of the loss of employment due to disability following brain surgery, the loss of family income as spouses took time off to care for them and interruptions to education.
The cost of this terrible group of cancers is very high. It is wrong that only about $42 million out of the $850 million of NHMRC funding goes to brain cancer research. The solution is not to cut other cancer research; the solution is that governments must spend our money more wisely and well to free up the desperately needed research funds to find the cure. It is the aim of the Cure Brain Cancer Foundation to dramatically increase the survival rate by 2023. Instead of 20 per cent, it should be at least 50 per cent in six years. That is a heroic but, I believe, very noble ambition of the Cure Brain Cancer Foundation.
Medical research funding has been stagnate in real terms since 2013. At present, only 17 per cent of grant requests to the NHMRC are funded, down from 25 per cent pre-2013, which concerns me because it denies our brightest researchers an opportunity to help us unlock cures for brain cancer. It is a travesty that medical experts acknowledge that we waste hundreds of millions of dollars each year—some would say billions—on some medical procedures that may do more harm than good; for instance, unnecessary knee and back scans.
Some of you in the chamber may have seen that Dr Norman Swan, the health reporter from the ABC, did a Four Corners special in September 2015 where he outlined how much money is wasted in our health system. We have a situation where up to half of back and knee scans may have been unnecessary. The cost involved runs into hundreds of millions of dollars. That is the case in terms of unnecessary procedures as well. That is a real concern. It is not something that just Professor Swan is saying; many others are saying it. Professor of Health Policy at Sydney University, Adam Elshaug, said:
We know that patients are being harmed by receiving tests and treatments that they should never have received.
No less than Professor Robyn Ward, Chair of the Medical Services Advisory Committee, cut to the chase on Four Corners when she said:
Often the best medicine is no medicine at all, or the best intervention is no intervention at all.
But that is not the case with brain cancer. We need to throw everything at it in terms of research to unlock a cure for this horrific cancer and the damage that it causes.
Right now, curing brain cancer is an idea that many regard as a pipedream, but a few years ago Fiona Woods' spray-on skin, Ian Frazer's cervical cancer vaccine and Professor Barry Marshall's cure for ulcers were also pipedreams. In fact, Professor Barry Marshall was knocked back on a grant application to the NHMRC before he went on to win the Nobel Prize for medicine. We need to acknowledge that as well. The road to getting there lies in our faith to keep trying and be disruptive thinkers, like Charlie Teo, because, if we keep plodding along with conventional techniques and conventional thinking, it will take us 50 years to reach the 50 per cent target, and we do not have that time to spare.
I want to finish by making reference to one person—a remarkable young woman who got me involved in this very issue in the first place, and that is Erin Griffin, who came from one of Adelaide's beautiful beachside suburbs. In February 2012, she was diagnosed with one of the ugliest cancers of all, DIPG. She was just 11 years old. I was privileged enough to meet Erin, speak about her in the Senate and instigate the inquiry into rare cancers. Erin could not accept that we had not yet found a cure for her aggressive brain cancer. Neither can I and neither should any of us.
In the days before she died on 1 September 2014, Erin, so gravely ill, was still speaking out on national TV, urging all of us to find a cure. And I pay tribute to her mother, Amanda Griffin, who, every day of her life, in a loving tribute to her daughter, is keeping the fight for a cure to brain cancer moving forward. We can do better. We are a clever country. We should be at the forefront internationally for finding a cure for brain cancer.
Budget
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (13:55): Today I want to talk about the unfair budget that was delivered last night that delivers tax handouts to multinationals and millionaires while hurting Australian families. The reality is that the only people to benefit from this budget are big business and the well-off.
Before I get into the detail of the budget and why Queensland missed out, I want to respond to Senator O'Sullivan. I am sure the people of country and rural Queensland sleep well at night thinking that Senator O'Sullivan has got their interests. I know that he has a healthy property portfolio but, if he believes what was in the budget last night on the inland rail, then I have a Harbour Bridge to sell him, because what was in the budget last night on the inland rail is not going to do anything to get this project off the ground. When you look at a feasibility study from 2015, it shows that a $10-billion inland railway from Melbourne to Brisbane could not pay for itself without government funding in the first 50 years of operation, because that $10-billion price tag would make a significant impact on the government's balance sheet. Whilst the economic analysis that inland rail would deliver net economic benefit to Australia, the expected operating revenue over 50 years will not cover the initial capital investment required to build the railway, hence a substantial public funding combination is required to deliver inland rail. And that is not what we had in the budget last night—it is a giant hoax. Unfortunately, Senator O'Sullivan and the Nationals have been hoodwinked yet again. It is not going to deliver that railway for Queensland and other communities that would benefit from it.
I think the interesting thing about this budget is also the internal dynamics of the Liberal and National parties in the lead-up to it. If you were following the prebudget speculation, you would not have got any idea about what was going to be in the budget last night. At one stage, the centrepiece was going to be housing affordability, yet we saw nothing substantial last night that is going to tackle that challenge that so many people face.
One of the things I focused on was looking at the promises they made in the last election campaign and whether they were going to deliver on them. There is one that I have been particularly interested in, because I know how tough people are doing it in regional Queensland—that is the promise they made a year ago around a regional jobs and investment package. Despite making that promise 12 months ago, not one cent has been spent in communities in Queensland that need investment from the federal government. Over the last month, I have been to Cairns, Townsville, Innisfail, Bowen, Mackay, Gladstone, and places that would have benefited from this, and the government has failed to deliver. It is outrageous that they have done that. Not one job has been created despite their promises.
They also go on about the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility fund. Again, not one project has been funded. Not one dollar has been spent. Not one job has been created apart from those fat-cat executives that they have employed from down south who now, apparently, call Cairns home. But when it comes to Queensland—I think this is particularly sad and probably no surprise. In the lead-up to the budget, Mr Morrison has been to Germany twice this year, yet he has not been to Queensland once. Is it any wonder that he would bring forward a budget that does nothing for Queensland when he has not even been there? It is no wonder he does not understand the difficulties that people are facing in Central Queensland and why he has not put any money into infrastructure funding, apart from rehashing old promises about the Bruce Highway. It is not good enough and it is something that regional Queenslanders will be disappointed in.
When we look at this budget, what does it mean for Queensland? It means no money for cross-river rail. Senator O'Sullivan did not even know where it was; that is how much of a senator he is for Queensland. It means a tax cut for millionaires and a tax hike for every working Australian. Gross debt will now pass half a trillion dollars. There are no projects identified in regional funding commitments—just the National Party trying to identify another pork barrel. It is not good enough. This budget will fail the people of Queensland.
The PRESIDENT: It being 2 pm, we move to questions without notice.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Budget
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:00): My question is to Senator Brandis, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Can the minister explain to Australians earning as little as $21,655 why they are facing a tax hike, while the government can still find a spare $50 billion for big business and give millionaires a tax cut of $16,000 a year?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:00): Thank you, Senator Gallagher, for giving me the opportunity to speak about a budget of which this government is extremely proud—a budget which is based on the principle of fairness, based on the principle of opportunity and based on the principle of ensuring that Australians have the security that they deserve.
Before speaking about the budget in more detail, let me correct some of the false premises in Senator Gallagher's question. You speak of a tax hike, Senator. I assume that is an intended reference to the increase by half a per cent in two years time of the Medicare levy to fund the NDIS, a program that you left entirely unfunded. All the rhetoric in the world, Senator Gallagher, will not excuse you from the reality that you devised a system—a system, by the way, which the present government supported—but you made no provision to fund it. As is so often the case in Australian politics, it is the Labor Party that has got a monopoly on the rhetoric, but it is the coalition that actually has to find the money to fund the program.
So what we have done is announce in the budget last night that in two years time we will ask Australians to pay an extra half a per cent on the Medicare levy in order that the NDIS may be funded. That is one of the aspects of the budget, Senator Gallagher, that we regard as a fairness measure. And, if you support the NDIS, as you claim to do, what is your problem with saying that the money should be found and put in a locked box to make sure it is properly funded? (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:02): Can the minister explain to Australian parents why it is fair that schools will receive $22 billion less, while the government can still find a spare $50 billion for big business?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:03): Another false premise. In fact, there is no such cut as you suggest, Senator Gallagher. There is, in fact, had you been listening to Senator Birmingham in question time yesterday, an increase in school funding over the next 10 years by $18.6 billion. But this is Labor Party economics. Senator Gallagher dreams up a pie-in-the-sky number for which there is no funding available, compares it to the government's number—an increase of $18.6 billion—for which there is funding, subtracts one from the other and says, 'That's a cut!' No, Senator Gallagher, it is an $18.6 billion increase in school funding—an increase, by the way, based on a methodology that puts fairness and needs-based funding at the centre of the system. That is an $18.6 billion increase (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:04): Can the minister explain to Australian university students why it is fair that they will pay thousands of dollars more per year and be saddled with HECS repayments sooner, while at the same time the government can still find a spare $50 billion for big business?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:04): Senator Gallagher, I am so pleased you keep asking me these questions about fairness, because I think most Australians would understand that it is fair that university students should not have to contribute even half of the cost of their degrees, and that there be a system—instituted, by the way, by a former Labor government, the Hawke Labor government—the HECS, whereby they get the most preferential low interest that they will ever see in their lives, with no obligation whatsoever to begin paying back that debt until they can afford to do so. As a result of the education they receive through that system, they will have a higher income and better life chances than all of the other taxpayers who are paying the majority of the cost of their education. (Time expired)
Budget
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (14:05): My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. Can the minister update the Senate on the government's plan for the economy and 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 question. The budget delivered by the Treasurer last night is our next instalment of our plan for stronger growth to deliver more and better-paid jobs. We are doing this by enshrining our Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan right at the heart of the budget, delivering a more competitive business tax rate for all businesses across Australia. We are doing it through record investment in productivity-enhancing infrastructure—well over $70 billion worth of infrastructure investment, driving stronger growth and delivering more and better-paid jobs. Of course we are doing it by focusing on more export trade deals and by focusing on energy security, delivering affordable and reliable energy to businesses across Australia.
The budget the Treasurer delivered last night continues to chart a responsible course to a balanced budget within four years. Our budget surplus projected for 2021, consistent with the timetable we set out in our half-yearly budget update in 2015-16, just before Christmas in 2015, is a return to surplus in 2020-21 and now at $7.4 billion. Our responsible fiscal management and our responsible economic management have meant that we are in a position to protect Australia's AAA credit rating, with Moody's already coming out confirming that the policy settings of this government in our budget are consistent with those of a AAA rated economy.
This budget provides incentives for businesses across Australia to employ more Australians. We had a previous question sneering at our business tax cuts and sneering at the additional investment that we want to attract into the Australian economy so that businesses across Australia can have the opportunity to be more successful and more profitable so that they can hire more Australians and pay better wages. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Bushby, a supplementary question?
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (14:07): How will this budget support the creation of more jobs and stronger economic growth?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:08): I thank Senator Bushby for that question. As I indicated in the answer to the primary question, the government are investing well over $70 billion in productivity-enhancing infrastructure in this budget, creating tens of thousands of new jobs during construction on productive projects across the country. This includes the Inland Rail project from Melbourne to Brisbane. It includes the building of the Western Sydney airport, with an equity injection of $5.3 billion. It includes a $2.3 billion infrastructure package in Western Australia. It includes a very generous infrastructure package for South Australia, and I know that Senator Xenophon is going to be interested in having a conversation in relation to that. It includes a $10 billion national rail program—new money which state governments across Australia who want to participate with the federal government can actually invest— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Bushby, a final supplementary question?
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (14:09): How is this budget guaranteeing essential services for all Australians?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:09): As well as delivering our plan for stronger growth and more jobs, this government are guaranteeing the essential services Australians rely on in health, education, disability support and national security. Of course, one of the challenges that we faced on coming to government was the fact that the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which enjoys broad bipartisan support, was not fully funded. We were facing a $56 billion funding gap over the next decade—a $56 billion funding gap. Of course, those opposite appear to be in the know in relation to this.
In this budget we have made decisions to guarantee funding for the NDIS. In this budget we have made decisions to guarantee increased funding for schools across Australia—$18.6 billion in additional funding. Of course, in this budget we will be able to deliver by 2021 the target for Defence funding of two per cent of the share of GDP—the promise from three years ago in the lead-up to the 2013 election. (Time expired)
Budget
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:10): My question is to the minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. In February this year, when asked when he could rule out a tax increase in the budget, Prime Minister Turnbull said:
We have no plans to increase tax—indeed, all of our plans for tax were set out in the budget last year …
Given that Mr Turnbull has now raised an additional $14 billion in new taxes, when he made his statement, was Prime Minister Turnbull simply not telling the truth?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:10): There are tax measures in the budget. I wonder which of those tax measures you are going to oppose in this chamber. Are you, for example, going to oppose the measure to impose a levy on banks? Are you going to oppose that measure or are you going to support it through the chamber? Are you going to support the government's proposal in two years time—
The PRESIDENT: Pause the clock. Point of order, Senator Wong?
Senator Wong: My point of order goes to relevance. I did not ask about the opposition's position; I asked whether the Prime Minister had lied when he said he was not going to increase taxes. Was Mr Turnbull simply not telling the truth when he made this statement?
The PRESIDENT: I will remind the Attorney-General of the question.
Senator BRANDIS: I am sorry: I thought it was pretty clear from what I was saying that I was disputing what Senator Wong had put to me. If it is not perfectly clear to you, Senator Wong, there is nothing that the Prime Minister has said in the past that is at variance from the announcements that were made last night. If I may turn to some of those measures—as I was saying, are you going to be opposing in this chamber a measure that supports and funds the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which in two years time will involve a half a per cent increase in the Medicare levy, or will you support it in this chamber? Because the ball is now in your court.
The ball is now in the court of Mr Shorten to decide whether or not he will support these measures, or whether he will support the government's initiative to bring the budget back into surplus sooner to fund programs like the NDIS on a secure basis or to expect banks, for instance, to pay a fairer contribution to the revenue through the levy we announced last night, and all the other fairness measures that we announced in this budget. As I said in answer to your colleague Senator Gallagher, the underlying theme of this budget is fairness. Are you on the side of fairness or are you not? (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a supplementary question.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:13): Just two days before the 2016 election, Prime Minister Turnbull said:
Our commitment is to lower taxes.
Given, under Mr Turnbull, the coalition government is now the highest taxing government in a decade, isn't it clear Australians simply cannot rely on his commitments?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:13): Are you going to listen to the answer?
Senator Back interjecting—
Senator Wong interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: On my right and my left, order! Senator Back and Senator Wong—if you want to have a conversation, leave the chamber to have the conversation.
Senator BRANDIS: Senator Wong, the question for you and for the Labor Party is: are you going to support the fairness measures in this budget?
Are you going to—among other things—support the fairness measures for school funding; whereby the vision of David Gonski—which you embraced in 2011 and then abandoned when it came to the implementation phase—has been revived by this government so that all schools will be funded on a needs basis in a nationally consistent, completely transparent funding model—are you going to support those measures, Senator Wong? Are you going to support all of the other fairness measures in this budget or are you going to block them? (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a final supplementary question.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:15): Given that the Prime Minister's commitments to lower taxes are demonstrably worthless, and that this morning he admitted the government thought the abandoned zombie measures 'had merit', why should Australians trust his assertions that these apparently meritorious measures will not simply return?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:15): I am sorry, Senator Wong, but we saw your leader, Mr Shorten, on the TV, last night and this morning, looking like the deer that had been caught in the headlights. The fact is that the measures that were announced by my friend the Treasurer, Mr Morrison, last night are the kind of fairness measures that you in government were never able to deliver. You were prepared to announce an NDIS, but you were never able to fund it.
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Pause the clock. Order on my left! Senator Wong, a point of order.
Senator Wong: On direct relevance: I asked about the zombie measures. He is not talking about the zombie measures. There is absolutely no relevance—
Senator Cormann interjecting—
Senator Wong: I will take the interjection from the Minister for Finance.
The PRESIDENT: No. You are not taking an interjection on a point of order, Senator Wong.
Senator Wong: The Leader of the Government in the Senate should be able to answer a question.
The PRESIDENT: I will rule on the point of order. Attorney-General, I will remind you of the question.
Senator BRANDIS: Thank you very much indeed, Mr President. For the so-called zombie measures, we have capitulated to the political reality that there are no circumstances in which the opposition and the Greens were going to allow them through the Senate, so they are no longer on the books. But interestingly, the zombie measures are counted in your costings, Senator Wong. So that is another question that Mr Shorten has to answer tomorrow night—where he is going to find the extra money for the black hole that now appears in the Labor Party's costings? (Time expired)
Budget
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (14:17): My question is to Senator Ryan, the Special Minister of State representing the Minister for Social Services. Many people were shocked to see that the government's so-called welfare reform included drug testing income-support recipients. Many think the government has, in fact, reached a new low. The government and the Treasurer committed through the budget to fairness, opportunity and security. How is this measure not a gross violation of people's civil liberties? And how is it fair?
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (14:18): Through you, Mr President, this measure is a trial, firstly. This measure is a trial for 5,000 new applicants to the jobseeker payment. But it is also actually aimed at supporting those people. It is aimed at ensuring that people do not fall into habitual drug use which can profoundly damage their health and future employment prospects. I am of the view, and the government is of the view, that this particular measure is very fair. It is going to ensure that we can direct people to services that they need. The critics of this have fallen into the trap of assigning or impugning a motive to those proposing it. The government has made clear, the minister has made clear—
Senator Pratt interjecting—
Senator RYAN: I cannot quite hear you, Senator Pratt. The government has made clear and the minister has made clear that this is a policy that is being directed to support those applicants and to prevent people from falling into habits that can damage themselves, their families and their economic welfare over the longer term. So I think it is quite fair. It is actually about supporting participation.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Siewert, a supplementary question.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (14:19): I notice the minister had another half a minute left and he did not address my issue around civil liberties. The media briefing sheet outlines that the government is going to be profiling people in order to select people. They say they are going to randomly select people using data profiling to select participants. What criteria are they going to be using for selecting these people? (Time expired)
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (14:20): I reject the impugned motive around the term 'profiling'. My brief does not include—
Senator Siewert interjecting—
Senator RYAN: I said 'the impugned motive', Senator Siewert, and I think the tone of your question indicates that. My brief does not include those criteria. I will come back to the chamber when I am provided with that. The brief I have does not include those criteria.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Siewert, a final supplementary question.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (14:20): Given that this drug-testing trial has the potential to identify and punish people who have used a drug that has had no impact on their ability to search for or take on a job, does the government really think that drug use is the main problem with the high rate of unemployment in this country?
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (14:21): Purchasing, possessing and taking these products is against the law. So let's start with that. If you want to talk about civil liberties, Senator Siewert, it is against the law. But we know the Greens do not care about breaking laws that you think should be broken, whether it is protesting and trashing equipment—
The PRESIDENT: A point of order, Senator Siewert?
Senator Siewert: Bring the minister's attention to the question that I asked—about unemployment.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order, on both sides! Thank you, Senator Siewert. I think the minister was addressing the question. And, Minister, could I advise you also to address your remarks to me and not directly across the chamber.
Senator RYAN: My apologies, Mr President. Senator Siewert, in some cases, habitual drug use of illicit substances is indeed a barrier to employment. And, quite frankly, preventing people from falling into a habit of long-term habitual drug use and providing them with the services requires detection. It actually does mean that some people will, hopefully, avoid that habit and will have a better chance of employment.
Budget
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia) (14:22): My question is to my WA colleague the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. Can the minister please outline to the Senate how the budget strengthens Australia's welfare compliance system, how it provides greater support to the most vulnerable jobseekers, while also ensuring that those who can work do work?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (14:23): I thank Senator Reynolds for her question. On this side of the chamber we are very proud to say that one of our fundamental beliefs is that the best form of welfare is a job. That is why, yet again, in the budget that was delivered last night we are putting in place extensive measures to assist Australians who are currently on welfare move from that position into work.
In terms of the programs that we are investing in, we are extending the successful ParentsNext program. This is all about helping parents of young children move back into the workforce when their youngest child goes to school. Our new PaTH program is getting our youth who are staring down the barrel of long-term unemployment off welfare and giving them the chance to get a job. And, of course, more and more older Australians will be looking for work. We will be supporting them with our new career-transition training.
It is a fact that the majority of jobseekers do the right thing. However, there are a minority of welfare recipients who are capable of working but, unfortunately, they deliberately shirk their mutual obligations. What we will put in place is a new targeted compliance framework to address this deliberate shirking of obligations. Under the government's changes, jobseekers who repeatedly fail to comply with their agreed job plan with no reasonable excuse will now face effective penalties. Our welfare system is there to provide a strong safety net for those who need it, but it should also be one that encourages and motivates those who can find work to find work. It should not be abused by those who deliberately do not want to comply with their obligations.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Reynolds, is there a supplementary question?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia) (14:25): Can the minister also explain to the Senate why it is important that community expectations are upheld when it comes to the delivery of Australia's strong safety net system for recipients?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (14:25): Australians expect that their taxes should be spent fairly and that the system they pay for does help get people off welfare and into work. That is why the Turnbull government is tackling the link between drug use and long-term unemployment. As has already been articulated, from 1 January 2018, 5,000 new recipients of Newstart allowance and youth allowance in three trial sites will be required to undertake random drug tests. This is a two-year trial of random drug testing and it will be a condition of receiving a welfare payment. For those who test positive, we will provide them with the assistance they need, and they will be placed on welfare quarantining for two years. What this is deliberately designed to address is to curb the devastating effects of drug addiction and ensure that people with abuse problems are getting the help they need.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Reynolds, is there a final supplementary question?
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia) (14:26): Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches to welfare compliance?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (14:26): I have to say that, given the comments that have been made in the chamber this afternoon, it would appear that those on the other side, the Australian Greens and those in the Australian Labor Party, are quite happy to have an obligation-free welfare system where taxpayer funds are able to be expended on purchasing drugs. You just have to look at the comments made by Senator Di Natale last night, when he basically said that it was a massive violation of the rights of jobseekers receiving welfare to be drug tested. No-one has a right to take drugs. As Senator Ryan has already articulated, it is illegal. This demonstrates just how out of touch those on the opposite side of the chamber are. Well, this government will do everything that it can to ensure that those who are taking drugs are given the help that they need if they are in receipt of taxpayer funds. I would ask all senators to back this program. (Time expired)
Budget
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (14:27): My question is to the Minister for Finance representing the Treasurer. Last night's budget announced $70 billion of infrastructure commitments, but no new commitments for new projects in South Australia. Only $3.1 billion of the $70 billion is for South Australia. That is only 4.5 per cent, well under South Australia's population figure of 7.1 per cent.
Government senators interjecting—
Senator XENOPHON: Stop laughing, it is not funny. When we have 12 per cent of the nation's road network, for instance, why is South Australia receiving so much less for infrastructure projects, being short-changed by some $2 billion—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ludlam, is there a point of order?
Senator Ludlam: Mr President, I am sitting adjacent to Senator Xenophon and I cannot hear him over the chaos that is happening on this side of the chamber. Can you call them to order?
The PRESIDENT: I remind all senators, particularly those on my right in this instance, that I need to hear the question as well as the minister.
Senator XENOPHON: The question is: why is South Australia receiving so much less for infrastructure projects, being short-changed by at least $2 billion, particularly when South Australia's unemployment rate is the highest in the nation?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:28): I thank Senator Xenophon for that question. The first point I would make is that the honourable senator should not believe every bit of partisan propaganda coming from the South Australian Labor state government. The South Australian Labor state government in Adelaide takes a very partisan and destructive approach, while other governments, like the Labor government in Western Australia, have chosen to work with the government.
The second point I would make—and I think the enthusiastic noise from this side of the chamber was a reflection of this—is that the Turnbull government is the best friend South Australia has ever had. We are making record investments into South Australia, not the least of which is to support a $90 billion naval shipbuilding program, predominantly centred around Adelaide in South Australia, which includes a very significant infrastructure investment into upgrading the Osborne shipyard facilities which will start from 1 July 2017. Our commitment also includes about $1.6 billion towards upgrading the North-South Corridor, a key freight and passenger route through Adelaide, $835 million of which will be invested in the '17-18 financial year. There are a whole range of other commitments. There is a long list that I can assist Senator Xenophon with.
I will mention just a few more. There is $40 million towards South Australian local roads, and Senator Xenophon would be very aware of this because, as well as having received representations from South Australian Liberal members and senators, we of course have had representations from you and your team in relation to this particular topic.
We are investing $68 million into the proton beam facility in South Australia, which you would also be very well aware of. And there is a $10 billion national rail program which South Australia can apply for, to support the AdeLINK project. But we have not received a submission yet—we have not received a proposal from the South Australian government. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Xenophon, a supplementary question.
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (14:31): On the issue of rail, will the government guarantee that the steel to be used in the $70 billion of taxpayer-funded work will be Australian steel? In particular, will the minister guarantee that the rail steel required for the $10 billion national rail program be sourced from Arrium in Whyalla?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:31): The first point I would make is: look at our track record. Unlike the former Labor government, which did not commit to a single ship on their watch, we committed to a record naval shipbuilding program, and Australian naval ships of course will be built using Australian steel. We have also committed to building the Adelaide to Tarcoola rail upgrade using Australian steel. You would also be aware of the very exciting announcement by Adani that Adani proposes to use Australian steel.
In relation to the specific question that Senator Xenophon has asked me: obviously, the first step is that we have got to receive proposals. When these proposals are received, relevant judgements are made.
The PRESIDENT: Order! A point of order, Senator Xenophon?
Senator Xenophon: There was a direct question asked: will Australian steel be used in these taxpayer-funded projects?
The PRESIDENT: And I think you asked the minister to guarantee whether that would be used, and the minister indicated by a case example where Australian steel is being used, and I think the minister was just actually getting directly to your point when you raised the point of order. Minister.
Senator CORMANN: Thank you very much. The specific answer is: obviously, these judgements are made when proposals are received but, if you look at our track record, we have got a very good track record, unlike those opposite.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Xenophon, a final supplementary question.
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (14:32): There is $319 million allocated in the budget for the Future Submarine project for 2017-18, but it is earmarked predominantly for the establishment of a resident project team in France, submarine design work to be undertaken by DCNS in France, and combat system design work to be undertaken in the United States, with some infrastructure funding for Adelaide. Can the minister advise: of that $319 million, how much has been allocated for Adelaide?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:33): What I can advise is that significantly more has been committed to Adelaide. But, as you would appreciate, there are some commercial sensitivities involved here, and we are not going to go into the precise detail of how much we are going to invest in every aspect of relevant infrastructure. But let me just tell you that, in relation to the Osborne park facility in particular—and this is a matter of public record—we will be investing over $500 million into upgrading the infrastructure at the Osborne shipyards, and that of course will set South Australia up to take advantage of all of the opportunities that come with a $90 billion naval shipbuilding program.
Family Law
Senator HUME (Victoria) (14:34): My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. Can the Attorney-General please update the Senate on what the government is doing to improve the family law system as part of the budget?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:34): Thank you very much indeed, Senator Hume. That is a very important question, and it is important and it is significant that last night's budget contains a number of measures that lay the foundations for long-term, fundamental reform of the family law system. It is of course—as you would know, Mr President—41 years now since the Family Law Act came into operation, and in all that time, almost half a century, although it has had a number of piecemeal reviews, it has never had a comprehensive review. So we announced last night, as part of the budget, that we will ask the Australian Law Reform Commission to undertake a comprehensive review not merely of the Family Law Act but of the entire family law system and we will ask the ALRC to report back to the government by the end of 2018 with its recommendations.
As well, we announced that we are going to make legislative changes to protect the victims of family violence from being cross-examined by the perpetrators. We announced that we will establish a new mechanism—parenting management hearings—which will be a non-adversarial forum in which families can get faster solution to disputes and more easily access other services they need in relation to children; that we will provide an additional $10.7 million for extra family consultants to help courts resolve family law matters more quickly; and that we will provide a further $3.4 million for up to six additional domestic violence units, supplementing the domestic violence units already established under the 2015 Women's Safety Package.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hume, a supplementary question.
Senator HUME (Victoria) (14:36): Can the Attorney-General outline what the government is doing to address cross-examination in family law proceedings involving family violence?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:36): Yes, I can. As I mentioned in my answer to your primary question, that is one of the measures. Let me expand a little further on it. As those who follow this issue know—and I know, Senator Hume, you are one who has taken a constructive and intelligent interest in this issue—it has been a matter of concern, particularly to practitioners in the field, for a long time now that a woman who is traumatised by family violence might face the additional challenge, shall we say, of being cross-examined in family law proceedings by the alleged perpetrator of that family violence if that person is not represented by a legal practitioner. So we propose to prohibit that and arrange for a system whereby the court can appoint a person to conduct that cross-examination. That announcement was welcomed this morning by Women's Legal Services Australia, in a press release which congratulated the government on the initiative. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hume, a final supplementary question.
Senator HUME (Victoria) (14:37): Can the Attorney-General please expand upon how the parenting management hearings will help families?
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:37): Yes, I can. One of the reasons that there has been delay in the family law system is that there are too many matters that are not resolved at the earliest possible stage. In order to reform the system, one of the objectives is to ensure that the system is, as it were, front-end loaded so that everything that can be resolved early in the course of a proceeding is resolved early in the course of a proceeding.
One of the most intractable disputes—perhaps the most intractable—that arise in family law matters is in relation to parenting matters. So the government has announced that we will pilot a system whereby there is an initial parenting management hearing, a conference in the nature of a mediation, so that separating parties with children can discuss arrangements in relation to the parenting of those children, and, if they can be encouraged to reach agreement at that stage, the matter does not have to proceed through— (Time expired)
Pensions and Benefits
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (14:38): My question is to Senator Ryan, Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. The Parliamentary Budget Office recently calculated, at my request, that Australian taxpayers provide $15 billion of welfare to 870,000 people who live in Australia but are not Australian citizens, of whom 710,000 are not covered by a bilateral welfare agreement with another country. To put this in perspective, it means that a family of four people in Western Sydney hands $2,500 a year to the government, which then gives it to people who are not Australians. Is the government open to considering reduced access to welfare for noncitizens, particularly those who are not refugees? If not, how would you justify this expenditure to the family of four from Penrith who are paying for it?
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (14:39): I thank Senator Leyonhjelm for the question and for his provision of some notice of it to me, shortly before question time. The government is committed to ensuring Australia's strong welfare system is affordable and sustainable for the future, while providing targeted support to Australians most in need. The government has also committed to ensuring the residency based nature of the welfare system. As part of the budget brought down last night, the government will strengthen the residency requirement for pensioners.
From 1 July next year, to qualify for the age pension or disability support pension a person will be required to have 10 years continuous residence in Australia, with five years of this residence during either their working life or time not receiving an activity-tested income support payment. In circumstances where the person does not meet these requirements, they will be required to have 15 years continuous Australian residence before being eligible to receive the age pension or DSP. This measure ensures pensions are better targeted to those who have resided in Australia for an extended period, including during their working life, or who have been self-reliant.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Leyonhjelm, a supplementary question.
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (14:41): Minister, do you think that skilled migrants consider eligibility for welfare when deciding to come to Australia? Or do you think eligibility for welfare would be a bigger consideration for family reunion migrants?
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (14:41): I again thank Senator Leyonhjelm for the notice that allowed me to get some information on this. On a personal level, I am not entirely sure I am well qualified to answer that. Australia's welfare system is based on residency, with access to taxpayer funded payments generally restricted to citizens and to permanent residents. This includes waiting periods for newly arrived permanent residents before access to most income support payments and qualifying periods for the age pension and DSP, including the changes I have just outlined.
The community expects that migrants to Australia should be self-sufficient or rely on family members for support. They should not expect to be supported by Australian taxpayers, particularly if they arrive close to retirement age or have been a long-term recipient of an activity-tested payment such as the Newstart allowance. In line with these expectations, the government will reinforce the residency based nature of Australia's pension system by increasing the residency requirements to qualify, as I outlined in my earlier answer.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Leyonhjelm, a final supplementary question.
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (14:42): I believe terrible policy outcomes like widespread eligibility for welfare occur because bad policies are handed down from one government to another and we fail to take a fresh look at how money is being spent. Do you think our welfare spending would look the same as it does now if we started from scratch? If not, how would you change it?
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (14:42): The government is committed to ensuring Australia has a strong welfare safety net, while we maintain the integrity of the system to ensure it is affordable and sustainable. Taxpayers rightly expect that those who can work should work, and the government announced a comprehensive suite of reforms in last night's budget to act on that expectation. The budget includes a simplification of seven working-age payments into a single jobseeker payment. This will be complemented by improvements to mutual obligations and compliance by the Minister for Employment. The suite of measures is designed to ensure that appropriate support is provided to help jobseekers into employment and to improve the long-term sustainability of the system. In response to the question about my own personal opinion, it is not my portfolio, so it is probably best I do not comment.
Budget
Senator KETTER (Queensland) (14:43): My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Cormann. Can the minister confirm that, under the Turnbull government, gross debt will pass half a trillion dollars in coming months, a total of $20,000 for every Australian man, woman and child?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:43): What I can confirm is that gross debt will be lower than it would have been under Labor. That is what I can confirm. But don't take my word for it; look at your pre-election costings. Labor went to the last election fessing up to $16.5 billion in bigger deficits, and do you know what? That came after $100 billion in additional taxes.
Senator Wong interjecting—
Senator CORMANN: I take the interjection here from Senator Wong. She has had a lot to say about the level of tax. Well, this government maintains a 23.9 per cent tax-as-a-share-of-GDP cap. Guess who got rid of it in their pre-election costings. Guess who got rid of the tax-as-a-share-of-GDP cap. It was the Labor Party. The Labor Party went to the last election with a commitment to higher taxes, breaking through the 23.9 per cent tax-as-a-share-of-GDP barrier, and was still delivering bigger deficits and delivering bigger and higher debt numbers. So we do not take any lessons from the Labor Party when it comes to good fiscal management. The people across Australia understand that the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments left the budget in a mess and that it came down to the coalition government to again clean up that Labor mess—and we are doing precisely that.
Senator Wong: You made it worse.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Wong.
Senator Wong: That is what you have done; you have made it worse.
Government senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my right as well. Senator Ketter, a point of order?
Senator Ketter: Yes, a point of order on direct relevance. My question related directly to the fact that gross debt would pass half a trillion dollars in coming months. The minister went nowhere near answering that question.
The PRESIDENT: Well, he went very close to answering. He did confirm something, but probably not the exact question. I call the minister.
Senator CORMANN: The hide! Let me say to the good senator that the numbers are of course all published in the budget papers. I know that the Labor Party comes into this chamber trying to play cute games. But let me tell you this: this government continues to work to fix up the mess that you left behind. You guys were spending like drunken sailors. You guys were putting us on a deficit and debt trajectory over the long term that we are still trying to sort out. We are now on track to bring the budget back into surplus by 2020-21, to the tune of $7.4 billion. We are now on track with a situation where net debt will peak as a share of GDP at 19.8 per cent in the 2018-19 financial year.
Senator Wong: Higher than it was.
Senator CORMANN: Senator Wong says 'higher'. That is because Labor— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ketter, a supplementary question.
Senator KETTER (Queensland) (14:46): Minister, given that in 2009 Mr Turnbull described the then approximately $200 billion of gross debt as 'colossal', 'unprecedented', a 'mountain' and a 'summit', what words would you use to describe Prime Minister Turnbull's projected gross debt of $725 billion?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:47): As I said, the debt is less than it would have been under Labor. Let me just explain to the chamber the little dishonest trick that Labor used in their budget to hide the true budget numbers. They imposed an assumption on their spending forecast that spending over the medium term would not go up by more than two per cent above inflation at the same time as making policy decisions that were ramping up spending by 3.7 per cent, year on year, above inflation—nearly double, year on year. Everybody knows that—
Senator Wong interjecting—
Senator CORMANN: If you want to look at it, look at the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook in the lead-up to the 2013 election. The Treasury and Finance secretaries were so embarrassed by what Labor did in government that they felt the need to spell it out. They felt the need to spell it out because Labor were trying to fool the Australian people, suggesting that they would control spending without telling anyone where savings would come from. This government had to do the hard yards to fix up your mess, as we always do.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ketter, a final supplementary question.
Senator KETTER (Queensland) (14:48): Minister, I refer to Senator Abetz, who on Monday said, 'We do have a debt and deficit disaster.' Given that the deficit is 10 times bigger for the coming year than was predicted in the Liberal's first budget, is it safe to assume that nobody is listening to Senator Abetz?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:48): The thing that the Labor Party does not understand is that the decisions we make today have medium- to long-term consequences. The decisions that Labor made between 2007 and 2013, locking in unsustainable, unaffordable spending growth, still have consequences today. We are still dealing with the consequences of Labor's fiscal mismanagement. Let me say it again very clearly: the budget, the economy, today is in better shape than it would be if Labor had still been in government, because we have been making significant progress in fixing up the mess that Labor made of our budget.
Budget
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:49): My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Senator Nash. Can the minister outline how this budget will help to secure the future of regional Australia?
Senator NASH (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of The Nationals, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Local Government and Territories and Minister for Regional Communications) (14:49): I thank the senator for his question and his ongoing tireless work for regional communities. This is a budget about fairness, security and opportunity, and that is exactly what we will be providing for regional Australia. We are investing in regional communities because we know that when we have strong regions, we have a strong nation. The regions provide the water for the cities, provide the food for the cities and provide the energy for the cities. Indeed, people in the cities every morning when they wake up should thank regional Australia for their way of life.
We are seeing in this budget $200 million extra for the Building Better Regions Fund, taking the total amount available for that fund to almost half a billion dollars. That fund provides investment in our local regional communities for things like infrastructure, airports, tourism and local leadership, where we see local people taking those ideas forward.
Senator Polley: You're not doing anything for Tasmania. You're punishing us because we threw the Liberals out!
Senator NASH: I wish I had time to take Senator Polley's interjection that we are not doing it for Tasmania, because I do not know what she has missed. All of the things I am talking about apply to Tasmania as well. We have also seen $272 million in the budget for major regional projects. It is going to invest in communities in regions undergoing economic change. There is going to be Commonwealth funding of over $10 million for each of these projects. This shows that it is this coalition government that has the confidence in our regional communities. We back those communities and respect them to be able to drive their future and take their communities forward so that they have a stronger future.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Williams, a supplementary question.
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:51): I thank the minister for answering. Minister, what other measures in this budget will improve the lives of regional Australians, regardless of where they live?
Senator NASH (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of The Nationals, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Local Government and Territories and Minister for Regional Communications) (14:51): It is a shame really that those on the other side did not spend more time developing rural policy than they do interjecting. Let me tell you that there is plenty we are doing for Tasmania and all of regional Australia. We are seeing now $15 million for the regional education hubs. This is going to allow our students in regional communities to access university education from their regional locations. There is $9 million going for access to telehealth for psychologists. For the first time, Medicare is going to foot the bill for this for rural and remote locations. There is $8.4 billion for the inland rail. For the first time under this coalition government the inland rail is going to be built, opening up a corridor of commerce from Melbourne to Brisbane. Those on the other side should stop carping and get on board.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Williams, final supplementary question.
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:52): I have a tricky question now. Is the minister aware of any alternative approach to regional development?
Senator NASH (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of The Nationals, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Local Government and Territories and Minister for Regional Communications) (14:53): On this side we do understand it, unlike the potentially three out of 26 senators on the other side who have any connection at all to regional Australia. That side brought in a carbon tax, which hurt regional Australia harder than anywhere else. They banned the live export trade, which, as my colleague Senator O'Sullivan was so eloquently talking about this morning, decimated parts of Australia. There was not one single dollar for mobile phone black spots. How many dollars? Zero. They put a second satellite up for Sky Muster. They were actually just going to let it bob around up there as backup. We were the ones who utilised it to increase the data for the community. When in government, those on the other side decimated the department of agriculture, cutting their funding by half. Those on the other side should stop whingeing, start thinking and get on board with the coalition.
Budget
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (14:54): My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. Can the minister confirm that tax receipts will reach 22.2 per cent of GDP in 2017-18, making him the highest-taxing finance minister in a decade?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:54): I can confirm the numbers published in the budget papers. That is No. 1. No. 2 is this government is maintaining a very clear fiscal discipline. This government—and this has been the case for some time—has imposed on our revenue projections an assumption that tax as a share of GDP will not ever go past 23.9 per cent.
What has the Labor Party done? The Labor Party has removed that discipline. The Labor Party has removed that cap. When Labor went to the last election, they went with pre-election costings, letting tax as a share of GDP rip. There was no upward limit at all—none, zip, zero. Essentially, you were saying that there was no level of tax that could be taken out of the economy that was too high. You went to the last election saying there is no limit to how much tax we could take out of the economy, suggesting that somehow it would not hurt growth and would not hurt jobs.
This government is disciplined. This government is disciplined on the spending side and disciplined on the revenue side. We are raising as much as we need in order to be able to fund the essential services that Australians rely on. We are making sure that money is spent as wisely and efficiently and effectively as possible. Spending as a share of GDP is now, over the forward estimates, projected to go down to 25 per cent, which is actually very close to the long-term average of 24.8 per cent. When we came into government, it was headed for 26.5 per cent within the decade and rising. That is the trajectory that we inherited from Senator Wong as finance minister: spending as a share of GDP was heading for 26.5 per cent and rising over the medium term at the time. We have arrested the increase. We have brought spending growth under control. Instead of 3.7 per cent growth in spending year on year, we brought it down to below two per cent, on average, over the forward estimates per year. In the 2017-18 forward estimates, spending growth is under control. Spending as a share of GDP is lower now than it was— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Polley, a supplementary question.
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (14:56): In February, Minister Cormann said:
We do not want to increase taxes. Our commitment is to lower taxes.
He said:
The Liberal-National Party Coalition is the party of lower taxes.
Can the minister confirm that, under Prime Minister Turnbull, the Liberal-National coalition is now the party of higher taxes?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:57): I thank Senator Polley for that question because it gives me the opportunity to confirm that I stand by that statement. The coalition is the party of lower taxes. Our instinct always is to keep taxes as low as possible. Here is the reality: we inherited a spending growth trajectory that was unaffordable, unfunded and unsustainable. Since the 2014-15 budget, we have worked as hard as we can to reduce spending. Senator Wong and the Senate would well remember—she is not taking this very seriously right now—that the Senate was not prepared to support about $14.7 billion worth of spending reductions. Given that we are committed to bringing the budget back into surplus, because that is what is required out of fairness to future generations and what is required for our economy, revenue measures were the only other alternative to make up the difference. As Senator Macdonald said, it is essentially a tax that is caused by the Senate. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Polley, a final supplementary question.
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (14:58): Given that this budget breaks the minister's own commitments, is former Prime Minister Abbott's Chief of Staff, Peta Credlin, correct when, referring to the budget, she says:
It was short on Liberal values and long on survival instincts for a Prime Minister ...
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:58): Firstly, I do not accept Senator Polley's characterisation that I am somehow not sticking to my commitment. The government is absolutely stuck to the commitment that taxes will be as low as possible. Given the position adopted by the Senate to not support all of the savings that were reflected in our past budgets, we had to make some pragmatic and responsible decisions on the revenue side of the budget. We stand by that. That was not our first preference. That is not what we really wanted to do, but we had no choice.
In relation to the other part of the question, Senator Polley and the Labor Party might think this is all a game, but, you know what, on this side of the parliament, we actually care for our country. We care about making the right decisions for our country on the strongest possible foundations and projection of the future. This is serious business. Do not come in here with your juvenile political game. Do not come in here with your— (Time expired)
Employment
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:59): My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. Will the minister advise the Senate how the Turnbull government's Skilling Australians Fund is providing long-term funding certainty to drive better outcomes for students, apprentices and employers?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (15:00): I thank Senator Fawcett for his question and his strong interest in relation to the skills that Australians receive, particularly the skills they receive in non-university pathways to ensure that they are equipped to access job opportunities in the future and that our economy receives the types of skills in its potential employees that allow businesses to grow and the Australian economy to grow overall. That is why one of the stand-out policies announced in last night's budget was the new $1.5 billion Skilling Australians Fund—not another dodgy national partnership agreement, the likes of which those opposite have negotiated in the past and that just saw cost-shifting onto the Commonwealth, but a new, perpetual, fully funded Skilling Australians Fund to deliver investment in skills to fill Australian jobs, investment that will deliver around 300,000 new training opportunities and new apprenticeships over the next four years. This will give young Australians the opportunity to secure a great job, a great career—the types of careers that often mean they go on to be the small-business people and employers of the future, running their own businesses with the trade background they have secured and employing other Australians.
The Skilling Australians Fund would be targeted towards priority occupations and growth industries. These include but are not limited to key industries right across Australia, like tourism and hospitality, health and ageing, agriculture, engineering, manufacturing, building and construction, and the digital technologies. We are re-engineering the relationship between the Commonwealth and the states and territories in vocational education and training to ensure that every dollar the Commonwealth invests is matched by investment alongside it from the states and territories in the real creation of training places to support Australians to get the skills they need in the future.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Fawcett, a supplementary question?
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (15:02): Can the minister inform the Senate of how apprentices, including in my home state of South Australia, will benefit from the new intensive mentoring support to help them complete their apprenticeships?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (15:02): In addition to the $1½ billion Skilling Australians Fund, we are thrilled to be delivering a $60 million industry specialised mentoring service. I acknowledge that this commitment towards mentoring and services to support apprentices is widespread and has been advocated by Senator Griff from the Nick Xenophon Team as well as other senators. It will engage key industry and VET stakeholders to provide around 47,000 apprentices with the intensive support they need. The policy aim is, of course, to increase retention rates in Australian apprentices, particularly during the critical first two years of training, which can help lift completions, focusing especially on industries that are restructuring or transitioning, such as the South Australian automotive industry—which, of course, is also benefiting from the $100 million automotive advanced manufacturing investment that my colleague Senator Sinodinos is helping to deliver.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Fawcett, a final supplementary question?
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (15:03): Could the minister apprise the Senate as to how the budget's apprenticeship reforms have been received?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (15:03): Those who employ apprentices, those who create the opportunities for apprentices, have warmly welcomed these policies of the Turnbull government. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said:
We welcome the Skilling Australians Fund's efforts to improve the skills of the Australian workforce, particularly via apprenticeships.
Ai Group said:
It gives welcome support for apprenticeships and traineeships through the new Skilling Australians Fund.
And the Master Builders Association said that they welcome the announcement of the $1½ billion Skilling Australians Fund and the additional 300,000 apprentices in partnership with state and territory governments. They said that it is funding that should enable the training that leads to strong employment outcomes for young Australians in industries where there is jobs growth, such as the building and construction industry. This is about delivering real benefits for young Australians to access real jobs in the future and ensuring that there is the support to fill those places and create the job opportunities for young Australians.
Senator Brandis: Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper
eoqt
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
Veterans
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:04): Senator Lambie yesterday asked me if the government's proposal extending the gold card to atomic veterans covers their children. I can advise Senator Lambie that these arrangements do not extend to the children or dependants of an eligible British nuclear test participant or British Commonwealth occupying force veterans. The government has allocated $133.1 million in the budget over the forward estimates to provide a gold card from 1 July 2017 to veterans and civilians involved in the British nuclear test program in Australia in the 1950s and 1960s, as well as veterans who took part in the occupation of Japan immediately after World War II as part of the British Commonwealth occupying force.
The gold card will be provided under the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006 and will effectively extend non-liability treatment eligibility already available to British nuclear test participants under this act for cancer treatment to cover for all conditions. The gold card for British Commonwealth occupying forces veterans will also be provided under the BNT Act, which will be renamed to recognise its expanded coverage. The measure will provide the approximately 1,800 surviving British nuclear test participants and the approximately 1,100 surviving British Commonwealth occupying forces veterans with access to treatment for any condition under the DVA gold card arrangements as and from 1 July 2017.
Budget
Senator RYAN (Victoria—Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet) (15:06): I have some additional information to add to the question I had from Senator Siewert earlier today. Risk profiling will be used to identify particular characteristics that indicate a higher risk of substance misuse issues. Jobseekers with these characteristics will be selected randomly from within the broader group. Risk profiling will help to maximise the chances of identifying those jobseekers who may need help to overcome their substance abuse. Risk profiling will be based on a broad range of characteristics, including where we are already aware that jobseekers have substance abuse issues. However, this does not mean that only those who have an identified history of substance abuse will be selected.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Question Nos 408 and 410
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:07): Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Brandis, for an explanation as to why an answer has not been provided to question No. 408, regarding the decision by Australia not to participate in the UN Conference to Negotiate a Legally Binding Instrument to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons, Leading Towards Their Total Elimination and, secondly, question No. 410, regarding Israel's automatic prosecution of Palestinian children in military courts. These questions were asked on 17 March of this year. I understand some notice has been provided to the foreign minister's office that I was intending to raise this. I would be interested to see whether the minister can enlighten us as to why answers to these questions are so long overdue.
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:08): I note that you say you have provided notice, but I am advised that my office has not received any notice that you were going to raise this matter today. But given you have done so, I will have a look into it.
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:09): I move:
That the Senate take note of Senator Brandis's contribution.
I understand the Attorney is here in a representing capacity. I hope that lines of communication are open between your office and that of the foreign minister, but we will leave that to you to explain. I will speak at some length on the matters raised in question 408 and briefly on question 410. I will speak to the substance of the questions.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Senator Ludlam. Senator Brandis?
Senator Brandis: I rise on a point of order. What Senator Ludlam is taking note of is my answer, but what he has foreshadowed that he proposes to speak about is the substance of the issue raised by the question. Now, my answer was that my office has not been advised of the fact that he proposed to raise this issue today. In those circumstances, it seems impossible that anything beyond noting the fact that my office has not been advised that he proposed to raise this issue could be relevant. I am not seeking to limit Senator Ludlam, of course, from addressing this issue at the appropriate time, but no motion to take notice of an answer that my office has not been advised of the matter that he proposed to raise could possibly be relevant.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Brandis. In taking note, Senator Ludlam is free to either take note of the explanation or take note of no explanation, and in his response he can be wide-ranging and can canvass the issues that it seems he was going to.
Senator Brandis: I put a further point of order. Neither of those are alternatives of what I said. What I said is my office has not been advised of the matter that Senator Ludlam proposed to raise. Now, Madam Deputy President, I have not explained why the questions have not been answered and I have not said that the questions have been answered. I simply do not know, because my office has not been advised of Senator Ludlam's intention to raise this matter. That is all I have said, and that is all that can be taken note of.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Brandis. Advising beforehand is a convention, and Senator Ludlam has said he advised, and you have indicated that your office did not receive that advice. It is a convention. If you look at standing order 74 and, in particular, at 74(5)(c), it says:
in the event that the minister does not provide an explanation, the senator may, without notice, move a motion with regard to the minister's failure to provide either an answer or an explanation.
Senator O'Sullivan? Senator Brandis, Senator O'Sullivan has the call; please resume your seat.
Senator O'Sullivan: I am happy to yield to Senator Brandis.
Senator Brandis: With great respect, Madam Deputy President, you are completely missing the point here. I have not provided an explanation and—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Brandis!
Senator Brandis: I am moving a point of order.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think you are now debating.
Senator Brandis: No, I am not; I am taking a point of order.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You are debating.
Senator Brandis: I am not; I am taking a point of order, and I ask you to listen to the point of order before you rule on it.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If it is the same as the previous one—
Senator Brandis: No, it is not.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Make your point then.
Senator Brandis: Madam Deputy President, I am not providing an explanation and I am not failing to provide an explanation. I am merely advising the Senate that my office has not been advised of this matter being raised today; that is all. That is the only thing that I have said, and that is the only thing that, therefore, note may be taken of.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Brandis. It is the same as the previous point you raised, and I have answered that. Senator O'Sullivan.
Senator O'Sullivan: I am seeking some guidance from you, Madam Deputy President. I am the second speaker on this list today, and I am entitled, of course, to express myself in relation to this topic, but there is no topic upon which I could prepare.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator O'Sullivan, we are on a different matter. I will explain to you where we are up to. We are not at the point of taking note. Senator Ludlam has, quite correctly, stood up and sought the call, and he is referring to standing order 74(5).
Senator LUDLAM: I note that Senator Brandis appears to be abusing a courtesy and a custom of this place.
Senator Brandis: That is very unfair.
Senator LUDLAM: It is not unfair, Senator Brandis, and you know that it is not.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Through the chair.
Senator LUDLAM: Through the chair, I am just going to focus my remarks on the fact that I notified the foreign minister's office. Her failure to contact you, as the representing minister, or your failure to pick up the phone is not my problem, nor is it the Senate's problem. So I will address my comments briefly to the unanswered questions on notice. They were placed on the Notice Paper on 17 March. The custom in this place is that within 30 days the Senate is provided with a reply, and that has not occurred. Senator Brandis has failed to provide the Senate with any satisfactory explanation as to why these questions remain unanswered. The substance is the decision by the Australian government, I would argue, an unprecedented decision, under longstanding policy by both Liberal and Labor governments to participate in good faith in negotiations at the United Nations level to work towards the elimination of the existence of nuclear weapons. And it is a remarkable lapse—
Senator Ian Macdonald: Madam Deputy President, on a point of order on the grounds of relevance: the motion is to take note of the answer given by Senator Brandis. It had nothing to do with the United Nations. It had nothing to do with violence. Senator Brandis's answer, as I heard it, was simply to say that his office had not been contacted. Senator Ludlam can debate why Senator Brandis's office was not contacted, that he does not have efficient system, or the minister he is representing did the wrong thing. That would be part of a legitimate debate, but talking about the United Nations has nothing to do with the answer given by Senator Brandis.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Macdonald. That is very similar to the point that Senator Brandis raised and I have already made a decision in relation to that. Please continue, Senator Ludlam.
Senator LUDLAM: This is starting to stray very close to disrespecting the ruling that you gave quite some time ago.
An opposition senator interjecting—
Senator LUDLAM: Yes, it is.
Senator Ian Macdonald: You have got to follow the standing orders.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order!
Senator LUDLAM: Between them, you might learn something, Senator Macdonald, if you just keep your trap shut.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Ludlam, please direct your comments to the chair.
Senator LUDLAM: I am in enough trouble as it is, I will do so. Nine nations between them, today, hold more than 15,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenals. And some of them—most of them—are vastly more powerful than the weapons that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Australia was one of the founding nations of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. It was signed in 1968 and it came into effect in March 1970. Today, there are 190 signatures to that international agreement, and I am proud that Australia is one of them. There are actually only nine states in the world left that remain outside this international agreement. These are countries such as South Sudan, North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel. These countries have turned their backs on the international rules-based order and insist on maintaining and deploying these weapons, despite global international agreement as far back as the late 1960s that these devices should be abolished. But Australia has remained a part of this agreement. And I would argue that over time, we have played on occasion an extremely confused role but, on some occasions, a really important and constructive role, particularly under the Labor governments and under Labor prime ministers and foreign ministers. But there are some achievements that you could notably point to on the other side as well.
Article 1 of the nuclear nonproliferation agreement goes to importance of nonproliferation—no transfer. It is one of the reasons that Australia has signed up to—what I would argue would be an ineffective, nonetheless they are there at least on paper—agreements that we will not sell uranium to states that will then divert that material into nuclear weapons. It is a documented fact that Australia sells to many nuclear weapon states. We sell uranium from South Australia and from the Northern Territory, from a dwindling number of uranium mines to nuclear weapon states—we do that. But there are processes on paper that are meant to safeguard against diversion of that material into nuclear weapons programs. We would argue that simply tipping Australian uranium into a bucket, and then tipping out a certain amount for civil nuclear power and a certain amount for nuclear weapons is thoroughly ineffective. But those agreements stand for a reason: that uranium remains today the only fuel for an energy source that is also a source for weapons of mass destruction.
Article 1 of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty says no to the proliferation of technology that would allow countries to do what North Korea or India did, which was take these devices, these plants, these processing facilities, meant the civil nuclear power and immediately—not through any change of technology but really just a flick of a policy switch—turn those facilities over to fissile material production for nuclear weapons programs. The nonproliferation regime has, when compared with some of the more dire predictions from the fifties, sixties and seventies that proposed that maybe by now, by 2017, we would have 20 or 30 countries deploying nuclear weapons, ensured there is a much smaller number.
Article 6 of the nuclear nonproliferation agreement is, if anything, even more important. This is the article that binds nuclear weapons states and their allies, such as Australia, to participate in good-faith negotiations leading to total and complete nuclear weapons disarmament. Sometimes you could imagine, maybe, in a foreign minister's or a Prime Minister's office that this agreement only relates to nonproliferation—other people cannot have nukes, but we are comfortable with those who do. But, in fact, the agreement that we signed up to nearly 50 years ago says that all nuclear weapons states under this agreement are obliged to negotiate for complete and total disarmament of these weapons. That is the agreement that we signed up to.
So how are we going 47 years later with these good-faith negotiations? The first point to note is that compared to the height of the Cold War there are fewer of these weapons in the arsenals of the world's nuclear weapons states. There are fewer. Negotiations have taken place between governments of the United States and Russia—or the Soviet Union at the time—to stand down many of these weapons. That did occur. That is possible. It can happen. But are these negotiations proceeding in good faith towards disarmament? No, they are not. We know they are not because every nuclear weapons state in the world, bar none, is currently actively refreshing, renewing, redeploying, redesigning their nuclear weapons arsenals—47 years after that agreement came into effect.
It does not catch rogue states like North Korea or Israel who stay outside these binding international agreements. But it should catch the policy and doctrine of states like the United States, the government of Russia and the government of China. But we know that the United States government is redeveloping nuclear weapons. We know that the government of Great Britain is proposing to rebuild its Trident submarine capability and that Russian rearmament is a matter of record. This is not good faith. This is the opposite of good faith. While negotiations are bogged down in the United Nations, the nuclear weapons states are not only refusing to disarm but actively maintaining and upgrading their nuclear weapons stockpiles.
On 6 August 1945, the United States government dropped a 16-kilotonne weapon on the people of Hiroshima in the closing days of the Second World War. Sixteen kilotonne means the equivalent of 16,000 tonnes of TNT in one device dropped from one aircraft. A device of that destructive power completely destroyed an area one mile across, killed 70,000 to 80,000 people in the blast wave and resulting firestorm, killed 30 per cent of the population of Hiroshima and created 70,000 injuries immediately. Goodness only knows how many casualties there have been over the longer term from radiation sickness. That compounds through the generations.
Over Nagasaki three days later, a 21-kilotonne plutonium weapon detonated and immediately and instantly killed 40,000 people—one device dropped from one aircraft. A 21-kilotonne weapon is the largest nuclear weapon that has even been used against people, a civilian population, in a time of war—to say nothing of those devices that were tested on Australian service personnel and unwittingly on the Aboriginal people who were bombed off their lands around Maralinga and the Montebellos in the northwest of WA.
I say without reservation that Minister Dan Tehan should be congratulated by everybody in this place for doing what he could to right that historic injustice for, as Senator Brandis provided some details on in supplementary answers to Senator Lambie a short time ago, those personnel who, in service to their country, were bombed and exposed to nuclear radiation by an ally, the British government, in the 1950s and 1960s. Minister Tehan has done what the previous Labor government refused to do and what other governments have refused to do all the way back into 1950s and 1960s, which was acknowledge that those horrific wrongs were done to Australian personnel and to Aboriginal families living in the immediate area.
A 21-kilotonne weapon remains the largest used on a population in wartime. But, in 1961, the Russian soviet government tested a 57-megaton hydrogen bomb—equivalent to 57 million tonnes of TNT; an unimaginably destructive weapon. It is the largest nuclear weapon that has ever been tested because, at about that time, global civil society had discovered the incredibly damaging effects of the global spread of nuclear fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing and had begun to draw the nuclear powers back into line so that nuclear weapon testing would cease.
In 2014, a coalition of medical experts convened a conference in Vienna—a humanitarian initiative—effectively, to put before the governments of the world and global civil society the argument that, in the event of the use of nuclear weapons, the global medical community will not be able to help. There is no kind of healthcare system or emergency support structure that you can put in place to remediate the damage done to civilian populations by the effects of nuclear weapons. That message was heard loud and clear. That set in motion an open-ended working group within the United Nations setting out a process, finally, to make these weapons illegal in international law—illegal in the same way that chemical weapons, biological weapons and cluster munitions are illegal. Not everybody signs up; you do not wait for North Korea or Syria to sign up to pass an agreement like this into international law. Countries of good will get together, they craft international law and then they sign up, like Australia did with the NPT.
We have some questions for the Australian government as to why—given 47 years of what I would argue would be deliberate paralysis and the opposite of good-faith negotiations to ban these weapons and, with the first crack in the armour that we see, moves by global civil society and a majority of governments around the world to ban these weapons and to finally have them accepted and understood to be illegal tools of genocide under international law—Australia would participate in a boycott of those negotiations. How is that good faith? How is that anything other than sabotage? That, effectively, is what our questions to the foreign minister go to. That was what we wanted to see an answer to when we put these questions to the minister on 17 March.
What are the reasons for the decision by Australia not to participate in the UN conference? Were we told not to participate by the US government, because there was some heavy-duty arm twisting going on from the nuclear-weapon states and their client states in advance of the open-ended working group's determination to actually put this to the UN First Committee. Is it the fact that it settled Australian defence doctrine, in successive white papers under governments of both flavours, that Australia relies on the US nuclear weapons umbrella? Given everything that we know about the effect of these weapons—the humanitarian catastrophe that unfolds when populations are bombed by these devices—and all that we know in the many, many years since those days, three days apart, in August 1945, is it still a matter of fact in Australia's defence doctrine that we would support, under some conditions, the use of US nuclear weapons in defence of Australia? Is that why we are boycotting these talks? Is that why the US government demanded that we not participate? Did they even need to demand, or did we just fold? It is unprecedented, in my experience, that the Australian government would sit this out.
There is an argument to be made that we are better off out of the room, if all we were intending to do was sabotage the talks as we so clearly attempted. Our diplomats, what an utter disgrace—attempting to sabotage the work of the open-ended working group. Maybe it is better that we are out of the room. What would be better than that would be to be in the room, arguing in good faith for the banning of these weapons. For a nuclear umbrella state like Australia to be doing so would be of enormous consequence.
One country after another will sign onto this agreement. The closing negotiations are occurring in June and July 2017. I intend to be in New York when that is happening. I think it is going to be an absolutely historic moment. Australia can be left behind by that—we can go under the wheels as a saboteur or, as we have been called in these negotiations, a 'weasel state'—or we can be part of the movement to bring into effect that agreement that was signed in 1970. That is where I think most Australians want us to be.
I want to acknowledge and celebrate the work of ICAN, which started in Melbourne, here in Australia, and is now a global movement, helping to unite a deep and old and very wise civil society collection of movements from around the world. It is a movement that got its start after that white flash on 6 August 1945. ICAN, started in Melbourne, is a successful Australian export, I would argue—and those governments and civil society partners around the world who have made this happen. Where the hell is Australia? Where are we? We should be in the room and we should be doing our bit to bring this agreement to a close and ban these weapons, once and for all.
I will also make brief reference, as I said I would at the outset, to the non-response to question on notice No. 410, which relates to Israel's prosecution of Palestinian children in military courts. My Senate colleague Janet Rice will have more to say on this, because she has seen the situation up close. I want to draw the Senate's attention to a report by UNICEF in March 2013. It is titled Children in Israeli military detention. It found that the ill-treatment of children who come in contact with the Israeli military detention system appears to be widespread, systematic and institutionalised through the process, from the moment of arrest until the child's prosecution and eventual conviction and sentencing. The report by UNICEF made 38 recommendations, which the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it would study and work to implement in cooperation with UNICEF.
What has changed since 2013? In May of last year the Israel Prison Service stopped regular monthly prison statistics. They just stopped collecting them, or maybe they stopped publishing them, in accordance with the freedom of information application from the Israeli organisation B’Tselem. Despite repeated requests, it is the first time in more than 15 years that the IPS has not disclosed the number of adults and children held in its facilities on a regular basis. We know from the latest public figures that 319 children were held in military detention at the end of August 2016. We were not able to find anything more recent than that. But even that is an 82 per cent increase compared with the monthly average for 2015. And 10 of these children were being held without charge or trial in administrative detention.
Senator Rice, as I said, who has seen this system in operation up close and has much more current information than has been published or that we were able to find, will make some remarks. But our request to the Australian government is to have observers at these trials. It was actually an undertaking of the former foreign minister. There is something that Australia can do. It is not going to be good enough to hear that because these things happen on the other side of the world there is nothing we can do. Australia, at least at a government level, as a staunch supporter of the government of Israel, can do a lot—and we can certainly do more than we are doing. I thank the Senate.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Senator Rice?
Senator RICE (Victoria) (15:32): Thank you, Madam Deputy President.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Senator Rice.
Senator Brandis interjecting—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Rice stood first but—
Senator Brandis: No, I was standing and I take—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Brandis, you were walking across there, but Senator Rice has sat down so you have the call.
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:33): Thank you very much, Senator Rice, I appreciate that. Madam Deputy President, for the second time today we have seen an abuse by the Greens of the process of this chamber. The first abuse of process we saw was when the Senate sat this morning, and a motion was moved by a Greens senator, Senator Whish-Wilson, to, in effect, debate the budget, although it was clear to all senators that the program of Senate business for this week provided an opportunity tomorrow evening for party leaders and other senators to make statements, in relation to the budget. So the responsible parties in this chamber, the grown-up political parties—the government and opposition—defeated the attempt to abuse the process of the Senate.
We have, again, seen an attempt by Senator Ludlam to abuse the process of the Senate by wrongly invoking the procedure provided for by standing order 74(5). Since Senator Ludlam rose I have made some inquiries.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Brandis, please resume your seat. Senator Ludlam.
Senator Ludlam: Madam Deputy President, on a point of order. In claiming that I have wrongly invoked the standing order, the Attorney-General—who has been here longer than me and should know better—is directly calling into question a ruling that you made at least four times, and I ask you to call him to order. If he is in a hurry to proceed with business he should sit down, but, at the very least, he should respect the ruling that you made a short time ago.
Senator BRANDIS: Madam Deputy President, on the point of order, for reasons that I am about to express, my assertion that Senator Ludlam has abused standing order 74(5) has nothing to do with the ruling you have lately given.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Brandis. I believe that you are within your rights to respond to Senator Ludlam's contribution in whatever way you want. So please continue.
Senator BRANDIS: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy President. Let me make it perfectly clear that, although we believe your ruling was wrong, we respect it because we respect your office.
Since Senator Ludlam rose to make the speech he has just made, I have now been advised of certain matters concerning the two questions on notice. Might I remind honourable senators that the purpose of standing order 74(5) is to require an explanation of a minister if the minister does not answer a question within the stipulated time, and the convention to which reference has been made in the debate on an earlier point of order is the convention or indeed the courtesy that a minister called upon to give an explanation will be given advance notice of that fact. And, as I say, that was not given.
I can now tell the Senate why that advance notice apparently was not given. Senator Ludlam's office first contacted the foreign minister's office to advise that this procedure was going to be invoked at 2.45 pm today—2.45 pm today—three-quarters of the way into question time. No doubt because the foreign minister's office had more important things to do—and the foreign minister being in question time, as, of course, was I—that request, made at 2.45 pm today, was not conveyed to my office by the time that Senator Ludlam got to his feet to move this motion. I leave it to all honourable senators to consider whether to give advance notice 15 minutes before the end of question time is a good faith invocation of standing order 74(5). Plainly it is not. So, Senator Ludlam, please do not come in here and get on your high horse and go on about 'bad faith' when you have, for the very purpose of giving the speech in which you accuse others of bad faith, engaged in the worst of bad faith and trickiness.
I can also advise the Senate that one of the two questions concerning which the answer was sought only fell due yesterday. That is the advice that I have been given. So, if there has been a default, it is a default of a matter of hours. Once again, it might be thought to be bad faith and trickiness for a senator to invoke this procedure in relation to a question the answer to which on any view is a few hours late. If you were genuinely interested in providing the answer, one would have thought that, as a matter of common courtesy and common sense, you would have contacted the foreign minister's office directly. But I am sorry to say that, when it comes to the trickiness and bad faith of Senator Ludlam, it gets even worse. I have also learnt that Senator Ludlam in fact had a meeting with the foreign minister herself as recently as this morning and never raised this matter with her. So I think we can draw our own conclusions about the way in which Senator Ludlam—not for the first time, I am sorry to say—has conducted himself in abusing the processes of this chamber.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (15:39): I also seek to take note of the minister's explanation; both parts of it. The question that I am concerned with, regarding Palestinian children in military detention in Israel, was put on notice by Senator Ludlam on 17 March. With 30 days to answer that question, it means that that question is at least a month overdue. I think that is more than enough notice to respond to this very significant issue.
The issue of children in detention is one that I know this parliament has had a very strong interest in for a very long time, whether it is children in detention in Australia or under Australia's control, or other children in detention, as in the case of these Palestinian children in Israel. There are currently approximately 300 children from the age of 12 jailed in Israeli military prisons. There are 6½ thousand Palestinian prisoners overall, 550 of whom are in administrative detention, which means that they are detained indefinitely without charge or trial. Of those 550, there are approximately 13 children who are being held in administrative detention, out of that total of around 300 children. International human rights law says that child detention should only be used as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period. This situation is continuing in Israel, and it is something that this Senate and this parliament have previously been interested in. It is very important that we get a timely response to concerns being expressed about it by the Senate.
There was a gathering here earlier this year that included a number of senators—myself, Senator Rhiannon, Senator Marshall—speaking out in support of the international movement to remove children from Israeli military jails. In fact, the concern about the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinian children goes back a number of years. Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, when he was foreign minister in 2011, responded to media coverage that was outlining the appalling treatment of Palestinian children in detention. In that media coverage, he was reported to have instructed Australian diplomats to visit juvenile military courts.
This was the background to my first question regarding this issue in December last year, when I asked—given that former foreign minister Kevin Rudd had instructed our diplomats in Israel to attend juvenile military courts—whether this had occurred. I got an answer—quite a timely answer, in fact—that said no; in the time since that was reported in 2011—some six years ago—no Australian diplomats had attended Israeli military courts as observers. That is the context for Senator Ludlam's question—which was a follow-up to my question from December. His question was, given that it was reported that foreign minister Rudd had directed our diplomats to attend these military courts, could the government explain why this directive was not followed; was there a counter-directive; and, if so, who issued this counter-directive? That is the question that we are still awaiting an answer to. The fact that we have had no response so far is a big concern.
I visited Israel and Palestine last month. I met with people who have been very concerned about this issue of abuse of human rights of children. They told me that diplomats from other countries regularly go and observe Israeli military courts. There are diplomats from the UK, the US, the European Union, the Netherlands, France, Spain, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Cyprus and the UN. But not Australia. When I was in Israel and Palestine we spoke to many people. We spoke to Israelis and Palestinians, people who were working to end the illegal military occupation of Palestine by Israel and to remove the illegal Israeli settlements. We spoke to the Israeli human rights organisation, B'Tselem. We spoke to the New Israel Fund. We spoke to the lawyer Gerard Horton, an Australian lawyer who heads up the organisation Military Court Watch, which has a particular focus on trying to get justice for these Palestinian children and trying to make sure that even what is set out in Israeli law is being followed.
When I was in Israel and Palestine, I observed the massive impact of the military occupation of Palestine: the huge military presence, the illegal Israeli settlements, the massive number—50,000—of demolitions of people's homes, the huge number of arrests of children and adults, the harassment, the control, the violence. The jailing of Palestinian children fits into that. I was particularly interested, given these questions that I had asked through the Senate, in what was actually happening in these Israeli military courts, so I took the opportunity to be the first Australian federal parliamentarian to visit one of the Israeli military courts—the Ofer military court, which is near Jerusalem—because there has been no former Australian federal politician and, as I said, not even a diplomat who has visited these courts.
I met there with the families of some of the children that had been arrested and were serving time in jail. In fact, I met with a number of mothers of children who were there, waiting for the trials of their 12- or 14-year-olds. They described to me the process that they were going through. First of all, the process was that they were there awaiting the trial of their child. They had been there since six o'clock in the morning because they were not given any particular time when their child's trial was going to be heard. Sometimes, if the weather was bad in these circumstances, they would have to wait out in the boiling sun or the pouring rain because of the inadequate facilities for the families of these children.
We talked to these mothers—there were about half-a-dozen of them—and we heard the same story from all of them. They told of their teenage sons being arrested at gunpoint at around two o'clock in the morning. That arrest occurred with 10 to 15 Israeli soldiers bashing down the doors of their home, coming into the house with their machine guns pointed at all members of the family and saying that they were going to arrest this young person. In many circumstances, they told us they were not even being told what this young person was being charged with. One of them said that all they were told at that stage was that he was a troublemaker, and she was admonished: 'Why don't you stop your son being a troublemaker?'
What then happens is that, given half the chance, these soldiers would drag off this 12- or 14-year-old in their pyjamas. Often, the parents have to struggle to even get their child properly dressed before they are dragged away in the middle of the night. They are then taken off—in often very violent ways—in the back of a truck to be taken into detention. The two charges that we heard about them then being charged with were throwing stones or incitement on Facebook. They were being charged with putting a comment on social media that was critical of the repressive regime that the Israeli government was keeping them under—of the oppressive military occupation that is recognised internationally as being unacceptable and that needs to end.
We were at the military court and attended one of these trials. In fact, we attempted to attend the trial of one of the young people and we were barred from doing so. Even though the Israeli standing orders for these trials say that, if there is support from the family, the trials of juveniles can be open and observers can be present. But the judge at that stage said no. It was his ruling that, because it was a juvenile, we were not to be there, so we were barred from attending that juvenile's trial, but we did manage to attend the trial of a 23-year-old.
The story of this 23-year-old was typical of the story of what young people in Palestine are up against. This 23-year-old had already served six months in prison, and his six months had been served because of incitement on Facebook. He had served his time and had managed to get back to studies and do his exams. He was studying accounting at a local university. And then he was arrested again, and the charge this time was that he had been talking to some friends—not even accused of leading the conversation. He was just talking with some friends who, it was alleged, had been talking about acquiring weapons. That was enough for him to be arrested again in the middle of the night and taken off to prison, and he was now there shackled in this military court.
Because we were there in the court hearing, I think it actually had a significant bearing on the trial. We heard that these Israeli military courts have a 99.7 per cent prosecution rate. That is because if you are a 14-year-old or 23-year-old who is being accused of something like incitement on Facebook, you are encouraged to plead guilty. If you plead guilty, you are likely to get a prison term of three to four months. But if you do not plead guilty and if you contest the charge, you are likely to be in detention for over six months. But we were there, and the judge, I think, knew there were observers in that courtroom, and there was what seemed to be a blue moon miracle—the 0.03 per cent of circumstances where the charges were dismissed. The family was extremely happy for our presence there as observers in that military court. That is the context of why it is so important for observers to be present, to actually let the Israeli government know that the world is listening and that their human rights abuses and complete abrogation of international law are being seen and watched. It is something that Australia can do.
Australia is seen as being one of the very strongest allies of Israel in the world. So, as one of Israel's very best friends in the world, we are in a position where we can do what other nations cannot—that is, to be honest with our best friends and to tell them when something they are doing is not appropriate and that it should cease. I think it is of critical importance that our diplomats do take up that opportunity, like the diplomats of other countries all around the world, to be there as observers. It is something very practical that Australia can do to help keep the pressure on Israel, to actually be serious about their expressed intent. They say that they are interested in a two-state solution. My visit to Israel and Palestine showed that the only way that Israel is going to be serious at the negotiating table, negotiating for a two-state solution, is going to be through international pressure. Australia has a critical role to play in that international pressure.
In responding to this issue today, I acknowledge the interest that our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, has in the issue of Israel and Palestine. Indeed, as Senator Brandis said, she met with my colleague this morning. I call upon this government to take our responsibility as international citizens seriously, so that we try to get improvements in the human rights and get at least, in some small way, improvements in the life conditions that are being faced by Palestinians in Palestine today.
Question agreed to.
Budget
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (15:54): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to the 2017-18 Budget.
It is great to have the opportunity to follow-up on the questions Labor senators asked in question time around the 2017 budget. Senator Brandis today in question time was not able to answer any of the questions he was asked. He did not even really attempt to answer any of them, because he knew that he could not justify the decisions the government has taken and are contained in this budget. Specifically, he could not answer why Australians earning as little as $21,000 per year will face a tax hike when some of the highest income earners in the country, millionaires, will get a tax cut of $16,000 a year. Nor could he answer why it is fair that $22 billion less will be spent in Australian schools whilst at the same time the government can find $50 billion to continue tax cuts for big business. He also failed to explain why university students will have to pay more in fees and why they will have to pay HECS sooner when the government, again, can find all this spare capacity to provide tax cuts—$50 billion worth for big business.
In failing to answer these questions, Senator Brandis thought that by repeating or perhaps chanting the word 'fairness' he would be able to dress up these decisions. Well, we all know the doublespeak that this government engages in and is becoming famous for. Just because you say something a lot of times does not actually make it true. So I think it is worth looking through the budget in more detail to find the many elements that we argue are not fair. Regardless of how many ministers front cameras and talk about fairness and opportunity, the reality of the decisions that underpin this budget tells a different story.
For example, to hit low-income earners with a tax increase is not fair, particularly when you are giving the highest income earners a tax cut. To make schools across the country sacrifice education funding to ensure that big business gets tax cuts down the track is not fair—and that is a decision taken in this budget. It is not fair to ask uni students to pay more and to repay loans earlier, and to provide an efficiency dividend of $3.8 billion on universities when at the same time the government is providing a $50 billion tax cut to business.
To delay cuts to Medicare for three years is not fair. The people of Australia made that clear at the election last year. They want Medicare protected. They do not want cuts and they want to be able to access bulk-billing when they need it. To do nothing meaningful on housing affordability when we see the struggles that young people are going through to get their first home is not fair. To not tackle some of the unfair tax concessions that exist, and are contained in this budget, is not fair. To cut $300 million from foreign aid and sabotage the programs that go to support perhaps the most vulnerable people in the world is not fair.
The $600 million cuts to TAFE—not fair. The failure to deal with the energy crisis; keeping in place $500 million of cuts for Indigenous affairs; cutting jobs for Human Services; failing to invest in science, in research and in innovation; cutting hospital service for veterans; and no mention of climate change at all, not one word in the budget—all certainly not fair; not fair for this generation and not fair for future generations. This is a budget which leaves Australian women behind—not fair. No women's budget statement and no clear policy analysis for how these decisions affect women. Cuts to tourism through Tourism Australia—not fair. Not calling a royal commission into the banks—not fair.
They are all decisions that were taken in this budget. I do not know if it is just me, but George Brandis and fairness really are two things that do not go together. Just because you say it, no matter how many times you say it, it does not make it true.
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland) (15:59): Once more, this is like being at the smorgasbord of the Brekkie Creek Hotel. I just do not know where to start. I do not know whether to start down the pudding end or the entree end, or go straight in for one of those huge steaks that we famously produce in my home state.
Five minutes is a limited period of time in which to make a point, but let me try and pick up on as many points from the good senator's speech as I can. I often make allowances, when listening to contributions from Labor members, for their ignorance about the base economy of our nation, about basic economics. Somehow they think that the sun rises on the left-hand side of this building and sets on the right and that government itself is the driver of all things good in this nation. Well, let me tell you something: it is the businesses of this nation that keep us going. What Labor know well is that governments can borrow money—and they deadset know a thing or two about that, because there is a $300 billion legacy to underpin the fact that that is what they know to do. They do not know how to spend it efficiently. They pump it into people's roofs, where there is no productivity dividend whatsoever, and into school halls, which gives this little sugar hit in the community and then has no long-term effect. They know how to spend it. Senator Brandis made the point earlier today that they had no cap on the percentage of GDP of taxation. They had no cap on that, so they have no regard for that. We have brought in a fiscal discipline here in relation to the percentage of GDP, with respect to the responsible spending of this government.
Senator Gallagher—through you, Deputy President—you stand and talk about the welfare of women and students. I can tell you what they need most, within their households or for themselves: they need a job. For them to have a job—
Senator Gallagher: There are no jobs planned!
Senator O'SULLIVAN: No, no. The Labor way, of course, is to get the government to give them a job. We have a Labor government in Queensland that has replaced nearly 14,000 jobs that had been shed, properly, to fix the economy in my home state. They have now been reinstated. They are on steroids. But it is the private sector that provides the jobs. It is the private sector that provides all the welfare that is needed for a family and their community to be able to take a position, create an income and make a contribution to the tax base. For them to do that, from time to time the government of the day have to get out of their way.
You talk about this as a tax cut. This is not a tax cut. This money that you talk about is a reduction by our government of the percentage that will be taken as taxation. It is money that belongs to these people in the first instance. We are just a government that is taking less of it. This is not a tax cut. This is a reduction in the tax position. It is not a cut. The money that remains with them, as you know full well, is reinvested in those businesses. This is where the employment will come for these students—whom I have funded. If you take my contribution to the tax base and apply it all to supporting students at universities, I have put thousands of them through university. I have put thousands of them through university for no benefit for myself, and now we find that 25 per cent of them are not even prepared to pay it back. We have made a moderate adjustment: $8 a week for someone who is now employed and earning $42,000 a year.
I have been waiting for today to watch your attacks. I wanted to see whether there would be any depth and energy in the reaction from the Australian Labor Party, in particular, to the budget yesterday. There is none. Your performance today in question time and in the speaking opportunities you have had has been flat. The reason it has been flat is that there are no fractures in this budget. It is a terrific budget. The people of Australia have received it splendidly, and it leaves you with nowhere to go as you try to respond to the most fiscally responsible budget in your living memory. (Time expired)
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:04): It is always good to follow a great comedy act. It gets the crowd a little warmed up, doesn't it? This Prime Minister has been shedding identities like a fussy kid trying on Halloween outfits in a costume shop. The first costume is Captain Optimism. He was very excited about start-ups. Do you remember that period? He invented the internet and there had never been a better time to be in Australia. He moved on. The second costume was that of a very serious conservative, who said no to action on climate change, no to same-sex marriage and yes to deals with One Nation. The third costume, which has only recently been revealed, seems to be the ghost of John Maynard Keynes—a big-taxing and big-spending Prime Minister who wants to take on debt like it is 1949.
The problem of course with all of these costumes is that none of them really fit and none of them have been in any way convincing, because with each outfit one thing has remained exactly the same: the Prime Minister's willingness to sacrifice whatever principles he had remaining in order to save his skin for another day. It must be very easy to stand up for what you believe in when the only thing you believe in is yourself. Is it any wonder at all that Peta Credlin said that this is a budget short on Liberal values and long on survival instincts for a Prime Minister? Is it any wonder that former Treasurer Peter Costello is today wondering where the coalition's commitment to deficit reduction has gone?
You do not have to even go outside the parliament to find criticism of the budget. You can simply turn to the government itself. This Prime Minister has flip-flopped and changed his mind so very often that he has placed his own ministers in the embarrassing situation of having argued very strongly against the measures that are contained in this budget. In February the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann, said:
We do not want to increase taxes. Our commitment is to lower taxes.
This budget has made him the highest-taxing finance minister in a decade.
In 2009, as opposition leader, the member for Wentworth described $200 billion of gross debt as 'colossal' and 'unprecedented'. His government now presides over a debt that is several multiples of this number. Just this morning he admitted that he thought that the zombie measures that he ditched in the budget had merit, which leaves one to wonder why exactly he is ditching them. Australia is learning the lesson, which the Liberal Party party room has probably absorbed by now, that you cannot rely on the Prime Minister's commitments.
Australians know that we cannot depend on the Prime Minister's new-found commitment to fairness either. Indeed, earlier in question time Senator Cormann confirmed this because he acknowledged that many of the things in this budget were 'not really what we wanted to do'. As much as this Prime Minister and this government now like to use the word 'fairness', we all know that their hearts are not really in it.
It is not fair to cut $22 billion from schools whilst simultaneously giving a $50 billion tax cut to big businesses. It is not fair to give a tax cut to high-income earners while at the same time demanding that university students pay thousands extra for their degrees. I note that, whilst Senator Brandis thinks it is fair for them to pay for half of the cost of their degrees, Australian students already pay a far higher proportion of their university costs than most comparable nations. It is not fair at all to future generations to have a whole budget speech that makes no mention of climate change and provides no new initiatives to tackle climate change, despite the fact that we are in no way on track to meet our fairly lacklustre targets.
For a proper fair budget we will probably have to wait for a change of government. In the meantime, though, I do hope that the coalition party room enjoy their new high-taxing, high-spending Prime Minister.
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (16:09): Unsurprisingly, both Labor speakers so far in this debate have focused on measures that are contained in the budget which the ALP is critical of. In all cases, they have linked those measures that they are critical of to the decision of the government to provide company tax cuts. This is a line being commonly used by the ALP: they focus on some aspect of something that is in the budget that they do not like and they say: 'Well, why couldn't you have done this, given that you are giving the company tax breaks? There is spare cash for that, so why couldn't you have paid for something else?' They compare isolated measures. This is not a valid way to look at any budget.
I am sure Senator Gallagher in particular, as a past Chief Minister of the ACT, would be fully aware that, when you look at a budget, it is not a zero-sum game. Every budget is about hundreds if not thousands of decisions which collectively form a budget that is intended to deliver the outcomes that the government of the day is seeking to achieve. Some of those decisions will involve reductions in expenditure or the removal of programs that are no longer delivering in the ways they once did or were intended to do; in other cases, there will be new spending to try and deliver new outcomes. And that is because economies and societies are diverse and changing entities that require constant review and new approaches. The measures that are required to help stimulate economies and to ensure that societies are appropriately catered for by government are a changing mix as well, and also require constant review and constant consideration. In some cases, that will require you to spend more on certain aspects of society or of the economy; in others, to spend less in order to deliver balanced outcomes as a result of an overall budget.
Part of those considerations, and part of the decisions that people will make, is that no spending by government is possible without a tax base. To have such a tax base, you need to have economic activity. And to have economic activity, you need to have incentives for people and for businesses to take chances—to go out and risk their livelihoods, to make decisions, to try and get new businesses off the ground, and to grow existing businesses. Tax cuts were once universally accepted—and, until very recently, were accepted also by the opposition—as a proven method of creating an increased incentive for people to take such risks, to go out and make decisions which will help grow their businesses and, by doing so, grow the numbers of people they employ, grow jobs for the community and, inherently, grow wealth for the community. As I said, Labor used to agree with this; until recently—just a couple of years ago. But, whether it be politics and the political opportunity of taking a different line and opposing tax cuts for companies or whether it is because the unions have just told them that that is what they have to do, Labor have shifted their position. And today we are having this debate, where they are looking in a very isolated manner at tax cuts and they are trying to compare those with other, completely unrelated decisions that are made in the budget.
Senator McAllister made the same comments. That said, she only got to that right at the end of her contribution. Rather than playing the ball—by looking at the issues, looking at the facts, pulling apart the budget and having an examination of that—she spent the first half or three quarters of her speech in this place attacking the man, attacking the Prime Minister. Interestingly, right at the end of her comments, she used the phrase, 'it is not fair to future generations,' referring to the budget and talking about climate change and its lack of mention in the budget. Well, there are plenty of things that this government is doing about climate change. What is not fair to future generations is a failure to bring the budget back into surplus, and a failure to do that as quickly as we possibly can. It is clear in the budget that was delivered last night that we will be back in surplus in 2020-21, with an increased projected surplus over what was predicted last year. That is what we need to do to be fair to future generations. It is exceedingly unfair to saddle future generations with debt for expenditure on goods and services that we enjoy today. (Time expired)
Senator KETTER (Queensland) (16:14): The latest budget confirms that the economic credentials of the coalition government are in tatters. When it comes to the issues of expenditure and taxation, the mythology would have it that the coalition will always be more responsible in those areas. But, when one examines the facts of the matter, it is quite the opposite. I was interested in the response to the budget from Alan Kohler today in TheAustralian. He pointed out, quite rightly, that the 2014 budget was when the then Treasurer, Mr Hockey, said:
The days of borrow and spend must come to an end.
… … …
... the time to fix the Budget is now.
What happened was that, under the coalition government, spending went from 24 per cent of GDP in Labor's last year of office to 25.6 per cent in 2015-16. Taxes went up as well.
During the course of question time I asked Minister Cormann a question in relation to the gross debt. We will see in coming months the gross debt exceeding half a trillion dollars. As I said in my question, that is a total of $20,000 for each Australian man, woman and child. What hypocrisy on the other side. When we look at the record of the then opposition back in 2009, Mr Turnbull described the $200 billion of gross debt at that time as colossal, unprecedented, a mountain and a summit, but we have the fact that we are on track to have a projected gross debt of $725 billion. So let us put to bed the myth that the coalition has any credibility when it comes to the level of tax and the level of expenditure. I always go back to the research done last year by respected economist Mr Stephen Koukoulas on the issue of taxation. I have shared this in the past, but I think this puts the final nail in the coffin of the reputation of the coalition when it comes to these points.
I note that Minister Cormann's responses to my questions were quite trite: that the coalition would always have lower taxes and less expenditure than Labor. That is the cheap line that keeps coming back, but, if you look at the actual record before us, you see that, in the 10 years in which the tax to GDP ratio was at its highest, eight of the 10 years were under a Liberal administration. Labor came in at about eight and nine in the order of those 10 years. Even more extraordinarily, as Mr Koukoulas points out in his article of April last year, of the 10 years with the lowest level of taxation as a proportion of GDP, Labor was in office in all 10 years. So let us not have this cheap rhetoric that the coalition will always have lower taxes and will spend less, because the record is absolutely the opposite.
But let us get to the budget. I would say it is something of a cruel hoax when it comes to the issue of infrastructure. Yes, there are some headlines about the amount of money that is supposedly available for infrastructure, but it is a fantasy. When we look at the new announcements of funding, the only real money that has been announced in the budget is for a local road in the seat of Gilmore which is called the Far North Collector Road. There is $13 million for that initiative. When it comes to my home state of Queensland, as our Premier said today, Queensland has had a slap in the face when it comes to infrastructure investment. We know that the federal government has had the business case for around 12 months for the Cross River Rail project. This is, according to Infrastructure Australia, the No. 1 infrastructure project that needs to be funded in the state of Queensland. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
Budget
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (16:19): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services (Senator Ryan) to a question without notice asked by Senator Siewert today relating to the government's proposal to drug-test 5,000 income support recipients.
I asked specifically about whether this was a gross violation of people's civil liberties, and of course he did not adequately answer that question. But his answer to my second question, which was about profiling people, and his subsequent further information in the chamber, were extremely useful in further understanding where the government is going with this. And it is horrifying. It is true to say that people were shocked and are horrified that the government is going so low to vilify vulnerable Australians—to demonise them, to marginalise them, to try to scare them off income support or from even applying in the first place—that they will seek to drug-test 5,000 people and then put them onto the failed cashless welfare card.
No matter how much the government spins it, the cashless welfare card is not proven as a concept. The interim evaluation that was carried out did not prove the concept. However, deeply concerning on this matter is not only the fact that they are seeking to do drug-testing of income support recipients but also—and I quote the government's key facts document handed out last night as part of the budget—the fact that:
Job seekers will be selected for the trial on a random basis, based on a data-driven profiling tool …
The minister went on to say that risk profiling will be used to identify particular characteristics that indicate a higher risk of substance misuse issues.
Just what data is the government going to be using to do this data profiling for income support recipients? So, if you are an income support recipient, from now on the government is going to be putting all your data into some process and then using that data to risk-profile whether you may be taking or abusing substances. But this will be 'random', folks! It will be random, but they will look at the high risk of substance misuse issues—they will be risk-profiling those particular characteristics.
This is deeply concerning and sets an extremely dangerous precedent. Not only will all new income support recipients be put through this process; they will be forced to take drug tests, and then, if they prove positive, they will be put onto the cashless welfare card. And only after they are forced to take another drug test and have a positive result will they then be directed to some additional medical professional assessment for their substance abuse issues. This sets a very dangerous precedent in terms of not only how the government intends to treat income support recipients into the future but also other areas they may be using data-driven profiling tools for.
It would be fair to say that researchers in the broader community have been very excited about the use of data and the investment in IT to assist with bringing data together, and about the use of big data for informing evidence based policy—which is a joke when you are talking about this government, because, if we were talking about evidence based policy, we would not be talking about this particular approach; we would not be talking about drug testing that is going to put people further on the margins rather than actually helping them. We would be taking a health based approach instead of one of vilification and of saying: 'Let's try and drum them out of income support so that it makes their situation even more marginal.' We would be actually looking at the real evidence about what works. But I would say to the people who were celebrating the fact that they are now going to be able to use some of that data-rich material to develop research projects and evidence based policy: this is what the government wants to use it for, folks—for risk-profiling particular characteristics. In this instance, it is for those at high risk of substance abuse—but for what next? You are using the data this time for this, but what is next? This is a very dangerous road that this government is embarking on.
Question agreed to.
CONDOLENCES
Jones, Gerry Norman Francis
The PRESIDENT (16:25): It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 21 April this year, of Gerry Norman Francis Jones, a senator for the state of Queensland from 1981 until 1996. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (16:25): by leave—I move:
That the Senate records its deep sorrow at the death, on 21 April 2017, of Gerry Norman Francis Jones, a former senator for Queensland, places on record its appreciation of his long and distinguished service to the nation and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Gerry Jones was born in Roma on 16 August 1932. He was christened Norman Francis Jones, but at his father's insistence he was to be known as 'Gerry', and in fact later in life he had the adoption of the Christian name 'Gerry' formalised by deed poll. He attended St Columba's School in Dalby before taking up an apprenticeship in joinery, starting his own business as a building contractor. As a young man he was a gifted athlete and a talented boxer. In fact, so talented a boxer was he that he trialled, albeit unsuccessfully, to represent Australia at the 1960 Rome Olympics in the sport of boxing. In 1956 he married his beloved wife, Rita, with whom he went on to raise three daughters and a son, and in 1956, as well, he joined the Australian Labor Party.
When I look around this chamber from time to time at the great variety of personalities and points of view represented here, I sometimes feel a little sorry for those who do not come from the great state of Queensland, because, as I am sure my friend Claire Moore would agree, there is a richness and variety in the personalities that Queensland politics throws up that, I am sure, is unmatched by any other state in the Commonwealth. Between the first time he stood for parliament in 1963 and the day he retired as a member of this chamber in 1996, Gerry Jones went on to experience some of the most dramatic events in Queensland political history.
His career spanned, among other things, the period of the Bjelke-Petersen government. It included the 1974 Queensland state election, which saw the Australian Labor Party wiped out and reduced to a cricket team of 11 members. It included, in the late 1970s, the travails of the Queensland branch of the ALP, then headquartered at Breakfast Creek, and the attempts by reformers, ultimately successful but after a great deal of internecine political warfare, to reform and reconstruct the Queensland branch of the Labor Party. It saw the collapse of the state coalition government in 1983 and the Fitzgerald inquiry and all that it revealed in the late 1980s. It saw the election of the Goss government in 1989 and the surprise ending of that government's incumbency only six years later. So Gerry Jones enjoyed a political career rich in the context of history. It was a stage occupied by a colourful cast of notables and rogues—people like Russ Hinze, Mal Colston, Jack Egerton are among those who dominated the political scene in those years.
As I have said, Gerry Jones first ran for parliament—and I think we may mark the commencement of his political career at this point—at the 1963 election for the federal seat of McPherson, which was in those days a safe Country Party seat held by Ceb Barnes. That was the election in which Sir Robert Menzies' coalition was returned with a substantially increased majority over the Labor Party led by Arthur Calwell. While Gerry Jones's campaign in McPherson and the ALP's national campaign was unsuccessful, as those who have been in this chamber for some time and who may have seen political defeat can attest, it proved a formative experience for Gerry Jones which marked the beginning of his long career in Queensland Labor politics.
His rise was not without its setbacks. In 1966, three years after he had first stood for parliament, he suffered a bout of severe ill health when he contracted severe kidney disease and received a terminal prognosis. But, mercifully, his doctor's pessimistic prognosis was wrong and, although he was forced to put his political life on hold for a year or so to overcome his illness, he recovered and it did not dampen his political aspirations. In 1967 he contested the coveted post of ALP State Organiser—long seen as a springboard to elected office, as it still is. He was one among a field of 20 applicants and was successful in being chosen. It was a role in which he served until 1972—along the way once again contesting a federal election, this time, in 1969, in the North Queensland seat of Kennedy against the firebrand Country Party MP Bob Katter Senior, the father of the current distinguished member for Kennedy.
The ALP considered Kennedy to be ripe for the picking in 1969, when the electoral winds were at their back, particularly in the state of Queensland. It had, in fact, been a traditionally safe Labor seat, but Mr Katter proved immovable and Gerry returned, defeated, to Brisbane. At the 1972 Queensland state election he found success at last when he was elected as the member for Everton in the Queensland Legislative Assembly. I remember the 1972 Queensland election; I was a teenager and I had just become interested in politics. I even remember the Labor Party campaign slogan: 'Labor means to get things done Jack Houston's way.' Jack Houston was a gentleman, I might say, of an older generation and an older political style and culture.
It is also notable that in 1972, when he won Everton, Gerry Jones defeated the young Denver Beanland, who would go on to a very distinguished career in both municipal and state politics, being a much-respected and long-serving Deputy Mayor of Brisbane, Attorney-General of Queensland and Leader of the State Parliamentary Liberal Party. Dr Beanland, I might point out, continues to give public service as the chair of the National Archives of Australia Advisory Council.
Gerry Jones embarked upon what he thought would be a career in state politics but, as we know, fortunes in politics can change very rapidly, and nowhere more so than in Queensland. Only two years later, at that famous 1974 Queensland election, Mr Jones—along with 21 of his Labor colleagues—was swept out of office. Nothing deterred, he again set his sights on the Queensland Labor Party's party machine, rising quickly through the ranks during the period which, as I have said, was marred by the internecine warfare between the factions. At the time there was a significant push from the party's national executive and from elements within Queensland to reform the governance of the Queensland branch. So it is a testament to Mr Jones's ability and political skill that, as part of what came to be called the old guard of Queensland Labor—that faction that was the target of the reformers—he was nevertheless appointed state secretary in 1976, an office in which he served until 1980.
He was a vocal opponent of Premier Bjelke-Petersen, emerging as a prominent and forceful advocate against his government and its policies. For example, in 1971, he and his wife, Rita, helped to organise and lead demonstrations against the tour of the apartheid-era South African rugby union team, later claiming that, as a result, he had been subjected to vicious personal propaganda and abuse. Those were dark days in Queensland. There is no doubt that the state's special branch at that time was, on occasion, used as a political weapon against those who had a dissenting view from the Bjelke-Petersen government. Much later in his career, as a senator for Queensland, he would address this chamber on the subject of the Queensland gerrymander, something that, as the state secretary of the ALP and one of its campaign managers, he was no doubt very well informed of. In those days, of course, the Labor Party and the Liberal Party were victims of that particular gerrymander.
At last, Mr Jones secured a safe spot on Labor's Queensland Senate ticket. He was elected to this chamber in October 1980, at the 1980 federal election, taking a seat on 1 July 1981. He was re-elected in the 1983 double dissolution election, again in 1984, again at the 1987 double dissolution election, and again in 1990, retiring at the conclusion of his term on 30 June 1996. It was an impressive period, as I said, of 33 years between the time at which he first ran for parliament and the time at which, after 15 years of service in this chamber, he retired.
In his first speech in this place, Gerry Jones expressed strong opposition to uranium mining. He also focused on the problems of homeownership, health policy and single parents. Amongst other causes which he championed, he was passionate about the need to reduce gun ownership in Australia and for uniform laws on the ownership of firearms. Senator Jones served as Deputy Government Whip between August 1985 and September 1987, and then as Chief Government Whip from September 1987 until 1996. It was a role he relished, once describing the Whip's duties in the arrangement of debates as being 'like the director of a play'.
He was the first person ever to chair the Selection of Bills Committee when it came into existence in 1990, an office he occupied through to April 1996. He was convinced of the merits of the Senate committee system. Throughout his 15 years in this place, as well as serving on other committees and in other capacities, he served as Chair of the Science, Technology and the Environment Committee; Chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee; and Chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. Amongst other contributions, he chaired an investigation into incidents of alleged sexual harassment toward female officers in the Australian Defence Force. His interest in foreign affairs saw him serve as parliamentary adviser to the United Nations General Assembly in 1990. In 1995, he won the unanimous support of his Senate colleagues from all parties to call on France to cease its nuclear test program in the South Pacific.
The memory of Senator Jones, as he then was, remains with some who served in the Senate with him and still serve on the government benches. My colleague Senator Ian Macdonald, who began his Senate career in 1990, particularly asked to be associated with my remarks. On Gerry Jones's retirement from the Senate in 1996, senators of all parties spoke, with warm gratitude, of him as a cheerful, gentle, friendly colleague who had served with distinction, in particular as the Chief Government Whip. They spoke of his willingness to assist other senators across party lines, his decency and his calmness. Baden Teague, a Liberal senator from South Australia who had worked closely with him on the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, said of him:
It has been a superb experience for me to have a great Australian involved with me in all those undertakings.
He was an adept parliamentarian, a shrewd politician, a forceful advocate and a conscientious senator, both in his contribution to the running of this chamber and through his advocacy of the Labor cause as a Labor man of the old school. Gerry Jones's contribution to the parliament, to political life and to the fate of his party as well as his contribution to the life of the nation was considerable. For this, we owe him our gratitude.
On behalf of the government, may I offer condolences to his family. On my own behalf, may I in particular offer condolences to his daughter, Angela Drysdale, and her husband, Michael Drysdale, whom I am proud to number amongst my friends.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (16:41): I rise on behalf of the opposition to acknowledge the passing of Gerry Norman Francis Jones, who passed away in April. At the outset, I convey the opposition's condolences to the family and friends of Mr Jones. I start by acknowledging the generous contribution of the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
As a senator of the great Australian Labor Party, Gerry Jones served in the Senate from 1981 until 1996, representing the state of Queensland. As a South Australian, I will not join with the Leader of the Government in the Senate's comments about Queensland senators—I might leave that to my colleague, Senator Moore, who may make a few comments.
Mr Jones was a committed Labor member, joining the party in his early 20s. He stood unsuccessfully as a House of Representatives candidate. He served a term in the Legislative Assembly of Queensland and worked as a party official prior to his entry to this place. His was a life defined by service to the Labor cause.
Gerry Jones was born in Roma in 1932. He was a keen sportsman, particularly in rugby league and boxing. He qualified as a joiner after undertaking an apprenticeship and would later establish his own business as a building contractor in Dalby and the Gold Coast. He also worked as a real estate agent following a period of ill health that curtailed his physical activities. At one point, he also managed a service station. Ultimately, it was politics that was his true vocation.
He joined our party in 1956 and, as Senator Brandis has described, this was a tumultuous time in Labor politics. It came hot on the heels of the great Labor split in 1955. It was this, accompanied by the influence of his father—who was the president of the local Labor branch—and an attraction to the emphasis on humanity within the Labor platform that propelled him into the party.
His party involvement was active, diverse and marked by a willingness to put himself forward as a candidate for our party. Twice unsuccessful at both ends of the 1960s in attempts to win a seat in the House of Representatives, in the meantime he secured a position as a state organiser in the Queensland branch in 1967. It provided him with a foothold in the organisational wing of the party—a role which enabled him to travel all over Queensland talking to members. Doubtless, this was a sound platform from which to launch himself into parliament, which eventually occurred with his election to the Legislative Assembly of Queensland in 1972.
Disappointingly for him, and for the reasons that Senator Brandis has outlined, it was only a short stay. But he made plenty of impact, establishing himself as one of the most strident critics of the government of Joh Bjelke-Petersen, which he colourfully described—amongst other things—as a:
… minority coalition which masquerades as a Government through the grace of an undemocratic redistribution, false promises, political deceit and political distortion …
His attacks against the Premier were persistent and trenchant.
Following the 1974 election, Mr Jones returned to party service for much of the remainder of the decade, culminating in his appointment as state secretary in 1977. As with many other state branches, this time was notable for the rise in influence of groups within the party pushing for reform: reform of party organisation and reform of party structure. And of course, in Queensland, one of the principal protagonists was the future premier, Peter Beattie. This culminated with a full intervention by the National Executive in 1980. As state secretary, Mr Jones remained loyal to what was known as the 'Old Guard' and, by the time the intervention had occurred, he had already secured a winnable position on the party Senate ticket for the election to occur later the next year. The next stage of his political service was about to begin.
Taking his place in the Senate from July 1981, he would go on to be elected four times. He was a proud senator for Queensland and used many of his early parliamentary contributions to focus on his home state. And still, the premier, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, and his government came under sustained criticism from him. He was particularly adept at drawing unfavourable comparisons between the performance of the Queensland economy and the national economy.
He found much satisfaction in the work of Senate committees and served on many throughout his career. One of these was the Senate Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment, of which he was chair for some four years. A notable inquiry that took place in this time was into the effect of pesticides such as Agent Orange on the health of Australia's Vietnam War veterans. Perhaps one of his earliest forays into foreign affairs was in 1971 when, together with his wife Rita and many others, he was heavily involved in the anti-apartheid movement. This came to a head when Joh Bjelke-Petersen declared a state of emergency in Queensland to ensure the Springbok team could tour without being hindered by protests.
In the parliament that interest in foreign policy persisted on a range of parliamentary committees. It was, over the time he was engaged on this, an extraordinary time in foreign policy. The Berlin Wall fell, the Cold War came to an end, the Gulf War took place, Cambodia emerged from a decade of conflict through Australian leadership on the international stage, and there are many other examples. At the same time, the Hawke and Keating governments were embarking on a deeper engagement in our own region, led by foreign minister Gareth Evans.
Perhaps one of the most significant engagements of Mr Jones was the inquiry into sexual harassment in the ADF. He was chair of the inquiry, which emanated from incidents of alleged harassment towards female officers aboard HMAS Swan in 1992. This was an inquiry that navigated difficult terrain, required a great deal of sensitivity and was the subject of extensive media coverage. Ultimately, Mr Jones was able to lead the committee to a report with a substantial number of recommendations. He remained a strong anti-uranium mining and antinuclear advocate throughout his career, and received the unanimous support of the Senate on moving a motion calling on the cancelling of the French program of nuclear testing in the South Pacific.
Gerry Jones contributed greatly in the service of our party. He served as Deputy Government Whip and then became Government Whip in 1987, a position he would hold until just before his retirement in 1996. It was a role that suited his collegial nature, and he has been described as having built relationships not only within his own party but also across the chamber. By his own words, he described the role of the whip as being like a director in a play. As Government Whip, he also became the first senator to chair the Selection of Bills Committee from its inception from 1990 until he left the Senate.
Gerry Jones was a Labor senator through and through. But from the tributes of others, both at the time of his departure from the Senate and since his passing, it is clear that he did not let strong values and strident political opinions, nor indeed political differences, compromise his personal integrity. He seems to have been universally described as warm, friendly and decent and someone who went about his work cheerfully and calmly. When speaking on his valedictory, Senator Faulkner recognised the outstanding service to the party rendered by Mr Jones throughout his career as a senator and throughout his life, stating, 'You have always conducted yourself with very great distinction.' But perhaps it was one of my other predecessors as Labor leader in this place, Chris Evans, who summed it up best. He simply said, 'Gerry Jones, good bloke, consummate whip.' To be called a good bloke—I am not quite sure what the female equivalent might be—at the end of a career of that length, I think, is a pretty significant achievement. We, again, extend our deepest sympathies to Mr Jones's family, friends and former colleagues following his passing.
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (16:50): I rise to support the motion and to provide condolences of the Nationals to the family and friends of the late Norman Francis Jones. Born on 16 August in 1932 in Roma, Queensland, Norman, or Gerry, as he was fondly known by his father, had a number of careers—as a carpenter, builder, real estate agent. He was a passionate rugby league player and, apparently, very handy in the ring.
Following almost a decade of contesting elections, Mr Jones won the Brisbane seat of Everton in the Queensland parliament in 1969. However, his stay in the Queensland parliament was not that long, and he lost his seat in 1974. However, he did not stay out of politics for long. Gerry Jones was elected to the federal parliament in 1980 and was an important member of the Hawke-Keating governments until his retirement in 1996. Senator Jones was an enthusiastic, well-liked and hardworking senator. He saw great value in the committee process and reflected, 'You are learning all the time in this place.' As I can say, having been in this place for some time myself, I think that is very true. Most senators would agree that this is, indeed, a place of learning.
I acknowledge the variety of roles and the experience that Mr Jones brought to this place—something that we in the Nationals strongly value. I would also like to say that the character of a senator can often be best seen in the valedictory statements, especially for senators who we may not have had the opportunity to meet. As we have just heard, Senator Evans remarked that Gerry Jones was a good bloke.
I would like to take this opportunity to share a story that would give an insight. It is about a young Indigenous woman who was fortunate enough to spend some time with Gerry Jones and his family. Nicki Tafe, who now lives in Canberra, went to Brisbane as a student from remote Queensland to get an experience in city life. She was billeted out to the Jones family. She has great recollections of that time. Nicki recalls that Mr Jones was a good man with a strong focus on his family and his family values. During this period, he worked long hours, as many of us do in this profession. But Nicki recalls that Mr Jones always had time for his family and took the time to check on her wellbeing no matter what time he returned home.
Gerry Jones was an absolute politician, but he was also a person with real-world experience. Most importantly, he was a good man. His family and friends should be proud of the contribution he has made to this place and to others throughout his life. On behalf of the Nationals, I pass on my condolences to the family and friends of Gerry Jones.
Senator MOORE (Queensland) (16:52): When Gerry Jones made his last speech in this place, one of the comments that he made was that everyone told him he should write a book.
If I wrote a book, it would be a funny book. I would try to pick up the funny bits. During my period here, I kept a lot of notes. Deputy presidents, presidents and other members of the chamber used to write little notes to the whip and comment on certain things. I have a drawer at home. I used to take all the notes home and throw them in the drawer. The other day I started to go through the drawer and date the notes. As I said, if I ever attempted to write a book, it would be a beauty.
Mr President, there would be deputy presidents, presidents and other people in the chamber who would be pleased that that book was never written.
That particular statement in his closing speech came before a range of other senators stood up in this place and made the most beautiful comments about Gerry Jones and his family. They talked about his civility; they talked about the way he was professional in his job as whip. They talked about how proud they were to have served with that man in the Senate. One particular commentary talked about the fact that every time you went into the whip's office you were greeted by a smile and you were made to feel welcome.
As we know, Gerry Jones served for a long time in this place. He was a member of the great gang of whips—a job that he truly believed in and truly valued. He talked about the whips, as we have heard from a number of other senators, and the role that they had. He said that it gave him the opportunity to talk with people and to have long discussions and talk about anything but feel confident that they would remain confidential.
Gerry, when he started his political career, never thought that he would actually rise to the level of whip in the parliament of Australia. He was a boy born in Roma who grew up in Dalby. He went to St Columba's School—I do not know whether they have a sign up there to say, 'This is where Gerry Jones went to school,' but perhaps they should.
We have heard from a number of senators about his career, but I think 1956 stands out as a really important year in Gerry's history. Not only did he follow his dad into the great Labor Party movement but, in that same year, he married the love of his life, Rita, with whom he shared over 60 years in a loving, strong partnership where they did so much together. In fact Gerry actually blamed Rita for his activities in the Springbok demonstrations in Brisbane. He claimed that it was Rita—a mild-mannered woman whom he described as not looking like a radical—who actually led him into the demonstrations in the Springbok tour years. I am not quite sure, but that was his statement. However, for 60 years, they raised their family and did things together for their family. Most particularly, when Gerry was talking about leaving politics, he said he could not have done it without her and perhaps he said that she could not have done more time being the wife of a Labor senator.
We have heard much about Gerry's career, but I just want to touch on a few things. Senator Brandis described in great detail—and, with a great deal of knowledge, Senator Brandis—the internal activities of the Labor Party during that period in Queensland. Gerry started becoming active in the party in Brisbane and had a couple of tilts at federal preselection, but it was an extraordinarily tough time for the Labor Party in Brisbane. He started originally as an organiser but then went on to become the member, for a short time, for the seat of Everton—a Brisbane seat which Senator Watt also held for one term in the Queensland parliament.
Senator Wong, it is very difficult: all your quotes get taken. However, Senator Wong, you quoted from one of his many attacks on the then government of the day in Queensland. He was a strong fighter against the Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen government and actions there—and I refer people to the Queensland Hansard to see some of the quite pertinent comments that Gerry made at that time.
However, in the rout of the Labor Party in 1974, which Senator Brandis described, Gerry lost his seat. After a time, he went into another tough area, which of course was working as an official in the Labor Party in Queensland—which Senator Chisholm knows so well. As has been described, this was a tough time in the Labor Party in Queensland—deep divisions, strong fights, people of strong opinion and long loyalties—that led to a some serious federal intervention. Through that, Gerry Jones was a tough fighter, but the loyalties and the friendships that he made continued.
At the end of that period, he was preselected for a position on the Senate ticket for Queensland. There was controversy around that preselection—often controversies happened around preselections—but he was selected and then went on to serve for 15 years in this place as a strong, effective, articulate and loyal Labor senator for Queensland.
The wonderful Biographical Dictionary of the Australian Senate, which gives such detail about people who served in this place, gives a great deal of detail about Gerry Jones's personal admiration for the way that the committee system operates in this place. There are details, as we have heard from other senators, about the various committees on which he served. He said, as Senator Scullion said, that he kept on learning. I think that is a statement of fact for anyone who serves in this place but also a reminder to us that what we are doing here is always learning.
He made a number of strong contributions, and the most interesting thing I want to mention today is that, when I was looking at some of the contributions that Senator Jones made, you always go to the first speech. Senator Jones's first speech in this place was actually in response to the Fraser budget in 1981. He came in and made a strong attack in his very first speech in the federal parliament on elements of the 1981 federal budget. The two key areas he touched on were housing affordability and the way that the system had made it too hard for young people to be able to afford their first home, and the loss of services for young people in the community with the closing of an organisation called the Community Youth Support Scheme. He said: 'Because you are unemployed, we do not want to, or need to, assist you in any way—not even to find employment. We are only a government of the haves.'
When you read this first speech from Gerry Jones, it stands up well. In fact, any senator in this place today talking about the current budget would be able to use the notes that Gerry Jones used in that speech. He went on to say, 'We have a responsibility to ensure that the have-nots in our community are looked after,' and he said that we needed to find the ability to ensure that young people could afford their housing and that they would have a start in their lives.
In terms of Gerry's career, we know that he served strongly as a whip, and we know that he was a strong committee member. I will not go into the various committees he served on, but throughout his speeches he talked about the humanity, the need for social justice, the need for equality—the very issues for which he claimed he decided to join the Labor Party. Senator Wong talked about the marvellous comment made by Senator Chris Evans, who I think was trained to be the whip by Senator Jones, about Gerry being a great bloke and a great whip.
When Gerry was leading the Senate he gave one piece of advice to people who were coming in after him: he talked about the need to always remember the importance of your family and to always understand that you had to have responsibilities to your family. I think that that is something we all understand, but it came home to me so strongly when I attended Gerry's funeral in Nambour a couple of weeks ago when his family—his wife, Rita, and his children and grandchildren—gathered around to talk with love and affection about the man they knew as their family member. They also talked with pride about the way that Gerry Jones had served his state and his country in the Senate; they were proud of the fact that this man chose to work for the Australian people, but they also understood that his heart was always with them and that he understood that they were the centre of his life and always would be.
Senator Jones made a comment when he was asked, after he had left this place, about some of the things he did when he was in the Senate. In 2011 he said: 'I was able to talk with people and handle them fairly well … That's the art of politics … if you can't get on with people you can't get on with politics. But if you can get on with people you can make things go the way you want them to go.'
Senator Jones made a difference in his community. He certainly made a difference for his family, and I think that, most of the time, he was able to make things go the way he wanted them to go. I want to thank Senator Jones for his service and I want to share in the wonderful words that were said by so many people in these contributions this afternoon. And, having spoken with his family, I know that those contributions will all mean a great deal to them as they mourn his loss with us.
The PRESIDENT: Could I ask honourable senators to stand with me in a moment of silence to signify their assent to the motion.
Honourable senators having stood in their places—
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, senators. The motion is carried. As always, it is difficult to transition back into business of the Senate after a condolence motion, but that is what we must do.
PETITIONS
The Clerk: A petition has been lodged for presentation as follows:
Falun Gong
To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:
The petition of the undersigned shows:
We are very concerned that the brutal persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China has continued to this day since July 1999.
New research by human rights lawyer David Matas, former Canadian Cabinet Minister David Kilgour and China expert Ethan Gutmann indicates that over 1 million prisoners of conscience may have been killed for their organs since year 2000 and Falun Gong practitioners remain the main target. European Parliament in 2013 and the US House of Representatives in June 2016 have passed resolutions urging China to stop the persecution of Falun Gong and forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience.
The undersigned petitioners ask that the Senate:
Calls on China to immediately stop the forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience;
Urges China to end the persecution of Falun Gong and bring the perpetrators to justice.
By Senator Abetz (from 884 citizens).
Petition received.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator Gallagher to move:
That the Senate condemns the Turnbull Government's unfair Budget that delivers tax handouts for multinationals and millionaires while hurting every Australian family.
Senator Smith to move:
That the Senate—
(a) congratulates Professor David Cooper on being awarded the James Cook Medal in recognition of his outstanding contribution to both science and human welfare;
(b) notes that the James Cook Medal is awarded periodically by the Royal Society of New South Wales for outstanding contributions to science and human welfare in and for the southern hemisphere;
(c) acknowledges the significant contribution Professor Cooper has made over many years in the research and treatment of HIV and AIDS, including in the areas of antiretroviral therapy, HIV pathogenesis and complications of HIV treatment;
(d) notes the important role that Professor Cooper continues to play in the fight against HIV and AIDS in the developing world, in particular, his work in co-founding HIV-NAT, a clinical research and trials collaboration based at the Thai Red Cross AIDS Research Centre in Bangkok; and
(e) notes that Professor Cooper joins other respected recipients of the James Cook Medal, including Sir Frank M Burnet, Sir Ian Clunies Ross, Sir Marcus Oliphant, Sir Gustav Nossal and Professor Brien Holden.
Senator Xenophon to move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 21 April 2017, The Daily Telegraph published an article entitled, Riding on the Gravy Train, which made reference to a $75,000 contract for the services of former public servant, Mr David Gould, for one month's consultancy work,
(ii) on 21 April 2017, the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade (FADT) secretariat made an informal request for the official who signed the contract, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to appear before the Budget estimates hearings,
(iii) on 5 May 2017, the Department of Defence responded to the FADT secretariat with a list of Defence officials who would be attending the Budget estimates hearings, but did not indicate if the signatory was in the list,
(iv) on 8 May 2017, the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee formally wrote to the Secretary of Defence requesting confirmation that the signatory would be appearing, and also reminded the Department of Defence that it is within the power of the committee, and ultimately the Senate, to require specific officials to appear before the committee,
(v) on 9 May 2017, the Department of Defence responded to the chair of the committee advising that the signatory was an Executive Level 2 officer and that it would not be normal practice or appropriate for a non-Senior Executive Service officer to be a witness at an estimates hearing and that a more senior officer would instead answer questions in relation to the contract, and
(vi) it is not for the Department of Defence to decide which officials are appropriate to appear before a Senate committee - this is a matter for the Senate alone to determine; and
(b) orders that the Executive Level 2 officer, who signed the contract for the services of former public servant, Mr David Gould, appear before the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee at the Budget estimates hearings on 29 and 30 May 2017.
Senators Hanson-Young and Rhiannon to move:
That the Senate—
(a) recognises the infrastructure projects, including Inland Rail construction, that the Federal Government committed to delivering in the 2017 Federal Budget;
(b) acknowledges that the steel producing communities of Whyalla in regional South Australia and the lllawarra in New South Wales are struggling with high unemployment and low job security; and
(c) calls on the Turnbull Government to guarantee that they will support Australian jobs by committing to a local procurement policy, mandating the use Australian steel in infrastructure projects committed to in the 2017 Federal Budget.
Senators Leyonhjelm and Bernardi to move:
That the following matters be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 14 September 2017:
(a) the participation of Australians in online poker;
(b) the nature and extent of any personal or social harms and benefits arising from participating in online poker; and
(c) whether the current regulatory approach, in particular, the recently amended Interactive Gambling Act 2001, is a reasonable and proportionate response to those harms and benefits.
Senators Xenophon, Griff and Kakoschke-Moore to move:
That, in response to the neglect and abuse at the Makk and McLeay Aged Mental Health Care Service at Oakden in South Australia, which has led to its closure, the following matters be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 7 December 2017:
(a) the effectiveness of the Aged Care Quality Assessment and accreditation framework for protecting residents from abuse and poor practices, and ensuring proper clinical and medical care standards are maintained;
(b) complaints and concerns raised and reported, including by staff and contract workers, volunteers and family members, response and feedback arrangements;
(c) intra-facility notification handling, response and feedback arrangements;
(d) the division of responsibility and accountability between the residents and their families, care providers, the state and the Federal governments; and
(e) any related matters.
Senator Smith to move:
That the Senate—
(a) congratulates the Honourable Michael Kirby, AC CMG on receiving the high honour of being awarded the Order of the Rising Sun, Gold and Silver Star, by the Emperor of Japan in recognition of his contribution to promoting international understanding of the situation of human rights in North Korea, including the issue of the abduction of Japanese nationals;
(b) notes the outstanding contribution Mr Kirby has made in promoting the significance of human rights worldwide through his work, including but not limited to his appointments as UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia and a member of the High Commissioner for Human Rights' Judicial Reference Group; and
(c) notes the exceptional effort Mr Kirby has made to address the HIV and AIDS epidemic globally, through his service on international bodies, including the World Health Organisation's Global Commission on AIDS, UNAIDS Reference Group on HIV and Human Rights, and UNDP Global Commission of HIV and the Law.
Senator Waters to move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and for other purposes. Environment and Infrastructure Legislation Amendment (Stop Adani) Bill 2017.
Senator Moore to move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the return of 82 young women held captive for three years by lslamist militants in Nigeria, and
(ii) that in April 2014, as part of a world-wide campaign calling for the release of the group of 270 schoolgirls captured from their high school, women from across the Australian Parliament, gathered in the forecourt to show their support for the 'Bring Them Home' project;
(b) acknowledges the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Swiss and Nigerian Governments to negotiate appropriate settlement to ensure the safety and the return of these young women;
(c) supports continuing efforts to complete the return of the many young women still believed held by Boko Haram; and
(d) condemns the actions of the militants in the region.
Senator Gallacher to move:
That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 14 February 2018:
Australia's trade and investment relationships with the countries of Africa, with particular reference to:
(a) existing trade and investment relationships;
(b) emerging and possible future trends;
(c) barriers and impediments to trade and investment;
(d) opportunities to expand trade and investment;
(e) the role of government in identifying opportunities and assisting Australian companies to access existing and new markets; and
(f) any related matters.
Senator Kakoschke-Moore to move:
That the Senate—
(a) congratulates Indigenous Australian Mr Isaiah Firebrace on winning a place in the final of the Eurovision Song Contest 2017;
(b) wishes Mr Firebrace every success in the final of the Eurovision Song Contest; and
(c) notes:
(i) the theme of this year's contest is 'Celebrate Diversity',
(ii) Australia is a culturally-rich diverse nation, and
(iii) Mr Firebrace's inclusion as a young Indigenous Australian is also a celebration of Australia's cultural diversity.
Senator Ludlam to move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the unanimous findings of the Environment and Communications References Committee report, Game on: more than playing around – The future of Australia's video game development industry, received on April 29 April 2016, and
(ii) the absence of any Government response to the findings of this inquiry; and
(b) orders that there be laid on the table by the Minister for Communications, by no later than 3.30 pm on 11 May 2017, a copy of the Government's response to this report.
Senator Ludlam to move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the Government's deeply disappointing decision to once again cut funding to aid in the 2017-18 Federal Budget by $300.3 million across the forward estimates,
(ii) Australia's Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) is currently at a record low as a proportion of Gross National Income (GNI), and will now plunge even further to 0.2 per cent of GNI by 2020, and
(iii) this decision comes as there are 60 million displaced people in the world, famines in parts of Africa and the Middle East, and increasing threats to prosperity as a result of climate change, amongst other global concerns; and
(b) calls on the Government to reverse these cuts, and as soon as possible identify a year by which Australia's ODA will reach the target of 0.7 per cent of GNI, as is our commitment to the United Nations, and as other comparable nations such as the United Kingdom have already achieved.
Withdrawal
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (17:04): I give notice of my intention to, on the next sitting day, withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for 8 August 2017, proposing the disallowance of the Export Control (Plants and Plant Products—Norfolk Island) Order 2016.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:04): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator O'Neill for tomorrow, Thursday, 11 May 2017, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Postponement
The Clerk: Postponement notifications have been lodged in respect of the following:
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of Senator Rice for today, proposing a reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, postponed till 14 June 2017.
General business notice of motion no. 306 standing in the name of Senator McAllister for today, proposing an order for the production of documents by the Attorney-General, postponed till 11 May 2017.
COMMITTEES
Reporting Date
The Clerk: Notifications of extensions of time for committees to report have been lodged in respect of the following:
Community Affairs References Committee—price regulation associated with the Prostheses List Framework—extended from 10 May to 11 May 2017.
Economics References Committee—Australian dairy industry—extended from 11 May to 29 June 2017.
Environment and Communications References Committee—Aboriginal rock art of the Burrup Peninsula—extended from 10 May to 12 July 2017.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—matters raised by New South Wales Police Strike Force CIVET—extended from 10 May to 22 June 2017.
REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016
Disallowance
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (17:06): At the request of Senator Fifield, I move:
That—
(a) so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the succeeding provisions of this resolution having effect;
(b) on Thursday, 11 May 2017, the business of the Senate notice of motion proposing the disallowance of items 1 and 4 of Schedule 1 of the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016, standing in the name of the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Di Natale), for that day be called on no later than 4 pm; and
(c) if consideration of the motion listed in paragraph (b) is not concluded at 4.15 pm, the questions on the unresolved motion shall then be put.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Reference to Committee
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (17:06): At the request of Senator Fifield, I move:
That—
(1) To ensure appropriate consideration of time critical bills by Senate committees, the provisions of all bills introduced into the House of Representatives after 11 May 2017 and up to and including 1 June 2017 that contain substantive provisions commencing on or before 1 July 2017 (together with the provisions of any related bill) are referred to committees for inquiry and report by 13 June 2017.
(2) The committee to which each bill is referred shall be determined in accordance with the order of 31 August 2016, allocating departments and agencies to standing committees.
(3) A committee to which a bill has been referred may determine, by unanimous decision, that there are no substantive matters that require examination and report that fact to the Senate.
(4) This order does not apply in relation to bills which contain:
(a) no provisions other than provisions appropriating revenue or moneys (appropriation bills); and
(b) commencement clauses providing only for the legislation to commence on Royal Assent.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Consideration of Legislation
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (17:07): I 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:
Parliamentary Business Resources Bill 2017
Parliamentary Business Resources (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
World Multiple Sclerosis Day
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (17:07): I, and also on behalf of Senator O'Neill, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) World MS Day takes place on 31 May 2017 with the theme "Life with MS", and
(ii) MS Australia seeks to raise awareness of what life with MS is like;
(b) recognises that:
(i) people are four times more likely to be diagnosed with MS if they are born in Tasmania, compared to the national average and 7 times more likely than if they were born in North Queensland,
(ii) MS is the most common neurological condition diagnosed in young adults,
(iii) MS is most commonly diagnosed between the ages of 20 and 40, and 75 per cent of people diagnosed are women, and
(iv) there is no known cause or cure;
(c) acknowledges the important role of families, friends and carers of people living with MS; and
(d) confirms the need for continued action to:
(i) increase the investment in research to find the cause and a cure for MS and other conditions, and
(ii) improve access to support from the first experience of symptoms, through diagnosis, treatment and ongoing disease management.
Question agreed to.
DOCUMENTS
Parallel Imports
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:08): At the request of Senator Carr, I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Urban Infrastructure, by no later than 9.30am on 11 May 2017, the Castalia Report into parallel import laws.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
International Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Awareness Week
Senator MOORE (Queensland) (17:09): I, and also on behalf of Senator Xenophon, move:
That the Senate—
(a) recognises that:
(i) International Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) Awareness Week will take place from 8 to 14 May 2017, with a Thunderclap event on 12 May 2017, and
(ii) ME Action Network Australia encourages all Australians to:
(A) understand that ME/CFS is a debilitating illness which may have symptoms persistent for many years, and
(B) be supportive of the need for research funding towards medical treatments;
(b) acknowledges:
(i) the important role of families and carers of ME/CFS sufferers, and
Question agreed to.
Brain Cancer Action Month
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:09): At the request of Senator Bilyk, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the month of May is Brain Cancer Action Month,
(ii) brain cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in Australians under the age of 40,
(iii) brain cancer kills more Australian children than any other disease,
(iv) the five-year survival rate for brain cancer in Australia is 22 per cent, and has barely improved in the past three decades, and
(v) in addition to brain cancers, approximately 2,000 benign brain tumours are diagnosed each year in Australia, and that these may cause permanent disability or death; and
(b) urges the Australian Government to take whatever action is necessary to improve the survival rate for brain cancer.
Question agreed to.
Adani Carmichael Coal mine
Senator WATERS ( Queensland — Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens ) ( 17:09 ): I move:
That the Senate calls on the Federal Government and the board of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility to not hand over public funds to prop up the Adani Carmichael coal mine project.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (17:10): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility is an independent board that cannot be directed under the terms of its act to fund a project. It is currently not assessing any submission that is a Carmichael coalmine project.
Question agreed to.
Journalism
Senator LUDLAM ( Western Australia — Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens ) ( 17: 10 ): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that independent journalism and a diverse media landscape play a vital role in informing public debate and maintaining a strong democracy;
(b) recognises the right of journalists to take industrial action; and
(c) supports Fairfax staff taking industrial action in response to another round of cuts to newsroom jobs.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (17:10): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The government does not support this motion. The government encourages Fairfax staff and management to use lawful means to resolve the dispute. It does not support the taking of illegal industrial action. Furthermore, the best way to ensure the future of journalism is to support the government's media reform package that will strengthen Australia's media industry and enable it to survive and prosper.
Question agreed to.
Food Allergy Week
Senator DI NATALE ( Victoria — Leader of the Australian Greens ) ( 17: 12 ): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) next week, 14 to 20 May 2017, is Food Allergy week,
(ii) 1 in 10 babies born in Australia today will develop a food allergy that could threaten their life every day,
(iii) over half a million (650,000) Australians have a diagnosed food allergy, and
(iv) Australia has one of the highest rates of food allergies in the developed world, and that incidence of food allergy is growing at an alarming rate; and
(b) acknowledges that:
(i) with no known cure for food allergy, awareness and education is of utmost importance, as a severe allergic reaction and/or anaphylaxis can rapidly become life threatening, and must be treated as a medical emergency,
(ii) Food Allergy Week is an opportunity to highlight the high rates of food allergy in Australia and to encourage Australians to be aware of food allergies and know how to respond in an emergency situation, and
(iii) allergy sufferers, friends and family members can visit the Food Allergy Week website www.foodallergyaware.com.au or contact Allergy & Anaphylaxis Australia for a range of resources, and support on living with, and responding to food allergies.
Question agreed to.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children
Senator SIEWERT ( Western Australia — Australian Greens Whip ) ( 17: 12 ): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 26 May 2017 marks the 20 year anniversary of the historic report, Bringing Them Home: Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families, and
(ii) 26 May is Sorry Day, a day to acknowledge and recognise members of the stolen generations;
(b) acknowledges:
(i) the ongoing impacts of the intergenerational effects on the stolen generations and their families,
(ii) that a disproportionate number of Aboriginal children are still in out-of-home care,
(iii) that the 2016 report of the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care (SNAICC), Family Matters, found that:
(A) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are almost 10 times more likely to be removed by child protection authorities than non-Indigenous children, and
(B) the population of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children removed by the child protection system is likely to triple by 2035, and
(iv) children in out-of-home care experience poor outcomes on a range of indicators; and
(c) calls on state, territory and Commonwealth governments, as a matter of urgency, to implement the recommendations contained in the report of SNAICC.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (17:10): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The government acknowledges the important work of the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care in supporting better outcomes for Indigenous children, including children in out-of-home care. The government cannot support this motion as child protection systems are the responsibility of state and territory governments. Work is already underway to support better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island children through the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children, in which the secretariat has a central role. The government is continuing to work with the states and territories and Indigenous communities to assist Indigenous families and reduce the overrepresentation of their children in the child protection system as much as possible.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Joint Select Committee on Government Procurement
Appointment
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (17:13): I move:
That—
(a) paragraph (1) of the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Government Procurement be amended to read as follows:
(1) That a joint select committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on Government Procurement, be established to inquire and report by 30 June 2017 on the following matters; and
(b) a message be forwarded to the House of Representatives seeking the concurrence of the House in this variation to the resolution of appointment.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Public Interest Journalism
Senator DASTYARI (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:14): I, and also on behalf of Senators Ludlam, Xenophon and Lambie, move:
(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Future of Public Interest Journalism, be established to inquire into and report on:
(a) the current state of public interest journalism in Australia and around the world, including the role of government in ensuring a viable, independent and diverse service;
(b) the adequacy of current competition and consumer laws to deal with the market power and practices of search engines, social media aggregators and content aggregators, and their impact on the Australian media landscape;
(c) the impact on public interest journalism of search engines and social media internet service providers circulating fake news, and an examination of counter measures directed at online advertisers, 'click-bait' generators and other parties who benefit from disinformation;
(d) the future of public and community broadcasters in delivering public interest journalism, particularly in underserviced markets like regional Australia, and culturally and linguistically diverse communities;
(e) examination of 'fake news', propaganda, and public disinformation, including sources and motivation of fake news in Australia, overseas, and the international response; and
(f) any related matters.
(2) That the committee present its final report on or before 7 December 2017.
(3) That the committee consist of seven senators, as follows:
(a) two nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;
(b) two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;
(c) one nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens;
(d) one nominated by the Nick Xenophon Team; and
(e) one nominated by minority party and independent senators.
(4) That:
(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator; and
(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee.
(5) That the provisions of standing order 29 apply with respect to quorum.
(6) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.
(7) That the committee elect as chair one of the members nominated by Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and as deputy chair the member nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens.
(8) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.
(9) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.
(10) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.
(11) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.
(12) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.
(13) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (17:14): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: Before proceeding to establish yet another committee, we should be very mindful of the current workload and carefully consider the pressures it places on committee secretariats in particular. As of yesterday, the Senate references committees have had a total of 64 inquiries referred to them, 37 of which are current inquiries. It should also be noted that in the 45th Parliament there have already been eight joint and Senate select committees established, six of which are still ongoing. A practical way to help ensure the future of public interest journalism would be to support the government's media reform package to strengthen Australia's media industry. Australia's media industry does not need more inquiries at this time; it needs action.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Dastyari be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [17:19]
(The President—Senator Parry)
MOTIONS
Immigration Detention
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (17:22): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 309 standing in my name for today relating to Nauruan cadmium levels.
Leave granted.
Senator McKIM: I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Nauruan environment was damaged by extensive phosphate mining throughout the twentieth century creating cadmium residue,
(ii) the World Health Organisation classifies cadmium as a human carcinogen, which has toxic effects on the kidneys, skeletal and respiratory system, and
(iii) the levels of cadmium remain unknown and refugees and asylum seekers on Nauru are yet to be tested for elevated levels of cadmium in their bodies; and
(b) calls on the Government to investigate the presence of cadmium in the Republic of Nauru and the health risks associated with prolonged cadmium and phosphate exposure, and test refugees and people seeking asylum for elevated cadmium levels.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (17:23): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: This is yet another Greens stunt. The Greens well know that the Australian government is not responsible for the management of cadmium on the Republic of Nauru. It is a matter for the government of Nauru. Regardless, there are no regional processing facilities located within the immediate vicinity of any active mining operations, and extensive dust minimisation strategies are in place on Nauru. If the Greens cared about refugees on Nauru, they would support the government's strong and consistent border protection policies rather than constantly trying to play political games.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that general business motion No. 309 moved by Senator McKim as amended be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [17:25]
(The President—Senator Parry)
NOTICES
Postponement
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (17:28): by leave—I move:
That notice of motion No. 2 standing in my name for today, relating to a reference to the Education and Employment References Committee, be postponed to the next day of sitting.
Question agreed to.
DOCUMENTS
Saudi Arabia: Human Rights
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (17:28): I move:
That, in relation to the order of the Senate of 29 March 2017, the Senate—
(a) notes the failure of the Minister for Defence to provide either:
(i) the documents relating to the Minister for Defence Industry's visit to Saudi Arabia and military exports to that country; or
(ii) any acceptable public interest immunity claim;
(b) orders there be laid on the table by the Minister for Defence, by 6 pm on 10 May 2017, the itinerary for the Minister for Defence Industry's visit to Riyadh in December 2016, and any documents relating to approvals for the military exports to Saudi Arabia since January 2016; and
(c) requires, if the documents are not provided, the Minister for Defence be in the Senate at 6 pm on 10 May 2017, so that a senator may ask the Minister for Defence for an explanation, and at the conclusion of the explanation any senator may move a motion to take note of the explanation; or if the Minister for Defence fails to provide an explanation any senator may move to take note of her failure to do so.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (17:28): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The government reiterates its public interest immunity claim for the documents relating to military exports, as set out in the letter from the Minister for Defence to the President of the Senate dated Senate 7 May 2017. This claim is on the basis of commercial confidentiality, Australia's relations with foreign governments and national security. The Minister for Defence Industry has advised that he will not provide a copy of his itinerary as he is a member of the House of Representatives and is thus not bound by the Senate. In any case, the Minister for Defence currently has leave from the Senate as she is overseas on ministerial business and will not be in Australia at 6 pm on Wednesday, 10 May 2017.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 312, moved by Senator Ludlam, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [17:30]
(The President—Senator Parry)
MOTIONS
Food Labelling
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (17:34): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) recognises that:
(i) many Australian consumers deliberately choose free range labelled eggs to avoid the horrific cruelty of factory-farmed eggs,
(ii) the Model Code of Practice for Domestic Poultry reflects consumers' expectations that eggs labelled as free range are laid by chickens kept at a maximum density of 1500 chickens per hectare,
(iii) the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has for years successfully prosecuted unscrupulous egg producers for incorrectly labelling their intensively stocked chickens as free range,
(iv) the development of the Australian Standard for free range labelled eggs was intended to provide consumers with confidence that free range labelled eggs are laid by hens not suffering under intensively stocked systems of over 1,500 animals,
(v) the Government's newly announced Standards allow industrial egg producers and major supermarkets to label densities of 10,000 hens per hectare as free range, and
(vi) the new Standards do not meet community expectations of free range; and
(b) calls on the Government to review the Free Range Egg Labelling Information Standard to accurately reflect the density standard of egg-laying chickens, and to ensure that consumers have correct information about stocking densities.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (17:35): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The information standard is about ensuring consumers have the information they need to make an informed choice and compare brands. It is about information in consumer law, not farming practices or animal welfare. The information standard is not the appropriate vehicle for those matters. The information standard was developed following months of consultation and stakeholder feedback. Again, it is about information so that consumers can make the choice they want when purchasing free-range eggs.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Rhiannon be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [17:36]
(The President—Senator Parry)
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Senator BURSTON (New South Wales) (17:39): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes the Platform Papers publication entitled, Missing in Action: the ABC and Australian Screen Culture, in which former ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) television director Mr Kim Dalton argues that the primary concern of the ABC is to protect its institutional status and structure;
(b) is of the opinion that the ABC should allocate at least 35 per cent of its annual funding to rural and regional areas of Australia where Australian content can be developed consistent with the ABC Charter; and
(c) calls on the Government to make a reduction to ABC funding of $600 million over the forward estimates of $150 million per year commencing at the end of the 2017-18 financial year on the basis that the ABC has failed to develop a strategic plan to provide at least 50 per cent local content, and to develop a policy of broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (17:40): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The ABC is funded on a triennial basis, and this funding was confirmed in the 2016 budget. On that basis, the government will not be supporting this motion.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Burston be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [17:41]
(The President—Senator Parry)
Republic of Chechnya
Senator RICE ( Victoria ) ( 17:45 ): I ask that general business notice of motion No. 319, standing in my name for today, relating to the persecution in the Republic of Chechnya of men who are presumed to be gay or bisexual, be taken as a formal motion.
The PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?
Senator McGrath: Yes.
The PRESIDENT: Formality has been denied, Senator Rice.
Senator RICE: I seek leave to make a one-minute statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute, Senator Rice.
Senator RICE: I am extremely disappointed that the government has denied formality on this important motion about men in Chechnya being rounded up, placed in concentration camps, beaten and tortured on the basis of their actual or presumed sexuality. I note that our Minister for Foreign Affairs has indeed raised this issue with the Russian government and I commend her for doing so, but a lot more actions need to be taken—specifically the actions that I outlined in my motion of working towards a UN resolution condemning the Chechnyan and Russian governments of cutting trade and diplomatic links, of backing the UN's Free & Equal campaign, which raises awareness of homophobia and transphobia, and being prepared to take gay and lesbian refugees from Chechnya. I believe these are all very reasonable measures which would have a strong chance of being supported in the Senate. The Greens will be pursuing further action so that Australia does everything it can to apply pressure on Chechnya and Russia to end this appalling persecution.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (17:46): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute, Senator McGrath.
Senator McGRATH: In line with the government's longstanding view, motions that cannot be debated or amended should not deal with complex foreign policy matters. The Australian government is gravely concerned about reports alleging that male citizens of the Republic of Chechnya who are assumed to be gay or bisexual are being persecuted. The government sought to negotiate alternative wording with Senator Rice to formulate a multiparty motion on this issue. However, agreement could not be reached. As such, there are elements of this motion that we are unable to support.
Oakden Older Persons Mental Health Service
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (17:47): I, and also on behalf of Senators Griff and Kakoschke-Moore, move:
That—
(a) the Senate notes that:
(i) on 20 April 2017 it was announced that the Makk and McLeay Aged Mental Health Care Service at Oakden (Oakden) in South Australia, the state-Government-run nursing home for vulnerable dementia patients, would be shut in the wake of allegations of mistreatment at the facility,
(ii) the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency (AACQA) has a responsibility to accredit Australian-Government-subsidised aged care homes, and had accredited Oakden,
(iii) the chief executive of the AACQA, visited the facility after the announced closures and conceded that Oaken was one of the "poorest examples" of nursing homes he had experienced,
(iv) the AACQA is now conducting a review on its own performance in relation to the accreditation of Oakden, and
(v) there is always danger in self-assessment by Government agencies; and
(b) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care, by no later than 5 pm on 11 May 2017, the following Oakden-related documents for the period 2007 to date:
(i) all accreditation site audit reports,
(ii) all assessment information documents,
(iii) all assessment contact reports, both announced and unannounced,
(iv) all decisions to accredit or not accredit and associated reasons,
(v) any recommendations to impose sanctions,
(vi) all referrals from the Department of Health to the AACQA, and
(vii) all statements of major findings.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (17:47): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: In light of recent findings in relation to failures in the quality of care delivered at the Oakden campus of the South Australian Older Persons Mental Health Service, Minister Wyatt announced an external review that will examine the report by 31 August 2017 on the Commonwealth government aged-care accreditation, monitoring, review, investigation, complaints and compliance processes. The reports requested can be provided within the fortnight, as the department will need some time to integrate the systems and collate all the reports, noting that we could be referring to thousands of pages of documentation.
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (17:48): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute, Senator Gallagher.
Senator GALLAGHER: The opposition will not be supporting this motion. The review of the Oakden Older Persons Mental Health Service provided a detailed report on matters of concern relating to the care and treatment of patients. The significant failures that the report exposed are deeply concerning. However, they are also not isolated. It is critical that we take a national approach to urgently address the aged-care quality regulatory processes that are letting too many older Australians and their families down. Labor supports the review of the Commonwealth's aged-care quality regulatory processes announced on 1 May and believes this is the appropriate avenue to consider any additional documentation relating to Oakden.
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (17:49): I seek leave to make a very short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute, Senator Xenophon.
Senator XENOPHON: Notwithstanding the review that has been announced by Minister Wyatt, which is very welcome, that does not obviate the need for this motion. I have been approached by a number of families whose loved ones were at this facility—this house of horrors, which many people now regarded it as. We owe it to those families to do everything we can at every possible opportunity to get to the truth of what occurred and to have appropriate scrutiny. This order for the production of documents does that, and I urge my colleagues to support this motion.
Question agreed to.
National Reconciliation Week
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (17:50): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that National Reconciliation Week is from 27 May to 3 June 2017 and the theme is "Let's Take the Next Steps";
(b) acknowledges that:
(i) the first and last day of Reconciliation Week fall on significant anniversaries: the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum and the 25th anniversary of the Mabo decision,
(ii) as a consequence of the 1967 referendum, two references in the Constitution, which discriminated against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, were removed,
(iii) the removal of these references meant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples could be counted in the census and the Federal Government could make laws for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples,
(iv) the 1967 referendum achieved a 90.77 per cent 'yes' vote, the highest 'yes' vote of a federal referendum, and
(v) the Mabo decision overturned the doctrine of 'terra nullius'; and
(c) calls on all levels of government to be a part of the next steps in our nation's reconciliation journey.
Question agreed to.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Cost of Living
The PRESIDENT (17:51): I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, three proposals for a consideration in accordance with standing order 75 were received. 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 Roberts:
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The need for the Federal Government to tackle cost of living challenges in the Budget.
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The 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 ROBERTS (Queensland) (17:52): Pauline Hanson's One Nation travels Australia and our home states, listening day in and day out, week in and week out. During those travels we always hear that the greatest challenge affecting everyday Australians is the cost of living: cost of energy; cost of doing business; red, blue, or UN, and green tape; taxes; fees; charges. At every turn, governments of both major parties have their hands in the pockets of Aussies, stealing our money. As we are servants to the people of Queensland and Australia, people come to us and say that the greatest government squeeze has gone too far. They say, 'We have had enough. We cannot cope.' People say to us that they do not have one, two or three—let alone 0.5—per cent of their incomes to spare for the government. This government—in fact, every parliamentarian—would be well served by listening to everyday Australians about how tough it is out there and how big, monolithic government needs to get out of the way. Everywhere we travel, people tell us they want government out of their lives.
Let me give just one example to trigger this debate. Drakes Supermarkets, which trades as Foodland, is owned by Roger Drake. Its electricity will increase from $5 million last year to $7 million this year. That is an increase of 40 per cent. Who pays? All people who buy food or all those whose jobs are cut to cover the extraordinary new cost.
Let me frame this matter of public importance by saying from the outset that this conversation does not have to be about quibbling over the exact details of the billions of dollars the government steals from people every day. Rather, it must be framed in the context of big government goosestepping into our very lives. The government's intrusion alone is causing cost-of-living pressures. I am resoundingly pro human, with enormous faith and pride in and admiration for our human species. Why? The last 170 years have seen billions of people lifted out of poverty and removed from the vagaries of nature's weather extremes of drought, flood and famine, vastly lengthening lifespans and increasing comfort, safety, ease and security. And along with the miracle of hydrocarbon fuels—that is coal, gas and oil—which, until recent government interventions, were actually falling in real prices, that miracle is due to human creativity, initiative and love, or, if you will, our care. Yes, care. Everyone in this room is here because in our early years someone cared for us. In fact, in today's marketplace, companies that care for their people and customers thrive. Indeed, a defining trait among humans and advanced species is that those who care for their offspring and for others in their species survive. Caring genes are passed on. With humans, care is inherent.
Our human spirit unites us, powers our constant search for improvements to life and drives our inherent creativity. Creativity explodes in free societies when ideas are shared and extended. Big government encroaching on our lives does nothing to assist in human creativity or initiative. Big government, especially accompanied by regressive Greens policies heralded in the 1980s and 1990s, has caused catastrophic consequences for our species, such as increased power prices, hyperinflated home prices, exhaustive taxation and strangling of the businesses that used to employ millions of Australians. People cannot afford the cost of living when they do not have a job. Our creativity has been stifled. For the control-oriented side of politics to now say that the government should restrain these people or create industries is delusional and denies human creativity, human endeavour and spirit.
It is sad how humans can at times be derailed from our core value of care, as last century showed, with socialists causing the mass deaths of people in Germany, Russia and China, to name but a few countries inflicted with genocidal dictatorships. Why were these deaths caused? Because, as part of our human journey, we form egos or identities that make us vulnerable to delusions and fear. It leads some, such as the Australian Greens, to a negative view of our species. It leads the fearful and inadequate to attempt to control others—control, feeding on fear and ego. Ego feeds big, monolithic government that feeds off of the people to keep itself growing—ever omnipresent, ever oppressive and ever controlling. Our species endures this tension between fear, which underpins control, and freedom, which enables creativity and progress. However, there is a limit to how much control will succeed, and we have pushed people beyond breaking point in Australia. These are fundamental contradictions that we face and endure: control versus freedom. In politics today, the concept of left versus right is out of date and inadequate. We are returning to an understanding that control versus freedom is the core issue, which manifests itself through inadequate documents like last night's budget.
Today's debate is about two paths that the government's budget could have taken. One path promotes fear and regressive big government—a budget any Labor Treasurer would be proud of—while the other path promotes freedom, with less control and less theft through taxation. A so-called Liberal government chose the former, not the latter. It is ironic that for seven decades Western nations have been fed the nonsense that we humans are inherently uncaring, greedy, irresponsible and even evil, and that, as a result, we need more government to protect us from ourselves. Yet government itself consists of humans. Why is it that the Australian Greens, union bosses and the tired, old parties advocate for ever more control through big government intervention and regulation? This advocacy of control has driven the distancing of government from the people they claim to govern. It has driven overregulation and distortions that smash employment and stifle strong and firm industrial relations. Regulation adds cost and decreases quality; it increases prices. There is little or nothing the government can do well or right when compared to the same effort of the private sector or, if you will, human endeavour.
Let us considered the obscene and meagre attempts to solve the costs of purchasing a new home. Unlike Senator Dastyari and the ALP, our party understands the love and care that can be associated with home ownership. However, how could the government possibly think a cap of $30,000 will even make a dent in the cost of a deposit for an average home for most Australians? For an average home, that is barely five per cent of the deposit. The mortgage insurance alone could be close to $30,000 on some of these purchases with a five per cent deposit. Also, releasing a few parcels of federal land for development in Melbourne will not solve the problem. The problem with housing is red, green and UN-blue tape strangling land release and limiting the growth of human creativity in property development. Giving a first home buyer a $30,000 tax concession saving is an insult to our intelligence, but the elites just do not get it.
Last night the Treasurer said he would take a scalpel to the problem of housing affordability, not a chainsaw. Why is it that the Hon. Treasurer looks at the left-wing control side's chainsaw solution of taxing investors as a possible solution? Why wouldn't a so-called Liberal government look at our chainsaw solution and drastically cut red, green and blue UN tape to release more land and human creativity? That is the supply side sorted—fixed.
Further, the government laments $13 billion of discarded savings in this budget. Thirteen billion dollars does not even cover our interest debt, by the way. It is a long way short. However, we can reduce the need for excessive taxation which drives the cost of living, simply by looking at expenditure. There is something novel—let's look at expenditure! I might add: we can get rid of or send back to the states the departments of environment, health and education. We can abandon the ridiculous climate and energy policies that are crippling our nation. We can save tens of billions of dollars. If the public were to learn, via a transparency portal, every red cent that bureaucrats spend, I can tell you now that, as quick as could be, government spending would fall by billions. This has been proven in some states of the United States and in parts of Europe.
I have called for an urgent meeting with the Treasurer to discuss this proposal. We need 24 million auditors in Australia poring over every cent that we spend in this parliament. Public servants would be too embarrassed to reveal how much they spent on travel, accommodation, finger-painting lessons and massage chairs. They simply would not spend the billions of dollars the government could save by releasing, in real time, the exact amounts governments are spending. In fact, if we did away with duplicated federal departments, as I said, and ceased disproven climate policies, that would further reduce government spending and the need for hikes in taxation. Reduce spending and you reduce the need for our greatest cost-of-living expense, taxation.
Figures in the late 1990s and the early 2000s from the Australian Bureau of Statistics said that a person earning the average wage spends 68 per cent on government. They hand over 68 per cent to government on rates, fees, levies, taxes, surcharges, special fees and special levies. That is the equivalent of working from Monday to mid-morning on Thursday and handing it over to the government. The meagre rest—one and two-thirds of a day—is available for spending on education, sewerage, water, travel, transport, food, shelter. That is the cost-of-living pressure.
On my Facebook wall today, Vivienne Schnell said:
When did any government vote for less government? They have to be forced to do that at gunpoint.
I have hope and trust in the human spirit that fights to be free. I have hope and trust that freedom, not control, will prevail and that the march towards big government will end peacefully. That journey starts with debates and dialogue here in this chamber. People like Ms Schnell may be frustrated and have nothing from last night's budget to give them comfort, but I warn all senators here gathered that her patience—and that of the millions of Australians like her—is wearing thin. Here, in this parliament today, we have been charged with the task of igniting Australia's creativity and initiative which will restore our prosperity.
Senator HUME (Victoria) (18:04): I rise to speak this evening in response to the matter of public importance submitted this morning by our parliamentary colleague from Queensland, Senator Malcolm Roberts. Senator Roberts asked the Senate to consider the federal government's need to tackle the cost of living challenges in its budget. It gives me enormous joy, enormous pride even, to be able to inform Senator Roberts that the Turnbull government have indeed tackled the cost of living challenges in the 2017 budget. In his speech last night in the other place, the Treasurer articulated an economic vision for our country based on fairness, on security and on opportunity. And a key tenet of this budget, a fundamental objective of this budget, is to address the cost of living pressures faced by ordinary Australians. All budgets are about choices, competing interests and competing priorities, but this budget is about making the right choices, the right choices to secure better days ahead for all Australians.
The government has chosen to tackle the cost of living pressures for Australians and their families, taking action to ease the strain in areas such as housing affordability, power prices and child care. The Australian economy has grown consistently every year for the past 26 years, but not all sectors have grown evenly. The Turnbull government recognises that not all Australians have enjoyed the benefits of our nation's growth.
Housing affordability is an issue that has dominated so much of the national conversation and, while there is no silver bullet that any federal government can provide for this problem, the Turnbull government has not shirked its responsibilities. This budget seeks to ease the burden on the hip pockets of ordinary Australians and ordinary households by making housing more affordable for prospective buyers and renters, and to support people who are homeless. Tax concessional savings through the superannuation system provide the right incentives to help first-home buyers struggling to save for their first home. We are also reducing the barriers to downsizers by allowing those over 65 to contribute up to $300,000 into their superannuation on the sale of their family home.
But the policies I am most proud of are those which will genuinely improve the outcomes for those most in need. The Turnbull coalition will look after those who are homeless and will provide $375 million to give further certainty to the providers of homelessness services. We will also establish a National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, similar to the model applied in the UK, to operate an affordable housing bond aggregator. We will provide tax incentives to private investors to build the social housing that we desperately need in every single state in this country. This is a government that is not only tackling the cost of living for ordinary Australians, it is providing a helping hand to those who are just starting out and building safe places for our society's most vulnerable.
When you start a family and your children are young, families find themselves burdened with all types of new cost pressures and all families want the best possible start for their children. Studies show that a quality preschool program in the year before school makes for far better outcomes in school years. In addition to our landmark $2.5 billion child-care and early learning reforms, the Turnbull coalition government will ensure that all children continue to have access to 15 hours a week preschool in that year before school. This is a $429 million investment over two years made by a coalition government that is not only doing the right thing by future generations, but is tackling genuine cost of living pressures for ordinary Australians right now.
Many Australians have cited health care and the growing costs around health care as a major source of financial stress. The Turnbull government reconfirmed last night its commitment to Medicare and to the PBS system for which funding will now be guaranteed. It will be enshrined in legislation. But the government's commitment to easing the cost of living concerns about health care do not stop there. We are partnering with Medicines Australia to reduce the costs of medicines by $1.8 billion over the next five years. We are listing new drugs for patients with chronic heart failure at $510 million. We are funding public hospitals by $2.8 billion as a result of this budget. Medicines are cheaper, hospitals are well funded. This is a government that is tackling the cost-of-living pressures for all Australians.
The rising cost of energy is a major concern. In a resource-rich country like ours, Australians deserve affordable and reliable energy to heat their homes and to keep the lights on. In the short-term, the Turnbull government has committed to a one-off energy assistance package to pensioners, payable immediately to help with their rising energy bills. We have also commissioned the ACCC to inquire into the competition of the electricity and the gas retailers. We have provided $90 million to secure gas resources for domestic use and we have secured gas industry commitments to improve domestic supply. For the longer term, we are investing in a new generation transmission and storage capacity, including Snowy Hydro 2.0.
Finally, I am very pleased to share that the government is also restoring the pensioner concession card for those impacted by the asset test change introduced in January this year. This will allow almost 100,000 extra people to access discounts offered to concession cardholders.
This is, ultimately, a pragmatic budget. It is a budget centred on fairness, opportunity and security, which will assist all Australians. The government has chosen to prioritise those services that Australians rely on, especially our most vulnerable. I want to assure Senator Roberts that this is a budget that does, indeed, address the cost-of-living pressures for all Australians based on the principles of fairness, opportunity and security.
Senator SINGH ( Tasmania ) ( 18:11 ): What a shock it has all been—the last 24 hours since the delivery of the Turnbull government's 2017 budget. We know that they were going to try as hard as possible to walk away from their 2014 budget train wreck. But where they have ended up has completely left Australians in a position of thinking that this government has not only already lost its way but become a wolf in sheep's clothing. Given any chance at all, it would return to those unfair cuts and awful outcomes that it made in its budget of 2014.
Why do we know that? They have made it very clear that the only reason that they have delivered this kind of budget—this budget in which, yes, they have stolen some of Labor's policies; although they have only half baked them—is they could not get their unfair budget through the Senate. So given any opportunity for this Senate to change its make-up, they would go back to type and they would bring back that train wreck of the 2014 budget. And we all know the unfair zombie measures that were involved in that. Unemployed people having to wait six months for any income support, paid parental leave cuts, family tax benefit cuts—there was a range of zombie measures that were going to hurt the most vulnerable of our society. So do not be fooled, Australians. This budget is only here in place because the government could not get their unfair 2014 budget through the Senate.
We have to dig down because the Prime Minister and the Treasurer continue to use this word 'fairness'. The government has decided to use the Labor word of 'fairness'. In using that word, it is being incredibly untruthful. This budget is not fair. It is not fair in the area of education. It is not fair on health. It is not fair on housing affordability. In all of these areas, it is trying to tell Australians, 'We have done something fair.' Okay. Perhaps if you look at 2014 and if you look at this budget, they may think to themselves that they have done something fair. But that just goes to the heart of the fact that they actually do not know what fairness means. To say you are going to lift the Medicare freeze and say that that is fair but then not actually do it—but then make people wait another year, two years, three years, before they can get that support—that is not fair.
It is all about the detail, when it comes to this budget. The gloss soon wears off once you start digging beneath the words of fairness that they keep using. And once you keep digging down, you realise that the government has not walked away from its ideological obsession to give $50 billion of company tax cuts to the most wealthy in this country. You realise that the ideology of trickle-down economics to create jobs and growth that they talk about is still there, even though it is an outdated and flawed economic policy objective and they have still left in place a number of other areas that are going to hurt some of our most vulnerable.
Let us look at the way they have tackled education. Finally, they have recognised the importance of needs based funding, and I give them credit for recognising the importance of needs based funding. That ensures that every child, in every school, gets every opportunity for the best education, no matter what their postcode, no matter what their circumstances. But that will only work if it is properly funded, and we know that the government has still left a big $22 billion hole in the Gonski needs based funding formula that Labor put forward when it was in government. So that is a big fail there. There is no fairness there. It is a failure.
The other failure is in housing affordability, something that is facing this country in such a big way for this current generation and the next generation. Nothing there for them. No negative gearing changes. No capital gains tax concession reductions. It is all still there for the big investors. The big investors do very well out of this budget because nothing has changed. But for those trying to get into the market—first-home buyers—we know that house prices are soaring. We know how many of the purchasers are made up of investors, because they are doing very well out of Australia's negative-gearing system. Nowhere in the world seems to have one like ours. That is another fail, another squib.
The other area I am very disappointed about, which really affects my home state, is in the area of health. There are a number of people who will only be able to access a GP or a specialist if they can have that service bulk billed. And that is the whole point of a universal healthcare system. That is why Labor created and brought about Medicare. But that is completely being dismantled—and has been over the last while—by this government now, in what the journalists call a 'Labor lite' approach. The government says, 'No, no! We are going to protect Medicare. We are going to lift the Medicare freeze. And it's all going to be good, because we've changed our clothing. We've now got these different clothes, where we think it is okay now to protect Medicare, even though we did have our Prime Minister telling President Trump that it was good on him for repealing Obamacare, which looked a lot like Medicare.' Go figure that one.
Having said that, no: there is no lifting of the Medicare freeze. We are going to have to wait at least a year and even longer—three years for specialist treatments—for people in serious need of their health needs being addressed by those specialists and doctors. Why couldn't you have done it now? That would have given you some legitimacy in this budget. But no: a failure.
The other area I want to look at is the area of women's rights. The Australian government used to produce a yearly Women's Budget Statement—until the Liberals abolished it in 2014. So over successful governments, including the Howard government, there was—
Senator Seselja interjecting—
Senator Cameron interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Reynolds ): Minister and Senator Cameron, particularly Minister, I am having trouble now hearing Senator Singh, so please accord her a little more respect. Thank you.
Senator SINGH: In 2014 the Liberals abolished the Women's Budget Statement because they wanted to hide how women were impacted by their policies, by their cuts and by their spending. I am calling on the Liberals to bring back the Women's Budget Statement, but so far this has fallen on deaf ears. To fill the gap, for the last number of years Labor has been producing a women's budget statement in opposition, and we will do so again this year. We have a strong record when it comes to women's rights and women's policy: we brought about the first paid parental leave scheme, we developed the first national plan to reduce violence against women and children and we invested $3 billion to increase wages in the female-dominated social and community sector. We have a very strong record on advancing women's rights and, when next in government, I have no doubt that we will bring back the Women's Budget Statement as part of the federal government's budget.
Finally, there is a policy area that you would think simply could not be cut any more than it already has been by this government over the last three years or more, and that is the foreign aid and development budget. But, yes, it has been cut again. I really did not think it could be. It has already been consecutively cut to the bone so much—dropping by almost 30 per cent during that time. I remember a time when we had bipartisanship on aid and development, when we had this goal of reaching 0.5 of GNI. That all went out the window when Tony Abbott became Prime Minister, and it has continued under Malcolm Turnbull, to the extent that we now make the lowest contribution to aid and development that we ever have—the lowest contribution we have ever made—down to 0.23 of GNI and going down. It is not going up but going down. Meanwhile, the Conservative government in the UK has stood firm in its aid spend of seven pence out of every 10 pounds—that is a UK Conservative government. (Time expired)
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (18:22): I welcome the opportunity to talk about the impact of the cost of living in this country as it hurts Australians, particularly those who are on low incomes, are on income support and rely on our social safety net. The gap in inequality is growing in this country, as I have spoken about on many occasions in this place, particularly thanks to this government's policy, which always favours the well-off and hurts the most vulnerable. We saw that last night in the latest budget.
People on lower incomes, in the lower income quintiles, in this country are struggling, and they continue to struggle. As I said, there are plenty of reports now coming out about inequality—both wealth inequality and income inequality. A report released by ACOSS late last year showed that an estimated 2.9 million people live below the internationally accepted poverty line, and I have no doubt that this will worsen as the government continues its slash-and-burn approach to our social safety net. Again, you could see the evidence of that last night. The government continue to want Australians to believe that trickle-down economics will float all boats and have an outcome for those on low incomes, when, in fact, the money simply does not trickle down. At a time when things are tough for Australians, our social safety net is essential to ensure that people are properly supported when they are struggling.
It was Senator Malcolm Roberts who raised this matter of public importance, and I have to say I find this extremely hypocritical of him and the One Nation party, as they have an appalling track record when it comes to looking after Australians who are struggling to make ends meet and those who have to survive on income support. I would like to draw to the Senate's attention an interview that Senator Hanson did with Phillip Coorey from The Australian Financial Review in October last year. The article reported her as saying:
"Right across the board, not only in welfare, I see a big waste of money and we actually have to rein it back in."
The article continued:
She said successive governments, in a bid to win votes, had allowed welfare to become a way of life rather than a helping hand and 'tough decisions' were needed.
'If we are going to be able to, in the future, support those who are truly in need, like the sick or the aged, we've got to do something about it now,' she said.
The article went on to say that Ms Hanson said:
I want the money to be put into hospital waiting lists and schools. Infrastructure in this country is ridiculous.
Further, the article said:
Ms Hanson acknowledged many who voted for her party were on low incomes and some were on welfare.
And it quoted Ms Hanson as saying:
I'm sorry, I can't please everyone and not everyone's going to agree with me but I have to make decisions I believe are right for this country and future generations.
The article continued:
She said her supporters were not the type to tolerate 'welfare bludgers'.
To me, by using those words and other words that One Nation have said in this place, they assume everybody on income support is a bludger.
I do not use the word 'welfare', because this government and many others have tried to denigrate the word 'welfare'; so I talk about our social safety net, because that is what it is. It is our social safety net that ensures that the most vulnerable members of our community have the support they need, particularly in the face of increasing inequality and, for those people, the rising cost of living. When you are on a low income, the cost of living makes a difference. It makes an essential difference. People have a right under our legislation and under international obligations to have access to social security. Australia has a responsibility to ensure that we have a social safety net.
Irrespective of this matter of public importance debate today, people need to know that the One Nation party in the Senate will not protect our social safety net. In fact, they take every opportunity they can to denigrate our social safety net and try to rip giant great holes in it, or assist the government to rip giant great holes in our social safety net. This issue needs to be considered in the context that there are people who are on income support or on very low incomes who are struggling to make ends meet—and those are the people we need to be investing in.
Senator BACK (Western Australia) (18:27): I am delighted to take this opportunity to comment on the federal government's activities in tackling cost-of-living challenges. Senator Siewert quite rightly identified the stress that is so evident now across so much of the community. So wouldn't it be amazing if the $15 billion a year that we are borrowing overseas just to pay the interest on an accumulated debt was actually available to go back into the economy to support so many of the areas that others in this debate this evening have highlighted as being essential areas?
It is a simple fact that the electors of Australia have got what they wanted. That is what democracy is all about. The voters of Australia voted for the Senate that we have got. We have seen our opponents on the other side three times in the last parliament knock back no less than $15 billion of savings that they themselves had identified. They were savings that they identified leading up to 2013, and three times in this Senate chamber in the last parliament they refused to accept them. As the finance minister said today, we have now had knocked back some $15 billion of savings that could have been there in the budget and could have been available—in addition to the $15 billion I just mentioned that is now being borrowed overseas just to pay interest—to support those essential areas that have been the subject of discussion today.
In question time today the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate asked a question of the Attorney-General, accusing him of levelling a tax against people who earn $21,000 a year. I did my figures during question time. The first $18,000 of the $21,000 is tax free. A person earning $21,000 in this country pays $500 per annum tax. And, if they had no other deductions, the 0.5 per cent that would be the levy in two years time would equate to $2.50 each year. It would equate to $2.50 a year. That would be that person's contribution to support the NDIS, which will require funding in two years time. To put that into perspective for people, it is less than the cost of a Mars bar at Aussie's, because that is $2.90. So $2.50 a year would be the contribution by that hypothetical person raised by Senator Gallagher.
But it is my view, which I hold very, very strongly and will never depart from, that the best way to ensure affordability for a family—for the honour and integrity of, and for opportunity and a future for that family—is a job. And we know very well that the largest employer group in the nation is small business. It is not big business; it is not government; it is small business. The engine room is small business. Millions of people are employed in small business, not just in the cities but in rural and regional Australia, and not just in the highly skilled jobs but in the semiskilled and unskilled jobs. And this government, I am very proud to say, is driving down the tax rate to 25c in the dollar and preserving the $20,000 write-offs that have become so essential for small business.
Yes, I agree completely with Senator Siewert: in our own home state of Western Australia, we are definitely seeing an enormous amount of strain. Maybe some of those people who have been earning $250,000 a year on the mines have been living well beyond their means; maybe they should have been continuing to live on the $100,000-plus a year that would have been their normal salary.
But I say this: the people of Australia have voted. This is the Senate they wanted. And now they must live with that outcome.
Treasurer Morrison and Prime Minister Turnbull and finance minister Cormann quite rightly took the position that we still need to grow this economy. Isn't it interesting that, in the last two or three weeks, surveys were conducted that found that 65 per cent of Australians said that they wanted expenditure to be contained. Senator Seselja knows, as Senator Fawcett knows, that the biggest single cost centre in our budget is welfare. The same 65 per cent who said they wanted expenditure contained also wanted no interruption to welfare spending. You cannot have it all ways.
So we see tax relief for small business, which we know is now driving, and will continue to drive, towards job opportunities and training opportunities. We saw some of the decisions made last night in the budget by the Treasurer to further encourage employment of apprentices. Only in the last few days we have been talking about the opportunities for naval shipbuilding—of the offshore patrol vessels, the frigates et cetera—across southern Australia. Apprenticeships are flowing and will flow. There will be employment opportunities and training in that shipbuilding industry.
In our own home state of Western Australia, the first floating LNG platform, Shell's Prelude, will be in our waters soon. It will provide an enormous opportunity for skills and skills development for 30 or 40 years into the future.
Comment has been made in this place on housing availability. Senator Hume made mention of the increase of $370 for those organisations which service the homeless. Our own state of Western Australia, as Senator Reynolds knows, has this wonderful state-government-supported program called Keystart, starting young families into their own homes. It provides deposit relief. An interesting statistic is that the level of bad debts is 0.3 of one per cent—less than a quarter of the bad debt rate in the commercial banking sector. Indeed, once they are in their own homes, Keystart's clients typically move their debts over to commercial banks. That is the sort of area I want to see us move further into.
Senator Singh spoke about housing affordability. In Melbourne and Sydney the prices might have gone through the roof, but there are plenty of spots in rural and regional Australia, and in our own home state of Western Australia, where they have not. We have got historically low interest rates. We have got a situation where debt is now 190 per cent of disposable income. We cannot sustain that over time.
I commend the Treasurer for his decisions. I commend the government. And I commend this to the Senate.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (18:34): As I said earlier today, I thank Senator Roberts for the opportunity during this discussion on the cost-of-living impact of this budget to return to my theme for this week, which is the book of Gonski. Because, of course, the school fees paid by many Australian families are critical to how they deal with the cost of living in their family budget. I am pleased to see that Senators Back and Seselja were in the chamber because I think some of what I say now will help them understand what this serious problem is. Overnight, Senator Birmingham lost the Grattan Institute on this matter. I am going to take a moment to read exactly what the Grattan Institute said, rather than my interpretation of the Gonski report. Let us see what the Grattan Institute said overnight on this issue:
There appear to be two main issues for the Catholics. The first is the 'capacity to contribute' measure, by which non-government schools with students from wealthier suburbs receive less public funding than comparable government schools or non-government schools with students from more disadvantaged areas.
The Catholics argue that it is wrong to assign students the average socio-economic profile of the catchment area in which they live, because their students are on average less well off than independent school students from the same catchment.
Let me stress this point: 'There is some analysis to back this argument.' This is the Grattan Institute; this is not me. 'Indeed, the original Gonski review'—I still have it here with me. Pages are starting to fall out of it. In fact, the most critical page, which highlights the detailed consideration of this issue that the Gonski review undertook.
The original Gonski review argued that 'work should commence as a priority to develop a more precise measure of capacity to contribute to replace the existing SES measure'.
This is the problem. The problem here is that Gonski recommended this work occur. He said certain things should happen in the interim, which the Labor government put in place, and which Minister Birmingham, without having done this policy work, has ripped out. That is the real story of this matter. Rather than Mr 'Policy Pure'; it is actually Mr 'Policy Inept'. This is why I say he has been can do conniving. He knows what he has done here, but he is busy pretending otherwise. He has built a shield, which is the elite, high-fee independent schools which is worth only a small element of the overall cuts here. And he is using this shield, publicly, to cover the much bigger cuts.
Let us talk about some of these bigger cuts, because in estimates, I am sure, we will unearth more and more detail here. We know that the move in relation to the system weighted average measure, which Gonski 1.0 recommended should remain until this SES review had occurred, is worth, to Catholic schools, nationally, $80 million a year. What we do not yet know, because the minister is busy pretending that this is some special case for Catholics—which is false—is what the system weighted average was worth for other low-fee independent schools.
We have schools like the Lutheran schools that I visited in rural Victoria, who also operate within a system and who also benefit from a system weighted average until such time as we rectify the acknowledged errors with the SES measure. What has Minister Birmingham done? He has just maintained the pretence that one size fits all is okay—only with respect to Commonwealth dollars, remember. He is operating on assumptions of what contribution parents should make, but he will not fess up about what they are. He just derides Catholics for exaggerating or being hysterical or rent-seeking, but he will not say what his own assumptions are about what parents would need to contribute for their schools to reach a student resource standard. Oh, no, he is not dealing with any of those issues. He is just maintaining the position that he is Mr 'Policy Pure' and that he will not be bullied.
Compare that to Senator Cormann today, who said that the budget was pragmatic. There is no pragmatism here; it is just a charade and it is a farce. Because, even if we accept the Grattan Institute's recommendation and now say we fix the SES measure, by the time it comes into place, we will have compromised the delivery of education within Catholic education and put enormous pressure, adding to the already existing pressures on our government school systems. And this is where I say the government is not even wary of the consequences in relation to cost shifting here. This is what is so damning about this suggestion that Gonski 2.0 is the 'New Testament', according to some of my colleagues here—Malcolm Turnbull's 'New Testament'. The amount of harm—and this is why I say this is conniving—this will yield will pale into insignificance with what someone like George Brandis has been able to do to community legal centres: leaving people waiting or allowing these things to occur, because they have not done the policy work they should have.
Remember Gonski 2011. As a priority, this work on the SES measure should occur. In the meantime, you set up the new needs based system—as the Labor government did in the way Gonski recommended—in discussion with states, territories and non-government schools building a consensus, as was recommended. It required 27 different arrangements—that did indeed exist at that point in time—to move towards a common student resource standard. But, instead, we have this minister parading around on this charade that one size fits all for Commonwealth dollars is the answer. Well, it is not. I covered earlier why it was not in relation to the funding share from the states versus the Commonwealth, but now I am covering the other serious problems of this package, which is why I say it is a dog of a package.
Let us go to the other issue that the Grattan Institute raised. The second issue is the so-called system-weighted average—it is the Grattan Institute saying this, not me—whereby the capacity to contribute for non-government systemic schools is calculated using the average SES of all the schools in the system. This has the effect of increasing overall funding to Catholic systemic schools by tens of millions of dollars each year–that is them, not me, confirming what I said earlier. But, remember, this is not just Catholic schools; this is systemic non-government schools, such as Lutherans and low-fee Christian schools. There are quite a number of them.
For Catholic schools, the system-weighted average approach potentially acts as a counterweight to the flaws in the SES calculation. If that is the case, removing the system-weighted average, which Gonski 2.0 does, should be accompanied with a review of the formula. Again, this is consistent with recommendations of Gonski 1.0.
So this pretence that this government is fully implementing Gonski is a load of rubbish. The small savings they will make from elite schools in no way matches the damage they do when they change the capacity-to-contribute curve. The curve on this graph, on page 178 of the report, is the guts of that matter. And, until we get from government how much they are saving by shifting that carefully calculated formula, as was recommended in recommendation 22 of Gonski, Catholic education is in serious trouble. And Catholic schools and parents will bear the brunt of this minister's policy ineptitude—policy-pure rubbish. This is a conniving dog of a package.
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia) (18:44): I would like to start by heartily congratulating the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the finance minister and their staff, who have put this 2017-18 budget together. I believe it delivers a responsible, fair and appropriate budget in the circumstances.
Our first responsibility in this place, which seems to be forgotten by many in this chamber, is that we are elected to represent the people who voted for us. They expect us to act and achieve things. However, to act needs compromise, and those opposite seem to think that the only responsible thing for them to do in opposition is to oppose everything.
I listened very carefully to Senator Wong and others who were speaking today on this issue, and it is quite astonishing to think that, on the one hand, they are criticising the government for not sticking with their savings while, at the same time, blocking absolutely everything. Again, I have listened very closely to those opposite for a very long time now in this chamber and I cannot recall a single suggestion from those opposite on how we could find another area to compromise in to make savings, because that is what Australians expect us to do.
I well remember 21 April—I think it was—2006 when we had the first national debt-free day. That was the day when the Commonwealth went into negative debt, which means the Commonwealth had no debt; in fact, it started to save and put money aside for the Future Fund. Ten short years later and after seven years of Labor, they have indebted several generations from now with over hundreds and hundreds—I think between $450 billion and $500 billion worth of debt. Even when we get the budget back into surplus, we will still have the debt to pay back.
I, again, commend the government on this budget. I think they have absolutely prioritised those who need it the most but they have also made sure that it is deliverable. Those opposite endlessly pontificate—and, again, we have heard them here tonight—about fairness, equality, opportunity and compassion. Talk is cheap, and those opposite, who take the high moral ground in these areas all the time, forget one important thing that those of us on this side never do—that is, to be fair and compassionate. Words and great ideas are not enough; they have to be paid for.
Again, in all of the overblown rhetoric we have heard here tonight about the budget, there has not been one positive suggestion on how we could actually move forward—no alternatives or other good ideas on how to do it. We saw very clearly that Labor, when in government, had great ideas. They wanted to implement things—fantastic—but, as any household who manages the budget knows: you have to live within your means. You have got three options, if you do not live within your means. For new expenditure, you have to make savings somewhere—you have to go to the bank, take out a loan and pay back the loan, the principal and the interest. What else do you have to do, Senator Duniam?
Senator Duniam: You have to—
Senator REYNOLDS: You have to raise money elsewhere.
Senator Duniam: That is true: you have to raise money elsewhere.
Senator REYNOLDS: You have to raise taxes in this case. So what did those opposite do? Not only did they raise taxes but they just kept borrowing and borrowing and borrowing to pay for some of the most ridiculous, wasteful expenditure, which is to their shame.
On this side, we have a highly responsible budget. We are putting money where it needs to be, and it is into reducing the costs of living pressures on Australians. There are many ways in which this budget is doing that. We are easing the pressure by tackling energy prices—again, irresponsible, ideologically-driven Labor state governments are pushing up the price of energy, which is crippling many, many families—so we are putting in measures to, at least, provide some relief.
We have already put in measures to reduce the burden of child care, which, again, is a huge cost-of-living pressure on many Australian families. But the best form of welfare—and, particularly, for the people of Western Australia at the moment—as we always say, is a job. This government continues to create measures for small business so that they can employ more people—for example, in my home state of Queensland, they have just announced $2.3 billion worth of expenditure, most of it from the Commonwealth, for new infrastructure projects, which will be at least 6,000 jobs. The new defence projects, the new shipbuilding projects, again, mean many thousands more job. We are putting money into providing people with the skills that they need—the skills to get jobs, the skills for the future.
Senator Hume talked very eloquently about what we are doing for housing affordability—helping young Australians realise that dream of affording their own home, and providing older Australians who have worked hard all their lives to have equity in their own homes with the opportunity to downsize, sell their home, put money into superannuation and still, hopefully, have money for the things that they would not otherwise be able to afford to do.
On healthcare costs: those opposite deride us for healthcare costs, but we are doing more than they ever did in their time in government towards reducing healthcare costs; making health care more affordable and also making prescriptions— (Time expired)
DOCUMENTS
Australian Livestock Export Corporation
Consideration
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (18:50): I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
The funding agreement from 2017-2021 between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Australian Livestock Export Corporation goes through many aspects of the work of this industry; from research and development to one issue that we really should have should have got on top of by now, which is the live export trade. Here we see some of the key players, like LiveCorp and Meat and Livestock Australia Limited, and the role that they play. How they see their future is set out in detail in this document in various ways.
This reminds us of the gross failure of successive governments—Labor and Liberal-National—in dealing with this industry. It is where we could so easily have a win-win—a win in terms of ending the extreme cruelty that is involved in the live export trade, and a win for Australia in terms of jobs and the economy, particularly in regional areas. The standard-bearer for those who back that trade is the Deputy Prime Minister himself, Mr Barnaby Joyce. He is out there saying how much effort he will put into ensuring that this live export trade grows—and every time he says that, he is further selling out regional and rural Australia, who have been done over. When this industry was largely the boxed chilled meat trade—which was just getting off the ground—the abattoirs supplied the domestic meat trade in Australia. It really killed that off. So many abattoirs were closed across northern and regional Australia—thousands and thousands of jobs were lost. It was so irresponsible. The Liberals and Nationals really have got so much to answer for on this.
On the issue of cruelty, we need to remind ourselves of how ruthless this trade is. And when I give these figures, it is a reminder also of how unnecessary it is. Every day, thousands of animals are enduring terrible suffering, often dying on horrific ship journeys from Australia to the export markets. In recent years, we have seen some real horror stories about the cruelty that happens when animals from Australia reach the export markets in a number of countries. But the cruelty starts when they get on the ship, often within Australia; I acknowledge that. Those ship journeys are just so extreme: with the stress that it puts the bodies of these animals under, day after day; with many animals subject to a very slow death after enduring great agony with broken limbs; and with their fear of where they are and the distress that comes with being packed in. Across the decades, tens of thousands of animals have also been burnt alive on ships—73,000 sheep in just one fire on the Maysora in 2011, just six years ago. This trade is ruthless. And it is unnecessary.
I want to move onto the other area where we could have a win—as I have said, we could have a win by ending the cruelty. But we could also have a win by expanding the boxed chilled trade in meat from this country—that is where the international growth in meat is. Australia is missing out on it, because of the obsession that people like Barnaby Joyce—and others in his party, and some in the Liberals—have; people who, for various reasons, want to push and push this live export trade that is selling out regional and rural Australia.
A 2015 industry conference was told that the business case for supporting live exports to Indonesia had collapsed. The costs had increased by up to five times in the previous eight years to 2015 to produce a kilogram of beef through importing and feeding cattle than it did to import chilled, boxed, beef. The Indonesian issue was the one that blew up when Prime Minister Gillard was in office. What happened then in Indonesia is a reminder, too. I understand that they have come under enormous pressure, probably from the likes of Barnaby Joyce, but from various groupings within Australia, insisting that part of the deal in the Australia-Indonesia relationship has to include an expansion of the live export trade, when Indonesia itself had a long-term plan to phase out live exports so they could be more independent and have their own beef cattle in their own country. (Time expired)
Senator BACK (Western Australia) (18:56): I rise to refute largely what Senator Rhiannon has said, simply because she does not know what she is talking about in this particular space. As is known in this chamber, I was a livestock veterinarian on vessels for some years in the 1980s. Contrasting with what Senator Rhiannon has told us, in fact the live weight of most animals actually increases significantly in the voyages, particularly to the Middle East. We all know from our experience as human beings what happens if people are under stress, and indeed I know as a veterinarian that if animals are under stress the first thing they do is stop eating. So when a consignment ends up being about 115 per cent of the weight it was when it left its port of origin, one would hardly say that that is extreme stress.
I have made the point here again and again, and I will continue to make it. The point is two-fold. First of all, if people are genuinely interested in animal welfare standards, they cannot stop at Australia's borders. They must be interested and committed right through to our end markets. Senator Rhiannon knows that I have made this statement so many times: of the 109 countries that export livestock around the world, we are the only one that now and ever has committed people and resources and money to the training of personnel in our target markets. Indeed, I could give this chamber an hour of illustrations of where the welfare standards of locally bred animals and those sourced from those other 108 countries are improved dramatically as a result of Australian present in those markets.
Contrary to the comments that have been made about the meat trade versus the live animal trade, do not worry too much about hypotheticals—let me give two illustrations. Saudi Arabia: we had both a meat trade and a live export trade to Saudi Arabia. When we lost the live export trade, you would have thought the meat trade would have gone up, on the logic of my colleague Senator Rhiannon. In fact, we lost the meat trade. In 2011, when the then Labor government decimated the live export trade and brought to their knees most of the cattle industry across the north of Australia, the number of animals exported to Indonesia that year halved. On the logic of those opposite and Senator Rhiannon, what would you think would have happened to the meat sales? You would think they would have doubled, wouldn't you? Do you know what they did? They halved.
There has always been a strong parallel in this country between live exports and meat exports. They have always been complementary. The live export trade is the underpinning for producers in this country, be they sheep producers or beef producers. Because there is competition in the market, because the buyers either may be buying for the live export trade or for the meat trade, it underpins a price for the producer. I am very pleased to see now that we are at long last seeing a dramatic increase in the capacity of our herd. I expect we will see our national sheep flock starting to rise, so that we can once again meet those market demands. We provide the best transport. We lead the world in the feedlotting of cattle, the land transport of cattle and the transport to ships. The shipboard management undertaken by Australians and those engaged in the trade is the best in the world. The rest of the world follows us, whether it is animals for breeding purposes or animals eventually going to be processed in those markets.
Yes, we have had a challenge in terms of increasing the standards in the meatworks overseas. I begged then Minister Ludwig—when he banned the trade at the direction of Ms Gillard, the then Prime Minister, and at the direction of the 457-employed adviser to her—to not ban the trade to those abattoirs that were internationally accepted by OIE, the international standards in animal welfare. But, of course, the decision was made for political purposes—nothing to do with animal welfare purposes—to ban the entire trade and deny millions of low socioeconomic Indonesian people their right to access protein. That is where the market started for us in the early 1990s. It was the need for low-socioeconomic Indonesian people to get access to protein—and it was denied them. With the cost of boxed meat out of Australia, where the cost of processing an animal is $400 versus the cost in Indonesia of about $80, there is no way in the world those low socioeconomic Indonesian people would be able to afford boxed meat—though the high-end restaurant trade and the hotel trade could. I congratulate the government for the initiative that it has made in the meat and livestock space.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Treaties Committee
Report
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (19:01): I present report 170 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, Social Security Agreement—New Zealand; Nuclear Research Cooperation Agreement; Loan Agreement—International Monetary Fund; Harmonization of Wheeled Vehicles—Revision.I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Question agreed to.
Treaties Committee
Report
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (19:01): Today I rise to make a statement concerning the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report No. 169, Future Submarine Program—France, Classified Information Exchange—France, which contains the committee's review of two agreements with the French republic. The first agreement is a framework agreement to support the Future Submarine program. The second agreement is an update to an existing agreement from 1985 to enable the exchange and protection of classified information. The report was tabled out of session in April.
The framework agreement for the French submarine program has five general objectives. First and foremost, the agreement provides for the transfer, ownership and use of French-owned technology and information to Australia. Second, the agreement establishes obligations on France to ensure Australia's sovereign operation of the future submarine and security of the supply of information and equipment. Third, the agreement provides for maximum local industry engagement. The fourth and fifth objectives of the agreement provide for the joint development of research and technology and a governance performance framework for the program.
The committee supports the framework agreement, but we note it is merely the first step in ensuring Australia's national interests in the Future Submarine program are protected and maximised. The committee explored this in some detail, and here I raise two main issues. First, we must ensure that the mistakes that were made in previous Defence acquisitions are not repeated. The agreement provides a solid starting point but. Clearly. the committee looks back at the experience of the Collins class submarine to ensure that all lessons there are learnt. I point out here that, again, the Collins class submarine in many respects is now a significant success story—not only the build but, in recent years, also the development of its availability and combat effectiveness.
The things that let it down were largely part of the commercial arrangements, where the design artefacts required were not agreed up-front in terms of the agreement between Australia and its overseas partner. This government-to-government agreement is an attempt to make sure that the lessons we have learnt from Collins are well and truly in place as we move into this Future Submarine program with the French republic.
This agreement makes sure that the intellectual property for the Future Submarine can be stored, managed, maintained and upgraded to guarantee Australia is always able to operate, maintain and sustain the next generation submarine. That means that the design artefacts are available to people in Australia who have been given the skills needed to access, interpret and use that information so that Australia can make the sovereign decisions it needs to around the submarine not only during the build phase but also, importantly, in the decades to come, particularly as that submarine is upgraded iteratively through the continuous build process. The committee has requested that the department report back to the committee in the winter sittings of 2018 on its progress in obtaining and managing the necessary intellectual property.
The second issue is the French obligation to maximise local Australian industry engagement in the Future Submarine program. As the largest Defence acquisition in Australia's history not only does the engagement of Australian industry and that sovereign capability ensure that Navy will get affordable, effective and available capability over the life of this but also, clearly, it provides opportunities to Australian industry directly in the program and also in the spin-offs that will benefit many other sectors. The committee notes that maximising local industry, though, will need effective implementation of contractual and other arrangements that will sit underneath this treaty, bearing in mind, again, this is a government-to-government treaty not a commercial arrangement with the company.
The committee recommends that the government ensure the detailed agreements and arrangements allow for Australian companies to bid for work in all phases of the program on a preferred basis, all other things being equal. I go further and look at the Defence industry policy statementthat the government released last year, where we have put in place processes to understand what are sovereign defence industrial capabilities that we need to support given military capabilities. That process, I believe, is one of the mechanisms whereby we will identify what it is we need here, in terms of the competence of individuals, the capacity within industry in the supply chain that supports this submarine not only through the build of the 12 initial submarines here but, importantly, through its life of type. And that sovereign industrial plan that is part of the Turnbull government's Defence industry policy statementwill be a powerful tool in making sure that the contractual agreements and arrangements that underpin this program do, in fact, deliver us that sovereign ability to not only build but also operate, maintain and upgrade these submarines in years to come.
The committee has requested the department report back to it on the contractual and other arrangements that have secured these opportunities for Australian industry and, importantly, have secured the sovereign capability that Australia needs. Noting these recommendations, the committee recommends that the parliament proceed with binding treaty action. Report 169 also deals with Australia's bilateral agreement with France for the exchange and protection of classified information. Again, this is at the government-to-government level and it seeks to strengthen existing arrangements between Australia and France for the exchange of information. Although the agreement is a stand-alone treaty action, it was tabled at the same time as the framework agreement for the Future Submarine program. Indeed, the agreement will support the Future Submarine program throughout all stages of construction and sustainment. I note that in this budget released yesterday funding is starting to be made available now for the progress not only of work on the shipyards in Osborne but also of design phases for the submarine. So this exchange of information will increasingly become important from this calendar year forward.
The agreement is more comprehensive and prescriptive than its 1985 predecessor. It has four key features. First, it requires the parties to protect classified information to a standard at least equivalent to the protection afforded domestically. Second, it sets out how classified information can be transferred between the parties. Third, it enables Australia and France to mutually recognise security clearances of government officials and contractors. And, finally, it regulates how each party enters into or authorises classified contracts in the territory of the other parties.
As with previous agreements, the committee did rely on assurances from government that the classifications and security clearance processes are equivalent. The committee did not receive detailed evidence to verify these equivalences and, therefore, has not formed a view on the matter. The committee regularly reviews treaty actions of this kind and considers that the treaty action is non-controversial. However, throughout the course of the inquiry the committee was alerted to a number of matters that we have concluded in the report. Chief among those are the timeliness, method and integrity of personnel security clearances. The committee expresses concern about delays in obtaining security clearances as they have, in the past, hindered businesses in their ability to bid for Defence work. There have also been problems in the limited scope of sponsorship to obtain security clearances.
In order to be an effective element in maintaining the confidentiality of information, personnel clearances and processes must be sufficiently thorough. The committee notes in its report the personnel clearances should be continually assessed and based on the information received across organisations and jurisdictions. The committee recommends that the government bring forward as a matter of urgency its work program to connect state and federal law enforcement and judicial information systems with the personnel security clearance systems. Noting this recommendation, which builds on a number of recommendations that Senate and joint committees have made around security clearances and the timeliness of them, the committee recommends that binding action proceed.
Lastly, the committee's report 170 looks at four separate treaty actions: a renewed social security agreement with New Zealand; an agreement to enable a nuclear research corporation in the Asia-Pacific; a renewed loan agreement with the International Monetary Fund; and revisions to an existing agreement that harmonises regulations for the safety of vehicles and their parts. The committee supports these four treaty actions in report 170 and recommends that binding action be treated.
On behalf of the committee, I commend the two reports to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee
Report
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (19:12): Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective committees, I present reports on legislation, as listed at item 20 on today's Order of Business, together with the documents presented to the committees.
Ordered that the reports be printed.
Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit
Report
Senator FAWCETT ( South Australia — Deputy Government Whip in the Senate ) ( 19:12 ): On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present report number 461, Commonwealth risk management, as well as executive minutes on various reports. I seek leave to incorporate the tabling statement into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
The document was unavailable at the time of publishing.
Regulations and Ordinances Committee
Delegated Legislation Monitor
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (19:12): I present Delegated Legislation Monitor 5 of 2017 of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.
Ordered that the report be printed.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Report
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (19:12): On behalf the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the fourth report of 2017,Human rights scrutiny report.
Ordered that the report be printed.
Senator FAWCETT: I seek leave to have the tabling statement incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
The document was unavailable at the time of publishing.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
Government Response to Report
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (19:13): I present the government's response the second interim report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on its inquiry into increasing use of so-called flag-of-convenience shipping in Australia. I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
Australian Government response to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee's Second Interim Report: The inquiry into the increasing use of so-called Flag of Convenience shipping in Australia
May 2017
Rec No |
Recommendation |
Government Response |
Rec 1
|
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth undertake a review of the Australian maritime sector, with a view to building on the 2012 reforms aimed at growing the Australian-flagged shipping industry in the future. |
The Australian Government does not support the recommendation for the Commonwealth to undertake a review of the Australian maritime sector. The Australian Government has already undertaken a number of reviews of the Australian maritime sector. Such reviews include (but are not limited to); Tasmanian Shipping and Freight, Productivity Commission Inquiry Report, 7 March 2014. Strengthening Economic Relations between Australia and New Zealand, Joint Australia—New Zealand study, 13 December 2012. Competition policy review (Harper review), 31 March 2015. Regulation of Australian Agriculture, Productivity Commission report, 28 March 2017. Passage of those reforms continues to be pursued through amendments to the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme Ministerial Directions, the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and consultations around the Coastal Trading Act 2012. Another review is unlikely to change the current decline of the Australian shipping industry. |
Rec 2 |
The committee recommends that this review include a comprehensive whole-of-government assessment of the potential security risks posed by flag of convenience vessels and foreign crews. |
The Australian Government does not support this recommendation. See response to recommendation 1
|
Rec 3 |
The committee recommends that this review include consideration of ways to harmonise the operations of the Australian shipping sector across jurisdictions through COAG to reduce red tape for vessel and port operators, including cargo handling provisions. |
The Australian Government does not support this recommendation. See response to recommendation 1
|
Rec 4 |
The committee recommends that this review include widespread consultation with the Australian shipping industry to ensure that its findings are relevant and directed to shared objectives for the future of the local maritime sector. |
The Australian Government does not support this recommendation. See response to recommendation 1
|
Rec 5 |
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth immediately tighten the provisions for temporary licences in Australian maritime law, to flag of convenience vessels being used on permanent coastal freight routes if they fail to pay Australian award wages to their crew. |
The Australian Government does not support this recommendation. Under the Fair Work Act 2009 any vessel operating under a temporary licence under the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012 is required to pay its crew Part B wages under the Seagoing Industry Award for its third and subsequent voyage in a 12-month period. The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development works closely with Australian Maritime Safety Authority and the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) to ensure operators are complying with their Fair Work Act obligations. The FWO also provides a range of resources to assist employees understand their rights and can investigate complaints of non-compliance with Fair Work Act requirements. The FWO has a range of compliance tools to inquire into, investigate, and enforce compliance and the Government believes this provides an appropriate level of assurance and changes are not required.
|
Rec 6 |
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth adopt a broader and more rigorous approach to the risk assessment and oversight of seafarers working in Australian waters on maritime visas, and better share this information across relevant Commonwealth and jurisdictional agencies. |
The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The Maritime Crew Visa (MCV) was introduced in 2007 to facilitate pre-arrival bona fides checking of foreign sea crew. There are very high levels of Immigration compliance by the commercial maritime industry through the MCV programme. For instance, the current safeguards built into the MCV programme results in only 0.02 per cent of MCV holders claiming protection (compared to 0.14 per cent in the Visitor visa programme). Any policy review needs to be considered (and prioritised) in this context. The introduction of the MCV enabled the Department to check applicants against the Central Movement Alert List, Safeguards and, most recently, the Consolidated View of Risk and Global Operational Integrity System. If they are travelling by air to join a vessel in Australia they are also required to obtain a Transit Visa or another visa to enter Australia. |
Rec 7 |
The committee recommends that the Australian Government continue to work with international agencies, including the International Labour Organisation (ILO), to improve the working conditions, safety standards, and rates of remuneration for seafarers working in international shipping. |
The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The Government works closely with international agencies, including the International Labour Organisation (ILO), to ensure seafarers globally are afforded minimum rights and conditions of employment when engaged in international shipping. The ILO Maritime Labour Convention 2006 (MLC) establishes minimum working and living standards for all seafarers working on ships and was ratified by Australia on 21 December 2011 and entered into force around the world on 20 August 2013. The MLC provides seafarers with fair terms of employment and guarantees them safe, secure and decent living and working conditions on board ship. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) is the national regulatory authority responsible for implementing, monitoring and enforcing compliance with the MLC primarily through the Navigation Act 2012 and relevant Marine Orders. As the appropriate authority, AMSA represents the Government at meetings of the Special Tripartite Committee on the MLC at the ILO and during negotiations on amendments to the MLC to ensure the rights and conditions of seafarers are improved globally. |
Rec 8 |
The committee recommends that the Australian government look for ways to support the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) to make flag of convenience shipping more accountable to international law and, when in Australian waters, to our national regulations. |
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
|
Rec 9 |
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth consider ways to improve the early intervention and counselling resources available to crews on international vessels, including those operating on flag of convenience registers. |
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
|
Rec No |
Recommendation (Australian Greens) |
Government Response |
Rec 10 |
That the review of the Australian maritime sector specifically include a review of risks to the marine environment of flag of convenience shipping and specifically include consideration of how shipping can be more responsive to Australian environmental laws. |
The Australian Government does not support this recommendation. The Australian Government has ratified all annexes to the International Convention from the Prevention of Pollution from Ships and these annexes contain regulations relating to the prevention of pollution by ships with respect to oil, chemicals, marine pollutants, garbage, sewage and air emissions. These requirements are applied to all foreign flag ships calling at Australian ports and compliance is monitored under Australia's port State control program.
|
Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (19:13): Through its response to the Senate's Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References inquiry into the increasing use of so-called flag-of-convenience shipping in Australia, the Turnbull government has openly admitted that it does not care one iota about the future of Australian shipping. It has also given the green light to the world's worst practices onboard FOC vessels which involve the atrocious treatment of some of the most vulnerable and exploited workers on the planet. To say that I am bitterly disappointed with the government's response is an understatement.
This inquiry has been looking into the shocking standards, decrepit conditions and rapacious culture of the flag-of-convenience industry. It is one that fills the void in our domestic trade once Australian-crewed, -managed and -registered vessels have been dumped for a cheaper and nastier option. This inquiry has heard of crew abuse, stolen wages, extraordinary security threats and a culture of lawlessness which exists on FOC shipping. Make no mistake: unscrupulous operators register these vessels in places such as Liberia, Mongolia and Panama to avoid paying tax, to avoid providing proper wages and conditions and to avoid responsibility. FOC shipping represents a race to the bottom which Australia should not support. FOC shipping represents a serious threat to Australia's national security, environment and fuel security, as well as to the lives and welfare of international seafarers. FOC shipping should not become the new normal for vessels running around our coast.
This inquiry came about following the shocking revelations in a Four Corners episode aired in June 2015 regarding three deaths at sea on board the MV Sage Sagittarius. Four Corners focused on the deaths of two Filipino nationals—chief cook Cesar Llanto and chief engineer Hector Collado—and Japanese superintendent Kosaku Monji on board the Panama-flagged coal carrier in 2012. A coroner's inquest into the two deaths, which will hand down its findings next Friday in Sydney, heard that guns were being sold on board and that assaults on and intimidation of the crew was widespread. It also heard that the three crew members most likely met with foul play.
This is not a new issue; the Australian parliament investigated the inhumane treatment of international seafarers through the 1992 Ships of shame report. Arrangements surrounding crimes committed at sea were also investigated by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs following the death of Diane Brimble in 2002 on board the cruise ship Pacific Sky.
Committee chair, George Christensen MP, said in a media release on 27 November 2014 that ' … committee members are seriously concerned about the substance of the response' from the government. Unfortunately, the same can be said today. The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee endorsed 10 recommendations for the government to consider in its interim report. In its response today the government has rejected six of the recommendations and has noted the remaining four without identifying a clear path forward as to how the government is going to ensure a strong future for the Australian shipping industry and Australian seafarers.
The first recommendation, that the Commonwealth undertake a review of Australia's maritime sector, was met with the following response: 'Another review is unlikely to change the current decline of the Australian shipping industry.' Well, it certainly will not with that attitude. This government should be standing up for Australian jobs, not selling them out. In fact, the government's response to the inquiry's findings further encourages gaping and serious vulnerabilities to our national economy, environment and security. Stating that the government has ratified all relevant conventions neither fixes the problem nor recognises the dangers associated with importing FOC culture into our country.
Recommendation 2 was that this review include a comprehensive whole-of-government assessment of the potential security risk posed by flag-of-convenience vessels and foreign crews. The government's response to this was: 'The Australian government does not support this recommendation.' This is completely unfathomable. In their submission to the inquiry, Australian Border Force made this startling declaration:
The department notes that while a significant proportion of legitimate sea trade is conducted by ships with FOC registration, there are features of FOC registration, regulation and practice that organised crime syndicates or terrorist groups may seek to exploit.
These features are:
• a lack of transparency of the identity of shipowners and consequent impediment to holding the owner to account for a ship’s actions; and
• insufficient flag state regulatory enforcement and adherence to standards.
Surely that means further investigation is required.
Recommendation 5 was that the Commonwealth immediately tighten the provisions for temporary licences in Australian maritime law to FOC vessels being used on permanent coastal freight routes if they fail to pay Australian award wages to their crew. The government's response is completely unbelievable. Under the Fair Work Act of 2009, a vessel operating under a temporary licence under the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012 is required to pay its crew part B wages under the Seagoing Industry Award for its third and subsequent voyages in a 12-month period. I seek leave to continue to continue my remarks.
Leave granted.
Community Affairs References Committee
Report
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (19:23): I present the report of the Community Affairs References Committee on the complaints process under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
Senator SIEWERT: I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted.
Scrutiny of Bills Committee
Scrutiny Digest
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (19:20): On behalf of Senator Polley, I present Scrutiny Digest No. 5 of 2017 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, dated 10 May 2017.
Ordered that the report be printed.
Senate adjourned at 19:21
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:
Defence Act 1903 —Section 58H—
ADF Allowances – Flying Disability Allowance – Amendment—Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal Determination No. 4 of 2017.
Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal Determinations – Amendments—Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal Determination No. 1 of 2017.
Salaries—Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal Determination No. 2 of 2017.
Salaries – Geospatial Technician – Amendment—Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal Determination No. 5 of 2017.
Salaries – Navy employment categories – Amendment—Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal Determination No. 3 of 2017.
Salaries – Trainees – Amendment—Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal Determination No. 6 of 2017.
Tabling
The following documents were tabled pursuant to standing order 61(1) (b):
1. Australian Meat and Live‑stock Industry Act 1997—Funding agreement 2017‑21 between the Commonwealth of Australia and Australian Livestock Export Corporation Limited.
Migration Act 1958—Section 486O—Assessment of detention arrangements—
Personal identifier 000408‑O, 1000142‑O, 1000173‑O, 1000267‑O, 1000279‑O, 1000785‑O, 1001003‑O, 1001044‑O, 1001170‑O, 1001207‑O1, 1001365‑O, 1001647‑O, 1002144‑O, 1002292‑O1, 1002337‑O1, 1002389‑O, 1002391‑O, 1002393‑O, 1002397‑O, 1002399‑O, 1002407‑O, 1002432‑O, 1002450‑O, 1002487‑O and 1002488‑O—
2. Commonwealth Ombudsman's reports—Report no. 6 of 2017.
3. Government response to Ombudsman's reports, dated 8 May 2017.
Personal identifier 000479-O, 1000341-O, 1000782-O, 1000856-O, 1000874-O, 1001023-O, 1001048-O, 1001249-O, 1001304-O, 1001347-O, 1001349-O, 1001416-O, 1001518-O1, 1001693-O, 1001761-O, 1001901-O, 1001950-O, 1001973-O1, 1002052-O, 1002057-O, 1002059-O, 1002089-O, 1002121-O, 1002146-O, 1002161-O, 1002167-O, 1002169-O, 1002173-O, 1002185-O, 1002192-O, 1002198-O1, 1002200-O1, 1002201-O1, 1002289‑O1, 1002333-O, 1002341-O, 1002347-O1, 1002348-O, 1002354‑O, 1002355-O, 1002379-O, 1002382-O, 1002385-O, 1002388-O, 1002404-O, 1002415-O, 1002424-O, 1002426-O, 1002430-O, 1002445-O, 1002452-O, 1002455-O, 1002485-O, 1002491-O, 1002493-O, 1002501-O and 1002512‑O—
4. Commonwealth Ombudsman's reports—Report no. 7 of 2017.
5. Government response to Ombudsman's reports, dated 8 May 2017.
Tabling
The following document was tabled by the Clerk pursuant to the order of the Senate of 25 June 2014:
Estimates hearings—Unanswered questions on notice—Additional estimates 2016 17—Statement—Special Minister of State.