The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 12:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Usher of the Black Rod
The PRESIDENT (12:01): Senators will note that I was escorted in by a new face today. Our new Usher of the Black Rod, Mr John Begley, has now joined the Department of the Senate. Welcome.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The Clerk: I table a document pursuant to statute as listed on the Dynamic Red.
Details of the document also appear at the end of today ' s Hansard.
COMMITTEES
Meeting
The Clerk: Proposals to meet have been lodged as follows:
Select Committee on Electric Vehicles—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 19 September 2018, from 11 am.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security—private briefings during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 20 September 2018, from 9.30 am and from 3.30 pm.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement—
private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 6 pm.
private briefing during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 19 September 2018, from 5 pm.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 1.30 pm.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 1.30 pm.
Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme—private briefing during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 19 September 2018, from 12.45 pm.
Select Committee on Stillbirth Research and Education—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 20 September 2018, from 5 pm.
The PRESIDENT (12:01): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
PRIVILEGE
The PRESIDENT (12:01): By letter dated 6 September 2018, Senator Anning has raised a matter of privilege concerning his first speech and asked me to consider whether a contempt may have been committed. As I have advised Senator Anning, that is not my role. Where a matter of privilege is raised, my role is to consider whether a motion to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee should have precedence in debate. In doing so, I am guided by the Senate's privilege resolutions.
Senator Anning refers to and attaches a media release announcing that the Premier of Queensland would withdraw funding for staff allocated to members of Katter's Australian Party in the Queensland parliament. He characterises the decision as being 'based upon the contents' of his speech and adds, 'Given the actions of Premier Palaszczuk were taken because I refused to apologise for my speech, and these actions against my party have had an adverse material effect upon me, I believe that the Premier's actions may be in breach of parliamentary privilege.' Senator Anning also drew my attention to two parts of privilege revolution 6 which declare that improper interference with a senator's duties and attempts to influence a senator's conduct by improper means may be dealt with by the Senate as contempts.
In determining whether a motion should be accorded precedence as a matter of privilege, I am bound to have regard only to the two criteria in privilege resolution 4. The first of these criteria seeks to reserve the Senate's contempt powers for matters involving substantial obstruction to Senate and committee processes or to the performance of senators' duties as senators. In my view, on the information provided, it is difficult to demonstrate the requisite connection to Senator Anning's duties as a senator, whatever other connection there may be to his party. This is both because the action taken appears to be connected to his party statements rather than directly to proceedings in the Senate and because it is not explained how the withdrawal of staff resources to Queensland state members of his party affects him in his duties as a senator.
The second criterion, regard for the existence of any other remedy, recognises that the Senate is generally reluctant to deal with conduct as a contempt where another, more appropriate avenue for redress is available. In this case, it appears that the state members directly have referred the matter to the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission and raised it as a matter of privilege in the Queensland parliament. As the Queensland Premier is directly accountable to these entities, these would appear to be more appropriate avenues for the matter to be investigated, noting in particular the comity that exists between the Commonwealth and state institutions of government. Consistent with the approach taken by previous presidents, I have determined that, while this alternative remedy is available, the matter does not meet the second criterion. Accordingly, on the basis of the criteria I am required to consider, I have determined that the matter should not have precedence as a matter of privilege. I table the correspondence.
BILLS
Tobacco Plain Packaging Amendment Bill 2018
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (12:04): I note that I am resuming from just prior to the adjournment last night.
Senator Gallacher: It was 35c for a pack of Escort!
Senator COLBECK: You remember the 27c, Senator? As I said last night, I think you probably pay more excise on one smoke now than I paid for that one packet that I bought when I was a lot younger. I was making some remarks around initiatives that have been put in place over a period of time around tobacco and tobacco campaigns and, in particular, responding to a comment made by Senator O'Neill that there weren't any current campaigns running. I did make the point that, when Prime Minister Rudd came to office, one of the things he promised us was a shock and awe campaign around tobacco and tobacco advertising. That didn't come to pass, like many of the other things that Prime Minister Rudd promised—things like 'cash for clunkers', which the minister at the time had to ban his department from using and was such a bad policy that it actually never got off the ground at all. But the important point that I was making was that, over a period of time, it's not just one particular element that's going to help us resolve the issue that we have with smoking.
I did note last night that the rate of decline has slowed; the most recent figures that I had were of a reduction from 13.3 per cent to 12.8 per cent, so it's a very slow and small decline. The fact is: to get that last bit, you need to be very targeted in what you're doing—to target the campaigns on areas of the community where it will have the most impact or where there is the highest incidence of smoking.
The national campaign running at the moment, which is: 'Don't make smokes your story', was developed as part of the National Tobacco Campaign but targets specifically Indigenous Australians where there's a high incidence of smoking. It provides support services online, including the Quitline. An important element, which is 'Quit for You, Quit for Two', is a particular campaign targeted at pregnant women and their partners, and, at a time when they are making important decisions about their lives, potentially getting them to make another really important decision around the birth of their child that can have an impact over generations. We know from a number of other places, including some of the campaigning that I have seen and heard around alcohol, that kids learn by example from their parents. So a parent making a decision at a time of pregnancy to give up smoking obviously does a lot for the child as a fetus and as it develops, but it also means that the example's gone by the time the child is born and growing up. That's a way to break the cycle, and that's important.
Just to reinforce the currency of that campaign, the latest phase of that campaign was launched on 27 May this year across television, print, radio, digital and out-of-home formats. So, contrary to what Senator O'Neill was saying, there are ongoing programs, they continue to be operated, and they are targeted at areas of need. I think that's very, very important.
Obviously, we've seen in recent times the government working very hard to manage illicit tobacco, noting that, once a product gets to a certain price point, there's an incentive to trade the product illegally. Disappointingly, we've seen a significant increase in that. We do continue the growth in excise that was put in place some time ago—that continues—but, in the context of other tobacco products, including loose tobacco and roll your own, the government announced in the '17-'18 budget that those other products will be subject to a tax treatment more comparable to manufactured cigarettes. So there is a continuing process that the government is undertaking to discourage people from smoking or taking up smoking.
I said last night that I counted myself very lucky that I'd never taken up the habit. When I think about what that might have meant to me, personally, in financial terms, given the cost of excise these days, the impact on my home budget, if I were a smoker, would be quite significant.
The legislation before us is again taking another step in that multifaceted approach that I've talked about, in managing the current regulatory framework. A number of my colleagues have said that they weren't necessarily supportive of plain packaging for tobacco products but they are supportive of this particular measure, because it's about how the measure works. The opposition might want to have a sideways crack at us over that, but it's about how it works. We're looking to improve how this piece of legislation works. So it's about providing additional resources, through recognising authorised officers under the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011, and also about working cooperatively with the states and territories for the appointment of those authorised officers.
Both sides of politics have, over a long time now, taken measures to continue to discourage people from smoking. We know the negative health effects in the economy. Those have been raised a number of times during this debate today. It is important that we continue to improve the way that our legislative frameworks operate. So, in that context, I add my support to the bill.
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (12:12): I rise to oppose the Tobacco Plain Packaging Amendment Bill 2018. This bill broadens the range of people who can be authorised to ensure that the government's plain packaging rules are being complied with—more people to measure the font on cigarette packets; more people to check that the dark green colour on cigarette packs is the right dark green; and, of course, more people to make sure that nothing about cigarettes is bright and colourful, in case it stimulates non-smokers into becoming smokers. Nobody has ever met anyone like that, but the government just knows for sure that they are out there, just sitting there, ready to become nicotine addicts at the first sign of colour on a cigarette packet. The fact that the government knows they are out there gives them a reason to go around the world congratulating themselves on their wonderful tobacco control initiatives and encouraging other countries to do the same, because, if the government knows there are such people in Australia, it also knows that they must also be present in other countries.
The bill widens the categories of people who may be appointed as authorised officers under the act. So now they will include Commonwealth officers not appointed under the Public Service Act, state or territory government officers, state and territory police officers and local government officials. All those people will be authorised to run around checking that the plain packaging policy is being complied with.
The problem is: plain packaging is a failed policy. As everyone except the government seems to know, there are no people out there ready to become nicotine addicts at the first sign of colour on a cigarette packet. There never were any. When you think about it, there was never any reason to believe there were. The legislated purpose of plain packaging is to:
(a) to improve public health by:
(i) discouraging people from taking up smoking, or using tobacco products; and
(ii) encouraging people to give up smoking, and to stop using tobacco products; and
(iii) discouraging people who have given up smoking, or who have stopped using tobacco products, from relapsing; and
(iv) reducing people’s exposure to smoke from tobacco products; …
These are all logical objectives, but has plain packaging improved public health by discouraging smoking and encouraging quitting?
The answer is, clearly, no. The latest data shows there was no statistically significant decline in the smoking rate over the most recent three-year period. This is the first time in years that we haven't seen such a decline, and this during a period when tobacco taxes were raised through the roof. Professor Sinclair Davidson from RMIT University also points out that the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission has reported an increase over a similar time frame in the amount of nicotine in its national wastewater survey, and a paper in the Tobacco Prevention & Cessation journal found no statistically significant reduction in youth smoking in the first year after the introduction of plain packaging. Very simply and plainly, plain packaging has clearly failed to improve public health by discouraging smoking and encouraging quitting.
The government knows this. Its own report on plain packaging studiously avoided the requirement in its terms of reference to analyse whether plain packaging had actually achieved the legislated purpose of improving public health. Instead, the report focuses on perceptions of graphic health warnings, which is a requirement that preceded and is quite separate from plain packaging.
Not only has plain packaging failed to achieve its purpose of improving human health, it has also done considerable damage. Consumers are no longer drawn to high-cost brands but have shifted to lower-cost brands, so the lower cost has helped to sustain their habit. And consumers are no longer drawn by branding and marketing to buy legal cigarettes, so the shift to the far cheaper illegal tobacco has accelerated. This has helped organised crime and cross-subsidised their other operations, such as their trade in illegal drugs and guns.
And, all the while, quoting false information about the cost of smoking: the Collins and Lapsley paper on the costs of smoking has to be the most discredited economic study ever, and yet the Department of Health quotes it on every occasion. Smoking does not cost $31.5 billion. It has never been anywhere close to that. It's not even a tenth of that. It's true, though, that smoking is a leading cause of health problems, and it would be preferable if people stopped smoking. That is not in question. But the government should not be telling lies about its cost and it shouldn't be sticking with policies that are clearly failing. The truth is that government policy is sustaining the smoking habit by denying smokers the much less harmful option of e-cigarettes. In countries where e-cigarettes are available, smoking is declining. And they don't have plain packaging or sky-high taxes on tobacco.
Government tobacco policy is sinking like the Titanic. Yet with the bill before us today the government is merely rearranging the deckchairs by tweaking the administration of the failed plain-packaging rules. Government tax policy is driving smokers deeper into financial hardship, and government tax and plain-packaging policy is putting smokers into contact with organised criminals pushing a range of other drugs. Smoking is a public health issue, but the government's cack-handed policy response is a joke—a farce—and this bill is evidence of that. Indeed, the government is fiddling while Australians continue to burn their cigarettes. This is bill is immoral, and I will not be voting for it.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (12:19): I rise to give a brief contribution on this Tobacco Plain Packaging Amendment Bill 2018. It is in light of recent decisions made by this government and, indeed, by the opposition to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership arrangements, which of course include the ISDS clauses—those investor state dispute settlement provisions. Those reasons are exactly why we are debating this bill.
This is why we have a problem: big corporations want to fundamentally undermine the sovereignty of governments and nations to put in place legislation or to make rules to represent the desires of their community and their citizens. If we weren't in a situation where big multinational companies could come and sue governments and challenge decisions that elected representatives made then we wouldn't be here.
We know that we had in the House just yesterday the Labor Party cuddling up with the Morrison government to vote through the TPP legislation. That TPP legislation comes to this House in the next month, and it will lock Australia into a raft of rules which say that if companies like Philip Morris or companies like Adani—big multinational companies—want to challenge the decisions made by a national government or a state government or a local government then they can.
We know it created a problem here when it came to the plain-packaging legislation. We know that Philip Morris and others got very stroppy with Australia. We know that hundreds of millions of dollars were spent defending the right of this parliament to implement rules and laws that the Australian people wanted. But we're just about to sign up to a TPP, a free trade agreement, that allows these companies to do this again and to continue to do this. It beggars belief that in 2018, when we've seen what these big multinational companies will do when they can get away with it, why on earth we would have the Labor Party selling out not just Australian workers but the sovereignty of the nation and undermining democracy.
It should be that if a government—whether it is a state, federal or local government—with the support of their people, their communities and their electors, wishes to implement laws in the best interests of the public that they should be able to do it. This should not be at behest of whether it suits a big multinational company overseas or not. Why on earth the Labor Party are rolling over on this is beyond me. But, let's just be really clear about this: the Labor Party are continuing to speak out both sides of their mouths on this issue. On one hand, we hear that they understand the insidious nature of those ISDS clauses and that when they win government they'll just change it, 'So don't worry about it now, flick it all through; it'll all be okay.'
We know that's not true. That is absolute bollocks! The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, knows full well that once the TPP legislation passes this place there will be no reversing of these insidious rules that give more power to corporations than to the Australian people. Australia would have to withdraw from the TPP—that is the only way out of it. So it's time that the Leader of the Opposition fronted up and was honest with the Australian people, Australian workers and this parliament. You can't just tweak it afterwards. You either have to withdraw from the TPP or vote it down in this place when the legislation gets here in a couple of weeks.
I understand that the Leader of the Opposition thinks that he's got a home run to the election now: 'The Morrison government are in disarray, eating themselves, tearing themselves apart, so we don't need to worry about what's passing this place, because, in a couple of months time, Bill Shorten will be Prime Minister and everything is going to be A-OK.' Wrong. This is absolute bollocks. The truth is you cannot change the TPP once it gets through this place. The time to stand up for the sovereignty of Australia, for the rights of workers, for the protection of the planet, is now, not when it suits the Leader of the Opposition, when he gets to government, if indeed he gets to government. It is a hollow promise from the Labor Party. Of course, members on the opposition benches know this full well because they had a fight in their own caucus room about this. They know that what the Leader of the Opposition is putting to the Australian people is nothing more than a hollow promise. The Labor Party are speaking out of both sides of their mouths, hoping that no-one picks up on what's going on here.
Why on earth would we lock ourselves into a set of rules that allows the Australian people to be sued by big multinational companies? In the European Union, they have realised very quickly that these ISDS clauses, these rules that allow big corporations to sue governments, are a bad idea, which is why they have upheld the recent decisions of the European Court of Justice which said that ISDS clauses are fundamentally incompatible with national sovereignty. They have decided, as the European Union, that no more trade deals will include ISDS clauses. Australia is in the midst of negotiating free trade agreements with the EU, and ISDS clauses are not allowed to be included, because the European Union have worked out that they are bad for their people, bad for government and bad for democracy. These clauses are all about strengthening the arms of big multinational corporations. They have nothing to do with looking after the interests of the Australian people.
The reason we need to debate this here in relation to this piece of legislation is that we have lived the experience of what it is like when a big multinational company decides to sue our government. We shouldn't be allowing it to happen again. In that scenario, it was tobacco. Next time it will be something else. If the Australian people want laws that protect them, their communities and their environment, and this place implements those laws, those laws should be able to be upheld and not undermined at the behest of big corporate interests.
The Labor Party know that they are weak on this. They know that they've rolled over. They know that they're playing both sides of the fence. What happens when you play both sides of the fence? It's not a pretty sight. The Leader of the Opposition needs to be exposed for the hollow promise that is being made. The TPP legislation gives multinational corporations the right to sue governments and allows Australian workers to be put out of work because companies can just bring in as many foreign workers as they want, without having to look at whether there is anyone in the community who could do the job. The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, either needs to front up and be honest that he thinks this is okay or do something about it now. It won't matter if he becomes Prime Minister in four or six months time, it won't be able to be fixed. It has to be done now. It has to be done swiftly. If it isn't, it just shows what a furphy the Labor Party are when they decide to cuddle up with the coalition to do the bidding of big business at the expense of Australian workers, the community and the environment.
In a couple of weeks time we're going to be debating the legislation here in the Senate and we're going to hear members on the opposition benches promising: 'When we're in government we will try to fix this. We think this is terrible. We'll try to fix it.' Fix it then. Do something about it now. There are enough members on the crossbench here to work with the Labor Party to fix this. The proof will be in the pudding if this legislation passes this place because the Labor Party decide to vote with the government, selling out workers, selling out democracy and selling out the environment.
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Deputy Leader of The Nationals and Minister for Regional Services, Sport, Local Government and Decentralisation) (12:31): I really appreciated listening to the Senate chamber last night and this morning when it was debating the Tobacco Plain Packaging Amendment Bill 2018. Senator O'Neill contributed. Senator Abetz talked about the importance of decreasing tobacco use and cigarette smoking. There has been such a great bipartisan approach over nearly 40 years across all levels of government in this country. He also spoke in favour of legalising e-cigarettes as an additional method to decrease cigarette smoking. Senator Bushby contributed.
Senator Hume last night regaled us with her quite colourful description of her struggle. I identified with many of the depictions as she walked her way through the late 1980s and beyond in Melbourne. She spoke about different cigarette brands in different moments of her life and the struggle to give up what is a powerful drug. I've also struggled for 20 years to end my relationship with cigarettes. I succeeded about a decade ago. Any measures to decrease tobacco use and smoking are to be welcomed.
I also recall Senator Colbeck's contribution last night about being a Tas AFL footballer, the role of smoking in football clubs back in the day, how he passively ingested a lot of harmful smoke and how occasionally after a big game and a big celebration he'd participate in the odd dart and that wasn't necessarily a positive thing for him to do as an athlete back then.
Senator Hanson-Young just used her contribution to attack the Labor Party in the trench warfare that is the streets of Brunswick, the streets of Northcote and the streets of Darlinghurst.
Senator Bushby interjecting—
Senator McKENZIE: And, as Senator Bushby reminds me, it is a sense of the streets of west Hobart. It is guerrilla warfare with leftie against leftie. She spent her entire contribution not on actually decreasing smoking rates. She couldn't care less. Her real opponent and enemy is the Labor Party. She spent her time wanting the Leader of the Opposition exposed. Well, that's not something we on this side want.
Tobacco use is a leading cause of preventable and premature death and disability in Australia. We are recognised as a world leader in tobacco control. We were the first country to introduce tobacco plain packaging. The plain packaging measure remains an important element of our tobacco control measures. The government is committed to reduce the number of people taking up smoking and to assist those already smoking to quit. While progress has been made, 12.8 per cent of Australians aged 14 years or older still smoke daily, and every year smoking kills an estimated 19,000 Australians and costs our community $31.5 billion.
One of the additional measures that I'd just like to briefly mention is part of our National Tobacco Campaign. Part of that 12.8 per cent of Australians is, significantly, Indigenous Australians, who are over-represented in that particular cohort. That's why, as a federal government, we've prioritised phase 4 of the National Tobacco Campaign to Indigenous communities around the 'Don't make smokes your story' campaign, which was a privilege for me to be able to launch in Alice Springs earlier this year as part of the AFL's reconciliation round.
The campaign aims to empower Indigenous Australians to quit smoking and highlights the support services available, including the Quitline, the My QuitBuddy and Quit for You Quit for Two mobile applications and the Quit Now website. Three consecutive phases of the campaign have been undertaken from 2016 focusing on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers and recent quitters aged 18 to 40, because it's not just the first time you give up; you often have to keep trying and trying again, so having those strategies in place in the weeks following for people who quit smoking is incredibly important. The Quit for You Quit for Two campaign is targeted at pregnant women and their partners and complemented the campaign.
The latest phase of the campaign was launched on 27 May 2018 across television, print, radio, digital and out-of-home formats. Evaluation reports for phases 1 and 2 are available now at the Quit Now website, and phase 3 results will be made available over coming months.
Under the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011, plain-packaging compliance and enforcement activities are undertaken by authorised officers. Authorised officers must be persons appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 or a member or special member of the Australian Federal Police. A person is appointed as an authorised officer in writing by the Secretary of the Department of Health, who must be satisfied that the person has suitable qualifications, training or experience.
The bill proposes to expand the range of persons who can be appointed as authorised officers for the purpose of undertaking compliance and enforcement activities. Right now, states have laws around what can be sold where, but I think we've all been down main streets where we've seen certain shops operating. It's not always police officers who have the time or the resources available to actually do the additional compliance activities around ensuring tobacco control, so we want to expand the number of people who are able to undertake those duties. State, territory and local government officers with the responsibilities for health or tobacco control matters will be able to be appointed as authorised officers. The secretary must still be satisfied that any person appointed as an authorised officer has suitable qualifications, training and experience.
The government is greatly concerned about the serious health risks of smoking, including cancers, and has continued the efforts of previous governments to support and build on Australia's great success in tobacco control. On 6 May 2018, the government announced new budget measures to tackle the illicit tobacco trade. The government has introduced a comprehensive new framework to provide the Australian Border Force and the Australian Taxation Office with strengthened enforcement measures and additional resources to deter those who profit from illicit tobacco.
The excise increases announced in the 2015-16 budget were firmly based on the evidence that this would further help reduce smoking. The announcement in the 2017-18 budget to harmonise taxation of roll-your-own and manufactured cigarettes is also intended to ensure fairness and efficiencies in tobacco taxes.
As I said, tobacco is the leading cause of preventable and premature death and disability in Australia. Tobacco use is the only risk factor shared by all four main categories of non-communicable diseases, namely cardiovascular diseases, cancer, chronic respiratory diseases and diabetes. The most recent available estimates show that the socioeconomic cost of smoking in Australia was $31.5 billion.
In 2011 tobacco use killed almost 19,000 Australians and was responsible for nine per cent of our total burden of disease and injury, making it the most burdensome risk factor. On 1 June 2017 the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare released the National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2016's key findings, which showed that the decline in smoking prevalence rates amongst daily smokers aged 14 years and over slowed in 2016. It decreased from 12.8 per cent in 2013 to 12.2 per cent. In 2016, those living in remote or very remote areas were approximately twice as likely to report as being daily smokers, at 20.7 per cent, compared to those living in major cities, at 10.6 per cent. Daily smoking rates amongst those living in regional areas were also 40 to 70 per cent higher compared to those living in major cities over the same period. The 2014-15 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey shows that the proportion of Indigenous people aged 15 years and over who were daily smokers was 38.9 per cent in 2014-15, down from 44.6 per cent in 2008 and an incredible 48.6 per cent in 2002. Nearly half of that population was smoking over 15 years ago.
The measures that we have put in, that the previous government has put in and that our state and territory governments have initiated are working, and we must continue to push forward in this regard. The AIHW report Burden of cancer in Australia: Australian burden of disease study 2011 shows that tobacco was the largest risk factor that contributed to the burden of cancer. Tobacco was attributed to 11 different types of cancer and was responsible for almost twice as many cancer DALY—disability adjusted life years—in males and females. Almost one-quarter of the total cancer burden can be attributed to tobacco use. In 2016 it was estimated that lung cancer will be the leading cause of cancer death in both females and males—over 3,700 females and 5,000 males.
The Department of Health has policy responsibility for illicit tobacco in relation to its work under the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the development of the National Tobacco Strategy and, broadly, in its work to reduce smoking prevalence rates. Although the department takes a significant interest in illicit tobacco and the market drivers that influence the illicit trade, it does so from a health perspective, ensuring that consumers are provided with the full suite of government strategies aimed at reducing tobacco consumption rates in Australia. The department is proactively engaging with other agencies on the issue of illicit tobacco to increase cooperation and collaboration. The department is concerned about illicit trade in tobacco products because (a) it impacts directly on the effectiveness of price based public health policies aimed at decreasing smoking rates, and (b) smokers accessing illicit products may not benefit from other public health messages, including tobacco plain packaging and graphic health warnings.
Essence Communications is undertaking a market research evaluation for the department of the current graphic health warnings on tobacco products that are prescribed under the competition and consumer law. The market research evaluation will assess the effectiveness of the current graphic health warnings and provide advice to inform further work in that area. The final report is expected to be delivered to the department in September 2018, so by the end of this month.
I've already mentioned the National Tobacco Campaign. To see our health workers combining with community organisations, not-for-profit organisations, sporting organisations and Indigenous communities to stand together to reduce tobacco use in the Indigenous community is absolutely something we want to see as a government. I know a couple of senators who have spoken against this particular bill say the bill's not required. It's primarily intended to allow for the ongoing appointment of National Measurement Institute officers as authorised officers and the inclusion of relevant state and territory health officers, state and territory police officers and local government officers to provide future flexibility and increased cooperation to respond to noncompliance with the act should it be needed and agreed to in the future.
Sometimes we wonder that the implications may be for the state and territory health departments or local governments. The bill doesn't place any obligation on state and territory agencies or local government entities to be appointed as authorised officers unless and until there's a desire to enter into an agreement. So this is not a case of the Commonwealth coming in over the top; it is a case of us providing the framework in which states and territories can ensure that their health officers, their police officers and their local government officers that deal in this space are adequately considered under the federal legislation to assist us with compliance measures. I want to make that very, very clear. The bill is intended to ensure that National Measurement Institute officers are still able to be appointed as authorised officers should that agency undergo organisational changes. This bill will allow the appointment, as I have already mentioned, of local government officials, state and territory police officers and those with responsibilities for ensuring healthy communities within local governments.
In terms of who was consulted, the initial consultation was undertaken within jurisdictional representatives. A follow-up consultation with each state and territory health department, police force and local government representative body occurred from October 2017 to March 2018. In New South Wales, comment was also sought from the New South Wales Department of Premier and Cabinet, as requested by that state's department of health. Some agencies initially expressed concern in relation to the potential for their officers to be appointed as authorised officers either because their view was that it did not fall within their remit or due to resourcing concerns. After further discussion, these agencies were able to support the amendment on the basis that any appointment of authorised officers would be after a formal agreement was made, and the bill reflects the requirement for an agreement to be in place. In terms of financial impact, the amendment will not result in any further financial impact on the Commonwealth above the current costs associated with tobacco plain packaging compliance and enforcement activities.
The bill does not change our packaging requirements and will not impact the obligations of tobacco manufacturers, distributors or retailers. Consultation, as I said, was broad. After further discussion, there is agreement. The bill will improve plain packaging compliance and enhance enforcement capabilities to support the control measures.
I thank senators for their contribution and for their brief insight into their own individual struggles with smoking and with tobacco control. I commend the bill to the Senate.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Kitching ): The question is that the Tobacco Plain Packaging Amendment Bill 2018 be read a second time.
The Senate divided. [12:52]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Kitching)
In Committee
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Kitching ) (12:55): The question is that the bill stand as printed.
Senator ANNING (Queensland) (12:55): I move amendment (1) on sheet 8518:
(1) Page 3 (after line 25), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 2—Further amendments
Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011
1 At the end of Division 3 of Part 2 of Chapter 2
Add:
29A Requirements apply only if manufacturer consents
Despite any other provision of this Act or the regulations, the:
(a) requirements for retail packaging of tobacco products in Division 1 of this Part; and
(b) requirements for appearance of tobacco products in Division 2 of this Part; and
(c) additional requirements (if any) prescribed by the regulations;
only apply if the person who manufactures the retail packaging or the tobacco product (the manufacturer):
(d) consents to the application of the requirements to the retail packaging or tobacco products which they manufacture; and
(e) notifies the Secretary in writing of such consent.
[manufacturer consent]
I rise on behalf of Katter's Australian Party to speak on the amendment to the government's Tobacco Plain Packaging Amendment Bill 2018. This amendment seeks to give tobacco manufacturers the right of veto over government efforts to impose plain packaging on their products. The likelihood is that, if this amendment were passed, so-called plain packaging of tobacco products would come to an end. This amendment seeks to ensure that the property rights expropriated by the original Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 are restored. The Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011, while masquerading as a bold public health initiative, was actually just a nasty bit of pure socialism which simply displayed the total contempt that the former Gillard government had for private property. On the pretext of discouraging smoking, the former Labor government legislated to destroy the private property of tobacco manufacturers—brand equity built up over many years—and dictated the design of packaging to include revolting images of diseased organs. Given that tobacco remains a perfectly legal product, this was an unheard-of and outrageous attack on private property.
There seems to be little clear evidence that plain packaging has any effect on reducing smoking rates, and it probably just encourages those who wish to smoke to buy the cheapest cigarettes available, since the absence of a brand image undermines the appeal of more expensive tobacco. Certainly, smoking rates have fallen in recent times, but they were falling before the plain packaging act. If the government seriously wanted to reduce the adverse effects of smoking then, instead of imposing plain packaging, they would legalise vaping, which studies have shown encourages smokers to switch to a much healthier way of getting nicotine but also serves as a very real aid to those who wish to quit altogether.
However, whether or not the tasteless images of diseased lungs on cigarette packages may actually discourage a few people from taking up smoking in the first place, this is actually irrelevant. The real issue is that, in destroying brand equity and dictating packaging, the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act actually took away the property rights of the manufacturers. What people seem to fail to grasp is the insidious nature of this kind of legislation. Once a principle is established that private property can be expropriated at the discretion of the government of the day, the only question becomes: which group of property owners will have their rights trampled on next? That tobacco companies are widely disliked does not justify abrogation of their rights. The truth is that, however supposedly worthy the cause, it never justifies measures which undermine our basic freedoms because, once undermined, they cease to be rights and become privileges to be given or withheld on the grace and favour of the government of the day. If this government is allowed to get away with destroying the brand equity and dictating how a perfectly legal product is packaged, it is only a matter of time before it does so with something else. Today the politically unfashionable tobacco companies have their property appropriated by the state. Tomorrow it could be the breweries or unhealthy fast-food retailers. How long will it be before some left-wing do-gooder decides that we need plain packaging for alcohol and we find nauseating images of diseased livers on every beer bottle? Or indeed how long before every greasy hamburger is obliged to be covered in brown wrapping that graphically depicts fat-clogged arteries and heart attack warnings?
This is why I've moved my amendment to require the consent of tobacco companies for plain packaging. As long as it's a legal product, it should be up to the manufacturer as to how it is packaged. As for any other legal product, it should be up to the consumer to decide whether the costs outweigh the benefits—caveat emptor. However, this amendment also serves to highlight the issue of what principles political parties stand for. It was one thing for the hard-left Gillard government to have attacked private property with ill-conceived legislation like the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011, but it is quite another for a Liberal-National government to continue in the same vein.
When the coalition was elected in 2013, I had hoped that legislation hostile to private property rights, such as the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act, would be repealed. However, I'm sorry to say that this, like section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and so many other laws brought in by Labor, remains on the statute books. Whether this represents a weakness of will or a lack of ideological commitment is a matter of speculation. But the question must be asked as to how any government can call itself liberal if it will not stand up for private property rights, free speech and reward for effort. You may think that smoking is a major health concern. You may even think that anything that may reduce the incidence of it must be a good thing. But what you cannot do is call yourself liberal if you do not defend the inalienable rights of private property, whoever that property may belong to. Just because many people don't like tobacco should have no bearing on manufacturers' rights; they should be the same as for anyone else. Any public health initiative that undermines fundamental rights in society costs far more than it is worth. What needs to be understood is that this amendment is not about smoking. It is about private property, and I urge all senators who believe in its importance to support my amendment on this basis. Thank you.
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (13:03): Labor's world-leading plain packaging laws have helped drive smoking rates down to their current levels. This amendment would effectively abolish the plain packaging regime by handing control back to big tobacco and tobacco retailers. Labor will oppose this amendment.
Senator HINCH (Victoria) (13:03): There were a few words in the middle of Senator Anning's diatribe there which made a lot of sense—that vaping should be legal in this country because it is a deterrent to smoking. The rest of it could've been written by a hack or a flack for Rothmans or Philip Morris. There's no secret about how many millions of dollars the big tobacco companies spent in court cases in London trying to override what the Labor government bravely did. They spent all that money, and our taxpayers' money was also spent. The plain packaging has worked. Smoking is reduced in Australia, and I will certainly be voting against this amendment.
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (13:04): I rise in support of this amendment, not because I'm a shill for Philip Morris or Rothmans, as has been insinuated, Senator Anning, but because I opposed plain packaging when the Liberal Party deliberated on it in the party room, on the basis that tobacco is a legal product, and plain packaging is an expropriation of trademarks, notwithstanding the merits of smoking. I'm anti-smoking. I don't like it. I also don't like pioneering, world-leading social justice legislation, as Senator Polley, I think, described it. Yes, I would prefer people not to smoke, but equally I think there is a principle attached to this. In effect trying to scuttle the plain paper packaging legislation, I think, is a reasonable, worthy amendment, and I will be supporting it.
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (13:05): I am a shill. I'm a shill for property rights and I am shill for free choice. I'm also a shill for good policy. I have to say that this plain packaging is not good policy. I wish everybody would quit smoking. It's not good for you. People would be better off, healthier and have more money in their pockets if they didn't smoke. That would be an excellent outcome. The fact is: it is their choice. Policies like this that take property rights away from people who acquired them legally, built them up legally and invested billions of dollars in them doesn't serve any public purpose. It's not good policy at all.
I keep hearing from Labor and from the government—and I heard it from the minister before, although admittedly the minister is new in this job and was reciting what she was told—that the plain packaging policy is working. As I said in my speech on the second reading, it is not. What is the evidence for that? Rates of smoking are not declining. They were declining up until a few years ago. They are no longer declining now. They are declining in countries that don't have plain packaging. Read my lips. They are falling in countries where there isn't plain packaging. They are not falling in Australia, where there is plain packaging.
I think there is something significant that our government policymakers here—and I don't blame the minister—are missing. Just because they thought of plain packaging—or Labor did, and the government, when it became the government, took it over and embraced it—just because we were the first in the world to have invented plain packaging, does not make it a good policy. The evidence shows it is a failed policy. When are we going to reach the stage when we admit that and we start doing something about actually reducing smoking? Smoking is the issue here, not the tobacco companies and not pretty pictures or colours or whatever on the tobacco packets. That's the issue. Getting people to stop smoking is not going to be helped by plain packaging. We should put our efforts into policies that do reduce smoking.
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Deputy Leader of The Nationals and Minister for Regional Services, Sport, Local Government and Decentralisation) (13:08): The government won't be supporting Senator Anning's amendment, as it will undermine the tobacco plain packaging regulatory scheme that has been in place for nearly six years. The plain packaging requirements that have been in for six years for the retail packaging of tobacco products in Australia are mandatory and they apply not just to manufacturers but also to importers, wholesalers and retailers. If the requirements were subject to manufacturer consent, this would cause widespread confusion and cost to parties within the tobacco supply chain.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Kitching ): The question is that the amendment on sheet 8518 moved by Senator Anning be agreed to.
The committee divided. [13:13]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Kitching)
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Kitching ) (13:15): The question now is that the bill stand as printed.
Senator Di Natale: Madam Chair Kitching, just prior to that last division Senator Anning made a disgraceful slur against another senator and I ask him to withdraw.
Senator Anning: That is not correct, Chair. I simply repeated something that I said in my speech, 'Wait until we have diseased livers on wine bottles.' I made no reference to anyone and I named no-one, so it would appear to be a case of the guilty fleeing where no man pursueth.
Senator Di Natale: There were other people within the chamber, and the slur was directed specifically against a member of this chamber. I have the quote verbatim, directed against a member of this chamber and I would ask that he withdraw.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Anning, it wasn't audible to me as the Chair or to the clerks. I would ask you to withdraw if you made an unparliamentary comment.
Senator Anning: No, I won't be withdrawing it, Chair. Other members on this side heard exactly what I said, and I think they can verify the fact that I named no names. I just repeated something that was already in my speech.
Senator Di Natale: You're a coward!
Senator Leyonhjelm: Madam Chair, Senator Di Natale has just accused another member of being a coward. I invite you to ask him to withdraw.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Leyonhjelm, can I clarify this? You're raising a second point of order. On the first point of order, I've invited Senator Anning to withdraw any unparliamentary remarks that he might have made. He has refused to do so. Senator Leyonhjelm, you're raising another point of order. Senator Di Natale, if you've said that someone is cowardly would you care to withdraw that remark?
Senator Di Natale: Happy to withdraw.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Di Natale. The question is that the bill stand as printed. Sorry, Senator Wong?
Senator Wong: Sorry, obviously, I just entered the chamber and I'm not sure precisely what was said. But I would invite you, Chair, if Senator Anning has said something which you, as Chair, regard as unparliamentary and he has refused to withdraw it that you report that to the President for his consideration subsequently.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Just to clarify, neither I as Chair nor the clerks heard the comment. I have invited Senator Anning to withdraw any unparliamentary remarks. Senator Anning has refused to do so. But I am happy to report it to the President. Senator Bernardi, do you wish to speak on this point of order?
Senator Bernardi: Just on this point of order, I did hear what Senator Anning said. The words that he used were as Senator Di Natale and Senator Anning both confirm. However, they weren't specifically referred to any particular senator, notwithstanding how some may like to apply that, and whether those words are unparliamentary or not is a matter for the judgement of the Senate or the judgement of the President or the presiding officer. However, if repeating comments that you've made in a speech are then suddenly deemed unparliamentary, I think we do open a can of worms. On balance, I would say that Senator Anning shouldn't be required to withdraw. However, that is ultimately a determination for the presiding officers.
Senator Leyonhjelm: If it's of any assistance, I also heard what Senator Anning said. It was as he related to you in his brief statement just a moment ago. I don't regard that as unparliamentary, and I do consider it the same as what he made in his speech to his amendment. I would be surprised if that constituted unparliamentary language, and I certainly don't see, myself, any grounds for withdrawal. But I would think that if you or the President were to say this does require withdrawal, it would be setting a rather amazing precedent as to what is unparliamentary.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Kitching ): Senator Leyonhjelm, we dealt with the point of order. I then dealt with your point of order. The matter is resolved.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.
Third Reading
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Deputy Leader of The Nationals and Minister for Regional Services, Sport, Local Government and Decentralisation) (13:22): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Bankruptcy Amendment (Debt Agreement Reform) Bill 2018
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:23): I rise to speak on at the Bankruptcy Amendment (Debt Agreement Reform) Bill 2018. Labor supports this bill, which provides further regulation of the industry administering debt agreements. The bill amends the Bankruptcy Act 1966 by limiting the class of persons who can offer services as registered debt agreement to administrators, trustees or official trustees. Limiting who can be a debt agreement administrator by reference to schools and capabilities will provide an additional safeguard against sharp practice, which disproportionately affects disadvantaged, marginalised and vulnerable people who are at a higher risk of being damaged if exposed to unscrupulous or iniquitous practices.
The debt agreement to administration industry and any individuals who are administering their own agreement will be given nine months, following royal assent to this bill, to gain the necessary skills and effect transitional requirements. This provides creditors and debtors with the certainty they require to transition any existing arrangements.
After it was first introduced in the House of Representatives, Labor worked closely with governments to negotiate improvements to the original form of the bill. In doing so, Labor considered carefully the recommendations of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. Labor supports the inclusion of a provision which requires debt agreement administrators to specify expressly in any debt agreement the expenses which may be charged by the administrator. The repayment of debt, often by disadvantaged people with limited financial literacy, should not be an exercise in profit gouging by debt agreement administrators. We support giving both debtors and creditors access to the debt agreement and administrator's proposed expenses so they assess the reasonableness of the expenses and, if necessary, seek independent financial or legal advice.
Labor supported in principle the setting of a cap on the percentage of debtors' after tax income that can be agreed to be paid in the repayment schedule of the debt agreement in the original form of the bill. To best achieve this, Labor supported the committee's recommendation that the original form of the bill be amended to require the minister to have regard to the cost of living for low-income households in setting the percentage cap. Similarly, Labor supported amendments to the original form of the bill to allow for debt agreements implemented under a three-year cap to be capable of being extended by up to an additional two years by agreement.
These amendments to the original bill are designed to ensure that where there is a substantial and unforeseen change in circumstances vulnerable people who are no longer able to complete their repayments over three years will have an opportunity to extend the repayment timeframe. In addition, in recognition of the fact that debtors with a family home stand to lose more under bankruptcy than other debtors, debtors with an interest in their principle place of residence will be able to propose a debt agreement for up to five years, instead of three years, as originally proposed by the government.
Labor welcomes the measures in schedule 1 that seek to limit the possibility of conflicts of interests and increased transparency of the corporate arrangements of companies and persons who offer services as registered debt agreement administrators, including the disclosure requirements for related entities.
Labor supports the measures in schedule 3 of the bill, which provide for more rigorous registration requirements, including that the inspector-general interview applicants after processing their paper applications and that the trustee or registered debt agreement administrator takes out professional indemnity and fidelity insurance. Labor also supports the other measures in schedule 3, which empower the inspector-general to obtain information from banks and financial institutions confirming whether or not a separate bank account is being maintained for the purpose of managing the debtor's repayments under the debt agreement. Labor will always support measures that require the proper discharge of statutory duties and safeguard vulnerable people. This is a good measure. It is aimed at preventing the misuse or misappropriation of money held on trust to pay down the debt by registered debt agreement administrators or official trustees. In addition to the substantive amendments referred to above, a number of other minor amendments have been made to the original form of the bill. Those amendments serve to clarify the operation of the bill and ensure that it is consistent with other legislation. Labor also supports these amendments. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Senator HUME (Victoria—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (13:29): I rise today also to speak on the Bankruptcy Amendment (Debt Agreement Reform) Bill 2018 . I want to talk through the following areas: first, I want to talk very generally about the legislation and how it will better support vulnerable Australians by amending the existing framework for debt agreements; second, I want to talk through the amendments in greater detail and, in particular, how they address the concerns expressed by the committee; finally, I want to touch briefly on the issues of debt agreements more generally and the rationale for this legislation. I am particularly grateful that it has received the support that it has from across the Senate chamber. I think that demonstrates the power of good law making at resolving injustice and what can be achieved in this place when we work across the aisle.
First, I would like to give the chamber a little bit more context of this bill. The debt agreement system is a very important part of Australia's consumer finance framework. It provides debtors with an opportunity to avoid bankruptcy and to manage their personal debts, while also giving creditors a return on what they're owed. This particular bill amends the Bankruptcy Act 1966 to comprehensively reform Australia's debt agreement system. Debt agreements are a statutory alternative to bankruptcy for eligible insolvent debtors. Debt agreements allow a debtor and their creditors to enter into an agreement to settle those debts without the debtor becoming bankrupt. They provide a viable alternative solution for managing personal debt. Debtors can regain and maintain control over their personal affairs, and creditors, at the same time, receive a portion of what they're owed. Debt agreements are also known as a part 9. I think that's probably a term that you will hear a fair bit in the second reading debate speeches this afternoon. A debt agreement is a legally binding agreement between the debtor and creditors that provides a very flexible way to come to an arrangement to settle debts without forcing that debtor to declare bankruptcy. They give people time to clear their debts and get back on their financial feet while avoiding the formal process of bankruptcy, the stigma associated with bankruptcy and the potential long-term impact on their financial circumstances.
How does a debt agreement work in practice? If an individual has a debt management problem there are a number of options available to them. They can declare an intention to present a debtor's petition—that is called a DOI. This option provides a 21-day relief from being pursued by creditors while a debtor seeks advice on how to proceed. They can declare bankruptcy, which lasts for three years and one day. At the end of that period, the debtor is released from bankruptcy and most of their debts. Alternatively, they can enter into a personal insolvency agreement, which are agreements between the debtor and creditors to pay an agreed amount in instalments or a lump sum, or they can enter into a debt agreement, which is a binding agreement between the debtor and the creditor to pay a sum which they can in fact afford.
When an individual enters into a debt agreement, a debt agreement administrator is appointed. The debt agreement administrator manages the agreement and works with both the debtor and the creditors to achieve a fair and reasonable outcome. The debt agreement administrator negotiates on behalf of the debtor to pay a percentage of the combined debt that the debtor can in fact afford over a period of time. The repayments are made to that debt agreement administrator rather than individual payments to each of the creditors. After the payments are complete and the arrangement ends, the creditors are unable to recover any further moneys that might be owed. A debt agreement can be a very suitable alternative to bankruptcy, because creditors may receive more money than they would if the debtor was to become bankrupt. Also, it could provide considerable relief to managing individual creditors for the debtor himself. But not everybody is eligible. There are limits to the amount of debt and income you can have to be eligible, and entering a debt agreement is not without consequences. Debt agreements are not a consolidation of loans and they're not an agreement to borrow money. A debt agreement releases the debtor from most of their unsecured debt when all their obligations and payments are completed, but—and this is very important—not all of it: secured debts and joint debts are not included. Some debts may still need to be paid. It might be a home loan secured on a house or a car loan secured on a vehicle. Secured creditors may cease and sell assets, which have been offered for security, at any time if payments fall behind. In addition, debt agreements don't release any third person from a debt that's jointly owed with someone who is in a debt agreement.
Some debts can't be paid out of a debt agreement. This is particularly important: a debtor is still liable for debts incurred by fraud, for child support, for any fines or penalties or for any other court ordered payments. Any student HECS-HELP or Student Financial Supplement Scheme debts also do not fall under a debt agreement. Moreover, it's really important to note that entering into a debt agreement has the potential to affect a person's ability to get credit in the future and it will appear on a public record for a limited period of time. The debtor's name appears on the National Personal Insolvency Index, the NPII, for a limited period of time depending on the circumstances and the timing of the end of that agreement. Proposing a debt of agreement is, in fact, an act of bankruptcy—even though you're not actually declaring bankruptcy, it is an act of bankruptcy and creditors can use this to apply to the court to make the debtor bankrupt.
In 2016, there were 12,150 new debt agreements and they comprised 41.5 per cent of all personal insolvencies in Australia. While the number of debt agreements has increased steadily each year, bankruptcies have, in fact, decreased since 2010. In 2016, close to 23 per cent of debtors' payments went towards debt agreement administrator's fees. The total amount of fees paid by debtors is very high in Australia, when Australian Financial Security Authority fees and set-up fees paid to the debt agreement administrators are included.
Let me make a couple of general points about this bill. The coalition is amending the Bankruptcy Act 1966 to comprehensively reform Australia's debt agreement system. It is the first major reform of the debt agreement system in over a decade. I've explained what debt agreements do. They allow debtors and their creditors to enter into an agreement to settle debts without the debtor becoming bankrupt. This bill modernises the debt agreement system to suit today's financial environment, and it safeguards the interests of debtors and of creditors.
The coalition is taking action to boost confidence in the professionalism of debt agreement administrators and also to deter unscrupulous practices. We're enhancing the transparency for debtors and for creditors by requiring those administrators to disclose more information on their relationships. We are setting a very high bar for debt agreement administrator standards, through stricter practice rules and through tougher penalties for misconduct. Debt agreement administrators deal with some of the most vulnerable people in our community. This bill professionalises that industry to reflect their very important function. It introduces a very robust set of safeguards that will protect vulnerable debtors from entering into debt agreements that are set up to fail. Under this bill, debtors with a family home to protect will be given the best possible opportunity to avoid bankruptcy and avoid potentially losing their home. Most of the bill's provisions have a nine-month commencement time to give the industry time to prepare for those changes. As I said, I think the fact that there is support across the House for this legislation has been most encouraging.
There are a number of amendments that have been introduced to this legislation. I would like to talk through some of those now in a little bit of greater detail. The amendments that the government are making give people with a family home a much better opportunity to avoid bankruptcy and to keep control over their home. They will also ensure that the protections afforded by the bill's payments-to-income ratio and the three-year proposal cap are better targeted at those vulnerable debtors. With amendments (1) and (4), the commencement of the legislation has been lengthened to change the commencement from six months to nine months following royal assent. This acknowledges the practical complexity involved with the bill's implementation as originally drafted and will ensure that AFSA is better positioned to implement the substantive provisions of the legislation.
The amendments contained in the bill modify the description of intent in relation to applicable offences. For example, the bill as amended clarifies and strengthens language in relation to 'intent'. It introduces offences for debt agreement administrators who offer inducements to creditors to influence a debt agreement vote, and it aligns the framing of these offences with what is contained in the Criminal Code Act 1995.
The amendments in the bill also prohibit self-administered debt agreements. Indeed, the amendments expressly prohibit debtors from proposing to self-administer their debt agreements. This ensures that all debtors receive the benefits of an appropriately qualified debt agreement administrator, and the bill mandates that only registered debt agreement administrators, registered trustees or the official trustee can be authorised to administer a debt agreement. This was mentioned in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee in relation to those matters. There were sentiments expressed by submitters to that committee. The particular report that came back to the Senate suggested:
Submitters were generally supportive of the proposed changes to strengthen the registration and standards of debt agreement administrators and some considered that the bill could go further. For example, SRMC Limited ... recommended that all administrators be required to complete a personal insolvency course as well as undertake ongoing formal education. SRMC also suggested that administrators be required to hold membership of a professional body with a commitment to a Code of Conduct.
I'm very pleased to see that the government has been picking up on those recommendations.
There are a number of others: amendments (3), (6), (8), (10), (11), (13), (21) and (34). This was picked up by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee: the payment-to-income to ratio. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee queried the Attorney-General's existing power to alter the eligibility requirements for debt agreements and, as such, the bill that's come before the Senate chamber today allows the Attorney-General to alter the eligibility requirements for debt agreements through amending the permissible payment-to-income ratio. This is a really important safeguard. It will ensure that debtors are not able to enter into repayment obligations that are unsustainable. Allowing the Attorney-General to initially set and then amend the permissible level of this ratio is also important because it allows the ratio to be very quickly amended to adjust to changing market conditions.
However, taking on board the committee's comments, these amendments reduce the scope of debit agreements to which the ratio will apply and thereby limit the Attorney-General's ability to set the eligibility requirements. The amendments will allow debtors to exceed the payment-to-income ratio if their financial situation is subjected to heavier scrutiny by their administrator and the administrator concludes that the proposed repayments are sustainable. A 60-penalty-unit strict liability offence applies to administrators who abuse this particular option.
Amendments contained within the bill relate to debtors with a home to protect in recognition of the fact that that debtors with a home to protect stand to lose far more under bankruptcy than other debtors. This amendment relaxes the debtor protection safeguards of the three-year debt agreement time frame limitation and the payment-to-income ratio. Together, amendments (5), (18) and (21) give debtors with equity in their principal place of residence the flexibility to exceed the payment-to-income ratio and propose a debt agreement of up to five years. These amendments extend the accessibility of the debt agreement system and provide debtors with a home to protect—a viable alternative to bankruptcy.
Regarding amendments (7), (8) and (21), the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee made some comments on the payment-to-income ratio. Their recommendation was that the cost of living for low-income households, the average cost of housing and the potential CPI increases be considered when setting that payment-to-income ratio. The amendments therefore modify the payment-to-income ratio formula to introduce a low-income debtor amount to the numerator so it can better take account of the circumstances of low-income debtors who may be more vulnerable to financial stress. By adding that low-income debtor amount, the formula better accounts for low-income debtors, who generally spend a much higher proportion of their income on basics, and also debtors who have atypical circumstances, such as those receiving assistance from employers or from family.
Regarding amendments (17), (27), (32) and (36), the Scrutiny of Bills Committee made some comments on terms of imprisonment. They have also been considered. Regarding amendments (18), (19), (20) and (23), the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee made recommendations regarding the option to vary debt agreements up to five years. These amendments respond to the recommendation that the bill be amended to allow for debt agreements implemented under a three-year cap to be capable of being extended by up to two years by agreement of the debtor, the creditors and the debt agreement administrator, which makes the instrument far more flexible. Amendment (35) is a technical amendment which corrects an erroneous reference to a subsection in the Bankruptcy Act.
I turn very briefly to the issue of debt agreements in Australia and the use of them. They are a rapidly growing form of personal insolvency in our country and they're intended to help the most vulnerable of Australians who would otherwise fall into bankruptcy. The original law that was intended recognised the need to ensure reasonableness and fairness so that people were not forced into bankruptcy or undue hardship. It was their intention to ensure that they could reach a debt repayment plan that was more reasonable and considerate of their situation. In fact, many debtors pay more than 100 per cent of their original debt because of the high cost of that administration fee. I should point out, as I did earlier, that there are, in fact, different options available for managing debt. It is a growing problem in Australia, mainly because the take-up and the use of these debt agreement arrangements has become so prevalent. As I said, in 2016 close to 23 per cent of debtors' payments went towards debt agreement fees. If you're in debt, you don't want a quarter of whatever you're paying to go to your administrator. You want it to go to your creditors. Between 2007 and 2017 new debt agreements increased from 6,560 to 14,639 per year. During the same period, bankruptcies declined from 25,754 to 16,378. While these agreements are useful for some people, like those who have a home to protect from seizure and bankruptcy, there is some concern from consumer advocates that they're being used inappropriately and that administrators are potentially unscrupulous. That's what this bill is here to amend.
It should be noted, as I said, that this is the first comprehensive overhaul of Australia's debt agreement system in more than a decade. It ensures that debt agreements are based on a more affordable payment schedule by linking repayments to a certain percentage of income. They limit the length of the debt agreement proposals. They double the current asset eligibility threshold, and they provide that the official receiver in bankruptcy has the ability to reject proposed debt agreements which would cause undue financial hardship on the debtor. They ensure a far greater professionalism in this growing industry by requiring debt agreement administrators to hold and maintain professional indemnity and fidelity insurance as a requirement of registration and to have the appropriate skill set and knowledge base. This will deter unscrupulous practices by a small minority of debt agreement administrators by setting up stricter codes of practice and tougher penalties for wrongdoing. The reforms are designed to ensure that the integrity of the industry is improved overall. With the number of new debt agreements almost doubling in the last decade, debt agreements are proving to be an important, effective and popular alternative to bankruptcy for many individuals who are facing financial difficulties. Most importantly, debtors with a family home to protect must be given the best opportunity to manage their unsecured debts and avoid bankruptcy.
These proposed reforms will, for the most part, commence nine months after the bill passes from parliament, giving the debt agreement industry time to adjust and prepare for the reforms. Most importantly, the legislation will make the debt agreement system much fairer and more efficient for debtors and creditors alike. It will protect people who are in a very vulnerable position from financial exploitation. These reforms will introduce the necessary safeguards; they'll bolster community confidence in the industry; and they'll ensure that the system allows people to achieve that all-important fresh start.
As a government and as a Senate we are ensuring that the law continues to be on the side of the most vulnerable. I'm conscious that for some time it potentially hasn't been. We are now rectifying that. These reforms will reduce the risk of debtors being left worse off financially as a result of debt agreements that are unsuited to their financial and personal circumstances. It will ensure that adequate legal safeguards are in place to look after some of the financially most vulnerable in our communities.
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (13:48): I thank my colleague Senator Hume, an obvious expert on this subject, who was a member of the committee that looked into this bill. I apologise for not being here for my turn to speak, because I was at another committee meeting. I chaired the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee which inquired into both these bills and had hearings on both bills jointly in Sydney on 5 March and Melbourne on 6 March.
We had a number of witnesses who appeared before the committee and who gave assistance to the committee in their consideration of those bills. I want to thank all of those who made written submissions to the bill, which numbered 19 in all. A number of these submitters agreed to come before the committee and give evidence in person. I want to thank the committee secretariat and the staff of the secretariat for the work they do in assisting the committee in this and other bills that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee is required to deal with.
The Bankruptcy Act provides a number of options for a debtor with unmanageable debt to take control of their personal affairs while also allowing for creditors to receive a proportion of what they're owed. Debt agreements were actually first introduced in 1996 and were:
… designed to be a low cost alternative to bankruptcy for persons with few if any divisible assets, and low income levels.
The eligibility requirements for bankruptcy as opposed to debt agreements were set out in a table provided by the Australian Financial Security Authority, and anyone interested in this subject would find on page 2 of our report the comparison between bankruptcies and debt agreements. I won't go through that in any detail, but anyone who's interested could follow that table.
Before I make a few comments about the committee's inquiry and conclusions into both bills, I do want to point out that these are bills submitted by the government to parliament and that when the bills get to the Senate they are referred by the Selection of Bills Committee to an appropriate committee—in this case, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—to have a look at them in detail. As Senator Hume has so clearly enunciated, the committee had a number of concerns about the bill, even though the committee, of course, has a majority of government members. But following the submissions made to the committee, and following the evidence given to the committee in its public hearings, the committee determined to recommend to the government that certain amendments be made to the government's own bill.
I think it's worthwhile noting that it's a credit to the system that after the committee having inquired into it in some detail and making these recommendations, the government has then taken the recommendations onboard and introduced some amendments to its own bill to make sure that the amendments are appropriate and that the bill actually is in its best possible form. I think in this case, if my memory serves me correctly, that whilst this committee had a majority of government members it also had Labor Party members and a member of the Greens. I might, in passing, thank all of my colleagues for their attention to the detail of this hearing and this report. But I think it's notable that this is a unanimous report of all members of the committee. Committee members from all different political parties were able to join together and say to the government, 'We like the bills, but we think there needs to be some amendments to those bills to make them work better to deal with some issues that were raised in the hearings by the witnesses'—in many cases, expert witnesses.
In its report, the committee noted and shared the concern raised by submitters in relation to the reduction in the default period under the Bankruptcy Amendment (Enterprise Incentives) Bill 2017. The committee in particular noted the various potential means of differentiating between businesses and personal bankruptcies, as suggested by submitters. The committee, however, weighed this evidence against the advice from the department, which suggested that it was impractical and potentially impossible to achieve a true distinction between the two types of bankruptcies. The committee was mindful that the causes of bankruptcy are often multifaceted and may not be clearly identified through statistical data. The committee found that, on balance, the evidence suggested that a one-year default period is appropriate, at least for some classes of bankruptcy, having regard to the issues raised at the aims of the bill. However, the committee strongly encouraged the government to consider the comments and recommendations made later in our report, which are aimed at ameliorating some of what the committee and many submitters saw as the potential risks in curtailing the current default period.
As a result of its determinations, the committee recommended that the government give positive consideration to the suggestion from ASIC, the Australian Securities and Investments Corporation, to amending the Corporations Act to ameliorate the risk of the one-year default period being made available to bankrupts for whom such a concession is not desirable or justifiable as an outcome. The second recommendation of the committee was that, subject to that foregoing recommendation, the bill should be passed by the Senate. I understand that the government has acted in accordance with that recommendation. Accordingly, the committee then unanimously recommends that the enterprise incentives bill be passed by the Senate. I'd hope that the Senate as a whole might agree with that.
In relation to the Bankruptcy Amendment (Debt Agreement Reform) Bill, the committee noticed that there had been an increase in popularity of debt agreements. One of the aims of the bill was to increase the public's trust and confidence in debt agreement administrators. The committee considered that the proposed amendment to limit the types of practitioners who are able to administer debt agreements, along with enabling the Attorney-General to set industry conditions for administrators, would assist to boost confidence in the professionalism of the administrators.
The committee noted various recommendations made by a number of submitters, including requiring debt agreement administrators to complete formal training on personal insolvency, including undertaking ongoing formal education; to hold membership of a professional body with a commitment to a code of conduct; and provide more information to debtors prior to entering into debt agreements as well as at other stages of the debt agreement. The committee also noted that debt agreement administrators should join the Australian Financial Complaints Authority once it was established. The committee made no specific recommendations in respect of these suggestions, but we did draw them to the attention of the government and suggested that they did have merit.
As my colleague Senator Hume has already advised in some detail, the committee did recommend that the government should consider amending the Bankruptcy Amendment (Debt Agreement Reform) Bill to allow for debt agreements implemented under the three-year cap to be capable of being extended for an additional two years by the agreement of the debtor, creditors and debt agreement administrators. The committee made that report after considering some of the written submissions, but particularly after various witnesses appeared before the committee and explained the need for those amendments. I'm very pleased to say that the government has acted upon that unanimous report of the committee and adopted that recommendation.
I'm not going to be able to finish my presentation. There are a couple more recommendations that the committee made that I'd like to talk on later. Clearly, it's a bill that does have the support of the committee and all members of the committee and it should be passed.
Debate interrupted.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Aged Care
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:00): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care, Senator Scullion. In May of this year, the Labor Party raised serious concerns about the aged care sector and warned it was 'in a state of national crisis'. The minister dismissed Labor's warning saying it was 'verging on the abuse of elder Australians'. Did the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care watch last night's Four Corners program and, if so, does the minister now agree there is an aged care crisis or does he stand by his statement that such warnings are 'verging on the abuse of elder Australians'?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:00): I can only guess that the minister watched Four Corners last night. I haven't confirmed that with him. I don't think I need to take that on notice. He was—I have had confirmed that's the case. We always need to keep an eye on our responsibilities to those more vulnerable in our community and that's exactly what this government have been doing. We have called a royal commission because of the very complex nature of the systems, of the different levels of providers, of the different levels of support to ensure we can have a forensic examination of every element to ensure we take a very precautionary approach, to ensure that the way we approach this matter means that we will leave no stone unturned. At the end of this royal commission, every Australian will be able to say with absolute confidence we have had an independent, well-funded, forensic process to identify any of those gaps in service provision or any gaps in compliance or where there is elder abuse or suspected elder abuse or whether the funding is the right funding and has been allocated in the right way. That's what we have undertaken to do because we take this matter very, very seriously. I'm not sure about Labor's conversations and what Labor has said. We've gone and done some research and found that the Labor government apparently warned Australia—
The PRESIDENT (14:02): Senator O'Neill on a point of order.
Senator O'Neill: On relevance—the minister sounds like he is going somewhere else. He still hasn't actually answered the question. I wouldn't think it would be too hard. Did the minister watch the program or not? Yes or no? Is aged care in crisis?
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, you have reminded him of it. I thought I heard him answer part of that question. That was part of your question. I call the minister to continue.
Senator SCULLION: I confirm I then had information the minister had, in fact, watched Four Corners. As for is aged care in crisis, look, there are elements of aged care, there is no doubt about it, that— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:03): In interviews for the Four Corners program, the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care continued to argue against a royal commission. Given the minister has had 24 hours to check, when did Minister Wyatt first become aware of discussions within government to support a royal commission?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:03): On a recent Monday, I understand that Minister Wyatt indicated during an interview that, at that stage, he really would like to see similar sorts of money that we might spend on a royal commission invested in the sector. I'm not sure if it was the same Monday but it was around the same time that Bill Shorten said, 'I'm not sure if we want a royal commission.' I'm not sure if this is very useful but, as I've indicated, in that period of time, some significant evidence—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Scullion! Senator O'Neill, on a point of order.
Senator O'Neill: On relevance. I do indicate, again, that it has been 24 hours since this question was first asked. I know there are many Mondays in a year but we'd like some actual details. The minister had 24 hours to identify the dates.
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, I am assuming your point of order is about direct relevance. I was listening carefully to the minister. He has 15 seconds remaining. I believe he was turning to the point you raised just then as he was speaking.
Senator SCULLION: Thank you for the clarification on the point of order, Mr President. We are always going to be talking less about partisan politics and more about the fixing of aged care.
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Scullion! Please resume your seat. Senator Wong, on a point of order.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Wong is on her feet. On the point of order, Senator Wong.
Senator Wong: The point of order is on direct relevance. We asked a question yesterday—and the minister has had 24 hours to go away and check—which was: when did the minister he represents first become aware of discussions in the government for a royal commission? It is a reasonable question, given that the minister he represents said something contrary to government policy. I ask you to remind the minister of the question, and I ask the minister to do the courtesy to the chamber of answering the question.
The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, I remind the minister of the question and that he has five seconds remaining to answer.
Senator SCULLION: I've indicated that it was the Monday before the Friday in the same week. Sorry I haven't got the Friday— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question.
Senator Scullion interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Scullion, you will have an opportunity in a moment.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: We will waste time here as long as there are interjections. Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:06): Given the minister has been the minister responsible for aged-care policy and regulation for over 30 months and that there have now been 14 reports, reviews and inquiries into aged care, why has it taken a television expose to prompt the minister to change his mind about the need for a royal commission?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:07): I indicated in my answer to the previous question that there are cumulative issues that come up. There were some significant pieces of evidence that came up at the time we had been considering these matters. As you would be aware, we have actually invested in changes—and thank you to all of those people in this place for their support in the last sitting week before this one—to the cop on the beat and changes to the quality framework. This was in this context. We have continued to look at this issue. We have continued to look at our investment, and cabinet decided, on balance, that now is the time to have a forensic examination of the circumstances that our most vulnerable and treasured Australians are in. That is why we made the decision at that time.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The PRESIDENT (14:08): I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the chamber of a parliamentary delegation from Malaysia, led by the Speaker of Malaysia's House of Representatives, His Excellency Dato' Mohamad Ariff Bin MD Yusof. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I invite the Speaker to take a seat with me on the floor of the Senate.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
His Excellency Mr Yusof was then seated accordingly.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Superannuation
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia) (14:09): My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Cormann. How is the Liberal-National government supporting Australians by ensuring that they have stability and certainty in retirement?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and the Public Service, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:09): I thank Senator Brockman for that very important policy question. Our government will always seek to support those Australians who act responsibly and prudently by saving for their own retirement throughout their working lives. We will always support those hardworking Australians who contribute to our economy during their working lives and, importantly, who make sacrifices throughout their lives to be able to look after their own needs in retirement or to limit their reliance on taxpayers. They deserve our support. Encouraging Australians to work harder to support themselves is precisely what our Liberal-National government is all about. As the Prime Minister says, a fair go for those who have a go. Labor used to believe this too, of course, but not any more.
Our government has introduced reforms to superannuation laws to ensure that those saving for retirement are not ripped off. We have extended fund choice for more Australians. In our last budget, we provided more time for Australians aged 65 to 74 with less than $370,000 in super to boost their retirement savings by introducing an exemption from the superannuation work test. Liberal-National governments have always backed older Australians. It was the Howard government, back in 2000, which amended the dividend imputation system to allow for the full refundability of franking credits. Back then Beazley Labor supported this policy. That was then. Shorten Labor stands for higher taxes on retirees and higher taxes on hard-working Australians who look after their own needs in retirement. Shorten Labor is all about putting their hands in the pockets of older Australians who have worked hard all their life to help pay for their latest spending spree. That is what older Australians will get under Labor. Labor today are reaching—let me say it again—into the pockets of around 900,000 Australians, including low-income earners and self-funded retirees, who will miss out on refunds of their own tax so that Bill Shorten can spend more of their money on reckless Labor spending.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Brockman, is there a supplementary question?
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia) (14:11): Minister, why is backing hard-working Australian retirees, who have saved throughout their working life, important for the Australian economy?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and the Public Service, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:11): I thank Senator Brockman for that supplementary. When you put people in the best possible position to save for their own retirement by providing the right incentives and removing disincentives, more people will save and invest and fewer people will rely on a full pension. It also means that the government is better able to provide the strong safety net for those Australians who genuinely need that support, making sure that the taxes paid by all Australians are appropriately well targeted in terms of the expenditure. Labor's policy, to put their hands into the pockets of hard-working Australians with higher taxes, will affect Australians who have worked hard all their lives, who have saved hard, who have been encouraged by governments of both persuasions to save hard and to invest in their retirement, to invest in Australian shares. Their investment is vital to ensuring our economy continues to grow by ensuring Australian businesses receive capital to grow. But that is not the only reason. Citi Research shows that Labor's policy would diminish demand for Australian shares relative to other investments.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Brockman, is there a final supplementary question?
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia) (14:12): Minister, are there any risks for older Australians who have saved and invested prudently for their retirement?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and the Public Service, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:12): Yes, there are. The risks are obvious. They are Labor and Mr Shorten. Because the Australian Labor Party and Mr Shorten have already injected uncertainty into this debate by throwing away bipartisan support for dividend imputation arrangements that have been in place for nearly two decades. First they had one tax attack on pensioners and retirees released in the middle of March this year, only to junk it two weeks later. Who are the targets of Mr Shorten's tax attack? Are they the undeserving rich? No—they are around 900,000 Australians, 45 per cent of whom are 65 years or older. 84 per cent of those Australians impacted by Labor's tax on retirees are on taxable incomes of less than $37,000. (Time expired)
Aged Care
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (14:13): My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care, Senator Scullion. Page 101 of Budget Paper No. 2 in the 2016-17 budget states that:
The government will achieve efficiencies of $1.2 billion over four years through changes to the … Aged Care Funding Instrument.
If an efficiency saving of $1.2 billion over four years is not a cut, what is it?
The PRESIDENT: Before I call Senator Scullion, on my right, I insist on silence during questions so that I can hear them myself. While I'm ruling, I would appreciate a lack of interjections from my left.
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:14): The Labor Party forget that in 2012 they cut $1.6 billion from the Aged Care Funding Instrument—the ACFI—on exactly the same basis. You discovered that people were rorting the system, so you contracted growth. You didn't make a cut and, because of the bipartisanship, we didn't try to play the silliness that you're playing here. There was an adjustment of $1.6 billion under you—exactly the same. We didn't call it a cut, because it was not. For clarity: we have increased the budget for aged care by $1 billion every year in government. It's an increase of over $4.7 billion from when you were on the Treasury benches. Year on year we have increased the amount of money that's come in to us.
Now you would like to characterise it, by the partisan politics that you like to play in this place, as some sort of cut, but it is not. You haven't convinced us, you haven't convinced the Australian people and you certainly haven't convinced the aged-care sector. In fact, I think when Shayne Neumann was asked on AM radio, he said, 'Labor's not actually in a position to reverse those cuts.' The Department of Health, in the 2016 supplementary budget measures—Senator Polley, you should recall this because you asked questions about the so-called $2 billion saved. The department said: 'The effect of these measures was not to cut the aged-care budget but increase it significantly it over forward estimates. It is a reduction in growth. That's the best way of describing it.' It's not as if you haven't asked the question and been given a comprehensive answer in the past. (Time expired)
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Before I call Senator Brown, I remind senators again that I will insist on silence during questions.
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (14:16): I ask a supplementary question. How can Prime Minister Morrison claim he is not responsible for a $1.2 billion cut to aged-care funding when, as Treasurer, he allowed the budget papers to be printed stating that he was?
Government senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: On my right: for the second time in a row I ask for silence during questions so that I may hear them, let alone the other 75 people in the chamber.
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:17): Those opposite do have a history of selectively reading the budget papers. It's not my fault if they can't understand a set of papers. This is emblematic. The only reason we are able to make judicious, significant investments in aged care is because we know how to read a set of budget papers. We know how to run an economy. That's why, year on year, we're able to invest an additional billion dollars, because we have the wit to introduce into this place significant, comprehensive, sophisticated legislation to ensure the protection and the delivery of services to our treasured older Australians. That's why we're able to do it. We made sure we didn't waste $1.2 billion providing invoices to those people who were undeserving, who were providers, and you did exactly the same the year before. (Time expired)
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my left! And on my right!
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Collins, at least pause while I am talking!
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (14:18): I ask a further supplementary question. Sean Rooney, of Leading Age Services Australia, has said, '$3 billion has been taken out of the aged-care system over the last four years.' How can the minister claim that the government has not cut aged-care funding when the sector says otherwise?
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my left. I will call the minister when those who ask the question are silent.
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:19): Normally they wave a budget at us and say, 'Here's the evidence.' This time they've found a name. Someone out there in the ether has said we have reduced it by $3 billion. This is fantasy time. I know what Australia's interested in. Let me tell you, that adds up to 13,500 residential aged-care places in the approved round. Residential aged-care places continue to grow, from 210,087 in 2018-19 to 233,882 places. We are also adding 775 short-term restorative care places. We are, of course, very importantly—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Brown, on a point of order.
Senator Carol Brown: I haven't got much hope that he will return to the question. The point of order is on relevance. The senator is not addressing the question that I asked him. Sean Rooney was actually on the program. You said you watched it.
The PRESIDENT: Order. I'm listening carefully to the answer, Senator.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: I've got all day, but question time is only an hour. Senator Brown, I'm listening carefully. The minister has 14 seconds remaining. You reminded him of your question.
Senator SCULLION: The fundamental assertion of the question was that there has been $3 billion worth of cuts somehow by someone. I was just indicating that every evidence is that we have a billion dollars worth of additional funding year on year on year.
Lobbying to Political Parties
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (14:21): This is not my first speech. My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Today The Guardian Australia reported that not a single lobbyist has been punished for breaching the lobbying code of conduct in the past five years. It says:
An auditor-general’s report earlier this year found the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet … had not suspended or removed the registration of a single lobbyist since 2013, despite identifying at least 11 possible breaches.
Why not? When will the Prime Minister admit that by not enforcing his own code of conduct for lobbyists, he is allowing a corporate takeover of our democracy?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and the Public Service, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:21): There is no corporate takeover of our democracy. The Register of Lobbyists and the Lobbying Code of Conduct are properly enforced. The government also has a robust, multifaceted framework to combat corruption in the Australian Public Service. The Australian government is always looking at how we can strengthen our current approach further. But in the absence of any specific examples where Senator Waters alleges wrongdoing, I'm not able to assist her any further.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, a supplementary question.
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (14:22): Yesterday The Guardian revealed the two most senior figures in the National Party executive were also being paid as lobbyists for the big end of town to influence government policy. How are everyday Australians supposed to trust their government when it's being run by lobbyists for the big banks, fossil fuel companies and the gambling industry?
Government senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my right! I have asked for silence during questions repeatedly.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and the Public Service, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:23): I reject the premise of the question.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, a final supplementary question.
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (14:23): I wonder how much your donors paid for you to say that. Last week the Greens wrote—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, that is inappropriate language to reflect upon an another senator in a personal, direct—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Take a breath while I'm actually trying to address this issue, everyone. Senator Waters, I ask you to withdraw that. It was directed at a senator directly and personally.
Senator WATERS: Thanks, President. I withdraw it. It's certainly not just one person.
The PRESIDENT: The withdrawal needs to be unconditional, Senator Waters.
Senator WATERS: I withdraw.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you. Senator Waters, to your question.
Senator WATERS: Last week the Greens wrote to the Presiding Officers demanding that lobbyists for the big banks be barred from meeting with government officials until the government has responded to the final report of the banking royal commission. Australians are sick and tired of the big banks writing their own rules. Will you support our call to ban banking lobbyists from meeting with government ministers until you have responded to the royal commission?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and the Public Service, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:24): I guess this is the right time to point out that lobbying is actually a legitimate activity and an important part of the democratic process. Lobbyists help individuals and organisations communicate their views on matters of public interest to the government—and to the opposition and crossbench senators, for that matter—and, in doing so, improve outcomes for the individual and for the community as a whole.
The Australian government Lobbying Code of Conduct establishes a publicly available register of third party lobbyists and their clients so that government representatives can determine whose interests are being represented. The lobbying code and register are part of a range of measures to ensure our system of government operates with transparency, integrity and honesty.
Aged Care
Senator GICHUHI (South Australia) (14:25): My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care, Senator Scullion. What is the Liberal-National government doing to ensure that older Australians are receiving the best quality of aged care possible?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:25): I thank the senator for her question. Our government treasures our senior Australians for all they have done to make Australia the great country it is. Our senior Australians deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, and that's why our government is making a record investment in aged care. The government investment in aged care is going up by a billion dollars a year over the forward estimates. In 2017-18 alone, aged-care spending is estimated to reach $18.6 billion. Over the next five years, it will grow by an additional $5 billion to $23.6 billion. That's $5 billion more to ensure our senior Australians receive the very best care possible.
Despite the lies and falsehoods being spread by those opposite, the fact is that we are investing a record amount into aged care. The government is increasing the number of home care packages available from 87,000 in 2017-18 to 151,000 by 2021-22. This will include a 34,000 increase in high-level packages by 2021. On top of the immediate rollout of the 14,000 additional aged-care packages and the 6,000 additional packages announced in MYEFO, the government is bringing forward $90 million to support aged-care providers, with significant funding rolling out this financial year. Of this, $40 million is available to support aged-care services in regional, rural and remote locations to improve, maintain and expand their infrastructure, ensuring that senior Australians in these locations receive exactly the same support as those people who need these services in the cities. We're also providing $50 million to support residential aged-care providers and their staff to improve quality standards of care across the sector. Our government is absolutely committed to making sure we deliver first-class care to our senior Australians.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Gichuhi, a supplementary question.
Senator GICHUHI (South Australia) (14:27): What reforms is the government implementing to improve the quality of care that older Australians receive?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:27): Our government is implementing a reform package that is significantly improving the aged-care providers that are delivering to senior Australians. We're establishing a new tough cop on the block—an independent aged-care quality safety commissioner who will now have at hand more than $300 million to police the sector, providing a one-stop shop for all aged-care consumers, their carers and their loved ones on quality of care and services. We will ensure genuinely unannounced visits by auditors.
We're introducing new aged-care quality standards that clearly spell out what consumers can expect from an aged-care service. Supported by a new charter of rights, we're continuing to support advocacy services for senior Australians that will address elder abuse in aged care, with $31.7 million to be provided to the Older Persons Advocacy Network to 2020. We put all aged-care providers on notice: if you're not delivering the highest quality of service, then you have to— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Gichuhi, a final supplementary question.
Senator GICHUHI (South Australia) (14:28): Why has the government decided to call a royal commission into the aged-care sector?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:29): As the Prime Minister's indicated, there are thousands of operators; facility and care providers; nurses and other clinical staff; volunteers; cleaners; cooks; and therapists out there improving the lives of senior Australians every day. However, following intensified policing and inspections of this sector by government authorities, information has come to light that makes the case for a royal commission into the sector compelling. For instance, findings of a serious risk against service providers have risen by 177 per cent over the last year, referrals to the Aged Care Quality Agency have risen 188 per cent over the last year and non-compliance notices are up by 185 per cent.
The royal commission will look at the aged-care sector as a whole without bias or prejudice. It will make findings on the evidence. And as the Prime Minister has also said, it will then be up to the government and parliament to act on these findings together.
Aged Care
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (14:30): My question is to Minister representing the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care, Senator Scullion. This morning, The Australian reported on a leaked email revealing that five hours after Prime Minister Morrison denied cutting $1.2 billion from aged-care funding, staff from Treasurer Frydenberg's office emailed the offices of Minister Hunt and Minister Wyatt, scrambling for information about the cut. Is the government denying Prime Minister Morrison's cut, despite it being printed in budget papers bearing his name, to cover up the fact that he just forgot about it?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:30): Well, it's not surprising that they were scrambling, looking for a cut that didn't exist! We were looking and searching, 'Where is the cut?' So we said: 'No, no, you have to explain; you see, the Labor Party have put out this disingenuous information, "Oh, no, that was a cut—that was a cut." We now know that there have been no cuts in the aged-care sector.' So, can you blame the Treasurer? When we get a bit of information he has to check it. Yes, there probably is an email trail that says, 'We will seek them here and seek them there.' Well, it didn't take long. The senator should have said, 'If Labor tells you something, you've got to be very, very careful about it; don't be sucked in by the partisan politics.'
But I have to say about whatever scrambling there was to try to work out what this information was, that as soon as someone explained to everyone on this side, 'Look, that's only disinformation from Labor,' we went, 'Oh, okay, we can relax a bit and get on with business.' Because they know—everybody on this side of the parliament knows—that the investments we have made in aged care, the investments we've made in infrastructure, the investments we've made in the legislative framework and the investments we've made in an aged-care cop on the block have absolutely eclipsed anything they've ever done.
This is all new; none of those processes were here when we got here—not a sausage! We've introduced every single element of this. We've introduced this. There is absolute silence from the other side, and you should be silent and you should be ashamed by your complete lack of action in looking after our most vulnerable Australians. Really, it is so nauseating to sit on this side, because we know how little you've done. You've done absolutely nothing, so don't lecture us!
The PRESIDENT: Senator Chisholm, a supplementary question.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (14:32): The article also reveals:
… the Coalition has been considering a review of the ACFI, which would save between $3.3bn and $5.4bn over four years on top of the $2bn shaved off in 2015 and 2016 when Mr Morrison was treasurer.
Can the minister guarantee that the government has not considered further cuts to the Aged Care Funding Instrument?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:33): There were no cuts to the Aged Care Funding Instrument.
Senator Polley: There were!
Senator SCULLION: No, there were not! The amount there was actually a prediction of where it might go. Oh, come on!
The PRESIDENT: Senator Collins on a point of order?
Senator Jacinta Collins: Thank you, Mr President. The point of order is on direct relevance. The question is: can the minister guarantee that the government has not considered—not considered!—further cuts to the Aged Care Funding Instrument? Answer the question, minister!
The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, Senator Cormann?
Senator Cormann: On the point of order. Senator Scullion was being directly relevant because he was asked about further cuts. The minister pointed out that given there hadn't been any cuts then there couldn't be any further cuts, which was being directly relevant to the question.
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Collins, can I hear other contributions? You were heard in silence. Senator Wong, on the point of order.
Senator Wong: The point of order is direct relevance. There is a temporal issue here. Whatever his view about the initial, we're asking about what else was considered. I think it's fair for him to come to the question. If he wants to avoid giving the guarantee then I think that would be clear.
The PRESIDENT: The minister has been speaking for nine seconds. It is difficult to rule on direct relevance nine seconds into an answer.
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Collins, please remain silent while I'm ruling. On that ground, I think the minister needs to be given time. On the second point, you restated the second part of the question. The minister is also allowed to address the earlier part of the question that was asked. So, at this point, I'm not going to say the minister is not being directly relevant nine seconds into his answer.
Senator SCULLION: Thank you, Mr President. The Aged Care Funding Instrument, historically, under that lot opposite was being rorted. They dealt with it by saying, 'We're going to try to fix it up,' and they notionally made sure that they didn't invest $1.6 billion where they otherwise might have—just an efficiency divided that reasonable legislators would take. We took the same view. There were efficiency dividends of $1.2 billion—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator SCULLION: In exactly the same way that those opposite did it—but it is not a cut. We are not handling rorts. We do not support providers who overcharge—nor did you. So I don't really understand the point they were trying to make. We will make sure that First Australians get the very best services possible.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Chisholm, a final supplementary question.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (14:35): The report notes that the government's own review of the instrument found:
Funding volatility and the lack of predictability with the aged care forward budget estimates has been a major issue for both the government and the sector.
Will the Prime Minister take responsibility for the impact of his cuts on the aged-care crisis?
Senator Cormann: Did he just ask for the Prime Minister? I represent the Prime Minister.
The PRESIDENT: I'll take that from the table, Senator Cormann. I will allow the minister to answer that part of the question that falls within his part of the portfolio responsibilities, which is the traditional way of dealing with those.
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:36): Over the last couple of days, we have made it abundantly clear that there are no cuts. So I don't understand the premise of the question. There haven't been any cuts. I'm genuinely not sure now whether this is incompetence or mischief. It's hard to tell on this. I've explained to this them so many times. With the reiteration of such a disingenuous process, I think that they know. I think they're putting politics over people once again. We don't want to do that. We want to get on with the business.
I would appeal to those opposite: instead of partisan politics, why don't you do what you did last sitting week and come in here and support the innovative legislation brought in by this government? That's what you did literally a week ago. We've been driving this. We've been showing innovation and making the investment. Up until last week, when we called a royal commission, you were completely behind it. Continue to support the government doing a great job in—(Time expired)
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (14:37): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Fifield. Will the minister update the Senate on the rollout of the NDIS in our home state of Victoria? How does the government propose to deliver the vital services that Australians rely on?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Minister for Communications and the Arts) (14:38): I thank Senator Paterson for the question. I'm very pleased to report that the NDIS has now commenced rollout across 70 per cent of Victoria, with the scheme starting in southern Melbourne from last week. September 1 marks a significant milestone, with the NDIS now having commenced rollout in 11 of the 16 areas in Victoria—scheduled to enter the scheme by 2020. More than 42,000 Victorians are currently accessing the scheme, including more than 8,000 people who are receiving support for the first time.
The NDIS is an initiative of the utmost importance, and I do want to pause for a moment to acknowledge the work of those opposite when they were in government and the work that has occurred on this side of the chamber as well. This is, I think, one of the best bipartisan—indeed, cross-party—initiatives that we have seen in this parliament. It's the biggest social reform since Medicare and one that I know all colleagues fully embrace.
Once fully implemented, the NDIS is expected to support about 105,000 people with disability in Victoria. More than 54,000 Australians on the NDIS are now receiving the support to which they are entitled. More than 180,000 Australians are being supported by the NDIS at the moment, representing a 13 per cent growth on the previous quarter. Delivering improved outcomes for Australians with disability will inevitability involve challenges. This is a mammoth undertaking, and it's important that issues, as they arise, are addressed quickly and efficiently. That certainly is the objective of this government.
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (14:40): Can the minister advise the Senate on how the government is working to reduce the incidence of fraud within the NDIS?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Minister for Communications and the Arts) (14:40): The NDIA and the Commonwealth government will not tolerate the misuse of funds intended to support people with disability, and we take all reports of suspected fraud seriously. I can advise that a revised statement of strategic guidance was issued to the NDIA board by the government in March 2017, and I should also indicate that the coalition government established the NDIS fraud task force in July 2018 to tackle serious fraud against the NDIS. The task force is a partnership between the NDIA, the Department of Human Services and the Australian Federal Police. Anyone who is aware that fraud is being committed against the NDIS, which also means against the Australian community, should contact the police or the NDIS fraud hotline on 1800650717.
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (14:41): Can the minister advise the Senate on how the government is working to improve the NDIS participant experience?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Minister for Communications and the Arts) (14:41): As I indicated before, there will be challenges with a program of this scale, and the important thing is to address issues quickly as they arise. The rollout of key service improvements from October 2018 to improve the NDIS experience for participants and providers—
Senator Steele-John interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Steele-John, order!
Senator FIFIELD: is important. The implementation schedule is being finalised with states and territories, and improvements include a stronger focus on community, mainstream, informal and employment supports during preplanning, face-to-face plan implementation meetings and improvements to the participant and provider portals. One hundred and eighty-eight people with disability and carers, 76 providers, 124 frontline staff and 20 government officials contributed to the pathway review through workshops and individual interviews. This is all aimed to ensure we have continual improvement of the NDIS.
Veterans
Senator ANNING (Queensland) (14:42): First I'd like to acknowledge the brave service men and women in the gallery and thank them for their service.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
Senator ANNING: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. During the Malaysian counterinsurgency war, 1968 to 1989, an Australian infantry rifle company was deployed on rotation to protect RAAF assets at Air Base Butterworth from attack by communist insurgents. The Australian Defence Committee's secret minute of 11 January 1973 stated that this deployment could be publicly portrayed as being for training purposes. Subsequent military directives confirm this deception. By virtue of this deception of classifying warlike service as peacetime service, the troops—some 9,000 in all—were denied their eligible entitlements under the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Why have successive governments continued to perpetuate the deception surrounding service at Air Base Butterworth for this period when evidence provided to government advisers indicates that it meets all the criteria for warlike service?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:43): I thank Senator Anning for his question and also acknowledge those members of the ADF Parliamentary Program who join us here in the gallery this afternoon. I don't necessarily accept all of Senator Anning's characterisation during his question, but I can say, on advice from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, that submissions seeking a review of a nature-of-service classification for past service are considered in the context of the legislation and policies that applied at the time of the service. The applicable legislation for the period of Rifle Company Butterworth's service in question is the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act 1962 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. Service is considered to be warlike service if certain conditions described in the applicable legislation are met. The matter of Australian Defence Force service in Malaysia, including Rifle Company Butterworth's service, has indeed been considered by several independent reviews. Those reviews include the 1993 Committee of Inquiry into Defence Awards, the 2000 Review of Service Entitlement Anomalies in Respect to South-East Asian Service 1955-1975, the 2003 Review of Veterans' Entitlements, the 2011 Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal Inquiry into Recognition for Members of Rifle Company Butterworth Service in Malaysia between 1970 and 1989, and the New Zealand government, the Medallic Recognition Joint Working Group on Service in South-East Asia 1950-2011 published in 2013. Each of those reviews has consistently found that Rifle Company Butterworth's service, as described by Senator Anning and as I referred to in my earlier remarks, does not qualify as warlike service under the applicable legislation.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Anning, a supplementary question.
Senator ANNING (Queensland) (14:45): Why have successive governments refused to meet the representatives of the Rifle Company Butterworth review group and hear their claims?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:45): I thank Senator Anning for his supplementary question. I'm advised that in fact our government has met with representatives on a number of occasions to hear their claims. And as I noted further in my previous response, a number of reviews have consistently found that the Rifle Company Butterworth service in question has not qualified as warlike service under the applicable legislation.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Anning, a final supplementary question.
Senator ANNING (Queensland) (14:46): When does the government intend to establish an independent judicial inquiry into this matter and, if not, why?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:46): There are no plans at this point in time to establish an independent judicial inquiry into this matter. The service of ADF members who served at Butterworth during the period 1970 to 1989 has been and always will be valued by Defence and by our government. The service is recognised by the award of the Australian Service Medal 1945 to 1975 with Clasp South-East Asia or the Australian Service Medal with Clasp South-East Asia, depending on the period of service.
In June this year—and I remember advising the chamber at the time—I attended the 60th anniversary of Australia's presence at the Royal Malaysian Air Force Base Butterworth. Generations of ADF members have lived and worked at Butterworth, including my own partner's parents with their two young sons at the time. A formidable group of former ADF personnel and their families attended those celebrations marking the place that Butterworth holds in the hearts and mind of many Australians. I was proud to attend on behalf of the Australian government and I acknowledge Senator Anning's interest in this matter.
Great Barrier Reef Foundation
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales) (14:47): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. The chair of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, Dr John Schubert, told a Senate inquiry this morning that he was invited to a private meeting on 9 April with former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull by Mr Turnbull's appointment secretary with two days' notice. He was given no prior notice of what the meeting was about. The meeting took place in Mr Turnbull's prime ministerial office in Sydney. Mr Turnbull chaired the meeting and offered $444 million to the foundation. With Mr Turnbull safely exiled in New York, will the minister now reveal whose idea it was to give $444 million to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and the Public Service, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:48): The Hansard record will show I have answered that question on a number of occasions. This is a policy proposal developed through the usual budget process and it is indeed one of the measures included in our last budget. This government makes no apologies for investing in the reef and doing it in partnership and providing long-term certainty in a way that ensures we can leverage additional private sector investment to support the reef.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I'll call Senator Keneally when there's silence. Senator Keneally, a supplementary question.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales) (14:49): Dr Schubert told the Senate inquiry that the private foundation had no discussions with anyone in government about the grant prior to 9 April and there was no discussion of due diligence at the meeting. Why was there no due diligence conducted prior to the government's giveaway of nearly $500 million?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:49): The government made a policy decision following proper budget process deliberations, relying on advice from relevant departments and relying on advice from relevant stakeholders. We made a decision. By the account that Senator Keneally is giving of the meeting, it was a decision that was communicated at that meeting. That wasn't a meeting to make a decision; it was a meeting to communicate a decision. Maybe Senator Keneally finds it very hard to understand the difference.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales) (14:50): Dr Schubert told the Senate inquiry that the meeting only lasted between 30 minutes and an hour. Can the minister confirm it only takes 45 minutes of the government to give away half-a-billion dollars of taxpayer money, and will the minister now admit that the $444 million grant is just a public relations exercise designed to make Mr Turnbull and Minister Frydenberg 'look like heroes'?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and the Public Service, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:50): The answers to the questions are: no and no. Again, clearly Senator Keneally had pre-drafted her second supplementary question before she heard the answer that I provided. She clearly wasn't nimble enough, agile enough, to adjust the supplementary question to deal with the content of the answer. Maybe, in future, when you ask a question, try to listen to the answer and try to adjust the supplementary questions accordingly.
Trade
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:51): My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator Birmingham. Will the minister advise the Senate on how the Liberal-National government helps Australian farmers and businesses sell our goods and services to the world?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:51): I thank Senator Williams, Wacka, for his question. He is a great champion of Australian farmers and businesses and their interests. Australia is an exporting nation. It's exports that underpin so much of our economic strength. Around two-thirds of Australia's agricultural production is exported to the rest of the world. Our first and second export commodities are mineral and mining resources. Our third is, of course, in the emerging and growing services sector in terms of enormous education resources. Our exporters underpin around one in five Australian jobs, and they need the best access at the lowest cost to global markets for their goods and services. That's why the Liberal-National government has worked so hard over the last five years to ensure that our exporters' rights to those markets are protected and enhanced at every possible opportunity.
Our trade deals with China, Japan and the Republic of Korea, coming on top of earlier agreements such as the agreement with the United States, are making it easier for Australian farmers and businesses. Five years ago, only 26 per cent of Australia's goods and services trade received duty-free or preferential access to overseas markets. Now, our signed agreements ensure that nearly 70 per cent of our trade has such preferential access or duty-free access. With current negotiations underway, that figure could grow to 88 per cent. That's what's helped to see exports of wine into China nearly quadruple from $211 million in 2014 to $827 million in 2017, beef exports to China surge to reach some $780 million last year and duty-free quotas for cheese and butter under ChAFTA provide huge opportunities for dairy products, to give just a handful of high-profile and significant benefits to Australia's farmers and businesses.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Williams, a supplementary question.
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:53): I thank the minister for that good news and I ask: will the minister advise how Australian farmers and businesses have responded to the Liberal-National government's delivery of improved access to global markets?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:54): In short, with enthusiasm! It is with the enthusiasm and energy that you would expect Australian farmers and businesses to bring to the opportunity to be able to reach into more export markets. Around 89 per cent of surveyed exporters in 2017 exported to a market where we have an FTA in place. Last week in the chamber, I spoke of a couple of Tasmanian businesses—Ashgrove Cheese and SED Shellfish Equipment—that are doing such great work under our FTAs. In my home state—in your original birth home state, Senator Williams—of South Australia, in Mount Gambier, Mayura Station's full-blood wagyu beef is considered to be one of the highest-quality beef products and is now served in some of Asia's top restaurants, exported under our FTAs. Riordan Grains, for example, a Victorian grain grower exporting to China since the tariff was eliminated in 2015, has seen significant increase in their trade. Queensland's Grove Juice is using access opportunities under the Korea, Japan and China deals, indicating just how much versatility there is for these producers to grow their markets. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Williams, a final supplementary question.
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (14:55): Can the minister advise the Senate of the government's response to recent news which may impact on the free flow of goods and services?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:55): As the Prime Minister has said, no-one benefits from trade disputes or a global trade war. Today's announcement from the United States is a concerning development and we urge all parties to step back from further escalating tariffs and to tackle trade distorting subsidies or other issues. Australia's strong and growing economy—some 27 consecutive years of economic growth—is an example to the world of looking outwards, of engaging and of seizing export opportunities and the benefits that come from trade and investment. The Liberal-National government will ensure we continue to have the backs of Australian industry. We'll work hard to ensure they aren't caught in the crossfire of today's news by continuing to pursue new opportunities for Australia's farmers and businesses to access markets at the lowest possible cost. That's what's behind the deals we've already done: it's behind the TPP-11, it's behind ongoing negotiations with the EU, with Hong Kong, with other markets around the world. We will continue to work hard to make sure our farmers and businesses can keep ahead. (Time expired)
Members of Parliament: Conduct
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (14:56): My question is to the minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Last night, the Liberal member for Gilmore, Ann Sudmalis, told the House of Representatives about the Liberal Party's culture of 'bullying, betrayal and back stabbing'. In response, the Liberal Party's vice-president says that some women just need to 'suck it up'. Does the Prime Minister think that telling women to 'suck it up' is an appropriate response to complaints of bullying and intimidation?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and the Public Service, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:57): As I've said on a number of occasions now over the last sitting fortnight, there is no place for bullying—not in this workplace, not on building sites around Australia, not anywhere—and that is very much the position of the Prime Minister, that is the position of the government, that is the position of every Liberal and National senator representing in this chamber. I'm obviously aware of the statements that Ann Sudmalis, the member for Gilmore has made, and the Prime Minister has engaged with Ann Sudmalis, as he engages with all of his colleagues in relation to these sorts of matters, and will continue to address issues as appropriate.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Pratt, a supplementary question.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (14:57): This morning, Prime Minister Morrison was asked about the Liberal Party's vice-president's advice to women to 'suck it up'. Why, given your answer, did the Prime Minister fail to condemn this statement?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and the Public Service, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:58): The Labor Party can continue to focus on the internals of the Liberal Party. We'll continue to focus on Australia's national interests. We'll continue to focus on making the Australian economy stronger and making sure Australians are safe and making sure we can keep Australians together. We let the Labor Party play politics and stay in the Canberra bubble. We focus on Australia's national interests, on the interests of families around Australia and, of course, we will continue to deal with our internal matters as appropriate.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Pratt, a final supplementary question.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (14:58): The Liberal Party's vice-president is telling women to 'suck it up' and Craig Kelly thinks women need to 'roll with the punches'. When will the Prime Minister take personal responsibility for dealing with the Liberal Party's culture of bullying, betrayal and back-stabbing?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and the Public Service, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:59): I'm not sure that we have any lessons to take from the Labor Party. When it comes to bullying and back-stabbing, let me tell you: the Labor Party's right up there. We've got to remember, we've got the Leader of the Labor Party, Mr Shorten, who was at the scene of the crime, not for one but for two leadership challenges. Oh, here we go.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Senator Wong: Mr President, this question goes to the Prime Minister's failure to condemn state—
Government senators interjecting—
Senator Wong: The point of order is direct relevance. I thank you for your continued advice. This question goes to the Prime Minister's leadership, when women are told to suck it up and roll with the punches when they complain. I, for one, think there should be an answer.
The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, the minister has 41 seconds remaining to answer the question.
Senator CORMANN: I have answered this question several times over. I have made the point several times now: there is no place for bullying. We are involved in a parliamentary democracy. There are occasions, when people seek to persuade each other on the merits of their arguments on policy and personnel, where things can become a bit robust and willing. Always, when we seek to persuade each other of the merits of our arguments, it ought to be done with courtesy and respect, and you will find that is a point I have made many times over the last few weeks. With that, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Aged Care
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (15:02): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Indigenous Affairs (Senator Scullion) to questions without notice asked by Senators O'Neill, Brown and Chisholm today relating to aged care funding.
What I thought was extraordinary today was the minister's lack of ability to answer any of the questions relating to the aged-care cuts and whether or not the minister watched the Four Corners program last night. But just to highlight one of the answers that was given by Senator Scullion, when we asked about former Treasurer Scott Morrison's cut of $1.2 billion, the minister said that it wasn't a cut; it was just an efficiency dividend. When isn't a cut a cut?
The answers, and the lack thereof, from this minister demonstrated very clearly why the aged-care sector has been in crisis and why this government has failed to address those concerns. The minister didn't even know who Sean Rooney—the CEO of LASA, the national body of aged-care providers—was. It was Sean Rooney, in fact, who said that over the last four years there has been $3 billion taken out of the aged-care sector. When the sector is in crisis it's not the time to cut—as this government has done.
They've been in government five years and what they want to do is point back to when Labor was in government. Well, I'm quite happy to talk about what we did when we were in government, because it was former minister Mark Butler who worked with the then opposition to deliver a new platform for aged care in this country with the Living Longer Living Better reforms. That was reinforced with an investment of $3.7 billion. All this government had to do when they came into power was to continue that reform. They failed to do that. Three ministers have had this responsibility over four years. Not one of them has actually had their eye on the ball, otherwise they would have known what this sector was facing. They would have known the issues and the challenges around the work force. What have we seen? In the last three years at least 14 reports have been handed down, ranging from issues with staff and the challenges there to the cost of aged care. What have we seen from this government? All they've done is stack them one on top of the other. All they're doing is gathering dust. One of those reports was mandated through legislation which we introduced when we were in government. That was the David Tune report. It was a very thorough report, and he was a very highly respected public servant. But what have we seen from this government? They have just cherrypicked a few things—that's all that they have done.
I understand the anguish the Australian community would have felt watching the Four Corners program last night. They have every right to be ashamed at the lack of high standard of care in this country. We support the call for a royal commission, but what I want to make very clear in this chamber is that this government cannot use the royal commission to stall any further investment and reform into this sector. They can take immediate action now. There are 108,000 older Australians who are waiting for aged-care support to be provided to them in their own home. Fifty-four thousand of those—that's half of those people—aren't getting any support at all. Eighty-eight thousand of those people who are waiting have already been diagnosed and are living with dementia. That funding can be restored. What this government should be doing is taking action now to make sure that that waiting list is cleared. Those figures were from March. I can't even imagine, when the government finally has the gumption to release the latest figures from June, how much they would have increased by.
This government has a lot to answer for. They could do a lot more, when it comes to leadership around employment, about the wages and conditions of the people that are working in the aged-care sector. They need to have a career opportunity and a pathway going forward. This government at every opportunity says, 'This is not our responsibility; this is the responsibility of the sector.' A mature government would sit down with the sector and with the opposition and try and resolve these issues. We have put that olive branch out countless times, but what have we heard? The Prime Minister has instructed the minister not to talk to us. This is how committed this Prime Minister is! All of a sudden he has found out there are old people in this country. Well, he's in political trouble, because he knows that having this job means he is not up to this job and there's no reason to replace the— (Time expired)
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (15:07): I have to say, I am genuinely a little bit disappointed in the highly political approach that Labor senators have adopted on this issue. This is a real opportunity, I would have thought, for all senators to demonstrate their concern and care for older Australians and to get behind the royal commission in a genuinely and unambiguously bipartisan way. Sadly, we have not seen that. I think one very good piece of evidence of that is the way in which Labor senators have conducted themselves in question time this week compared to how they conducted themselves in question time last week. I think it's a fair question to ask: how many questions did the Labor Party ask about aged care last week in question time in the Senate? This week, on Monday and today, in the Senate they devoted nearly every question to it. What's changed in the intervening period? The Morrison government has taken decisive action to address the widespread and genuine concerns about the quality of care being provided in the aged-care system. The Labor Party have found a sudden and new interest in this issue and are devoting virtually all of their time in question time this week to this issue, but it featured virtually not at all last week. I think that's very telling about the political approach that they're taking to this issue. If they were ahead of the curve on this issue and if they thought this was a genuine issue, they would have been asking just as many questions about this last week as they have this week.
This royal commission is a real opportunity to get to the bottom of the problems in the aged-care industry. The display by Labor senators in question time today is evidence of exactly why a respected institution like a royal commission is necessary to get down to the raw facts and the raw evidence of the problems in the aged-care industry. We don't need to see any more politicisation of it, as we've seen from Labor senators today.
As senators, probably all of us have both professional and personal experience of the aged-care system. In the course of our duties, I'm sure we've all visited many aged-care facilities. Personally, we may have had the experience of putting a parent or a grandparent into aged care or visiting them in aged care, and so we will all know there are some fantastic aged-care homes out there. Some of those excellent homes out there are for-profit homes, some of them are community homes and some of them are faith based institutions or other not-for-profit institutions. We also know that there are some homes out there that are not as good as the leading operators in the field and where the care and quality of service is not as high and not as good as it could be. This royal commission is a real opportunity to get to the bottom of that.
I have to take the opportunity to respond to the claim made in question time today that the government has cut funding to aged care. It's a false claim and Labor senators should know it's a false claim. The last and best word of evidence on this is an article written yesterday. It was published in a publication called Crikey, and it was written by an author called Bernard Keane. I don't think any senator in this place would suggest that Crikey is exactly a newspaper or publication which campaigns for the coalition. I don't think anyone would suggest Mr Keane—and I hope he's not offended by this—is a cheerleader of the Liberal Party or the National Party. But this is what he wrote when it came to the question of aged-care funding. The headline is 'Morrison is right on aged care funding: reports of cuts are fiction'. The article says:
Let's hit the nail on the head early on a key claim that is already being widely circulated about the aged care sector. It's one that is likely to continue to be spread despite the government's efforts to get ahead of Four Corners tonight with a preemptive royal commission. And it's completely wrong: this government did not cut $1.2 billion from aged care funding.
It's pretty easy to check. In Labor's last budget in 2013, residential care funding -- as distinct from home or community or flexible care, the other categories of aged care funding -- was $8.3 billion and forecast to rise to $10.1 billion in 2016-17. The 2017-18 budget shows how much funding the—
government—
actually spent on residential care in 2016-17: $10.9 billion. That is, the Coalition spend nearly $1 billion more than Labor forecast. And that rose to $11.4 billion in the year just ended.
This year’s budget papers annoyingly combine residential and home care numbers—
which he goes on about—
… but the combined total still increases by another $800 million this year.
No cut. Of any kind. Zero. Zip. Nada.
That's in the words of Bernard Keane, a journalist commentating on this issue. I think it should put paid to the false claims being made by Labor in question time today. I hope they cease and desist their attempt to politicise this issue, and I hope they genuinely and bipartisanly get behind the royal commission and support its process.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (15:12): I also rise this afternoon to take note of answers given by Senator Scullion. That is because Australians, through their own personal experiences, have been shocked and appalled at what they've seen happen in our aged-care system. The Four Corners episode last night had its genesis in thousands of people reaching out to the ABC to share their shocking and appalling stories about what has been happening in the aged-care system, particularly in relation to the standard of care being delivered in some nursing homes—a standard of care that does not meet community expectations and that has seen things like people left on the toilet for hours because no-one comes to attend to them and people left lying on the floor overnight when they have fallen over because staffing ratios have meant that there's been no-one to check on them.
We should, as a nation, judge ourselves by how we treat our elderly citizens. We're not a fair and generous country unless we treat all Australians with the dignity, care and respect that they deserve. But it's very clear that this is a standard that is not being met in many nursing homes around the country. I've spoken to staff, to people in nursing homes and to the families of people in nursing homes not only about the conditions but, more importantly, also about the abuse and cover-ups that are happening in the aged-care sector. There is a failure to maintain the expected standards.
The Liberals shouldn't be waiting for a royal commission before they start fixing this crisis. Let's be clear: I don't accept what Senator Paterson has said about the effect of budget cuts in this space. I have spoken to aged-care providers about the impact of things like the withdrawal of and decline in the dementia funding packages, and the very real impact of the changes that this government has made on the capacity of aged-care services to provide quality and sustainable care for their residents. In addition, we know that there are some 108,000 people waiting for a home care package, including 88,000 people with high needs, many living with dementia.
We have before us a shocking record from this government on aged care. It cut the dementia supplement—funding that was meant to go to older Australians who need our care and support most of all. We have said for a long time that the system is in a state of crisis. Back in May, Bill Shorten said to this parliament that the government likened his statements to committing elder abuse. That was the Leader of the Labor Party raising the profile of these issues to highlight them to the parliament and to the nation. What did those opposite call it? They called his statements 'an act of elder abuse'.
I don't think that there is anyone in our nation who would disagree that there need to be more workers and better-trained staff in our nursing homes. I have spoken to staff who are members of the United Voice union about their desire to be able to access training and to lift quality standards in the homes in which they work. Time and time again, they've told me stories like: 'I've been offered an online package to go and do my personal care training but there's no time to do it. I can't even leave the nursing home to go and do this training because we do not have the staff available. If I leave the nursing home to go and do training, then there is no-one here to do the personal care for the residents of my home.' There are real reasons why staff have been unable to do the training that they need, and that is because they don't have access— (Time expired)
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (15:17): Senator Paterson, in his contribution a few moments ago, shared with us how disappointed he was. I'm going to share with you how confused I am with regard to what Labor's position is on aged-care issues generally. Also, specifically, what are they talking about with regard to the royal commission? Do they support it, and will they be active in promoting proper consideration of aged-care issues?
I think it's important to expose the very serious mistruths and lies that are being told regarding what is actually happening with aged-care funding in our country. What Labor wants you to believe is not the truth. In fact, Labor wants you not to go back and look at its own past behaviour on aged-care funding and, importantly, on how aged-care funding works in our country.
There can be no doubt that the royal commission is necessary, because what we have seen is a tremendous failure of the system. There can be no denying it. With the rates of compliance failures and the closure of homes, no-one can deny the importance of a royal commission. But what Labor is seeking to do is undermine the worthiness of that royal commission and distract people's attention from the very important work that that royal commission must do—and, I'd argue, must do quickly—to turn this issue, the proper care of older Australians, into part of its rhetoric and preparations for the next election.
Let's be clear: the royal commission is broadly supported across the Australian community. The Women With Disabilities organisation has supported it. The Council on the Ageing has supported it. The Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils in Australia has supported it. The coalition supports it, and I dare say many Labor members and senators support it. But the confusion that Labor seeks to build and spread across the community undermines their decency with regard to what the royal commission is seeking to do, and that is to build an aged-care system that properly cares for ageing Australians in an environment that is rapidly changing. The aged-care needs of this country over the next five to 15 years will be very, very different to the aged-care needs that dominated this country over the last 10 years. We saw that in the work of the Productivity Commission in 2010, and we have seen that in the Living Longer, Living Better legislative package. Aged care is a dynamic and important issue for our country. It deserves constant attention by policymakers and, importantly, I'd argue, it requires strong bipartisanship or tripartisanship across the parliament if the needs of older Australians can going to be properly met.
Senator Paterson shared with us some media commentary yesterday by Bernard Keane and Crikey which made the case very clearly that the coalition had not cut aged-care funding. Let me share with you some media from today that demonstrates very, very clearly that aged-care funding has not been cut by this coalition government—and you can read it for yourselves in the Sydney Morning Herald. It is an article by Eryk Bagshaw entitled, 'Has the federal government cut funding to aged care?' What does that media report say? It says:
Even as a proportion of the total economy, which accounts for immigration and other factors, spending on aged care increased from 0.73 per cent in Wayne Swan's fifth budget as a Labor treasurer to 1.05 per cent of GDP in Mr Morrison's May budget.
Labor has repeatedly targeted a 2015-16 budget measure that shows the government would achieve $1.2 billion in "efficiencies" over four years, but focusing on one measure in the sixth largest area of government spending is misleading and ignores a funding increase of more than $1 billion every year since Labor was in office.
That's not Senator Smith's contribution or Senator Scullion's contribution, but the work Eryk Bagshaw in the Sydney Morning Herald.
What would Labor do in the future? We don't know what Labor would do in the future just yet, so let's have a look at what Labor has said in the past. Going into the last federal election, Labor said: 'I will not sugar-coat it; Labor is not in a position to reverse those cuts.'
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory) (15:22): Let me make it very clear: Labor are not undermining anything or anyone. If anything, what we are doing is keeping these guys opposite accountable—accountable to the Australian people and accountable to the Australian parliament—on why they make the decisions they do, when they make the decisions they do, especially when the Minister for Aged Care, only a month ago, didn't agree with a royal commission. However, that minister has been rolled by his own cabinet and made to agree that something that he said on national television was not necessary. Why was that? Why was it not necessary? It was because Minister Wyatt knew that this parliament conducted numerous reports over many, many years—and, in fact, so many reports in the five years of this government—in relation to the care and concern for aged people in this country. Those recommendations, which could have been implemented by this government, simply have not been implemented.
We have heard on national television, on the ABC's Four Corners report, the deeply distressing and painful stories of families in this country who have seen their loved ones treated in ways that are absolutely appalling. We've seen stories of those who work in the industry, who have tried on numerous occasions to have the system changed and who have had their concerns fall on deaf ears.
The Labor Party is asking the right questions here. It's not about undermining or disagreeing with the need for care for our most vulnerable people in this country; it is about keeping this lot transparent. Why is it that, again, they wait for a national television program, the Four Corners program, to put a story to air before immediately rushing to a royal commission? It's just like what they did with the Northern Territory youth detention centre. Out of the 226 recommendations of that royal commission, the Commonwealth has failed to fund a single one of those recommendations. And in keeping this lot accountable, we will certainly want to see what the terms of reference will be, what they mean and who will be involved with it. And, just like the Northern Territory royal commission, I will certainly want to see that there is sufficient examination of our remote, rural and regional areas, of our First Nations families in particular, in some of the most desperate and desolate places across this country.
Aged-care providers around Australia have adjusted accordingly. Next to children, our elderly, our most vulnerable, are the ones who have suffered in this country. The Prime Minister's announcement of a royal commission into aged-care quality and safety surprised everyone. As I said, it certainly surprised the minister responsible, Ken Wyatt. In the Northern Territory, while many remote care services do their best to provide care, I've seen the issues that impact on some of our elders, and they are suffering because of the neglect and terrible policies of this government. At many of the aged-care facilities in remote NT communities, there are high fences and locked gates. This is not to stop residents from wandering, but to keep out community members who humbug the elderly for food and money because they've been cut off from CDP—another failed government policy. Too many of our elders are living locked behind 10-foot fences.
Last year it was revealed that renowned artist Kathleen Ngale, who was in her 80s, was spending most of her time sleeping outside in freezing desert nights, often going hungry and sometimes unable to wash. She lived on a homeland in the Utopia region, where there was reported to be up to 15 people sleeping rough at times. They were living in total poverty, totally disempowered. These are some of the oldest living traditional owners of this country. We will most certainly keep this government accountable in all that it does here.
Question agreed to.
Lobbying to Political Parties
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (15:27): This is not my first speech. I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance and the Public Service (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Waters today relating to the Lobbying Code of Conduct.
I asked about the revolving door of lobbyists and politicians. It has been a very well used revolving door, and there has been a litany of examples. I asked the minister why, despite the fact that there have been at least 11 breaches that have been identified by the Auditor-General in a report done earlier this year, is the Lobbying Code of Conduct still not enforced? Why is it so toothless? Why is it being ignored by the Prime Minister?
Unfortunately, I didn't get an answer to that, except to say that the minister thinks it is being well-enforced. He said he didn't know about the examples and, really, without knowing about the examples how could he do anything about it? I would suggest that the minister and his representative go and read the Auditor-General's report. It's not that long; I've just had a great flip through it myself. In fact, it says that the Prime Minister and Cabinet's 'delivery of a low level of compliance activity' is one of the key points. So here we have a damning report from the Auditor-General saying that the Lobbyist Code of Conduct is deliberately only enforced with a low level of compliance. The minister thinks that's not a problem, and apparently the Prime Minister's not going to do anything about it.
The whole reason for us being concerned about this revolving door of lobbyists and politicians in this place is the wholesale takeover by big business of our democracy. We have a litany of examples of it. We have the donations that are flowing regularly and generously to both sides of politics from all sorts of industries with vested interests: mining, gambling, property development, alcohol—you name it. We have no federal anti-corruption body, no ICAC, so there is no enforcement of any sort of rules or codes of conduct that apply to us. We have codes of conduct for ministers and lobbyists that are weak and not enforced so it's pretty clear that big business has simply hijacked our democracy. In fact, I have a motion coming up for debate later today which urges some tightening up of those codes of conduct and some motions coming up tomorrow. Unfortunately, I'm not holding my breath that we'll get any support because it's a very cosy and convenient relationship for both the government and the opposition to have this revolving door of lobbyists in and out of their doors and then in and out of cushy roles post politics.
I next asked the minister why some National Party executives, the key decision makers, are being paid simultaneously as lobbyists to influence this government's policy and why didn't anyone have a problem with that? And why can't this government see that is contributing to the lack of confidence that Australians have in their government? Is it any wonder the community feels their views are not being represented in this place? They're not being heard; their voices don't matter. Their interests are not the first concern of government. It is really clear that people think these vested interests are running the show. And the reason they think that is because it's true. We have these pathetically weak rules which allow big business to run the show and we have sadly both sides of politics very happy for that charade to continue. The minister's response to 'How can we trust the government when it is being run by big business?' was he didn't accept the premise of the question and, sadly, he didn't engage further or really give anyone confidence that isn't the case.
The last part of my question related to the fact that the banks are obviously now being investigated by a royal commission and yet we still have banking lobbyists walking these halls, having access to government ministers, cosying up, lobbying for goodness knows what—lighter treatment of the royal commission findings. The government are still writing their response to this royal commission. It is still effectively on foot and yet you have these lobbyists continuing to ply their wares with direct access to ministers. It is completely wrong. It is an abomination of democracy. We had one of the banking execs make a very bad joke at the mid-winter ball about his lawyers having cleared him to be there. This is just emblematic of the sickness at the heart of our democracy, when it has been taken over by these interests, when lobbyists can walk these halls with very little regulation and virtually no enforcement of what weak regulation does exist.
The minister's response to that was very distressing. According to him, lobbying is legitimate; it operates with transparency and integrity. I am afraid the Auditor-General would beg to differ and most Australians I speak to would beg to differ. They can see that our democracy is being sold out to corporate interests. They want their democracy back. They deserve to be represented in this place and they deserve to have the interests of themselves and their families and the environment that sustains them put ahead of the corporate interests of the donors and lobbyists that are in the hip pocket of this government.
Question agreed to.
CONDOLENCES
McKiernan, James Philip 'Jim'
The PRESIDENT (15:33): It is with deep regret I inform of Senate of the death on 10 August this year James Philip 'Jim' McKiernan, a senator for the state of Western Australia from 1985 to 2002. I note in the gallery we are joined by his widow, Jackie McKiernan and former senators. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and the Public Service, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:33): by leave—I move:
That the Senate records its deep sorrow at the death, on 10 August 2018, of James Philip (Jim) McKiernan, a former Senator for Western Australia, places on record its gratitude for his long service to the Parliament, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Beginning in County Cavan in Ireland, stretching through England to the dockyards of Fremantle and indeed all the way to the Australian Senate chamber, the remarkable life of former senator James McKiernan exemplified in many ways the unique promise that this great country, our great country, has offered to generations of migrants to Australia. Born in Ireland on 11 October 1944 as the third of James and Mary McKiernan's eight children, Jim's early life was one of great hardship. Initially educated at De La Salle College and Crubany National School, he concluded his studies at the young age of 14, with his father's debilitating illness forcing him to work a raft of different jobs in support of his large family. Harsh circumstance made Jim a jack-of-all-trades and he worked at various times as a messenger, petrol pump operator and abattoir assistant. In time he followed the example of his older siblings, Noel and Rosaline, and left for England, where he completed an apprenticeship in Stafford and qualified as a first-class machinist.
It was in 1969 that he finally made tracks for Australia, bringing with him his first wife, Jean, and their first son. In time two more children would follow. Seeking out work, Jim famously wandered around the Fremantle dockyards in a three-piece suit, braving sweltering heat of a kind not seen in his native Ireland. Eventually he found success and took on a role as a machinist, a fitter and turner, at the Dillingham Shipyards, where he worked for four years. That early exposure to the dockyards evidently left its mark, as Jim would go on many years later to be a passionate supporter of the Fremantle 'Dockers' Football Club.
It was in these early years that Jim first interacted with and joined the Australian union movement. Though a member of and campaigner for the Communist Party of Australia in the 1970s, the self-described rebel put that down more to his contrarian nature rather than any ardent communist sympathies. Indeed, he left the Communist Party for the Australian Labor Party and took on a range of party roles throughout the late 1970s and 1980s, including some roles and responsibilities on the WA branch's state executive for the Labor Party. It was not long before he made his pitch for parliament. Securing the No. 6 position on the WA Labor Senate ticket at the 1983 double-dissolution election, the following year he was preselected in the third position on WA Labor Party's Senate ticket and was subsequently elected at the 1984 federal election.
Jim married his second wife, Jackie Watkins, in January 1985. Jackie herself, a migrant from the United Kingdom, was then a sitting member of the WA Legislative Assembly, serving in the seats of Joondalup and Wanneroo. For a time both Jim and Jackie were the only concurrently serving married parliamentarians in the nation—and foreign born ones at that.
Jim was a prolific contributor to the parliamentary committee system throughout his career. Indeed, at its conclusion, he reflected that committee work often constituted the most arduous and yet rewarding part of his service. It was his keen interest in Australian migration policy that became his hallmark, and he served on a range of associated committees including the Joint Select Committee on Migration Regulations and its successors. Between 1993 and 1996, he served as chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration as well as serving on the legal and constitutional legislation and references committees, the latter of which he chaired from 1996 to 2002. Having arrived in Australia legally, Jim was a consistent advocate for the policy of mandatory detention of unauthorised arrivals and often invoked fiery language on this topic, a habit that landed him in hot water with his own party on more than one occasion. He stands on illegal immigration remained firm throughout his parliamentary career. Indeed, he supported the raft of legislation brought through by the then Howard government.
Yet Jim's political brief was far broader than one issue, and he took great interest in a number of matters relevant to his home state of Western Australia, including electoral reform and the development of Western Australia's burgeoning mining sector. He always knew what he believed in, and I'm reliably informed that he was often willing to use his internal heft as convener of the Labor Party's parliamentary left faction to impress that point. At times these views, such as his strident republicanism, saw him align very well with his party's leadership. At other times, I'm also reliably informed, they placed him at loggerheads with it, as seen in his open critique of Labor policy on visiting nuclear powered warships in December 1987. Whatever the topic or the time, when raising issues that he felt to be important, colleagues on both sides of the chamber could be sure that Jim would pull no punches. That tenacity matched a sense of humour that endeared him to many of his contemporaries and, when combined with his well-known penchant for unique neckties, ensured that Jim cut a distinctive figure on the Senate floor. But that was not all that set him apart. Though an active member in this place, he was known to remark that his true wish was to have served in the House of Representatives. Indeed, he was often quick to point out that he deliberately ran a bustling constituent office to keep the reality.
Outside of the committee space, Jim also served as deputy government whip in the Senate between 1987 and 1991, as well as being the returning officer of the federal parliamentary Labor Party from 1990 to 1996. Having chosen to retire prior to the 2001 federal election, Jim's Senate term formally ended on 30 June 2002. Among a range of achievements, in his valedictory speech he counted among his proudest his role in encouraging Australia to donate to the International Fund for Ireland, which sought to promote economic and social development and, crucially, foster a dialogue between unionists and nationalists. That effort formed just one part of Jim's lifelong commitment to his homeland. He was a reliable advocate for stronger ties between Australia and Ireland, both within these walls and outside of them.
Prominently, he had been a founding member and long-time secretary of the Australia-Ireland Parliamentary Friendship Group. In his first speech Jim noted that he was the 25th federal Australian parliamentarian of Irish descent. That he took the time to research that fact spoke to his keen sense of Irish identity. That the number was already so high over three decades ago highlights the scale of the contribution made by those of Irish descent to our nation. At the time of his retirement, that passion for Ireland was undiminished. He concluded his valedictory speech with a goodbye to his colleagues in Gaelic.
Those efforts did not go unnoticed. In 1991, Jim was named Irish Australian of the Year, and just last year he met the Irish President, Michael D Higgins, in Perth, who thanked him warmly for his efforts. It was heartening to learn that, upon the news of Jim's recent passing, President Higgins penned a letter that praised Jim's commitment to justice and courage.
The conclusion of Jim's parliamentary career did not signal the end of his public service. Over the years that followed he served in a range of roles, including on the board of the WA Disability Services Commission, on the WA Carers Advisory Council and as a seasonal member of the WA State Administrative Tribunal. His policy interest in migration was undiminished. He was a member of the Migration Agents' Advisory Board from 2009 until 2015. He was also a very active member of the management committee of the Irish Club of Western Australia.
Towards the end of his remarkable life, as he battled cancer, the boy from Cavan, having made his mark on both his original and adopted homes, spent time with those that he loved. It is to those people—his wife, Jackie; his children, Steven, Donna and Jimmy; his stepchildren, Kim, Ben, Lisa and Kate; his 14 grandchildren and his two great-grandchildren—that, on behalf of the Australian government and the Australian Senate, I offer my deepest condolences.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:43): I rise on behalf of the opposition to acknowledge the passing of one of our own comrades, Jim McKiernan, who passed away in August at the age of 73. At the outset, I express Labor's condolences to his family and to his friends. I acknowledge those who have joined us today in the gallery, in particular, Jim's wife, Jackie, and, of course, former Senators Ruth Webber and George Campbell. I also acknowledge the government for its cooperation in ensuring this motion could be moved at a time that enabled them to be here.
Jim McKiernan was a great servant of our movement and our party. He was a great servant of the Australian labour movement and the Australian Labor Party. A migrant from Ireland, the harsh experiences from his upbringing shaped his contribution to union and political life in Australia. He was a tenacious advocate for working people and in the cause of fair treatment for the disadvantaged, both at home and abroad. He became particularly expert in migration policy, leading discussions through parliamentary committees for much of his service, as well as representing the nation overseas. His activism was always underpinned by a generous personality, and that led him to be very greatly admired and respected amongst his peers.
Jim McKiernan's Irish nationality and character was an integral part of who he was. Born in 1944 in Cavan, he would migrate to Perth, Western Australia, in 1969. In his first speech, he spoke of his Irish heritage and his desire that Ireland would one day be unified. Later, recounting his return to Ireland when a senator, reminiscing about his child and visiting the region where he grew up, he reflected on the good fortune migration to Australia had brought him. Jim McKiernan's schooling was limited and was harsh, and it saw him conclude his formal education by the time he was 14 years old. Taking on a number of jobs at this time by necessity, due to the incapacitation of his father following a serious injury, Jim McKiernan experienced firsthand the challenges that existed where social safety nets are inadequate. These personal experiences helped to shape his values and helped shape his identity. He would later tell the Senate how the suffering of his childhood and the bitter experiences of his youth brought into sharp personal focus the unjustness and inequity of Western society.
Prior to embarkation to Australia, he moved first to England where he gained trade qualifications as a first-class machinist following a four-year apprenticeship. On arrival in Australia, after a period he found work at the Dillingham Shipyards in Fremantle. It was through this work that Jim McKiernan became an active member of the Australian trade union movement. After a fellow worker was sacked on account of the workers union involvement, his response was to join the union. He found his way to the union that we now know today as the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, the AMWU. Later, he would tell the Senate that this was Australia's best and most democratic union. Senator Cameron, I'm sure, will endorse that.
Jim McKiernan understood the capacity of an active and organised trade union movement to achieve improvements for working-class men and women, and the importance of the union movement, especially for our lowest paid and most marginalised workers, has not diminished to this day. Jim McKiernan went on to hold a number of positions in the union. He became the AMWU's first full-time education officer in Western Australia in 1976, a position he would hold for eight years until his election to the Senate. It was through figures he knew in the union that he first engaged in politics as a member of the Communist Party. However, recognising its limitation as a vehicle for achieving political results, by the late 1970s he had joined the Australian Labor Party. After holding a variety of positions in the WA branch, in 1984 Jim won election to the Australian Senate and went on to be re-elected in 1987, 1990 and 1996.
In his first speech to the Senate, social disadvantage was at the forefront. He spoke of his personal upbringing. He spoke of the way it shaped his outlook, especially being forced to rely upon handouts from charities, friends and relatives. He observed a distinct class structure in which the rich and the wealthy used the instruments of privilege and power to exert control over those who were poorer, weak and disadvantaged. He recognised that his trade qualifications made a pathway for him into an industry that boasted improved wages, hours and conditions, thanks to an active and effective trade union presence. He spoke of union advocacy on matters that went beyond those directly in the workplace to matters that affected all aspects of the lives of working people. Jim McKiernan believed in the role of unions as agents of change—that they empower people without a voice and place them on a fairer and more equitable footing as full participants in our society.
Understandably, with his trades background, he had a great interest in manufacturing policy and was alarmed by its decline in the early 1980s. Whilst this was not unique to Australia, at the outset he contrasted the proactive response of governments overseas with that of the former conservative government in Australia. Unsurprisingly, he welcomed the cooperation between the Hawke government, employers and unions on this front, and he also advocated for greater opportunities for Australian industry, in procurement and in providing genuine inputs for major domestic projects.
One area of policy that would feature as a continuous thread throughout his career was migration. This manifested itself in a variety of ways—through his migrant heritage and in service on parliamentary committees, including the Joint Standing Committee on Migration and its predecessors, and the Senate standing committee on legal and constitutional affairs. He served as chair of both these committees at different times over the course of nearly a decade and described migration as the area of his greatest parliamentary involvement. On the Senate committee, he served with Senator Payne, whom he thanked in his valedictory speech for her support as chair and deputy chair of the legislation and references committees. He said, 'Having served with a previous deputy chair in Senator Abetz, it was a joy to work with Marise.'
Through his role as a parliamentarian, Jim McKiernan had the opportunity to travel extensively and witness firsthand the poverty and destitution in which many people live in refugee camps. He supported the UN convention on refugees and described it as a precious resource. But it is in this light that he also supported mandatory detention policies. It would be a mistake to interpret this as a sign of a lack of compassion or understanding for the plight of refugees. He also spoke of the rewarding but traumatic work of the joint committee dealing with very sensitive matters, including refugee policy, the determination process, illegal entry, mandatory detention and resettlement services.
Describing the most significant visit he took overseas during his time as a parliamentarian as being to a refugee camp, Jim McKiernan made it his mission to work constructively to assist those in genuine need. He described the benefits he saw flow from Australian-funded overseas projects in refugee camps and contributed to a handbook designed to assist parliamentarians who worked in the area of refugee law. Senator Faulkner described him as the most expert person in legal affairs who was a nonlawyer and praised his expertise in immigration policy and legislation.
Jim McKiernan was also an important contributor in numerous other facets of policy. One area in which his views were not in doubt was uranium policy, and he was a leading advocate against softening the Labor position towards mining in the early 1980s. He continued to organise in response to the direction of the Hawke government's policies on disarmament, deterrence and the US alliance, fuelled by the rise of the Nuclear Disarmament Party. The proposal, which was eventually successful, to privatise the Commonwealth Bank was another instance where Jim McKiernan's position was opposite to that of the government.
One of the most dramatic and emotional debates of the early 1990s was in relation to the Gulf War. There were many on Labor's left who were critical of the resolution proposed by the then Prime Minister, Bob Hawke. Some 170 senators and members spoke across the parliament, and the Senate debate was carried out amidst protests that saw panes of glass fall from the public galleries into the chamber due to people thumping on the glass. For someone who was known for his strong positions and policy questions, Jim McKiernan gave a restrained and measured contribution, illustrative of the reluctance of many to debate an issue they would have preferred had not arisen. He opposed the war, but he also spoke of the need to stand against dictators such as Saddam Hussein. His reflections on the importance of peace, the horrors of war and its implications for innocents—innocent children, women and men—add an additional dimension to Jim McKiernan's lifelong commitment to fairness and his support for those on the margins.
Jim McKiernan's period of service coincided with almost all of the Labor government under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, as well as the first half of the Howard government. In many respects, in total this period represents one of the most significant two decades in Australian politics since federation. He was present at the epicentre of many substantial debates, especially on the economy and the policy response to challenges and opportunities domestically and internationally. But, in many ways, there was no more consequential debate than the battle for the leadership of the Australian Labor Party and the country in 1991. A loyal Hawke supporter, Jim McKiernan's role as the returning officer in caucus meant the duty fell to him to announce the results of the two ballots—the first in June and the second in December—that saw Bob Hawke first retain and then lose the leadership and therefore the prime ministership to Paul Keating. On the second occasion, the moment is captured in the memorable Labor in Power documentary, with Mr McKiernan's distinctive Irish accent announcing the Keating victory by a margin of five votes—56 to 51—as he walked down the corridor from the caucus room carrying the ballot box.
Despite the challenges of his upbringing, Jim McKiernan had retained his Irish citizenship following entry into Australia, and, had the political circumstances of 2018 reigned in 1984, he may never have made it to the floor of the Senate as he continued to hold Irish citizenship through the first two elections in which he was returned. He did relinquish it, albeit reluctantly, ahead of the 1990 poll and following some high-profile cases involving the now significantly more infamous section 44. Had he been disqualified, this Senate would have been deprived of not only a passionate advocate for fairness and support for working people but also one of its genuinely good individuals.
Leading the valedictory remarks in June 2002, Senator Robert Hill spoke of him as someone who brought 'a great heart and a great sense of humour to the Senate'. That is certainly my memory of him. He was a very funny man. His own leader, Senator Faulkner, recognised his effectiveness as a senator and representative of the party overseas and, most particularly, his 'absolute loyalty to our party and our movement'. This was echoed by another AMWU comrade Senator George Campbell, who noted the esteem with which he was held in the Irish community. As Senator Cormann has said, he was Irish Australian of the Year in 1991. Senator Peter Cook, another Western Australian senator, noted that, whilst they had not always agreed, what was not in dispute was Jim McKiernan's ability to bring 'a fund of information, a lot of commonsense and a great deal of human compassion' to debates.
Following his departure from the Senate in 2002, Jim McKiernan remained active in public service. This included through the Western Australian Disability Services Commission Board, the State Administrative Tribunal, the Carers Advisory Council and the migrant agents advisory board. Naturally, he was also active on the management committee of the Irish Club of Western Australia. Sadly, illness and a battle with cancer brought his further public contributions and, eventually, his life to an end.
Jim McKiernan is held in high regard by many, most particularly our colleagues from Western Australia. It is a tribute to the way he conducted himself throughout his career. He embodied Labor values but not because he sought to adapt himself to fit the mould of the party. His values were formed in the toughest of circumstances, in the bitterness of social inequity and at the coalface of the working class. Throughout his life, he would be a spokesperson for the marginalised at home and abroad. He spoke for those with little power and for those who had no voice themselves.
As a parliamentary representative at a time when our party was the steward of great change in the Australian economy, Jim McKiernan held fast to the principles of fairness that were at his core. For this, we remember Jim McKiernan and we thank him. I express again, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, our condolences to his wife, Jackie, to his whole family and to his many comrades. Farewell, Jim McKiernan.
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Deputy Leader of The Nationals and Minister for Regional Services, Sport, Local Government and Decentralisation) (15:57): I rise on behalf of the National Party to reflect briefly on the life of Jim McKiernan, a senator I did not have the pleasure to work with but I am sure, having read through excerpts and listened here in the chamber, that there would have been areas of strong agreement with him.
Jim served on a wide variety of parliamentary committees during his time in the Senate, but it was his engagement with the issues of migration which, over time, came to dominate his attention. Being a migrant himself, he empathised with them and advocated for expanding Australia's migration policy to attract people of good standing to Australia. He pursued this cause through the Joint Select Committee on Migration Regulations and its successors, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration Regulations and the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, which he chaired from 1993 to 1996. He was also a member of the Senate legal and constitutional references and legislation committees, which dealt with those issues.
Jim was a prominent advocate both within his party and in public of mandatory detention of unauthorised boat arrivals. He often employed combative language when referring to those who opposed mandatory detention and those acting as advocates for detainees. In December 1992, whilst debating the Migration Amendment Bill, Jim accused a Federal Court judge of bias in his determination of applications and castigated a vocal refugee advocate, who happened to be a Catholic priest from the United States, stating:
If anything grates the public of this country, it is foreigners coming here telling us how to do things and how they could do it better.
At the end of his Senate career, Jim reflected on his work in this particularly difficult area of policy, saying:
I have participated in this area by choice. I could have turned my back on it ... I could have accepted the lie that all persons in immigration detention are refugees or even asylum seekers, but to do so would have been to let the constituents of my adopted country down, and I am pleased that I did not.
Between 1993 and 1994 Jim McKiernan chaired a high-profile inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration into the length of time that asylum seekers had been spending in detention before their applications were processed. The committee ultimately recommended that the policy of mandatory detention should not be changed, but that greater consideration should be afforded to releasing detainees after six months. He continued to support mandatory detention right up to the end of his career and he saw the Howard government's hard line on unauthorised arrivals as a good deterrent, especially at a time when the number of unauthorised boat arrivals to Australia had increased significantly.
Beyond migration, Jim made contributions to Senate debates on a number of matters, particularly of relevance to Western Australia, including reform of the state electoral system, the mining industry and the corruption affecting the City of Wanneroo council. His Irish heritage, the Northern Ireland peace process and Australian-Irish relations were prominent themes in his speeches. He may have watched with amusement last year's shenanigans around section 44 of the Constitution. Senator Wong briefly touched on this issue. As a National Party senator, I found it quite amusing. Jim had retained his Irish citizenship through both the 1984 and 1987 elections. He accepted that he may have been subject to disqualification had a challenge been mounted at the time—talk about the luck of the Irish—but on the advice of the Attorney-General, Lionel Bowen, he reluctantly renounced his Irish citizenship prior to 1990.
He was also the Deputy Government Whip in the Senate from 1987 to 1991 and the returning officer for the federal parliamentary Labor Party from 1990 to 1996. The latter position saw him preside over and announce the results of both leadership ballots held between Bob Hawke and Paul Keating in June and December 1991. During these contests Jim was a vocal Hawke supporter and a critic of Keating, effectively precluding him from a ministerial post in the Keating-led government.
Senator McKiernan used his valedictory speech to reflect on his personal experience of migration. He stated that his generation of Irish were 'born for the road' and that in his case fortune had smiled upon him in both England and Australia. He described his committee work as arduous and sometimes traumatic as a result of the subject matter, but he also said that found it very rewarding. His fellow senators lauded his contribution to and expertise in the field of migration. They also noted that he had brought a great sense of humour to the chamber and had been one of its outstanding characters, with his unorthodox taste in ties drawing considerable comment.
He went on after public life to make considerable contribution to his home state of Western Australia. On behalf of the parliamentary National Party, we would like to record our condolences particularly to family and friends of former Western Australian senator for the Labor Party, Jim McKiernan.
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (16:02): I rise to pay my respects to former senator Jim McKiernan and associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues. I'd also like to acknowledge Jim's wife, Jackie, her family and friends here today, former Senator George Campbell and former Senator Ruth Webber. I am told that Jim and Jackie were an extremely formidable and effective political team. Jackie was a significant political figure in Western Australia in her own right. My colleagues will have dealt in detail with Jim's contribution to the Senate. Suffice for me to say that Jim was a significant contributor to the Senate and the committee structure. Jim was respected by his friends and political opponents alike. I was going to remark on Senator Wong's position with Senator Marise Payne. I've got that written here. I'll just say that Jim was a good judge of character. He was less praiseworthy of Senator Abetz. As a migrant fitter and machinist, he was like many who came from the UK, from Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland, who came here to make a better life and make a contribution to this country. There is no doubt that Jim made a better life for himself and made a huge contribution to the country.
I want to touch briefly on Jim's role as an education officer for the AMWU. The education officers in the AMWU were critically important to the activities of the union. They had a key role in educating AMWU activists and delegates, who were the backbone of the union and implemented union campaigns and pursued and improved wages and conditions across Western Australia and the whole country. It was Jim's working-class background, his experience and his capacity that ensured metalworker delegates were equipped to negotiate and represent workers across the country. Delegates who were educated by Jim became formidable opponents in workshops across the country. Jim was quoted in the past as saying that 'the only real organisation outside the political sphere which can or is willing to do anything for the working class is the trade union movement.' It does not surprise me now and on reflection that I became involved in that great movement.
He was a Republican. He wanted to reform the Australian Constitution and he also indicated that, because of his involvement with the metalworkers union and the metal unions campaign on industry restructuring and job creation, he had decided as part of his contribution to the Governor-General's speech to remark on the decline in Australia's manufacturing industry. He quoted Joe Ceaser, the National President of the Metal Trades Federation of Unions, a person who he described as hardly being 'a left-wing radical who would take orders from Moscow or Peking'. He said:
Australian workers, particularly metal workers, are sick and tired of listening to theories that 'free markets' will be the saviour of our industries. The stark, cold fact is that more than 75 per cent of world trade is 'managed' or government-controlled trade and is no way free. Workers are blamed by these theorists for our non-competitive situation in world trade. In fact, the root cause is ad hoc decision-making by management and lack of support by successive governments. Australian research and development have been allowed to wither. Consequently, we now import more and more overseas technology and as the technological gap between Australia and overseas countries widens, valuable trade and technological skills are being lost.
He said:
I commend that publication and congratulate the MTF on its initiative in publishing it. I would urge all workers, particularly those in the manufacturing industry, to read it and suggest that it be compulsory reading for all members of parliament.
I'll conclude on what Jim said:
I owe a great debt to my friends and colleagues in the metal workers union. It was their encouragement that gave me the confidence and skills to represent working people in a variety of positions, which culminate now in the Parliament of Australia. I look forward to an on-going relationship with the union, particularly its shop stewards. They are the backbone of the metal workers union and it is they who will continue to remind me of my working class origins and who will ensure that I do not get carried away with my own importance.
I think that says it all about Jim and what a fantastic contribution he and his family have made to this country. I say vale to a great working-class Australian.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (16:08): Today I am indeed humbled to pay tribute to a great West Australian and a great Irishman, former Labor senator Jim McKiernan, who passed away on 10 August after a long battle with cancer. As we've heard, Jim was just 14 when he left school to help support his family. He said authorities turned a blind eye to this due to his father's illness. He was the third of eight children and he went out to work because he knew his family was relying on his income to survive. As Senator Cormann highlighted, he worked as a petrol pump attendant, an abattoir worker and a messenger. What I know of Jim was his work ethic. That was apparent to me from a very young age, when I first joined the Australian Labor Party in Western Australia. It was through his office and his mentorship that the likes of me and his good friend the honourable Stephen Dawson first saw how professional political offices worked. With Jim you could always see that connection of his values and his ethics to the way he undertook his work. For me, I was inspired by the complex national and international issues that he was interested in, such as asylum seekers, nuclear disarmament and trade issues.
Jim recognised from a young age the unfair and classist society he was born into, with his family relying on charities like the St Vincent de Paul Society and handouts from friends and family. It's exposure to those issues—learning those lessons and values from the likes of Jim McKiernan—that I have taken into my work in this place in working with charities and community organisations to address injustice and poverty, and, most important of all, in dealing with the structural issues that undermine the welfare of Australians.
Jim understood very well the inferior social service system in Ireland. He stood up, as a member of the great Australian Labor Party, for quality social safety nets here in Australia. It is something that always informed his approach to social welfare in this place. As others have highlighted, in his inaugural speech he said how:
… unjust and inequitable our Western style societies can be. The rich and wealthy command, control and walk all over the weak and disadvantaged.
In his first speech he described how his attitude to life had been coloured by this suffering in his childhood. In 1960, he was only 16 when he followed his older siblings to England, where he completed his apprenticeship and qualified as a first-class machinist. In 1969 he moved to Perth with his first wife, Jean, and their son. He found at first only intermittent work before securing a job as a fitter and turner in Fremantle at the Dillingham Shipyards.
It was there that his lifelong relationship with the Australian union movement began. A work mate was sacked for participating in union activities and the Australian Society of Engineers didn't speak up for him. That's when Jim joined the Amalgamated Engineering Union, now the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union. I can say to the chamber today that it is inspiration from the likes of Jim that has given me my own motivation to also be a member of the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union. He described the union movement as the only real organisation outside the political sphere which can or is willing to do anything for the working class. But something that Jim taught me is that the union movement is the movement that creates the will within the political classes to do anything for the working class. They are the heart and soul of our accountability in this place. As we've heard, Jim became the AMWU's full-time education officer in WA from 1976 until he entered the Senate in 1984.
For me, it's been a great pleasure to watch Jim McKiernan's relationship with his lovely wife, Jackie McKiernan—formerly Jackie Watkins—whom he married in 1985. Jackie was, of course, the state member for Joondalup and, later, Wanneroo. I want to, in this place and in this speech, pay tribute to the strength of the relationship that Jim and Jackie shared, bringing their children together in their family. The love for their children was always evident when you watched them as a family and as a couple. I could clearly see that as they came together as a family during Jim's last days. Jackie, the love that you and Jim shared was always evident not only in your teasing banter, your good humour but also in the political courage and inspiration you gave each other and others. It has not only been a joy to know Jim but also to have known you both as a couple. I'm saddened at Jim's absence as an individual but also saddened by his absence from your life, Jackie, and from the joy that you brought together as a couple to a great many people.
I and a great many owe our thanks to you both for your encouragement, inspiration and mentorship. Jim was a wonderful advocate for metal working and manufacturing jobs in Australia. It's a voice and passion I carry with me into this place, and today I know he would have railed against the TPP and the effect on manufacturing jobs that mean so much to the fabric of our nation. In his inaugural speech, he lamented the shift to cheap goods manufactured elsewhere to boost big profits for companies at the expense of Australians and Australian workers. He criticised the Fraser government for its lack of leadership and policy that saw some 152,000 metal engineering jobs go in the decade prior to his election.
Jim McKiernan was also a proud republican. He submitted 28 petitions between 1992 and 1993 that called for the removal of references to the Queen from the oath or affirmation in the allegiance pledge made by new Australian citizens. For me, it's not surprising that a boy from Cavan, not far from Ulster in Northern Ireland, who is a migrant from this country, would want this country to represent the values of all migrants in a true republican sense. It's a great tribute to him that, in 1993, the Australian citizenship amendment bill brought forward these changes, thanks to Jim's work.
As we have heard, Jim was a strong advocate for the Irish community in Australia and for building a strong relationship between Ireland and Australia. He proposed a motion in the Senate welcoming the endorsement of the Northern Ireland peace processes for the Good Friday agreement, which was passed by the government, the opposition and the independents in this place.
As Senator Cormann highlighted, he visited Ireland where he met the then president, Mary McAleese, who thanked him for the work that he had done building the relationship between Ireland and Australia. I'm sure that, after relinquishing his Irish citizenship, he endeavoured to regain it and held it in great esteem. I want to share some words about Jim's passing that were put forward by the President of Ireland, Michael D Higgins, who said of Jim in correspondence about his passing:
His life, his commitment to justice, his courage, his internationalism represented something that can only be described as Ireland and Australia at their best to overcome the obstacles he overcame to be a wonderful achievement in itself but even greater for what was his lifetime commitment to removing all those obstacles for the benefit of all humanity.
So today I join in expressing the sentiments of this place in expressing condolences to Jackie, to your children, Steven, Jimmy, Donna, Lisa, Kim, Kate and Ben, to your partners as well as to Jim's 14 grandchildren and two great-grandchildren. We will always remember the life and contribution of Jim to our community as an advocate for workers, a committed trade unionist, a vowed republican, a proud Irishman and a proud Labor member. Vale Jim McKiernan.
Senator LINES (Western Australia—Deputy President and Chair of Committees) (16:20): I, too, rise today to pay my condolences to Jim McKiernan, a senator for WA. I endorse the comments made by Senator Cormann; our leader, Senator Wong; and other Labor senators in this place. I want to put a personal perspective on my knowledge and friendship of Jim. First of all, I pay my deep respects and condolences to Jackie, up there in the gallery today, and I acknowledge former senators Ruth Webber and George Campbell. I knew Jim through the Labor Party and I knew Jim particularly through the Left of the Labor Party. I'm a proud member and many of the senators you've heard from today are proud members of the Left of the Labor Party. But, in knowing Jim in that role, through the Labor Party and through the Left, you couldn't help but know of and feel his deep passion for the trade union movement and his deep passion particularly focused on the AMWU. Jim was a metally through and through and you just knew that the minute you met him. As we've heard from others today, the values of the Labor Party and the values of the trade union movement were who Jim was.
We've heard today about his role as an education officer with the AMWU. I was reminded by Helen Creed today that one of the things the metallies did in those early times was produce material in cartoon-type strips, which Jim contributed to. That took a message about the global struggle of union members out to workplaces in Western Australia. So, from very early on as an education officer, the global struggle and how it tied to a local struggle was very important to Jim, making sure that message resonated locally with workers. Jim was a formidable force in the Labor Party. He was also a formidable force in the Left of the Labor Party. I remember that we would have long debates, often coming to an agreement and taking longer than it would when we finally brought it to the floor of the Labor Party. I'm sure that we all remember those very long debates.
But I have to say that, whilst Jim may have been a formidable force, Jim and Jackie together were very, very powerful. One of the things that they did was really build Labor in the northern suburbs of Perth. Senator Pat Giles, who has sadly passed as well, was a trailblazer out there, but was so Jackie, as the member for Joondalup and later the member for Wanneroo, and Pam Beggs. It's really pleasing—and I'm sure Jackie reflects on this in the work Jim did in the northern suburbs—that, at the last state election, we took those northern suburbs back with Sabine Winton and Emily Hamilton. Just two weeks ago, as we gathered in Pearce, again in your footsteps and the footsteps of Jim, with our candidate for Pearce, Kim Travers, Kim Young was there and he talked about the sad passing of Jim. It had been only a few days before. As you know, Kim Young is out there every Saturday doorknocking. We talked to the young people we were with on that Saturday morning before we began doorknocking about who Jim was and what his contribution to Labor has been. He might have passed away, but the footprint of your early work and Jim's early work in those northern suburbs, along with Pat, and Jackie's work in Joondalup and Wanneroo, is now getting larger and the Labor beat is getting stronger.
I also spoke to Cheryl Davenport, who told me a funny story about Jim when he was contesting the Senate. Jim was always a great supporter of women and he said to Pat Giles, 'Don't you worry, Pat, I'm not going to take your seat; I'm going to win one of my own,' which, of course, he went on to do.
As I said, Jim was fierce. We have heard of his contribution. He often put a perspective so that, when you looked at him, you shook your head and thought, 'Where does that come from?' One of those was smoking. Sadly, Jim was a big smoker, but in this place he led the charge to try and implement a smoking ban. He wanted it done by 1997. Even though he fought against outlawing smoking in the parliament, he wanted a ban by 1997 because he said too many young people were smoking.
I pay my respects to Jim. I know what a sad loss he is to you, Jackie. He is a sad loss to the broader Labor movement in Western Australia. When we win seats in the northern suburbs, we will do so in Jim's name and in your name. My condolences to you and your family.
Senator MOORE (Queensland) (16:25): I met Jim McKiernan through two of my great friends, George Campbell and Ruth Webber, who are both up in the gallery today. George spoke about Jim many times. I look back on the last speech of the valedictory process, which can be extraordinarily painful, where people get up and talk about each other in this place. Amongst all the praise that was given to Jim on that night, George got up and inevitably spoke about himself in his opening statement. He said that Jim and he were very similar and that they both came from Northern Ireland. Jim did not, as you know, George. Senator Campbell went on to talk about their great strength of friendship and mutual respect. He talked, as many people have done here this afternoon, about Jim's great commitment and passion for his union. George said at that time:
There are three things I can say about Jim that mark his commitment over the years. His absolute commitment to his union has been unstinting over the period since he joined it way back in 1969, when he first arrived. He has been an activist in the union ever since that period, even through the period of being a member of this chamber—he has been absolutely committed to the union movement all that period of time. His commitment to the party has been also a feature of Jimmy's period of involvement in the Labor movement, as is his commitment to the Irish community.
We have heard from many speakers today that the man never really left Ireland in many ways. He maintained a fantastic relationship all the way through his service in this place, talking consistently of issues that were happening in Ireland. For my friend Ruth Webber, I spoke with Jim a number of times, because we sometimes gathered when Jim and Jackie visited this place. We would get together, and they were enjoyable and memorable evenings. Jim spoke to me about how pleased he was that he was able to hand over his office and seat in the parliament for Western Australia to Ruth. One of the things that was mentioned by one of the earlier speakers was his absolute understanding that a senator's office serves the community. We heard from Senator Lines how working closely with community can rebuild faith in our party and build that understanding. He was able to pass that on to Ruth. Having been to her office many times, there were very many marks of the McKiernan in that office out there in the northern suburbs.
Jim had a genuine twinkle, there is no doubt.. I know it's a stereotype when you talk about a person with a twinkle, but he had it. He had a charm and an interest that made you want to get to know him, made you want to talk with him. He could also be a formidable opponent and advocate for issues on which he felt deeply. I would not have agreed with Jim McKiernan on all issues, but his intelligence and commitment would make you want to engage in the discussion and sometimes get into what would become a debate. I've been reading this afternoon and over the last couple of weeks getting ready for this. It's not an easy thing to talk about a man whom you respected but didn't know that well, but you knew people who loved him and you loved them.
Many of the issues which he discussed and took up in this place were things that we are debating now. We heard in the comments now the issues around migration and asylum and detention. They're in the debates now. The work that he did through his committee work was mentioned many times when they talked about the role that Jim McKiernan played in this place. He genuinely understood the importance of our committee work and understood the impact that had on the development of policy. One of the areas of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which he chaired for many years, was looking at issues around family law. This is now happening at this stage, in terms of what we are looking at at the moment: republicanism, citizenship—we won't talk about section 44—and also media ownership. There was a very strong debate at that time around media ownership.
But I think what we could see consistently was that Jim always remembered that he was a servant of Western Australia. When we had the much famed comments about what the role of the Senate was from the Prime Minister of the day, there were comments asked by a number of senators in this place about the term 'swill'. Jim, I believe, from the quotes I heard, said that, yes, he thought perhaps the word 'swill' could be appropriate to some people sometimes in this place—he left it deliberately vague as to who and when—but he also said that what senators needed to know was that they were here for the people from their states. They were representing the states in this Senate. I think he never forgot that.
I really enjoyed spending time with Jim. He made me feel happy. He made me feel challenged. He understood the value of working in the Senate. Jackie: in terms of Jim's work, he understood and celebrated the fact that you have a genuine and real and long-lasting partnership. That was how you worked together. It was reported on regularly in the Western Australian press about the way the two of you worked together. In his comments in his speeches, he actually showed that love and respect in a particularly cheeky way. In his last speech in this place he referred to his wisdom in employing you. I think that was one of the major things. He never did get to understand how to do the washing and the cleaning and the housekeeping, which he insisted—absolutely falsely—that you did by yourself, but they were the words that were left in this place.
Jim McKiernan will be missed, but we can see by the contributions this afternoon that remembering him will only make us stronger. And although I do not have a Cavan accent, I'm going to try to murder the Gaelic language, because he left this place with a couple of wishes in Gaelic. I'm going try as well, to put some words in Gaelic to finish off this contribution. A Chairde, go raibh mile maith agaibh go leir agus Jim McKiernan Ar Dheis De go raibh a Anam agus go raibh mile mile maith agat. And that says, 'A thousand thanks to all of you for sharing this afternoon the words about Jim McKiernan, and also for Jim McKiernan: may your soul always rest at the right hand of God and a thousand thanks to you also.'
Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator Bernardi to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) expresses a concern that persons convicted in Australia of being a member of a terrorist organisation, in circumstances where they are recent migrants to Australia and liable to future deportation would:
(i) potentially present a significant national security and social cohesion problem in prisons, where they might spread their ideology, and
(ii) will attract significant state or territory taxpayer cost for the years served in incarceration – potentially in high security arrangements – for the offence; and
(b) calls on the Attorney-General to work with state and territory Attorneys‑General to establish criteria for:
(i) circumstances where such individuals will be deported immediately, rather than serving a sentence of imprisonment, and
(ii) giving weight to the prospect the destination country will imprison the deportee.
Senator Bernardi to move on 20 September 2018:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) began in 1964 operating as a terrorist organisation targeting Israeli civilians,
(ii) the PLO embarked upon the Second Intifada from 2000 to 2005, claiming 4000 lives – an uprising that started soon after the Camp David peace summit convened by then President of the United States (US) of America, Bill Clinton, and
(iii) US President Donald J Trump and his administration are closing the PLO Washington office due to a lack of progress in peace negotiations; and
(b) calls on the Foreign Minister to reflect upon the wisdom of Australian aid money going directly or indirectly to the PLO and its associated entities.
Senators Bilyk, Brown and Farrell to move on 15 October 2018:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Veterans' Health Week 2018 was held from Saturday, 22 September to Sunday, 30 September 2018 with a theme of nutrition, following last year's theme of physical activity,
(ii) the Invictus Games, which use the power of sport to inspire recovery, support rehabilitation and generate a wider understanding and respect for wounded, injured and sick servicemen and women, will this year be held in Sydney from 20 to 27 October, and
(iii) this high-level sporting event will host some of the world's elite athletes, at the same time highlighting some of the difficulties faced and sacrifices made by men and women who have served their country; and
(b) congratulates all athletes selected to represent Australia at the 2018 Games and conveys its best wishes for their success in and enjoyment of the competition.
Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that members of the Leonora community at a recent public meeting expressed distress and concern that Leonora is being targeted as the site for a national radioactive waste management facility under the so called 'Plan B';
(b) expresses its deep concern regarding the repeated attempts to impose an intermediate level waste dump on the lands of First Nations peoples; and
(c) calls for an independent inquiry to investigate the full range of options to manage Australia's intermediate level radioactive waste.
Senator Burston to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 29 June 2018, the Government announced that nine new 'Hunter‑Class Frigates' will be built in Osborne, South Australia,
(ii) the $50 billion, twelve new submarines are also to be built in Osborne, South Australia,
(iii) one of the names of the first three ships to be built will be HMAS Hunter, and
(iv) the Hunter region in New South Wales (NSW) has a strong history of ship building and Defence build projects; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) ensure that the Hunter region of NSW be included in the build phase of the frigates, as much as possible, and
(ii) reconsider giving the class of frigates a more apt name, such as the Osborne-Class or the Sturt-Class or the SA-Class or maybe even the Pyne-Class.
Senators McKim and Rice to move on the next day of sitting:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 9:30 am on Thursday, 20 September 2018, the final report of the Religious Freedom Review Expert Panel.
Senator Waters to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) reports in the media that not a single lobbyist has been punished for breaching the Lobbying Code of Conduct (Code) in the past five years,
(ii) that in October 2013, newly retired Labor Government Minister for Energy and Resources, Mr Martin Ferguson, took up a position at the peak body for the oil and gas industry, the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, advocating for the commercial interests of very industry he was in charge of regulating only months before, and
(iii) that Mr Ferguson is not classified by the Code as a lobbyist because he is employed directly as an in-house lobbyist by an industry peak body; and
(b) calls on the Government to update the definition of a lobbyist to ensure that in‑house lobbyists for industry and industry peak bodies, such as Mr Ferguson, are captured by the regulation of the Code.
Senator Waters to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) reports in the media that not a single lobbyist has been punished for breaching the Lobbying Code of Conduct (Code) in the past five years,
(ii) that in 2016, Mr Ian Macfarlane, 6 months after retiring as the Abbott Government Minister for Energy and Resources, took up the chief executive position at the Queensland Resources Council, advocating for the commercial interests of the very industry he was in charge of regulating only months before, and
(iii) that Mr Macfarlane is not classified by the Code as a lobbyist because he is employed directly as an in-house lobbyist by an industry peak body; and
(b) calls on the Government to update the definition of a lobbyist to ensure that in‑house lobbyists for industry and industry peak bodies, such as Mr Macfarlane, are captured by the regulation of the Code.
Senator Anning to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes the working definition of anti-Semitism from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance as follows: 'Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities';
(b) affirms its support and recognition of the State of Israel; and
(c) condemns the heinous crimes perpetrated by those terrorists that would appear to be acting under the direction of the Palestinian Authority.
Senator Georgiou to move on the next day of sitting—
That the Senate—
(a) notes that a 2018 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) report found that family and domestic violence affected one in five Australian women and one in nine Australian men;
(b) notes that the AIHW report states that, since age 15, one in six women and one in 16 men have experienced physical or sexual violence by a current or previous partner;
(c) acknowledges that the number of Western Australians who have died from family violence-related incidents has sky-rocketed to 23 this year, more than double that of last year's number (11);
(d) acknowledges that family violence leads to a higher rate of homelessness for victims, especially women and children;
(e) urges the Federal Government to provide more relief housing for victims of domestic violence; and
(f) calls on the Federal Government to fill the data-sharing gaps as outlined in the AIHW report to better understand people at risk and identify the services they need.
Withdrawal
Senator ANNING (Queensland) (16:33): I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 1063 standing in my name for today relating to self-defence laws.
Postponement
The Clerk: Postponement notifications have been lodged in respect of the following:
General business notice of motion no. 1065 standing in the names of Senators Steele-John and Siewert for today, relating to the proposed Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, postponed till 19 September 2018.
The PRESIDENT (16:34): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, I shall now proceed to the discovery of formal business.
BUSINESS
Consideration of Legislation
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (16:34): I move:
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Australian Farmers) Bill 2018, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Life Insurance
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:34): At the request of Senators O'Neill, Ketter and Di Natale, I move:
That the Senate:
(a) notes:
(i) that the fear of insurance implications has been shown to deter the uptake of potentially life-saving clinical genetic testing and research participation,
(ii) the unanimous report into the life insurance industry tabled by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services on 27 March 2018, which revealed that genetic data is not presently sufficiently accurate or reliable, particularly in relation to the increasingly popular direct to consumer genetic testing, for a duty to disclose to be appropriate,
(iii) that the Committee was unanimously of the view that a ban on the use of predictive genetic test results in life insurance underwriting be implemented, at least in the medium term, in a form similar to the United Kingdom moratorium,
(iv) that there are concerns that the current self-regulation model applied to use of genetic data by the life insurance industry is conflicted and a co-regulatory approach would strike an appropriate balance between safeguarding against the improper use of genetic information by the life insurance industry, while still allowing it to operate efficiently,
(v) that the Government was due to respond to the unanimous report three months after it was tabled, and
(vi) that the Government is yet to respond to the unanimous report; and
(b) calls on the Government to respond to the report, particularly around genetic information.
Question agreed to.
Migration
Senator ANNING (Queensland) (16:35): I move:
That the Senate:
(a) notes:
(i) the past comments made by Minister Dutton, supporting the plight of the white South African farmers and suggesting that they be given priority for humanitarian visas, and
(ii) Australia's acceptance of an additional 12,000 Syrian and Iraqi refugees between 2015 and 2017 to address displacement caused by the Syrian civil war and the fight against Islamic State;
(b) recognises the current situation of white South Africans is dire as a result of state–sanctioned persecution, resulting in racially motivated murders;
(c) as a matter of principle, strongly condemns any and all calls for the killing, marginalisation, persecution, victimisation and targeting of any racial minority group in the Republic of South Africa by any of its officials, past or present; and
(d) calls on the Government to immediately implement a humanitarian visa program, similar to the Syrian visas, for white South Africans.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (16:36): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: As the Minister for Home Affairs has stated, the department will consider applications for people from South Africa within the existing humanitarian program. All humanitarian applications are assessed on an individual, non-discriminatory basis, in line with Australia's existing refugee and humanitarian policies. A person's ethnicity or religion may be relevant only to the extent of the nature of their individual claims of persecution.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (16:36): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator CHISHOLM: Labor opposes this motion because we see through Senator Anning's petty political games. Labor supports a non-discriminatory migration program that has been in place for decades. If people face persecution, regardless of where they are from or the colour of their skin, they are able to apply to Australia's humanitarian visa program. Australia's protection obligations are clear and set out in the Migration Act. Regrettably, the Minister for Home Affairs feels differently. The minister has called for special attention—a different set of standards—which would undermine Australia's non-discriminatory program. If Senator Anning was serious about humanitarian resettlement, he would support Labor's commitment that we took to the last election to increase the annual humanitarian intake to 27,000 by 2025.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (16:37): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McKIM: This motion contains white supremacist rot. We'll be voting against it. This paranoid, racist motion is, unfortunately, only a few steps away from the policies of many members of the governing Liberal and National parties. Their policies towards refugees in the motion are broadly the same as the Labor and Liberal consensus of cruelty to refugees. It's not enough to vote this motion down; we need to join together to stop marching this country down the hateful path that Senator Anning advocates. My advice to Senator Anning is: stop beating up on migrants, stop beating up on refugees and start supporting multicultural Australia. My advice to the Liberal, National and Australian Labor parties in this place is: act to make Australia's refugee program truly non-discriminatory by ending the exile of people who arrived in Australia by boat asking for our help.
Question negatived.
Whaling
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (16:38): I, and also on behalf of Senator Whish-Wilson, move:
That the Senate:
(a) notes that the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has rejected Japan's bid to overturn a long-standing ban on commercial whaling;
(b) notes further that Japan has threatened to withdraw from the IWC and indicated its intention to continue hunting for 'scientific' purposes; and
(c) calls on the government to:
(i) commit to sending a vessel to patrol the Southern Ocean this summer, and
(ii) investigate Australia's legal options under international law.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (16:39): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: The Australian government is resolutely opposed to all forms of commercial and so-called scientific whaling. The government welcomed the International Whaling Commission's recent rejection of Japan's proposal to overturn the global moratorium on commercial whaling. The commission also rejected attempts to weaken its decision-making rules and establish catch limits for commercial whaling. The Australian government worked hard with partner countries in the commission to achieve this outcome. We will continue to work to encourage Japan to remain in the IWC and to abide by its majority decisions. Sending a vessel to the Southern Ocean will not achieve any of Australia's or the IWC's policy or legal objectives.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (16:39): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: It is extremely disappointing that the government is not prepared to follow through with what was an election promise to make sure that there was observation of and a watch on what Japan was doing in the Southern Ocean over summer. We know they've already said they're willing to and they're planning on killing 330-odd minke whales. That's what they've said. This government promised to send a vessel down there and now they're crab walking away. Why is that? That's the question to this government. They're going weak at the knees. They promised the Australian people they would do this and now we hear in this chamber today that they're not prepared to follow through. It's pathetic.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that notice of motion No. 1070 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:45]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
COMMITTEES
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (16:47): by leave—I move:
That the Senate directs that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, in relation to its inquiry into the provisions of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2018 and a related bill must only conduct public hearings after submissions to the inquiry have closed on 23 November 2018 and before 15 April 2019.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (16:47): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: The government's proposed reforms will significantly improve the efficiency of the family law system, reduce the backlog of matters before the courts and drive faster and cheaper resolution of disputes for Australian families. There is precedent for allowing public hearings to be conducted before the closing date for submissions. This inquiry should be no different. By November 2018 those wishing to make submissions will have had almost three months to review the bills, which is far longer than most inquiries. This provides more than sufficient time to make submissions and hold hearings, considering the very limited number of either new or substantially changed provisions in the bills. We have the opportunity to act now and it is imperative that we do so in the best interests of Australian families, who have been calling for improvements for years.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (16:48): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator PATRICK: The normal process for conducting inquiries is to call for submissions, to consider those submissions in the selection of witnesses and for the formation of questions, and then to hold the hearings. That's the best way to get results out of inquiries, to get the richest responses and determinations. It should only be in exceptional circumstances that we depart from that normal process.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Aged Care
Senator HINCH (Victoria) (16:49): Before I move this motion, I seek leave to add the names of Senator Storer and Senator Griff.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted; so added.
Senator HINCH: by leave—I move:
That the Senate:
(a) acknowledges that the Government's recent announcement of a royal commission into aged care is a necessary and appropriate response to evidence of systemic problems within the sector;
(b) notes that:
(i) since 2009 there have been 10 federal inquiries into the aged care sector, as well as a number of state parliamentary inquiries,
(ii) reports have consistently recommended increasing staffing levels to ensure that there are enough nurses and other qualified professionals on duty to provide a minimum standard of care,
(iii) international research suggests that higher registered nurse staffing levels, higher total staffing levels and a high skills mix (ratio of registered nurses to other nursing staff) are associated with better quality care, and
(iv) as it stands, the Department of Health's published list of anticipated terms of reference for the upcoming royal commission does not mention staffing levels; and
(c) calls on the Government to:
(i) amend existing accreditation standards to include a requirement for providers of aged care services to publish their staff-to-resident ratios in the interests of greater transparency, and
(ii) include in the royal commission's terms of reference a direction to examine the impact of staffing levels on quality of care.
Question agreed to.
Newstart
Senator STORER (South Australia) (16:49): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Newstart payment has barely increased in real terms in the past 24 years,
(ii) nearly half of Newstart recipients have been on their respective payments for at least two years, and more than 15% for at least five years,
(iii) the Business Council of Australia has stated that 'we need a robust and targeted welfare safety net that ensures displaced workers don't fall into poverty while finding their feet. This could include increasing the inadequate Newstart allowance', and
(iv) a report released in September 2018 by Deloitte Access Economics, commissioned by the Australian Council of Social Service, found that increasing a range of allowance payments, including Newstart, by $75 a week would:
(A) increase the size of the economy by $4 billion a year from an initial injection of $3 billion a year, this being a conservative appraisal of the size and life of the prosperity dividend flowing from the increase,
(B) see the lowest quintile receive 28 times the relative boost to its disposable incomes, providing a tightly targeted fairness impact, with the bulk of relative improvements in disposal incomes overwhelmingly going to Australia's lowest income families, and
(C) increase regional income per head to the least well-off districts across Australia, meaning that regional communities most in need of help would receive it; and
(b) urges the Government to immediately increase Newstart by $75 a week to generate the above prosperity and fairness impacts.
Senator STORER: I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator STORER: The level of Newstart has not increased for a quarter of a century, leaving some jobseekers to live in poverty without money for the clothes or the bus tickets that they need to try to get work. As long ago as 2012 the Business Council of Australia argued that Newstart may now be so low as to represent a barrier to employment for people wanting to get into the workforce. The profoundly inadequate level of Newstart one of the key reasons that I opposed the government's company tax cuts, seeing better use of government revenue. The Deloitte Access Economics' report of yesterday puts the direct cost to the budget of increasing a range of benefits related to Newstart at $3.3 billion a year, but the prosperity dividend would see the Australian economy grow by $4 billion a year.
In my own state of South Australia, an increase of $75 a week would increase consumption by $333 million. I urge the government and act now.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (16:51): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: Over 99 per cent of recipients on Newstart also receive one or more other government payments. Australia targets a bigger share of its cash transfers to households in the bottom 20 per cent than any other OECD country. The coalition government knows that the best form of welfare is a job and we'll look to policies that improve employment opportunities for those on Newstart.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 1069, moved by Senator Storer, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:53]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Ministerial Conduct
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (16:55): I move:
That the Senate:
(a) notes:
(i) that on 17th September 2018, the Guardian Australia launched a series of damning articles about the practices of lobbyists in the Australian Parliament,
(ii) that the article states that "Big business is gaining almost unfettered access to the corridors of Australia's Parliament owing to an oversight regime that is weak, unenforced, opaque and unable to keep track of the revolving door between lobbying and government", and
(iii) high profile cases such as former Resources Minister Mr Ian MacFarlane taking up a job as head of the Queensland Resources Council almost immediately after quitting politics and, Mr Bruce Billson, former Minister for Small Business, being employed by the Franchise Council of Australia (FCA) in March 2016, before actually leaving the Parliament; and
(b) calls on the government to
(i) urgently tighten the ministerial code of conduct to preclude ministers from taking up jobs as lobbyists within 5 years of leaving Parliament, and
(ii) ensure that meaningful penalties are put in place for former ministers who breach the code of conduct.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (16:56): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: The Lobbying Code of Conduct prohibits former ministers from engaging in lobbying activities relating to any matter that they may have had official dealings with in their last 18 months in office. Similarly, former senior staff to ministers and former ministers are subject to a 12-month prohibition, as are senior members of the Defence Force and the Public Service.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (16:56): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator CHISHOLM: The opposition supports the general principles behind this motion. However, we cannot support the current wording. The government has constantly and consistently ignored the Statement of Ministerial Standards despite now having versions issued by three different prime ministers. Labor believes that, unless ministerial standards are effectively enforced, adjusting the time limits imposed on post-ministerial employment will have no effect.
Senator HINCH (Victoria) (16:57): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator HINCH: Like the ALP, the opposition, I do support the general feelings in the motion, but I think five years is excessive. If they were to come back again with three years or something like that, I could support it.
The PRESIDENT: The question is motion No. 1071 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:58]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
COMMITTEES
Environment and Communications References Committee
Reference
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:01): I move:
That the following matters be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by the second sitting Wednesday in February 2019:
The impact of feral deer, pigs and goats in Australia, and national priorities to prevent the problems worsening for the natural environment, community and farmers, including:
(a) the current and potential occurrence of feral deer, pigs and goats across Australia;
(b) the likely and potential biosecurity risks and impacts of feral deer, pigs and goats on the environment, agriculture, community safety and other values;
(c) the effectiveness of current state and national laws, policies and practices in limiting spread and mitigating impacts of feral deer, pigs and goats;
(d) the efficacy and welfare implications of currently available control and containment tools and methods, and the potential for new control and containment tools and methods;
(e) priority research questions;
(f) the benefits of developing and fully implementing national threat abatement plans for feral deer, pigs and goats; and
(g) any other related matters.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (17:01): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: Managing established pest animals like feral pigs, deer and goats are key priorities of this government. A large body of work to minimise the impact of these feral animals on our environment, community and farmers is already underway, including through the Commonwealth funded Centre for Invasive Species Solutions, which works in partnership with state and territory governments and industry. Once completed, this work will provide a strong evidentiary base on which to build future efforts. Any inquiry into these matters would be better positioned following the completion of the work currently underway.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that business of the Senate matter No. 1 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [17:06]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Koala Population
The PRESIDENT (17:08): I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am today, six proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. 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 Siewert:
Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move that in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of public importance:
The Commonwealth government's lack of action on decimation of the koala population in New South Wales due to land clearing laws, badly planned infrastructure, logging and inappropriate development.
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The PRESIDENT: I understand informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific time 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 FARUQI (New South Wales) (17:09): Koalas in New South Wales face extinction by 2050. This is the harsh reality that we are grappling with today. This is no accident. It is due to the continued, insistent effort of the New South Wales Liberal-National government in pushing these species to the brink through badly planned infrastructure, through logging of native forests and through their ecocidal land-clearing laws. This is a matter of public importance because we are losing an iconic species, and we know exactly why that is happening. Koalas, trees and forests are an inconvenience for mining companies, for big agribusinesses and for big property developers. They want the ability to clear what they want, when they want and they're willing to pay big in corporate donations.
Koalas are on the pointy end of corrosive and corrupt conduct in politics, and the federal government is doing nothing. It is sitting on its hands, waiting for this destruction and devastation to happen. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is meant to be the Australian government's central piece of environmental legislation. It is meant to provide a framework to protect and manage nationally and internationally significant plants and animals. It was established because we recognised that there is an appropriate role for the Commonwealth in relation to the environment by focusing Commonwealth attention on matters of national environmental significance. With the ongoing and accelerating decline of koalas in my home state of New South Wales under the helm of the worst-ever state government for the environment, it is clear that these Commonwealth laws need a rewrite. They provide for ministerial discretion over concrete action far too often. The Commonwealth must have the power to step in and protect iconic species like the koalas.
In New South Wales, koala populations have shrunk by ¼ over the last 20 years to just 36,000, according to the New South Wales chief scientist. Koala numbers in the Pilliga have dropped by a staggering 80 per cent since the 1990s while, west of the Great Dividing Range, 90 per cent of known populations are in decline. It is estimated that only about 8,000 koalas remain on the New South Wales North Coast in several colonies. Almost every koala population in New South Wales is believed to be in decline, and those that are not are coming under pressure from inappropriate development like at Macarthur, Camden and Campbelltown. No comprehensive koala management plan, no consideration of connectivity corridors and pandering to greedy developers are exacerbating the destruction of koalas.
Koalas, like many other threatened species, also bear the brunt of global warming and climate change. They are one of 10 species worldwide recognised by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature to be highly vulnerable to climate change. Again, what is the coalition government doing to tackle climate change? Zilch, zero, nothing! We can only expect this to accelerate under the policies of the federal and New South Wales Liberal-National governments.
I'm sure many of you are aware of the New South Wales government's disastrous land-clearing laws, which are a catastrophe for our environment, threatened species, biodiversity, climate and, of course, koalas. For those of you who don't know the full story, let me say it in a nutshell: in late 2016, the final week of parliament for the year, the New South Wales Liberal-National government pushed through—literally in the middle of the night—legislation to abolish laws that protect biodiversity, native animals and vegetation. They have replaced them with a much weaker and flawed model that will lead to more and more land clearing and loss of habitat. Instead of rules that stop broadscale clearing, native trees can now be bulldozed using self-assessable causes with little or no oversight. We won't even know what we've lost until it's gone. Just before the laws were run through parliament, the World Wildlife Fund released modelling that showed that 2.2 million hectares of koala habitat could be cleared under the proposed weak laws. That represents about 10 per cent of known or likely koala habitats in New South Wales. As shocking as that is, I'm sorry to report that those WWF numbers were very wide off the mark.
We know the real numbers from a document obtained by the Nature Conservation Council. This document was produced by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. This was the document the New South Wales environment minister signed to enact these laws. It talks about losses of not 10 per cent of koala habitat, not 20 per cent of koala habitat or even 80 per cent of koala habitat; literally 99 per cent of koala habitat can be legally cleared under these laws. The government and the minister for the environment knew full well that they were signing the death warrant for koalas, and yet they went ahead and did it.
The community, the Greens and I, as the New South Wales environment spokesperson at that time, fought tooth and nail to stop those laws. Every environment group opposed those laws. The esteemed Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists opposed those laws. Even their own adviser on the laws, Professor Hugh Possingham, quit in disgust. Josh Gilbert resigned as chair of New South Wales Young Farmers, arguing in New Matilda that the policy risks not only the repetition of past errors but also the trading of long-term profitability for short-sighted practices. They didn't take this seriously. The minister at the time even said:
The great majority of land that may be legally capable of being cleared will not be cleared.
I think this sums up the fairytale land that they live in.
Now we are facing the grave on-ground reality of the consequences. A recent report from the World Wildlife Fund and Nature Conservation Council has confirmed that, since the laws passed, more than 5,000 hectares of koala habitat have been bulldozed in the New South Wales district of Moree and surrounding areas at a rate of about 14 football fields a day. That's 14 hectares every single day. At this rate, soon we'll have nothing left. Underpinning all this is the Biodiversity Offsets policy. Let me be clear: we aren't fooled by the government's spin doctors. No amount of scam that is biodiversity offsetting can replace an ecosystem once it has been destroyed. Once gone, it's gone forever.
Where is the Commonwealth government in all of this? Documents obtained under Freedom of Information show that the predecessor for the current offsetting policy, the New South Wales government's Biodiversity Offsets policy, for major projects was found by federal government environment experts to be significantly weaker than the national standards, but it was, nonetheless, shamefully approved anyway. The federal government has responsibility to protect koalas, but they are failing dismally. The Australian and New South Wales governments are jointly funding the Woolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway upgrade. I'm an engineer, so of course I agree that we need to upgrade our roads, but we can do it without destroying the environment. They have gone out of their way to choose an option that was the most destructive, cutting into core koala habitat. I've been to that region many times and it is absolutely heartbreaking to see the bulldozers ramming through core koala habitat. We can and must be much smarter. We could have had both a safer Pacific Highway and a protected koala population.
Finally, the federal government has failed to take action to protect koalas from forestry in New South Wales. In recent years, koalas have been injured, killed or found in really poor health in logging operations. According to the National Parks Association, regional forestry agreements allow proposals to log in public forests and these proposals do not require the usual approvals under the EPBC Act. This has devastated koala habitats over the past two decades. All this is nothing short of ecocide. I don't use the term 'ecocide' lightly, but what the Liberals and the Nationals are doing is deliberate, it is wilful and they know full well of the destructive consequences of their actions. The Australian government needs to see koalas as a national treasure, deserving of protection so that they can not only survive but also thrive way into the future.
Senator MOLAN (New South Wales) (17:18): We are debating here today, as a matter of public interest, a very, very serious issue: the maintenance of koalas in this nation—koalas being an extraordinary symbol of this nation, along with kangaroos and emus. They are national symbols of this nation that we must preserve. Someone who introduced me to politics was Bill Heffernan. Bill was a legendry representative of country people. Bill used to say that his worst nightmare was a Country Liberal who lived on 20 acres of land around Queanbeyan. Sadly for Bill, I live on 20 acres of land just to the south of Queanbeyan. I think this is a very important issue, but it's a poor MPI. We are a federation, and federations have responsibility at different levels. Certainly this federal government has responsibilities, and it's my contention that, in fact, we do exercise those through the legislation that exists at the moment.
Senator Faruqi spoke of ecocide. We do have problems in these areas. But these problems are not decimation in the sense of one-tenth—you explained that to us—yet your MPI says we have decimated the population. You make the case that we have done worse than decimate the population. We have an opportunity going into the future to solve this problem. As some senators might be aware, I spent much of my life in the military. In the military we tend to conduct exercises in pristine forests. We tend to conduct exercises where stillness and quietness allow us to actually understand the bush. I probably spent as much time in the bush as Senator 'Wacka' Williams has spent in the bush. It's a wild contention, but I think it's arguable. We in the military have many training areas which are very, very pristine areas. Ironically, the activities that we conduct in military training areas allow us to preserve those areas for the preservation of wildlife—koalas, kangaroos, emus, a vast range of Australia's animals. For example, Shoalwater Bay training area, just north of Rockhampton—we're not talking about New South Wales, but it's exactly the same around Holsworthy—is one of the most pristine areas that exists, for the simple reason that grazing animals are kept out of it.
But, as in so much in life, I think we have to get a balance. Balance with the national symbols of this country is very, very important. We can do it, and this government, in coordination with the state government, is in fact doing it. Liberals, especially conservatives, value the natural environment. As conservatives, we understand that the natural environment has been around for an awfully long time. We understand the value of that natural environment. We understand that in the natural environment in which we live balance is all important.
Symbols are also extraordinarily important to our national identity. When tourists seek to visit this country, they look for two things. They look for kangaroos and koalas. I wake up almost every morning—quite often in this place I leave before it gets light—but when I can actually see, I have probably 80 kangaroos on my Bill Heffernan-type broad acres of 20 acres.
Senator Williams: You're overstocked!
Senator MOLAN: I am very, very badly overstocked. This is a real problem that we face. In certain areas we are out of balance. In certain areas developments and the presence of human beings have multiplied the availability of water, which has multiplied the kangaroo population. This is not the situation that we face with koalas. But it just illustrates the point that often the presence of human development can go in the opposite direction to what Senator Faruqi is talking about, which then leads to the need to lower that population, normally by very, very violent means. Over the last couple of months I've seen a tendency for wombats to be feeding during the day. I have never seen wombats feeding during the day, but wombats are out around my place feeding through the day—this is a very serious matter we are debating here today—for the simple reason that there is not enough grass for them to feed sufficiently at night.
The notion of this MPI implies that the Commonwealth government is doing nothing. That is not the case. We support the population in New South Wales and we support it along with the state government. We're working through the required legislation to provide sufficient protection for koalas in New South Wales. Currently the Department of the Environment and Energy is leading the development of a recovery plan for koalas in response to the population declines. We intend to manage the issue. We know the problem and we're working to solve it.
The government is working with state authorities, as I said before. The real value of having a Liberal and National government at the federal level and at the state level is that the level of cooperation is very, very high. In New South Wales the plan that we have has a number of elements which will help us to preserve the koala population. This involves creating over 24,000 hectares of new koala reserves and parks. I think that my 20 acres is about eight hectares—Wacka, I think that would be about right. So it's an area slightly larger than what I've got, at 24,000 hectares. There is also increasing wildlife care training, plans for reducing chlamydia amongst koalas and the development of a monitoring program to track populations and their habits, and that's very, very important.
Moreover, the draft of the government's national plan will be open for public consultation. We're not going to do this in secret. We will open that plan up for consultation and suggestion, allowing concerned and relevant parties to contribute to discussion on how best to protect one of our national icons.
Furthermore, this MPI implies that we do not already have existing conservation plans in place. These plans were approved at the time of the koala's listing as vulnerable under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and guide current strategies to support the koala. Our environmental laws also provide a number of safeguards to protect not just the koalas but all vulnerable species across the country. The department has provided guidelines for proponents and decision-makers on whether a development may impact on the vulnerable koalas and whether government assessment and approval is required.
Really, on this front, this MPI ignores the importance of forestry in continuing to develop our economy. I was fortunate enough to recently visit the Hyne sawmill near Tumbarumba. Their material relies primarily on plantation forests—primarily pine production. Hyne provides an extraordinary example of industrial capacity for a regional town. The jobs and economic impact are considered by the locals to have kept Tumbarumba going at a time when so many rural towns are suffering due to the lack of highly skilled jobs. This industry sustains the town. It brings economic development, young families and money into the economy. This is what the environment is all about. It's about balance. Without the forestry industry in Tumbarumba, the town would likely be dying as young families and workers seek better opportunities elsewhere. Forestry in this aspect is also very efficient. They are extraordinarily advanced—probably as advanced as any forestry industry in the world.
If we badly manage our reactions to shifts in human populations, we risk not just symbols such as the koala but also towns such as Tumbarumba. As such, the government is ensuring that it manages how we conserve koala populations in a way that not only best supports the koala but also supports our rural and regional communities. Liberals, especially farmers, are greenies. We are environmentalists. There is not a lack of action. There is always the need to be balanced, and that's what this government will deliver.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:28): On a very lovely winter afternoon back in July this year, while the sun went down I stood in Bangalow next to a stand of eucalypts and tallowwoods. I listened to Linda Sparrow as she explained the challenges she faced in her work as president of Bangalow Koalas. The community on the New South Wales North Coast want to protect local koalas and their habitat from development, but the New South Wales government has done absolutely nothing to protect these iconic Australian animals.
Earlier this year, 70 volunteers from Linda's organisation, Bangalow Koalas, planted over a thousand trees to generate koala corridors to compensate for key koala habitat lost to highways and land clearing on the New South Wales North Coast. The trees were planted on private land with the support of local landholders wanting to see koalas protected. Publicity from the event has led to additional landholders requesting to become part of the program. This is an amazing example of a community taking steps and taking matters into their own hands to support these beautiful animals. But I tell you what, they don't receive any support whatsoever from the New South Wales Liberal government.
Koala's are facing extinction in New South Wales as their numbers rapidly decrease. New South Wales has less than 10 per cent of the nation's koalas and it is genuinely harrowing to hear the koalas in the Pilliga have declined by 80 per cent since the 1980s. I worked for four terrific years with Bob Debus, the trailblazing Labor Minister for the Environment in New South Wales. During that time, Bob worked on legislation to protect thousands of hectares of woodland for conservation in Brigalow and Nandewar.
It is disappointing indeed to watch as the New South Wales coalition government fails to take any commensurate or similar action to protect a koala population that is seriously in danger. In fact, all of their actions lean in the other direction. Their agenda of increased land clearing and building highways through key koala habitat has been a key contributor to their decline. A recent report released by the Nature Conservation Council and the World Wide Fund for Nature found that koalas are on track to be extinct by 2050 in New South Wales if current land-clearing rates continue. What does it say about us if we knowingly drive one of our national icons into extinction?
We can and we must do better. Last week in parliament senators and MPs had the opportunity to meet Gizmo the koala here at Parliament House. It was part of Threatened Species Day, and Gizmo was a lovely, lovely little animal. But it is one thing to pat a koala at an event here at parliament and it is another thing to do something about it. Neither the government here nor the government in New South Wales—in both cases led by Liberals—has any solution whatsoever to protect animals like Gizmo, because, apparently, they simply do not care about preserving native species or their habitats. Unlike New South Wales Labor, the New South Wales Liberals refuse to produce a koala protection strategy. In fact, there has been no plan in place for koala protection for the last half decade since the New South Wales koala recovery plan, which was developed by the last New South Wales Labor government.
Unlike New South Wales Labor, the coalition government refuses to commit to conservations' calls for a koala national park that would see the state forests that presently provide habitat in the mid-North Coast around Coffs Harbour and Bellingen incorporated to provide better protection for these beautiful animals. The federal government is absolutely no better. They have sat on their hands as their Liberal colleagues in both Queensland and New South Wales have trashed Labor's historic land-clearing protections. Labor in government will step in and put this right, because the situation is untenable.
Members of our community have played a key role in bringing this issue to light. I spent a day up in the forests around Bellingen with volunteers from the NPA, including an old colleague from the New South environment department, Ashley Love. It's vital that we elect representatives who care about the environment and protect koalas—people like Andrew Woodward, our candidate for Cowper, who has a strong background in environmental advocacy, and people like Asren Pugh, our candidate in Ballina, who worked with me to initiate the Labor Environment Activist Network many years ago, and has been out planting trees with Linda from Bangalow Koalas. I look forward to 2019, when conservationists like Asren can continue this invaluable work as part of a New South Wales Labor government that is actually committed to ensuring that koalas will thrive. It's time for the New South Wales coalition government and this government to step up before it's too late.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (17:33): Exactly a week ago in the Senate, I gave a speech about the threatened species inquiry—our extinction crisis inquiry—that I'm chairing under the environment committee. We are facing an extinction crisis in Australia; there are 448 animals that are threatened or endangered. In my 10 minute speech, I decided I'd attempt to name them all—all 448. I only got to 167. I only got through the species that are critically endangered and endangered. I didn't even finished the endangered species list and didn't even get to the vulnerable ones. I didn't even get to mention the koala.
We are facing an extinction crisis and the koala is an absolute symbol of what is wrong—448 Australian animals, yet we cannot even act to save one of them that is so iconic and such a symbol of Australia. It is sliding—in fact, it is heading rapidly—towards extinction. I'm pleased that Senator Molan noted how significant koalas are, and I believe him in his sincerity that he wants to see koalas protected. But, in order to do that, we've got to take real action, and the Commonwealth is absolutely abrogating its responsibility to be taking real action.
I want to, first of all, outline an example of the level of decline of koalas in New South Wales. As part of our inquiry into the extinction crisis, we've received over 12,000 contributions from the public, including hundreds of submissions from very learned experts on what the issues are and why these animals, our precious wildlife, are hurtling towards extinction. In their submission, the National Parks Association of NSW talked about the issues a whole range of animals, particularly koalas, were facing and noted that the koalas in southern New South Wales are a perfect example of what's been going on with our animals in crisis. They used the example of the Eden area, which was known in the late 19th century to have had a koala population large enough to support a pelt export trade.
But, now, following the clearing of the Bega Valley for agriculture, the clear-felling for woodchipping as well as the impacts of climate change, the koala population is on the verge of extinction. It is estimated that between 30 and 60 animals remain between the Bega and Bermagui rivers. They note that, in ecological terms, this decline is precipitously rapid. We have gone from an animal population in New South Wales and Queensland that was abundant to one which is now expected, under current activities, will be extinct by 2050. The population of koalas in New South Wales has shrunk by a quarter in the last 20 years. This is a crisis.
It's particularly tragic that this is ongoing before our very eyes when we know what's causing it and we know what we need to do to protect koalas as well as a huge range of other animals. We have to protect their habitat. That means, in particular for koalas, protecting them the clearing of land for land development, for mining and for agribusiness and protecting their habitat from logging. All these things are occurring in koala habitat—and not because the Australian community want those activities to happen. We have people all around the country who are passionate about protecting koalas. This destruction of their habitat is not in the interests of the Australian community, let alone in the interests of the koalas. It's all happening in the interests of big business. They are the ones who are driving the policy. They are the ones who are driving the inaction of this government. And all the threats to the koala populations are going to be exacerbated by climate change, which will make the forests that koalas live in hotter, drier and more susceptible to fire. These are the threats that koalas are facing. Basically, greedy, wildlife destroying companies are calling the shots, and they are aided and abetted by state and federal governments.
This matters. Whether we are talking about koalas, crustaceans in creeks, insects or reptiles, we cannot continue to survive without a healthy environment. Our very survival depends upon having a healthy environment. As the saying goes, there are no jobs on a dead planet. We can have economic development and prosperity and protect the environment. We can have healthy koala populations and economic wellbeing, certainly here in Australia. But we know what we need to do. It is very simple: we need to stop destroying koala habitat. That means that we need to stand up against big business and say, 'No, you will not continue to log that forest'; 'No, you are not going to be permitted to clear that area of land'; and 'No, that mining operation cannot go ahead there because it is going to be putting these animals under threat'. We need to say enough is enough.
That's what Australians want to see. They want to see koalas protected. Australians want to see the survival of these animals that we love and have known as a symbol of Australia so that our children and our grandchildren will be able to love and enjoy those animals as well, along with all the rest of our precious wildlife. It's just not enough to have those cute photo-ops for Threatened Species Day, and it's not enough, as is proposed in the New South Wales supposed 'koala strategy', to be setting aside wildlife parks into which koalas will get translocated as their habitat gets destroyed elsewhere. That is not going to protect the koalas.
My colleague Senator Faruqi has talked about some of the threats from land clearing and agriculture. I want to focus on logging and the impacts of logging on koala habitat. Again, we know what needs to happen: we need to stop logging. We need to scrap our failed logging laws, which are continuing the destruction of habitat. The National Parks Association, again, in their submission to our inquiry, have said that, under the proposed integrated forestry operations approvals, under the New South Wales proposed regulations, there will be a 140,000-hectare intensive harvesting zone between Taree and Grafton, which covers 43 per cent—almost half—of the mapped high-quality koala habitat in state forests, and logging in this area will move up to 100 per cent of the trees and see just five to 10 trees of minimum 20-centimetre diameter left. This is not going to be compatible with koala conservation. We know that. We know that koalas need mature-forest growth stages. We know what happens when you remove the trees. It's not rocket science—you remove the trees, the koalas can't live there. We need to stop logging in our native forests. We need to be shifting all of the wood production in Australia to plantations.
It was very interesting to hear Senator Molan talk about plantations in Tumbarumba—absolutely, I almost called out; hear, hear! Eighty-seven per cent of the wood that is now coming from Australia is coming from plantations. We need to increase that to 100 per cent. We haven't got another 10 years left before we do that. We need to start doing that now. I was pleased with the release of the government's National Forest Industries Plan last week. It was instructive that it recognises that the future for the wood production industry is in plantations. There is scarcely a mention of native forest logging in this strategy, and that's because it's on its way out and we don't need the wood that we are getting from native forests. Not only do we not need the wood from native forests, but continuing to log native forests is having these incredible impacts on our precious wildlife.
In conclusion, we've got that good news. We know what we need to do to protect koalas, to increase their populations, and that is to the stop the destruction of their habitat. I really want to thank people all around the country who are taking action, planting trees and advocating and who have made submissions to our Senate inquiry. I know that the people of Australia, as well the koalas, are behind you and that we can protect koalas if we decide to act and do so.
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (17:43): As a bloke once said, the first thing you learn in life is that you can't educate idiots. How true it is! I'm going to say that I agree with Senator Rice—we should protect the environment of the koalas—and with those opposite, the Labor Party, saying we should look after the environment. But I tell you who's destroying the environment: the National Parks Association and the national parks.
I'm very proud that on our farm of 400 acres, of which about 80 per cent is cleared, we have a great colony of koalas. They are safe because we graze sheep, we keep the fuel levels down and, if lightning strikes, we don't get a savage fire that kills the koalas. Senator McAllister said, 'There's been an 80 per cent reduction of koalas in the Pilliga.' Of course there's been that sort of reduction in the Pilliga. The Pilliga Forest didn't even exist 200 years ago. It's grown in 200 years. Under forestry, they allowed grazing and timber milling in it. An old timber miller told me one day that when he was a kid you'd hardly ever see a koala. He said—this was 15 years ago—'Go down to the creek tonight and you won't sleep for the noise of them.' They have the strangest noise, if you've ever heard the noise of a koala. But what we've done, because of the Greens and the Labor Party, especially the New South Wales government under Bob Carr, Senator Faruqi—
Senator Faruqi interjecting—
Senator WILLIAMS: However you pronounce it. I apologise. They locked up the country and left it. They wouldn't have hazard reduction burning. They wouldn't allow graziers to keep the fuel levels down. Once you get more than five to 10 tonnes of fuel per hectare, with a 40 degree day and a 50 kilometre wind, the fire is uncontrollable. No grazing; they don't keep the fuel levels down; and what happened to the Pilliga six years ago? It burned from one end to the other in a savage fire, because it's all national park now with no hazard reduction burning and no reduction of fuel levels. I wish the Greens and Labor would go and talk to Professor John Wamsley, who did his research for years. For thousands of years the Australian countryside was grazed by little kangaroos, millions of them, and native animals. What happened to them? They're extinct. Why are they extinct? Because some fool brought foxes here. That's why they're extinct. So now the National Parks Association lobbies the Greens and the Labor Party to lock up all this country, leave it all unmanaged and let it burn and kill the animals in it. That's what they call conservation. It is an absolute disgrace. You wonder why 80 per cent of the koalas are dead in the Pilliga. It's because of the Labor Party locking it up in national parks.
They say that you can't have grazing of sheep and cattle in a national park because they have hooves. You can't have hooved animals in a national park. Half the national parks are live with wild pigs, feral goats, brumbies and deer. None of those run around in ugg boots. They've all got hooves at the bottom of their legs. It's alright for them to graze the national park, but don't allow proper grazing and keep the fuel levels down. When are you going to learn that you can't lock up country and leave it? If you do the grass grows, the rain falls, the grass grows, the grass dries out, the lightning strikes and it burns. When you get the savage hot fires, what do they do? They get up into the crown of the tree, they kill the trees, they're so hot on the ground that they kill the native grass and native seeds.
This is destruction of our environment. Make no mistake about it: the Labor Party in New South Wales begging to the Greens, the Greens pushing it with the National Parks Association, have caused a huge loss of our environment and the death of koalas. Make no mistake about that. You can't argue about it. Come to my farm, Senator, and have a look at the koalas. I'll show you the photos on my phone in a minute, out the front of the house, how my wife goes out all through summer and puts water dishes at the bottom of the trees so they've got plenty of water. They've got the creek to water in as well. Koalas do need water. They don't drink a lot of it, but if the trees are getting dry and the year has a dry summer, as we get at times, the eucalypt leaves don't contain enough moisture, so they do like to get down from the tree and have a bowl of water. I would bet that my wife and I have done more to save koalas than any other senator in this place, because we make sure they stay alive on our farm. We don't let them get burnt. We keep the fuel levels down, and they are safe and happy and also very healthy. I'm very proud of that fact. It is just unbelievable, this whole green religion, how you think you're going to save the planet when in actual fact you're destroying it.
As I said, fuel levels are the big issue. The country was grazed for thousands of years—history will show that. There were millions and millions of small kangaroos, only a foot high. Sadly, they are extinct because things like the foxes were brought to Australia. In the last 100 years, half the animals in the world that have become extinct have come from Australia, because of things like the foxes and the feral cats and so on—animals that have been brought here and upset nature. Of course all we'll get from the Greens and others is, let's ban 1080. Don't kill the feral pigs, the wild goats and the foxes that are destroying the environment—target the farmers, target the coalition government. How ridiculous is that?
The senator says climate change is a big cause. Well, let's go to the Black Saturday bushfires, that terrible time in Victoria with the loss of life and loss of property. Half of the country burnt, roughly, was national park. It was full of fuel. I remember one bloke there cleared the area around his house. They fined him something like $40,000 for knocking down trees, but it was the only house left standing after the fire because he got rid of the fuel around it. Ninety million tonnes of CO2 was released into the atmosphere from the Black Saturday bushfire. Australia produces 550 million tonnes in total. But disregard the 90 million tonnes from the bushfire—half of them in the national parks. Those CO2 levels don't matter. We don't pay any attention to them. Even the department said: 'Don't worry about bushfires, Senator. When the grass burns it puts the CO2 into the atmosphere, but when the grass grows it neutralises it.' If that's the case, when you want to ban grazing and wind back farming activities, you can do the same here: if the animals are putting out greenhouse gases, just remember they eat the grass and it regrows again. If that's equation you want to live on, we can do the same.
The koala is Australian. The koala and the kangaroo are as Australian as you can get. Koalas are a wonderful animal. As I said, we are very pleased to have them on our farm and have them doing very well. We had University of Queensland koala inspectors come down to our property. My wife took them around. They had a little Jack Russell terrier dog, who was the spotter for the koalas. Even our sheepdogs look for the koalas. The kelpies look up in the trees for them. Of course, they don't harm them. The dogs can't climb a tree. Anyway, the inspectors were very pleased with the way the koalas were looked after on our property, the feed supply they've got. Of our property of 400 acres, at least 80 per cent is cleared for farming country. The hundreds of trees, eucalypts, down the creek are a great home for the koalas, and they thrive. There is plenty of water and plenty of cover and, most of all, there's protection from bushfires. That is the point I'm making.
I saw the Pilliga Scrub six or so years ago after a fire went through there. It was just amazing. It was just black sticks. When you walk into those forests after they've been burnt, the thing that's so amazing is the silence. There's not a bird. You don't hear a tweet. You don't hear a bird noise. You hear nothing. The whole environment has been wiped out. That will continue to happen so long as the green movement, pushed by the National Parks Association, continue their whole ideology of how they're going to protect the animals and the planet and the environment. They are 100 per cent wrong. Of course, it's a race to the bottom for the Labor Party in trying to secure the votes the Greens are taking off them. The end result is the destruction of our environment—total destruction.
The Tenterfield fires were about 15 years ago. My good friend Rick Colless MLC—you'd know him very well, Acting Deputy President Leyonhjelm—went up there and, after walking through the forest after it was burnt, he said that all he heard was silence. There were no animals left there. It destroyed the lot. Why was that forest destroyed? Because of the fuel levels underneath it. If you're not going to go on the journey to reduce the fuel levels, this destruction of our native trees, our native forests and our native animals will continue.
As I've said, they won't allow grazing. They don't let the sheep in, like we do on our property. It's funny; the koalas thrive at home with the sheep around. They don't worry the koalas one bit. They have no effect on the koalas, but the sheep do keep the fuel levels down and they're not faced with having their lives destroyed through fire. You can't put sheep in open areas in a national park. They say, 'No, that will damage the environment.' It will save the environment. I will say it again: the destruction of our native trees, our native forests and our native animals is brought about through locking up country and leaving it. It's as simple as that. And what do you do with national parks? You lock it up, you leave it and you destroy the trees and the animals that live in that environment. The Greens and the Labor Party will continue to go down this stupid road of the destruction of our environment.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (17:53): In the past few years it's been reported that Australia has joined the top 10 nations in the world for large-scale land clearing. This is not a list I believe Australia wants to be on. Perhaps I'm contradicting the remarks, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President Leyonhjelm, of Senator Williams who came before me. He talked about the scale of clearing on his own property. I say to the chamber today: I want there to be an Australia in which all Australians have the opportunity to see and enjoy Australia's native koala population, just as Senator Williams is able to do on his own property—and it's lovely to hear about the care he takes of his local koala population. But the simple fact is land clearing has had an enormous impact on Australia's environment yet Australian environmental law is unable to deal with land clearing without legislative change.
We in the Labor Party took to the last election a policy to amend the EPBC Act to specifically regulate land clearing. Unfortunately, though, the coalition on the other side have no intention of picking up on this issue. When it comes to environmental protection, we have a government that are completely asleep at the wheel. It is a national disgrace and action needs to be taken. I was listening to the remarks of the new environment minister, Melissa Price, who says that protection of endangered species is one of the government's key priorities. Well, I tell you, you cannot protect endangered species in this country without doing something real about land clearing. We have land-clearing rules which were introduced by state governments back when John Howard was Prime Minister. They were a critical part of protecting Australian biodiversity and of reaching the targets under the Kyoto Protocol. But we have seen the unwinding of those land-clearing laws by both New South Wales and Queensland conservative governments and this has left large tracts of Australia unprotected.
I'm pleased to say that Labor will not allow this large-scale land clearing to continue. We on this side of the chamber are a party for the environment. We put in place the largest network of marine reserves. We put in place solutions to solve 100 years of conflict on the Murray-Darling Basin. We were the ones who put a price on climate change and we also delivered the Tasmanian forest agreement.
We have the most at-risk populations of koalas in Queensland, New South Wales and the ACT and they deserve our protection. The numbers of koalas have plummeted because of road collisions, dog attacks and land clearing. The rate of land clearing has tripled in the state's north since the axing of the New South Wales Native Vegetation Act in August 2017. Think about that: those laws just changed a little more than a year ago and yet we have seen the rate of land clearing in New South Wales triple. It only goes to show how important those land-clearing laws are.
Koalas will face extinction in New South Wales by, it's speculated, about 2050 due to land clearing according to Martin Taylor, a conservation biologist. Senator Williams, you might like to take your own farm as an illustration of the welfare of biodiversity of koalas representative of the whole country, but I think we should be a bit more scientific than that. We shouldn't accept that koalas a couple of decades from now will only exist in captivity. We need to save koalas in their wild environment where they belong. We know koala populations across the country have declined dramatically. In New South Wales, the population's declined by a quarter over the last 20 years and is now home to fewer than 10 per cent of the nation's koalas, with just 36,000 of them remaining in the wild.
Since 2011, the Liberal government has done, frankly, more to harm koalas than to save them. We've seen in New South Wales land-clearing laws that could see eight million hectares of core koala habitat destroyed, signing off on clearing codes that will allow 99 per cent of koala habitat on private land to be cleared, selling off core koala habitat land to developers for $250,000 at the Mambo wetlands in Port Stephens. We've seen the redirecting of route of the Pacific Highway upgrade at Ballina through key koala habitat. We have also seen a refusal to support the Great Koala National Park; it was called simply a political gimmick. We can't allow housing development in core koala habitat in the Macarthur region, including the upgrade of Picton Road, without adequate protections for the only chlamydia-free koala population in New South Wales. They are carting koalas off in sacks from the Liverpool Plains to make way for the Shenhua coalmine and allowing logging operations that do not properly take account of the koalas in state forests with further weakening of the protections currently in place.
Adding to the threats facing koalas, the Liberals and Nationals introduced land clearing laws that will take a chainsaw to trees and wildlife conservation across the state, including 99 per cent of identified koala habitat open to clearings. They continue to ignore koala protection as a serious issue in our nation. It's all very well for Senator Williams to highlight the issue of bushfire on koala populations, which is indeed important, but what we're trying to point out here is the multifactorial nature of the pressures on the koala species. Senator Williams is wrong to point out we should just do something to protect koalas by preventing bushfires. Of course we want to prevent bushfires. We want to prevent bushfires by doing things like acting on climate change. Indeed, prescribed burns in my own home state have an important role to play. We know that managed fire is important, but you on the other side cannot point to managing fire as a panacea to the litany of issues that are affecting Australia's koala population. Issues like habitat loss and fragmentation of that habitat have indeed been the major causes of the decline in koala numbers in our nation.
In the 2016 election, we committed to a number of policies to enhance vegetation protection in Australia. We know that koalas are important, and not only for their intrinsic social and environmental value; saving koalas helps grow jobs in tourism in Australia. We want to prioritise the creation of national parks that protect our koala population. We want to see eucalypt forests and rainforests that are home to significant koala populations assessed as soon as possible for priority additions to the national park estate. On this side of the chamber, we want to remain at the forefront of national environmental leadership and protection in Australia. In developing policies for the next election, we will ensure that policy initiatives support the conservation of one of our greatest national icons, the koala.
Senator DAVID SMITH (Australian Capital Territory) (18:03): The koala is one of Australia's most recognised mammals. Alongside the kangaroo, emu, platypus and wombat, when tourists from around the world think of Australian wildlife, the image of the koala is one of the first that comes to mind. But for many Australians, seeing a koala in the wild is a favourite and all too rare memory. Koalas are one of our most threatened species, being highly dependent on their habitat and highly vulnerable to habitat destruction and fragmentation. Indeed, last week when the Australian Reptile Park and the Threatened Species Commissioner brought a number of animals to Parliament House to highlight the species whose protections are under threat, one of the animals they brought was a koala. It's a pity they had to come here to highlight their plight.
Estimates of remaining koala populations vary widely. Official estimates from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee are that there were just over 400,000 koalas remaining in the wild in 2010. The Australian Koala Foundation has estimated that the number of koalas in the wild is less than 80,000, where once there were millions. Even on the higher figures, populations declined by 29 per cent nationally between 1990 and 2010. In New South Wales, the state government's own report estimates that only 36,000 koalas remain in the wild. The remaining koala populations are dependent on an ever-shrinking amount of habitat, particularly in eastern New South Wales and South East Queensland. There are many threats faced by koala populations, including disease, drought and climate change, fire, dogs and being struck by vehicles, but the most critical and immediate danger is loss and fragmentation of habitat. It is only through concerted action on all these issues, and in particular ensuring we maintain koala habitat, that Australia can ensure we maintain our koala populations.
My colleague Senator Pratt outlined Labor's proud record on environmental issues in relation to marine reserves, the Murray-Darling Basin, a carbon price and delivering the Tasmanian forest agreement. Similarly, on koalas, Labor took action when we were in government to protect Australia's most at-risk populations of koalas—those in Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory—by bringing them under national environment law. The then federal environment minister, Tony Burke MP, listed these populations in April 2012 as vulnerable under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, enabling action to be taken to maintain their habitat and ensure their development took account of the need to minimise threats to koala populations.
However, the record of the Liberal-National coalition could not be more different. Since coming to government five years ago, they have repeatedly ignored koala protection unless forced to take action, seeking to hand the responsibility for environmental approvals to the states. Moreover, at the state level, people understand that only Labor can be trusted to take action on koala protection. In New South Wales, with an election coming up next March, Labor has committed to protecting the local populations of the North Coast with a national park focused on areas of significant koala numbers and returning environmental protection to biodiversity and land-clearing laws so that clearing of high conservation value areas, like koala habitat, comes to an end. The tired Liberal government in that state, in contrast, brought in land-clearing laws that left 99 per cent of koala habitat open to clearing. In some areas of New South Wales, the rate of land clearing, as we heard from Senator Pratt, has tripled in the last 12 months since the current Liberal government's new land-clearing laws came into effect. This cannot continue if we hope to maintain koalas in the wild. At the same time, in Queensland earlier this year, the Palaszczuk government reintroduced effective land-clearing laws that were removed by the previous Newman government in 2013. As the head of the Queensland Conservation Council, Tim Seelig, said:
The passing of these reforms is a hugely important milestone in the history of Queensland's land clearing regulation.
Today, our laws have been made better and the direction of regulation corrected.
Labor has always been at the forefront of national environmental leadership in Australia and voters understand that Labor policies to strengthen our environmental laws would improve protections for high-conservation areas, including areas where koalas live. The question for this chamber is: how much more of this government can a koala bear?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The time for this discussion has expired.
PETITIONS
Internet Services
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory) (18:09): by leave—I present to the Senate a petition relating to better access to internet services for those living in the rural areas of Alice Springs, from 293 signatories, which is not in conformity with the standing orders as it is not in the correct form. I especially pay tribute to the member for Namatjira, Chanston Paech, of the Northern Territory Assembly for this petition.
COMMITTEES
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Additional Information
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:10): On behalf of the chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I present additional information received by the committee during its inquiry into the Criminal Code and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Commonwealth Restrictions on Cannabis) Bill 2018.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee
Report
Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (18:10): I present the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on the proposed comprehensive and progressive agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership together with a Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
As chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, I'd like to speak to the committee's inquiry and firstly put on the record the good work that the very efficient secretariat of the committee has done in compiling and progressing through consideration and presentation of all of the evidence. Over the course of completing this inquiry, we received 63 submissions and held two public hearings, the first in Melbourne on 30 July 2018, the second in Canberra on 20 August 2018. At the hearings, the committee had the opportunity to speak to a number of organisations and took evidence from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
While the committee heard evidence identifying particular benefits of the TPP-11, the inquiry also highlighted a number of areas of concern. Many of these issues were familiar to the committee from previous inquiries. In order to address these concerns, the committee has made a number of recommendations which I intend to briefly refer to—reform to the treaty-making process. Similar to previous inquiries conducted by this committee, evidence to this inquiry highlighted concerns about the treaty-making process, with much of the evidence focused on the need for reform to increase transparency and, in particular, with reference to the consultation process.
Evidence to the committee emphasised that organisations and the general public are seeking more information to be made publicly available during the treaty negotiation process. While recognising the need for confidentiality, the committee recognises the need for information to be made available more regularly and has recommended that the government provide public updates on each round of trade negotiations and release draft text during negotiations where feasible with the appropriate safeguards. The committee also heard that stakeholders are interested in becoming more active participants in the treaty-making process. With this in mind, the committee has recommended the creation by legislation of an accredited trade advisers program where industry, union, civil society would provide real-time feedback on draft trade agreements during negotiations.
The committee also recommended that DFAT review its own consultation mechanisms as well as other models used internationally. The parliamentary scrutiny of treaties undertaken by JSCOT is a crucial part of the treaty-making process and it is important this committee is appropriately briefed. To assist the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in its analysis of treaties, the committee has recommended the Australian government provide the government's statement of objectives for negotiation to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties for consideration and feedback, and to provide the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties with a briefing at the end of each round of negotiations.
Similar to previous inquiries, the committee received evidence expressing concern about the economic modelling undertaken to assess the impact of TPP-11. Several witnesses and submissions questioned the objectivity of the national interest analysis. This committee, as well as the JSCOT, has previously made recommendations that, to increase transparency of the benefits and the costs, there should be independent analysis of free trade agreements before the agreements are signed, to provide an accurate picture on the impact on jobs and the economy. It continues to be the view of the committee that the Productivity Commission is best placed to undertake such an assessment. The committee has also recommended that the Australian government make a reference to the Productivity Commission to conduct a review of Australia's bilateral and regional trade agreements.
On the investor-state dispute settlement, as with the committee's inquiry into the TPP-12, the committee received much evidence expressing concerns about ISDS provisions. Many contributors to the inquiry shared the view that ISDS provisions grant legal rights to global corporations that are unavailable to domestic investors. These provisions may affect the Australian government's ability to legislate in a range of areas, because of the threat of legal action. Evidence from DFAT emphasised the safeguards included in the agreement which seek to protect the Australian government from ISDS cases. However, several witnesses and submissions were not reassured by current safeguards. The committee notes the ongoing concern about ISDS and has recommended that the Australian government remove ISDS provisions from existing free trade agreements and legislate so that a future Australian government cannot sign an agreement with such provisions.
The issue of labour market testing was another area of concern raised with the committee. Under the TPP-11, Australia will extend the commitment to waive labour market testing in the contractual service supplier category to six TPP-11 countries—Brunei, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru and Vietnam. DFAT emphasised that Australia has obtained equivalent reciprocal commitments from each of the six countries and that, although Australia has made commitments to waive labour market testing, there will be sufficient flexibility in the operationalising of this commitment due to the fact that the skilled occupations list administered by the Department of Jobs and Small Business is not bound by the TPP-11.
Despite these reassurances from DFAT, evidence to the inquiry indicated that concerns remain about the negative impact that the commitment to waive labour market testing may have on Australian workers. There is a sense that, under the agreement, Australian workers would be disproportionately affected. Concern was also raised about the high number of professions that could currently be covered by the term 'contractual service provider'. In order to address these concerns, the committee has recommended that the government reinstate labour market testing for contractual service suppliers, where it has been waived, and legislate so that a future government cannot waive labour market testing for contractual service suppliers in new agreements.
As the implementation of the TPP-11 is expected to benefit Australian businesses, it is important that the business community is informed and supported to ensure that it can take advantage of available opportunities. The committee supports the implementation of DFAT's outreach strategy, which includes hosting, alongside Austrade, information sessions throughout Australia. It is the committee's view that these sessions need to be promoted widely, held in a variety of locations and formats, such as webinars, and targeted to a range of affected sectors.
Finally, the committee's inquiry was conducted at the same time as the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' inquiry into TPP-11. Concurrent inquiries were also conducted when the committees inquired into the original Trans-Pacific Partnership. In this context, the committee is concerned that, in conducting this inquiry, it has largely replicated the work of JSCOT, which is established to look into such agreements. Two different committees looking into the same agreement was also confusing for submitters and for witnesses. As this does not appear to be the best use of limited committee resources, the committee has recommended that the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties consider a resolution to enable participating membership for inquiries. I commend the report to the Senate.
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (18:19): I'll just be brief on the TPP and what's going on with it. My brother, Peter, and I set up a large piggery in the late eighties. In the early nineties, the then Hawke Labor government allowed the importing of pig meat because it would be cheaper bringing hams in at Christmas time when it's freezing cold in Canada and there's not much call for ham then. I thought this was crazy. We didn't have a decent labelling system, and people were getting confused about whether they were buying Australian ham or ham processed here and coming from Denmark or Canada. They hurt us farmers. Where I live, in the Inverell area, there were some five or six large piggeries. Today there are none.
We've gone past that. We've moved on to other things. I thought it was crazy. Australia led the world in reducing tariffs and quotas and removed all barriers, but the rest of the world was not doing it. I thought, 'We're suckers; we're leading the way, and it's costing us dearly with jobs.' However, since then things have changed. We've got the free trade agreements. There are many of them, from Thailand to Korea, to Japan, to China and so on. Now the benefit is flowing through. We're seeing the benefit in agriculture. There are record prices in wool, mainly because we run 70 million sheep now instead of 180 million sheep during the boom times. There are record cattle prices, lamb prices and mutton prices. There are record grain prices, of course, due to the drought and the huge demand and lack of supply there. But we've moved past it. It did hurt us. Now we're benefiting from these extra markets and a demand on Australian food as far as farmers go.
It is likewise with the TPP-11, which will remove barriers and give us access to their markets. They've got access to ours. There are no hurdles to bring anything into Australia as long as they are FSANZ standard of foods or whatever. Of course, we import so much in the way of manufacturing goods and whitegoods et cetera. But this allows us access to more markets, and that is only good. We've seen it from what we've done with the other free trade agreements. Sure, it's not always perfect, but it's better than what it was when these countries kept their barriers in place, restricted us from exporting into there and were being uncompetitive. Those barriers being removed adds trillions of dollars worth of economies and is worth billions of dollars to Australian industries, especially the agriculture industry. It's only a good thing. Some people mightn't like it, but the last five years have proved that free trade agreements allowing us access to these markets and getting that competitive edge like we did with Korea, Japan and China in relation to America have only been a good thing. We've seen the price in the cattle yards, in the sheep yards and at the farm gate. Things are looking very bright for agriculture, except for the rain—hopefully that will come soon. But I welcome the TPP-11 because it will provide access to more markets, better prices and more demand, and that's only good for rural Australia.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (18:22): I rise to speak on the TPP report. Unfortunately, this report is groundhog day. Every time we see a trade agreement come through the parliament, we see discussions about economic benefit, we see discussions about ISDS, we see discussions about labour market testing and we see recommendations for change. But nothing seems to change in these agreements. I look at the TPP-12 report and I see that the economic benefit over the period of now to 2030 is something like 0.7 per cent of GDP. Under TPP-11, it's down to 0.5 per cent. We must temper those figures with the knowledge that the Productivity Commission has done analysis and has stated that these modelling results are often overstated. They're often exaggerated, so there is questionable benefit in respect of economic growth as a result of the TPP-11.
One would normally say, 'That's okay, we can still proceed, because we're optimists and we do want to see us trading internationally,' but the problem is the downsides. Senator Gallacher mentioned a number of them. I'll just mention a few. The first is the lack of transparency. Time and time again we see reports come through that talk about the lack of transparency in trade negotiations and recommendations that suggest we need to open that up. Then time and time again we see the bureaucrats just continuing to do what they do. I'll read a statement from a book by Professor Clinton Fernandes which describes these negotiations very aptly and succinctly: 'A small number of DFAT officials and their counterparts overseas, along with a few hundred corporate lawyers and lobbyists, negotiate free trade agreements in secret. Once the insiders have agreed to the terms, they're presented to the parliament in a "take it or leave it" deal. Take it or leave it will remain the strategy of the bureaucracy until such time as this parliament stands up and says no.'
It is the same with ISDS. ISDS is highly problematic in my view for three reasons. ISDS allows corporations to take legal action against the Australian government, seeking compensation, if the Australian government changes its public policy and it affects the business. That's what we saw happen—or it was an attempted—with plain tobacco packaging. Philip Morris took the government to the High Court. The High Court ruled unequivocally that the parliament had got a right—they had made laws that were constitutional—only to find that Philip Morris then invoked ISDS clauses in a Hong Kong agreement so that the matter could then be heard by three lawyers. That is, not seven judicial officers of the greatest judicial minds in this country but three legal officers who could, in fact, have overturned our High Court. It gives away our legal sovereignty.
In actual fact, what we see happening in these provisions is it allows sovereign risk to be transferred from the corporate entity to the taxpayer. By changing our laws of public benefit, the sovereign risk transfers to taxpayer. The second point about ISDS is that the Australian corporations that are operating here in Australia don't get the same opportunity when there is a change of the law. In some sense, it's discriminatory against Australian companies. Of course, the third reason, which I've already touched on, is that it erodes our legal sovereignty.
Another point that Senator Gallacher mentioned was labour market testing. Under this agreement, we've waived labour market testing for contract orders or service suppliers for six signatory countries, which means that workers from Canada, Peru, Brunei, Mexico, Malaysia and Vietnam will be able to fill jobs in Australia without these jobs being offered to Australians first. It means that we might get an electrician who comes in from another country to participate in a program that had no labour market testing. That electrician probably doesn't understand Australian wiring laws, so not only is it unfair to Australian workers but it may actually be dangerous as well.
My difficulty here is that, time and time again, we see these recommendations made; time and time again, they are ignored. We just continue in the same manner that we have always continued. The reality here is that the Australian Greens, Pauline Hanson's One Nation and Centre Alliance have stated publicly that they will vote down the enabling legislation. They will draw a line in the sand. Being very clear to the Labor Party, whose policy platforms reject some of these things we're talking about, like ISDS provisions and the waiving of labour market testing: they can be stopped. All that has to happen is Labor has to stand by the courage of its own convictions and assist us in voting down this legislation. That will send a very, very strong message to the bureaucrats.
I know the Labor Party has said that, when they get to government—and there's a presumption there; you may not get there—they will seek to change the agreements. Firstly, it's disingenuous to allow an agreement to go ahead that you will then seek to overturn in government, but I suspect you won't overturn it in government because there'll be some rhetoric, there'll be some discussions, the bureaucrats will advise accordingly—
Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—
Senator PATRICK: and, as Senator Hanson-Young is pointing out there, it will actually become a very, very difficult task.
Senator Gallacher interjecting—
Senator PATRICK: You're absolutely correct: you can withdraw. But it's not necessary. You simply don't have to support the enabling legislation, and then the agreement can't come into force. This report covers all the ground very, very thoroughly off the back of TPP-12, off the back of JSCOT, in parallel with JSCOT. The report is quite a good report; it's just that the recommendations are Groundhog Day. They're weak, and the Senate needs to draw a line in the sand.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (18:30): I rise to contribute to the discussion on this report as well. I concur with many of the comments made by Senator Patrick. He described this as Groundhog Day. This is the second report into this particular version of the TPP and about the third or fourth into the TPP across the board. There will be another one, of course, when the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee hands down their report into the implementing legislation. So this debate is far from over. But what is absolutely crystal clear is what a dog of a deal the TPP is for Australia. It is a very, very marginal boost to our GDP. We know that even the Productivity Commission, one of the most conservative economic bodies in the country, has said, 'Really, this is a bad deal; it doesn't give any real benefit to Australia'. In fact it does the opposite.
It does the opposite in a number of ways. Firstly, in relation to the exemption for six out of the 10 countries Australia is entering into a deal with, they can simply bring in as many workers as they want without having to check whether there is an Australian in the community who could do the job. So at a time when we're talking about how we get jobs for Australians, young people in particular—I come from South Australia, where we have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country and the highest unemployment rate among young people in the country—this allows big foreign companies to ship in their own workers. They don't have to check if somebody else is available do the job or would like to do the job or could be skilled to do the job or is already skilled and willing and able to do the job; they can just bringing their own workers. What does that do? It doesn't just undermine the ability of young Australians to get a foothold in the workforce; it pushes down wages and working conditions. It is a very, very bad step for the future of the changing workforce here in Australia.
One of the other key problems with this deal is, of course, those investor state dispute resolution clauses—the ISDS clauses as they have been called by other speakers. These rules allow a foreign company to sue the Australian people through our federal government, our state government or local government. It means that if our parliament decides to enact a law that our citizens want, that our community wants, such as plain packaging of tobacco, or a moratorium on coal exports or no new coalmines, or protecting a particular part of the Great Barrier Reef, or stopping oil and gas drilling in the Great Australian Bight, big foreign companies attached to the 11 countries involved in the TPP can come and sue the Australian people and our government simply for enacting laws that we want our government to act on. This is a huge undermining of democracy. As the European Union and their Court of Justice have found, it is a threat to national sovereignty.
In the European Union, ISDS clauses have become so problematic that they are now ruled out of any trade negotiations. They're not to occur; they're not to be used; they have no ability to be included. In fact, as Australia is continuing to talk to the European Union about our free trade agreement with the EU, Australia has been told, point blank, by the Europeans, 'Don't even think about bringing those insidious ISDS clauses to the table, because we're not having a bar of it.' Yet here in Australia, in the absolute desperation of this government to get a deal done at all costs, we saw the then trade minister, Steve Ciobo, and the government roll over, sign on the dotted line, sign up to everything, throw Australian workers under the bus and throw Australian democracy and the sovereignty of the nation under a bus, all so that they could come home and say, 'Deal done. It's okay. We, the government, have done something.' It's a pathetic and a very, very dangerous precedent for Australia and our relationship with trading neighbours and nations in the years to come.
Australia is, of course, a trading partner. We have to be. We can't pull down the shutters and nor should we, but we have to drive a fair dinkum bargain and negotiate properly. Canada got what they wanted out of the TPP deal. New Zealand got what they wanted out of the TPP deal. New Zealand got out of the idea of having to be caught by the ISDS clauses, even when it came to Australia, but our government and our trade minister went to water and sold Australia short. Now the Labor opposition, rather than turning the heat on this government and doing their job as an opposition, have rolled over. They're going to vote for this legislation. They're going to cuddle up to the Morrison government, big business and big corporations, and to the unions and Australian workers across the country they're going to say, 'Just wait until we're in government and we'll fix it. It'll all go away.' Bollocks. We all know that when you sign a deal like this it sticks. It's very, very difficult to get out of the TPP once it's signed, sealed, delivered and passed into law through this place.
The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, is carrying on and trying to pretend that he can have it both ways: he can cuddle up to business, give the workers a pat on the back and say, 'She'll be right, mate.' Well, she won't be right, because it's going to be very, very difficult to get out of this once it's in place. Which nation in this agreement is going to say, 'Australia has a new Prime Minister'—another Prime Minister—'We'll just reopen negotiations because it suits Australia.' That is not how trade negotiations work. The government know it, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, knows it and decent people within the Labor Party know it, and they're hoping the Australian people just don't notice. It's a dud deal. It's been a dud deal for Australia from the beginning. It's appalling to see the opposition go to water on this. It is absolutely appalling to see the Labor Party, the workers' party, throw the unions and Australian workers under the bus, along with the right of the Australian people to be represented properly and with full integrity in their parliaments, all because they want this dealt with so that it will go away. All the Labor Party need to do is not vote for this legislation when it comes before this House. They've already gone to water over in the House of Representatives. The Leader of the Opposition went weak at the knees at the idea that he had to confront the new Prime Minister over this. Well, in this place they can redeem themselves. They can stand up for the rights of Australian workers, for the rights of the Australian community and for the environment.
I tell you what: second to Australian workers' rights being undermined through the TPP will come the environment. These multinational companies care about nothing but their own profit and ripping out what they can from this planet. Maximise profit today, forget about what happens tomorrow—that's what this deal delivers. It is a deal for corporations. It's a deal done for boardrooms, in secret behind back doors, not for people and not for the community. It's a dud deal and it should absolutely be thrown out on its ear. The Labor Party should know better.
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (18:40): With due respect to Senator Hanson-Young, you can see why Australia should be forever grateful that Senator Hanson-Young will never be trade minister. This has been wonderful work by the Australian government and all the other governments involved. I pay particular credit to the former trade minister, Mr Ciobo, who worked very hard on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I know that that good work will be carried on by Senator Birmingham as he takes on this very important role for Australia. Senator Hanson-Young may not be aware but, of course, Australia produces far more agricultural goods than it can ever consume itself. Trade is vital to Australia and our farmers—not the big corporates that Senator Hanson-Young was talking about but the little family businesses that do so well out of Australia's exporting.
I'm particularly pleased with the Trans-Pacific Partnership because it does wonderful things for the beef industry and the sugar industry. Where I come from, in North Queensland, beef and sugar are two of the biggest industries. The town that I live in, Ayr, and Home Hill in the Lower Burdekin area, is one of the premier sugar-producing areas in the world. But, within Australia, we produce far more sugar than we can ever consume and so we have to sell it. We have to trade. The Trans-Pacific Partnership was particularly good to sugar in its terms and conditions.
Rather than being done behind closed doors, as Senator Hanson-Young suggested in her contribution, the Trans-Pacific Partnership was negotiated widely not only between officials from all of the countries involved—and Australian officials did a wonderful job—but also representatives of the small family farms; not the corporate Australians that Senator Hanson-Young would try to confuse people about. Representatives of family sugar farmers in Australia were there at the table working on deals that did so well for Australia and the Australian mum-and-dad industries in the sugar industry.
Similarly, in the beef area, Australia came out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership arrangements in a great position to export even more of the prime quality beef for which it is recognised. We had done a free trade agreement with Japan, Korea and the United States previously. But, in the Trans-Pacific Partnership with Korea, Japan and other countries—of course, the United States eventually wasn't involved in that—Australia did even better than it had done in the bilateral free trade agreements with some of those other countries. If I recall correctly, under our free trade agreement with Japan, the Japanese tariffs on our beef came down year by year, but slowly, and we were always behind the United States in the amount of tariffs on beef. But the Trans Pacific Partnership changed all that, and the United States and other exporters to Japan jumped. Our tariffs will go down to nil at a much earlier time, which is great news for our meat industry, our beef industry, in Australia. Again, this is not the big corporates that Senator Hanson-Young would have you believe—if anyone took notice of what Senator Hanson-Young said in this particular area. It has been a really great deal for the mum-and-dad cane farms, the family beef properties right throughout northern Australian and other parts of Australia as well. It's been a great deal in any other aspects as well, but I particularly focus on those two.
I can never quite understand why the member of parliament who represents perhaps the biggest sugar-growing areas in Australia and one of the biggest beef-growing areas in Australia—the electorate of Kennedy—continues to oppose free trade agreements and continues to oppose the Trans Pacific Partnership. Because if there's one thing that has done so well for the two major industries in his electorate, it's these free trade agreements and yet Mr Katter seems to oppose them at every turn. Some people suggest it's because the ETU, the Electrical Trades Union, pays him a lot of money at election time to campaign and that he is therefore influenced by the ETU and other unions into opposing it. But I can't understand that because his constituents, who he is supposed to represent, do very well out of free trade agreements and particularly out of the Trans Pacific Partnership.
This report from the committee is an important look at what happened with the Trans Pacific Partnership. I wasn't a member of that committee but I am a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which had a very, very close look at the Trans Pacific Partnership and conducted some public inquiries into it. The members of the treaties committee were, like I, individually, very happy with the Trans Pacific Partnership. Senator Hanson-Young seems to have used most of her speech to attack the Labor Party. I, on the other hand, usually do attack the Labor Party but, in relation to the Trans Pacific Partnership, I give credit where credit is due, in spite of some misgivings which I know individual members of the Labor Party have, in spite of misgivings that I know a lot of the unions have—and we know the unions control the Australian Labor Party. But in spite of all that, I think the opposition understood the benefits to Australia from the Trans Pacific Partnership And they were prepared to allow crass political motives to be put aside in Australia's interests. Australia's interests certainly do well in the Trans Pacific Partnership and so, rather than criticising the Labor Party, I think it's to the Labor Party's credit that they put the national interest before their crass political interests or the crass political interests that the Greens political party would have them do. Senator Hanson-Young also couldn't help a final dig about the environment and the Trans Pacific Partnership. I'm not quite sure that she explained how that would happen. But with the Greens political party, it doesn't matter about the facts; it doesn't matter about the data—if you can raise a scare campaign in someone's mind then you achieve something. Of course the Greens political party are noted for the lies that the Greens political party tell about the Great Barrier Reef, to the detriment of the tourist industry and the tens of thousands of people who make their living out of the tourist industry on the Great Barrier Reef. Yet the Greens will continue to tell outright lies about the Great Barrier Reef. Somehow it comes into the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Unfortunately, Senator Hanson-Young didn't have time to explain how that would happen. Certainly, as far as trade is concerned, as far as the interests of Australian farmers and Australian small businesses are concerned, this is a wonderful trade deal. Congratulations to the officials who negotiated it. Congratulations to Minister Ciobo, who played a principal role in getting it underway. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Public Accounts and Audit Committee
Report
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:51): On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present report No. 473, Defence major projects report: inquiry based on Auditor-General's report 26 (2017-18). I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Every year the Department of Defence and the Australian National Audit Office work together to produce a consolidated review of selected major Defence acquisition projects, with the resulting report called the Major Projects Report, or MPR.
This year's MPR reviewed risks, challenges and complexities facing major projects in general, as well as the status of 27 selected major projects in terms of cost, schedule and forecast capability.
The total approved budget for the projects in this year's MPR was approximately $62 billion, covering nearly 59 per cent of the budget within the Approved Major Capital Investment Program of $105.9 billion.
The MPR is reviewed annually by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. The committee's focus on Defence's business management goes to the core of the committee's work on effective public administration. Possible improvements in this area have focused on risk management approaches and the sometimes optimistic assessment of delivery of capability estimates.
The committee recommended reform in updating project maturity scores several years ago. However, Defence remains behind the committee's expectations and changes remain slow and uncertain. Defence indicates that there will be progress seen in the 2018-19 Major Projects Report, and the committee will continue to monitor developments in this area.
A significant continuing issue to the committee in its MPR review was the Auditor-General's second consecutive qualified audit finding on the ARH Tiger Helicopters project. The committee supports the Auditor-General's statement that audit standards require a judgement to be made on the substantive nature of an issue. Concerns remain about the status and costs of this project, requiring it to remain on the MPR in the near future.
The committee's report makes three recommendations aimed at continuing to drive improvements in transparent reporting of Defence major project expenditure, recommending that Defence report on:
progress in updating project maturity scores within three months of tabling the committee's report;
a methodology which shows how acquisition projects can transition from spreadsheet risk registers to tools with better version control measures; and
outcomes of the sea trials for the LHD Landing Craft within three months of tabling the committee's report.
I commend the report to the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
BILLS
Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018
First Reading
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:54): I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:54): I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
CUSTOMS AMENDMENT (COMPREHENSIVE AND PROGRESSIVE AGREEMENT FOR TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP IMPLEMENTATION) BILL 2018
The Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 amends the
Customs Act 1901 to implement Australia's obligations under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, otherwise known as the TPP-11.
The TPP-11 is one of the most comprehensive trade deals ever concluded and will eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs in a trade zone spanning the Americas and Asia with a combined GDP worth $13.7 trillion. Australian farmers, manufacturers and services exporters will benefit from new market access opportunities in economies with nearly 500 million consumers.
It will provide better access for farm exporters including beef and sheep meat producers, dairy producers, cane growers and sugar millers as well as cereal and grains exporters. There will be new opportunities for our rice growers, cotton and wool growers, horticultural producers and our wine exporters.
Let me provide one example of how TPP-11 will give our farm exporters an advantage over some of our toughest competitors. Within two years, Australian beef exporters will face tariffs 13 percentage points lower than their United States competitors in the multi-billion Japanese market. That tariff advantage will continue to widen over subsequent years.
Our manufacturers will benefit from the elimination of tariffs on industrial goods. Our services exporters will have access to liberalised and improved regulatory regimes for investment, notably in mining and resources, telecommunications and financial services.
The TPP-11 is truly a next generation trade agreement.
And for the first time in a trade agreement, TPP-11 countries will guarantee the free flow of data across borders for service suppliers and investors as part of their business activity. This 'movement of information' or 'data flow' is relevant to all kinds of Australian businesses - from a hotel which relies on an international online reservation system, to a telecommunications company providing data management services to businesses across a number of TPP-11 markets. It is important to note that TPP-11 governments have retained the ability to maintain and amend regulations related to data flows, but have undertaken to do so in a way that does not create barriers to trade.
The TPP-11 also creates Australia's first free trade agreements with Canada and Mexico, giving Australian exporters preferential access to two of the world's top 20 economies for the first time. In 2016-17, nearly one quarter of Australia's total exports, worth nearly $88 billion, went to TPP-11 countries.
The forthcoming entry-into-force of the TPP-11 is a significant moment for open markets, free trade and the rules-based international system. But it is important to note that the achievement of a final TPP-11 deal was far from guaranteed. When the United States withdrew from the original TPP in early 2017, the prospects of the ground-breaking deal were far from certain. For Australia and its TPP partners, it was a test of resolve and judgment. There was no guarantee of success.
One option was retreat. That was the favoured option of the Leader of the Opposition. The deal was 'dead', he said, and the Government was 'deluded' for continuing to pursue the TPP. The Leader of the Opposition's understanding of the Asia Pacific region was so acute, so sharp and so incisive that he decided that pursuit of a TPP without the US was a lost cause. Giving up on the TPP would save money, he said.
If the Leader of the Opposition got his way, there would have been no TPP-11. There would have been no new and historic access to the Canadian market for our grains, refined sugar, and beef exporters. No new access to the Mexican market for our pork, wheat, sugar, barley and horticulture producers and education services providers. There would have been no improved access to the Japanese market for our beef, wheat, barley and dairy exporters. No improved access for our wine producers in the Vietnamese, Canadian, Mexican and Malaysian markets.
Thankfully the Government and our trading partners led by Japan ignored the Leader of the Opposition's advice and pressed ahead. And the global trading system is stronger today because of the TPP-11. We have created a beacon for nations who want to work within a rule-based framework that is complementary to the global architecture provided by the World Trade Organisation. We want the TPP-11 to grow in membership. We don't want the TPP-11 to be an exclusive, inward-looking bloc. We welcome the interest in TPP-11 shown already by nations within and outside the Asia Pacific.
Given the significant contribution the TPP-11 will make to our trading future, it is important Australia and its TPP partners reap the benefits of the deal as soon as possible. The TPP-11 will enter-into-force 60 days after six TPP-11 member countries complete all necessary ratification procedures. To date, three countries - Mexico, Japan and Singapore - have ratified the agreement and a number of other countries, including New Zealand, Peru and Canada have indicated they will ratify in coming months.
In other words, if Australia and five other countries can complete ratification before the end of October, the TPP will enter into before 31 December 2018. That means there will be two opportunities for tariff reductions – the first on entry-into-force and the second on 1 January 2019.
On the other hand, if the TPP-11 were to enter into force this year without Australia, our exporters would be placed at a significant competitive disadvantage. For example, New Zealand and Canada would have superior access to the Japanese beef and dairy markets, better access to the Japanese cheese market and better access to wine markets in Mexico. I therefore seek the co-operation of the Parliament to consider the legislation as expeditiously as possible.
The deal signed on 8 March 2018 is one that fundamentally serves Australia's national interest. Its scope and level of ambition cannot be underestimated. It will create new opportunities and greater certainty for our businesses and encourage job-creating foreign investment. It will make Australian exports more competitive so our farmers can sell more produce, our professionals can provide more services, and our manufacturers can make and sell more goods. Our involvement in the negotiation of this deal means Australia played a key role in setting 21st-century rules for commerce across the world's fastest-growing region. This will enable us to tackle new trade and investment barriers as they arise, helping our businesses weather the increasingly challenging global trading environment.
This Bill, along with the companion Customs Tariff Amendment Bill, will see the elimination of 98 per cent of tariffs from TPP-11 countries, in a regional free trade zone that already accounts for over one fifth of Australia's total two-way trade. The TPP-11 tariff cuts will have a cost-saving impact on imported goods for Australian households and businesses, and will deliver material gains for our exports.
The amendments to the Customs Act 1901 contained in this Bill will implement the provisions of Chapter 3 of TPP-11. Chapter 3 sets out rules of origin criteria and related documentary requirements for claiming preferential tariff entry for goods imported from countries that accede to TPP-11. Under TPP-11, preferential tariff treatment is available based on declarations regarding the origin of goods based on information provided by the importer, exporter, producer or their authorised representative. This will reduce the amount of red tape for importers of goods originating in TPP-11 countries.
Here in Australia, this Agreement has undergone a level of scrutiny perhaps unprecedented by any other free trade agreement. It has been subject to four parliamentary committee inquiries. After the TPP-11 was tabled in this House on 26 March this year, it was examined by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.
I am tabling the TPP-11 implementing legislation today because I want Australia to remain a leader among trading nations – a country that is not afraid to show our trading partners, in concrete actions, that we are committed to a future of freer trade and investment. This is what these TPP-11 implementing Bills represent. Our early ratification of the TPP-11 demonstrates Australia's leadership in pursuing freer trade globally, and embodies the Government's strong commitment to maximising trading opportunities for Australian businesses, both large and small.
The TPP-11 outcome is a feature of an ambitious and confident trade policy. One that didn't turn back at the first hurdle. An audacious but pragmatic approach. That, in my view, has been the hallmark of this Government's trade and investment policy.
I commend the bill to the House.
CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (COMPREHENSIVE AND PROGRESSIVE AGREEMENT FOR TRANS‑PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP IMPLEMENTATION) BILL 2018
The Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans‑Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 is the second bill required to implement the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans‑Pacific Partnership. This Bill contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995.
Under this Agreement, Australia has committed to reducing customs duties on Trans‑Pacific Partnership Originating goods over time. Customs duties on the majority of goods will be removed when the Agreement enters into force. The remaining customs duties, with the exception of excise‑equivalent customs duties, will be progressively reduced over a period of four years.
This Bill implements these commitments by creating a new schedule of preferential customs duty rates for goods determined to be Trans‑Pacific Partnership Originating goods.
The new schedule of preferential customs duty rates also specifies those goods that are subject to an excise‑equivalent customs duty. This is to ensure that these goods are treated consistently with equivalent goods produced in Australia.
This Bill also amends several items in Schedule 4, to ensure that the scope of these concessional items are maintained.
The amendments contained in this Bill complement the amendments to be made to the Customs Act 1901.
I commend this bill to the House.
Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.
Modern Slavery Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:55): I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:55): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
MODERN SLAVERY BILL 2018
This Bill will strengthen Australia's response to modern slavery by establishing a Modern Slavery Reporting Requirement.
This significant initiative will shine a light into the shadows of global supply chains where modern slavery thrives.
It will require large businesses to be transparent about their modern slavery risks and how they are being addressed.
The Government will also lead by example by considering possible modern slavery risks in our own procurement.
This Bill sends a clear message that modern slavery is unacceptable in the supply chains of our goods and services.
It is a key milestone in Australia's response to this heinous crime and sets an important foundation for further Government action.
The Government is carefully considering the need for additional steps based on the recommendations of the 2017 Parliamentary inquiry into an Australian Modern Slavery Act.
I thank Committee members for their important work, which has highlighted the importance of this legislation.
Objectives of the Bill
The development of this Bill has been guided by one central objective – to combat modern slavery in the supply chains of our goods and services.
Almost two centuries after William Wilberforce, the UN estimates that up to 25 million modern slavery victims are exploited in global supply chains.
These victims are enslaved in mines, factories, brothels and brick kilns, and on construction sites, fishing boats and farms.
Their exploitation involves serious crimes and grave human rights abuses and taints the goods and services we use every day.
Modern slavery in supply chains also distorts global markets, undercuts responsible businesses, and poses significant legal and reputational risks for companies.
However, our current legislative framework does not directly target modern slavery in supply chains or support the business community to take action.
This Bill will address modern slavery risks in the supply chains of our goods and services by establishing a flexible, risk-based reporting framework.
This will transform the way the Australian business community responds to modern slavery.
For the first time, large businesses will be required to identify how their operations and supply chains may contribute to modern slavery and explain what they are doing to address these risks.
This increased transparency will create a level playing field for large businesses to disclose their modern slavery risks.
Critically, it will also drive a 'race to the top' as reporting entities compete for market funding and investor and consumer support.
Businesses that fail to take action will be penalised by the market and consumers and severely tarnish their reputations.
Key features of the Bill
The Government has worked hard to ensure this Bill is effective, practical to implement for business, and consistent with community expectations.
Under the reporting requirement, over 3,000 corporations, trusts, partnerships and other entities will need to publish annual Modern Slavery Statements.
The Bill sets a $100 million revenue threshold for reporting. This ensures it focuses on entities that have the capacity to meaningfully comply and the market influence to clean up global supply chains.
Statements will need to address mandatory criteria set out in the Bill, including identifying the entity's key modern slavery risks and describing their actions to address these risks. These criteria will provide certainty for business about how to report and ensure statements can be easily compared.
The Bill also makes senior management accountable for the entity's modern slavery risks by requiring statements to be approved by the entity's principal governing body.
The Government will make all statements freely available online through a central, Government-run register. This world leading initiative will promote transparency and ensure the community can easily access and compare statements.
The Government also recognises that our own procurement is not immune from modern slavery risks.
This is why the Government will publish an annual consolidated Modern Slavery Statement for all non-corporate Commonwealth entities. Commonwealth corporations and companies will publish separate statements if they meet the revenue threshold.
This world first step demonstrates the Government's commitment to taking real, serious action to combat modern slavery.
The Government also recognises the importance of supporting the business community to implement the reporting requirement.
The Government will work with business and civil society to develop detailed guidance about the reporting requirement. This guidance will be finalised before the reporting requirement enters into force.
The Government has also committed $3.6 million through the 2018 Budget to establish a dedicated Modern Slavery Business Engagement Unit to advise and support business.
Development of the Bill
This Bill will form part of a growing international regulatory regime and builds on lessons learned in other jurisdictions.
It improves on similar legislation overseas by including mandatory reporting criteria, covering the Commonwealth Government, and establishing a Government-run register for statements.
The Government has also developed and tested this Bill through an extensive public consultation process.
These consultations involved:
- releasing a detailed public discussion paper in August 2017
- 12 consultation roundtables with over 130 business and civil society participants in September and October 2017
- over 50 additional direct meetings with stakeholders
- almost 100 written submissions, and
- targeted Exposure Draft Bill consultations with over 40 expert stakeholders in May 2018.
These consultations shaped key features of the Bill, including the definition of modern slavery, wording of the mandatory criteria and the deadline for reporting.
They have also highlighted strong support from business and civil society for this Bill.
Conclusion
This Bill is an important next step in Australia's fight against modern slavery.
It is sensible and practical. But above all the Government believes it will be a powerful and effective catalyst for change.
We owe the 25 million victims of modern slavery exploited in global supply chains nothing less.
Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 1) Bill 2018
Returned from the House of Representatives
Message received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendment made by the Senate to the bill.
COMMITTEES
Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia
Membership
Message received from the House of Representatives informing the Senate of the appointment of Mr O'Dowd to the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia.
BILLS
Bankruptcy Amendment (Debt Agreement Reform) Bill 2018
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (18:56): I am not going to go into a lot of the details of the Bankruptcy Amendment (Debt Agreement Reform) Bill 2018, as other speakers will do that, but I will just mention a few points. The bill amends the Bankruptcy Act 1966 to comprehensively reform Australia's debt agreement system. Debt agreements allow a debtor and their creditors to settle debts without the debtor becoming bankrupt. This is an important piece of legislation. I commend the former Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Turnbull with whom I had many discussions on the issue of bankruptcy and how I think the Australian system is unfair.
I'm sure all of us in the chamber would agree that Australia was built on people having a go—taking risks and working hard. Of course, it doesn't always work out as planned. In fact, many small businesses fail in the first couple of years. I will give you an example. Imagine a married couple with a couple of children who have a house that might be worth $500,000 and they owe $100,000 on it. They have $400,000 worth of equity and they take a low-doc loan or an extra mortgage out on the house and they go into a small business. It might be in retailing. They open up a store in a country town and are selling whatever to the public and along comes the internet and people can buy online and the retail sales are dramatically affected in a very negative way and their business goes down the tube. I think it is wrong for those people to be put in bankruptcy for three years—just because they had a go and the market conditions changed because of the new system of buying online. These days, with internet shopping and so on, we see that retail sales are down and many small businesses are doing it tough.
Under this bill, those people can go to their creditors and negotiate a way to pay out the debt over time, for example, instead of the business failing and the people losing everything. It is a bit like chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code. Under chapter 11, when a business gets into trouble, the creditors who give credit first up are the first paid when things come good. Currently in a situation where a business is failing, the administrators are the first in and then the liquidators come or, in a case where they miss a payment to the bank, the bank might send the receivers in. We know that, once the insolvency practitioners enter the scene, the cost goes up. They do charge a lot of money. I mean, they do a job that I'd hate to do—be an insolvency practitioner! This legislation allows people to give CPR to their business—to breathe some life back into their business—and allow them to go on, negotiate their debts and not be put into bankruptcy, which I think would be a very demeaning thing. If you're in bankruptcy for three years, you lose your incentive to work. I think it's a situation where the trustee takes whatever you earn over $50,000 and pays it to creditors et cetera, so people say: 'I'm bankrupt for three years. I'm not going to get a job and work hard and make money because I'm going to lose most of it.' The incentive to work is gone.
As I said, people who are in serious financial trouble—and I've seen plenty of them. I've had some tough times and been through some dry gullies myself. Since I've been in the Senate, I have dealt a lot with banks and financial institutions, and many have been very successful negotiations as we've stepped people through. That's what this bill does. Instead of bringing the guillotine down on a business and chopping its head off, it allows people to negotiate with their creditors and try to trade their way out of trouble. Creditors get most of their money back—they might not get it all back—but if the receivers are sent in then the unsecured creditors will probably get nothing back at all.
I'd like to see a situation change in time where those people who cheat actually get more than three years in bankruptcy. A couple of examples are Ponzi schemes. People start a Ponzi scheme and say, 'Invest with me and I'll give you 12 per cent return.' That's all well and good until people stop putting the money in. Then, they stop paying it out. In the meantime, you siphon a heap of the money off and the business goes belly up. Of course, people have lost their money because it was a false, misleading business that was never going to earn 12 per cent. They only paid the money back to investors when other people kept paying into them. When those people stop paying in then, of course, it all turns to tears.
There's also phoenixing. People can have a business and then the next thing that happens is say, 'I'm in trouble.' They declare it no good, bring in a voluntary administrator, don't pay the creditors, run and take money with them and never pay the creditors but, the next thing you know, they're down the street and starting up the same business with a different name. They do this deliberately to not pay the creditors and take the money away. Those people who do that should be in bankruptcy for more than three years, in my opinion, but we're not discussing that in this bill. We're actually talking about giving relief to businesses by not having them go through bankruptcy, instead letting them get back on their feet because, as I said, the country was built on people having a go.
You only have to look out rural Australia when they first developed the country. They cleared some country for grazing and farming to grow food and fenced the area for the livestock. They did the hard work of splitting the ironbark posts, digging every hole with a crowbar and shovel, drilling every hole in the post with a brace and bit and straining the wires up. I've seen it over much of my life, where the old-timers worked so hard. As I said, the country was built on hardworking people having a go.
That's what this bill does. It allows people to take a risk, have a go and, if it doesn't work out as planned, if they get in trouble, then they can negotiate with their creditors. They can get on with their lives and work out a plan of payment where everyone wins. The people running the business don't go bankrupt, and, in time, the creditors that are owed money at least get some of that back. If the administrators come in, creditors will probably get very little back.
I'm not going to go through the details of the bill, but in summary I'm saying the bill is a good thing that allows people to have the incentive to have a go, do their planning, seek advice and talk to people who have been in businesses. You can often learn a lot from them—people who've been here and done that. If it does turn to tears, here's a situation where they can get on with their lives because one thing I've learned in my life is the old saying, 'No mon, no fun.' When there's no money in the family, things get pretty sour. The wife says, 'Hang on, the kids new school shoes,' and the dad says: 'No, we haven't got the money. Why do you want to spend money on school shoes?' The next thing is the blue starts. The next thing is you have broken marriages and broken families. Those are some of the ramifications of businesses going belly up and people going broke.
This bill will prevent much of that, I hope. And with the social side of things, keeping those families together where they can see a future that they can work on is very important. With that, I will conclude my remarks and commend the bill. In summary, this is a bill that allows people to have a go, stick their necks out, work hard and take the risk. If it doesn't eventuate as planned, you're not going to get in serious trouble and have your incentive to work removed.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (19:05): I would like to thank senators for their contribution to the debate. The debt agreement system is an important part of Australia's consumer finance framework. For many debtors, a debt agreement is the final option to avoid bankruptcy. The debt agreement system gives those in financial difficulty an opportunity to protect their family home and take control of their finances. Unfortunately, debt agreements can also be used as a tool to keep people in financial stress, trapped in unsustainable debt repayments. Debtors can be stuck in this cycle long before they become insolvent. The consequences of a debt agreement prolonging financial hardship can be severe for the debtor and their family.
The Bankruptcy Amendment (Debt Agreement Reform) Bill 2018, which incorporates a number of government amendments, finds the delicate balance between protecting vulnerable debtors and ensuring that the debt agreement system remains accessible. To protect vulnerable debtors, the bill introduces a payment-to-income ratio and a three-year limit on debt agreement proposals. These safeguards respond to the concerning trend of debt agreements lasting significantly longer than five years. The safeguards will also prevent debt agreements that are based on unrealistic or unsustainable payment sources. These measure will also ensure that no-one undertaking a debit agreement is set up to fail. The bill makes the debt agreement system more accessible to those who could derive most benefit. The bill doubles the asset eligibility threshold from $113,349.60 to $226, 699.20 to open up the system to more people with a family home.
In response to the Senate committee's recommendations, the bill has had the benefit of scrutiny by both the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. I would like to thank these committees for their consideration of the bill. The government has responded to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee's concerns about including custodial penalties of less than six month months. To ensure the bill aligns with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences and other commonwealth penalties for similar conduct, the bill amends these three penalties from three-months to six-months imprisonment.
The government has also responded to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee's concerns that the payment-to-income ratio empowers the Attorney-General to set eligibility requirements in delegated legislation. The government has reassured the committee that the power to determine the ratio will not significantly alter the eligibility requirements for entering into a debt agreement, as it is only intended to be exercised in a manner that captures the most excessive debt repayment schedules. The government has additionally introduced amendments to address this concern by providing certain debtors can propose a debt agreement that exceeds the prescribed ratio. This option would only be open to debtors whose financial situation has withstood additional scrutiny from a debt agreement administrator. To prevent abuse of this option, a serious strict liability offence would apply to administrators who fail to properly undertake this scrutiny.
The government has also responded to recommendations by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. These recommendations were to provide additional flexibility to the bill's payment-to-income ratio and three-year time frame. I would like to assure the Senate that, consistent with these recommendations, the amendments as introduced by the government will provide additional sufficient flexibility while maintaining the effectiveness of the debtor protection safeguards. The amendments additionally tailor the application of these safeguards to debtors with a family home to protect. The government recognises that debtors with interest in their property should be given every opportunity to protect that home by avoiding bankruptcy. The amendments also allow debtors to vary agreements to up to five years if they suffer an unexpected and unforeseen change in circumstances. If a person unexpectedly loses a their job with only a few payments to go on their debt agreement, for example, these amendments ensure that they can factor a little breathing space into their repayment schedule to avoid terminating the agreement.
This is the first comprehensive overhaul of Australia's debt agreement system in over a decade. With the number of new debt agreements almost doubling in the last 10 years, debt agreements are proving to be an important and popular alternative to bankruptcy for individuals who are facing financial difficulty. These reforms ensure that debt agreements are fair and accessible for debtors and creditors. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (19:10): I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill.
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Assistant Minister for Home Affairs) (19:11): by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (36) on sheet JC502 together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 2, 4, 5, 8 and 10), omit "6 months", substitute "9 months".
(2) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
12. Schedule 6 |
The day after the end of the period of 9 months beginning on the day this Act receives the Royal Assent. |
|
(3) Schedule 1, items 1 to 3, page 4 (lines 6 to 14), omit the items, substitute:
1 Paragraph 185C(2 ) ( c)
Omit "being the Official Trustee, a registered trustee or another person", substitute "being a person who is the Official Trustee, a registered trustee or a registered debt agreement administrator and who is not the debtor".
2 Subsection 185E(1)
Repeal the subsection.
3 Paragraph 185E(2 ) ( a)
After "(2B),", insert "(2D), (2DA),".
3A Paragraph 185E(2 ) ( b)
Repeal the paragraph.
3B Subsections 185E(2A), (2B) and (2C)
Repeal the subsections.
3C Subsection 185Y(1)
Omit "(1)".
3D Subsection 185Y(2)
Repeal the subsection.
(4) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (line 20), omit "6 months", substitute "3 months".
(5) Schedule 1, item 20, page 9 (line 7), before "the amount", insert "if subsection (2AB) does not apply to the debtor—".
(6) Schedule 1, item 20, page 9 (line 9), after "subsection (4B)", insert "(unless subsection (4C) applies to the debtor)".
(7) Schedule 1, item 20, page 9 (line 10), omit the formula, substitute:
(8) Schedule 1, item 21, page 9 (lines 11 to 15), omit the item, substitute:
21 After subsection 185C(4A)
Insert:
(4B) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine the following:
(a) a percentage for the purposes of paragraph (4) (e) (which may exceed 100%);
(b) an amount for the purposes of the definition of low income debtor amount in subsection (5).
(4C) This subsection applies to the debtor if:
(a) the amount worked out using the formula under paragraph (4) (e) (expressed as a percentage) exceeds the percentage determined in an instrument under subsection (4B); and
(b) the proposed administrator gives to the debtor a certificate signed by the proposed administrator stating that, having regard to:
(i) the circumstances in existence at the time when the debtor's statement of affairs was signed by the debtor; and
(ii) any other relevant matters;
the proposed administrator is satisfied that the debtor is likely to be able to discharge the obligations created by the agreement as and when they fall due.
(4D) A person commits an offence of strict liability if:
(a) the person gives a certificate under paragraph (4C) (b); and
(b) before giving the certificate, the person did not:
(i) make reasonable inquiries about the debtor's financial situation; or
(ii) take reasonable steps to verify the debtor's financial situation.
Note: See also section 277B (about infringement notices).
Penalty: 60 penalty units.
21A Subsection 185C(5)
Insert:
low income debtor amount means the amount determined in an instrument under subsection (4B) for the purposes of this definition.
21B After subsection 185LG(1)
Insert:
(1A) Before a person signs a certificate under paragraph 185C(4C) (b) in relation to a debt agreement proposal, the person must:
(a) make reasonable inquiries about the debtor's financial situation; and
(b) take reasonable steps to verify the debtor's financial situation.
For the purposes of this Act, the requirements set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) are taken to be duties of an administrator in relation to a debt agreement.
21C Subsection 185LG(2)
After "subsection 185C(2D)", insert "or paragraph 185C(4C) (b)".
21D Subsection 277B(2) (after table item 5)
Insert:
6 |
subsection 185C(4D) |
12 penalty units |
(9) Schedule 1, item 26, page 11 (lines 7 to 9), omit the item, substitute:
26 Subsection 185C(2D)
Omit "If the person specified under paragraph (2) (c) is not the debtor, the", substitute "The".
(10) Schedule 1, item 30, page 11 (lines 18 and 19), omit the item, substitute:
30 Paragraph 185C(2D ) ( c)
Before "having regard", insert "if subsection (4C) does not apply to the debtor—stating that,".
(11) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 10), after item 33, insert:
33A After subsection 185C(2D)
Insert:
(2DA) If subsection (4C) applies to the debtor, the debt agreement proposal given to the Official Receiver must also be accompanied by the certificate under paragraph (4C) (b).
(12) Schedule 1, item 38, page 12 (line 23), omit "any", substitute "the".
(13) Schedule 1, item 38, page 12 (line 23), after "185C(2D)", insert ", and any certificate under paragraph 185C(4C) (b),".
(14) Schedule 1, item 39, page 13 (lines 1 and 2), omit subsection 185EA(5).
(15) Schedule 1, item 40, page 13 (lines 10 and 11), omit subsection 185EC(1B).
(16) Schedule 1, item 41, page 13 (line 20), omit "a view to", substitute "the intention of".
(17) Schedule 1, item 41, page 13 (line 22), omit "3", substitute "6".
(18) Schedule 2, items 1 to 3, page 14 (lines 4 to 20), omit the items, substitute:
1 After subsection 185C(2)
Insert:
(2AA) A debt agreement proposal must not provide for the debtor to make payments under the agreement, in respect of provable debts in relation to the agreement, after:
(a) 3 years beginning on the day the agreement is made; or
(b) if subsection (2AB) applies to the debtor—5 years beginning on the day the agreement is made.
Note: Section 185H deals with when a debt agreement is made.
(2AB) This subsection applies to the debtor if at the time the debtor gives the debt agreement proposal to the Official Receiver the debtor has an interest in real property in Australia that is a dwelling and is the debtor's principal place of residence, being an interest:
(a) that is an interest under a long‑term lease; or
(b) that is any other legal or equitable estate or interest, except:
(i) an interest under a lease (other than a long‑term lease); or
(ii) an interest under a licence; or
(iii) a life interest; or
(iv) an interest in an easement; or
(v) an interest held on trust for another person; or
(vi) an interest of a kind determined in an instrument under subsection (2AD) for the purposes of this subparagraph.
(2AC) If, in accordance with subsections (2AA) and (2AB), a debt agreement proposal provides for the debtor to make payments under the agreement, in respect of provable debts in relation to the agreement, after 3, but not after 5, years beginning on the day the agreement is made, the property identified under paragraph (2) (a) must not include any interest covered by subsection (2AB).
(2AD) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine a kind of interest for the purposes of subparagraph (2AB) (b) (vi).
2 Subsection 185C(5)
Insert:
lease includes a sublease.
long ‑term lease means a lease granted by the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory for a term (including any extension or renewal) that is reasonably likely, at the time the lease is granted, to exceed 20 years.
3 Paragraph 185E(2 ) ( a)
After "185C(2),", insert "(2AA), (2AC),".
3A After subsection 185M(1C)
Insert:
(1D) The proposal must not seek to vary the agreement so that the agreement would provide for the debtor to make payments under the agreement, in respect of provable debts in relation to the agreement, after:
(a) 3 years beginning on the day the agreement was made; or
(b) if subsection (1DA) or (1DB) applies—5 years beginning on the day the agreement was made.
Note: Section 185H deals with when a debt agreement is made.
(1DA) This subsection applies if subsection 185C(2AB) applied to the debtor at the time the relevant debt agreement proposal was given to the Official Receiver.
(1DB) This subsection applies if:
(a) the proposal given to the Official Receiver is accompanied by a certificate signed by the administrator of the agreement stating that the administrator has reasonable grounds to believe:
(i) that the debtor has suffered a substantial change in circumstances after the agreement was made that was not foreseen at the time the agreement was made; and
(ii) that the debtor is not likely to be able to discharge the obligations created by the agreement as and when they fall due because of that change; and
(b) the proposal does not increase the total of the payments that the debtor would be required to make under the agreement.
(19) Schedule 2, item 6, page 16 (line 5), after "under", insert "paragraph 185M(1DB) (a) or".
(20) Schedule 2, item 7, page 16 (line 9), omit "subsection185M(1D)", substitute "subsection185M(1DB)".
(21) Schedule 2, item 7, page 16 (lines 11 to 17), omit subsection 185M(1E), substitute:
(1E) If:
(a) subsection 185C(2AB) did not apply to the debtor at the time (the proposal time) the relevant debt agreement proposal was given to the Official Receiver; and
(b) a person did not give a certificate under paragraph 185C(4C) (b) in relation to the relevant debt agreement proposal;
the proposal under subsection (1) of this section must not seek to vary the agreement so that the amount worked out using the following formula (expressed as a percentage) exceeds the percentage in effect under an instrument under subsection 185C(4B) at the proposal time:
(22) Schedule 2, item 7, page 16 (lines 18 to 20), omit "If the administrator of the agreement is not the debtor, the proposal given to the Official Receiver must be accompanied by a certificate signed by the administrator", substitute "The proposal given to the Official Receiver must be accompanied by a certificate signed by the administrator of the agreement".
(23) Schedule 2, item 9, page 17 (lines 3 to 6), omit subsection 185M(2A), substitute:
(2A) However, the Official Receiver is not required by subsection (2) to process the proposal if:
(a) the Official Receiver reasonably believes that complying with the agreement (as proposed to be varied) would cause undue hardship to the debtor; or
(b) the Official Receiver thinks that the creditors' interests would be better served by not processing the proposal.
(24) Schedule 2, item 10, page 17 (line 22), omit subsection 185MA(5).
(25) Schedule 2, item 11, page 17 (line 30), omit subsection 185MC(1B).
(26) Schedule 2, item 12, page 18 (line 8), omit "a view to", substitute "the intention of".
(27) Schedule 2, item 12, page 18 (line 11), omit "3", substitute "6".
(28) Schedule 2, item 13, page 18 (lines 32 and 33), omit "Subsections 185MC(1A) and (1B) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, as inserted by this Part, apply", substitute "Subsection 185MC(1A) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, as inserted by this Part, applies".
(29) Schedule 2, item 14, page 20 (line 10), omit subsection 185PA(5).
(30) Schedule 2, item 15, page 20 (line 18), omit subsection 185PC(1B).
(31) Schedule 2, item 16, page 20 (line 26), omit "a view to", substitute "the intention of".
(32) Schedule 2, item 16, page 21 (line 1), omit "3", substitute "6".
(33) Schedule 2, item 17, page 21 (lines 9 and 10), omit "Subsections 185PC(1A) and (1B) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, as inserted by this Part, apply", substitute "Subsection 185PC(1A) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, as inserted by this Part, applies".
(34) Schedule 2, item 32, page 26 (lines 26 and 27), omit the item, substitute:
32 Subsection 277B(2) (after table item 6)
Insert:
7 |
subsection 185LE(1A) |
1 penalty unit |
(35) Schedule 3, page 29 (after line 21), after item 2, insert:
2A Subsection 186A(2)
Omit "Subparagraph (1) (a) (i)", substitute "Paragraph (1) (a)".
(36) Page 43 (after line 3), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 6—Other amendments
Bankruptcy Act 1966
1 Section 60 ‑21 of Schedule 2
Repeal the section, substitute:
60 ‑21 Inducements to be appointed as trustee
A person (the first person) commits an offence if:
(a) the first person gives, or agrees or offers to give, to another person any valuable consideration; and
(b) the first person does so with the intention of:
(i) securing the first person's appointment or nomination as a trustee of a regulated debtor's estate; or
(ii) securing or preventing the appointment or nomination of a third person as a trustee of a regulated debtor's estate.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 6 months.
2 Application provision
The amendment made by item 1 applies in relation to conduct engaged in on or after the commencement of that item.
Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Act 1997
3 Subsection 6(1B)
Repeal the subsection.
4 Saving provision
Despite the repeal of subsection 6(1B) of the Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Act 1997 made by this Schedule, that subsection, as in force immediately before the commencement of this item, continues to apply on and after that commencement in relation to the following:
(a) debt agreements that were in force immediately before that commencement;
(b) debt agreements that come into force on or after that commencement, where the debt agreement proposals were given before that commencement.
The amendments on JC502 address issues raised by the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee and also facilitates the intended operation of the bill. The amendments give people with a family home a better opportunity to avoid bankruptcy and keep control of their home. The amendments also ensure that the protections afforded by the bill's payment-to-income ratio and the three-year proposal cap are better targeted at vulnerable debtors. I will outline the amendments on JC502.
Amendments (1) and (4) lengthen the commencement of most of the bill's provisions from six to nine months post the royal assent. This extension is in recognition of the technical complexity of the amendments proposed in this bill which will require additional time to ensure the ICT systems of the regulator, the Australian Financial Security Authority, are fully operational on commencement.
Amendments (2), (16), (26), (31) and (36) modify description of intent. These amendments modify the description of the fault element of applicable offences in the bill and the Bankruptcy Act 1966 from 'with a view to' to 'with the intention of'. The bill also introduces offences for debt agreement administrators that offer to give inducements to creditors to influence a debt agreement vote. These amendments ensure the framing of these offences introduced by the bill and the similar offences at section 60-21 of schedule 2 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 are consistent with the Criminal Code Act 1995.
Amendments (2), (3), (9), (12), (14), (15), (22), (24), (25), (28), (29), (30), (36) and (33) prohibit self-administered debt agreements. These amendments expressly prohibit debtors from proposing to self-administer their own debt agreements. To ensure all debtors receive the benefit of an appropriately qualified debt agreement administrator, the bill mandates that only a registered debt agreement administrator, a registered trustee or the official trustee can be authorised to administer a debt agreement. The requirement for registration as a debt agreement administrator or trustee under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 prevents self-administered debt agreements from being established. Therefore, for clarity, and to prevent administrative inefficiencies, the amendments expressly prohibit the proposal of self-administered debt agreements.
Amendments (3), (6), (8), (10), (11), (13), (21) and (34), from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, relate to the payment-to-income ratio. These particular amendments respond to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee query as to whether the Attorney-General should retain the power to alter the eligibility requirements for debt agreements. The bill allows the Attorney-General to alter the eligibility requirements for debt agreements through amending their permissible payment-to-income ratio. The introduction of this ratio will provide an important safeguard, ensuring debtors are not able to enter into repayment obligations that are unsustainable. This allows the Attorney-General to initially set and then amend the permissible level of this ratio, which is also important as it allows the ratio to be quickly amended to adjust to changing market conditions. However, taking on board the committee's comments, these amendments reduce the scope of debt agreements to which the ratio will apply and thereby limit the Attorney-General's ability to set the eligibility requirements. The amendments will allow debtors to exceed the payment-to-income ratio if their financial situation is subjected to heavier scrutiny by their administrator and the administrator concludes the proposed repayments are sustainable. A 60-penalty-unit strict liability offence applies to administrators that abuse this option.
Amendments (5), (18) and (21) relate to debtors with a home to protect. In recognition of the fact that debtors with a home to protect stand to lose more under bankruptcy than other debtors, this amendment relaxes the debtor protection safeguards of the three-year debt agreement time frame limitation and the payment-to-income ratio. Together amendments (5), (18) and (21) give debtors with equity in their principal place of residence the flexibility to exceed the payment-to-income ratio and to propose a debt agreement of up to five years. These amendments extend the accessibility of the debt agreement system and provide debtors with a home to protect a viable alternative to bankruptcy.
Amendments (7), (8) and (21) respond to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee recommendations that the cost of living for low-income households, the average cost of housing and the potential CPI increases be considered when setting the payment-to-income ratio. Therefore these amendments will modify the payment-to-income ratio formula to introduce a low-income debtor amount to the numerator so it can better take into account the circumstances of low-income debtors, who may be more vulnerable to financial stress. By adding a low-income debtor amount, the formula better accounts for two things—firstly, low-income debtors, who generally spend a high proportion of their income on basics, and, secondly, debtors who have atypical circumstances such as those receiving assistance from employers or family.
Amendment (17), (27), (32) and (36) respond to queries raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The bill and section 60-21 of schedule 2 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 include offences of three months imprisonment for commercial misconduct. These amendments increase these penalties to six months imprisonment to achieve consistency with principles in the guide on framing Commonwealth offences. The government considers that six months imprisonment is an appropriate punishment for commercial misconduct which unfairly disadvantages some creditors over other creditors.
Amendments (18), (19), (20) and (23) will allow debtors to vary their debt agreements by up to five years in total if they suffer a substantial and unforeseen change in circumstances after the agreement has been established that is likely to prevent them from completing their debt agreement. These amendments respond to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee recommendation that the bill be amended to allow for debt agreements implemented under a three-year cap to be capable of being extended by up to an additional two years, by agreement of the debtor, creditor and debt agreement administrator. The amendments' requirement for a substantial and unforeseen change in the circumstances preserves the debtor protection safeguard of the three-year limitation on debt agreement proposals while introducing some flexibility to ensure debtors are not unfairly disadvantaged due to an unanticipated setback. Finally, amendment (35) corrects an erroneous reference in subsection 186A(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 which gives administrators an exception to satisfying the basic eligibility test.
Senator MOORE (Queensland) (19:19): Labor supports the amendments. We worked very closely with the government in the last period and we think that the amendments support the bill very strongly.
Progress reported.
ADJOURNMENT
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ) (19:20): Order! I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Tasmanian Bureau of Meteorology
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (19:20): I rise this evening to express my grave concerns about plans to move weather forecasting from Tasmania to Melbourne and Brisbane. Under this dysfunctional Liberal government, critical jobs at the Bureau of Meteorology are in danger of being cut in my home state—if not now, then in the future. In this country currently, the chaos is so rife within the government that you cannot trust anything that the Prime Minister says. Leaking is now the norm on that side. First, we had the $7.6 billion so-called plan for infrastructure leak, then we had the $4.4 billion pathetic bribe to the Catholic education sector leak, and now we have the GST slanging match between Mr Morrison and the Tasmanian Treasurer, Peter Gutwein. I wonder what will be next. It is a guarantee that there will be more.
I cannot make sense of any decision to move the expertise of local Tasmanian forecasters to Melbourne or Brisbane. These are short-sighted plans that are absolutely not in the best interests of Tasmania. It is also terrible news for the 15 to 20 highly skilled and respected employees who will be impacted by the changes. Mainland forecasters will have absolutely no Tasmanian local knowledge and will not be able to accurately provide decent weather forecasts. We know from experience that, once these resources are taken away, they are unlikely to come back. The loss of local knowledge is extremely concerning for the Tasmanian industries that rely on timely and accurate access to weather information, including fisheries and aquaculture, agriculture, renewable energy generation, recreational fishers and bushwalkers. They will all be impacted.
Our weather forecasts have been crucial in extreme weather events, without which many lives would have been lost at sea, in the air and in the Central Highlands. Concerns have also been raised about the risk to the public during natural disasters such as bushfires and floods. The Police Association of Tasmania said:
The closing of Bureau of Meteorology local forecasting will put Tasmanian lives at risk.
The United Firefighters Union of Australia said it was 'absolutely crucial to have local knowledge' during reduction burns and high fire danger periods. There have also been many occurrences of extreme fire weather, often in different parts of the state at the same time, and that demands a local forecaster to provide detailed data for specific regions. To remove access to local knowledge is reckless and dangerous. It will put Tasmanian lives at risk on the water and on the land. This government does not care about Tasmania. All Tasmania has received from this Liberal government is downgrading and insults.
Under this government's watch, Australia Post has been downgraded and now Tasmania has to wait up to five days for mail to arrive in their mailbox. Under this government, Centrelink services have been downgraded, costing the economy and jobs. Under this government, Australian taxation jobs have been downgraded. The federal Labor team are pushing really hard to stop this from happening, and I urge the Tasmanian Liberal Senate team to join with federal Labor and save these Tasmanian jobs, or is this just another case of the Liberal Senate team having no influence in Canberra?
The Liberals talk up keeping and creating jobs in regional Australia. This decision flies in the face of that. The Liberals have repeatedly said that they want more federal jobs in Tasmania, but all they've done since they've been in government is take away jobs from our state. Whether they're jobs at the Bureau, whether they're jobs at Centrelink and Human Services, whether they're jobs at the Australian Antarctic Division or whether they're jobs at the Australian Taxation Office, all the federal Liberals have done is cut jobs from our state. It's time Tasmanians had a government that cares about them and that reflects in its policy direction the issues and the concerns of the Tasmanian people. I'd have to agree with the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, because in his own words, he referred to his team, his government, as the muppet show.
Illicit Drugs
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (19:25): In my state of New South Wales, two people tragically died and 15 others were hospitalised from suspected overdoses at the Defqon 1 festival over the weekend. My heart goes out to their families. As a mother of two young people, I can't imagine a more heartbreaking situation. I can't help but think that maybe the situation could have been quite different if pill testing or checking was available at the venue. My blood really does boil that we will never know, because the only thing stopping the harm minimisation approach to pills is a stubborn New South Wales Liberal-National government. The New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian said, 'I don't want to see this ever happen again, young lives lost for no reason.' In the same breath, she had the gall to completely rule out pill testing despite the overwhelming evidence of harm reduction, despite the queues of health professionals lining up to say that we can do this differently, despite the fact that pill testing saves lives.
Premier, the prohibitionist status quo is hurting people and you sit on your hands knowing you can do something to stop it yet you choose not to. On the news the New South Wales police spokesperson said, 'It would not be a good look for the police or government to support pill testing.' We have tragic deaths happening and police and politicians are thinking about whether or not pill testing is a good look? And that's exactly the problem. Where is the political courage? Where is the leadership? Where is the commitment to evidence based policy? There is clear evidence that punitive, heavy-handed, law-and-order approaches to drug use do not work. They will not stop people from taking dangerous substances at festivals. Shutting down music festivals might make you feel better or perhaps placate the right-wing shock-jocks whose approval you're so desperate for but it won't save lives.
Moralism has never worked. It never will. People will continue to take drugs whether or not we like it and no matter how many dance festivals you shut down. It is undeniable that the war on drugs has comprehensively failed. It has failed families, it has failed young people, it has failed the justice system and it has failed the taxpayer. Our job is not to lecture, but to do everything we can to reduce harm. We know that it can be done.
The first successful pill-testing trial was held at the Groovin the Moo festival in Canberra in April. The trial, run by STA-SAFE consortium saw 128 participants have 85 samples tested, with 50 per cent of the pills having other substances while 50 per cent were pure MDMA and two of the samples were potentially deadly. This isn't rocket science but it definitely is fair dinkum science. Pill testing provides information to people who are going to take drugs. It allows medical professionals to come face to face with drug users, to give them advice on substances they're intending to take and explain their options to them. It may not stop all drug deaths from dodgy pills but it will go a bloody long way. There is no evidence that pill testing would increase drug use. International evidence shows that pill testing is a proven harm reduction tool but, time and time again, death after death, the New South Wales government and other governments across the country sit there with their fingers in their ears, terrified of being accused of being soft on drugs. So here is a plea to them: if you really care about saving people's lives, get out of the way. You have clearly abrogated your responsibility to protect young people so let the experts get on with the job of saving lives.
Mental Health
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (19:29): What do we do in times of crisis? We call 000 and hope like hell they can help. Whether it's a car crash, a house fire, a flash flood, a heart attack or an armed robbery, we know our first responders will be there as quick as they can and do their best to help us. Many of us have not seen a traumatic incident or needed to make quick decisions to save lives or property. But for our first responders—police, ambos, firies, emergency services, 000 call operators, emergency nurses, volunteers and many others—it's what they do day in, day out. For many of these people the regular exposure to stress and trauma adds up like a bucket under a leaky tap. Despite doing all they can to cope to keep on helping us in our time of need, sometimes it gets too much. The bucket overflows. We need to provide greater support before this happens. Equally, when it does happen, we must ensure that our first responders can access medical and psychological support, that their workplace helps and supports them, and that in the process of getting help first responders are not retraumatised.
Working with north-west Tasmanian intensive care paramedic Simone Haigh, Labor initiated a Senate inquiry to examine the issue and find best practice for how first responder organisations can best support the mental health of their staff, volunteers and former staff. The Senate inquiry has received 113 submissions from across the country and has so far held hearings in five capital cities, with more to come. There has been evidence from individuals, first responder organisations, unions, peer support organisations, researchers and professional associations. I'd like to thank the many individuals, in particular, for their courageous submissions detailing their own personal stories and ideas for change. We've had evidence from each state and territory and as far away as Canada.
The evidence is clear: first responders experience mental health conditions such as anxiety, stress, depression and post-traumatic stress injuries at rates much, much higher than the general population. While everyone wants to do things better, we've heard clearly that most first responder organisations are not moving fast enough. There is still a stigma around reporting mental health conditions, with many fearful that it will affect their career because of the bullying and intimidation experienced by their colleagues, bullying that the top brass will say doesn't exist, with many good intentions from above but layers of management that continue the practices of old.
Likewise, the quality of care for our first responders differs too much across this country. Care too often depends on the experience and capability of direct management. Care and support is too often provided by counsellors or health professionals without experience and understanding of the unique challenges that are faced by first responders and the unique, cumulative nature of their trauma. We've also heard that some of our first responder organisations are chronically under-resourced, leading to ambulance ramping, double shifts, inadequate time off between shifts and little time for appropriate debriefs.
All of these workplace stresses, coupled with the obvious trauma of the job, result in that bucket filling and a worker experiencing a mental health injury. After the stress and pain of work, an injured first responder must navigate the adversarial workers compensation system, which we have heard time and again causes greater pain, retraumatises first responders and leaves many worse off than when they began. Cruelly, many workers compensation systems across the country have developed such a bad reputation that many first responders are left not wanting to try what seems to be impossible.
One shining light is the approach taken by the West Australian fire and emergency department with respect to workers compensation claims. This department has developed an understanding with their insurer that since 2010 all post-traumatic stress claims lodged by first responders are accepted liabilities and preventive therapies are funded without prejudice until the final determination is made. Another is the model deployed across many Canadian provinces, where the presumption that first responders' mental health injuries are a workplace injury is enshrined in legislation. I look forward to the upcoming hearings receiving further submissions. Our first responders are expected to help us in our time of need. We need to help them and we can and must do more.
Liberal Democrats
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (19:34): Recently Senators Hanson and Hinch argued on morning television about their achievements. It was much ado about nothing. That's not the case with the Liberal Democrats. We have clear principles, so we know what we want, and, occasionally, we get it. Let me run through a few of our achievements.
The Liberal Democrats stopped the government from giving ASIO agents legal protection if they torture people. In 2014, the national security legislation bill gave ASIO agents legal indemnity if they break the law. However, they were not permitted to engage in conduct that caused death or serious injury, involved a sexual offence or caused serious loss of or damage to property. Missing from that was torture. When I first raised this, I was ridiculed by the then Attorney-General, George Brandis, but I kept at it. I gained support in legal circles and eventually won. ASIO agents are now not permitted to torture.
I have also saved journalists from jail time. I wrote to the then Attorney-General, George Brandis, pointing out an inconsistency in the law affecting journalists, which threatened to put them in jail for simply doing their job. Journalists faced two years imprisonment for reporting on Australian Federal Police controlled operations. This penalty applied even if the journalist was reporting on police misconduct or corruption, if reporting did nothing to prejudice a police operation, if the police operation was over years ago, if the journalist's report did nothing to endanger anyone's health or safety and if the information the journalist reported was already public. I pointed out that this treatment of journalists reporting on police operations was inconsistent with the treatment of journalists reporting on ASIO operations. The Attorney-General ultimately agreed with me, and earlier this year the law was changed. So now journalists face no conviction and no jail time if they report on operations, provided they are not reckless about any risk to police operations or anyone's health or safety. This simply would not have happened without the Liberal Democrats.
As well as scoring goals on civil liberties, the Liberal Democrats have scored goals on tax. When a series of Assistant Treasurers sought my vote on various issues, I raised with each of them the need to make personal contributions to superannuation tax deductibility for all taxpayers, including those who are self-employed for part of the year. This would cut tax by a billion dollars over the first three years. The government eventually agreed. This billion-dollar tax cut simply would not have happened without the Liberal Democrats.
I convinced the government to remove childcare subsidies from families earning more than $350,000 a year. This is saving taxpayers $100 million over three years.
The Liberal Democrats have also held back the tide of red tape. For instance, I delayed the commencement of a burdensome law dictating in nauseating detail how contracts with small business must be written. Without the Liberal Democrats, we would have had more of these lawyers' picnics that do nothing but ramp up the costs of doing business.
The Liberal Democrats have also whittled away at government restrictions on everyday Australians. For instance, I broadened the circumstances in which you can withdraw your own superannuation under the government's First Home Super Saver Scheme.
I could go on, but my time is running out. I will outline further concrete achievements of the Liberal Democrats on another occasion. Of course, more needs to be done. Taxes and government spending remain too high, and red tape and nanny-state regulations continue to put a straightjacket on Australians going about their business. With more Liberal Democrats elected to the Senate, we can achieve more.
Feed The Little Children
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (19:39): Tonight I want to pay tribute to the work of the wonderful team at Feed The Little Children in Broome. At the end of last month I had the privilege of joining the team in their work. Broome is by no means the most remote part of Western Australia, but it is indeed very far removed from the more abundant community resources that you might find in the suburbs of Sydney, Melbourne or indeed Perth. But many of the families and children in Broome, despite their best efforts, suffer from extreme food insecurity, like many other communities in remote Western Australia and Queensland, and I'm sure Senator McCarthy also finds this in the Northern Territory. Food insecurity is a problem in our communities that we can, must and should address. And we can do these things by partnering with organisations such as Foodbank and Feed The Little Children, which is a local community initiative in Broome.
In April, Foodbank released their report into food insecurity in Australia. It was called Rumbling tummies. Frankly, it's quite a confronting and upsetting report to read. Unfortunately in our nation, despite what you might think about homelessness et cetera, in 2018 it is more likely that a child will go hungry than an adult. In the 12 months to April, 21 per cent of Australian households with children under the age of 15 had experienced food insecurity, with more than one in five children in this country living in food-insecure households. These are exactly the kinds of households that Feed The Little Children in Broome is trying to reach.
This figure is higher for families outside capital cities, with 25 per cent of households recorded as being food insecure. And for First Nations' families, 58 per cent of them have identified they experienced food insecurity at least once over a 12-month period. In these households, 18 per cent of children go to school without eating breakfast, 15 per cent go to school without any lunch and 11 per cent go to bed without dinner. This is simply not okay in our nation. Low income and poverty are the main drivers behind food insecurity, but of course there are also elements in some households, such as alcohol and drug use and general chaos and disruption, that make things difficult to put food on the table for children—especially when you're in a low-income household.
When I visited the Kimberley this month, I saw it's a combination of low incomes, poverty and high prices for food and other basic living essentials that are contributing to significant problems for these families. So tonight I want to thank Feed The Little Children and their fantastic team. In particular, I want to pay tribute to Clint and Deb Durham. Clint in particular has a background as a crime analyst for the Western Australia Police Force. His examination of crime statistics revealed a clear but disturbing pattern: very young children were committing property crimes, in Broome because of hunger.
I also want to give a quick shout-out to Malcolm and Valerie Jarvie, Graham Varischetti, Honey Dimascia, Jenny Costigan, Padmini Baker, Ted Wilkinson and Christina Scott, with a special shout-out to the chef and coordinator, Michael Khan. The work you do on Friday and Saturday nights is helping your community's most vulnerable families, and I'm pleased to recognise your work in this place. You do a great deal of work to alleviate household food insecurity for these highly vulnerable children, and you build trusted relationships with these families. I also want to say you've brought down crime in Broome because, frankly, children are getting a decent meal on Friday and Saturday nights. You're doing great work teaching cookery, nutrition and food hygiene as part of your capability building in the local community.
Tonight I call on the government and all members of this place to do more to reduce the number of Australian families that live in food-insecure homes and to support great projects like Feed The Little Children in Broome.
Safe Schools
Senator ANNING (Queensland) (19:44): Fifty years ago, if a communist pervert had proposed that our nation's children be forced to listen to sexually deviant propaganda, they would probably have been strung up. Today, this disgusting garbage is called the Safe Schools program, and its leading exponents hold comfortable government funded positions.
However, the fact is schools have never been less safe and the main risk to children is the so-called Safe Schools program. Let us be very clear: this program is not about bullying or any of the other nonsense that is claimed to try to justify it. When the schools that we trust to look after our children force them at a pre-sexual age to discuss sexual concepts about which they have no understanding, and even, disgustingly, engage in homosexual role-playing, this is simply institutionalised child abuse. It is also a gross betrayal of childhood innocence. What is most incredible is that state governments would allow this despicable material to be taught in schools.
It is perhaps no surprise that the left-wing radicals and deviants would propose this, but what is truly shocking is that supposedly mainstream politicians would promote it. There is no greater proof of the moral bankruptcy and political depravity confronting our nation. The real issue here is of course nothing to do with sexual preference. First, prepubescent children should not have any sexual dimension to their lives and should not have any kind of sexual preference at all. Secondly, even when they do sexually mature in their mid to late teens, their sexuality should be a personal, private matter and certainly not something for left-wing social engineers to meddle with.
The real agenda behind the so-called Safe Schools is not about bullying or even sexual preference but about trying to subvert the concept of gender identity and, through it, society more broadly. In the primary school child abuse reader, The Gender Fairy, innocent children as young as five are exposed to radical transgender theory and the blatantly false claim that no-one can tell you whether you are male or female. Well, I can tell you whether you're male or female. If you have two X chromosomes, you're female, and, if you have an X and a Y chromosome, you're male. Whomever you identify with—whether, as a boy, you put on a dress and totter around in high heels or whether, as a girl, you dress up in a man's suit and tie—it makes no difference. Even if you start having bits chopped off, you are actually only deluding yourself. You are and remain until the day you die either male or female, as God made you.
The ridiculous lie that gender is variable or fluid would be laughable if its intent were not so sinister. Since the First International, Marxists have been trying to claim that environment is the sole determinant of human difference. Through Gramsci, the Marxists saw revolution in cultural rather than economic terms and took this concept to a whole new level. According to Gramsci, a Marxist state could be achieved by cultural revolution. This could be achieved if the policies of state, the education system, institutional behaviour and even popular entertainment attacked the cultural values of the old order and promoted the leftist values of the new. These ideas, which coalesced into what became known as critical theory and became widely taught at universities by left-wing intellectuals in the sixties, formed the ideological springboard of the leftist radicals of the anti-Vietnam war movement, who fanned out across the country in the seventies, white-anting the bureaucracy and political parties. In critical theory, ethnic and religious minorities, radical feminists, sexual deviants, Third World immigrants and antisocial criminals could take the place of the proletariat to create a post-communist revolution, deconstructing traditional values and promoting anything that undermined traditional morality, family, capitalism, nationalism, patriotism, tradition or sexual normality. Gramsci's tactics included disguising degeneracy as liberation and tyranny as compassion, so that decadence and criminality could be defended as freedom and free speech could be eliminated by appeal of not offending. From this it is easy to see that the so-called Safe Schools and gender fluidity garbage being peddled— (Time expired)
Pet Food Industry
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (19:49): How much do we value our pets? That's the question at the heart of the current inquiry into pet food regulations. For owners who gave evidence at the public hearings, the answer was never in doubt. They always put the welfare of their pets before their own. They'd done the research and chosen a premium pet food product, thinking they were giving the best possible care to their pets. What they didn't know was that that decision would have a lasting impact on their lives would be the beginning of the end for many of their pets.
Over the course of a few weeks, they would watch their dogs transform from lively, boisterous, outgoing family pets to helpless, vulnerable invalids requiring constant specialist care. They were then dealt a cruel blow when it became apparent that their decision to feed their dog one particular brand was the reason that their pets are dead. But it was the revelations that followed in the weeks after the deaths of their beloveds animals that turned that sorrow and guilt into anger. Our pets place their trust in us to make sure we feed them a healthy diet, and we in turn place our trust in the pet food industry to ensure that what they put on the supermarket shelves is safe. As it transpires, that trust may be misplaced.
Don't be fooled by the adorable fluffy kittens on the packaging. This is a seriously big industry. Pet food is a product that commands an entire aisle in every supermarket and every vet practice. It is an industry worth almost $4 billion—$4 billion! By way of comparison, Meat & Livestock Australia estimated a year ago the gross value of Australia's lamb and mutton production, including live export, was even less than that at $3.9 billion. To put it into context, just a handful of players in the pet food industry are actually on par with an entire meat industry segment.
The pet food industry is highly successful and profitable, but it is not necessarily safe because it is entirely self-regulated. There is no independent oversight whatsoever. In the absence of a mandatory recall processes—or, indeed, any sort of mandatory regulation—companies are left to decide on their own when, if at all, they recall a product. So what is their primary consideration? Is it the welfare of our animals or their bottom line? At what point do they decide it is economically prudent to commence a recall? In other words, how many pets have to die before their hand is forced?
Some assistance is provided through the Australian Veterinary Association's PetFAST reporting system, which allows vets to lodge an incident report online when they suspect an illness or disease may have been caused by pet food. That sounds great in theory, but in practice there are so many flaws that the effectiveness of the PetFAST system has to be questioned. First, only vets are allowed to make a report, but barely half of all vets in Australia are members of the Australian Veterinary Association, and many who are members don't even know what PetFAST is or how to use it. Second, if you, the consumer, opens up a bag of cat or dog food at home and finds it is mouldy or contaminated, you can't report it via PetFAST. Finally, even if you do get a vet to make a notification, a copy of that then goes straight to The Pet Food Industry Association, which then passes it onto the manufacturer in question, remembering that a representative of that manufacturer more than likely sits on the board of the industry association. There is a giant red flag here, and what happens to that notification is anyone's guess, because there is no public record of PetFAST notifications and no obligation whatsoever on anyone to take any action at all.
We need to fix this system fast, because pets are dying. Pets are our companions, part of the family. We need to do the right thing by them and ensure the regulations around their food are as strong as ours. I'm confident that the current Senate inquiry will deliver strong recommendations which the federal government and the states and territories can use to guide lasting reforms that will protect and improve the health of our pets.
Dairy Industry
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (19:54): I won't be buying cheap milk after learning about the devastation that $1-a-litre milk has caused dairy farmers and the threat it poses to the supply of fresh milk for our children and grandchildren. Australian consumers take for granted that they will always be able to buy fresh milk at a reasonable price, but that situation won't last unless we take action now. Industry experts say that if the dairy farmer continues to be paid less for fresh milk than the breakeven price at the farm gate then production will fall further and more milk will be exported to places like China, where they are prepared to pay up to $9 a litre. The Chinese consumer loves Australian fresh milk. It is the reason Chinese interests bought Australia's largest milk producer in 2016—a group of 25 dairy farms in Tasmania. This Tasmanian dairy herd of over 20,000 cows produces enough milk to fill two Qantas flights a week bound for the Chinese market.
If we don't take action now, fresh milk will become a luxury item and we will be forced to use milk powder. When that happens I will hold Coles and Woolworths responsible for the disappearance of fresh milk from our refrigerators. Coles and Woolworths use their market power to buy fresh milk for their home brands below the cost of production. They can do this by simply threatening not to stock other products like cheese, butter and yogurt. I know most Australians are willing to pay bit more now for their milk to ensure the continued supply of fresh milk and to support our dairy farmers. I call on the government to regulate the price of fresh milk on supermarket shelves in a way that sees dairy farmers paid a fair price for their fresh milk. This regulation would end the milk war started by Coles in 2011 and encourage competition in supermarkets.
To be clear: I'm not calling on the return of the regulatory regime which existed prior to 2000, where the federal government subsidised the price of manufactured dairy products and the state subsidised the price of fresh milk. I want the farmgate price for milk regulated so that milk will be available at a fair and sustainable price for consumers and the dairy industry. I have called on the government to refer the duopoly of Coles and Woolworths to the ACCC for anticompetitive behaviour, but the government won't do it.
Dairy farmers have left the industry and many more are under huge financial strain and trying to work out how they can survive. The toll on the mental health of these Australians is too high, and everyone in the industry knows of someone who has suicided. Dairy farmers cannot be expected to deal with huge electricity prices, a drought and the misuse of market power by Coles and Woolworths. They need a bit of help, and I'm asking consumers and the government to do their bit. I know the ACCC has made recommendations and I support them, but it is not enough. Dairy farmers are running out of feed and don't have the money to buy more.
I am worried for Queensland dairy farmers and for Queenslanders, because we once produced enough milk for our state and export and now we don't. We had 1,500 dairy farms in 2000 and now we are down to 385. Dairy farmers need a sign that it is worth struggling on, and the quickest and most effective way now is for consumers to stop buying home brand milk from Coles and Woolworths. I'll keep fighting for dairy farmers in my discussions with government. I want the price of fresh milk at the farm gate regulated, and I want to make sure that not one single dairy herd goes to the slaughter houses for lack of feed. Please support branded milk from the independent processors like Maleny Dairies, 4Real Milk and Cooloola Milk that pay dairy farmers a fair price for their fresh milk. I'm calling on the Australian people to stand by these dairy farmers and not pay the cheap price from Coles and Woolworths.
Marine Parks
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (19:58): Just a month after unveiling a plan to further protect marine life in New South Wales, this week the New South Wales government have axed no-fishing zones in their planned future Sydney marine park. This change even pre-empted the community consultation period which was due to begin this week. This proposal to boost marine protections in state waters in New South Wales was going to protect 25 zones from Newcastle to Wollongong and would have imposed restrictions on line and spear fishing in some zones and banned fishing completely in other zones, or what we commonly call no-take zones.
This change of heart has come as a big surprise to the communities in New South Wales who have campaigned for increased marine protections in state waters and to the thousands of conservationists who have worked for years to get a proper set of marine parks in place in state waters. But it is no surprise to me at all that this has happened, coincidentally, around the same time that this Senate set the benchmark so low with federal marine park protections by axing 50 per cent of the no-take zones planned in the 2012 marine protected areas, after nearly a decade of campaigning by hundreds of thousands of Australians to get a proper set of marine parks in place in this country.
I warned the crossbench, and I know they were warned by others, to keep the campaign going to get a proper set of marine protections, to reject this government's plan, to not set the bar so low—the standard you walk past is the standard you accept. But what we feared the most—which I spoke directly to Senator Hinch, Senator Storer and Senator Patrick of Centre Alliance about—was that this precedent would lead to a stampede of cuts to marine protections in state waters, especially under Liberal state governments. I warned that this was a political decision we were making here: if we cut marine protections in Australia, it would likely lead to cuts and weakening of marine protections in state waters and that is exactly what happened in the last 24 hours in New South Wales. This was a complete surprise to the New South Wales community who have been campaigning on this. Just as they were prepared to go into consultation, the whole thing has been pulled by a state government clearly frightened of a few fishing interests. Who is next? What about South Australia?
South Australia has elected a Liberal government and, lo and behold, what have they talked about doing? What have they announced on their website? While they're going to keep their state based marine park sizes the same, they're reviewing their no-take zones, their green zones in state waters in South Australia—exactly what New South Wales has just pulled the rug out from. South Australia is now reviewing its marine park protections for marine life.
I warned the crossbench that if the Senate were to pass these regulations and put them into effect to undermine completely and gut the decades of hard work by thousands of Australians to get a proper set of marine protected areas in place, this would send a signal that would embolden interests who don't want to see conservation at the heart of marine protection, who don't want to see future benefits flowing from marine-protected areas. We know in a time of climate change, in a time of warming waters, in a time of increased stresses on oceans that protecting some areas of high-conservation value determined by science will lead to both ecological and community benefit. That is what the science says and that is being completely ignored by the New South Wales government. It's being ignored by the South Australian government. It's certainly being ignored by Senator Colbeck and his fishing cronies in this place. And it's a disgrace that this Senate has set the bar so low it has state counterparts or Liberal counterparts cutting marine protections in Australia. We will get them back. The community will not give up on this. Federally or at state level, you can be sure, when we turf you out, we will get proper marine protections in Australia.
Road Safety
Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (20:04): Last week in the parliament, something extraordinary happened. It wasn't the chaos and dysfunction we've seen for the last couple of weeks. It was a presentation of a report into a road safety strategy by the honourable Michael McCormack. The main committee room was full and the big table had all the respected stakeholders in road safety in attendance and there was a large number of industry experts in the meeting room.
The inquiry was conducted by an Associate Professor Jeremy Woolley, Director of the Centre of Automotive Safety Research at the University of Adelaide; and Dr John Crozier, Chair of the Royal Australian College of Surgeons National Trauma Committee. They had as an adviser Lachlan McIntosh AM, President of the Australian College of Road Safety since 2007 and the current chair of the global New Car Assessment Program; ably assisted by Mr Rob McInerney, CEO of iRAP, the International Road Assessment Program.
Though unreported and probably unremarked and unnoticed by a lot of people in this chamber and the other place, a very important piece of public policy work was done by really competent, reputable, respected industry professionals. It was a bipartisan effort. The honourable Anthony Albanese was also a contributor in the main committee room and supported the report.
I want to go to the 12 main recommendations that that report highlighted:
1. Create strong national leadership by appointing a Cabinet minister with specific multi-agency responsibility to address the hidden epidemic of road trauma including its impact on the health system.
2. Establish a national road safety entity reporting to the Cabinet minister with responsibility for road safety.
3. Commit to a minimum $3 billion a year road safety fund.
4. Set a vision zero target for 2050 with an interim target of vision zero for all major capital city CBD areas, and high-volume highways by 2030.
5. Establish and commit to key performance indicators in time for the next strategy that measure and report how harm can be eliminated in the system, and that are published annually.
6. Undertake a National Road Safety Governance Review by March 2019.
7. Implement rapid deployment and accelerated uptake of proven vehicle safety technologies and innovation.
8. Accelerate the adoption of speed management initiatives that support harm elimination.
9. Invest in road safety focused infrastructure, safe system and mobility partnerships with state, territory and local governments that accelerate the elimination of high-risk roads.
10. Make road safety a genuine part of business as usual within Commonwealth, state, territory and local government.
11. Resource key road safety enablers and road safety innovation initiatives.
12. Implement life-saving partnerships with countries in the Indo-Pacific and globally as appropriate to reduce road trauma.
Why should we do this? I'll tell you why. This is what will happen if we don't. Failure to improve our current situation will result in 12,000 killed and 360,000 injured, at a cost of over $300 billion in the next decade. People will say, 'Where did he get those figures from?' They are the published stats as we currently speak. If we do more of the same, this will be our outcome.
The only thing we really know is that if we want to look at performance of Australian governments, we can go back into history. I'm indebted to our great people of the Parliamentary Library for providing me some historical context. We knew in the 1940s that when planes stopped suddenly there was a need to appropriately package passengers. That was their terminology in the 1940s. If a plane came to a stop suddenly, people needed to be restrained. It's not rocket science. By 1954 the preliminary research data on the effectiveness of seatbelts had become available. In 1955 seatbelts were first offered as optional equipment in some US passenger vehicles, but not in Australia. In 1960 a Senate committee—one of our Senate committees of the Commonwealth parliament, established under the select committee process—came out with, 'The motor trade should install seatbelts of an approved standard in all motor vehicles.' It's not rocket science. That was 1960. The first Australian standard came out in 1961.
And what did the legislators do? We might assume that between 1961 and 1970—a period of one decade—when the manufacture of new cars required seatbelts, it could be reasonably assumed that seatbelts were effective and that their use would stop people from dying. But our whole process took a decade. In that decade we lost 30,895 souls. In the time it took for the evidence to be presented internationally and in Australia, for an Australian standard to be produced, and for the regulation to be enacted in every state and territory—it took 10 years. In that 10 years we had 30,000 deaths on the road and countless injuries.
We know that not every death in a car can be prevented by a seatbelt. I can remember the days when you only had to have one seatbelt in the car, for the driver. You could let your wife, your children and anybody else in the car just move around. Anyway, we know that 30,895 people lost their lives in that decade, and we know that 30 per cent—that is the best estimate from the stats we have—of those people would have been saved with a seatbelt. The lowest estimate is 24 per cent.
Here we have a situation where we can see where we're going, doing more of the same—1,200 people lose their lives every year and 36,000 are hospitalised for one day or more, so in a decade we will have 12,000 and 360,000—and we know where we've been because it took us 10 years to take action previously with the most obvious of methods like seatbelts. We know where we've been, and we know where we're going. What we need is the intestinal fortitude, the courage of both houses of parliament and a totally bipartisan effort to make serious inroads into this.
I commend to you the three- or four-minute video made by Dr John Crozier, a 21-year trauma surgeon veteran, who goes to Liverpool Hospital every Monday morning with his list of elective vascular surgeries. He makes it his business to go by it and do excellent work. Halfway through his day, a theatre alongside will be prepared and an accident victim will come in. He talks about a 17-year-old girl who is involved in trauma going to school with her father. He's doing his elective surgery. She's brought into the theatre next to him. He has to open up her body, take a metre of bowel out and put it in a bucket. He's got blood on his hands. He talks about the seven Australians who donated a litre of blood so that she may survive, and how she is then transferred to intensive surgery. He says, 'If there were 100 crosses on the lawns of Parliament House each month to mark every person who's killed in a road accident, and if there were 100 markers each day for someone who's injured in road accidents, there would be a seismic change in how we deal with this.' It is a hidden epidemic that we need to take urgent, proactive action on.
I commend the work of Dr John Crozier, Lauchlan McIntosh, Rob McInerney and, most importantly, my close friend and colleague from South Australia, Associate Professor Jeremy Woolley. They are doing great work. They've laid out a great plan. The wherewithal must come from this government. If this government can't do it, the next Labor government should.
Residential Care
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (20:14): Tonight our nation is caught within a moment of decision. Before us now is a question: will justice be done for disabled people or will we once again miss the opportunity to ensure that those in our nation who are so often made voiceless are heard?
Tonight, I'd like to read a passage from a speech given by my fellow disability activist and advocate Craig Wallace, who, in 2015, as part of the White Flower Memorial to commemorate all those who died in institutional and residential care, spoke to the sorrow and pain of our community. In concluding, he said, 'I call for those who have left us to be remembered, for their names and stories to be said out loud in the sunlight and amongst the people who love them.' Tonight, I seek to speak their names, and though the sun does not shine in this place I hope that their stories will move the hearts of those who have it within their power to see justice done. The following names are those who have died in the lead-up or subsequent to the Senate inquiry which called for a royal commission.
Shellay Ward, aged seven, was found locked in a room without sunlight, surrounded by faeces. Shellay died from starvation and thirst, and she weighed only nine kilograms—a third of her expected body weight. She had severe autism and was considered to be profoundly disabled.
Levi Bonnar, seven years old, was found beaten, tortured and finally killed by the people who were meant to care for him.
Hayley Dea Bell was eight years old. When she was found in 2013 she was starved, suffering from pneumonia and her hair was infested with lice and matted with dirt.
Isabella Leiper was nine. She died from a combination of internal injuries which paediatricians said were caused by blunt force to the stomach, such as a fist.
Julian was 11. He was left to freeze to death in a shed. He had first been hosed with water after having faeces rubbed in his face.
Liam Milne and his younger brother.
Craig Sullivan, 17, who was arrested for a minor driving offence and later bashed by another inmate at the Ashley Youth Detention Centre, died in isolation from a massive brain haemorrhage.
Brandon Le Serve suffered severe learning difficulties and was killed by a family member.
Jack Sullivan, 18, died in state funded care in the ACT from drowning.
Lara Madigan, 20, was returned to her parents' care at 19, despite stating that they could not look after her. Nine months before her death, authorities were warned she would die if the situation was not addressed. Two weeks before her death, both of her legs were amputated to attempt to stem infection. She died covered in her own faeces and urine in a room infested with cockroaches.
Sarah Hammoud, 22, a disabled young woman who was unable to speak and reportedly half-dragged and half-carried herself from a taxi after a shocking incident, allegedly witnessed by community workers, later died in hospital in 2016 of septicaemia.
Christopher O'Brien, aged 22.
Neil Summerell.
Rebecca Lazarus was found with multiple stab wounds in her chest and abdomen in a group-care home.
Jamie Vincent Johnson, age undisclosed. His care plan stated that he should not be left alone with water because he would drink it without stopping. He died after being left alone in the shower.
Carney Schultz died in a group home. She had a seizure at 2.23 am that was documented by staff and was found dead seven hours later.
Shona Hookey, 29, died as a result of medical neglect in an institutionalised setting.
Stephen Ind, 29, a quadriplegic man who made complaints of sexual assault and misconduct by his carers. He was left facedown and suffocated to death.
Stuart Lambert.
Melanie Cutmore, who died in the same hospital and under similar circumstances as Shona Hookey.
Brett Ponting, 33, died after being left unsupervised in a bathtub for an extended period of time. His carers were blamed for negligence.
Darren Kingma died in his respite facility as a result of an unexplained incident in which he broke his neck. He was left on the floor for over an hour after his support workers gave up trying to pull him up, saying that he was being non-compliant.
David Veech.
Miriam Merten, a mother of two who was left naked and covered in faeces at a Lismore psychiatric hospital.
Amanda Gilbert, 47, who had an acquired brain injury as a result of attempted suicide and was placed in the Graylands Hospital psychiatric care centre in my home state of WA. She was raped and assaulted 111 times and died as a result of complications used in the medication to sedate her. The WA coroner believes this to have been an underestimation of the number of times that she was raped.
Leah Elizabeth Floyd died when a pressure sore she had received at her care home became septic. The inquest heard about serious issues in the facility that she lived.
Julie Jacobson, a 51-year-old amputee who died a preventable, avoidable death after a private disability support provider withdrew essential supports.
Sandra Deacon, 59.
Janice and Robyn Frescura, 68 and 50. A family friend of the three people who died in a shooting near Hervey Bay says it was a mercy killing.
Shirley Thompson.
Janet Mackozdi.
Julie Betty Kuhn. A 81-year-old from Armadale was charged over his elderly partner's apparent mercy killing. It was described as a beautiful act of mercy for his wife.
These are the names that don't get spoken. These are the reasons. These are the human beings. These are the loved ones, the mothers, the fathers, the sons and the partners who need justice, who demand justice, whose lives were worth living, in whose memory I tonight wear a white flower and whose passing fills me with an ironclad determination. I will not stop and I will not rest until they find the justice that is so desperately owed them.
Nuclear Waste
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (20:24): I apologise for not being able to speak when I should have done. Senators' speeches such as we've just heard are very powerful and emotional. Senator Gallacher's speech reminded me of the impact of road accidents on my own family.
However, that is not why I'm in the chamber tonight. I'm in the chamber tonight to talk about my recent visit to Leonora in Western Australia. I went to Leonora to attend a public meeting hosted by the Conservation Council of Western Australia to welcome the walkers from Walkatjurra Walkabout back from a month-long, 280 kilometre protest walk from Wiluna to Leonora in the north-east Goldfields of WA. The walk was to raise awareness about the dangers of uranium mining and radioactivity. At this meeting, I witnessed firsthand a community deeply distressed by the looming risk that Leonora could be the site for the proposed national radioactive waste management facility, a national waste dump for highly radioactive long-lived intermediate level waste, commonly known as ILW.
Senator Canavan has said that Leonora is the proposed plan B for the national radioactive waste management facility. This policy on the run demonstrates once again that there is no scientifically based process being used to identify the best method to manage this waste. The minister's approach is shambolic. Many Leonora traditional owners are concerned about Minister Canavan's proposal and feel distressed about the proposal to host a radioactive waste facility only 15 kilometres away from the town of Leonora.
I visited the proposed waste dump when I was there. It is a hugely rich and undisturbed area of country on a floodplain and lake system with many culturally significant sites. I visited there with Aboriginal elders and leaders from Leonora. I have to say that the people of Leonora aren't very happy that senators from South Australia are suggesting that Leonora would be a better site than South Australia. Having said that, I don't think the dump should be in South Australia either—but we don't appreciate fingers being pointed at Leonora or Western Australia for this dump site. I remind the chamber that the WA Nuclear Waste Storage and Transportation (Prohibition) Act 1999 prohibits the storage or transportation of nuclear waste in Western Australia. Nuclear waste, as defined in the act, is radioactive waste nuclear waste from a nuclear plant or from the creation, testing and decommissioning of nuclear weapons. Western Australia has made it pretty clear how we feel about becoming a waste dump.
For two decades, successive governments have tried to impose radioactive waste on unwilling remote communities. Waste plans for Muckaty in the Northern Territory were shelved after sustained Aboriginal and community opposition. The Greens have stood and will continue to stand with First Nations and remote communities that want to protect their air, soil and water. It is a national problem that has taken 60 years to make and will take 10,000 years to address. But, according to Senator Canavan, it will be sorted by Christmas. How to manage Australia's radioactive waste has been a challenge for successive federal governments, with communities across South Australia and the Northern Territory consistently rejecting plans for the dumping and storage of waste in their regions. Western Australians, pre-empting any move to try dump it on us, have also got an act prohibiting it.
It is irresponsible and deeply troubling that Senator Canavan is making these policies on the run. The radioactive management process has been flawed from the start. From day one, ordinary people have had their lives turned upside down. Right now the Leonora community are living with the threat of their region becoming a radioactive waste dump site if the government's plan is rejected.
Around 95 per cent of the materials planned to be moved to any new facility is currently managed at two secure federal sites. Low-level waste needs to be isolated for 300 years, and most is currently at the Woomera defence lands in South Australia's north. The more problematic intermediate-level waste, which needs to be isolated for 10,000 years, is stored where it was made at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation's Lucas Heights facility in southern Sydney. ANSTO has previously acknowledged that it can manage its own waste. In fact, Carl-Magnus Larsson, the CEO of ARPANSA, has said that there is no urgency to move the ILW from Lucas Heights and that it is safe there at the current time. While ILW cannot be disposed of at ANSTO, it can be stored there pending a final disposal solution. There are no regulatory constraints that preclude extending the storage at ANSTO. Both sites have the physical, technical and regulatory capacity to continue to store this waste for many years, so the current sense of federal urgency and pressure is being driven by politics and ANSTO's corporate preference rather than by evidence or need. Currently Australia's most dangerous radioactive waste is stored above ground at ANSTO. This makes sense because not only is the waste already on site but the Lucas Heights facility also has clear tenure, high levels of security and policing and the most advanced radioactive monitoring and emergency response capacity in the country and, as the centre of the Australian nuclear expertise, is the workplace for around 1,200 people.
The federal government has not solved the complex management issues with radioactive waste. We need a proper regime that includes an integrated and evidence based national approach to radioactive waste management. Leading civil society organisations, including environment, public health, First Nations and trade union groups all support an expert, open and independent inquiry into the full range of radioactive waste management options. Australia has a long history of failed plans to locate national nuclear waste dumps. Plans have disproportionately targeted First Nations lands. Coercive attempts to dump radioactive waste on unwilling communities do not work. This is the experience here and internationally. I have seen the division and the heartache that has been brought to people in these communities, having been involved in campaigns over the previous dump sites. We do not want these problems foisted onto the Leonora community. We do not want a waste dump in Western Australia. It is time that there was an expert, open and independent inquiry into the full range of radioactive waste management options. Don't try and foist this waste on a community that doesn't want it. Don't try and foist waste on First Nations communities. Let's come up with a proper plan based on an independent inquiry that will look at the full range of options. We want to keep Leonora nuclear free.
Facing North
Senator McCARTHY (Northern Territory) (20:33): I rise tonight to make mention of the Facing North event here at Parliament House this week. It's a celebration of all things Territory. It's a celebration of our success, our businesses, our products and, most importantly, our people. The Territory's valuable strategic position as a gateway to Asia cannot be denied. The Territory is a key defence hub and a world renowned tourist destination. It has a rich diversity of mineral, gas, petroleum and agricultural resources—all the ingredients needed to support a sustainable economy. Unlocking the potential for northern Australia and the Northern Territory should be of critical importance to the Australian government.
Facing North is an initiative of the Territory Leadership Network, a collaborative arrangement made between the Darwin Major Business Group and the Northern Territory government. Facing North will focus on the north and forge key relationships for the future business and economic benefit to the Northern Territory and its capital of the north, Darwin, a sophisticated, professional, modern and diverse economy with very real opportunities. The structure of the Northern Territory economy is markedly different to the national economy. The Territory is a relatively small, open economy that is significantly influenced by major projects with abundant natural resources, a large public sector and a Defence presence.
The Territory economy has grown considerably over the past decade. Total gross state product has grown from $16.9 billion in 2006-07 to $23.26 billion in 2015-16 with population increasing during this period by approximately 31,000 to over 245,000 people. From 2017-18 the Territory's economic forecast is that it will continue to face the challenging conditions experienced in 2016-17 following a sustained period of record growth across many key industries as a result of the significant construction and investment associated with the Ichthys liquefied natural gas project and other resources.
As the impact of large resource based projects move beyond peak growth, GSP, business investment, construction activity, dwelling supply and demand, employment and population are all expected to remain subdued when compared to historical highs. That's why support from the Commonwealth is so critical. That's why this event in Canberra is also important to the future development of the Northern Territory. And I urge all senators and members to make sure that you do join in to the Facing North and make yourself aware of the people, the food and the companies that make the Territory a pretty special place.
Public investment is expected to play an important role in supporting economic activity over the forecast period and provide a significant contribution to economic growth, particularly in 2016-17 and 2017-18, including the Territory government's $1.75 billion infrastructure investment program in 2017-18. The Territory government's investment and the Commonwealth's large-scale defence projects are expected to be key drivers of public investment over the forecast period. It's of immense importance that the Commonwealth and Territory governments maintain a good relationship by unlocking key investment opportunities which will allow the Northern Territory to prosper.
The inaugural Facing North event was first held in September 2017 and, following its success, Facing North has become an annual event. The event showcases Darwin and the Territory. Last year's event was a success all of its own but this year's event certainly promises to be much bigger and better than ever. This year's event will showcase more than 100 businesses and organisations from around the Territory and that also includes 28 organisations of First Nations people, given nearly half the Territory land mass is Aboriginal land. And Territory parliamentarians, including the Chief Minister, Michael Gunner and Treasurer, Nicole Manison, will be there, along with my federal colleagues from the Northern Territory including Senator Nigel Scullion and also Warren Snowdon, the member for Lingiari, and Luke Gosling, the member for Solomon. On this occasion, we unite very strongly for the people and the places of northern Australia. I certainly thank the Territory government and the Darwin Major Business Group for their efforts in making such a huge event a reality. I look forward to the investment that this event will create and I remain confident of its ability to aid in bringing jobs to the Northern Territory.
Operation Flinders Foundation
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (20:39): I rise tonight to speak about a great South Australian initiative related to troubled youth. Three weeks ago, I was fortunate enough to travel to Leigh Creek and Yankaninna to take part in Operation Flinders, a remote outback adventure program for at-risk 14-to-18-year-olds. While the name sounds like an operation that I might have participated in during my Navy days, this is a civilian program, but it does take many elements from defence training. The program was founded in 1991 by Pamela Murray-White, who is sadly no longer with us. Pam was a teacher and a former Army officer. After completing her Army service, she returned to her teaching duties at Beafield Campus, where she dealt with students with behavioural problems. It was here that she realised that there were some outdoor elements of Army life and culture that could have some positive effects on some of her students. Pam reached out to the Defence Force and some of their personnel to set up a program for these young people, with the Army providing personnel, stores and logistic support, without which the program would not have been able to function.
She conducted one exercise in 1991 with a modest 35 student participants. By 1993 she was conducting three exercises with a total of 99 participants. Over the next two years, young people sourced from the South Australian education system took part in Pam's program, with a number of staff from the education department joining Defence Force personnel to provide voluntary support. The South Australia Police were also quick to jump on board after seeing the project as a positive initiative to prevent crime. To date, the program has assisted 6,000 young people and now conducts five exercises each year in the northern Flinders Ranges. Small teams of students are inserted into the remote bush to trek about 100 kilometres over an eight-day period. It's an intensely physical, emotional and psychological challenge, but it's one that Operation Flinders says gives participants the chance to expand their view of the world to a point where they see other people virtually for the first time and they realise the world has far more to offer than they had ever thought.
Once the program commences the students are expected to complete it. There is no opportunity to opt out, as they might when faced with challenges in their daily life. During the program, the team walks in a predetermined route around the property to finish in the vicinity of where they first started. The distance of daily walks varies, generally between 10 and 15 kilometres per day. The young students are also required to take charge and be responsible for campsite cleanliness, cooking the meals, building the fire and other duties required to maintain the camp area. Other activities include daily cross-country hikes, abseiling, team building activities, bush survival skills, navigation and first aid skills, and an understanding of Aboriginal culture and the history of the Flinders Ranges.
Over the eight-day period, students tend to go through four phases. First, there is the storming period where the participants complain about the physical aspects of the camp and object to the discipline. Some of them drop to the ground and refuse to move on, with an adult team leader staying with them until they work out that they don't actually get to eat until they make it to base camp. Then comes the morning phase where the students come to terms with the situation they find themselves in. They're still not happy, but they accept the situation. The third phase is performing, where they start to work well as a team and, with high spirits, they start to enjoy the experience. The final stage is mourning where they regret that things are coming to an end.
During my weekend in the Flinders Ranges, I met some of the student participants and it was great to hear their stories. I chatted with a young lad who took me aside and showed me how he'd set up his hutchie—the science of how to set it up so a snake wouldn't end up in it, the wind wouldn't blow in the wrong direction at night-time and he could manage the rain, which rarely happens up there. The young man was very, very proud of the knowledge that he'd taken on board over the last three or four days and was happy to repeat it as though it was his own and as though he was the world's expert in that particular field.
I also spoke to a student who was part of a family of 10. He had been sent out to participate in the program. On this particular day he was the team leader. He told me of his experience. He said to me, 'Senator Patrick, when I first started this morning as a leader for my first time I just shouted at everyone, but I realised that didn't work.' With a bit of coaching from the adult team leaders he managed to learn how to be a leader throughout the day. There are fantastic stories from young people who would otherwise be troubled.
I was also lucky enough to try out some of the other activities, including abseiling. Whilst I was there, there were 101 students in the field in 11 teams. They were spread out over Operation Flinders' 563-square-kilometre remote property. It is a really remote property. It's funny, there were 11 teams out there and not once did they cross each other's paths, which was very interesting.
Twenty-six per cent of Operation Flinders' funding comes from the South Australian state government. I'm happy and pleased to state that Premier Marshall is a great supporter of the program. About 20 per cent comes from the corporate sector and another 20 per cent comes from service clubs and local councils, with the rest coming from philanthropy and fundraising events. Perhaps there is a role the Commonwealth could play in this. It's a proven intervention to keep youth at risk out of the justice system, so perhaps it has an application in other states. I'm happy to take queries from any other senators who might wish to understand this program and perhaps see that it comes to their own state as well. I implore the federal government to take a closer look at this life-changing program.
India: Floods
Immigration Detention
Senator SINGH (Tasmania) (20:47): I rise tonight to speak on the devastating floods that took place last month in the southern Indian state of Kerala. Throughout August, the Malayan people of Kerala were affected by the region's worst flooding in nearly a century. Over 1,000 millimetres of rain fell across 10 days, affecting nearly 70 per cent of the state. Rivers overflowed and neighbourhoods were swamped by landslides. Floodwaters up to three metres high filled homes and covered streets, leaving vehicles completely submerged.
To put this in context, in May this year my home city of Hobart experienced a terrible flood. We had nearly 100 millimetres of rain in just one night. While we are still in the process of repairing the damage from that single night, Kerala has experienced 10 times that amount of rain. More than 500 people have tragically lost their lives as a result of the flooding, and at the height of the crisis nearly 1½ million people suffered displacement, many living in relief camps with just the clothes on their backs.
Oxfam India said that the magnitude of devastation is immeasurable, with initial assessments estimating the cost of rebuilding at close to $4 billion. But the relief efforts have been incredible. Dump trucks, once viewed as dangerous hazards on Kerala's roads, have become vital to the rescue operations, being used to ferry survivors out and volunteers in. Schools have begun to reopen and a veritable army of volunteers, consisting of anyone from snake catchers to ministers, electricians and bureaucrats, has descended on Kerala to clean homes and clear roads. I think this speaks volumes of the determination of the people of Kerala: a resilient and community-minded people. Of course, there is still a long path to recovery ahead of them. As the clean-up continues, animal- and water-borne diseases, including malaria, pose a serious risk. So Kerala needs all the help it can get and can be given.
In my home city of Hobart, we are home to some 250 Malayali people who have been working tirelessly to do what they can to provide help and support to many affected by the floods in Kerala. The Hobart Malayali Association for some time has shared the rich culture of Kerala with Tasmanians and fostered a multicultural environment. But in light of this crisis, their efforts of course have shifted to focus on fundraising across Tasmania in support of the relief operations. They met with me in my office at the end of August. At that point in time they had already raised $16,000 ahead of their target of $20,000. At last week's federal Labor caucus meeting here in Parliament House, I'm proud to report that my Labor colleagues raised nearly $300 for the Kerala Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund at a fundraising morning tea organised by myself and the shadow minister, Michelle Rowland. This flood is a major humanitarian crisis and something that Labor wanted to play our part in. I urge all Australians to join with us to do what we can to show our support to the people of Kerala in India.
I now wish to raise another humanitarian disaster on the other side of the Indo-Pacific. The refugee children who are detained on Nauru are in desperate need of medical attention. At the same time as Minister Marise Payne was visiting Nauru for the Pacific Islands Forum earlier this month, 109 children remained in critical condition in offshore detention by this government that she was representing. The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre has reported:
Around 30 children have shown from Traumatic Withdrawal Syndrome, a strong sense of resignation, brought about by the traumatic environment they are confined to and the non-treatment of prolonged mental illness. They have lost the ability to walk, talk, eat, self-toilet, drink or socialise. They are dehydrated and malnourished.
… … …
They can't get better on Nauru because being trapped there is the cause of their trauma.
A 12-year-old girl on Nauru told a psychiatrist last month that she believes suicide was 'the only way to get out of here. Is better being dead than here.'
These children all have no hope that Australia will look after them, but one country wants to. At that very forum that Senator Marise Payne attended—the forum the new Prime Minister was too uncomfortable to attend—there was an opportunity for Australia to discuss the settlement of those children in New Zealand. But the Morrison government cares very little, it seems, for humanity. It refused to take up that opportunity. New Zealand once again confirmed their generous offer to resettle refugees on Nauru. That offer remained opened. In fact, New Zealand went further. To make its offer a reality, it was willing to negotiate conditions to negate any concerns Peter Dutton and the Liberals had about that resettlement. As New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Winston Peters, said on 4 September:
If that was their concern, that by letting them come to New Zealand they can gain rights to come to Australia, we can fix that up, so that's not really a concern in my view.
The Prime Minister, Minister Dutton and Minister Payne had no excuses on Nauru for refusing New Zealand's generous offer to resettle refugee children and their families, but refuse the offer they did.
I have written to Minister Dutton. Labor's shadow minister for immigration, Shayne Neumann, has written to Minister Dutton and to the Prime Minister, as I'm sure many of my other Labor caucus colleagues have. We have urged them to accept New Zealand's offer so that eligible refugees, including children from Manus and Nauru, can be resettled as quickly as possible. Because this is about humanity, our sense of humanity and to do what is right. Because this is about people, innocent people, who are losing the will to live, children who are losing the will to live. Australia should and must do something to help them—we owe it to them.
We know that New Zealand's offer was first negotiated, in 2013, between former Prime Minister Julia Gillard and former New Zealand Prime Minister John Key, before being binned by Tony Abbott, who said it would only be called upon if and when it became necessary. Well, it has been necessary for years. Nauru and Manus Island were set up as temporary regional processing centres that have become places of indefinite detention, places of no hope and overwhelming despair. 'In my nightmares, darkness surrounds me.' Those are the words of a seven-year-old boy called Ahoora, who arrived on Nauru as a three-year-old. Ahoora has seen his mother make numerous suicide attempts and write letters daubed with her own blood to Australian Border Force, begging for help. He has watched his older brother sew his lips together in protest.
The Turnbull government had the nous to negotiate appropriate conditions for the US refugee resettlement arrangement, but when it comes to the New Zealand settlement arrangement, why does the Morrison government simply walk away? Again, I call on this Prime Minister to fix the hell that he has created and take action to end the indefinite detention of refugees.
Bisexual Awareness Week
Senator RICE (Victoria) (20:57): This week is international Bisexual Awareness Week, or Bi Week as it's known. It's an important week for the LGBTIQ+ community and for me personally, as a proud bisexual woman and a member of this parliament. I am proud to wear the colours of the bi flag as a scarf tonight.
Bi Week is an opportunity for us to recognise the diversity of bi+ people within Australia and to celebrate them. It's time to take stock of the incredible contributions that bisexual role models and activists have made to the broader LGBTIQ+ community. It's a time to listen to bi+ Australians and to elevate their stories. And it's time to pay heed to the specific challenges faced by bi+ people that we must, as a wider community, acknowledge and address. And although bisexuality is commonly represented as an attraction towards cisgender men and women, the term encompasses a broad spectrum of identities and attractions that are trans and gender diverse inclusive.
As bi+ advocate Robyn Ochs states, bisexuality is:
… the potential to be attracted—romantically and/or sexually—to people of more than one sex and/or gender, not necessarily at the same time, not necessarily in the same way, and not necessarily to the same degree.
For many of us, me included, bisexuality expresses our capability to love and be attracted to people of many or all genders. However we label ourselves—bisexual, bicurious, pansexual, polysexual, sexuality fluid or queer—we should be proud of this.
There's no one way to experience bisexuality or to be bi+, and I can assure you my own journey as a bisexual person is a reflection of this. For a large part of my adult life I thought of myself as heterosexual, but, yes, a heterosexual who every so often found women attractive too. But I was happily married, and so that attraction was irrelevant. I loved my spouse, and that was that. It wasn't until my wife, Penny, transitioned, and I had to reflect on my sexuality in that context, that I realised I wasn't a straight woman. I was a bisexual one. I remember one pivotal moment of that realisation. Penny and I were out dancing. It was before her social transition, when she was only presenting as Penny part time—or Halfpenny, as our children called her. Penny was still worried that if she transitioned it would destroy our relationship. That was what she wanted to avoid at all costs. She told me if that were the case she would put her gender identity back in the box and repress it, as she had done for most of her life. As we were dancing that night, however, I realised that not only did I still love Penny, but I loved her as Penny as a woman. I found her attractive as Penny as a woman. I realised that I was bisexual.
While I was fortunate enough to be able to embrace my sexuality smoothly, seamlessly and proudly, this is not always the case for all bi+ people. Although we have made great strides in the acceptance and rights of LGBTIQ+ people, in particular with marriage equality finally having been achieved last year, harmful stereotypes persist. There are deep prejudices against people who identify within the bi+ umbrella. Bisexual erasure or invisibility is downright pervasive in our society. For example, we are continually made to refute claims that our identities and sexualities are a phase or that we're indecisive. Bisexuality is not a rest stop on the road to becoming gay or lesbian. It is its own complete identity.
After Penny transitioned and we reaffirmed our loving relationship to the world by happily staying together, one of my friends described me as the accidental lesbian. Although humorous and well-meaning, it's not accurate. I'm bisexual. I think her labelling me as such is typical of the ignorance about and the invisibility of bisexual people. I reflect on my own lack of awareness of bisexuality. I identified as heterosexual right up until Penny's transition, despite experiences of being attracted to women as well as men. But being bisexual wasn't in my field of view then. I was in a monogamous, seemingly heterosexual relationship; therefore I was heterosexual. The heteronormativity of our society certainly helped that along. I was able to fit myself into the heterosexual box, which is where normal, ordinary, socially acceptable people were; so why go any further than that?
Bisexuals are much less visible than our gay and lesbian counterparts. There are far fewer visible role models for young people exploring their sexuality. When we're in a monogamous relationship, it can be wrongly assumed that we have chosen a side. This is diminutive of our identities and amounts to an erasing of our sexuality, sometimes by ignorance, sometimes derisively and dismissively.
It is also important to acknowledge that bi phobia is experienced more acutely by some bi+ people than others. In particular, trans people and cisgender men cop more abuse for expressing bisexuality, affecting their ability to lead an openly bisexual life. This is particularly worrying for younger LGBTIQ+ people. In a survey this year of their under-18 listeners, Triple J found that young gay men were twice as likely to come out as bisexual men, and that young women were twice as likely to identify as bisexual as young men. These stats reflect a wider trend in our society. Not only does bisexuality have minimal representation in mainstream media, when it is represented it is often through depictions of bi+ women. Bi+, trans people and cis men barely get a mention.
We need more representation in mainstream media of the full array of bisexuality so that bi+ people can feel accepted and supported to come out, live openly and not feel pressure to suppress our sexuality in any way. We greatly need this because we know that bi invisibility and bi phobia take a huge toll on our health and wellbeing. Research has shown again and again that the mental health of bi+ people is significantly poorer than that of heterosexual, gay or lesbian people. We also know that biphobia and bi-erasure lead to discrimination against bisexual people from both heterosexual communities and from gay and lesbian communities. This is not okay, and it needs to change. We must continue to challenge the restrictive, narrow ideas of sex and gender rife in our society that prevent us from living openly.
Bisexual Awareness Week is a chance to assert our presence in the LGBTIQ+ community in Australia and in the world and to demand the rights, respect and services that we need in order for our community to feel safe and included. I encourage my colleagues across the parliament to make time for and to listen to the bi+ people in your communities. Take the opportunity to understand our experiences and to use your platforms to amplify our voices.
Finally, to my bi+ community, I'd like to take the opportunity to say: 'I see you. I see you even where others don't. I will continue to share our stories and advocate for our rights inside and outside the parliament. You are amazing, resilient and beautiful.'
Senate adjourned at 21:06
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The Clerk tabled the following document pursuant to statute:
Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975—2019 General Social Survey—Proposal No. 9 of 2018.
Tabling
The following documents were tabled pursuant to standing order 61(1)(b):
Government document
1. Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984—Report for 2017-18.