The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The Clerk: I table documents pursuant to statute and returns to order as listed on the Dynamic Red.
Details of the documents also appear at the end of today ' s Hansard.
COMMITTEES
Meeting
The Clerk: Proposals to meet have been lodged as follows:
Community Affairs References Committee—20 September 2018
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services—20 September, 15, 16 and 18 October 2018
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee—today
The PRESIDENT (09:31): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Employer Register) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (09:31): Here we are with a bill brought on in a rush, in a hurry, by a government that is an absolute rabble. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Employer Register) Bill 2017 is part of a deal between this rabble of a government and Senator Leyonhjelm to take away some protection for migrant workers in this country. What an absolute joke! We know this government is scraping the bottom of the barrel to try and get legislation before this place. We know it doesn't have an agenda. We know it has a Prime Minister who doesn't know what he's got to do, a Prime Minister with the L-plates up, a Prime Minister who is just in this job because another Liberal Prime Minister has been knifed in the back. We have ended up with this legislation as part of a deal with Senator Leyonhjelm to take away some protection for migrant workers in this country.
This bill removes the requirement for the public listing on the Australian Business Register of businesses that employ working holiday-makers, winding back a transparency measure in the original package. As part of worker protection that was included in the package passed by parliament in 2016, there was a requirement that a legislative framework be set up allowing the Commissioner of Taxation to establish a mandatory registration process for employers of working holiday-makers. This allowed the date of effect of an employer's registration to be made publicly available on the Australian Business Register. Effectively this was to allow visa holders to check the public register to see if a business is registered for employing working holiday-makers, to allow them to make sure a potential employer is in fact a legitimate business. It provided a public register of the companies that were employing the 200,000 visa holders, where there was no public register previously. The register addressed concerns about the exploitation of working holiday-makers and would provide valuable data on working holiday-makers.
It's similarly reprehensible that the Morrison government—and when you talk about a Morrison government, it's really an inverted commas 'government'; it's not much of a government; it's got no agenda; it's got no capacity to focus on the issues that are important for Australians—this rabble of a government, wants to down a measure that helps ensure employers remit the right amount of tax to the tax office on behalf of those workers. The government, with this bill, is actively and willingly increasing the risk of tax non-compliance. What a joke! What an absolute joke! The bill will rip up the ability of a working holiday-maker to look up the details of an employer on the register for employing working holiday-makers, affecting their ability to choose an employer who will comply with tax laws. Both of these provisions in the original bill meant that there was some possibility of greater protection from exploitation for working holiday-makers. Given the significant cases of worker exploitation in this area, we strongly recommend that this tawdry bill be rejected. Labor has consistently stated our commitment to transparency, particularly in areas that can help reduce exploitation of vulnerable workers.
So this is where we are. Instead of fixing aged care or restoring penalty rates, the government is asking us to debate the merits of whether or not working holiday-makers will have access to information about potential employers. Instead of fighting fraudulent phoenix activity or tackling tax havens, the Morrison government would rather have us debate the merits of whether or not working holiday-makers should face an increased risk of exploitation. Well, they shouldn't face an increased risk of exploitation. It's an absolute nonsense that we've got a mob sitting across the chamber, calling themselves a government, that would support further exploitation of vulnerable workers in this country. But it doesn't surprise me. Anything that supports workers would not be supported by this government. Remember Work Choices? Remember the ABCC? Remember the ROC? Remember that minister, Senator Cash, who misled parliament on five occasions, who's the subject of a Federal Police investigation, who refuses to work effectively with the Federal Police to get to the bottom of what's going on? Is it any surprise that migrant workers are at the bottom of the list for this mob? Is it any surprise that they would rather have farmers in this country exploit workers? Is it any surprise they would have criminal gangs, as exposed on Four Corners, exploit migrant workers, having them live in terrible conditions and now not having a support mechanism available to them so that they can test whether theirs is a reasonable employer and an employer that meets their legal obligations?
It's not just Labor that's concerned about this. The Salvation Army, the Uniting Church, and the Tax Justice Network oppose this bill. For the benefit of the Senate, let's briefly look at where the government has come from. Former Treasurer Morrison, in a media release around the time of the original legislation, stated that backpackers could look up employers via ABN Lookup, making the register publicly accessible. Not long after that, the government introduced this bill to the House, and Fairfax reported, in early 2017:
A spokesman for the Treasurer Scott Morrison said the bill was proposed by Senator Leyonhjelm.
"The government agreed to introduce the amendment after reaching an agreement with the senator to pass the original WYHM legislation. The government will honour its commitment," the spokesman said.
"This commitment did not extend to the successful passage of the amendment.
"The government is committed to protecting the rights of backpackers and protecting them from exploitation. …"
We really are at the bottom of the barrel. The spokesperson for the Prime Minister, who was the Treasurer at the time, indicated that this was simply about doing a deal with Senator Leyonhjelm. You should not be using vulnerable workers as part of a deal with the extremists in the Senate. Senator Leyonhjelm has got some of the most extreme views in the Senate.
Senator Leyonhjelm is always interested in small government, except when it comes to paying his wages. There's no small government when he's picking up his pay cheque every month. There's no small government when it comes to the perks of being a senator. There's no small government when it comes to making sure that his nose is in the trough. There's no small government when it comes to making sure that Senator Leyonhjelm's looked after. But when it comes to looking after vulnerable workers, vulnerable people, then government has to be small. When it comes to making sure that we've got a decent health system, government's got to be small. When it comes to a decent education system, according to Senator Leyonhjelm, government's got to be small. So it's big government when it's looking after his mates in the tobacco industry and it's big government when it comes to looking after Senator Leyonhjelm, but it's small government when it comes to looking after vulnerable workers.
This bill is an absolute nonsense. I would invite anyone who wants to deal with this bill, who's thinking about supporting this bill, to go back to the Four Corners transcript of Monday, 4 May 2015, where it outlined the slave labour that was going on in the Queensland rural sector. A Queensland grower said that there is slave labour in this country. So what Senator Leyonhjelm is proposing is that you hide the slave labour so that you don't get a union knocking on your door to try and make sure that decent wages and conditions are being paid. What an absolute joke! What an absolute pathetic position to be putting to this Senate.
Any time you see Senator Leyonhjelm standing up with his grandiose ideas, with all the nonsense he goes on about, then look at what he is prepared to do to vulnerable workers in this country. He is prepared to have them ripped off. It's an absolute joke. We've got nearly mafia-life exploitation of some of these workers. And then when a modest position comes in place to support those workers, we'll get Senator Leyonhjelm supporting it. We've got the government actually providing a process to bring this to the Senate. What an absolute joke this is. You should be ashamed of yourself, Senator Leyonhjelm, for bringing this to this place. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself.
It's no use having a bit of a laugh with Senator Hanson. This is a serious issue. This is about looking after exploited workers. This is about making sure that they've got a decent right in this country and know who employers are employing. It's about making sure that these companies are paying proper taxation. So we take the view that this should be rejected. We are determined to oppose this bill, and anyone of any decency in this chamber would be opposing this bill.
I am disgusted that the coalition has allowed this to come forward to exploit workers just because they've done another grubby deal to try and save their own necks—a dying government, a decaying government, a government that their own Prime Minister describes as muppets. If there ever were a muppet show, look at what's going on here. The muppets have allowed this to be brought to the Senate to exploit ordinary working people. This is a disgraceful government. This is a chaotic government. This is a government on its last legs. This is a government that should actually go to the people and let the people make a decision whether they want decency in government and whether they want a government that will look after the exploited in this country.
This is another demonstration that workers' rights in this country mean nothing under this coalition. They mean nothing. When Senator Leyonhjelm is leading the government by the nose to exploit workers, then that is the bottom of the barrel. This government is at the bottom of the barrel. It is a government that doesn't care about workers' rights. It is a government that attacks workers' rights. It is a government that does dirty deals to ensure that ordinary workers can get ripped off and migrant workers can get ripped off. This bill is a disgrace and should be opposed.
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (09:45): I rise to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Employer Register) Bill 2017. I see this bill as a finalisation of the government's backpacker tax package of 2016. The government's backpacker tax package passed in late 2016, albeit with a hiccup on 30 November 2016. By November 2016, the government had the support of the then Xenophon Team of three senators provided that a program to encourage unemployed youth to do seasonal work was subsequently implemented. That program has since been implemented. By 30 November 2016, the government had the support of Pauline Hanson's One Nation provided that the tax rate on working holiday-makers was reduced from 19 per cent to 15 per cent. And by 30 November 2016 the government believed it had Senator Hinch's support, too. The government knew it did not have my support at that time because the backpacker tax package included some violations of taxpayer privacy and because I considered that even a 15 per cent tax rate was excessive. That's still my view, incidentally, and I think Labor's agriculture shadow minister would agree with me.
Then, on 30 November 2016, Senator Hinch joined Senator Culleton and others to vote for a 10.5 per cent tax rate, instead of a 15 per cent tax rate. So it was a 10.5 per cent tax rate that passed the Senate, much to the dismay of the government. Treasurer Morrison came to my office asking if there was any way I could support the backpacker tax package at 15 per cent. I reluctantly agreed to support the package if the violations of taxpayer privacy were removed. Having secured this deal, the government brought that part of the backpacker tax package dealing with the tax rate back to the Senate on 1 December 2016, and a 15 per cent tax rate was finally passed.
The part of the backpacker tax package that included the violations of taxpayer privacy had already passed both houses, so it was not returned to the Senate on 1 December 2016. Instead, to fix the violations of taxpayer privacy we needed new legislation, hence the bill we are debating today, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Employer Register) Bill 2017. I thank the government for bringing this bill to the Senate.
This bill removes a provision allowing the Australian Taxation Office to publicise on the Australian Business Register an individual employer's intention to hire working holiday-makers. The ATO has not used this power to date, given that the bill has been on the Notice Paper. Forcing the publication on the Australian Business Register of an individual employer's intention to hire working holiday-makers is a recipe for the Australian Workers' Union to harass that individual employer. Farmers are mostly small businesses—individual family businesses. They have enough problems with droughts, floods and even needles in strawberries without Senator Cameron's bovver-boy mates knocking on the door. Employers will be free to continue to publicise their intentions to hire working holiday-makers through sites frequented by prospective working holiday-makers. It will come as no surprise that working holiday-makers tend not to peruse the Australian Business Register. General reporting about working holiday-makers and employers who hire them is unaffected by this bill.
This bill also reverts to the previous rule protecting personal financial information provided by a taxpayer to the ATO, so that the ATO can provide this information to the employment department without breaching secrecy provisions only if the taxpayer is actually or reasonably suspected of noncompliance with a taxation law. Because this bill has been on the Notice Paper, the ATO is currently divulging information consistent with the previous rule, rather than divulging information more broadly. This is a protection of the personal financial information of law-abiding taxpayers and it should continue.
I expect Labor and the Greens will make outlandish claims about this bill, but this is a simple and modest bill. It ensures that the protection on taxpayer privacy in place on 30 November 2016 remains. It represents the finalisation of a backpacker tax package that the Senate agreed to on 1 December 2016. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (09:50): This Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Employer Register) Bill 2017 is bizarre; it's completely bizarre and completely reflective of a government that doesn't know what it's doing. We thought the backpacker tax fiasco was dead, buried and cremated, but here we have it rising from the ashes again today in the form of a most unusual backflip by the government, seemingly for Senator Leyonhjelm's benefit, and we can only wonder at what kind of deals have been done behind closed doors.
Through this bill, the government is bringing forward legislation to repeal its own legislation, which is less than two years old, to honour a deal that they didn't end up doing. I will repeat that again: through this bill, this government is bringing forward legislation to repeal its own legislation, which is less than two years old, to honour a deal they didn't do.
Senator Cameron: Because they're a rabble!
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Well, they are a rabble. I can't say it with quite the intonation that Senator Cameron can, but absolutely they are a rabble. Senators, let's reflect on what happened around the backpacker fiasco. It was leading into the Christmas holidays. We were all looking forward to it—talk about a rabble—after an absolutely shambolic double-dissolution, going into Christmas of 2016. What did we have? We had a seemingly obscure piece of legislation around changing the tax rate for backpackers. It nearly brought the government down and it nearly brought down the Prime Minister at the time. That's how serious this was. That's how it snowballed into an absolute fiasco for the government.
We had a situation where, in a tax grab, a revenue grab—and it wasn't very much revenue either, by the way; we're talking about only a very small amount of money—the government decided in their budget to go after foreign workers. They decided to go after foreign workers, who, for all intents and purposes, were working on short-term visas—holiday visas—in Australia, helping Australian businesses pick their fruit, which is very important in my home state of Tasmania. The government basically said, 'You're not paying any tax while you're here. We're going to levy a 32.5 per cent tax rate on the money you're going to earn.' There were existing exemptions and loopholes and all sorts of accusations of rorting of the system, but the employers, the National Farmers' Federation, clearly told us senators—and as a Tasmanian senator I had discussions with all the stakeholders—that the system was working. They were able to source the labour they needed to pick their fruit and stay in business. The system was working because Australia was an attractive destination. They not only came here for a holiday but for a working holiday, and there was work available. They were able, effectively, to get more money in their pocket, because of the way the tax laws were, and therefore we were very competitive compared to our friends across the ditch in New Zealand, and to other places. So, the government set a 32.5 per cent tax rate and there were going to be no negotiations on that.
When it was clear that they didn't have the support in the Senate the government decide to bring in a tax rate of 19 per cent. They weren't going to budge, and they weren't going to negotiate. They'd already compromised, so that's what it was going to be. Of course, senators in this place got together, and they talked to employers again, and a new proposition was put up on multiple fronts—I think One Nation put up a proposition; the previous Senator Lambie certainly put up a proposition—and the Senate passed a 10.5 per cent tax rate for foreign workers. The Greens, at that point, had a really clear position. We wanted the system to stay the way it was. We didn't want foreign workers to pay any tax while they were here, because they were benefiting our economy, they were benefiting our community and they were spending most of their money here anyway. They were earning on their working holiday money that they were spending in this country. We were pretty happy with the way it was, so we didn't support changing the tax rate at all. We had a very clear position all the way through.
The government weren't going to come at 10.5 per cent, so what did they do? They dropped their required tax rate to 15 per cent. So it was 15 per cent, and that was it. Just as they'd said the other two times, they were not going to negotiate on 15 per cent. That was the base rate. I can understand, if you're the government and you're in charge of a country, why you wouldn't want to negotiate legislation by auction, and not just by auction but by very public auction. If it wasn't clear to Australians after the double dissolution that the government had lost control it certainly was going into Christmas 2016, because legislation was up for a very public auction.
As a Tasmanian senator, I could see my state of Tasmania on its knees—and ultimately we're here as senators for our states. It was desperation stakes. Where I come from, in the Tamar Valley in Tasmania, it's all fruit growing operations. As some of you may be aware, I planted a small vineyard of three hectares many years before I came into the Senate. I relied on fruit pickers. Everybody in my state in the agricultural industry relies on foreign workers, mostly on working holiday visas. As I've said in the Senate, I had a fantastic pair of rock climbers, two fantastic guys from Patagonia, who were staying on our farm and picking fruit. They were working in all sorts of different businesses. We've been lifelong friends ever since. This is absolutely critical to Tasmania.
I felt very strongly, and I know Senator Rice and others in the party room who come from states that have large agricultural industries felt very strongly, that we couldn't let this go on over Christmas. We were getting the very clear signal that businesses weren't able to employ people because people weren't coming. The numbers were down significantly because of the uncertainty that had been introduced for what was essentially, in the beginning, a small tax grab. It snowballed, and there was a stampede away from Australia on the back of this stupidity. That's what it was. At the end of the day, the Greens were the adult in the room. We sat down with Senator Cormann, and we negotiated what we thought was a way forward for everybody. We got the best possible deal we could for foreign workers, although they paid a 15 per cent headline rate, which the government at that stage refused to negotiate on. They were paying 95 per cent of their superannuation when they left this country into a fund that went back to the government. Foreign workers were only getting five per cent of their super back. So we proposed to the government that they change that 95 per cent rate to a rate that gave an equivalent effective tax rate of 10½ per cent. At that point it worked out to be that 65 per cent of their super would be paid to the government, so foreign workers got over a third of their super back in their pockets when they left. So workers got the 10½ per cent rate, the government got to save face and keep its 15 per cent headline rate and the Greens also negotiated a desperately needed $100 million for Landcare. We need a lot more than that, but we negotiated that deal. It was a good deal for foreign workers. It was universally applauded by employer groups, by the National Farmers' Federation and by many businesses, including in my home state of Tasmania. Although we'd have liked to have seen no tax at all paid by foreign workers while they were here, it has turned out to still be an effective, competitive tax rate for backpackers.
Let's get back to this totally bizarre piece of legislation. How did we get here today? Part of the backpacker tax package passed by this parliament involved establishing a public register of employers. The explanatory memorandum of the original bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016 states:
The ATO will develop a simple registration process for employers who need to withhold tax from WHMs.
WHMs are working holiday-makers. The explanatory memorandum continues:
Information as to who is a registered employer for this purpose will be publicly available. This will incentivise employers to register in order to attract WHMs, since unregistered employers will be required to withhold at the 32.5 per cent rate from the first dollar of income.
Keep in mind that that 32½ per cent rate is not competitive. That will not bring in foreign workers to work in the businesses where we need them. We were absolutely confident about that. It would be a total disincentive to potential employees. So this was to be avoided. The explanatory memorandum continues:
The register will assist with enforcing compliance and will provide data that can be used to help inform future policy related to WHMs.
The then Treasurer, now Prime Minister, in his second reading speech, stated:
The register will be made public, with a list of registered employers published on the ABN Lookup, making it easy for working holiday-makers and others to check the registration status of a potential employer.
But, in the process of trying to get the bill through parliament, it would appear that Senator Leyonhjelm extracted a commitment from the government not to make the register public. Presumably he got this concession when the government thought they needed his vote. In the end, they didn't need his vote, and legislation was passed that would allow for the register to be made public. But, not three months later, government introduced this bill to repeal their own legislation, on a deal that they didn't even do. Of course—I don't know—there may have been other deals done around this. That's very possible.
This bill has been sitting in the parliament ever since then. This bill has, it would appear, been cause for the ATO not to act to make the register public. The answer to question on notice No. 196 from the Senate Economics Legislation Committee at supplementary budget estimates 2017-18 says:
As Registrar of the Australian Business Register, the Commissioner has the discretion to make certain information publicly available.
The Registrar has chosen not to make an employer's working holiday maker registration publicly available.
In other words, even though this legislation passed this place and there was a very good reason for this register—the register was there to protect working holiday-makers in this country—it wasn't made public. The answer to another question on notice to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, No. 68 at budget estimates 2018-19, says:
The Commissioner, in his role as Registrar of the ABR, received discretion to make details of employers of working holiday makers publicly available on 2 December 2016 via an amendment to the ABN Act Schedule 2 of Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Act 2016.
The Registrar has chosen not to make these details publicly available to address concerns raised in the community about the privacy of this information.
Really? Who in the community has raised these concerns about the privacy of information, apart from Senator Leyonhjelm?
Senator Leyonhjelm is, out and proud, a libertarian, and this is important to him and the people he represents. I don't know how many of them there are. But who else? Who else is the proxy for concerns raised in the community about privacy of this information? Was it the businesses themselves who didn't want to disclose the effective tax rates that they were levying off foreign workers? That's something we can ask in committee, because I'm interested to know who else has raised these issues with the minister and the minister's office apart from Senator Leyonhjelm.
The last thing I'd like to address is why the government hasn't brought this bill forward before now, especially considering the fact that they haven't disclosed this register anyway. They haven't protected foreign workers. They haven't made it easy for foreign workers to detect and determine which employers would be the best employers to work for in terms of how they're going to be paid. Why would I want to go and work for a business that's going to charge me 32.5 per cent when I could get 15 per cent from a business on a register and I can make that decision? If I'm on a working holiday, obviously these decisions are going to be very important. I'm going to be looking at where I'm going to work geographically. I'm going to be determining my choice of employment not just on things like tax rates but on where I want to go for my holiday and what I want to do around my holiday. My two friends from Patagonia, who started on our farm in Tasmania, chose Tasmania because they were rock climbers and there was plenty of work. We were desperately seeking workers in the summer of 2016. Our registrations—I checked this with working holiday businesses who matched the demand and supply—were down more than a third that summer because of this backpacker fiasco. It was a totally unnecessary fiasco, based on a quick tax grab by a government without giving any thought to the uncertainty this would cause to the agricultural industry in Australia. It was an absolute fiasco.
I say this personally: I, as a Tasmanian senator, felt that it was very important to get a deal done and certainty for Tasmanian businesses, and for the workers. If we had let it go to Christmas they would have been slugged 32½ per cent. And Tasmanian pickers and businesses weren't able to find workers. I got a lot of attacks. That's probably a good way to describe it. I would like to use an expletive, but I know the Acting Deputy President would pull me up on that. I got a lot of attacks that Christmas because we did a deal with the government and people felt like we'd let Mr Malcolm Turnbull and Mr Scott Morrison off the hook. This could have brought the Prime Minister down. It was that bad. It was that much of a fiasco. They had totally lost control of government over this bill. But it was absolutely critical, and my party room all supported this because we wanted to see the agricultural businesses get the employment they needed to keep going, and we wanted to see workers and foreign workers get the best possible deal and get certainty on this issue. That's why we came up with what was a very good compromise in the end for all parties involved.
We won't be supporting this bill. We want to see this register. It's absolutely critical that it's out in public and that workers get to choose and get the best information possible for their working holidays. When we go in committee, unless the minister deals with this in her second reader amendment, I'll be very interested to know who these other parties are that have complained about the privacy issues surrounding this public register.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (10:09): One Nation will be supporting the Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Employer Register) Bill 2017. I'm well aware of the Labor Party's position on this bill. They won't be supporting it because they're intent on harassing and victimising businesses who register as working holiday-makers' employers, particularly in the farming sector, which utilises backpackers for seasonal work.
Once upon a time Aussies would flock to picking jobs throughout the country. They would work in the strawberry fields on the Sunshine Coast for four months, or a bit longer if they were there for the planting of runners. Once that season had ended, they'd head off in different directions for other crops across the country. Some would head off to Darwin and pick mangoes. Others would go and do watermelons or pick tomatoes in Bundaberg. Some would go and pick blueberries in Coffs Harbour. But the Australian workforce that once travelled the country fruit picking have inevitably grown a bit older, and they're more focused on the grey nomad lifestyle. They haven't given up the travel, just the need to work.
Unfortunately, the generations of Aussies haven't kept up those traditions of fruit picking, and it's left growers in all fruit and vegetable industries short on farmhands. Call it generational change or call it a change in work ethic, but the reality is that Aussies are less interested in farm work, leaving farmers short on staff. That's why this government, and previous Labor governments, have allowed seasonal fruit picking to be done by backpackers.
I just ask why Labor would want to leave a loophole in our system for these farmers or seasonal work providers to be named and shamed. I find it ironic that the Labor Party are quite supportive of the Pacific Labour Scheme, which allows 2,000 workers from Pacific island nations like Nauru and Tuvalu to fill labour gaps in rural and regional Australia. The Pacific Labour Scheme isn't a short employment period either; it's for up to three years. So what's the difference between supporting the Pacific Labour Scheme, where employers' details aren't plastered online for Labor and their goons to name and shame, versus working holiday-makers?
Let's also point out a few other facts with these backpackers and the short stints they do to make sure our farming sector doesn't collapse. They pay tax from the very first dollar earned. We passed the backpacker tax in 2016, where backpackers pay 15 per cent on every dollar paid to them. As part of that legislative change, employers of working holiday-makers were required to be registered with the Commissioner of Taxation, which allowed employers to withhold the applicable tax. But it's in this very change that we find ourselves fixing up the problem.
Aussies won't do this sort of work, because it has unpredictable hours and the farmer doesn't know how long his season will last. The strawberry industry is a classic example of the uncertainty that farming work offers. It takes a few criminals to sabotage perfectly good fruit and scare the hell out of consumers, and, before you know it, their season has ended prematurely. Almost every single worker in the strawberry industry in Queensland has lost their job today. I think everyone in this country knows my stance on jobs for Australians, but work in certain industries like farming just doesn't appeal to Australians anymore.
You're lucky I'm not the Prime Minister, because I'd be a hard taskmaster. I'd force some of these dole bludgers, who haven't worked a day in their lives, to go out and pick fruit or cut their Centrelink payments. Could you imagine it if I managed to pull that off? I'd have the Greens all over me like a filthy rash because I dared make some of these bludgers work. Let's be honest, though. If you put some of these people on a farm, it would be a punishment to our farmers and an embarrassment to humanity. So in these circumstances I don't mind supporting backpackers working on farms, if Australians don't want to take up the jobs.
I can't let this time go by without responding to Senator Cameron, with his comments about the workers and the ABCC bill, the ROC bill and what's happened with workers in this country. What an absolutely hypocritical comment that was, because the ABCC bill was actually looking after those employers, who employ people. They were actually controlled by thuggery, mainly by the CFMEU and the unions, to shut them down. These building sites were costing the taxpayer an estimated 30 per cent more because of the thuggery from the unions, who would just go in there and shut them down and destroy small businesses. Or—the fact is—they'd say to the businesses, 'If you want the job, we want a cheque from you,' so they could be handing over a cheque for $5,000 or more to the unions to get the jobs. Sabotage was happening on these sites. It was about control and bullying, and that's all they're used to.
On jobs: he talks about the penalty rates. What about the unions and their EBA agreements? What about those? Your agreements were paying a lot of these workers in the smaller hotel and motel chains $10 less an hour. What about those in the supermarkets—again, $8 to $10 less an hour, and you talk about your enterprise agreement bargaining and what you've done. What about the 457 workers? You're actually talking about jobs here in Australia. Under Labor, wasn't it the highest 457 number—130,000, plus the families? What about all that? And you talk about workers!
What happened to the TAFE colleges when Labor were in? Labor are in Queensland as well and across the country. Where are all the TAFE colleges? You've shut them down. Now, as rhetoric, the same old rhetoric, you'll drag it out: 'Labor are going to open up the TAFE colleges, and we're going to do all this.' It's all lip-service again, as usual, from the Labor Party. Your words are a pittance to me because I don't believe a word that you say about looking after the workers in this country, which you haven't done.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ): You should address your comments to the chair, Senator Hanson.
Senator HANSON: I do apologise—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Senator HANSON: to the chair. There's a lot more here that we need to address.
When Senator Cameron stands up and makes these comments, Mr Acting Deputy President, I just shudder. I remember that in 1996, the first time I stood for an election, I went to a meeting. It was then Terry Mackenroth—yes, a Labor minister. They were determined to destroy the nursing industry, cut the numbers down. This was Labor's intent. They were not interested in supporting our nurses or apprenticeships. They've done nothing to encourage it, and that's why we've had such a fall.
I've been able to manage to get an increase, an apprenticeships pilot scheme that will be up and running in Australia. And yet they still criticise me over it because I've been able to get it: 'We can't allow One Nation to get ahead of us with this one.' They're starting to realise what the Australian public want.
You'll only get good government when you've got good opposition, and I don't see that on the other side of this chamber from the Labor Party, ever. Whenever they've been in government in this country, all they've done is destroy this country with their economic madness, and they cannot manage anything.
With this bill today, I will support a correction in the legislation that protects the identity of those employers who hire them.
Senator HINCH (Victoria) (10:18): I cannot support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Employer Register) Bill 2017, which has Senator Leyonhjelm's fingerprints all over it. I sat in my office with the mother of a backpacker murdered in Queensland who had been exploited and treated very shabbily by unscrupulous farm and orchard employers. Her story, her plight, does not directly connect to this bill, but her mother recounted stories to me from other backpackers who desperately need the physical and financial protections that this public register partially provides. Taking it private, making it confidential, would be, in my mind, a travesty.
Earlier this year, I met up with Englishwoman Rosie Ayliffe, the heartbroken mother of Mia Ayliffe. In August 2016, while working her required 88 days on a farm in North Queensland, Mia was stabbed to death while sleeping in her bed, murdered by another worker with a history of mental instability. The employer had locked the gates of the compound where she was staying, meaning that, even if she'd tried to escape, she would not have been able to. I know that this bill would not have prevented Mia's death, but it would have enabled her to know that she was going to a registered and reputable employer.
Then there's the case of Natalie. In 2013, after completing her time as an au pair, she decided to stay a little longer in Australia. That was when 'au pair' wasn't a dirty word. In order to qualify for her second visa, she had to complete those 88 days of farm work. She went on Gumtree and found a sheep farmer advertising a role for his farm on Kangaroo Island. She contacted him directly, searched him on Facebook, searched the company on Facebook and found nothing suspicious. He told her he had other people working there, including other backpackers, and that he had a partner.
Natalie flew in to Tasmania late at night from Adelaide and he picked her up. He was drunk. After swerving all the way home they arrived at the farm, 20 kilometres away from the nearest town, only for Natalie to find out there was nobody else there, not a single other soul except the drunk employer and her. She was isolated with no phone service and no wi-fi. He had a code on his landline so she couldn't dial out. For the next 15 days she was subjected to verbal abuse and the farmer slaughtered lambs in front of her because 'That's what I do when I'm angry.' Luckily, Natalie has an IT background. She was eventually able to hack into his wi-fi, call the police and get off the island. Not remarkably, this farmer was already known to police.
I know that vulnerable employees are having their 88 days drawn out. They are sent to work and stay in hostels, which they have to pay for, often owned by the employer. They are told that work will be coming up very soon. Sometimes those 88 days have been drawn out for as long as six months. And they are paying for it. I have heard how female backpackers have got suspicious because the pretty ones were getting work and the less attractive ones were not. I have heard of girls being told they must have sexual relations with the employer if they want him to sign off on, to verify, the 88 days. That is disgusting.
That's why I cannot support this attempt to lessen protections for workers and not enhance them. The public register gives some protection—not a lot, but some—to workers. This retrograde bill will certainly not.
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (10:21): I'd like to thank those senators who have contributed to this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Employer Register) Bill 2017. The government recognises that working holiday-makers are an important part of Australia's tourism industry and a key source of labour, particularly in the agriculture, horticulture, tourism and hospitality sectors.
This bill ensures the details of the working holiday-maker employer register are not made public, and it restores provisions regarding information sharing between the ATO and the Fair Work Ombudsman to what they were prior to the changes made by the Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Act 2016. All employers of working holiday-makers will still be required to register with the Australian Taxation Office. Registered employers will be able to withhold tax at the new working holiday-maker tax rate of 15 per cent from the first dollar of income up to $37,000. Once registered, employers can advise current and prospective working holiday-maker employees that they are registered and are able to withhold tax at the new working holiday-maker tax rate of 15 per cent from the first dollar of income up to $37,000.
The register addresses concerns about the exploitation of working holiday-makers and will provide valuable data on who employs working holiday-makers, what sectors they are engaged in and where employers are located. This amendment does not affect the requirement for the Australian Taxation Office to report this information annually to the Treasurer for presentation to the parliament. This reporting process involves aggregate employer information and will not identify any working holiday-maker employers.
This bill also restores provisions regarding information sharing between the ATO and the Fair Work Ombudsman to what they were prior to the changes made by the Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Act 2016. Information sharing between the ATO and the Fair Work Ombudsman will be limited to situations where an entity is actually or reasonably suspected of noncompliance with the tax law. This bill is part of a broader package of reforms to ensure that Australia remains an attractive and safe destination for working holiday-makers, and I commend the bill to the Senate.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the bill be read a second time.
Bill read a second time.
The Senate divided. [10:28]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
In Committee
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (10:31): I have a couple of questions I wanted to put to the government, but could I just start by saying Centre Alliance didn't give a second reading speech in this place. They didn't give a second reading speech. Have no doubt: this is the government reneging on the backpacker deal that we did in the Senate in the summer of 2016, which ex-Senator Xenophon and his team signed off on. Where is Centre Alliance? Why did they support the government in a retrograde step to reduce worker protections? Why did they support a deal that the government did with Senator Leyonhjelm? What did they get out of it? If you ever need evidence that Centre Alliance aren't all they make themselves out to be—some kind of progressive influence in the Australian Senate—just look what they've done today. I'd also like you to look at what they did by supporting the government on gutting marine protections just a month ago with no real reason. Nevertheless, they should come into this place during this Committee of the Whole stage and explain why they have supported removing an integral part of the deal that was done on the backpacker tax in 2016. I will get back to that a little bit later.
Minister, I have got a couple of questions for you. Actually, Minister, you weren't in here during my speech on the second reading, but I'll go through a little bit more detail for you. Firstly, we've seen two questions on notice—No. 196 from the Senate Economics Legislation Committee supplementary budgets estimates 2017-18 and No. 68 from the Senate Economics Legislation Committee budget estimates 2018-19—where the Registrar of the Australian Business Register and ATO commissioner have the discretion to make certain information publicly available, and the registrar had chosen not to make an employer's working holiday-maker registration publicly available on two occasions. Basically, the then Treasurer, Scott Morrison, said in his second reading speech that he would make the register public, so can you explain why the ATO has chosen not to make these registers publicly available since the legislation passed? And did you, Minister, or your government instruct the ATO not to make these registers public?
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (10:33): The answer to the second question is no. The ATO commissioner exercised his discretion not to make an employer's working holiday-maker registration publicly available on the register. In addition, whilst information on individual working holiday-maker employers is not publicly available, the ATO is required to prepare an annual report about the employment of working holiday-makers, and the ATO's first report was tabled in parliament on 22 August 2018.
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (10:34): I think we have to consider what has just happened here. We now have an absolute disgrace of a government—a government that their own Prime Minister describes as muppets—coming together with One Nation and with Senator Hanson, whose speech was incomprehensible. It was absolutely incomprehensible. I just don't get it. Why would One Nation and this decaying government attack defenceless workers in this country? Even worse, there is the involvement of the so-called Centre Alliance, the former Xenophon party. One thing you can say about former Senator Xenophon is that at least he treated issues seriously. The Centre Alliance senators don't seem to have any rhyme or reason about them at all. Why would Centre Alliance attack backpackers? Backpackers are defenceless when they come to this country and they have been exploited continually by farmers, by contract companies and by gangs in this country. As you heard in Senator Hinch's speech, some of them are being sexually abused and sexually harassed. It is a nonsense. I think that, as a nation, we owe it to the young people who are coming here on a working visa to protect them.
Yet, this government, because it has done some dirty deal with Senator Leyonhjelm, is prepared to throw the protections for young backpackers out of the window. The sooner we get to an election and the sooner the Australian people can have a say on getting a decent government in this country the better, because this government is now scraping the bottom of the barrel. To try to keep itself alive, to try and keep itself afloat, it's doing deals with Senator Leyonhjelm, with some of the most extreme views in this place. I just think the time for an election has come. We have a government that is described by its own leader as a bunch of muppets. What have we come to in this place? What is the problem with this rabble of a government that just can't seem to get an agenda together, that continually stabs its leader and that is always fighting? The Nationals don't like the Libs. The Libs don't like the Nationals. And the Libs don't like each other. That's what we've got now. That's the situation we have in this country.
We don't have any substantive legislation before this parliament. It's clear that they don't have an agenda. This new Prime Minister has no idea what he wants to do in terms of improving this nation. We've had the COAG meeting cancelled, a meeting that looks at trying to make things better for Australians across the country. Because this Prime Minister and this rabble of a government don't have an agenda, don't have a strategy and don't have a plan for the future, what they are doing is simply cancelling a meeting. It's an absolute disgrace.
And they have to cuddle up to One Nation to get legislation through. They have to make concessions to a party that espouses racism, a party that would come in here and simply attack other nationalities in this country, a party whose leader can't put two words together without reading them—and even then can't read them effectively or properly. That's what we've come to under this government—relying on a senator who is incomprehensible; a senator who attacks other nationalities; a senator who has become rich off the back of the electoral system in this country; a senator who can't even keep her own team together; and a senator who simply looks after No.1. That's what we've come to—and the government depend on One Nation.
One Nation and this government are well matched. You know, Senator Hanson was a Liberal. Senator Hanson was a Liberal who was thrown out of the Liberal Party because of her so-called extreme views. Well, Senator Hanson hasn't moved. She's still got the extreme views. It's just that nobody on the other side has got the backbone, nobody has got the bottle and nobody has got the principles to actually stand up to her and her racist positions that her party adopts. It's an absolute disgrace.
This is a government that just don't get it. This country is crying out for leadership. This country is crying out to get a decent health system and a decent education system, and to get rid of an industrial system that has seen wage stagnation and families battling to put food on their table. Are we debating any of those issues in this place? No, we are not. What we are debating now is how you make it harder for young people coming to this country who are in a vulnerable situation. The Nationals, the Liberal Party, One Nation and Centre Alliance have banded together to make it harder for working people in this country. It's just about time that they conceded that they can't govern, they won't govern.
All the three-word slogans that you can think up and all the evangelistic speeches that you can make just won't cut it, because this government are in complete chaos. This government have got no agenda. The reason this bill is on is that they've run out of bills that would make this country a better place. They can't think about it, because they're too busy carving each other up. They are too busy stabbing each other in the back. They are too busy bullying women in their own party. Is it any wonder that women won't join the party?
And, imagine, Senator Reynolds stood up here and made this great speech about bullying. Senator Reynolds gets a promotion, and that's her. She becomes mute—becomes absolutely mute on the issues that she claimed that she was standing up for. They have got no principles. They have got no capacity. They are an absolute disgrace of a government.
We know what's going to happen after the next election—we've seen it: there'll be fewer women in that party. We've had senators, we've had MPs, stand up and talk about bullying, and yet when they've got a chance to do something about it, what do they do? They take a promotion, and they go quietly. What a joke. That shows you how decaying the government are. That shows you how bad the government are. It just shows you that they have got no agenda. They've got no respect for each other—absolutely no respect for each other, never mind having any respect for the population of this country.
All they want to do is crawl over each other to try to get on the front bench, backstab each other, destroy their own Prime Minister because their extremist views on climate change have to be the dominant position. They don't care about young people in this country. They don't care about climate change. They don't care about decent industrial rights. They don't care about a decent health system. They don't care about a decent education system. All they want to do is kowtow to the big end of town and stab each other in the back; that's the basis of this government. They are absolutely pathetic. And when your own Prime Minister describes you as 'muppets', it doesn't leave much room for a defence, does it? Because Prime Minister Morrison actually got it right—they are a bunch of muppets.
If you look back at what this government was about, in 2014 it brought a budget down that attacked pensioners. It brought a budget down that attacked families and family benefits, and it brought a budget down that would increase retirement to 70. It's okay, if you're sitting here on these comfortable benches at 70 years old getting a $200,000-a-year base wage, to say to somebody who's on a building site or to a fitter or a rigger that they should work until they're 70. But these people don't have a clue what it's like for ordinary working people. They just don't get it. They are so divorced from reality that all they want to do is carve each other up. I mean, the muppets look sensible compared to this lot. At least you can get a laugh at the muppets. You can laugh at this lot, but I tell you, while you're laughing, this country's going down the tube because they have got no capacity to deliver for Australian people.
This is a government that is decaying. It's a government that is absolutely on its last legs. It's a government that doesn't have an agenda. All those opposite do is sit over there and, with the extremists in One Nation and the Liberal Democrats, attack working people. That's what they do. This is not what Australians want from a government. They want a government that can actually make things better and build a decent society in this country.
We've got a Prime Minister who has got there by default. We know the extremists wanted a different Prime Minister. We know the leaks are still coming from the cabinet in this government. We know that those people who have been denied the opportunity to get on the front bench are going to do everything to continue to destabilise this government. We know that this government is just hopeless. Those opposite are absolutely hopeless. They don't have a legislative agenda to come here, so what do they do? They attack the rights of backpackers—young, vulnerable backpackers—to get protection. What a pathetic mob. What a pathetic rabble of a government. No wonder people just shake their heads when they talk about this so-called government. These were the people that were going to be the grown-ups. Well, have you seen any grown-up behaviour? I know what grown-ups do—they protect young people. These so-called grown-ups have just attacked young people who are vulnerable, young people who depend on decent laws in this country to give them a fair go. But you won't get a fair go from the muppets across here. You won't get a fair go from this decaying government. Those opposite are just pathetic, and this bill shows it in stark reasoning. They are pathetic.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (10:49): Could I go back to the discretion that the ATO commissioner has around the release of the Australian Business Register? I understand that discretion, to make details of employers of working holiday-makers available or not, came via an amendment to the ABN act, in schedule 2 of Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Act 2016. Minister, could you just refresh my memory as to when that amendment went through parliament?
Also the ATO made a comment that the register has chosen, in other words it has used its discretion, not to make these details publicly available because of 'concerns raised in the community about the privacy of this information'. Can the minister now outline to the chamber whose concerns and the details of that?
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (10:50): The answer to your first question is, I believe, 2016. I'll just get the date in 2016 as well. In relation to the ATO's response to the request, the concerns raised in relation to the WHM register being made public were raised by Senator Leyonhjelm. No statement has been made, and the ATO is not aware of any entities that want the information disclosed.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (10:51): Well, if I'm reading what you just said correctly, Minister, the only community concerns that have been raised have been Senator Leyonhjelm's. Is that the correct interpretation of what you said? I'll read the ATO's comment again: 'The register has chosen not to make these details publicly available to address concerns raised in the community about the privacy of this information.' Is the register referring to anyone else in the community, or am I to assume from your response that 'the community' is actually Senator Leyonhjelm?
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (10:52): All I can add for you is what the ATO has said, and that is that no statement has been made and the ATO is not aware of any entities that want the information disclosed.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (10:52): That's very different to their statement, 'The register has chosen not to make these details publicly available to address concerns raised in the community.' You're coming at it from the other way and saying no-one's lobbied them to release the details of this register. But let me tell you, this bloody register was part of this legislation that this house voted on. It was part of the legislation that we voted on. It was part of the deal that we did with the government when we passed the backpacker legislation. It's become abundantly clear this morning that the only person who wants this is Senator Leyonhjelm, and the ATO commissioner has made a decision based on Senator Leyonhjelm.
Now, I don't know: has Senator Leyonhjelm had a discussion, a personal conversation, with the ATO commissioner? He's not in here. Has he written to the ATO commissioner requesting that this not be released? I asked you earlier, Minister, if anyone in government had instructed the commissioner to not release this register, and you said, 'No'. Something doesn't stack up here. It doesn't stack up. You haven't instructed the commissioner. Has Senator Leyonhjelm instructed the commissioner or even asked the commissioner? What's going on?
The CHAIR: Senator Whish-Wilson.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (10:54): Minister, you chose not to answer my question, which you are entitled to do. And I know that I'm only allowed to ask one more question without another senator standing up to continue this debate, so I hope there will be another senator in the chamber who will stand up and ask you a question if you refuse to answer my questions. And let me tell you, your silence is deafening and it's damning on this issue. We have been led to believe that there's some kind of matter of public interest in relation to this register not being released, and yet today you can't give us any details on why the Commissioner of Taxation has used their discretion not to release this register.
I'll ask you again, Minister Seselja: what information do you have here today as to why the ATO have used their discretion? Are you sticking with your line that, apart from Senator Leyonhjelm, no-one else has lobbied for the information to be released? Is it that the ATO don't want to do the work? Is it just a simple matter of: they don't have the resources and it's something that they don't have the time and effort to focus on if they don't believe it's a matter of public interest? How can legislation that's passed by this place be ignored?
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (10:55): Minister Seselja, in your second reading speech, there was a clear statement: 'This register will be made public.' Why has it not been, when will it be and why the delay?
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (10:56): I'll read it again for the chamber. The minister wasn't here during my second reading speech. Let me read you an extract from the now Prime Minister's—Mr Scott Morrison—second reading speech. He stated:
The register will be made public, with a list of registered employers published on the ABN Lookup, making it easy for working holiday-makers and others to check the registration status of a potential employer.
Just to refresh the memory of the chamber—and you weren't here, Minister Seselja—the critical reason for this is: if you don't register, then the businesses that aren't registered have to extract 32½c in a dollar from their foreign workers. The registered businesses are 15 per cent, plus they're registered to give more of the superannuation of these foreign workers back to them to go in their pocket when they continue their holiday or when they leave this country and continue their holiday.
Minister Seselja, did the now Prime Minister mislead parliament when he said this was going to be made public, knowing that it would never be made public, or is there another reason this register hasn't been made public, as was set out in the legislation that the Senate voted on? Let's not underestimate how important this vote was at the end of the day for your government to get this deal done, let alone the importance for foreign workers to give them any protections we could and, of course, to give the certainty that we needed for agricultural employers in this country to get on with business and support agriculture and exports.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.
Third Reading
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (10:58): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the bill be read a third time.
The Senate divided. [11:03]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Bankruptcy Amendment (Debt Agreement Reform) Bill 2018
In Committee
Consideration resumed.
The CHAIR (11:06): The question is that amendments (1) to (36) on sheet JC502 be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Third Reading
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Assistant Minister for Home Affairs) (11:07): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Unexplained Wealth Legislation Amendment Bill 2018
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator MOORE (Queensland) (11:07): Labor is committed to ensuring Australia maintains its strong and effective laws to combat serious and organised crime. Labor will be supporting the Unexplained Wealth Legislation Amendment Bill 2018, as it is the first step in a long process towards a national unexplained wealth regime. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission estimates that serious and organised crime costs Australia $36 billion each year. This is the equivalent of just over $1,500 out of every Australians' pocket each year. It adds an enormous 6.3 per cent to the average cost of living. A critical way that we can help take the profit out of crime as a parliament is by ensuring our law enforcement agencies have the powers and resources they need to crack down on serious and organised crime.
Before I turn to the substance of the bill, I'd like to acknowledge, on behalf of Labor, the extraordinary work that our agencies do to keep us safe. In particular, I want to acknowledge the Australian Federal Police. They are on the front line of the fight against serious and organised crime. They do tremendous work and must be supported in their role by the government. Unfortunately, at budget estimates earlier this year, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police confirmed that there would be a $205 million cut to resourcing for our AFP over the forward estimates because of Liberal government budget cuts. He confirmed that the AFP's work to tackle fraud, organised crime and antinarcotics are the areas that would be most affected by these cuts. Most shocking was the commissioner's confirmation that staffing at the AFP is predicted to fall from 6,448 personnel in 2018-19 to 5,881 personnel in 2021-22 because of budget cuts. This is an extraordinary reduction of 567 AFP personnel. If the government is committed to keeping Australians safe, it must explain why it has inflicted such savage cuts on the AFP.
Labor supports our law enforcement agencies and Labor will be supporting this bill. As we know, often those who benefit most from crime are not directly involved in the commission of a specific offence. They keep themselves at arm's length, profiting from the sidelines. Unexplained wealth orders are a powerful way for us to target these serious and organised criminals and confiscate their ill-gotten gains. Unexplained wealth orders allow authorities to confiscate assets when a person cannot demonstrate that their wealth has been lawfully obtained. Unlike other Proceeds of Crime Act orders, unexplained wealth orders do not require proof of a link to the commission of a specific offence. However, unexplained wealth orders at the Commonwealth level are currently limited because of the Constitution. In order to get such an order, authorities currently need to prove a link to a federal offence, a foreign indictable offence or a state offence that has a federal aspect. This undermines the key benefit of unexplained wealth orders. The establishment of a national unexplained wealth scheme would play a critical role in crime prevention and ensuring justice in the community. The bill would extend the existing Commonwealth unexplained wealth regime to offences referred by New South Wales and relevant offences in the Northern Territory.
A number of concerns were raised in the course of the Senate inquiry into the bill around the abrogation of privilege. These are valid concerns. However, it is important to note that this bill only extends our current regime to specific offences at the state and territory level. The concerns raised already exist under law. Importantly, all the existing protections at the Commonwealth level will apply to any state and territory offences picked up by the proposed national scheme. These include: judicial discretion to refuse to grant an order when it's not in the public interest or when the amount is less than $100,000; and the discretion to exclude certain property from the scope of the order or revoke an order where it is in the public interest or in the interests of justice to do so. This bill will apply this regime and these protections to a broader range of offences.
Labor believe that Australia should have a national scheme to combat unexplained wealth. We are absolutely committed to keeping Australians safe and providing law enforcement with the powers that they need to do their job. For these reasons, we'll be supporting this bill. Before I conclude, I want to note that this is just the start of a process towards a national scheme. At this stage, the only state to sign up to the regime is New South Wales. If the government want to implement a truly national co-operative scheme, then they need to work harder to get the other states and territories on board. Labor supports the bill and is happy to work with the government to implement a national unexplained wealth scheme.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (11:12): The Australian Greens certainly understand the arguments that the government is putting here. But we need to be very careful when dealing with areas like unexplained wealth that we find the right balance, and we don't believe that the government has found the right balance here. I'll make a few points as I move through this speech about international human rights law and covenants that the Australian government has signed up to and how this legislation sits within that international legal framework.
Firstly, I want to talk about retrospectivity. It’s a very dangerous thing to come in and legislate with retrospectivity in this place. I note the Law Council's submission to the inquiry into this bill recommended that, if the bill were to be enacted, it only apply prospectively.
I also want to talk about the privilege against self-incrimination. This is a common law privilege that provides that a person cannot be required to answer questions or produce material which may tend to incriminate them. This is a substantive right, it's a longstanding right, it applies to both criminal and civil penalties and forfeiture, and it's a protection required by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It's protected repeatedly under Australia's legislative framework. I'm relating these comments to schedule 4 of this bill, which would allow a magistrate to make a production order compelling a person to produce certain documents or to make those documents available to a relevant authorised state or territory officer. That schedule, unfortunately, would remove that person's privilege against self-incrimination both at the time and potentially later as those documents could then be made available to other jurisdictions in relation to further criminal proceedings.
I want to make a comment here about how this current government treats Australia's international human rights and civil and political rights obligations. Basically, it doesn't care about them. It throws them in the bin regularly. We see, time after time, this government acting in breach of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in breach of the refugee convention and in breach of a whole range of other international human rights covenants. Why bother signing up to these things if you're just going to ignore them?
There was a time when Australia was regarded internationally as one of the global leaders in human rights. What we've seen—and this has been accelerating rapidly in recent years—is a scenario where this government and, before it, Labor governments have progressively crab walked away from their responsibilities under international human rights law. It's not good enough. It's shameful and disgraceful. We are seeing, in countries around the world, an abrogation of responsibilities that countries have actually signed up to under things like the refugee convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
I sit on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights in this parliament. I ask members to go and have a look at the reports of that committee. Time after time that committee finds that what the government is doing in the legislation that it introduces into this place, and what ultimately the Senate is doing by passing those pieces of legislation, is in breach—or likely to be—of Australia's international human rights obligations and obligations under things like the refugee convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
I know it's kind of trendy over on that side of the Senate to not worry about things like human rights, but let me tell those on the government benches this for nothing: once you start handing away other people's rights willy-nilly, which you are doing—and if you doubt that then I invite you to come with me next time I go to Manus Island; I'll introduce you to many people whose human rights you have trampled disgracefully over the years—and once you abandon the principles on which international human rights covenants are based, ultimately you will find yourself losing those rights yourselves. It's very dangerous to start giving away other people's human, civil and political rights because ultimately you will find that your own start to disappear.
I don't want anyone on the LNP benches, the government benches, to come into this place in five, 10 or 20 years squealing that their rights are starting to be eroded, because I will say to them, 'You started this; you were part of this when you gave away other people's rights.' There are people on Manus Island and Nauru and there are people in Australia's disgraceful onshore detention regime whose rights are simply being ignored and manifestly trampled.
This legislation also impinges on the presumption of innocence. That's a presumption that is absolutely central to our justice system and to the rule of law. Civil Liberties Australia noted in their submission to the inquiry into this bill:
Unexplained wealth laws are not conviction-based—
They are absolutely right about that—
They remove the need to prove a person has engaged in any criminal activity or indeed that any offence has even been committed. Unexplained wealth laws reverse the burden of proof by requiring a person to prove on the balance of probabilities that assets are not the proceeds of crime.
It's very clear what's happening here. This is an erosion of the presumption of innocence in this country. It is absolutely accurate to say that this law reverses the burden of proof, because, of course, it does place that burden on a person to prove on the balance of probabilities that the relevant assets are not the proceeds of crime.
What you'll find when laws like this are introduced into the parliament is that governments—and, in this case, also the Labor opposition—love to talk about organised crime. I want to tell you a story about my home state of Tasmania. We've got similar laws in Tasmania. It was argued at the time by the relevant minister in the parliament that these laws would target senior organised crime figures that used sophisticated and organised business models to hide their assets and involvement where existing conviction based confiscation and forfeiture laws were insufficient to bring them to justice.
I've talked about the departure from conviction based laws coming at a cost to fundamental human rights. It's important to know that, in Tasmania, when these laws were independently reviewed last year, data provided by my home state's department of public prosecutions showed that the unexplained wealth laws had been used to recover amounts of as little as $3,000 and that none of the people who these laws had been used against could be described even closely as a senior organised crime figure.
What's happening here is that we're giving away and eroding the presumption of innocence. We're forfeiting rights to privacy. We're rolling over on our international human rights obligations, and parliaments and the Australian people are being told that this is to take on senior organised crime figures when, in fact, as I've just illustrated in the context of Tasmania, these laws are mostly used to seize assets from people who in no way could be regarded as senior organised crime figures.
Human rights lawyer Ben Clarke, also from my home state of Tasmania, has written:
In a democratic society … depriving citizens of privately owned assets is a highly intrusive act of state. Such conduct is prima facie in conflict with norms such as the sanctity of property ownership, freedom of citizens from unnecessary interference by the state, and the right to privacy. The seizure of assets by organs of the state is a coercive exercise of power which should not be undertaken lightly.
I completely agree with Mr Clarke on those matters.
I make this warning to the Australian people: there have been over 200 pieces of legislation passed through state, territory and Commonwealth parliaments in the last 20 years that erode fundamental rights and freedoms that we use to send our people overseas to fight and die, to protect and enhance. We are giving them away, hand over fist, because it suits the political agenda of the Liberal-National government, and the Australian Labor Party are too weak and gutless to stand up to them. That's what's happening here. We are on a slow zombie shuffle down a road to an authoritarian state.
To anyone who saw the ABC program this week about what's happening in China regarding their social credit system and the surveillance of their citizens: I reckon that would have sent a shiver down the spines of most people who saw that program. But don't lift your eyes out of what's going on in this country, because, although we are nowhere near as far down the road as the Chinese Communist Party government, we are heading dangerously in that direction in this country. And it's time that parliaments stopped falling in screaming heaps and handing over more powers, more authority to governments, and it's certainly time that governments and parliaments stopped abjectly rolling over and handing away our human rights, our civil and political rights, on the basis of political advantage.
We urgently need a full review of all of the laws that have been passed in this country in the last 20 years in the name of counter-terrorism, in the name of national security, so that the government can actually be given the chance to make the case that handing away all these rights that we used to be so proud of and we used to fight to defend and enhance is actually making us safer at all, because the government has abjectly failed to make that case. We should have a white paper on counter-terrorism in this country, and part of that white paper should involve a comprehensive analysis of all of the human rights, the civil rights, the political rights, that have been handed away by parliaments in the last 20 years, and an assessment should be independently made about whether handing away all those rights has done one thing to make one person in this country any safer. And, remember, we've now got laws not yet through the Senate but in this place which are what I call the 'papers, please' laws, which basically authorise Australian Federal Police to go up to people in airports and demand to see their papers. I know that the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs, Mr Pezzullo, doesn't like me calling them the 'papers, please' laws but they are 'papers, please' laws. They are not necessary to make our airports any safer. What they do is feed in to the command-and-control mentality, the authoritarian or even totalitarian mentality of some in this country who believe that we should throw away or subjugate a range of rights around individualism, around freedom, around privacy in this country, because the people who are introducing these laws and the people who are advising ministers to introduce these laws feel more comfortable if they can exert more control and more surveillance over the citizens of this country. It is a very, very dangerous path that we walk down.
The point that Mr Clarke made, which is that a coercive exercise of power should not be undertaken lightly, is central to the Law Council's repeated calls for a comprehensive review of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 as contemplated by the 2016 Australian Law Reform Commission's Traditional rights and freedoms—encroachments by Commonwealth laws report. This review, the Law Council argues, is necessary to ensure legislative consistency with fundamental rule-of-law principles. The Australian Greens share those concerns and we absolutely support that call.
Now, it is funny, you know: parliaments are very happy to continue handing over rights that we used to hold so dear, rights that we used to cherish, rights that we used to fight for, and that, tragically, many of our citizens, Australian people, have died to protect and enhance, and this government are happy to hand away those rights; at the same time, they're outsourcing the real decisions in this country out of parliaments into corporate boardrooms. And, again, this is a very dangerous path.
Power and authority in this country should be centralised in the parliament because, albeit imperfectly, every one of us in here is accountable to the Australian people. We've got to stop handing over power and authority to our law enforcement agencies and we've got to stop handing over power and authority to corporate boardrooms. Because what you get is a slow shuffle down the road to an authoritarian state and what you get by handing over power to corporate boardrooms are devastating impacts on the environment—exhibit A: climate change, but there are many other exhibits—and appalling outcomes for people who aren't lucky enough to be at the top end of town, to be at the top end of one of the big corporates that exert so much power in this country and that parliaments are basically happy to provide for on the basis of the corporate donations coming back into the major political parties.
Remember: the Liberal and Labor parties combined since 2012 have received over $100 million in corporate donations—$100 million. Now, those donations aren't being made from the goodwill of corporate boardrooms; they're being made because the corporates know they can buy outcomes with their political donations. And we've seen it time after time—the Labor Party receiving money from the big fossil fuel companies, and what happens? Oh, they support the Adani coalmine. What a surprise, Senator Watt, that Labor would support the Adani coalmine after receiving massive donations from fossil fuel companies, including fracking companies. And I can go through it—I've got it all in my office. If you want me to go through all the donations that the Labor Party's received from the fossil fuel lobby, just let me know.
The Liberal Party—I was about to say they're no better, but, astoundingly, and you wouldn't think it possible, they're actually worse. As a result, we're seeing the real power and authority in this country outsourced to corporations and, in the context of this legislation, we are seeing power and authority outsourced to our security agencies. We need to stand up against this, and we need to call it out whenever it's happening.
The last point I make before my time expires is that on my trips to Manus Island I've been privileged to meet and form friendships with some of the people whose rights have been abjectly ignored and destroyed by this government. When you sit down with these people and you can see for yourself the human cost of the erosion of fundamental rights, freedoms and liberties, it just makes you—and it just made me—more determined to stand up against it.
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (11:32): I rise to, once again, oppose legislation that allows the seizure of property of Australians, like you and me, who have not been suspected, charged or convicted of an offence—the Unexplained Wealth Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. The bill allows the seizure of a person's wealth if a court is satisfied that the wealth is unexplained and the person can merely be linked to a state or territory offence, possibly an offence committed by someone else. Currently, Commonwealth unexplained wealth legislation requires a link to a Commonwealth offence.
The bill allows state and territory authorities to apply to seize wealth under Commonwealth unexplained wealth legislation. This is despite the fact that the states and territories already have their own confiscation laws. This includes Western Australia where the Hon. Aaron Stonehouse, a member of the legislative council representing the Liberal Democrats, has successfully lobbied for the draconian laws to be reviewed. The idea that the Commonwealth should charge ahead with unexplained wealth laws while Western Australia is pulling back is ludicrous.
The bill before us today allows state and territory authorities to use surveillance powers under Commonwealth law for the purposes of pursuing unexplained wealth. State and territory authorities can already access Commonwealth surveillance powers for the purpose of investigating real crimes. Finally, the bill allows seized wealth to be shared between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments and any relevant foreign government. I call this 'the booty clause'. Perhaps 'the ill-gotten booty clause' would be better.
Unexplained wealth provisions are separate from the completely justified law dealing with the proceeds of crime. Unexplained wealth legislation does not discriminate between a person who commits a crime and a person who does not. Put simply, unexplained wealth legislation allows the government to seize assets from a person with no conviction simply because the origin of their wealth is not immediately obvious upon review of their tax returns. Unexplained wealth legislation requires no suggestion of criminal activity, no charge of criminal activity and no criminal conviction. The legislation forces a judge who is simply not satisfied that the wealth of an individual was gained by proper and legal means to confiscate a person's assets. Unexplained wealth legislation throws out the fundamental tenet of Western civilisation that citizens are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Assets are seized whenever a person is unable or unwilling to explain every detail behind their wealth. There are numerous reasons why a person might be unable to document the accumulation of their wealth and, more importantly, there are numerous reasons why a person might be unwilling to explain their wealth and should not be forced to—for example, if your wealth was gifted to you from a biological parent and you don't want it known that you were adopted; or if your wealth came from a lover who doesn't want it known you were having an affair. Those are just two possibilities.
Unexplained wealth legislation requires a person to justify to a judge that their wealth is legitimate, rather than requiring law enforcement to prove it was gained by unlawful means. The legislation essentially waives the requirement of evidence in order for punishment to be applied. Instead, it requires a person to provide evidence outlining how they have not broken any law when accumulating their wealth. We are not talking about the wealth of millionaires here either. Most seizures are of houses below the median house price and of cars below the average value of cars on our roads.
We are a Western liberal democracy, but unexplained wealth legislation and the seizure of assets without conviction is what you would expect from a despotic, undemocratic, authoritarian regime. This legislation is wrong and the Liberal Democrats oppose it.
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia) (11:37): I rise to speak on the Unexplained Wealth Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. I will address some of the issues raised by my colleagues in the Senate a bit later on in my contribution. The last 30 years has seen worldwide review of legal frameworks and approaches to addressing the issue of unexplained criminal wealth. In recent years, several governments have considered unexplained wealth laws and tools to enhance domestic efforts to tackle this issue; namely, to confiscate and forfeit wealth from individuals involved in illegal activities. Depriving criminals of their wealth is a key measure in combatting crime and is crucial in striking at the heart of organised crime.
The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission estimates that the cost of crime in Australia is at least $36 billion per year. Unexplained wealth laws provide a valuable tool for law enforcement to confiscate the assets of criminals where they cannot demonstrate that this wealth has been lawfully obtained. We strongly believe it will deter would-be criminals by reducing the profitability of illegal activities. It may also prevent crime by diminishing offenders' ability to finance future criminal action.
Unexplained wealth laws are currently in place in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. I'll run through the current situation in Western Australia. It was in fact the first Australian jurisdiction to introduce unexplained wealth laws with the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. This act was aimed at people who apparently live beyond their legitimate means of support. The legislation in Western Australia sets out the following processes whereby law enforcement and prosecutors can obtain information about criminally purchased assets. The Director of Public Prosecutions or police may require a financial institution to provide information about the transactions or the assets of a particular person. The DPP can apply to the courts for an order allowing them to conduct an examination of a suspected individual, which can require a person to furnish the court with information and documents. The DPP can also obtain documents relating to assets or property by applying for a production order. The DPP can apply to the court for orders requiring a financial institution to monitor or suspend a person's account and provide that information to the police or DPP. The police can detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has in their possession property liable to forfeiture or documents identifying or determining the value of a person's unexplained wealth. There are also provisions to ensure property remains available for forfeiture. In particular, the police have the power to seize property if they reasonably believe it was derived from or used in a crime and both the police and the DPP have the power to apply to the court for a restraining or freezing order which prevents property or assets from being used for a period of time.
As Senator McKim and Senator Leyonhjelm have raised, this area of law does raise a series of questions that we do need to confront. Laws such as these must always strike a balance, and unexplained wealth legislation cannot be drafted without considering its potential impacts. Such laws can have the potential to infringe people's rights to silence and the presumption of innocence. It could also be argued that a court's ability to determine a person's total wealth as being greater than their lawfully acquired wealth is problematic.
Whilst the government certainly acknowledges these concerns, this bill does represent an innovative legal tool and one that will become increasingly significant in the fight against illegally derived wealth and criminal activity. The scale and complexity of the criminal threat has necessitated an enhanced focus on cooperative, cross-jurisdictional responses by Australian governments. This is not just an issue of my home state of Western Australia; it is something that concerns the Northern Territory, South Australia and every other state. The bill creates a national cooperative approach, one that enables participating jurisdictions to work together to effectively remove one of the principle incentives of criminal activity—the accumulation of wealth—irrespective of the jurisdictions in which they operate.
One of the key features of this national scheme is it expands the Commonwealth regime. The bill allows the AFP to seize unexplained wealth where there is a connection to a broader range of state and territory offences. This will allow a single unexplained wealth order to target a national criminal syndicate, for example, instead of a patchwork of orders that would be sought by Commonwealth, state and territory authorities. It provides information-gathering powers. Law enforcement agencies in participating jurisdictions can apply for production orders or issue notices to financial institutions. These compel the production of information or documents to unexplained wealth investigators. It allows for the use of intercepted information. Officers in participating jurisdictions can use lawfully intercepted telecommunications information in unexplained wealth matters. In participating jurisdictions which contribute to the seizure of property or related criminal matters, they will generally receive an equal share of seized assets under the new equitable sharing arrangements, incentivising national cooperation.
The operation of the state and territory regimes has been preserved and, under the proposed intergovernmental agreement, jurisdictions must inform one another of operations or legislative changes that may impact in other jurisdictions. The scheme will be reviewed after four years. An important point and one that was raised by Senator Leyonhjelm is that the Western Australian parliament is currently reviewing its unexplained wealth legislation. It is important, when you are dealing with issues that do potentially infringe on the right to privacy and the right not to face a prosecution in this way, that these laws are regularly reviewed and considered for the impact they're having, how often they're being used and the types of cases they're being used on. That's why the government has included a four-year review of this legislation: to see how it is working, to see it's achieving its desired outcome and to make sure it is not overstepping the mark and infringing liberties in a way the government would not support. I think it is very important that we take that into account when considering this legislation.
Now, a national scheme, obviously, must always consider who is going to be a part of it. Obviously, we would like all states to be involved over time. New South Wales introduced legislation to refer powers to the Commonwealth. That was passed on 6 June 2018. The Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are, of course, automatically bound by the scheme on passage of the bill. Being territories, no referral is required. Negotiations with the other states are ongoing. Given that at least Western Australia is undertaking a review, I imagine the negotiations will be taken in light of the findings of that review, and that's completely understandable. It is important that states come to this from a position of understanding what the national regime will involve and how it will potentially impact on their home states.
So why are we implementing a national scheme before all the states have bought in? This is a complex process. When you've got a number of jurisdictions involved, obviously there are a large number of stakeholders involved, particularly from the legal fraternity, but also stakeholders in other areas of society. It is a complex negotiation and one that will clearly take a significant amount of time. In fact, negotiations have been ongoing since 2014. We don't want to hold anyone back. Obviously, New South Wales is keen to be an initiator of the scheme. We certainly want to move forward with the potential for a national scheme, even though only New South Wales and the territories will be involved at the start.
The bill, along with the New South Wales legislation, will allow New South Wales, the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory and the Commonwealth to all be part of the scheme immediately and realise some of its benefits. Discussions with the other states will be ongoing, and I expect over time, as they see the scheme in place, they will talk to the Commonwealth about how they can become involved in the national framework.
As part of this bill, states will be allowed to determine the offences to be referred. This ensures that states can refer offences in a way that is consistent with the unexplained wealth powers within each state. New South Wales unexplained wealth orders can only be sought where a property or person can be linked to a particular serious offence. New South Wales referrals have been limited to these serious offences to ensure the Commonwealth does not have greater power over New South Wales offences than would exist within the New South Wales unexplained wealth regime. Every offence added by the states extends the scope of the Commonwealth unexplained wealth orders and increases their effectiveness in addressing interjurisdictional criminal conduct.
This scheme, the bill currently under debate, was an election commitment of the coalition in 2013. The passage of this bill, assuming it receives support from this place, will mark the achievement of an election commitment. It implements key recommendations of the February 2014 independent report by the panel on unexplained wealth. I would also note that the final report of the National Ice Taskforce, which was endorsed by COAG, and the National Ice Action Strategy in 2015 also recommended a national scheme like the one we are debating today. The then Labor government, in February 2013, also agreed to seek referral powers from the states and territories, again for the purpose of legislating what this bill seeks: a national unexplained wealth scheme. That was in response to a 2012, I believe, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement inquiry into this matter, so you can see this is not something that was knocked up last week. It's something that's had a very long gestation; it's something that had been talked about, in the case of Western Australia, prior to 2000. In the national context, it's been talked about since around 2012. So, we have a situation where it's had an extraordinary amount of ventilation. It's had a lot of consideration, and you have seen a lot of input into what is a very complex area and one that does require a significant amount of work to make sure we get the balance right.
Again, I'll just return to some of the benefits of the bill that is currently before us. Serious and organised crime syndicates are operating in an increasingly fluid manner across jurisdictional borders, and that's not only within Australia, nationally, but also over international borders. Our national law enforcement efforts are increasingly frustrated by this fluidity. The Australian Federal Police said in its submission to the 2006 independent Sherman review:
Current criminal investigations can often be frustrated through lack of evidence against people with significant wealth and no apparent source of legitimate income.
Having distinct levels of unexplained wealth will ensure a targeted approach to combatting a specific crime. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission report in 2009 concluded:
… unexplained wealth laws appear to offer significant benefits over other legislative means of combating serious and organised crime…
The benefits of these laws include:
preventing crime from occurring by ensuring profits cannot be reinvested in criminal activity, as opposed to simply reacting to serious and organised crime;
disrupting criminal enterprises;
targeting the profit motive of organised criminal groups; and
ensuring that those benefiting most from organised crime—i.e. those gaining profits—are the ones captured by the law, which they are often not under ordinary criminal laws, and proceeds of crime laws which require a link to a predicate offence.
Before I conclude, I want to point out that, when considering these laws, we need to look at how often they are being used. In the first decade of use of the Western Australia unexplained wealth laws they were used 24 times. These are laws that are relatively rarely used in the context of inquiring into unexplained wealth. So it's not that the floodgates are suddenly going to be opened to the kinds of examples that Senator Leyonhjelm gave: people who have inherited wealth or gained wealth through a particular relationship that they don't want revealed. These laws are used relatively infrequently and they are clearly targeting criminal activity.
Again, what we're trying to do here is deter those who contemplate criminal activity by reducing the possibility that they gain or keep any profit from that activity. Obviously, the motive for a quick buck is a significant motivating factor in criminal enterprise and anything we can do, as a society, to reduce that temptation obviously makes society safer. It prevents crime by diminishing the capacity of offenders to finance future illegal activity. Again, this is very important. If we can, in any way, reduce the amount that criminal syndicates have to reinvest in criminal activity, that will improve the situation for all in society. It also prevents the unjust enrichment of criminals, whose profit is always at the expense of society.
So, this is a very important, powerful and effective tool in the fight against crime generally, and particularly in the fight against organised crime. It will play a significant deterrent role. It has been developed over a long period of time with consultation from the states and territories, from law enforcement agencies and from the legal profession. The government remains committed to working collaboratively with all governments across Australia to make sure that we strengthen, target and actively fight against the accumulation of illicit wealth and organised crime, and we do so with a very strong mind to make sure we maintain the rule of law, the basis of protection of privacy and the individual right to property that those on this side do hold very dear. So, I commend the bill to the chamber.
Senator STOKER (Queensland) (11:55): I rise to speak in support of the Unexplained Wealth Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. This bill, like the bill addressing issues of the black economy, is about ensuring that those people who rort the system and involve themselves in criminal activity don't get the benefit of their activities, because everyone in Australia is penalised by those who try to game the system in their own interests and against us all. For instance, the failure to collect due revenue has serious repercussions for the delivery of government programs that are important to be compassionate to people in our community who need it.
The point of this bill is to ensure that those people who have assets beyond their expected means that are suspected of being derived from criminal activity can be held accountable for that and may be liable to the forfeiture of those assets acquired as a consequence of being involved in crime.
It's interesting to reflect that, back in 1984, Frank Costigan QC in his report into the infiltration of organised crime on the waterfront in Victoria—the Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union—noted:
… the most successful method of identifying and ultimately convicting major organised criminals is to follow the money trail.
Justice Moffitt also recognised in the 1980s in his piece called A quarter to midnight, the Australian crisis: organised crime and the decline of the institutions of state that:
… the path to conviction is slow, torturous and expensive … The criminal justice system is not adequate to secure the conviction of many organised crime figures.
Bartels in her review—A review of confiscation schemes in Australia2010—noted that in the first year of the Commonwealth's non-conviction measures, which was 2003-03, a mere $162,826 was collected from non-conviction measures compared with conviction based measures of $3,125,799. By 2008-09, this had significantly changed and conviction based recovery then amounted to $888,000 while non-conviction measures collected $18,313,516—an excellent demonstration of the success of the approach.
Unexplained wealth laws provide additional and very necessary weaponry in the fight against crime to the established proceeds of crime laws. It's estimated—just to give some sense of its size—that, in the period from 1995 to 1996 through to 2014, the confiscation of money through proceeds of crime actions amounted to some $623 million. This is compared to the estimation in this period by the then Australian Crime Commission, which believed organised crime cost the Australian economy $10 billion a year.
So, what are the general arguments in support of unexplained wealth laws? The Police Federation of Australia, in a submission, identified three objectives with explained wealth laws: firstly, they deter those people who contemplate criminal activity by reducing the possibility that they will gain or keep a profit from their activity, even if they might be later held criminally responsible; secondly, they prevent crime by diminishing the capacity of offenders to finance any future criminal activity that they might be considering engaging in; and, thirdly, they remedy the unjust enrichment of criminals who profit for themselves at society's expense.
The Australian Federal Police has noted that investigations can often be frustrated by a lack of evidence against people with significant wealth and no apparent source of legitimate income. The AFP has also acknowledged in the past that sophisticated criminals organise their arrangements carefully to maintain an arms-length relationship between themselves and the source of illegal income. The capacity to align income to a specific crime in those circumstances can be difficult. Professor Rod Broadhurst of the Australian National University has observed that tainted or unexplained wealth may be the only means to reliably identify criminal entrepreneurs whose involvement in organised crime is usually indirect in terms of actual commission. Unexplained wealth laws are one of the most effective means to investigate and prosecute the otherwise very difficult offences of corruption and bribery, which often facilitate serious crime.
Unexplained wealth provisions have been successfully used in Italy to counter problems with organised crime. The Italian government acknowledged that, while jail time is important, the deprivation of assets that are the products of crime is equally important, particularly when jail time can't ultimately be achieved. Other countries with unexplained wealth legislation include the United States of America, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Switzerland. The schemes in those countries appear to have been effective.
I have some experience of these matters. Before coming to this place I served as a Commonwealth prosecutor. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the Australian Federal Police often worked together in attempting to seize the proceeds of crime from those who had been engaged in crimes such as drug importation, corporate crime and tax fraud, among other offences. In my view there was a real hobbling of the work of law enforcement. People with illegally obtained money were able to use it either to string out legal proceedings to their own advantage or to out-muscle the criminal justice process.
What will this bill do to make sure that these people who don't do the right thing are penalised? More particularly, how will it help us deal with the problem I have just mentioned? Unexplained wealth regimes allow courts to restrain a person's wealth where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that their lawfully acquired wealth is less than their total wealth. If the suspect cannot prove that their restrained wealth was lawfully obtained, such as through employment or legitimate business activities, they will be required to forfeit that wealth.
Due to constitutional limitations, however, the Commonwealth regime requires authorities to establish a link with a Commonwealth or foreign offence or a state offence with a federal aspect. The bill creates a national cooperative scheme on unexplained wealth, which will involve the states and which will overcome this limitation and enhance the unexplained wealth regimes of all jurisdictions.
What are the key features of this national scheme? The scheme will expand the existing Commonwealth regime. The bill allows the AFP to seize unexplained wealth where there is a connection to a broader range of state and territory offences. This will allow a single unexplained-wealth order to target a national crime syndicate, instead of having to go through a patchwork of orders that have until now been sought by Commonwealth, state and territory authorities separately. It will improve information-gathering powers. Law enforcement agencies in participating jurisdictions can apply for production orders or issue notices to financial institutions. These compel the production of information or documents to unexplained wealth investigators to try and help them get to the bottom of the problem they're trying to solve. It will allow officers in participating jurisdictions to use lawfully intercepted telecommunications information in dealing with unexplained wealth matters. Those participating jurisdictions which contribute to the seizure of property or related criminal matters will generally receive equal shares of the seized assets under these new equitable sharing arrangements. That will provide incentives for national cooperation on this issue. The current operation of state and territory regimes has otherwise been preserved. Under the proposed intergovernmental agreement, jurisdictions must inform one another of operations or legislative changes that may impact upon other jurisdictions. The scheme will be reviewed after four years. That's an important protection, but I note what Senator Brockman put before this chamber only a moment ago—that is, that they are used only rarely and sparingly, and not as a routine breach of privacy.
The jurisdictions which are joining this national scheme include New South Wales, which introduced legislation to refer their power to the Commonwealth on 6 June 2018. The Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory will automatically be brought into the scheme on the passage of the bill, not requiring a referral to effect that. Negotiations with the remaining states continue. There's a reasonable question that could be asked: why implement this scheme without having the support from all of the states already signed up? Well, there are some practical answers to that. Negotiations have been ongoing since 2014, and the government wishes to ensure that jurisdictions which are eager to join the scheme are not further delayed. The bill, along with the New South Wales legislation, will allow New South Wales, the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory and the Commonwealth to join the scheme immediately and start to realise its benefits. Other states will continue to be encouraged to join the scheme, of course, to maximise these benefits and to provide a national, strong and united front against serious and organised crime.
A further question that could be asked is: why should we allow the states to determine the offences that will be referred to be dealt with under this scheme? Doing it this way ensures that states can refer offences in way that is consistent with the unexplained wealth powers that already exist within that state. For instance, New South Wales's unexplained wealth orders can only be sought where a property or person can be linked to particular serious offences. New South Wales's referral has been limited to these serious offences to ensure that the Commonwealth doesn't have greater power over New South Wales offences than would exist within the existing New South Wales unexplained wealth regime. Every offence added by the states extends the scope of Commonwealth unexplained wealth orders and increases their effectiveness in nationally addressing interjurisdictional criminal conduct.
The scheme has both political and expert support. It was a coalition election commitment in 2013, and I'm pleased to see our government delivering on it. The scheme implements the key recommendations of the February 2014 independent report of the panel on unexplained wealth. Implementation of the scheme was also recommended by the final report of the National Ice Taskforce and endorsed by the COAG process in the National Ice Action Strategy 2015. I'm not alone in saying that our community demands that we do all that is possible to deal with the scourge of ice in our community. The then Labor government in February 2013 agreed to seek a referral of powers from the states and territories for the purpose of legislating for a national unexplained wealth regime in response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement inquiry into Commonwealth unexplained wealth legislation arrangements.
To summarise, this bill establishes a national cooperative scheme on unexplained wealth which enables jurisdictions to work together to deprive criminals of wealth irrespective of the jurisdiction in which they operate. The Commonwealth, New South Wales, Northern Territory and ACT will participate in the scheme from the outset, and other jurisdictions will be encouraged to join over time. The bill will strengthen the ability of agencies to crack down on those who have unexplained wealth obtained from the proceeds of criminal activity by allowing the Commonwealth to use unexplained wealth orders in relation to a broader range of offences, including referred state offences and territory offences. It will allow law enforcement agencies and participating jurisdictions to compel persons and financial institutions to provide certain information that is relevant to understanding and advancing unexplained wealth cases. Law enforcement agencies and participating jurisdictions will have the ability to use lawfully intercepted telecommunications information to deal with unexplained wealth matters. It will allow greater coordination of unexplained wealth investigations as between various agencies and the states and territories with the Commonwealth, and it will allow participating jurisdictions to benefit from preferential treatment in the distribution of seized assets under the new equitable sharing arrangements. I support this bill because it sends a strong message to those who engage in criminal activity that the assets they obtain at the expense of our community won't be safe, no matter how well they think they can dodge law enforcement in this country.
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (12:10): I chair the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which conducted an inquiry into the Unexplained Wealth Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. The matter was referred to the committee at the end of June this year so that relevant groups affected by the bill were provided with an opportunity to raise concerns with the proposed scheme. The call for submissions resulted in submissions from seven submitters: the Adelaide Magistrates Court, the Civil Liberties Australia, the Legal Services Commission of South Australia, the Police Federation of Australia, the Law Council of Australia, Mr Edward Greaves and the Department of Home Affairs. I thank all of those submitters for their contributions, which did help the committee in coming to some conclusions and in recommending that the bill be adopted.
I note in passing that the Law Council of Australia, of which I was once a member and perhaps still am—I'm not quite sure—is always very helpful with the submissions it makes to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. It was able to get a report together in a few weeks, and as usual its high-quality reports are always welcome. I'm a little amused that, in the approach to look at the amalgamation of the Federal Circuit Court and the Family Court, which the government wants to do to try and address some of the enormous delays that occur in that court, the Law Council is being used, by people who seem to want to delay the progress of that family law consolidation and reform bill, as a reason to keep extending the dates because it supposedly needs more than three or four months to prepare a submission. I know that's not correct. I know the Law Council is better than that. It is able to get submissions in in a very short period of time.
This proposal to amalgamate the Federal Circuit Court with the Family Court has been around for a long time. The Law Council has had an early draft of the legislation, and I'm sure it is well aware of what its approach will be and what the approach of many of its members will be, although I do acknowledge that within the Law Council, which represents all lawyers across Australia, there will be many different views. But the universal problem that everyone knows of and wants to try and address is the huge delays in the Family Court, which are causing real distress to Australian families. People involved—and it's unfortunate they are involved—in the family law courts have enough problems as it is without having to wait for up to three years to get a decision on matters that came before the court. One of the reasons is that there are two courts that deal with family law matters in Australia: the Federal Circuit Court, which appears to have a record of dealing much more efficiently with work before it, and the Family Court of Australia, which seems to take a longer time to resolve matters. One of the problems is that very often matters are transferred between both courts, which have different structures and different rules, and that causes delays and expense.
What the government is proposing is that both courts continue to operate as separate courts but have the same administrative system and the same court rules and be headed by one chief judge, who would be the chief judge of both the Federal Circuit Court and the Family Court of Australia, so that a lot of the disparity between the two courts would disappear. It's thought by those involved in the area, practitioners and participants alike, that that will make it much quicker and cheaper to get results for those who are obliged to be involved in the Family Court system.
I mention in passing that I'm disappointed that the Labor Party and the Greens, for some reason, seem to want to delay this until next year, when we all know there will be an election. That means that, at the very best, if the Labor Party and the Greens get their own way on this, it will be at least another 12 months before any action can be taken to deal with the dysfunction of the two courts currently operating in the system. The very weak excuse used by the Labor Party and the Greens is that they are awaiting the Law Reform Commission's report into the family law system. But, as has been explained to them time and again, the Law Reform Commission is not looking at the structures of the courts. I'm pleased to say that my committee has invited the Law Reform Commission along to explain what it is doing in its research into the family law system to confirm that the structure of the courts is not something that it will be particularly focusing on and that it has other areas of focus for its inquiry.
All that means is that those unfortunate people who have had to be in the system won't get relief. We won't be able to do reforms to the court system, which would speed up matters and make them cheaper, for perhaps a year. For those who are concerned about this, I ask them not to ring me or come to my office or the office of any government senator or member of parliament but to go and see the Labor Party and the Greens and ask them why they are delaying these very worthwhile reforms to the Family Law Act.
This is not a matter of playing politics, which seems to be the approach of the shadow Attorney-General. This is about trying to bring real reform, real assistance and real justice to people who unfortunately have found themselves within a system that is currently inefficient and is taking up to three years to get results. If senators and members can put themselves in that position, where there is a dispute in a family law matter, people's lives are put on hold until the court comes in and makes a determination, which is what it is all about. Your life has to be put on hold for three years. That's unacceptable. Everyone acknowledges that.
Why the Labor Party, the Greens and Centre Alliance are part of a process that seems hell-bent on delaying this for another year, I cannot understand. I would urge anyone who has an interest in that matter, who is involved in the family law court system at the moment, to make those views known to members of the Labor Party, the Greens and Centre Alliance and ask them to at least let this first step towards efficiencies take place speedily. This proposal has been around for a long time. There are some entrenched interests who are opposed to it for various reasons, which they would know better than I, but it seems to me that this is a little step in the right direction that should be progressed.
While I have misdirected myself slightly from the subject before us, I simply do that in acknowledging that the Law Council of Australia do not need four or five months to prepare a submission on something that they've known about for a long time and which they've proved, as they did in this report, that they are very capable of dealing with expeditiously. They're assisting the committee and the parliament with worthwhile suggestions as to the veracity or the usefulness of various pieces of legislation that come before the parliament that deal with the legal and constitutional laws of our land.
In its submission to the committee, in relation to this unexplained wealth legislation, the Department of Home Affairs noted:
Serious and organised crime groups are increasingly operating in a more coordinated and organised manner and are frequently controlling activities that span national and international borders.
Given the challenges proposed by the increasingly sophisticated, coordinated and cross-jurisdictional operations of serious and organised crime groups, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee considered it necessary and timely that the Commonwealth should seek to establish a national scheme to target unexplained wealth.
It's important to note that the bill is a result of consultations between the Commonwealth government and state and territory governments. Also, due to Commonwealth limitations, one or more states must refer their power to the Commonwealth. This will be achieved through a text referral of schedules 1, 2 and 4 from the New South Wales parliament. Therefore, these schedules cannot be amended. The committee does note that there is scope for amendments to be made after the bill has been enacted in its present form, but this can only occur if parties to the Intergovernmental Agreement on the National Cooperative Scheme on Unexplained Wealth unanimously agree to the amendments. Consequently, any amendments by the Commonwealth parliament to these schemes would place the national scheme on unexplained wealth in jeopardy.
The committee did note some concerns raised during the inquiry in relation to self-incrimination retrospectively into legal professional privilege; the exemption of the disallowance and immunity from liability; and significant matters in delegated legislation and also in relation to privacy issues. The committee noted that most of the provisions that relate to these concerns are contained in schedules 1, 2 and 4 of the bill, which, as I say, are not able to be amended in this parliament because they require unanimous agreement by all of the state parliaments.
As usual, the committee gave very serious consideration to those issues of concern that were raised. I won't have time to go through all of them, but I'll just indicate the committee's view in relation to some of those concerns that were raised. In relation to retrospectivity, the committee notes that the bill does not criminalise conduct that was otherwise lawful prior to the amendments. The committee was persuaded by the evidence provided by the department and others that it would be almost impossible for law enforcement agencies to prove the precise point in time when property or wealth was acquired. The committee also notes that another act of parliament contains a similar provision, and therefore the bill merely extends current provisions of that other similar act. So the committee thought that, in all of these circumstances, the retrospective application of the bill was justified.
In this bill there are a significant number of matters that could be dealt with in delegated legislation but, having noted the kind of person who may issue notices to financial institutions in self-governing territories, the committee was mindful that the scheme needs to maintain a degree of flexibility, particularly in light of the ACT currently not having an unexplained wealth scheme. The committee further noted that the regulation will be subject to rules of disallowance; so parliament has a view on delegated legislation that can be disallowed, should parliament so agree. It also noted that the operation of the new schedule 1, which includes notices to financial institutions, will be subject to oversight by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement.
In relation to privacy concerns, the committee considered that the bill appropriately limits the circumstances where disclosure of information to specific authorities for a specified purpose is permitted. Furthermore, the committee is reassured that the use of powers under the relevant act will be reported to the minister annually and is subject to scrutiny of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement.
In relation to other matters that were raised as a concern, I invite those who might be interested in this piece of legislation to refer to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's report into this, which was tabled in this parliament in August of this year. It more fully goes into the concerns raised and the committee's view on those concerns, which were such that, whilst we acknowledge the concerns, there are reasons for them. The committee unanimously decided that those concerns were addressed by the bill or by practice and that, across the board, this was an appropriate piece of legislation.
The committee thought—like I think most Australians and most senators do—that the establishment of a national scheme to target unexplained wealth is very important. The committee came to the conclusion that this bill achieves the right balance between protecting the rights of individuals and providing law enforcement with sufficient tools to deprive serious and organised crime groups of their wealth. If we can do anything that deprives serious and organised crime groups of the huge wealth they've amassed from nefarious means then that is a good thing. That's why the committee came to the conclusion that this was a bill that should be passed by the parliament, and it recommended accordingly.
In conclusion, I again thank the secretariat—Dr Sean Turner, the committee secretary, Ms Pothida Youhorn, our principal research officer, and Ms Kate Morris, the administrative officer—for their assistance to the committee in sifting through the evidence and producing this report. I also thank other members of the committee, including the deputy chair, Senator Pratt, as well as Senator Molan, Senator McKim, Senator Hume and Senator Watt for their contributions to the conclusion the committee has reached. I certainly will be supporting the bill and urge all other senators to do likewise.
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Assistant Minister for Home Affairs) (12:29): First of all, I'd like to thank all of my colleagues in this chamber for their contributions on the Unexplained Wealth Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. Before I address the specifics of this bill, I'd like to address some of the issues that I understand Senator McKim has raised in the course of this debate. I would acknowledge that, as Senator Macdonald has just said, Senator McKim was a participating member of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report that Senator Macdonald has just gone through and apprised the Senate of. I would also note that that Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report had no dissenting comments at the time or additional comments made to that report.
In relation to the specific issues that Senator McKim raised in protections and human rights considerations, I can advise this chamber that these orders have extensive protections to ensure they are only used where appropriate and, specifically, I'll highlight three of those areas. Firstly, a court can refuse to issue these orders on public interest grounds or where the unexplained wealth amount is below $100,000. Secondly, the court may also exclude property from the scope of these orders in a range of situations, including where it is in the public interest or in the interest of justice to do so. And, thirdly, a court may also allow for reasonable expenses to be paid from restrained assets. So I hope that these arrangements, which I know were extensively canvassed in the legal and constitutional committee—deliberations that he participated in—reassure Senator McKim.
I'd like to remind us all in this chamber that serious and organised crime syndicates never stand still and they're always seeking new ways to exploit jurisdictional gaps, and that is certainly the case here in Australia today. Serious and organised crime syndicates, we know, are operating in an increasingly fluid manner across all of our jurisdictional borders. In fact, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission estimated that it is costing the Australian community at least $36 billion a year. I'll just say that number again because many Australians might not realise that is the implication of having these jurisdictional gaps that serious and organised crime can exploit. It's costing the Australian community $36 billion a year. So depriving criminals of their wealth is a key measure in combatting these insidious individuals. Unexplained wealth laws provide a valuable tool for law enforcement to confiscate these assets of these criminals where they cannot demonstrate that this wealth has been lawfully obtained.
However, it's also important to keep in mind that the scale and complexity of this criminal threat have necessitated an enhanced focus on cooperative cross-jurisdictional responses by Australian governments. The Unexplained Wealth Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 will provide for the first time a truly national approach to targeting unexplained wealth. It will enable all participating jurisdictions to work together to effectively deprive these criminals of their wealth, irrespective of the Australian jurisdictions that they operate in. Through a referral of powers from participating states, the scheme will allow the Commonwealth unexplained wealth orders to be used where a person or property can be linked to a broader range of state and territory offences. This will allow the AFP to use a single unexplained wealth order to target criminal syndicates instead of the patchwork of orders that would otherwise be sought by the Commonwealth, state and territory law enforcement agencies. The scheme will also enhance the capability of state and territory agencies to contribute to national efforts by providing access to enhanced information-gathering powers and the ability to use lawfully intercepted telecommunications information in unexplained wealth matters.
The bill also incentivises greater cooperation between jurisdictions through the establishment of new equitable sharing arrangements. These arrangements will give participating jurisdictions preferential treatment in the distribution of seized assets. The scheme does not replace existing unexplained wealth schemes around the country but, rather, creates a more effective and more cooperative network of law enforcement working towards a single common goal. On behalf of the Commonwealth government, I thank the states and territories that have worked with the Commonwealth to design the national cooperative scheme on unexplained wealth. And I particularly take the opportunity to thank the New South Wales government, which should be acknowledged for the passage of its legislation in its parliament, which was done earlier this year.
The federal government will continue to negotiate with the remaining states to secure their support to ensure the benefits of the scheme are maximised nationally. The government urges its colleagues to support the passage of this critical legislation. Together, Australian governments can demonstrate they are committed to working collaboratively to strengthen unexplained laws and strike at the heart of serious and organised crime.
In conclusion, I again thank all of my colleagues here in this place who have spoken on this bill and those in this chamber who are supporting this bill. The bill does provide a national approach to targeting unexplained wealth, enabling participating jurisdictions to work together to effectively deprive these serious and organised criminal gangs of their ill-gotten gains, regardless of what jurisdiction they operate in and the jurisdictional boundaries they exploit. I commend the bill to the Senate. I also table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Unexplained Wealth Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. The addendum responds to concerns raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the bill be read a second time.
The Senate divided. [12:39]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Third Reading
The PRESIDENT (12:42): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Assistant Minister for Home Affairs) (12:42): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH
Address-in-Reply
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the following address-in-reply be agreed to:
To His Excellency the Governor-General
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY—
We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign and to thank Your Excellency for the speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (12:42): Well, Mr President, isn't listing the address-in-reply a straight-up admission from the Morrison government that it is a government in name only? Where is the Morrison government's agenda? Where are the Morrison government's priorities? Listing the address-in-reply at this stage of the process is laughable and only highlights the chaos that is this Morrison government.
We have reached a point where the Morrison team has rolled a Prime Minister but still hasn't explained to the parliament, still hasn't explained in the Senate in question time when asked on many occasions and, more importantly, still hasn't explained to the Australian people why that had to occur. Why did they have to roll the Prime Minister? And this government have now demonstrated to us that they have no clear agenda and no legislative program. Indeed, they have just cancelled COAG because, we assume, as no explanation has been provided, they have no agenda. Problems exist across the board in many serious policy areas. The NDIS has serious issues that need to be addressed at COAG, but no meeting will occur. Schools are not funded for next year and no progress has been made with states and territories that educate the majority of Australian students, but no COAG meeting will occur.
And now, in the Senate, we return to the address-in-reply. I look forward to when we get back to this debate after question time so the Australian public can understand that this address-in-reply is simply filling the void in this government's agenda. This address-in-reply should have been progressed, as indeed it was in the House, 12 months ago. But it has languished here—
Senator Seselja: There was too much on.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Senator Seselja says there's too much on—too much on inside your party!
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Kitching ): Thank you, Senator Collins. The time for this debate has now expired, so we'll move to senator statements.
STATEMENTS BY SENATORS
Adoption
R U OK? Day
Juvenile Diabetes
Canberra City Care
Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) (12:45): As disappointed as I am to interrupt Senator Collins, I'm very pleased to highlight for the Senate today that last month I was very proud to attend the launch of the Parliamentary Friends of Adoption group. Unfortunately, my co-chair, Senator Kitching—your good self, Acting Deputy President—was unable to attend the launch. But I would like to thank you for your support of the group in setting it up—a very, very worthy cause.
As of 30 June 2017, 47,915 children were in out-of-home care in Australia. In 2016-17, 32,600 of those children had been in out-of-home care for two or more years, and yet there were only 204 known adoptions in the same year—204 known adoptions with 32,500 kids having been in care for two or more years and 47,900 children in out-of-home care in this country.
Adoption in Australia is in a critical state. We have tens of thousands of children in out-of-home care without, in many cases, the stability of a family to call their own. This is an issue I first became aware of as part of an inquiry into the matter as a senator and also as the Assistant Minister for Social Services. Work has been done and is being done, but it must be said that there is a long, long way to go for us as a nation.
Groups such as Adopt Change, who were kind enough to host our launch, do vital work in this area and should be absolutely praised for their efforts. I want to thank Adopt Change founder Deborra-lee Furness for attending as well as CEO Renee Carter. I want to thank them for their passion and dedication to improving the lot of so many of our most vulnerable Australian children. In doing so, I'd also like to pay tribute to the board of Adopt Change, who do an outstanding job: Catherine McDonnell, the chair; Victoria Buchan; Kerry Chikarovski; John O'Neill; and Helen Baker.
There is absolutely still vital work to be done in this area, and I hope that the establishment of the parliamentary friends group and the current local adoption inquiry will bring this issue into the spotlight so we can see real and meaningful change in this area.
Last week—last Wednesday—I attended the R U OK? Day breakfast here in Canberra hosted by R U OK? Day CEO and my good friend Brendan Maher. I'd like to congratulate him on a job well done for an invaluable cause. Brendan doesn't like the spotlight, but I understand this will be his last R U OK? Day so it's worth reflecting on the work that he has done. Brendan is a significant Australian and a great Canberran. He's been in the not-for-profit sector for over 12 years, spending seven years with Lifeline Australia and now over five years with R U OK?. He brought significant corporate experience, and of course he could have made a lot more money in the corporate sector but he's one of these servants of the people who has chosen to use his great skills and expertise for what is a very worthy cause. I think Brendan and his team have done a great job in spreading the vital message around R U OK? Day, and it's great to be a parliamentary ambassador, along with Ed Husic, for R U OK? Day.
Brendan currently spends his time managing stakeholder relationships, working on campaigns and visiting schools and offices around Australia to build on R U OK?'s mission. Since July, the R U OK? team's Conservation Convoy have tirelessly trekked all over Australia, making 28 stops from Geelong to Darwin and from Alice Springs to Rockhampton, just to name a few, to remind us all that every day is the day to ask: R U OK? I did want to very much thank Brendon and wish him well in his future endeavours. I'm sure he'll continue to make a great contribution.
This year marks the 10th year of this great initiative of R U OK? Day. Anyone who has ever gone through a tough patch knows the very real difference a listening ear makes. While R U OK? Day is advertised most widely on its flagship day, the movement exists to remind each of us that, in fact, every day is a day to support those in our lives who are struggling in their lives. Staying connected and having meaningful conversations is something we can all do. I'd encourage everyone to jump on the R U OK? website and learn their four simple steps to having a conversation that could change and even save a life.
Another issue that is of great importance is the issue of juvenile diabetes. Earlier this week it was my great privilege to meet with some kids and their parents from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. I want to thank the following people from JDRF for visiting me at parliament: Amy, Mia and Ethan Jeffress and their mum, Kathryn; Sophie Coulter and her mum, Katie; Lawrence Jovanovic and his mum, Melanie; and Grace Eveille and her mum, Mel. I'd like to particularly thank Mel Eveille for helping organise the visit and for the amazing work that she has been doing for a long time for JDRF in the ACT.
JDRF, as many of you would know, is a non-profit organisation that funds type 1 diabetes research and advocates for regulation favourable to medical research, making it easier to market new medical devices. Those of us who don't have or don't know anyone with type 1 diabetes can have no idea just how much of a challenge it poses to those who have it, and I take my hat off to these kids and their parents who are facing that challenge head-on every day. It's always a bit heartbreaking when the kids share their stories. They are amazing, inspiring kids who sometimes do it tough, but there's a lot of work being done, kids, to make your lives better. We're going to keep working harder to make sure that we get to a cure and that this is something that in a few years time, hopefully, kids will no longer have to grow up with.
Unfortunately, at the moment, there is nothing that can be done to prevent type 1 diabetes, which is most common in children, and its exact cause is unknown. Sadly, type 1 diabetes is also often wrongly assumed to be lifestyle related, which adds to the stigma suffered by those with the disease. That's why JDRF's research is so important to help these young people who are dealing with a disease that is, of course, not of their own making. I'm proud to be part of a government providing access to fully subsided continuous-glucose-monitoring products through the National Diabetes Services Scheme. I'm told that these are an absolute game changer in the lives of those with type 1 diabetes, assisting children, young people and their families to better manage their blood glucose levels, and that they may reduce stress, anxiety and emergency visits to the hospital. It was heartwarming to hear firsthand what a difference these devices are making. Earlier this year, I was also honoured to participate in JDRF One Ride and actively support this worthwhile cause committed to caring for families impacted by the disease whilst conducting research to find a cure.
Today I'd like to also pay tribute to a really significant Canberran, Pastor Sean Stanton, who gave me a tour of his extensive campus of Life Unlimited Church and Canberra City Care last week. He and I were trying to remember how long it's been since my last visit, and, given the number of changes that have taken place, it must have been a while. Canberra City Care is a great story, and the Life Unlimited Church there on the campus in Charnwood has just done an extraordinary job. This was a dilapidated school building that was no longer being used as a high school. It was then sold to the church community a number of years ago—I think more than 15 years ago now—and what they were asked to do as part of that was to not only have the church there but also take on some community contributions. Can I say that Pastor Sean Stanton and his church community have gone above and beyond what anyone could have expected.
Canberra City Care has grown from small beginnings to a busy community hub that offers low-cost food, clothing, IT equipment and debt management to around 300 families doing it tough every week. They operate with the assistance of around 50 amazing volunteers, a number of whom I met, and work in close relationship with a variety of community organisations within the ACT. Their five main services are HandUp Food Care, which is a store stocking a range of affordable food and everyday essentials; the Harvest Garden, which grows fresh fruit and vegetables for the local community; ReRuns Op Shop, which sells a range of preloved clothing and other goods at very low prices; the Tech Shed, which provides affordable computers and technical support; and Christians Against Poverty, which assists people to become free of debt and poverty.
To Pastor Sean Stanton: I can't get through all of the things you do, but they're an extraordinary contribution to our community. The volunteers and the people who come along are helping some of our most vulnerable people. I just wanted to congratulate you for your amazing contribution to the ACT community.
Women in Parliament
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:55): I want to make a contribution today about a more equal and more representative parliament. For some weeks now, we have seen those opposite consumed by a long-overdue debate on how it is that deep into the 21st century just one in five of the Liberal members and senators are women, and what they can do to turn this around. I say it is long overdue not to score a political point but because of a more fundamental principle. Whether it's on the basis of race, sexuality, religion, ethnicity or gender, we should be striving for a society where all people are judged on their abilities alone. This is the principle that certainly guides my approach to public life. It is a principle of Australia's democracy and it is a principle the Labor Party holds dear.
This principle includes making sure that the parliament is more equal, both in its numbers and in its practices, because without one you're not going to get the other. A parliament that is more representative of the Australian people will be one that acts and behaves in a way that is more closely aligned with the community, the expectations of the Australian people and the make-up of the Australian people. That change is also necessary to make politics a better and more attractive career option for women.
For over a quarter of a century now, our party has been committed to the goals of making our party better represent the Australian people and of reflecting the principle of equality by ensuring more women were elected to federal, state and territory parliaments. Labor support affirmative action not just because we think women have just as much right as men to serve in this place and others but also because we think this parliament is a better place when it more closely reflects the people we represent. We support affirmative action because it is the best way to tackle and defeat the systemic failures in our political system. It also changes culture and policy. I recall it was a Labor government that put in place measures such as the increase to the tax-free threshold, the low-income super contribution and paid parental leave. Now the Labor Party has announced an addition to paid parental leave for women's superannuation. All of these are economic policies which reflect the experience of Australian women.
We often hear from some of those opposite sarcastic remarks about 'quota girls', as if none of us on this side has any right to be here. Well, I'd like to ask them this question: why is it that you think women make up so few members and senators in your party? Since women make up more than 50 per cent of the population, there can really only be two answers: either women are not seen by the males in your party as talented and, therefore, not as deserving of a place in this parliament as men; or there is something more systemic preventing women from being elected to parliament as members of the Liberal or National parties. Unless those opposite are actually prepared to stand up in this place and argue that, if merit alone determines preselection, women in the Liberal and National Parties are consequently only one-fifth as meritorious as men, then they accept there are barriers to equal representation. Once you accept there are barriers then, clearly, action is required to break those down, and that action is affirmative action.
A book I will be launching in the near future by Clare Wright, You Daughters of Freedom: The Australians Who Won the Vote and Inspired the World, documents how in the early years of the 20th century other nations looked to Australia with admiration as the land which led the world in universal suffrage—something of which we can be extraordinarily proud. We were a place where women had not only won the vote but also won the right to stand for parliament, an almost unheard of concept in the first decades of the 20th century. Yet today, Australia ranks 50th in the world when it comes to gender diversity in parliament. Where we once led the world, today the latest figures from the IPU show we trail the UK, New Zealand, South Africa, Mexico, Rwanda, Cuba, Slovenia and 42 other nations. Why? Because of the Liberal and National parties. If Labor were the only party in this place, Australia would rank fourth in the world.
So the debate we have seen over the last few weeks and the growing recognition that something needs to be done to change this are very welcome, not just for those opposite but for the parliament as a whole and for the nation. However, I do sound this word of warning: if the experience in the Labor Party is any guide, you do face decades of struggle, prosecuting this change at multiple party conferences.
In 1996, in the last election where Labor branches could avoid taking action about the fact we had so few women MPs and senators, we were left with just four female MPs and fewer than one in 10 of our lower House members. But, with party rules demanding at least 35 per cent of winnable seats go to women, by the next election that number had quadrupled and women made up over a quarter of our members of parliament. People such as Julia Gillard, Nicola Roxon and many others entered our parliaments. Since then, we have twice lifted our quota target to 40 per cent and then 50 per cent. Today, 46 per cent of our caucus are women and we are on track to achieve equality at the next election. This will be a historic and proud moment: a party of government for the first time in this country accurately reflecting the diversity of the Australian people. It is proof that affirmative action, quotas, or whatever term you want to use, works.
In contrast, on the government benches—where those opposite routinely deride Labor women as 'quota girls'—we see the exact opposite trend occurring. In 1996, 18 women sat as MPs in John Howard's new government; 22 years and seven Prime Ministers later there are just 13. We see reports that is likely to drop to single figures after the next election. There's no sign this is going to improve. If anything it will get worse. If you look at the 13 most marginal Labor seats the government might be expected to target at the next election, in just one a woman has been preselected by the Liberal Party.
This confirms, I think, that too many people in the Liberal Party have a problem with women. When so few of your numbers are women, this leads to the sorts of behaviour we've seen widely reported in recent weeks: the claims of bullying, with no fewer than five Liberal women calling out their appalling treatment during the bitter infighting that led to the dumping of the former Prime Minister. When those few women left are so dismayed by bullying and intimidation that some of them are quitting the parliament, worsening the gender inequality in the coalition parties, you see the creation of a vicious cycle that sees women marginalised and driven out of parliament—and, of course, this parliament made less attractive to women.
For many years the Liberal Party sought to disguise its poor record on gender by pointing to Julie Bishop, Australia's first female Minister for Foreign Affairs—yet we also saw how the party treated her during the leadership ballot. It's no wonder the member for Curtin memorably declared she wouldn't be another bloke's deputy and left the frontbench. However, one point on which I would disagree with the former foreign minister is her reluctance to describe herself as a feminist—on which she was joined by many women on the other side. Oxford Dictionaries comprises 20 volumes. It's definition of feminism, however, is commendably concise:
The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
Chris Wallace, I thought, put this very well in her recent column, when she declared:
… the reluctance of Liberal women to name and organise around the liberal feminism they actually practice, psychologically undercuts their power and keeps them in a prone position.
They need to name and unashamedly organise around the set of ideas that can end the present male Liberal monoculture in a way consistent with their political philosophy: that is, liberal feminism. Every time Bishop and those like her shy from declaring themselves liberal feminists, they pull the rug from under not only under their own feet, but also from under the feet of every other Liberal woman around them.
Though I recognise that some women in the Liberal Party are recognising they need to change their approach—and I think that that is a good thing—to my way of thinking it is somewhat counterproductive to the cause of equality to be proud of not being a feminist.
As a general rule, not talking about discrimination or inequality has historically not been a successful approach to remedying it. Those in power and those with a control of pre-elections rarely cede that power willingly. As the 1970s equal pay song put it, 'Don't be too polite, girls.' Ultimately, you have to decide whether you want to make that change and how to best prosecute that case. Male leaders have to decide whose side they're on. Are they going to stand against the tide or work with you, as people on our side from Keating to Simon Crean to Bill Shorten have all chosen to do.
Sadly, at this moment, surveying the coalition benches, I have to say there are too few male allies. When only 17 per cent of your members in the House are women and you're going backwards, you obviously have a problem. When your MPs and senators are routinely referring to women in this place as 'quota girls' and the 'handbag hit squad' and calling on them to 'roll with the punches' and to 'get out of the kitchen', you have a problem. And this gets back to the point I started with about the culture of a party or a parliament and how that is affected by the lack of equal representation. It is time for those opposite to understand that a lack of female representation in this parliament is not only bad for women and bad for the Liberal Party; it is bad for democracy. It is time for those opposite to join the 21st century, to stand up to the bullies, to support affirmative action so that this parliament on all sides, whether government or opposition, better represents the Australian people.
Energy
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (13:05): The South Australian government has served a third and final activity notification to Leigh Creek Energy, giving them the green light to go ahead with a trial of what they call 'in-situ gasification', which others may understand as underground coal gasification or UCG. If this technology sounds familiar, it should; it was banned just over 12 months ago in Queensland by the state government after a disastrous trial in Chinchilla by Link Energy. The company was found guilty of five counts of breaching environmental laws, specifically of polluting a widespread area of soil, water, air and even up to six metres underground with fugitive gases, including carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and hydrogen sulphide. Chinchilla in the Western Downs is an important agricultural area and part of the electorate of Monaro, represented by the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources.
Five of Link Energy's executive directors are standing trial for failing to ensure compliance. However, notably absent from this list of directors is Link Energy's former general manager of investor relations, Justin Peters. After the spectacular and disastrous failure of Link Energy in Chinchilla, Mr Peters became the executive chairman of Marathon Resources, now known as Leigh Creek Energy. South Australians will remember Marathon Resources for their famed dumping of radioactive waste in Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary in 2008.
After the spectacular and disastrous failure of Link Energy in Queensland and the terrible track record of Marathon Resources in Arkaroola, how on earth has Leigh Creek Energy now been given the green light in South Australia by the Liberal state government? How can there be so much crossover between these companies and no role for the corporate regulator? Leigh Creek is Marathon Resources—it is simply another name. While five of the directors of Link face court, the head of investor relations from the very same company that is now both bankrupt and being successfully prosecuted is trying to deploy the very same technology in South Australia.
The question is not just why the Liberal state government has given approvals for this project but where on earth is ASIC? What is the point of having a corporate regulator if it can't stop the banks from ripping people off and can't stop these kinds of cowboys, companies and directors with a legacy of misdeeds from continuing their bad projects, putting communities and the environment at risk?
Underground coal gasification poses grave risks of groundwater and soil contamination, not to mention the significant harm it can do as the particular noxious gases released by UCG contribute even more to accelerating climate change. Groundwater experts are very concerned about the impact of this project in South Australia. Groundwater experts from RMIT have raised serious concerns about UCG generally and about the specific application of it in Leigh Creek after evaluating the company's environmental impact report, but the South Australian government has still given it the green light.
If these concerns weren't troubling enough, the recent approval has completely flouted the will of the traditional owners, the Adnyamathanha people. They've been in court this week fighting for an injunction against Leigh Creek Energy. The original Leigh Creek mine site was developed right on top of a sacred cultural site and its closure heralded at the time a period of healing that has now been abruptly disrupted. Despite these concerns and the obvious danger of the technology, the South Australian government has seen fit to give approval to this ghastly project by giving a healthy bump to Leigh Creek Energy's share price. This company has been advertising in various newspapers how much it will invest in this project in South Australia. Why are the South Australian people being put at risk by this company and by their state government? Why have we learned nothing from the disaster in Queensland? Why are we risking our great natural resources for a failed experimental technology that we know is dangerous, all for a company that has already been found to have people at its helm who have been found to be corrupt?
The answer to the questions appears to be the usual one: the revolving door between politics and fossil fuels. Who is doing the bidding for Leigh Creek Energy with our state government? It is none other than Iain Evans, the former SA Liberal Party leader. He is listed as a lobbyist, after the recent change of government, with his sole client being Leigh Creek Energy. Before we get ahead of ourselves and just blame the Liberal side of politics, this murky back-room wheeling and dealing is not the sole preserve of the Liberal Party. Leigh Creek Energy was lobbied on behalf of by South Australian former Labor senator Chris Schacht before the change of government in South Australia earlier this year. Former senator, now lobbyist Schacht, is also a shareholder and was a director of Marathon Resources, the same company that is pushing this dangerous and lethal toxic technology in South Australia. This connection between fossil fuel companies and politics is not only shady; it's dangerous. The South Australian government has failed in its duty. The corporate regulators have failed in their duty. The federal government has failed in its duty. Not only should this approval be revoked and this technology banned outright; we obviously need reforms that put communities and environment at the centre of decision-making, not the profits of fossil fuel companies or the cheques being signed for their lobbyists.
Where on earth is the cop on the beat in relation to all of this? How could ASIC not step in and do something about this company, which has been proven to have such shoddy, dangerous technology, shoddy governance and shoddy officers, now setting up shop in South Australia? ASIC should be doing their job and stopping these bad actors from leapfrogging from one dangerous project to another.
South Australians are incredibly concerned about what is going on in Leigh Creek, the motives of this dodgy company and the motives of the corrupt people at the helm, and they want action. The South Australian government is hoping no-one has noticed that this licence for approval has simply been ticked off. Well, they are noticing and they will notice more. We should ban this technology outright and we should make sure the regulator does its job. We don't need cowboys like this in South Australia. We don't need them anywhere in Australia putting the health of our community and our environment at risk. This technology should go and the cowboys running the show should be seen in court.
Northern Australia
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (13:13): I'm pleased to tell the Senate that I come with a good-news story. I and my colleague from the Northern Territory here live in a part of the world where there is a lot of optimism, a lot of movement forward; not the sort of negativity you just heard from a senator from South Australia. One can only note in passing that a Greens senator from South Australia was part of what I assume was the Labor government which managed South Australia for so many years and did such an awful job. It always amuses me that the Greens political party, who are in coalition with the Labor Party, criticise their state religiously. I and my colleagues in the north have a far more positive outlook on life and we look forward to opportunities for the future.
Back in the dark days when the Liberal-National parties were in opposition, we sat down to develop a white paper about the development of northern Australia as a whole. For this, I pay credit to the then Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, who had an understanding and an appreciation of what the north could offer. Mr Abbott, although Sydney based himself, had been in the north quite a lot because of his great support for Indigenous people and the way he genuinely interacted with them—without the TV cameras following along, I might say. In Tony Abbott, we had a Leader of the Opposition at the time who was very keen on developing northern Australia, on moving forward the great opportunities and great resources that there are in the north.
Over many months, with the very substantial assistance of Mr Andrew Robb, who was then a senior shadow minister with good contacts around, we developed a northern Australia white paper, which was released by Mr Abbott in Cairns in June 2015, if I recall correctly. It was a blueprint that set out how northern Australia could be developed and how the federal government could play a part in facilitating that development. Since that time, the white paper has been pursued. One of the great results of the white paper was that, for the first time, we had a minister for northern Australia. It was originally Mr Frydenberg, who I'm delighted to see is now the Treasurer. I expect that, as Treasurer, he will remember his advocacy and his passion for the development of northern Australia.
We also set up the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, a $5 billion fund that can be used to provide low-interest, easy-repayment terms to private companies and government instruments that want to develop the north. The establishment of NAIF, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, has been a wonderful step forward. Unfortunately, politics got a bit in the way of that proposal. The Queensland Labor government, who have a lot of projects that would benefit from NAIF funding, made a political decision not to involve themselves with NAIF. Why? It is because, from the point of view of the Queensland Labor government—a very narrow view, I might say—if it's something that the Liberal-National Party federal government has done they say, 'We don't want to do anything that makes it looks like it's successful, so we'll go out of our way to destroy it and not to take part in it.' The classic example is the Adani railway line, which would have benefited from NAIF money. I'm pleased to say that, just last week, Adani announced they're going ahead anyhow. It would have benefited from NAIF money, but the Queensland Labor government and Mr Shorten undermined that to the extent where Adani withdrew any approaches they might have made to NAIF.
The Northern Territory government do not have that philosophically stupid and narrow political approach. They have been great supporters of NAIF, because they understand there's some money there that can help develop the Northern Territory. I'm delighted that one of the early NAIF loans has been to Humpty Doo Barramundi, a farm in the Northern Territory and a great private company. I'm sure my colleague from the Northern Territory knows a lot about that farm. It's going gangbusters, so to speak, and the NAIF funding will certainly help expand that wonderful operation. The Western Australian Labor government also had no such scruples. They supported the Onslow Marine Support Base, which was another early project of NAIF. James Cook University, in my home town of Townsville, has been the recipient of a substantial grant—a $98 million loan—to establish a technology innovation complex at their campus in Townsville, which they see as having great capability for the future, and there are other projects that NAIF are involved in.
Some people say, 'There's all this hoo-ha about a northern Australia white paper, but nothing's happened.' Of course, the people who say that are entirely ignorant. One of the initiatives in the northern Australia white paper was the Cooperative Research Centre for Developing Northern Australia. That was set up by the government and headquartered in Townsville. The CRC provides assistance for research into different matters that will help develop northern Australia. They have recently announced a large number of research projects in the north that will benefit from joint funding with the Cooperative Research Centre for the development of northern Australia.
One of the great initiatives in the white paper was to, for the first time, look at roads that need to be built in northern Australia and then devise a way that they could be built. There has been an enormous amount of activity in that area. I will just mention some because I've only got two minutes left and I couldn't mention them all in that time: the Richmond to Winton road progressive sealing is proceeding; the Richmond to Croydon road is proceeding; the Burke Developmental Road between Chillagoe and Almaden is proceeding; the Ootann Road upgrade between Almaden and the Kennedy Highway is proceeding; the Rockhampton Road Network is going ahead; the Gregory Development Road is being funded through the northern Australia white paper; there is the Great Northern Highway upgrade between the Ord River and Turkey Creek in Western Australia; the Barkly Stock Route upgrade; the Tablelands Highway; and so it goes on.
Under another program of the white paper, the northern Australia roads of priority, there is the Flinders Highway from Townsville to Torrens Creek; the Landsborough Highway from Longreach to Winton; the Barkly Highway from Cloncurry to Mount Isa; the Capricorn Highway—excuse me, I’m mentioning the Queensland roads first because I am a Queensland senator—at Rockhampton; the Bowen Development Road; the Peak Downs Highway; the Great Northern Highway; the Marble Bar Road in Western Australia; the Broome to Cape Leveque road; the Plenty Highway; the Tjukaruru Road upgrade—I know I have my pronunciation wrong, but my Northern Territory colleague will know the road I'm talking about; the Buntine Highway; the Arnhem Highway's Adelaide River Floodplain upgrade; and the upgrade of the Keep River Plains Road. These are all actually happening as we speak. The northern development white paper is actually working as we go.
Indigenous Affairs
Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (13:23): I would like to acknowledge Minister Ken Vowles from the Northern Territory, who is in the gallery today. He is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister for Primary Industry and Resources.
Today I would like to acknowledge a town in South Australia, to which I was introduced by my good friend and colleague Senator Alex Gallacher. I wish to state my deep and sincere respect for the people of Elliston and what the town of Elliston has done for the cause of national reconciliation and truth-telling. Senator Gallacher, for some months, has been saying to me that something good, something significant for the community, both First Nations and non-Indigenous peoples, has been happening in that part of the world.
I'm grateful to him for taking me out there. I met some very wonderful people in that community. He introduced me to the Wirangu reconciliation monument on the Elliston Coastal Trail. On the coastal trail, there's an award-winning monument. The monument commemorates historic, tragic and unutterably sad events. The Wirangu people and other First Nations people have always said on the frontier outposts of Waterloo Bay that there was a massacre. First Nations peoples were driven over the cliffs into the wild seas of the Southern Ocean that raged below. Some say hundreds died on that day—the exact number is unknown. The secret was also known to some of the descendants of pioneers from that area, but it was not spoken about—not out in the open anyway.
Now the people of the town have acknowledged and commemorated that event. The people and those associated with the community of Elliston have claimed their common space. They have owned this history and claimed it as part of their future. We were told of the efforts that went into making this commemoration happen. That in itself is a story of truth-telling and growth for people with very diverse views, people like council chairman Mr Kym Callaghan, who spoke of the ups and downs they faced—the challenges, arguments and disputes—but also the growth that took place in peoples' understandings and in their hearts. There are still some detractors, but the majority of the community has moved on.
Chairman Callaghan said he initially focused on the jetty as a unique part of the walking trail but changed his mind after reading Supreme Court documents about the tragic incident. After visiting the site with two Wirangu women, he said:
I turned around and Mrs Betts was standing there with tears streaming down her face and I thought—well this isn't just a sculpture for me, this is something very important to you and your people.
He himself was going through his own cathartic experience and, with an opening up of his own heart and mind, the pragmatism drove him to establish the heritage coastal trail.
Change is hard but necessary if we are going to move forward in this space of reconciliation. The Wirangu people know how hard it is to get truth accepted and owned, but they too were part of its transformative capacity. Kym Callaghan knows how hard it is to get his fellow community members to move beyond their fear and denial and to embrace hidden truths.
The people of Elliston went about the task of constructing a wonderful coastal walking trail and found themselves collectively celebrating a moment of truth. They did this together—not out of guilt, not out of shame and not out of despair. They did these things out of hope, out of courage and out of a joint purpose when it was not always clear where the path might lead. They reclaimed a common collective space in their local community for everyone to be a part of. No-one is late to this event. It is up to your own spirit of fairness. They worked together for a long time to make this happen, because it just didn't happen at once.
Awful atrocities like this have happened in many parts of Australia, and they too need to be recognised and commemorated. But the people of Elliston sent out a message of hope and, through their local leadership, they provided national encouragement.
The University of Newcastle has produced a disturbing map of massacre sites, although not yet for my own state of Western Australia. The many dots on the map show repeated and persistent patterns of callous disregard for the sanctity of human life but also fear—fear of settlers losing their grip on what they thought was theirs. First Nations peoples were seen as a threat in the eyes of the colonists and settlers, and they were to be removed and the secrets hidden. This no longer needs to be the case. Elliston has shown us that no-one is threatened.
In Elliston there is now a monument to remind us of the events of that cruel and sorrowful day back in May 1849. It also reminds us that honesty can be reclaimed and truth-telling can be restored to a rightful place in our intertwined history, and that acknowledgement is powerful, transformative and can make the place free for the spirits—not only the physical spirits but also the spiritual sense for the traditional owners to return. They can now come back to this part of the country to commemorate the past with honour and dignity. What a great thing this is. It's great for the families and great for the future.
The greater good can also be seen in the fact that the descendants of the settlers can be part of this pride as well. For generations they have all stayed true to what they were told. They have stayed true to what their elders experienced or knew. They have stayed true to what was needed to be made right again. In the pursuit of truth-telling, they have worked with each other to achieve it.
As I told the people of Elliston, through this moment for reconciliation, no-one is late. There is no discounting for coming to the party. It is in fact a credit and an acknowledgement of the courage, the growth and the integrity of working together and reaching a mutually agreeable outcome and understanding. In the national project of reconciliation in this nation, this is what we can do: we can find common ground; we can acknowledge truth; we can rebuild; we can restructure; we can reconnect; and we can work together for an better future which we can all celebrate.
At the ceremony, young dancers from Port Augusta, called the Dusty Feet Mob, danced on the clifftop. Their barefoot stomping feet kicked up the dust where the hard shod hooves of horses once chased families into the sea. We were all moved by these young dancers. They are the conduit through which history can be bridged. Who would not want to see a future for them free of ignorance, free of hatred and free of discrimination? We want such a future for our young people, black and white, in cities and towns and in the bush. We want to see a nation that has the courage to face the truth-telling, that can come together for reconciliation, that can commemorate the past and that can work to celebrate our joint future. When we reach that future, it will be in part because the people of Elliston have shown us the way to free ourselves from lies, from fear and from untruths.
Immigration
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (13:32): On 17 August last year I wore a burqa in the Senate to confront the Senate over failed immigration policy. The burqa puts the issues of extremism, gender equality and integration front and centre of the immigration debate. It is time we deal with our failed immigration policy, which has seen culturally separate communities establish themselves near our major cities, funded by our welfare system. Integration is the subject of public and political debate but little progress is being made, because the fools on the left side of politics are acting like ostriches with their heads in the sand.
In Denmark, citizenship is available only to those applicants resident for nine years who have been self-supporting for four out of the previous five years. Additionally, applicants need to evidence cultural competence and knowledge, including language skills and knowledge of society. To gain citizenship in Australia, you only need to be a resident for four years, one year on a permanent visa, and then get 12 out of 20 questions right in a multiple-choice test.
In July this year the Danish government announced that it would introduce new laws to regulate all aspects of life in low-income and heavily-Muslim enclaves in an attempt to bring this group into Danish society. The proposal includes mandatory day care, for a minimum of 30 hours a week, for children up to the age of six so that they can participate in a course on Danish values such as gender equality, community participation and co-responsibility.
Additionally, the Danish government proposes withdrawing social benefits from parents whose children miss more than 15 per cent of the school term. Controversially, the Danish government also proposes a possible four-year prison sentence for immigrant parents who take their children on extended visits to their country of origin in a way that the government determines compromises the children's schooling, language and wellbeing. Children are a focal point for immigration policy because they learn languages faster, make friends more easily and more rapidly adapt to their new culture and customs. Denmark is not the only country in Europe taking this approach, because German asylum applicants, including children, go through integration courses to learn about Germany and German values.
It is time to call a spade a spade. We have heavy concentrations of overseas-born near our major cities, and the patterns of settlement suggest that the past pattern of integration will not continue. Let me be clear, I am talking about a minority of Australian Muslims. I recognise and appreciate the hardworking Australian Muslims who have embraced our democracy and values and who do not support an extreme ideology. If we want to avoid the European problems with immigration, we need to ensure a permanent visa and citizenship are given only to those people who integrate into Australia and work.
We take migrants from regions with vastly different customs and practices to those in Australia, including their attitude towards women. When the women of the left side of this chamber stood and clapped the Attorney-General as he berated me for wearing a burqa, we saw the clearest contrast between the right and the left side of politics. I saw the fools on the opposition benches pander to minorities without realising the implications of creeping Islamic fundamentalism in our society. Islamic fundamentalism has emptied the Middle East of Christian communities, and many of those people have come here and are frightened by what they see. Oxford Imam and scholar, Taj Hargey, says he is frustrated that white feminists are defending women in burqas because all they do is support misogynist and patriarchal attitudes to women which see women as chattel—possessions and belongings. Dr Taj Hargey suggests that those who bend over backwards to Islamist fanatics are suffering a white guilt complex and do not understand that the burqa signs the arrival of Sharia law, which entrenches women as second-class citizens.
If you don't think that women are being treated as second-class citizens in Australia, then you must have your eyes closed. Only last week, Sydney Muslim preacher, Nassim Abdi, from Auburn in Western Sydney said that wives who refuse to have sex with their husbands have committed a sin. His sermon drew outrage from outside that community, but it also illustrated our failed immigration policy that will not recognise that these comments represent the norm in some Islamic countries. What makes politicians think migrants with very different attitudes and beliefs will give them up just because we give them a permanent visa and citizenship?
Australians have had enough of the complacency of pro-immigration elites. We have been giving about 230,000 permanent visas a year to those born overseas. Despite the misleading statements by the government and Labor, permanent immigration accounts for most of Australia's population growth because our natural rate of increase is low. In 2016-17, a total of 40,000 permanent visas were issued to people from sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa and the Middle East. We have issued 291,975 permanent visas to people from these regions in the past decade. These regions have vastly different cultural norms to those in Australia, including polygamist unions, child marriage, female genital mutilation and the rejection of gender equality. These customs and practices have not been given up on arrival in Australia and they have financial consequences funded by the taxpayer through the healthcare system and through Centrelink. The Australian Medical Association in 2017 reported on the extent of female genital mutilation and found in one hospital in Melbourne over 600 women a year are being treated for female genital mutilation. This is just one hospital in Australia and does not include the horrific injuries sustained by young girls who end up in the children's hospitals of Australia. These injuries are lifelong for these individuals and costly for the taxpayer.
Of course additional health costs are just one issue. I recently interviewed South Australian imam Mohammad Tawhidi, who told me that Centrelink is the new mosque. He told me of a man with four wives and 11 children who lived on Centrelink benefits and was able to pay off more than one home. Centrelink is not meant to be a way of life. I want to know when the government will stop funding polygamist unions and encouraging people to have more children than they can afford. Why should the taxpayer be working to support a man who does not want to work and has more children than he can afford to look after? Why should women who make themselves unemployable be funded by the taxpayer? The government has thrown in the towel, with the result that money that should go into aged care and disability services is going to fund polygamy.
It is time we acknowledge the failures of multiculturalism and find solutions before we find ourselves with European-scale problems. The Labor vision of multicultural society was never meant to be one of multicultural separatism. There have been successes, and I acknowledge hardworking Asian families. Most Australians think multiculturalism has been good for Australia because we appear to have absorbed a number of culturally diverse migrants, but high levels of immigration and heavy concentrations of overseas-born migrants around our major cities threaten our future and the future of our children.
A growing number of people in Australia cannot speak English well or at all—over a million people. If we are to maintain social cohesion and economic prosperity, we need people to read, write and speak English. Too many federal electorates now have populations where more than 50 per cent of people were born overseas. It is clear we cannot manage. We need to reconsider the level and mix of permanent migrants to Australia, because we are heading down a dead-end road at 90 miles per hour and it is going to end in tears.
Economy
Senator STOKER (Queensland) (13:42): We often hear from Labor about what they say is rising inequality. The recent report from the Productivity Commission and the report in yesterday's Australian that wages have risen faster than inflation debunk this continually perpetuated myth. It's a sad reflection of how far Labor has fallen that in the 1980s the Labor Party under Hawke and Keating was focused on market based reform to grow Australia's economic pie. Today, the only thing that interests Labor is dividing that pie up—redistribution according to socialist ideology.
Inequality has become something of an obsession for those opposite. The consultation draft for Labor's national platform mentions the word a total of 49 times. The document mentions inequality more than twice as much as it mentions, for example, living standards, wages or even electricity prices. Under Bill Shorten's leadership, Labor has started singing from the same extremist songbook as Mr Sanders in the United States and Mr Corbyn in the United Kingdom. Mr Shorten has nominated stemming the rise of inequality as one of Labor's top economic priorities, should it win office.
The problem is that the facts don't support him. All of the recent studies show that inequality in this nation is not rising. It's a pity that fact doesn't make for a handy campaign slogan. Mr Shorten plans to do this by implementing a raft of taxes that will sap the incentive for Australians to work hard and will punish households that are trying to get ahead. Scrapping tax refunds for share dividends won't give a single unemployed person a job, but it will make life a lot harder for tens of thousands of self-funded retirees who have worked really hard to get to where they are. Abolishing negative gearing won't lower a single pensioner's or other person's electricity bill, but it will make it that much tougher for working people who want to invest in property, as so many do, to save for their future. The majority of people who do this earn less than $80,000 a year.
The logic that underpins Labor's plan is clear: put simply, they believe that the path to making society fairer and more equal is to pull people down rather than lifting people up. The opposition fashions its regressive tax grab as part of a positive plan. In truth, the outlook that animates Labor's philosophy isn't optimistic. It's hard to see much that's positive, much less optimistic, about a political philosophy that is more interested in punishing success than rewarding effort.
To my mind, Labor's notion that the best way we can improve the lot of others in life is through the heavy hand of government redistribution is incredibly disempowering. When Mr Shorten says that inequality is creating a sense of powerlessness or killing hope, what he's really saying is that Australians aren't capable of backing themselves, that they aren't empowered, that they'd be better off letting the welfare state do it for them. They're about entrenching the Labor victim mentality that inequality in Australia is endemic.
Perhaps they think it's an advantage for them come election time. But I've got good news for Australians: Labor's claim that inequality has rotted Australia's social contract to the core has been thoroughly debunked. The Productivity Commission, the Australian government's peak economic advisory body, recently published a report titled Rising inequality? A stocktake of the evidence. The report provides the most comprehensive overview of inequality in Australia in living memory. It analyses inequality not through the lens of class envy, but in the context of understanding other important concepts like poverty, entrenched disadvantage and economic mobility. It's worth recounting some of the Productivity Commission's most important findings. The first is that inequality has barely budged in this country in the last 15 years. By international standards, Australia is in the middle of the pack compared to other developed nations. The picture is much the same over the previous 30 years, with inequality rising only slightly. Considering that the last three decades overlapped with substantial economic change and upheaval brought on by the dismantling of industry protection and the introduction of the market based reforms of the 1980s and 1990s, this ought to be regarded as a positive result.
The report is also explicit in confirming that the bounty of the last 27 years of uninterrupted growth has been shared among all Australians. It finds that the living standard for the average Australian in every income decile has improved. What's more, since the turn of the millennium, relative poverty—the number of Australians earning less than half the median wage—has actually decreased. Of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't act to help those who remain in relative poverty, but we should also be realistic about the numbers we're talking about. Notably, equality in Sweden, a nation that many in this place might hold out as a socialist utopia, has deteriorated sharply. The report also reaffirms the immutable truth that the biggest inequality in society is between those who have a job and those who are without. Indeed, whether a person has paid employment is the single biggest determinant of whether they are likely to be stuck at the bottom end of the mobility ladder in the long term.
This should serve as an overdue reminder that most of the preferred solutions that are touted by Labor, the unions and the Greens are misguided at best and counterproductive at worst. In terms of policymaking, the lesson here is clear: idealistic thought bubbles like imposing new restrictions on casual work or drastically lifting the minimum wage, fixing these things from afar, or even undoing penalty rate changes, which undercut rather than sharpen the incentive for employers to take on inexperienced workers, must be treated with caution. That's why, if you really do care about inequality, there are far more potent ways it can be addressed than to ponder the vagaries of interfering with family trusts or removing incentives for Australians on average incomes to have a go at an investment property or to try and build up a share portfolio to earn its dividends.
Cutting red tape burden on business and restoring balance to our industrial relations laws would do far more to extend opportunity to those who need it than using tax rises as a weapon of class warfare does. Doing away with the tax-free status on the multitude of business-like activities that the union movement involves itself in could be another good initiative.
Another of the Productivity Commission's crucial insights is that Australia's social safety net is working as intended. The commission says, 'Australia’s progressive tax and highly targeted transfer systems substantially reduce inequality,' thanks largely to the means-tested design of our social services system. The takeout is that, when Mr Shorten tells us we have a two-class tax system, he is being patently dishonest. If lifelong welfare dependency is what Labor is going to promote, the truth is we are going to run out of money.
Recent analysis by Robert Carling, former Treasury official and research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies, has found that the bottom 60 per cent of households now receive more in benefits from government than they pay in tax. The Liberal and National parties have always believed that looking after those who cannot take care of themselves should be one of the first duties of government. But it seems that, when half of society is receiving more than they give in one of the wealthiest societies in the world, we are doing much more than meeting our duty to those who genuinely need help.
We need to treat with caution this policy from Labor. Rising inequality is something that they think, if they repeat the lie often enough, Australians will believe is true. But what it really is is divisive, and, in many ways, it's demeaning of the great country we're in—it's a privilege to live here—and the great people who work so hard to continue to forge it ahead.
Elliston: Waterloo Bay Memorial
Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (13:52): I want the record to show that I have copious notes; I don't have a written speech, and I'm sure there's a village somewhere looking for another contributor! Anyway, I want to take you back to 5 September 2011, which is when I first had an acquaintanceship with the town of Elliston. The town of Elliston is 169 kilometres from Port Lincoln, 125 kilometres from Streaky Bay and 687 kilometres from Adelaide, for those who don't know. I'm sure Senator Fawcett's familiar with that area.
Senator Williams: So am I!
Senator GALLACHER: I've been the duty senator for Grey—and Senator Williams is another frequenter of that part of the world. I know that the electorate of Grey is roughly 85 per cent of the landmass of South Australia, and the local member, Rowan Ramsey, is in a continual pattern of motion to attend all of the townships, villages and events in his area. I make it my business to also do what I can to make sure he's present in as many places as possible.
Starting in September 2011, I had the opportunity of doing a BER at the Elliston Area School—Building the Education Revolution—which was much decried by those on the other side. But, when you actually move around, particularly around regional areas of South Australia, the investment is still there and is still standing. There are four classrooms and a covered shade area for a school of 60 to 70 children. The principal, Cynthia O'Neill, is still there and still delivering excellence in education with an improvement in her facilities.
The other interesting event in Elliston was the $800,000 grant that was awarded to build a 14-kilometre heritage trail along the cliffs of Elliston. For those who haven't been to that part of the world, and I'll probably put a few Victorians offside here, the Great Ocean Road in Victoria is the wrong one. The great ocean road is actually in South Australia. It's between Port Lincoln and Ceduna and beyond, and it is a great ocean. The Great Australian Bight is awe-inspiring.
My visits to Elliston have been frequent. I would not miss the opportunity to stay overnight at Elliston and catch up with the local policeman, the local publican, the local shopkeeper, the principal of the school, the Indigenous elders and any other interested party, like the chair of the local council in that area. What I've noticed over the visits that I've made is—and Senator Dodson has already very eloquently put this on the record here today—the development of this proposal within which they have come towards a monument commemorating a very unfortunate episode in our recent history.
Bill Denny, the President of the RSL in South Australia, who, incidentally, was also instrumental in getting the first commemoration of Indigenous soldiers memorial conducted, said at the ceremony on Saturday that he first heard this story 59 years ago when he was a child going to work on a station in that area. He heard that there had been an episode where Indigenous folk had been driven off a cliff. You can't put it any other way; that's essentially what happened. Indigenous folk were massacred. The chair of the Elliston council would say that he had Wirangu friends who would never stop in Elliston because there was a dark cloud on the pass. They would go to Ceduna and not stop in that area. They would not stop; literally, they would just carry through. That has simply all changed.
There is an inspiring monument on the top of those cliffs, which has been negotiated through proper process, proper consultation and proper agreement. It's part of a 14-kilometre inspiring walk. You cannot help but be moved, if you actually attend that site. When the Dusty Feet Mob, the dancers young and old from Port Augusta, performed on that site, it was probably the first time anybody had performed on that site since those awful days. As Senator Dodson said, it would bring a tear to anybody's eye and it was an absolutely inspiring moment of reconciliation and a diverse community. They laid it all on the table in their speeches—the rebels and recluses, the surfies and those who are not surfies, the greenies and the others, the farmers and all sorts—even down to the reprobates. Their community was very honest in their assessments of themselves. They came together under a strong leadership of their chairman and they put together a process which was healing and instructive for the future. As Senator Dodson has already said, it's probably a pathway forward for other areas in the Australia. It's certainly a place that I will visit again.
I don't ever go down the Hume Highway without calling into the truckies memorial at Tarcutta. If I have 10 minutes to spare, I pull off and look at the names on that list. If you're ever in this area, if you're ever travelling between Port Lincoln and Ceduna, stop at Elliston, go to the heritage trail, get the exercise, clear the cobwebs out of your head, walk up to that memorial, take in the ambience of the place, look into the ocean and realise that something very significant happened there. In some small way, this has been redressed. The recognition of what happened is truth-telling, as Senator Dodson has eloquently said here today. As a nation, we must tell the truth. I think telling the truth in this area is one of the really instructive, reformative processes that we, as a nation, can do. We can't change the past, but we can be honest about it. This local community, a community of various individuals from different sides of the political spectrum and from different sides of the economy and from different areas, all came together last Saturday. They came together and they did something very valuable and very instructive for the rest of Australia. I was extremely proud to be a part of it. I think the way that they've held themselves in such a strong way in an extremely challenging arena is very instructive for the rest of the country. I really do commend the outcome and the work that they have done.
Eyre Peninsula
Senator BERNARDI ( South Australia ) ( 13:59 ): I just want to commend Senator Gallacher for getting out onto the Eyre Peninsula, which is one of the jewels in the South Australian crown. I only wish more Labor people would actually get out into the regions, because they would understand that is where the true welfare of Australia is built—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Bernardi. It being 2 pm, we now move to questions without notice.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Council of Australian Governments
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:00): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Can the minister explain why Prime Minister Morrison has cancelled the October meeting of the COAG?
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) (14:00): I thank Senator Wong for that question. Every year there are two COAG meetings; there will be two COAG meetings this year.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a supplementary question.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:00): The Australian Financial Review has reported the COAG meeting was cancelled:
… in part because the leadership upheaval has left the government ill-prepared to settle funding deals on public hospitals and schools …
Isn't it clear that Mr Morrison has cancelled COAG because he has no plan to properly fund schools and hospitals?
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) (14:01): No, I reject that completely. Unlike the Labor Party, we, of course, don't have to have a meeting to get something done. The Labor Party have lots of meetings, and do you know what they do at these meetings? They come up with ideas on how they can jack up taxes.
We are working every single day on how to make Australia stronger: keeping the economy strong, keeping Australians safe, making sure that funding for all the essential services that Australians rely on are guaranteed within the budget. We are working very closely with all of the state and territory governments on important funding reforms across health, education and in relation to GST-sharing arrangements as well—something the Labor Party has got a completely confused position about. I remember last week Labor senators from Tasmania were describing as a done deal something that Mr Shorten is telling people in Western Australia he supports.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong on a point of order?
Senator Wong: The point of order is direct relevance. I note the minister couldn't explain why COAG was cancelled. I asked him as to whether it was cancelled because there was no plan to properly fund schools and hospitals.
The PRESIDENT: I thought he was, but his time for the answer has expired. I will call you for a final supplementary question.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:02): Why is this government too busy fighting itself to actually govern for all Australians? Is this what the Prime Minister meant when he described his government as the muppet show? I'm glad you have a brief to explain it to yourself!
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) (14:02): As we can see, most of the Labor Party questions go into Liberal Party politics. This is the blueprint: the Labor Party asking about the Liberal Party. We are focused on the public interest. We are focused on making Australia stronger. We are focused on keeping the Australian economy strong.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator CORMANN: And what great progress have we made on that front? We inherited from Senator Wong and the muppets in the Labor Party—Mr Shorten, Mr Bowen, Senator Wong; they were all there when Labor lost government in 2013. Do you know what they left behind? A weakening economy, rising unemployment and a rapidly deteriorating budget position. Do you know what we have now achieved? We have achieved a stronger economy, stronger employment growth, a lower unemployment rate than where people thought it would be and, of course, a much stronger budget position with a much stronger trajectory moving forward. We have— (Time expired)
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order on my left. That was not a good start in terms of the noise level and level of interjections on my left. If I can't hear Senator Cormann from here, there is a problem.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The PRESIDENT (14:03): I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the chamber of a parliamentary delegation from the Saudi Shura Council from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia led by His Excellency Mr Khalid Abdullah A. Al Abdulateef. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and in particular to the Senate.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Food Safety
Senator STOKER (Queensland) (14:04): My question is to the Minister for Regional Services, Sport, Local Government and Decentralisation, Senator McKenzie. What steps are the Liberal-National government taking to respond to the recent contamination of strawberries?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Deputy Leader of The Nationals and Minister for Regional Services, Sport, Local Government and Decentralisation) (14:04): On 12 September, Queensland Health and the Queensland Police Service announced three incidents of needles found in strawberries from one producer in Queensland. Subsequently, similar incidents have been reported in other states. This contamination appears to be deliberate sabotage and is primarily a criminal investigation for state police. The government commends the work of the Queensland police and other jurisdictions on this matter and urges all Australians to be vigilant for potential contaminants. Implicated products have been removed from supermarkets.
We as a nation have a strong record on food safety. These incidents are rare and isolated. It is very disappointing news, especially as there seems to be criminal intent. As the federal minister responsible for food policy, I've been receiving regular updates from Food Standards Australia New Zealand, our Chief Medical Officer and federal Department of Health officials, who have been working with affected jurisdictions. FSANZ coordinates recalls of food at the request of home jurisdictions and is convening regular meetings with state officials. Today we have announced $1 million to assist state and territories with this issue, to get more food safety experts on the ground, to fast-track recalls and to work with our state and territory governments to address it.
Prior to question time the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General announced tough measures to increase our legislative implications for those who are caught intentionally contaminating goods with the intent to cause public harm or anxiety. The offence currently carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. We are seeking to change that to 15 years. That legislation will be making its way to parliament tomorrow. Our government is responding strongly to this attack on food safety. It should be the right of every child, every parent and anyone in this country to be able to snack on fresh fruit without it being contaminated.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Stoker, a supplementary question.
Senator STOKER (Queensland) (14:06): Thank you, Senator McKenzie, for your answer. How is the government working with state jurisdictions to coordinate an orderly response to these awful incidents?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Deputy Leader of The Nationals and Minister for Regional Services, Sport, Local Government and Decentralisation) (14:06): The Australian government continues to work cooperatively and in partnership with state governments, state law enforcement and FSANZ. The Commonwealth Department of Health is working with the Queensland department of health and Safe Food Production Queensland to ensure additional resources are made urgently available. I have spoken to the minister responsible and been in constant contact with industry, retailers, growers and the state ministry. FSANZ is also coordinating the product recalls and has established a government state and industry retailer taskforce. We're ready to work with Queensland Police and other state law enforcement officials, when asked, to support their immediate criminal investigations in addition to the new criminal penalties I spoke of in my previous answer. The Queensland Chief Health Officer has also been involved in communications with the Department of Health. They have advised that Queensland farms have been scanned and can assure us that farms across the state are now clear of contamination.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Stoker, a final supplementary question.
Senator STOKER (Queensland) (14:08): What support is available to assist affected farmers during this difficult time?
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Deputy Leader of The Nationals and Minister for Regional Services, Sport, Local Government and Decentralisation) (14:08): I'm sure everyone can sympathise with the over 260 strawberry farmers across this country—a half-billion dollar industry—who, as a result of this deliberate sabotage, are really feeling the effects. I think what we can all do is head out to our local supermarket, greengrocer or farmers' market and purchase some fresh strawberries, make sure that we back our growers and ensure that these deliberate food terrorists do not have a win. Remember that we can buy punnets for breakfast. There is one thing that you do need to do: you need to cut the fruit before you chomp on it. That is a message that I hope those opposite will work with the government on to get out—and with the state Labor government, who is keen to back the growers in that state. We know there are 800,000 punnets of strawberries packaged every day in this country. The risk has been incredibly small, and we need to back our growers. (Time expired)
Aged Care
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (14:09): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care, Senator Scullion. This morning it was reported that, during a visit to a nursing home in May this year, the minister conceded that the government's $1.2 billion cut to aged care was hurting the sector. Why can Minister Wyatt acknowledge the damage of the cuts while Prime Minister Morrison continues to deny their existence?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:09): Can I respond by saying that Minister Wyatt would not have acknowledged something that didn't happen. I know the man. So some vague meeting somewhere—they are just making a statement on the other side which adds to the spurious statements that a $1.2 billion cut has been made. Not only is there no $1.2 billion cut; it is a fantasy. In fact, $1 billion year on year for five years has been achieved. I'm surprised. Mr President, you see what happens on the other side, we all know. Labor criticise and then Labor cut. They criticise and then they cut. They've criticised $1 billion year on year. They've criticised our investment in research. They've criticised our investment in our framework. They've criticised our investment in the tough cop on the block.
What is it now? Does that mean they're saying they won't support this in government? Does it mean this is part of their policy? Does this mean everything they have knocked they are going to cut? I tell you what: they're not sending a clear signal to aged Australians, unlike us. We will ensure that you have the very best. We will increase it year on year. We're not just saying we'll do it; we can demonstrate it. For the last five years, year on year, there's been an additional $1 billion in the budget. You can look forward, year on year, to an additional $1 billion into the sector. We've actually called a royal commission. I don't hear squeals of support from the other side. They just see an opportunity to put politics over people and to put the interests of the Labor Party over the interests of our eldest and most treasured Australians. What a pathetic attack on our most treasured Australians!
The PRESIDENT: Senator Polley, a supplementary question.
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (14:11): The report reveals that Minister Wyatt said during his visit that, in relation to the $1.2 billion in cuts, 'These things are controlled by Treasury.' Has the minister told Prime Minister Morrison that he blames him for making the cuts as Treasurer?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:12): This is day 3. There haven't been any cuts. We've established that. We've established there are no cuts. So the questions from the other side are becoming more and more pathetic. We now have a report of a conversation—
The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Scullion. Senator Polley, on a point of order?
Senator Polley: On relevance. What I asked was: has the minister told Prime Minister Morrison that he blames him for making the cuts as Treasurer?
The PRESIDENT: Senators, where a minister is clearly being directly relevant, I'm going to ask that the point of order address why an answer is not, rather than simply reading out the question. The minister is being directly relevant.
Senator SCULLION: Thank you, Mr President. There is no cut. The minister did not report a cut to the Prime Minister. There was no conversation about a cut because there was no cut. In fact, there was an addition. Any conversations between the Prime Minister and the minister would have been saying, 'Isn't it great that every year there's another billion, another billion and another billion!' Let me tell you, Mr President: we should all be reminded that the additional funds are in addition to what those opposite provided. So I really don't understand why they need to continue to investigate their own complete failure in this area.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Polley, a final supplementary question.
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (14:13): Given the minister is denying that Minister Wyatt blamed Prime Minister Morrison for the damage done by his $1.2 billion cut to aged care, what did Minister Wyatt actually say?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:14): Can I say, absolutely clearly: there was no conversation between the minister and the Prime Minister about a cut because no cuts happened. No cuts happened. Every time—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Scullion, please resume your seat. Senator Wong, on a point of order?
Senator Wong: The point of order is on direct relevance The primary question did not deal with any conversation with the minister and the Prime Minister; it dealt with a conversation between Minister Wyatt and a third party at a nursing home. That was clearly referenced. The question now—if the minister is denying the way it's been reported—as Senator Polley relevantly asked, is: what did Minister Wyatt actually say?
The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, I believe the minister is being directly relevant to what Senator Polley said immediately prior to that and addressing the statement with respect to the funding levels—or the funding cut, as it was put. I believe the minister is being directly relevant and is entitled to do so at that part. I will listen very carefully to his—
Senator Wong interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: No, Senator Wong, the preface to the question is something the minister is allowed to address. Senator Scullion, please continue.
Senator SCULLION: Thank you, Mr President. I assume that those opposite had actually understood and been reading reports, but Mr Wyatt categorically denied that any such conversation took place. Irrespective of that, the notion around cuts that keep happening, there were no cuts. We have continued to invest in research. We've continue to invest in additional homecare places. We've continued to invest in residential care places. We've continued to invest in compliance. We believe that this is an investment that repays the fantastic investment that our eldest Australians have made in this nation.
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (14:16): My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator Birmingham. The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, says that Labor will renegotiate the worst parts of the TPP once Labor form government. We know from leaked caucus minutes that the member for Shortland, Pat Conroy, said, 'It will be easier to block than to renegotiate later if in government.' Senator Gallacher said, 'There's difficulty in civilising it after it has passed.' Senator McAllister said, 'Amendments won't be good enough after the fact.' Can the minister confirm whether or not it is possible to renegotiate the worst parts of the TPP after it has passed or, indeed, will it have to be withdrawn and started all over again?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:17): I thank Senator Hanson-Young for her question. The point that I would make to Senator Hanson-Young is there is no need to renegotiate the TPP. The TPP is an outstanding agreement that provides sound opportunities for Australian farmers and Australian businesses to be able to increase their opportunities to get into some of the world's largest markets. The TPP will provide, for the first time ever for Australian exporters, preferential access into key markets such as Canada and Mexico, where we currently don't have agreements. The TPP is estimated to provide benefits to the tune of some $15.6 billion to our annual income as Australians by 2030—$15.6 billion! As Senator Cormann rightly says, 'What does that mean for Australian businesses when they can access further markets?' It means they can access more jobs or create more jobs to support higher wages and deliver better opportunities for all Australians.
Of course, the benefits are very clear. The benefits are clear in seeing the complete elimination of tariffs on sheepmeat, on cotton, on seafood, on horticulture, on wine and on manufactured goods. There are large benefits across the board. That of course is why organisations such as the Winemakers' Federation of Australia or the National Farmers' Federation all fully support ratification of the TPP. They support the deal because they recognise that there are benefits to Australian winemakers, to Australian farmers, as indeed to so many business groups. The question you have to ask when you hear the negativity from some—particularly those on the crossbench—is: why don't they listen to Australia's farmers? Why don't they listen to Australia's winemakers? Why don't they listen to the people who create export dollars and export jobs? One in five jobs are supported by export industries in Australia. Why don't they listen to them? (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, a supplementary question.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (14:19): Both the government and the opposition have indicated they'll support the TPP, but Senator Cameron, in leaked caucus minutes, said, 'It's bad economics and bad politics.' Minister, could you answer my original question: can you withdraw; can you renegotiate? How on earth is the Labor Party going to deliver on this promise?
The PRESIDENT: I'm calling on Senator Birmingham to answer that part of the question that was within his ministerial responsibilities.
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:19): This government wants to ratify, not withdraw. This government wants to see the deal that was carefully negotiated to provide benefits to Australians but, indeed, to all TPP countries, because we want to make sure that we lift the tide for everybody. The Australian Greens will come in here and they will often ask in estimates and elsewhere about international development assistance. We know full well that, through trade activities, millions of people around the world have been lifted out of poverty. We know that the opportunities will be there for other TPP nations such as Vietnam to see strong growth and benefits realised by them having access to other countries and other markets as well. Yes, there will be benefits for Australia, which is why we should pursue the TPP and why we should deliver it as negotiated, but, indeed, there are benefits for other partners as well, and they are benefits you would have thought those on the crossbench would welcome too.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, a final supplementary question.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (14:20): It's clear that the Labor Party are talking out both sides of their mouth. Does the minister agree with the Australian workers and Senators Cameron, Singh, Marshall—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann on a point of order.
Senator Cormann: Mr President, you provided confirmation last week that questions ought not to have preamble which is part of debate. That was clearly a question in breach of the standing orders when it comes to the way questions ought to be framed. I would like you to call the senator to order.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Cormann. As I indicated, this is a matter I will be addressing in the break to all senators. The standing orders are quite clear: statements of fact must be pertinent to the question. This is not a time for debate. Senator Hanson-Young, I will call upon you to continue that part of the question that you were addressing.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Does the minister agree with Australian workers and Senators Cameron, Singh, Marshall, McAllister, Gallacher and the member for a Batman, Ged Kearney, that Bill Shorten's promise to fix the TPP is nothing but hollow?
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:22): As I said, the TPP is a good deal. Whatever promises Mr Shorten makes to his caucus are between him and his caucus. I do know when it comes to the promises that Mr Shorten makes to the Australian people that many of them are very hollow indeed, when you think about the fact that Mr Shorten wants to dig deep into the pockets of the Australian people and tax them more when it comes to their income tax and take the savings of Australian retirees.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young on a point of order.
Senator Hanson-Young: . I draw the minister's attention to the question: is Bill Shorten's promise to fix the TPP hollow?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, you're asking the minister for an opinion on a matter of someone else in another place. If you ask a wide question, you get a wide answer. You have reminded the minister of the question. I note he has 30 seconds remaining. Do you wish to add something, Senator Whish-Wilson?
Senator Whish-Wilson: I rise on a point of order of relevance. The question—including the first question—was: is it possible to do this? The minister did not go anywhere near answering it. It would assist us if he would actually answer the question that has been asked.
The PRESIDENT: I will give the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Cormann, an opportunity.
Senator Cormann: The minister was being directly relevant on the basis that the question asked was about promises made by the Leader of the Opposition in the other place. Clearly the minister was talking about promises—I thought it was an elegant pivot—that the Leader of the Opposition had made in relation to other areas.
Senator Bernardi: May I put forward, Mr President, that you effectively ruled that Senator Hanson-Young made no point of order at all. Then, it is really inappropriate to have another point of order by another Green on a spurious point when the minister hasn't even been able to continue his answer.
The PRESIDENT: I was coming to that. I do grant senators a courtesy, as I did to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator Whish-Wilson, in addressing your point of order, it is not an opportunity to simply restate a primary question or a secondary question. The minister was being directly relevant to the third question asked.
Senator Williams: Mr President, I noticed during that question from Senator Hanson-Young that the Leader of the Opposition was referred to as Bill Shorten. What do we have to do to get the Greens to refer to people by their proper title in this place and the other place?
The PRESIDENT: You are quite right. That did slip past me. The nature of questions will be addressed in the break, and I will be enforcing the standing orders rather more strictly upon my return, because there has been some slippage about the nature of questions asked. I ask you, Senator Hanson-Young, in the future to use people's appropriate titles.
Senator BIRMINGHAM: Thanks, Mr President. We were talking about the hollow promises of Mr Shorten, the hollow promises that come from the hollow man who is Mr Shorten. When it comes to Mr Shorten, my firm advice to the Australian people is not to believe a word he says and certainly not to trust him when he says that he can look after the economy or their money. We know that, when it comes to their money, they will end up paying more for taxes on their income and wages, on their housing, on their savings and on their retirement. Ultimately Australians will be worse off under a Shorten government. (Time expired)
Social Policy
Senator HUME (Victoria—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:25): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Fifield. Will the minister update the Senate as to how the government's strong economic management is enabling investments in programs to assist vulnerable families?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Minister for Communications and the Arts) (14:25): Thank you, Senator Hume; I can indeed. The Liberal-National government is building a stronger economy and budget, as colleagues know, so that we can fund the essential services that families depend upon. Through payments such as the family tax benefit, we're supporting families fairly and sustainably. The government spends over $18 billion on FTB annually, assisting over 1.4 million families. This government is also investing over $740 million annually through its families and communities programs. These programs seek to strengthen family and community functioning, support vulnerable families, improve children's wellbeing, reduce the costs of family breakdown and improve financial capability and literacy.
Of course, addictions, such as drugs, gambling and alcohol, put functioning families at risk. Further expansion of the cashless debit card and our policy to implement a drug testing trial to combat the scourge of drug and alcohol misuse, which is the core of so much social dysfunction, are important policies that this government is committed to to further improve outcomes for families. The government's substance misuse measures, including the drug testing trial, are designed to help families and individuals to identify drug use issues in welfare recipients and help these people access the support they need, so that they can get back into employment.
As I have said before, good economic policy and good social policy are not alternatives; they're two sides of the one coin. You need a good economic policy to sustain a good social policy. It is the equivalent in a policy sense of breathing in and breathing out—breathing in being good economic policy; breathing out being good social policy.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hume, a supplementary question.
Senator HUME (Victoria—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:27): Will the minister advise the Senate as to how the government is taking action to reduce violence against women and children?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Minister for Communications and the Arts) (14:27): The government and I'm sure all colleagues are committed to protecting Australia's children. We are working with state and territory governments to implement the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children 2009-20. This will deliver on commitments to improve permanency and stability in out-of-home care and keep children safe. We've also established the National Office for Child Safety from 1 July in response to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The establishment of the office demonstrates the government's commitment to national reform to prevent future abuse, building on existing measures, such as the national framework. The office has a national leadership role working across sectors in the development and implementation of policies to enhance children's safety and to reduce future harm to children.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hume, a final supplementary question.
Senator HUME (Victoria—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:29): Will the minister advise the Senate as to how the government is working to protect vulnerable children?
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Minister for Communications and the Arts) (14:29): These are matters that I know all colleagues care deeply about. I've already touched on the issue of children and the needs that they have. We are also working with the states and territories, non-government organisations and the community to reduce family violence through the implementation of the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Children.
In September 2015, the government announced the $100 million Women's Safety Package to ensure we have measures to support women and their children experiencing or at risk of domestic, family and sexual violence. We also have the Third Action Plan of the national plan, launched on 28 October 2016, which is part of this government's long-term commitment to reduce domestic, family and sexual violence. The Third Action Plan is underpinned by a $100 million funding envelope over three years. (Time expired)
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The PRESIDENT (14:30): I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from Malaysia, led by the Hon. Mr Aidel Bin Lariwoo, chair of the Public Accounts Committee of the Sarawak State Legislative Assembly. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Medicare
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (14:30): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Scullion. Prior to 1 July this year, vocationally registered and non-vocationally registered doctors were paid the same amount for GP mental health services. Non-VR doctors have the same patient responsibilities and the same university qualifications as VR doctors, so it made sense that there was no difference in their Medicare rebate for mental health services. Can the minister confirm that the government has now reduced by $25 the reimbursement amount for non-VR general practitioners who provide mental health treatment, and the reason for doing this?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:31): Thank you for the question. It is an important one. It is probably important to make the distinction between a vocationally registered doctor and one who is not vocationally registered. A vocationally registered doctor is someone who is not only qualified as a doctor but has the prerequisite training and experience in a particular field to be actually examined or assessed by either of the colleges of general practice.
It is the case that the new schedules indicate that there is 20 per cent less you get on that schedule if you are not a vocationally registered doctor than if you are. Just for the basis of information: fully qualified specialist general practitioners who belong to either of the colleges of general practice are able to continue to access the same MBS item they had before in recognition of their qualifications and their skills. As you have indicated, Senator, the reduction only applies to the non-VR medical practitioners.
We have provided funding, through the general practice colleges, for a fellowship support program to ensure that we can support those individuals who haven't had the experience in that area. We've actually had, for a very long time, since the late 1980s, differential approaches to some of the Medicare rebates. The mischief we are trying to resolve is that a number of people who are non-vocationally registered are now in circumstances where they're getting full VR access but they're making absolutely no effort to get the experience that is required by others. This is a disincentive to that happening, and we think it's an important initiative.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Griff, a supplementary question.
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (14:33): The system changed in 1996, when there were grandfathering options, which meant that at that particular point all doctors who were full-time working doctors were actually considered to be vocationally registered. The people who actually missed out primarily were, in many cases, women who took time out to raise kids or perhaps were overseas or working in hospitals at the time. Would the minister consider grandfathering existing doctors? (Time expired)
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:33): I have been informed that the demographic is principally overseas doctors who have come from or were trained overseas. I have been informed this is the principle demographic. I haven't said it doesn't involve women at all, but it's not a gender issue. They sit in places where they're unable to get the experience that one of the two colleges would be able to provide them. We think that those particular people in regional and remote Australia should be getting access to a practitioner who has the very best level of experience. We are providing additional funds, as I have just indicated, to ensure they can get access to the training to do that. On the question about whether or not I'll be able to grandfather particular doctors, can I take that on notice? In fact, can we provide you a brief on that particular matter as I am unaware of those matters? (Time expired)I
The PRESIDENT: Senator Griff, a final supplementary question.
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (14:34): Minister, I imagine you'd be aware, particularly given what you just said, that the majority of mental health consultations are provided to low-income Australians who access these as bulk-billed services. These cuts will erode their access, and doctors in all likelihood will need to charge a gap in order to continue providing the service. How does this meet the government's plans to maintain and improve bulk-billing for mental health services?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:35): The response we desire is obviously not to put the price up and pay a gap; it's simply to take the offer we have to further your professional qualifications so that you can charge at everybody else's rate. That is our intention, Senator. We think that this is an incentive. It is a disincentive in some ways, but we have provided all the funds from both colleges of general practice to enable people to get the same qualifications as everyone else in Australia.
We think there's a bit of disincentive, but we also think there's an awful lot of incentive to ensure that people are able to deliver. We don't think this is suddenly someone saying, 'That creates a gap. Let's do this.' Our intention is to ensure that everyone has access to the same level of qualifications, and those people receiving treatment, therefore, are treated by people with the highest level of qualification. I'll make sure I get a brief to you, Senator.
Small Business
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (14:36): My question is to the Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education, Senator Cash. How is the Liberal-National government supporting small and family businesses?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education) (14:36): I thank Senator Bushby for the question. There is only one fact that the Australian people need to worry about and that is that this side of the chamber, the Liberal-National government, is the only side that will ever deliver for small and family business in Australia. Why? Because so many of us from the Liberal-National side of politics come from small business. We understand exactly what it takes to give up so much, earn your money, employ Australians and run your own business. We, the Liberal-National government, will always respect small and family business in Australia and we will continue to put in place policies to ensure that our small and family businesses are able to prosper and grow.
Small and family businesses are the engine room of the Australian economy. They provide millions of Australians with jobs and, in providing millions of Australians with jobs, those Australians are able to provide for their families. Our 3.3 million small businesses contribute hundreds of billions of dollars to our national economy. These small businesses employ in excess of five million people, or around half of the private sector workforce, and, on this side of the chamber, we are very, very proud, aren't we, colleagues, to support tax cuts for small and family businesses. We are proud to have legislated tax cuts for small and family businesses. We have legislated those tax cuts down to 27½ per cent—the lowest level in 50 years. And guess what? Our plan is to lower it even further. We will reduce it down to 25 per cent. Why? Because we are going to back small and family business in Australia every step of the way.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Bushby, a supplementary question.
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (14:38): Can the minister expand on the impact that the government support for small and family businesses has had on the Australian economy?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education) (14:38): When small and family businesses are supported, they succeed, and that is why we will always implement policies that are in their best interests. When you lower taxes—and our plan is going to see tax cuts for small and family businesses reduced to 25 per cent—and create the right economic framework for small and family businesses, what happens is they expand. They take advantage of new opportunities and, guess what? They employ more Australians. We get that on this side of the chamber. We get that small and family businesses are the key to job creation in this country. Only last week, we saw very strong job creation figures in Australia, with 44,000 jobs created in the month of August. Since we were elected to office in 2013, 1.1 million jobs have been created. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Bushby, a final supplementary question.
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (14:40): Is the minister aware of any risks to the small and family business sector?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education) (14:40): A very clear point of difference between the Liberal-National government and those on the other side, the Labor Party, is that we will continue to deliver lower taxes for small and family business—legislated down to 25 per cent—while those on the other side have promised every small and family business in Australia that, if they are ever elected to govern, their first act is going to be to raise taxes on those small and family businesses. Mr Shorten has actually made that a promise. He has promised small and family businesses in this country that he will implement policies that will destroy them. When you destroy small and family businesses, when you destroy those people, you destroy Australian jobs. The Liberal-National government, our government, will always stand by the backbone of our economy. We will stand by small and family businesses. We will back them and we will ensure that they— (Time expired)
National Security
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (14:41): My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate, representing the Prime Minister. Last week, The Australian newspaper reported that anti-communist Chinese students at the University of Adelaide were identified and reported to the Chinese embassy. Chinese business interests have been linked to claims of spying and security flaws in a variety of technology and communications products designed to assist the Chinese government. It is a matter of public record that there is also myriad attacks emanating from China against our government and departmental computer systems. Given the repeated warnings from our allies about the impact of the Chinese communist government in Australia's educational, business and government spheres, what is the government doing to limit the expansion of Chinese communist government influence in Australia?
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) (14:42): I'm aware in a general sense of the accident that Senator Bernardi refers to and I understand it relates to competition and election between rival student groups at Adelaide university and that the university and relevant authorities have processes for investigating any unacceptable behaviour. Given the sensitivity of the matters that Senator Bernardi has raised, I will take on notice whether there is any further information that I can provide to the Senate and to Senator Bernardi.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Bernardi, a supplementary question.
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (14:42): I appreciate the minister's undertaking. Chinese companies own or have significant stakes in many strategic and sensitive infrastructure assets, including the ports of Darwin and Melbourne, our electricity poles and wires, 30 per cent of our taxpayer subsidised wind and energy projects, significant water holdings and as much Australian farming land as entities from the previous largest title holder, the UK. When will the government get serious about limiting control of our strategically important assets by companies linked to the Chinese communist government?
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) (14:43): Australia, clearly, has a very important bilateral relationship with China. We have a very important trade and economic relationship with China. Foreign investment, including from China, is welcome and essential to support Australia's economic growth. Foreign investment proposals are, as Senator Bernardi would be aware, reviewed on a case-by-case basis to ensure they are not contrary to Australia's national interest. The Foreign Investment Review Board considers all investment proposals that involve a state owned enterprise from any country overseas. The Critical Infrastructure Centre has also been established to provide advice to safeguard our key assets, and that is, of course, now in effect.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Bernardi, a final supplementary question.
Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (14:44): On 13 April 1954 the Menzies government established a royal commission on Soviet espionage in Australia. This followed a 1950 Victorian royal commission into communism. Given the long list of concerns, including Attorney-General Porter's statement that, 'We live in a time of unprecedented foreign intelligence activity against Australia,' will the government establish a royal commission into Chinese communist influence in Australia?
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) (14:44): The answer to that is no.
Aged Care
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:44): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care, Senator Scullion. When asked in question time yesterday when Minister Wyatt first became aware of discussions within government to support a royal commission, the minister said:
… the Monday before the Friday in the same week. Sorry I haven't got the Friday—
On what date did Minister Wyatt become aware of discussions within the government to support a royal commission?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:45): My understanding was that Minister Wyatt had made some public utterances in an interview on Monday. I can take you to the actual date rather than the day of the week. It was the beginning of the last week of sittings. We had two weeks of sittings, and it was the Monday that started it, somewhere in that period of time. I would have to check directly what date we became aware. These are not matters that we would think people would be particularly interested in. Obviously it is of interest to those opposite, but I am unable to assist them with the exact date and the exact time.
I can say that Minister Wyatt has been completely focused on the circumstances of our First Australians. He's was the one who, in May 2017, ensured that we have an investigation into the aged-care systems. He's the one who has been responsible for issuing 14 noncompliance notices and closing 14 aged-care centres in 16 months. He's the one who has formulated the new framework that ensures that we have the highest quality and the best possible auditing. He's the one that has ensured that the $300 million compliance system is now headed up by a commissioner with special powers to look after our most vulnerable. The minister has been responsible for all of those matters. When he came to the conclusion that the complexity of these matters and the vast increase in the number reporting as a consequence of his auditing process—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator SCULLION: I'm not sure, but he is responsible for people feeling extremely comfortable in this area and I commend him for the very good work he's done.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Farrell, a supplementary question.
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:47): On what date did Minister Wyatt decide to change his position and support a royal commission?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:47): I think there is an assumptions in that question that he had nothing to do with the decision. Of course, this is a cabinet government, and I won't talk in this place or anywhere else about what happens in cabinet. But cabinet are an informed group. We are not an isolated group. The coalition are informed, and we are informed by those people who know best. We are informed by the minister. I can assure you that the minister's experience, the information that he had, the work that he had been doing on this area and his views were taken into consideration in the government's decision. That shouldn't be surprising to anyone. Again, this is a minister that is very connected. It is his leadership that has led to the very best level of care for our most vulnerable Australians, and again I commend him for his work.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question.
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:48): Minister Wyatt first said that he'd changed his mind and decided to support a royal commission because of a constituent's report of abuse. He then said it was because of a briefing from his department. On Monday, this minister told the Senate that Minister Wyatt changed his position because of the Four Corners report and then because of the terms of reference. So which is it?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:49): I certainly did not say that the minister had said it was the Four Corners report. I certainly didn't say that the minister said it was the terms of reference. So I don't accept both premises of the question. I simply don't accept them. This is not a place to make stuff up. Again, we are very proud to be a government that puts people over politics. All week we've had the partisan approach: criticise and then cut. Every element of the most comprehensive level of protection and support in home care and residential care for our eldest Australians has been criticised by those opposite. The question should remain in everyone's minds: does the criticism now revert to cuts? You should stand in this place and support the fantastic initiatives of this government in the area of aged care.
Myanmar: Human Rights
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:50): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. Can the minister advise the Senate on the government's response to the United Nations' fact-finding mission report on Myanmar?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:50): I thank Senator Smith for his question. The Australian government has publicly stated that we strongly condemn the atrocities committed in Myanmar's Rakhine, Shan and Kachin states, as detailed in the full report of the fact-finding mission on Myanmar that was released yesterday. We are very disturbed by the conclusion that war crimes, crimes against humanity and likely genocide have occurred in Rakhine state. Australia has been a strong supporter of the UN fact-finding mission, which has worked very hard to provide a thorough, credible and independent investigation. I met with Mr Chris Sidoti, the Australian member of the UN fact-finding mission, last week to discuss their findings. I look forward to discussing the next steps with international counterparts during UN leaders' week in New York next week.
The Australian government is considering options in response to the fact-finding mission's report, including the option of targeted sanctions. In line with the mission's recommendations, Australia will support international efforts on accountability and justice in Myanmar. Australian negotiators are working on these initiatives in Geneva at the current session of the Human Rights Council, of which we are a member. Australia will continue to work with the government of Myanmar, the international community and our counterparts in the region towards a long-term and durable solution to the complex problems in Rakhine state. Myanmar continues to face formidable challenges as it transitions to democracy from five decades of military rule. As a regional partner, Australia will continue to support those efforts to achieve democracy and national peace and reconciliation for the benefit of all people in Myanmar.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Smith, a supplementary question?
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:52): What other steps is the government taking in relation to events in Rakhine state?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:52): I thank Senator Smith for his supplementary question. We have raised our concerns about human rights issue in Rakhine and the plight of the Rohingya directly with the Myanmar government. Both the former Prime Minister Mr Turnbull and the former foreign minister Julie Bishop raised the matter directly with Myanmar State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi during the ASEAN-Australia Special Summit. I have also discussed the issues with my international counterparts in my former role and in my current role, including at the Australia-US ministerial consultations in July and the Australia-United Kingdom ministerial meeting also in July.
As I said, I will discuss those matters further with international counterparts next week. We have supported resolutions at the Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly, condemning the reported abuses, calling for accountability for humanitarian access to Rakhine state and calling for, once conditions allow, the safe, sustainable, voluntary and dignified return of displaced Rohingyas to Myanmar. Our national statement to the Human Rights Council yesterday reinforced that. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Smith, a final supplementary question?
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (14:53): How else is Australia supporting those affected by the humanitarian crisis in Myanmar and working with the region to find a long-term solution?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:53): It is an important question, because Australia's response has been focused on the urgent needs of those who are affected by the humanitarian crises in both Myanmar and Bangladesh. We have provided $70 million in humanitarian assistance since September last year. In Bangladesh, that assistance is providing food for over 800,000 people and nutrition supplements for over 139,000 women and children. It's also helping to reinforce shelters, to reunite children with their families and to create safe areas for vulnerable women and children. In Myanmar, our Australian aid has provided food and essential supplies to 150,000 people in Rakhine State and health and counselling services for almost 60,000 women and girls, including survivors of sexual and gender based violence. We're working with ASEAN and our regional partners to look for long-term solutions to this regional crisis, including with Indonesia, as co-chairs of the Bali Process, and through joint humanitarian efforts in Cox's Bazar.
Women in Parliament
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:54): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. I refer to the minister, who has conceded that the Liberal Party has 'a very serious issue concerning the role of women in the parliamentary process and also in the efforts to engage more across the community'. I also refer to reports that Senator Payne chaired a recent meeting where the Liberal member for Gilmore, Ann Sudmalis, lost control of her FEC. Can the minister confirm she chaired the meeting and, if so, whether the minister observed any behaviour which confirmed the concerns she has raised?
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: I note some chatter around the chamber. This does refer to a public statement. I do consider the question to be in order, in reference to the public statement. I take it that the second reference was also a reference to a report that is in the public domain. So I do, on that basis, consider the question to be in order.
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:55): Senator McAllister has referred to remarks that I have made which are on the record, and they are certainly remarks from which I don't resile. I know that I will work closely with my colleagues to make efforts in relation to these matters. In relation to her second question, I would not normally discuss matters concerning internal meetings of the Liberal Party organisation, and I suspect she would not discuss matters concerning the internal meetings of the Labor Party.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McAllister, a supplementary question.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:56): On Monday Ms Sudmalis complained of a culture in the Liberal Party of 'bullying, betrayal and backstabbing'. Did the senator observe any behaviour consistent with Ms Sudmalis's complaint? If so, has she advised the Prime Minister or his office of the behaviour?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:56): The Senate can take it as read that, if I observed behaviour of that nature, I would do something about it. I am not going to discuss the internal meetings of the Liberal Party in the Senate chamber.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McAllister, a further supplementary question.
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (14:56): In response to Ms Sudmalis's complaint, the Liberal Party's vice-president has said, 'Women always want the spoils of victory without the fight.' Has the minister discussed these comments with the Prime Minister or his office and, if so, what action will he take in response?
Senator Gallacher interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: That's not helpful, Senator Gallacher.
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:57): I'm reasonably confident, having been here for a considerable period of time and knowing the efforts it takes to get here in the first place, that there's not a single person here in the parliament who hasn't made strenuous efforts to achieve that outcome and work very hard for it in the process.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Silence during questions, please.
Northern Australia: Infrastructure
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (14:57): My question is to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia. In his capacity, mainly as the minister for northern Australia, I ask Senator Canavan if he could advise the Senate of recent developments in northern Australia that will mean more jobs and greater economic growth for the north.
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:58): I thank Senator Macdonald for his question and longstanding passion to see the development of the north. Senator Macdonald's efforts are certainly starting to bear fruit now. It is great to have been able to announce in the last few weeks a major investment and project in the Northern Territory in particular. I did so with my colleague Senator Scullion in Darwin a couple of weeks ago. We were there to announce a major investment in Northern Territory airports across the whole of the Territory, a $300 million project that was being helped to get across the line through a $150 million loan from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. So that's $150 million from this government to create jobs and opportunity in the Territory. This project will deliver 1,500 jobs in construction and another 140 jobs in the ongoing work, following construction, of the project.
More importantly, these investments, our northern development agenda, are about increasing the capability of northern Australia, not just the direct jobs involved in this investment. This project will go towards expanding storage at the Darwin airport. That will allow horticulturists and farmers in the Territory to export more of their produce, like high-class mangoes and other high-class, high-value products, to the growing markets of Asia. It will also improve the energy requirements across Northern Territory airports, with solar and batteries going in across Darwin, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. The investments will also include increases in taxiways and runways at the Alice Springs Airport. All of these investments help the Territory and respond to the fact that Darwin and the Territory are facing challenges with the wind-down of the large INPEX gas project at the moment. But the Commonwealth government is providing investment, is providing jobs and is backing the development of northern Australia, and it's great to see these programs finally bearing fruit.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, a supplementary question?
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (15:00): I thank the minister for that answer, which I know Senator McCarthy, as a Northern Territorian, will be interested in. Can the minister tell us if there are future projects that could help the Northern Territory continue to grow? Senator McCarthy advised us that there is a Northern Territory minister in the building today, so perhaps, Minister, it's a good time to tell us what can be done in the Northern Territory in the future.
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (15:01): Senator Macdonald is correct. Today I will be joining Senator Scullion at a Facing North initiative, done in cooperation with the Northern Territory government—they are here in the building today. The Chief Minister, Michael Gunner, is here and I welcome him to Canberra. This evening, here in Canberra, we will promoting the great investment opportunities that there are in the Northern Territory. Another big thing the government is doing is our defence white paper process, which is putting a lot of investment into Defence assets in northern Australia, including the Northern Territory. Twenty billion dollars is earmarked for the Northern Territory over the next 20 years. Most importantly, we are ensuring that that investment, the billions of dollars of investment, is broken down so that small and local businesses can tender for it. I recognise the work Senator Payne did in this regard. It is already bearing fruit. I have met with businesses from the Master Builders Association just this week, who have already won contracts, thanks to the efforts of the government to support small businesses in the Territory.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, a final supplementary question?
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (15:01): I have a two-part supplementary question, the first one arising out of the answer. Minister, can you tell those senators who don't know—I do—the time and the place of that wonderful event tonight promoting the Northern Territory? Secondly, can you tell us if there are any risks to employment and opportunities in the Northern Territory?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (15:02): My diary indicates it's in Mural Hall A and B on level 2 of Parliament House. I will see you there at six o'clock. Be there or be square! I'm sure Nigel will put on great hospitality for us, as he always does at these events, along with the Territory's politicians. But there are risks to growth in the Northern Territory. There are important established industries in the Territory, like the cattle industry. It has huge exposure to the live export trade. It needs a sustainable live export trade, a supportive live export trade, to survive. The live export industry accounts for $431 million in the Territory and employs 1,800 Territorians. We need people to support the industries that support jobs in the Territory. I'm concerned that in the last fortnight the likes of Senator McCarthy, and Mr Gosling and Mr Snowdon in the other place, have all voted against the live trade. How can they go back to the Territory and say that they support live exports when they know—they have been in a government that has done it before and they will likely do it again. (Time expired)
Senator Cormann: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
Aged Care
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (15:03): I took on notice today part of a question that related to some timing around the minister I represent and his views. Minister Wyatt has said that, after he was interviewed by a Four Corners team, additional facts came to his attention, including the increase—which I noted in my answer—in the number of serious incidents reported in aged care, and, as a result, has amended his views. The royal commission was announced on 16 September.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Council of Australian Governments
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:04): 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 the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) today relating to the Council of Australian Governments.
From that answer it is entirely obvious that the government has run out of ideas. That is also obvious in this chamber because it has run out of legislation to debate. It's obvious in its handling of COAG, and that was the subject of the question to Minister Cormann. Minister Cormann tried to defend the cancellation of COAG by saying that the government doesn't need to hold meetings in order to get things done. In some ways he's right. Holding a meeting does not impact the coalition government's ability to get things done, because this government cannot get anything done. It cannot get anything at all done.
Let's examine the public record to see what happens when the government does take a policy through an extensive process of meetings and consultations. Let's have a look at the NEG. The Prime Minister met with the rogue MPs. The NEG was amended in response to feedback—
Senator Gallacher interjecting—
Senator McALLISTER: That's right, Senator Gallacher. It went back to the coalition party room. It was subject to extensive debate, much of which was leaked publicly. It was approved. They got it through the party room—good on them—and now it has been dumped. They had many meetings inside the parliament and outside the parliament, but they still don't have a policy and a plan for energy.
What about COAG is different? Maybe it's a little bit different. What is on the record when the government takes one of its policy proposals to COAG? It was a while ago—and obviously we have had a lot of political turmoil—but do people remember former Prime Minister Turnbull's proposal to reform state and federal fiscal relations? I think that was the one that they came up with in the car park. That was presumably done with the support of former Treasurer and current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, the person now leading the government. This reform effort was announced with great fanfare. Where is it now? What has happened to the proposal that they sought to take to COAG? Are we debating legislation? No, we're not; we're actually having the Governor-General's address-in-reply debate two years after he gave his speech here. This idea has entirely disappeared from view because, like the coalition party room, when the coalition take things into COAG they can't make any progress there either.
Are there meetings that do help the coalition get things done? Here's one—a Liberal Party meeting on the South Coast chaired by Minister Payne. They got a lot done there because, as Ann Sudmalis has detailed, all the member for Gilmore's friends and allies were rolled out of the FEC and replaced with people hostile to her that made, as she said, her position 'untenable'. It led to her resignation. There were vivid stories of bullying, backstabbing and betrayal.
Are there any other meetings where the coalition gets things done? We've heard this week about a 40-minute meeting—for which there was no agenda—with a not-for-profit headed up by their mates in the Great Barrier Reef Foundation.
Senator Gallacher: No minutes.
Senator McALLISTER: Senator Gallacher is correct again—there were no minutes. Close to $½ billion was handed out at that meeting. It was a very effective meeting. There was no oversight or accountability. It was handed out to a group of people with close links to fossil fuel companies and even closer links to the Liberal Party. This is unbelievable.
Is this ransacking the china cabinet on your way out? But this is the thing: there is a bit of a theme here. This is a government that has run out of serious things to do. It has run out of serious policy proposals, so we now find ourselves without a proposal for education. Some have suggested that that's why the COAG meeting wasn't able to go ahead. We find ourselves without an energy policy, even though the coalition for a year has been talking about the significance of energy prices and the industry has been warning the coalition that, without a policy, energy prices will continue to go up.
We find ourselves without any legislation before this chamber. We find ourselves preparing again to debate the address-in-reply to the Governor-General's speech. There is a key to all of this. If you're trying to get a policy up on their side of politics then meetings are no use. This is a group of people who cannot agree on the future direction of this country. It doesn't matter how many meetings they hold, nothing happens. But it is useful for something. If you want to fight a Liberal Party vendetta and if you want to get rid of one of the few women in the lower house, it is useful. If you want to get $½ billion for your mates, as it turned out for this government, a meeting can be very useful. But that's about it.
Senator MOLAN (New South Wales) (15:09): Our government gets things done. The allegation that is being made, initially in broadcasts made from the ABC, is that the COAG meeting which was scheduled to meet on 4 October was somehow related to a vast range of reasons that, in essence, the ABC made up.
The negotiations by the education ministers on bilateral school funding agreements are occurring and they're still underway. The National Health Reform Agreement and the Closing the Gap Refresh would benefit, certainly, as anyone would agree, from further discussion between portfolio ministers before they are brought to the COAG. These and the other issues that were to be discussed at the COAG meeting on 4 October will now be discussed at the 12 December COAG meeting in Adelaide.
On 12 December, there will be a full day's worth of COAG meetings. The morning session will provide an opportunity for all governments to consider progress on a new National Health Reform Agreement, the Closing the Gap Refresh and actions arising from the Reducing Violence against Women Summit. The afternoon session will be focused on national security.
We are getting things done. We are doing things. One of the greatest examples of us doing things mentioned by Senator McAllister is energy policy. We have a very good energy policy, based on AEMO comments and ACCC reports. We have the ability to set the default price, we have the ability to put a cop on the beat and we have the ability to increase generation of electricity, of energy. We are doing things. In particular, we don't need meetings to do things. We are doing things on aged-care refunding reform. And, despite the number of questions which have come from the opposition claiming that there has been some form of cut to aged care, the government is not planning any changes that would reduce funding to aged care. So we are doing things on aged care. Annual funding will increase to record levels by $5 billion over the forward estimates, from $18.6 billion in 2017-18 to $23.6 billion in 2021-22. This is doing things, and it is not a cut.
The Morrison government, our government, is providing record aged-care funding of $19.8 billion this year. That is not a cut. Aged-care spending has increased by an average of more than six per cent each and every year. We are doing things, and that is not a cut. Looking at the six per cent each year, that is, on average, $1 billion of extra support for older Australians each year. We're adding an additional 13,500 residential aged-care places and 775 short-term restorative places. This is doing things, and this is not a cut.
From the last budget, we are delivering 20,000 new high-level home care packages to support senior Australians to remain at home longer. That is critically important, and it is doing things. By 2021-22, over 74,000 high-level home care places will be available. That is an increase of 86 per cent on 2017-18. How could that be a cut? That is no cut; that is doing things. There is over $100 million in investment in mental health services for ageing Australians in the community and in residential aged care. This consists of a $20-million trial to improve mental health services for Australians over 75 years of age. We are doing things, and that is no cut. There is also $82.5 million of that $100 million in new mental health services for people with a diagnosed mental disorder living in residential aged-care facilities. Again, we are doing this and there is no cut.
Last week we announced an additional $16 million to police quality in aged care. This is doing things. Any allegation or any view that we are not doing things is fundamentally wrong. We don't need meetings to do things. We just do them.
Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (15:14): I suppose we'd have to throw a shout-out there to Senator Molan for soldiering on in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But I suppose he's well experienced in soldiering on in the face of adversity. The simple facts do not sustain his contribution, and, in taking note of Senator Wong's question to and the answer from Senator Cormann, I'd like to point out a couple of really interesting facts. We have headlines which say that the Hon. Scott Morrison has cancelled the Council of Australian Governments meeting in order to address his bullying policy. It's a headline which we all know will be contested, but it just goes to show the state of dysfunction and disunity that is apparent on the other side.
I want to go, more particularly, to the real business of government. Have the charter letters been issued to every minister that was sworn in in the short period of time since that happened? I can point you to one explicit area of policy that I'm very familiar with, which is the National Disability Insurance Scheme. In the oversight committee that looks after that—having been a member of it since 2013—there have been about five responsible ministers in that space. There have been four assistant ministers in that space. There have been three coalition chairs in that space. There have been two CEOs and two new chairs of the board. So how is it possible that you can be prepared for a COAG meeting if you have a continual stream of musical chairs? When the music stops, you sit down, find a seat and find a ministry.
I have nothing but cordial relationships with the Hon. Dan Tehan. I've had very good experiences working with him in the area of veterans affairs. The Hon. Dan Tehan has had seven ministerial appointments in two years and seven months. He has had three portfolios in the last nine months. People could go their entire career of two or three terms as a senator in this place and not have as many portfolios. How is it possible that you can govern coherently and effectively deal with the states and territories when you hardly have your ministers in place in a portfolio for three months? The Hon. Simon Birmingham, an adversary across the chamber but a good elected South Australian, has picked up trade. Now he's got to learn the trade portfolio and contribute. The Hon. Dan Tehan's got to pick up education. Put out the myriad of fights, get concise policy in place and then deal with COAG.
Is it any wonder why this new Prime Minister has cancelled COAG? He hasn't even got his ministers briefed about their portfolios. I would hazard a guess that some on that side have not even received their charter letters. We know, through the estimates process, that the charter letters between the Hon. Marise Payne and the Hon. Christopher Pyne took a very, very long time to work out. So how can you program meetings with the states and territories and the premiers and chief ministers of those states and territories if you haven't got your act together as a government? Clearly there is underlying turmoil which is not apparent to the general electorate. They see a Prime Minister go and they think, 'That's it; Prime Minister Turnbull's gone and the Hon. Scott Morrison is in.' But what lies underneath that is an enormous amount of change. It slows down process; it slows down government. It means they cannot effectively govern. When I looked at the proposed legislative schedule for the Senate last week, I saw an interesting item on there: the Governor-General's address-in-reply. That normally only comes up when you're a little bit thin on legislation.
Clearly Senator Molan, soldiering on in the face of adversity and soldiering on in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, did a reasonably good job of reading out things that they do and the fact they don't need meetings to do stuff. But you do need charter letters. You do need ministers who have coverage of their area of responsibility and an understanding of their area of responsibility—the briefings from the department and the view forward—otherwise what is the point of meeting with COAG? That's because, with COAG, the work is done incrementally, and on the day that they meet they will probably announce some reasonably effective stuff. I will leave you with this: young people left stranded in aged care. COAG was to address that.
Senator HUME (Victoria—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (15:19): I thank the opposition for an opportunity to speak today about exactly what it is that the coalition has been doing. They use COAG as a cover. COAG, as they well know, was scheduled to meet on 4 October. Negotiations by education ministers on bilateral school funding agreements are still underway. The health reform agreements and the Closing the Gap Refresh will benefit from further discussion between the portfolio ministers before they are brought to COAG. As those in opposition all know, these and other issues will be discussed at COAG on 12 December. That meeting in Adelaide on 12 December will continue to go ahead. It is a full-day meeting. The morning session provides an opportunity for all governments to consider the progress on a new national health reform agreement and the Closing the Gap Refresh as well as the National Summit on Reducing Violence against Women, and the afternoon session will be focused on national security. It's a rather disingenuous cover story for the opposition to try and give the coalition a bit of a bash but it is so unsuccessful.
Essentially we're seeing the opposition clutching at straws and saying, 'Don't look over here; look over there.' They want to cover up the fact that this government, in its five years in government, has been more successful than any Labor government ever. We announced 3.4 per cent growth last week. Those are the best growth figures we've had since the mining boom of 2012. In the life of this government, 1.1 million jobs have been created by the private sector. Of those 1.1 million jobs, the vast majority went to women. The vast majority were full-time. More than 100,000 jobs in the last 12 months alone went to the regions, and 44,000 jobs were created just in the last month. Female participation rates are at record levels. Youth employment is at its highest level since I was at school—and, I assure you, that was a considerable period of time ago.
Senator Wong interjecting—
Senator HUME: I promise you, Senator Wong, it was not yesterday; it was a considerable period of time ago. Why have we got such good economic growth? Why has there been such good job creation in the last five years? I will tell you. It doesn't come by accident. This government has worked tirelessly to ensure that the policy settings are right to encourage investment, to encourage employment and to encourage higher wages. We have five free trade agreements with China, with South Korea, with Japan, the TPP and now with Indonesia. These free trade agreements give Australian businesses the opportunity to invest, to employ and to grow.
What about company tax cuts for small to medium enterprises? That is a fundamentally important incentive. And please don't forget for a second that we've provided tax cuts to individuals as well. The coalition is committed to ensuring that people keep more of their own money in their own pockets. The instant asset write-off is, again, another policy that encourages businesses to invest. In my state of Victoria alone, for instance, small businesses and farmers are benefitting from the coalition's instant asset write-off. It was used by almost 350,000 small businesses in 2016-17 alone, and is a policy that would not be possible without the coalition in office.
We've given tax cuts to 3.3 million businesses, and further tax relief has been legislated to reduce the tax rate from 27½ per cent to 25 per cent for businesses with an annual turnover of less than $50 million. That would have been extended to all businesses in Australia if it wasn't for those opposite, who do not want to see the economy grow, don't want to see companies expand, don't want to see further investment and don't want to see further employment.
In fact, this is the most anti-business, anti-investment, anti-employment, anti-jobs opposition we have seen since Whitlam. But don't let me disparage Whitlam. He at least was a man of principles, which is very different from the opposition leader, Mr Shorten, who is a man without principles. He is a man that stands for nothing. All he wants to do is sling mud. Well, dare I say, those opposite should know that, if they're going to sling mud, they should learn how to use a slingshot. Right now they are all over the place. Why don't we ask the opposition about their position on the TPP? If you want to see dysfunction, just look over there. (Time expired)
Senator KETTER (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:24): Today Senator Cormann was given an opportunity to explain why the government has cancelled the October COAG meeting. If you listen to Senator Cormann's response, you could be forgiven for thinking that a COAG meeting is just like any other meeting—it can be cancelled and there are no repercussions in relation to that. But, of course, we know that COAG is actually 'the peak intergovernmental forum in Australia'—and I'm quoting from the COAG website:
COAG was established in 1992 … to manage matters of national significance or matters that need co-ordinated action by all Australian governments.
Senator Cormann was correct when he said that, in his response, it was a non-response to the question as to why COAG was cancelled. He indicated COAG normally meets twice a year, and that will happen. In fact, yes, that's true; COAG does usually meet twice a year. However, according to the website:
… it will meet when needed and at times it has met up to four times in a year. COAG may also settle issues out-of-session by correspondence.
… … …
COAG's agenda is broad-ranging and focusses on improving the current and future wellbeing of all Australians.
The website goes on to say:
COAG has a strong record of driving reforms that have improved the lives of all Australians. For example, micro-economic reform linked to national competition policy in the mid-1990s …
and:
COAG will continue to drive reforms that are vital to Australia’s future.
This is not just any meeting; this is a peak intergovernmental meeting across Australia. At the last minute, the Prime Minister started ringing around various premiers and chief ministers to advise them of the cancellation of COAG. So, when given an opportunity to explain why, the government today has squibbed that opportunity to explain why this peak intergovernmental forum has been cancelled.
This is not the first time that the government has failed to give an answer to the 'why' question. We know that, when persistently asked about why Prime Minister Turnbull had to go, the government is completely at their wit's end to explain why. We have essentially seen a rearrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic here. A Prime Minister is knifed. We have a new Prime Minister. The Australian people want to know what happened, and we don't get an answer.
The cancellation of COAG is from the same government that one Prime Minister ago decided to cancel parliament. All Australians will remember 23 August—that amazing day when the House of Representatives was shut down, apparently at the request of Minister Dutton, in relation to the turmoil that was engulfing the government at that time in the lead-up to the leadership spill. That was a most extraordinary step by this government to basically abandon some key democratic principles of allowing the parliament to continue to debate the top issues of our country, and what arrogance and absolute disregard for the Australian people we saw in that step to cancel the sitting of the House of Representatives. I'm sure all Australians are disgusted by that event.
Of course, this government is at war with itself. It is hopelessly divided, and a government that is divided and warring with itself cannot be focused on the issues that are important to the Australian people. We, on this side, are focused on the key issues. Health, education and energy policy were some of the things that were going to be discussed at the COAG meeting—we want the chance to talk about those things. We want to talk about the cruel funding cuts that have been inflicted on Queensland hospitals and Queensland schools. Our candidate for Petrie, Corinne Mulholland, is so fed up with cuts to schools in the electorate of Petrie that she's brought the message down to Canberra this week. I know Corinne has met with Ms Plibersek, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, to talk about the impact of these Liberal cuts on her local schools. A couple of those that are most eye-watering are the North Lakes State College, at $2½ million, and the Redcliffe State High School, at $1.13 million. We need a government that will get on with the job. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (15:30): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment (Senator Birmingham) to a question without notice asked by Senator Hanson-Young today relating to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.
This is the implementing legislation that will come before this place; it's currently scheduled for some time in October. This is the implementing legislation for the TPP arrangement—a deal between 11 countries, including Australia, to continue the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade arrangements, despite the fact that President Trump withdrew the US from this and renegotiated.
We know that the terrible, worst parts of these arrangements fall squarely at the feet of this government because they did such a bad deal when going in and negotiating on behalf of Australian workers. We know that Australian workers are going to miss out on jobs under this arrangement because six countries out of the 11 in the TPP are allowed to bring as many workers into Australia as they want without even having to check whether Australians are here, fit and ready to take these jobs themselves. The exemption of labour market testing has put a huge chill through many members of the opposition, the Labor Party and, of course, the Australian union movement—as it should, because this is a terrible precedent for Australia to be signing up to.
My question to the minister today was in relation to the hollow promises of Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition. He says that Labor will simply try and fix the worst parts of the TPP, whether it's the exemptions for labour marketing testing or, indeed, the insidious ISDS clauses which allow foreign multinational corporations to sue the Australian federal government or state and local governments. It's a bad precedent that we would sign up to a trade arrangement that allows multinational companies to come in and sue our government for acting in the best interests of the Australian people.
My questions went to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition thinks that when he is Prime Minister he will be able to fix this dodgy deal. That is simply naive. We know that trade deals are not conducted in this manner. Once it is signed, once it is implemented, once it's through this place, the only way you change it is by withdrawing from the trade arrangement itself. So here we have the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, pretending that he can somehow just win the election, come on in and make some red marks on a piece of paper to tinker around the edges, and everything will be okay. It just doesn't work like that. Australia will have to withdraw from the TPP and start again. If that is what the Leader of the Opposition wants to do, he should be up-front with the Australian people that that is the position of the Labor Party—that they're going to this election saying they're withdrawing from the TPP. If that is indeed the position of the Labor Party, why on earth would you vote for it in a couple of weeks time, right here in this place? It just reeks of sheer hypocrisy and trickery.
We know that members on the opposition side are very, very concerned. They don't even trust that the Leader of the Opposition is going to follow through with this. We've heard from Senator Cameron, from Senator McAllister and from Senator Gallacher that they just don't believe this can happen. They don't believe that the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, is being honest about the changes that can be done. We know this because they've had their arguments in their own caucus room, and they are right: these changes cannot happen after the fact. So if members on the Leader of the Opposition's own team don't believe him, why on earth should the Australian people?
Question agreed to.
PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS
Temporary Chairs of Committees
The PRESIDENT (15:35): Pursuant to standing order 12, I lay on the table a warrant nominating senators Brockman, Duniam and Dean Smith as additional temporary chairs of committees when the Deputy President and Chair of Committees is absent.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (15:36): I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next sitting day, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for 14 November 2018 proposing the disallowance of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (confidentiality) determination No. 1 of 2018.
I also give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next sitting day, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for 18 October 2018 proposing the disallowance of the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Amendment (Defence and Strategic Goods) Regulations 2018.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator Stoker to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) confirms the importance of Australia Post outlets to regional and rural Queensland, particularly those in outer regional and remote towns, where they are an important and often critical community and business facility supporting locals in a range of everyday services, allowing them to communicate and carry out business;
(b) expresses its support for the continued operation of these services in the:
(i) 90 communities classified as 'very remote' communities,
(ii) 59 communities classified as 'remote' communities, and
(iii) 204 communities classified as 'outer regional' communities;
(c) notes that these services are essential for the development of regional and rural economies, resilient communities and core to ensuring the connectivity of regional, rural and remote people to the rest of Australia;
(d) encourages Australia Post to pursue every opportunity to ensure their ongoing operation in existing locations; and
(e) calls on Australia Post to bring forward a new Licensed Office payment agreement that ensures licensees who operate post offices are paid fairly.
Senator Hinch to move on the next day of sitting;
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) published its final report on the dairy inquiry on 30 April 2018, following an 18-month public inquiry, and
(ii) the ACCC made a number of recommendations with the goal of addressing a large imbalance in bargaining power between farmers and processors, one of which was recommendation 8: a mandatory code of conduct within the act should be established for the dairy industry;
(b) acknowledges that:
(i) the industry has taken the initiative to self-regulate by implementing a voluntary code of conduct,
(ii) while this is a positive step, the ACCC sees the need for a mandatory code, as opposed to a voluntary code, for the following reasons:
(A) it is difficult to monitor compliance with a voluntary code,
(B) there are no consequences for breaching a voluntary code,
(C) not all processors in the industry are signatories to the voluntary code, and
(D) strengthening the voluntary code may result in non-signatories being less likely to sign up, and
(iii) under a mandatory code, by comparison, the ACCC would have the power to take enforcement action for non-compliance against parties that are subject to the code – remedies would include injunctions, damages, non-punitive orders and other compensatory orders; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to legislate for the implementation of a mandatory code of conduct for the dairy industry, in line with the ACCC's recommendations.
Senator Dean Smith to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that 10 October 2018 is World Day Against the Death Penalty,
(ii) the bi-partisan position of Australian governments over many years in their continued opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances for all people, and their commitment to pursuing the universal abolition of the death penalty through all avenues available,
(iii) that the theme of the 2018 World Day Against the Death Penalty is to raise awareness of the inhumane living conditions of people sentenced to death;
(b) acknowledges the Australian Government's Strategy for Abolition of the Death Penalty, which details Australia's reasons for opposing the death penalty because:
(i) it is irrevocable, miscarriages of justice cannot be rectified, and no legal system is safe from error,
(ii) it denies any possibility of rehabilitation to the convicted individual,
(iii) there is no convincing evidence that it is a more effective deterrent than long-term or life imprisonment, and
(iv) it is unfair – it is used disproportionately against the poor, people with intellectual or mental disabilities and minority groups;
(c) acknowledges the overwhelming number of senators who voted in the Senate, on 19 June 2018, in favour of Australia's position on the death penalty; and
(d) notes that on World Day Against the Death Penalty, the Australian film Guilty, which documents the final 72-hours in the life of Myuran Sukumaran, the Bali-9 convicted criminal who, along with Andrew Chan, was executed by a firing squad in Indonesia on 29 April 2015, will be screened in every state and territory in the country.
Senator Hanson-Young to move on the next day of sitting—
That—
(1) The Senate:
(a) notes that the Coalition Government has waived labour market testing for contractual service suppliers for six new countries in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP-11), as well as including investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) remove Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions from the TPP-11, and
(ii) reinstate market testing for contractual service suppliers for Vietnam, Malaysia, Japan, Canada, Mexico and Chile.
(2) There be laid on the table by the Leader of the Government in the Senate documents demonstrating that:
(a) ISDS provisions have been removed from the TPP; and
(b) labour market testing for contractual service suppliers has been reinstated for Vietnam, Malaysia, Japan, Canada, Mexico and Chile.
(3) Further consideration of the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018, or any other bill intended to implement any part of the TPP be deferred until the next sitting day after the documents specified in paragraph (2) are tabled.
Senators Keneally, McCarthy, Rice, Molan, Gichuhi and Bilyk to move on 15 October 2018:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) today marks International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day,
(ii) on this day, parents, families and friends will memorialise babies they have lost through miscarriage, stillbirth and infant death, and
(iii) Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day is an opportunity to officially acknowledge the losses experienced by parents and families across Australia;
(b) acknowledges that in Australia:
(i) it is estimated that one in four pregnancies result in miscarriage – that is 103 000 every year,
(ii) in 2016, 2 849 lives were lost due to stillbirth or newborn death,
(iii) despite medical advancements, the stillbirth rate has not changed in two decades,
(iv) the rate of stillbirth and newborn death is 70 per cent higher in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and
(v) Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day is an opportunity to raise awareness of this difficult reality and start a conversation about miscarriage and infant loss;
(c) expresses sympathy to all families who have suffered a miscarriage, a stillbirth or infant death; and
(d) commends each and every person who has supported parents and families through their journey from the loss of a baby.
Senator Singh to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that 21 September 2018 is the International Day of Peace,
(ii) that the United Nations General Assembly has declared that this day is devoted to strengthening the ideals of peace, both within and among all nations and peoples,
(iii) the variety of events throughout Australia celebrating this global goal and this day, and
(iv) that the theme for the International Day of Peace in 2018 is 'The Right to Peace – The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at 70';
(b) recognises:
(i) the need to end the suffering caused by armed conflicts around the world, many of which are continuing to escalate and noting that prevention is as important as response, and
(ii) the role the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has played as a benchmark for the protection and promotion of peace since its adoption;
(c) acknowledges the essential role of the United Nations in maintaining a rules-based international order and the ongoing responsibility of Australia as a founding and influential member of the United Nations to support that role; and
(d) commits to the promotion of peace wherever possible, including through Australia's continuing support of the United Nations and, in particular, its peace operations.
Senator Singh to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that 22 September 2018 is World Rhino Day,
(ii) that there are fewer than 29 000 rhinos left worldwide across five species, of which three species are critically endangered,
(iii) that between 20 000 and 50 000 elephants are killed each year to supply the ivory trade around the globe,
(iv) that China, the United States of America, Hong Kong, the European Union and the United Kingdom have all either banned or begun implementing a ban on domestic trade in ivory, yet Australia's trade remains unregulated,
(v) the 2016 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime World Wildlife Crime Report: Trafficking in protected species, identified Australia as a destination and transit country for ivory,
(vi) the well-recognised connection between wildlife poaching and other organised criminal activities,
(vii) that evidence given during the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement's (the Committee) inquiry into the trade in elephant ivory and rhino horn, revealed illegal Australian domestic markets for ivory and rhinoceros horn that are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars,
(viii) Australia has no laws regulating its domestic trade in ivory and rhinoceros horn, and
(ix) according to the International Fund for Animal Welfare's 2017 galaxy poll, 77 per cent of Australians already think the trade of ivory and rhino horn is illegal in Australia, and 76 per cent support the Federal Government banning this trade;
(b) welcomes the:
(i) committee's recommendations, including a national domestic trade ban on elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn,
(ii) in-principle support from the Western Australian and Victorian Labor Governments for the implementation of stricter domestic trade measures leading to a domestic trade ban, and
(iii) United Kingdom government's plan to legislate a ban on the sale of modern day ivory this month; and
(c) urges the:
(i) Federal Government to progress Labor's proposal to work with the states and territories to ban Australia's national domestic trade in ivory and rhinoceros horn, with carefully-targeted exemptions for items which do not contribute to the poaching, to protect elephants and rhinos for future generations, and
(ii) Minister for the Environment to attend the London 2018 Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference this October, where global leaders will gather to help eradicate illegal wildlife trade and better protect the world's most iconic species from the threat of extinction.
Senator Polley to move on 17 October 2018:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 20 October is World Osteoporosis Day and aims to increase awareness of the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis,
(ii) osteoporosis is a fragile bone disease that causes painful and debilitating fractures, particularly of the hip and spine,
(iii) every year in Australia around 165 000 fractures occur, many of which could have been prevented with earlier diagnosis and treatment, and
(iv) Australia-wide, 4 million Australians over 50 have poor bone health;
(b) acknowledges that the cost of fractures associated with osteoporosis nationally amounted to $2 billion in 2017; and
(c) recognises that:
(i) early action can be taken through regular exercise, a bone-healthy diet and consultation with a doctor about osteoporosis risk factors,
(ii) diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis can halve the risk of fracture, and
(iii) effective preventative treatments include regular exercise, a bone healthy diet and consultation with doctors about risk factors.
Senators Sterle and Gallacher to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that Australia is not likely to reach its 2020 goal (National Road Safety Strategy 2011-20) of reducing road deaths and injuries by at least 30 per cent relative to the baseline 2008-10 figures, and that in the 2018-19 Budget the target only reached 14 per cent,
(ii) the release of the report of the inquiry into the National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020, conducted by Associate Professor Jeremy Woolley and Dr John Crozier,
(iii) that, on current trend by 2030, 12 000 people could be killed, 360 000 injured, and at a cost of more than $300 billion nationally according to the report,
(iv) the need for road safety to be made a priority issue for Commonwealth, state and local governments, and
(v) that even one single death or injury on our roads is unacceptable; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to work with Parliament to make our roads, vehicles and users safe.
Senators Payne and Wong to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) condemns in the strongest terms the atrocities committed in Myanmar's Rakhine, Shan and Kachin states, as detailed in the full report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission (the Mission) on Myanmar;
(b) notes that:
(i) following the Mission's preliminary report of 27 August 2018, the full report documents in detail serious violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law, committed primarily by Myanmar's military against ethnic minorities,
(ii) in the case of Rakhine State, the Mission concludes that crimes against humanity and war crimes have occurred, as well as finding sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation and prosecutions for genocide perpetrated against the Rohingya,
(iii) the full report of the Mission adds to a large body of evidence indicating the commission of the most serious crimes under international law, particularly against the Rohingya, and
(iv) the Australian Government is considering options in response to the Mission's report, including targeted sanctions;
(c) supports Australia's participation in new international efforts on accountability and justice in Myanmar, including at the Human Rights Council, of which Australia is a member, in line with the Mission's recommendations; and
(d) recognises that:
(i) Myanmar continues to face formidable challenges as it transitions from five decades of military rule,
(ii) as a regional partner, Australia must continue to support efforts to achieve democracy and national peace and reconciliation for the benefit of all of people in Myanmar, and
(iii) the development of strong democratic practices and institutions, including respect for human rights, and full accountability for the human rights violations that have occurred, will be essential to this process and crucial to Myanmar's long term prosperity.
The Minister for Communications and the Arts (Senator Fifield): To move on the next day of sitting—That on Monday, 22 October 2018, estimates hearings by legislation committees shall be suspended at 10 am till midday to enable senators to attend the National Apology for victims of institutional child sexual abuse.
Senator Hanson to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate acknowledges:
(a) the deplorable rise of anti-white racism and attacks on Western civilisation; and
(b) that it is okay to be white.
Senator Steele-John to move on the next day of sitting:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on its inquiry into the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering Voting Age and Increasing Voter Participation) Bill 2018 be extended to 6 December 2018.
Senator Faruqi to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Coalition Government has failed to commit to any specific targets to reduce homelessness,
(ii) homelessness has risen by 14 per cent, and the number of people sleeping rough has risen by an alarming 20 per cent since 2011, and
(iii) homelessness service providers are calling for a national solution to end homelessness; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to develop and implement a well-resourced National Homelessness Strategy that:
(i) has specific targets to reduce homelessness,
(ii) develops and implements approaches, in partnership with states and territories, to prevent homelessness, and
(iii) develops and implements a framework of continued support for people to break the cycle of homelessness.
Senator Rice to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) has recommended, in draft amendments, that organisms that have been altered by SDN-1 techniques (site directed nuclease techniques without a repair template) not be considered as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for the purposes of the Gene Technology Act 2000,
(ii) if this recommendation is adopted, traceability of SDN-1 altered organisms will not be required,
(iii) SDN-1 altered organisms will be considered as GMOs within the European Union as a consequence of a recent European Court of Justice ruling,
(iv) the European Union has zero tolerance for unapproved GMOs and the presence of unapproved GMOs in any food product, and therefore traceability for all food imports into the European Union will be required,
(v) a failure to regulate SDN-1 technologies and their presence in the Australian food supply chain could, therefore, potentially jeopardise billions of dollars of agricultural exports to the European Union, and
(vi) adopting the recommendations of the OGTR and removing traceability for SDN-1 techniques could also undermine the state-based moratoriums in place in South Australia and Tasmania on GMOs; and
(b) calls on the ministerial members of the Legislative and Governance Forum on Gene Technology to delay any consideration of the recommendations of the OGTR until the impact of this amendment on the sustainability of Australian agricultural exports and our state and territory GMO moratoriums can be clarified.
Senator Steele-John to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) in 2013, the UN General Assembly affirmed that the rights held by people offline must also be protected online, and it called upon all states to respect and protect the right to privacy in digital communication,
(ii) on 13 September 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the methods for bulk interception of online communications used by the United Kingdom's (UK) Government Communications Headquarters violated privacy and failed to provide sufficient surveillance safeguards,
(iii) the ECHR ruled that safeguards must indicate "the nature of offences which may give rise to an interception order; a definition of the categories of people liable to have their communications intercepted; a limit on the duration of interception; the procedure to be followed for examining, using and storing the data obtained; the precautions to be taken when communicating the data to other parties; and the circumstances in which intercepted data may or must be erased or destroyed",
(iv) the legal challenge was brought by Big Brother Watch and Others following revelations by National Security Agency whistleblower, Mr Edward Snowden, in 2013 that intelligence services were covertly intercepting, processing, and storing communications data in bulk, and
(v) Australian mass surveillance laws, including the proposed Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018, are based on the UK Investigatory Powers Act 2016, also known as the Snoopers' Charter; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) consider Australia's obligations under the UN Declaration of Human Rights and international laws, including the European General Data Protection Regulation, and
(ii) review Australian privacy and surveillance laws, to ensure Australians' human rights are upheld, including their right to privacy, and that sufficient safeguards are enshrined in legislation.
Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care, by 5 pm on 28 September 2018, the most recent data on the number of people in the national prioritisation queue who have been waiting longer than 12 months to receive home care packages.
Senator Waters to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that women retire with around 40 per cent less superannuation than men, and supports legislative change to close this gap as quickly as possible;
(b) acknowledges that if the Gillard Government had adopted The Greens amendment to the Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010, to ensure superannuation was paid to primary parents on leave, this gender retirement income gap would now be smaller;
(c) notes that the flat 15 per cent tax rate on superannuation contributions is regressive, with a disproportionate impact on the retirement savings for women, as they make up the majority of low income earners below the median wage; and
(d) calls on this or future governments to significantly boost the retirement balances of women by:
(i) making super contribution taxes progressive by setting them at 15 per cent below marginal tax rates, and
(ii) increasing the Low Income Superannuation Tax Offset for earners below the tax-free threshold, in order to ensure all workers gain an equal tax benefit from superannuation.
Senator Griff to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the human rights situation in Tibet,
(ii) the continuing restrictions on entry to Tibetan areas for journalists, international observers, non-governmental agencies and foreign diplomats,
(iii) the imprisonment of Tashi Wangchuk, a Tibetan language rights advocate, for peacefully exercising his fundamental rights of freedom of speech, expression and language rights,
(iv) the demolition of Tibetan Buddhist learning institutes, Larung Gar and Yachen Gar, which violates international law and China's own domestic laws, and
(v) that the Dalai Lama's Middle Way Policy for the peaceful resolution of the Tibetan situation seeks to do so within the framework of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) engage, or continue to engage, constructively with China to ensure human rights in Tibet are respected,
(ii) monitor the human rights situation in Tibet by closely following and contributing to the UN Human Rights Council's third cycle Universal Periodic Review on China to be held early in November 2018, and
(iii) support a peaceful, mutually-agreeable resolution of the Tibetan situation, including facilitating meaningful discussions on the points raised in the Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People.
Senator Duniam to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate notes that—
(a) the Tasmanian State Labor Party rules require political appointments to electorate or ministerial offices of state and federal members to be members of the party and a financial union member;
(b) the application of this rule could result in a breach of the Fair Work Act, which protects a person's right to freely choose whether or not to join a union; and
(c) Mr Bill Shorten must address this discriminatory practice to stop the forcing of state and federal MPs' staff to join unions.
Senator Rice to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) this week is International Bisexual Awareness Week (Bi Week), and 23 September 2018 is Bisexual Visibility Day,
(ii) Bi Week and Bisexual Visibility Day recognises and celebrates bisexual history, bisexual community and culture, bisexual people and identities, and also calls for greater visibility of bi+ stories,
(iii) research has consistently shown that mental health for bisexual people is poorer than for heterosexual, gay or lesbian people – bisexual people report heightened feelings of isolation, anxiety, distress and self-doubt, and
(iv) biphobia and bi-erasure lead to discrimination against bisexual people from both heterosexual communities and LGBTIQ+ communities; and
(b) calls on parliamentarians to:
(i) recognise and celebrate the many contributions of bisexual people to Australian society,
(ii) commit to elevating the voices and stories of bisexual people in this Parliament, and
(iii) support the provision of essential health, social, cultural, and community services for bisexual people and their families, delivered with the meaningful input and involvement of these communities.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (15:36): by leave—I move:
That Senator Abetz be granted leave of absence for today and tomorrow for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Postponement
The Clerk: A postponement notification has been lodged in respect of the following:
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of Senator Whish-Wilson for today, proposing a reference to the Environment and Communications References Committee, postponed till 15 October 2018.
COMMITTEES
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Community Affairs References Committee
Reporting Date
The Clerk: Notifications of extensions of time for committees to report have been lodged in respect of the following:
Community Affairs Legislation Committee—
Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018 and related bill—from 12 October to 15 October 2018
My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018—from 8 October to 12 October 2018
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Encouraging Self-sufficiency for Newly Arrived Migrants) Bill 2018—from today to 17 October 2018
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Maintaining Income Thresholds) Bill 2018—from today to 17 October 2018
Community Affairs References Committee—My Health Record system—from 8 October to 12 October 2018
The PRESIDENT (15:37): 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.
MOTIONS
Domestic and Family Violence
Senator GEORGIOU (Western Australia) (15:37): Before I move this motion I seek leave to add the name of Senator Storer.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted; so added.
Senator GEORGIOU: I, and also on behalf of Senator Storer, move:
That the Senate:
(a) notes that a 2018 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) report found 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.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator GEORGIOU: Last week five people were killed in an incident of family violence in the Perth suburb of Bedford. This incident brings the total number of family-violence-related deaths to 23, which is double that of last year. One in six women and one in 16 men are victims of family violence. These victims are often driven out of their homes and need to find a safe place to stay. A recent survey found that 74 per cent of crisis accommodation providers were unable to provide accommodation to those who need it. Some crisis care organisations had to turn away one person for every person they accommodate. Today I call on the federal government to commit more funds to address the critical shortage of crisis care.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (15:38): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: The Commonwealth continues to work with the states and territories to address family and domestic violence, including through the provision of funding for services and research to better understand the impacts of family and domestic violence. Relief housing is the responsibility of the states and the territories.
Question agreed to.
Aged Care
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (15:39): I wish to inform the chamber that Senator Griff will also sponsor this motion. I, and also on behalf of senators Siewert and Griff, move:
That the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) on 16 September 2018, the Prime Minister announced a royal commission into Australia's Aged Care system, ahead of the ABC's Four Corners report on the treatment of older Australians in aged care homes,
(ii) the media has extensively reported on violence, abuse, and neglect against people with disability,
(iii) the Community Affairs References Committee held an inquiry into violence, abuse, and neglect against people with disability in institutional and residential settings during the 44th Parliament,
(iv) on 25 November 2015, the Community Affairs References Committee tabled its report containing 30 recommendations, the headline recommendation calling for a royal commission into the issue,
(v) on 2 March 2017, the Government responded to the recommendations in this report, where it refused to commit to a royal commission,
(vi) in May 2017, more than 120 academics from around Australia signed an open letter urging the Prime Minister to act on the headline recommendation of the Senate inquiry, and a civil society statement from Disabled People's Organisations Australia and endorsed by 163 organisations and groups and over 380 individuals called for a royal commission, and
(vii) on 4 December 2018, the Senate passed a motion calling on the Government to reconsider its decision and commit to a royal commission into violence, abuse, and neglect of people with disability in institutional and residential settings; and
(b) calls on the Government to extend the Royal Commission into Aged Care to include violence, abuse, and neglect against people with disability in institutional and residential settings.
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (15:39): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator CAROL BROWN: Labor supports a royal commission into the aged-care sector and we understand why this motion has been moved today: because people with disability have been waiting too long for a royal commission and this government simply hasn't delivered. However, an inquiry into the issues of violence and abuse faced by people with disability will need to be quite different from an inquiry into the aged-care sector. It would need to cover schools, the community and justice. Five peak disability representative organisations have reiterated this call for a separate royal commission stating: 'We have called for a specific disability royal commission for many years because the issues are so big and so systematic that our own royal commission is warranted.' Labor has and is committed to a standalone royal commission and we encourage the government to join us in giving the violence and abuse against people with disability the dedicated focus it deserves.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (15:40): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: The broad focus of the royal commission will be to look at the quality of care provided in residential and in-home care services to senior Australians. It will also include the challenge of providing care to Australians with disabilities living in residential aged care, particularly younger people with disabilities. The government is also engaging in real, immediate and substantial reform to prevent the abuse and neglect of people with disabilities as we roll out the NDIS, the most significant social reform to improve choice and control for people with disability in the service that they receive.
The government is providing $209 million over four years to establish the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, which will address issues raised in recent inquiries, replacing a complex and fragmented system of quality and safeguards in each state and territory with a single, nationally consistent approach under the NDIS.
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (15:41): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: In voting down this motion this afternoon, the opposition and the government vote to continue the enforced silence of Australia's disabled people. Over 500 complaints have been received by the National Abuse Hotline—200 this year! In voting down this motion, you vote to keep their stories silent. You vote against the investigation of the crimes which they have been subjected to. You hide behind your politician's words. You hide behind your excuses. Well, the disability community will remember your cowardice and you will pay for it.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 1065 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:47]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Radioactive Waste Management
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:49): I move:
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 RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (15:49): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: The National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 enacts a voluntary nomination process, and the government complements this with comprehensive consultation to inform and obtain the consent of the local community. While a nomination has been received by Leonora, the minister has stated he will not consider progressing the nomination until consultations on current nominations are complete. The necessary comprehensive consultation process may then take place. A further inquiry is not needed as there have been numerous public inquiries on the issue, all with the same conclusion—namely, that Australia must responsibly manage its radioactive waste through centralised long-term purpose-built facilities.
Question negatived.
Hunter Class Frigates
Senator BURSTON (New South Wales) (15:51): I move:
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 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.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (15:51): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: BAE expects that the Australian industry content for the Hunter class build will be 65 to 70 per cent, which will create and secure thousands of jobs for decades. BAE has prequalified over 500 Australian businesses from every state and territory to be in the Hunter class supply chain. The class name has already been decided. It reflects the tradition of naming Royal Australian Navy ships that promote Navy's bond with the nation. In this case, the first three ships of the Hunter class will proudly carry the names of three major Australian regions, all with strong historical maritime and naval ties.
Question negatived.
Lobbying to Political Parties
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (15:52): I move:
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 CHISHOLM (Queensland) (15:52): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator CHISHOLM: The opposition will be opposing this motion. Labor has a proud history of ensuring transparency throughout our political system. It was a Labor government that introduced the Lobbying Code of Conduct. The code applies in conjunction with the Australian government's Statement of Ministerial Standards. As we have repeatedly stated, the government should enforce those ministerial standards.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 1078 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [15:54]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
NOTICES
Postponement
Senator BURSTON (New South Wales) (15:56): At the request of Senator Bernardi, I seek leave to postpone general business notice of motion No. 1072 standing in the name of Senator Bernardi for today.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted.
MOTIONS
Lobbying to Political Parties
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (15:57): I move:
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 CHISHOLM (Queensland) (15:57): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator CHISHOLM: The opposition supports transparency throughout our political system, but we will be opposing this motion in its current wording. It was the federal Labor government under Kevin Rudd that introduced the code of conduct for lobbyists. The code is intended to be read in conjunction with the ministerial standards and should be enforced as such.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 1079, moved by Senator Waters, be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [15:58]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
DOCUMENTS
Religious Freedom Review Expert Panel
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (16:01): I wish to inform the chamber that Senators Pratt, McAllister, Keneally, Kitching and Griff will also sponsor the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators Rice, Pratt, McAllister, Keneally, Kitching and Griff, move:
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, the final report of the Religious Freedom Review Expert Panel.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (16:01): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: On 18 May 2018 the former Prime Minister received the final report into religious freedoms from the expert panel. The panel received over 15,000 public submissions and held around 90 consultation meetings representing a diversity of views. The government thanks the expert panel for their work, and the Australian people who took their time to have their say in exploring the important issue in such a comprehensive and respectful way. The government is undertaking detailed consideration before releasing it to the public and responding to its findings in the near future. The panel considered the issues involved in the review very carefully, and it is important that the government has the opportunity to do so.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (16:02): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McKIM: The government has sat on this report for over four months. The Prime Minister has already made it clear that he has plans to dismantle anti-discrimination laws in this country. Mr Morrison and his cohorts on the Right lost the marriage equality debate, and now they want revenge. They're going to try and entrench discrimination in other parts of our community. There were over 15,000 submissions to this inquiry. There is a very high degree of public interest in this matter, particularly given the comments made recently by Prime Minister Morrison. It's time to end the secrecy and allow the Australian people to see this report, including Mr Ruddock's recommendations.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Israel
Senator ANNING (Queensland) (16:03): I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1080, standing in my name for today relating to the state of Israel, be taken as a formal motion.
The PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?
Senator Ruston: Yes.
The PRESIDENT: There is, Senator Anning.
Senator ANNING: I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator ANNING: Today is Yom Kippur, an auspicious time for this motion. Anti-Semitism is not saying two words deliberately taken out of context by others; it is active hostility towards the Jewish people here and abroad, including support for Muslim terrorists who murder innocent Israelis. This motion calls on senators to make their position clear, recognising and expressing support for the only nation in the Middle East that shares our values and our democratic system of government, and condemning ongoing terrorist acts against it. The fact is, if you do not support the right of Israelis to exist and you do not condemn the terrorist-supporting Palestinian National Authority, you are anti-Semitic.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (16:05): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute
Senator RUSTON: In line with the government's long-standing view, motions that cannot be debated or amended should not deal with complex foreign policy matters. Australia is a long-standing strong supporter of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict and we urge all parties to return to negotiations towards an enduring peace. Australia condemns terrorists and terrorist organisations and supports a peace process by Israel and a future Palestine state existing side-by-side in peace and security within internationally recognised borders.
The PRESIDENT: That concludes Discovery of Formal Business.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Morrison Government
The PRESIDENT (16:06): A letter has been received from Senator Cameron:
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The inability of the divided, unstable and illegitimate Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government to govern for all Australians.
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The PRESIDENT: I understand time has been allotted for 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 GALLACHER (South Australia) (16:06): I am pleased to be able to make a contribution in this Matters of Public Importance debate on the inability of a divided, unstable and illegitimate Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government to govern for all Australians. If we were to start with the first—divided—the evidence is reasonably clear. If you move from the Hon. Tony Abbott to the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull to the Hon. Scott Morrison in a reasonably short space of time, then you very clearly have a lack of majority support for the elected Prime Minister throughout the term of their government. I think it is very clear that the Hon. Tony Abbott has been the best opposition leader in the country—and he didn't refute that claim; he merely acknowledged it with a wry smile. Since being deposed, there has been clear unequivocal division right throughout the Turnbull prime ministership.
And there has been abundantly clear instability. Take one brief example of that. The minister says he has a deal on the NEG. The Prime Minister says, 'I have the support of my party room; no problem.' Questions across the chamber here in question time allude to those detractors from the policy, who say, 'Don't worry about that. It's been through the party room.' Not only was it not unequivocally supported, despite the claims to the contrary, it was dumped. I think that happened on Tuesday in the party room and, by Friday, it was dead and buried. They probably threw out the minister at the same time because he was still arguing that it was a good policy after it was dumped—quite an incongruous position.
It is exceedingly clear that the evidence about division is uncontested. You cannot contest that this period of coalition government has been divided. 'Unstable' is a very kind word for what's been happening. They've white-anted, they've undermined and they have detracted from ordinary delivery of government services with their bitter, ceaseless infighting in this period of government. It would all be quite entertaining if it weren't actually so serious and if the consequences for the average Australian were not so severe.
A few moments ago in taking note, I alluded to one of the problems we get when we cancel COAG. COAG was actually going to look at something which all Australian electors, of whatever political persuasion, would want fixed. There are 173 young people in aged-care facilities and this was one of the issues that was going to be alleviated, decided or helped along in the COAG process. This is where COAG needs to look at how the NDIS fits in with the health system to make sure we don't have young people falling through the cracks. So this is one tiny microcosm of the myriad problems that the government faces: 173 young people falling through the cracks of the NDIS system and not being treated appropriately because of the inability of this government to be unified, cohesive and the like.
I put on the record, and I'll put it on the record again, that, since I have been appointed as the deputy chair of the oversight committee for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, there have been quite a number of ministers—
Senator Jacinta Collins: How many?
Senator GALLACHER: Five ministers is my understanding. One of them was actually the Hon. Scott Morrison. This is an area where there's no debate; this is bipartisan policy. The ministers have been the Hon. Kevin Andrews, the Hon. Scott Morrison, the Hon. Christian Porter, the Hon. Dan Tehan and the Hon. Paul Fletcher, who is current. That's in a short space of time: 2013 to now. How is it possible that the electorate is getting the government that it needs when there's been this inordinate amount of change? It is akin to musical chairs. Who you support as Prime Minister, in some respects, means that you become a minister.
Clearly, in the case of the Hon. Dan Tehan—who's been in three portfolios in nine months, and in seven portfolios in two years and seven months—he has barely had time to get his head around the various jobs he has been asked to undertake. That's not good public policy. That doesn't engender good outcomes in government. I have the greatest respect for the Hon. Dan Tehan. I think he did some excellent work in the veterans' affairs area. But he's no longer in veterans' affairs; he's in there trying to fix up the problems created by the Hon. Simon Birmingham in education.
If you look at COAG again, you'll see that the Hon. Simon Birmingham left putting out the debate and the contested different positions in education, and that the Hon. Scott Morrison has had to put in place someone who's mother, I think, was actually the education minister in Victoria. He'll give it a go, but he's starting behind the eight ball because a lack of continuity in the Prime Ministerial position has meant an inordinate amount of loss of continuity in the subsidiary positions. And that is right down to our ordinary old Senate process here. Us backbenchers, we love our Senate process!
The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee had a very vital inquiry which couldn't become quorate because our chair and deputy chair, the Hon. Linda Reynolds and the Hon. David Fawcett, had been promoted. So it doesn't just stop at the ministerial level; it flows right down to the work of the entire parliament. There we were in Brisbane and Townsville with veterans who had very widely-held and deeply-felt contested positions. They wanted resolution, they wanted fairness out of their government and they wanted their hearing dates to be honoured and for them to be able to contribute, and we couldn't even do that! The division, the dysfunction and the instability is absolutely catastrophic in all facets.
I dare to say that there are ministers on the other side who haven't got their charter letters yet. I dare to say that there are people who haven't had their charter letters. In other words, their responsibilities and their duties are not clearly defined, so they're still getting briefings about what they might possibly be looking after. How on earth is it possible that that can look like good government? How on earth is that possible? We know from the estimates process, as I mentioned in taking note, that the Hon. Christopher Pyne and the Hon. Marise Payne appeared to be having quite a contest between each other about what was going to be in those charter letters and about the areas of responsibility they were going to take respectively, because it was quite some time after their ministerial appointment that the charter letters were actually confirmed to have been delivered.
You have a situation where dysfunction, division and instability are endemic in the coalition. I don't think you can actually characterise it any other way. It has been a guerrilla war conducted by the Hon. Tony Abbott. It was a nuclear option conducted by the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull: 'Show me the 43 people who are against me. I want to see their names. I want them recorded in Liberal Party history. Show me the 43 names.' That has never been heard of before. A leader would normally call a party room meeting on a number of names. He wanted 43; he wanted the majority of those people against him to sign their names. It was really interesting to read what some people signed on it. They signed the petition but said, 'I support the Prime Minister.' My goodness!
It's obvious that people played both sides of the fence. There is one person in the chamber, the Hon. Mathias Cormann, who backed three people in three days! He was on three different potential prime ministers' sides in three days. If you want a better example of what division, instability and lack of governing for the Australian people looks like, when you see them up there on the back bench—don't worry; they were only there for six hours. He then came into the chamber and said: 'We want a more powerful economy. We want more employment.' I'm sure he does, but he's not doing a very good job of delivering it because the division, the instability and the lack of good governance has catastrophic outcomes for the electorate. The concerns of those 173 kids in aged-care facilities should be addressed. They should be out of there, and COAG should be meeting to do it.
Senator HUME (Victoria—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (16:16): I rise today to speak on the matter of public importance introduced to this place by our very dear friend from the Australian Labor Party Senator Doug Cameron—always cheerful, always merry; 'Senator Bagpipes'; a happy chap. It was beautifully followed by his dear friend Senator Gallacher, who again is a very cheerful man. I actually didn't realise that Labor could waste taxpayer money while in opposition, but I'm absolutely certain that I heard exactly the same speech in take note of answers only half an hour ago. That's quite extraordinary. The taxpayers already paid once today for that drivel that we heard from Senator Gallacher, so that is quite an extraordinary achievement. I think you should be very, very proud indeed!
If you want a party that really cares about governing for all Australians, you can look over here; if you want to see a party that doesn't care a jot about ordinary Australians, all you need to do is look over there to the opposition benches. On this side of the chamber, it's quite clear we have a plan that's working for all Australians. We are making Australia strong. The government's policies are working. The economy is growing at 3.4 per cent. That is the strongest growth since the height of the mining boom. It's growing at a stronger rate than the world's seven largest advanced economies—the USA, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, the UK and Japan. It's growing faster than the OECD average.
Over the past five years alone, the coalition has demonstrated that it gets the results that Australians expect from their government. The Liberal-National Morrison coalition want to do things. The Labor opposition want to stop things. We are putting in place policies that actually matter. Think, for instance, of the instant asset write-off that has recently been renewed. If you want proof that the coalition is the only party that backs small business, look no further than the instant asset write-off. In Australia, more than 350,000 small businesses have taken up the instant asset write-off. This is a policy that would not be possible without the coalition in office.
Have a look at small business tax cuts. We've given tax cuts to more than 3.3 million businesses, and further tax relief has been legislated to reduce the rate from 27.5 per cent to 25 per cent for businesses with an annual turnover of less than $50 million. For unincorporated businesses with a turnover of less than $5 million, we've introduced a tax discount of eight per cent capped at $1,000 and have legislated a further increase to 16 per cent.
As you can see, we don't scoff at small businesses. We don't make fun of small businesses. We don't poke fun at small businesses. We understand their needs, and we are backing them. The coalition is the only party that can ensure that less red tape falls to businesses, reducing those excessive compliance costs. Individuals, businesses and community groups have had their compliance costs cut by $5.9 billion since 2013, including through things like simplified business activity statements, a small business superannuation clearing house and thousands of other decisions that make life easier for small businesses.
We have fixed the budget—in fact, over $41 billion in budget savings have been delivered since the 2016 election alone. We have halved the growth in spending, which was out of control under the six years of Labor government—out of control. We have halved the growth in spending from four per cent a year under Labor to 1.9 per cent under the coalition. That is the most restrained of any government in more than 50 years. The budget deficit in 2017-18 is projected to be $18.2 billion, which is less than half what it was two years ago, and we are on track for a balanced budget in 2019-20, a year earlier than anticipated.
The outcome that I'm most proud of is the promise that we made in 2013 to deliver one million new jobs to the Australian economy within five years, and we have delivered it in spades. In fact we promised it within two terms of government and we delivered it one year early, within five years, with 1,114,500 more Australians in work since September 2013, and over half of those are in full-time jobs. The vast majority of jobs have gone to women, and, in the last 12 months alone, at least 100,000 have gone to regional Australia. In 2017-18 alone, 349,500 jobs were created. That's the best financial year result since 2004-05, over a decade ago. Most importantly, of those jobs, over 100,000 went to young Australians. In fact, growth in youth employment is the best that we've seen in 30 years. The unemployment rate sits at 5.3 per cent, the lowest level since 2012 and well below the level we inherited from Labor in 2013 at 5.7 per cent.
If you want to see division, if you want to see instability, if you want to see illegitimacy, you need look no further than those opposite. They're very good at throwing stones but they've got a bit of a glass jaw over there. When we start talking about things like border protection, you can see the whites of their eyes, because they are divided on border protection. They don't know where they stand on border protection. When we talk about things like the Israel-Palestine relationship, you can see the whites of their eyes. They don't know where they stand on Israel and Palestine. They certainly don't know where they stand on the TPP. We've seen the leaks coming out just this week alone. They don't know whether they're Arthur or Martha. Are they in favour of the TPP? Are they against the TPP? I can assure you that, if you want to see stability and you want to see good government, you will only see that from the coalition. We're not here to fight about it; we are here to fix it.
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (16:23): What a coalition of chaos we have opposite. The Prime Minister has cancelled next month's COAG. There won't be one until December now. But, lest we think that that was a level of dysfunctionality, in the other place in question time, the Prime Minister said, 'We can't have COAG on 4 October because we're having a drought summit on 26 October.' Two meetings at both ends of the month—it's a little bit hard to handle when you're so dysfunctional.
The Prime Minister can't get any clear air because there are so many things going on in the Treasury benches. He can't get any clear air because Liberal woman after Liberal woman has come forward to complain about a culture of bullying and intimidation within the Liberal Party. He can't get any clear air because his cabinet colleagues keep leaking documents and policy initiatives. He can't get any clear air because they keep moving the deckchairs around, and he can't get any clear air because everyone's so concerned with watching to see how many ministers are wearing their Australian-flag lapel badges.
Going back to the bullying complaints, the latest woman to come forward was the member for Gilmore, who said there was behaviour from 'boys who should know better'. The Liberal Party has, of course, decried the use of quotas, or maybe it's just the word 'quota'—it's a little bit unclear for everyone else at the moment—although, the Liberal Party disproves its own current argument on quotas because it has had quotas since 1944. When Sir Robert Menzies was looking to match the ALP's support base, he went to the inheritors of the suffragette movement—some of the largest women's community groups of that time. Those women struck a hard bargain—if only that were the case in this day and age. They said, 'If you want our numbers, we want fifty-fifty quotas throughout the Liberal Party organisation,' and Sir Robert Menzies agreed. Now, though, this party that started out so well has gone backwards. They are moving so far backwards that, in fact, after the next election, because they haven't preselected any women, they are likely to have fewer women than the Saudi Arabian legislature, and that is a disgrace. It was a party that started out so well but has now become a party where so many women feel shut out.
What does the Prime Minister do with these complaints? Does he listen, does he acknowledge these complaints and does he acknowledge that his party has gone backwards? No. What he does is he tries to offshore these women. He's offered the New York United Nations post to the member for Chisholm. She rejected it. Now he's offered it to the member for Gilmore. She's considering it. But it's pretty insulting to use a posting as a 'there, there, don't worry' consolation prize. But fear not, because the Prime Minister did say he's 100 per cent confident that bullying is not a problem in the Liberal Party. That's good to know—and oh so convincing! Of course, that was a couple of days ago. Now he's asked a Liberal Party organisation to investigate the member for Gilmore's complaints. That was yesterday. I guess we need to wait until tomorrow to see what happens with those complaints and whether there's actually going to be any action taken.
In another shooting-in-the-foot incident, the Prime Minister self-described the coalition as a muppet show. The Muppet Show, we could say, is a vaudeville variety act, and that's what we've been seeing for the last few months. Just as a fun exercise, let's ask ourselves: which muppet character does the Prime Minister mostly resemble? Is it the straight man Kermit the Frog? No, because Kermit actually gets the show running and keeps it running. I'm not sure we can say that about the Prime Minister. Also, Kermie would probably never use Fatman Scoop's lyrics to be put to such a discombobulating use. Is he Miss Piggy? No, because they don't really encourage women over there on the treasury bench, and Miss Piggy is quite a forceful personality, so it's probably quite unlikely she would ever get preselected in the first place. Is he Statler or Waldorf? No, I think that might be Senator Macdonald or Senator O'Sullivan—although, having said that, I don't believe those senators have a proprietary ownership on that type of personality. Maybe he's Gonzo. You know Gonzo—Gonzo who plays the end of the opening song, but it never quite goes to plan. He never manages to quite hit the right note. I feel that Gonzo is probably our Prime Minister.
One of the great Labor prime ministers said in 1990 about a hopelessly divided Liberal Party, 'If you can't govern yourselves, you can't govern the country.' He said it as a qualifying standard—a pre-election test for any party seeking to govern. Nearly three decades on, we see the truth of Bob Hawke's assertion, for this great, exceptional country and this prosperous, productive, culturally diverse and inclusive society is governed by the worst of the worst—by B-graders, rank amateurs, petty squabblers and backstabbers.
This government aren't governing. This great, exceptional country—the envy of our neighbours, a beacon of strength in our region with so much opportunity and so much promise and potential—is governed by a government literally without an agenda. In fact, they've moved legislation off the agenda today, literally filibustering their own legislation, and they've deferred COAG meetings because they have nothing to say. This government isn't governing. This great, exceptional country, which rightly spends billions on our national defence and on border protection, is revealed to have an immigration minister who, while he pretended to be a tough cop on the beat of our border, was in fact secretly allowing Liberal donors and mates to smuggle in illegal workers to work as their servants. The tough cop on the beat of our border has been revealed to be nothing more than, essentially, a people smuggler for the aid and comfort of Liberal donors and mates. The government aren't governing.
We have a coalition that disagree on nearly everything except hating each other, hating unions, cutting essential social services and appointing mates to government boards, tribunals and embassies. And let's not forget that the Prime Minister doesn't like Tasmanians either. The government aren't governing. They disagree about energy. They have no credible energy policy. They have had multiple proposals and can never agree on them. Margaret Thatcher, however briefly, once exhorted us to deal with the challenge of climate change. The government have refused to countenance four energy policies in nine years. Silicon Valley's cutthroat venture capital industry, as keen on profit as any other investor, is applying tens of billions of dollars of capital to improving renewable energy technology. Yet, this do-nothing, deeply confused, totally self-obsessed government regard Margaret Thatcher's green period and the world capital markets as mad lefties embarking on a renewables rampage. You don't even have to accept the scientific consensus on climate to embrace the simple fact that the sun, the wind and the waves don't cost us anything to use as a form of power. They disagree about tax. They disagree about complying with our international treaty obligations, like the Paris accord. They disagree about leadership. They disagree about My Health. They disagree about so many issues.
Australians don't expect miracles out of Canberra. But we do expect our leaders to put the national interest first. We do expect our leaders to insist on clean, accountable government that is willing to explain its decisions: explain the visas it grants, explains the grants it gifts to environmental groups, and explain its policies and its agenda for the future. We do expect our leaders to be focused on the kind of country we leave to the next generation.
That's why I believe, should Labor earn the trust of the Australian people at the next election, that a Shorten Labor government will address the big issues confronting all of us: maintaining Australian prosperity, ensuring Australians share in that prosperity with a decently paying job or the help they need, holding together the great social infrastructure that keeps Australia the most liveable place on the planet, defending our land from polluters within and enemies without, and ensuring that our country always passes the toughest test. That test is set out for all of us in Matthew, chapter 25, verse 40:
Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.
The single most important measure of our society is how we treat the vulnerable: the single mum with kids struggling to make ends meet; the elderly man in a nursing home with no visitors and no voice; and our most recent arrivals, who so desperately want to succeed here and will, if we give them a chance.
That's why I'm here. I think there are many in this country who look on with horror at this government and wonder why they are here—for this government isn't governing. This exceptional country, with its magnificent people, deserves a government that works as hard as Australians do. We shouldn't have to wait for this government to crawl its way to the latest date an election can be held, but it seems we will have to. (Time expired)
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (16:34): I'm so pleased Senator Cameron raised 'the inability of the divided, unstable and illegitimate Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government to govern for all Australians' because it allows us to take a trip down memory lane and relive the divided, unstable and illegitimate Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government Australians had to endure. Remember former Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd? His own right-wing powerbrokers said they'd had enough of what they called Kevin Rudd's chaotic prime ministership. Those words came from none other than Bill Shorten. Then they wheeled in Julia Gillard, who was Australia's first female Prime Minister, and their factional divide ruined her too.
Labor stuffed up the mining tax and installed a Speaker in the House of Representatives who didn't mind giving blokes a touch-up when he got on the sauce. Labor signed a poisonous coalition deal with the Greens in 2010 to ensure they could get their legislation through the Senate. Although Julia Gillard promised there would be no carbon tax, the deal she did with the Greens meant every single household and business got slapped with the tax, which nearly sent pensioners to the wall. So much for her saying, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' Labor propped up Craig Thomson, who had a filthy past involving hookers and boozy nights at the expense of the Health Services Union.
Labor launched the atrocious $50 billion NBN, which has been a dog's breakfast under both Labor and this government. Labor had 50,000 illegal boat people claim refugee status, costing this country billions upon billions of dollars, until this government put a stop to the boats. Labor took our economy from a $57 billion surplus to debt of $300 billion. The coalition is no better. The coalition is spending $50 billion—maybe higher, up to $200 billion—on subs. Immigration levels are the highest of the OECD countries and others at 1.7 per cent. Foreign ownership and assets gone—that's Australians. Both of you have destroyed our nation, identity, economic stability and credibility. The people will decide at the next election: get rid of them both.
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (16:36): One can only assume that the Labor Party settled on their topic for today, moved by Senator Cameron no less, before opening Melbourne's Herald Sun newspaper this morning. Had they done so, they might have appreciated the irony of accusing others of being divided, particularly given the starring role that Senator Cameron himself played in that newspaper article. For those playing at home who haven't read the journalism of Mr Rob Harris this morning, he helpfully detailed the profound and deep divisions within the Labor Party on the question of trade and, in particular, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Not only was Mr Harris able to go inside the Labor caucus and recount in some detail the exchanges between Labor colleagues over a profound issue of national importance—that is, free trade—but he was helpfully able to do so by relying on effectively a transcript of the proceedings—a transcript so detailed that it was able to recount exactly what each member of the Labor caucus, including the shadow ministry, had to say on the TPP.
This is a party which is self-evidently hopelessly divided on a key question. We had frontbenchers getting up and speaking against each other on a major policy issue. On the one hand, you have people like Jason Clare, the shadow trade minister, speaking in favour, with Senator Penny Wong, the opposition's leader in the Senate, backing him up. On the other hand, you have Senator Doug Cameron apparently moving a motion to recommit to debate and re-examine in their caucus again this week the issue which they had apparently resolved last week in their caucus. I presume that the opposition tactics committee in the Senate hasn't got their subscription to the Herald Sun up to date. They haven't been receiving their papers in the morning. I can only encourage them to make sure they are reading Melbourne's biggest-selling newspaper before they settle on their questions or MPI topics.
Of course, this is a political party which only a few months ago had an alternative leader in Mr Albanese, was openly trailing his coat for the Labor leadership. In the lead-up to the by-elections in Longman, Braddon and elsewhere, Mr Albanese was helpfully posing for nice photos for newspapers, granting tell-all interviews about his personal story and background, and openly flaunting and showing his wares for all of his colleagues to see. This is a party that, were it not for some slightly better-than-expected results in the by-elections, fortunately for them, would now be in the midst of a serious debate about their own leadership—and may yet be again, because we know they have a track record in this area.
By contrast, the Liberal-National government—our government—is not only governing for all Australians; it is actually delivering for all Australians. This is a government which, before the 2013 election, promised that we would deliver more than one million new jobs in our first two terms of office. We promised that we would do that. When we did so, at the time, we were told by Labor and the media that it was a fanciful and ridiculous promise and there was no way we could ever meet it.
Not only have we met that task, not only did we meet that task early; we've comfortably exceeded that task, with 1,114,500 new jobs created under this government. That's more than one million lives changed for the better because of the successful policies of this government, implemented while we've governed for all Australians. More than half of those jobs have been full time. Almost 350,000 of those jobs were created in the 2017-18 financial year alone. This was the most jobs created in any financial year since 2004-05, back in the glory days of the Howard government. More than 100,000 of these jobs were for young Australians, and that is the most for any year on record. That's 100,000 young people's lives improved. They're getting a good start in life, a step on the first rung of the ladder of opportunity—which those opposite used to talk about—thanks to the policies of this government.
According to figures released by the ABS, 2017 was the first full year in which employment rose every single month since the ABS began collecting that data in 1978. This didn't happen by accident. This didn't happen by coincidence. This happened because of a series of policies implemented by the Liberal-National government over the past five years that were deliberately aimed at creating employment and opportunities for Australians. It's resulted in an economy growing at 3.4 per cent, higher than at any time since 2012 and the height of the mining boom. Under this Liberal-National government, our economy is growing at a faster rate than many of the world's largest advanced economies, including Canada, Germany, France, Italy, the UK and Japan. It's the direct result of the policies we put in place—for example, the first and vitally important stages of our enterprise tax plan. We have legislated a five per cent cut in company tax for all Australian businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million.
This will deliver the lowest small business tax rate in half a century. It's already benefitting more than 3.3 million businesses which, between them, employ about seven million Australians. Even more businesses and Australians working for those businesses would have benefitted if it hadn't been for the opposition of the Labor Party and the Greens in this chamber. Sadly, even those businesses which have benefitted from this reduction in tax—and those workers and shareholders of those businesses and customers of those businesses who have benefitted from this new opportunity—are under grave threat if Mr Bill Shorten and his Labor team win the next election, because we know they're planning to substantially reverse those tax cuts for small business.
It hasn't only happened because of our small business tax cut plan. It's also happened because we've restored the rule of law in the building and construction industry. We've re-established the Australian Building and Construction Commission. We've established the Registered Organisations Commission. Together they are cracking down on the wanton lawlessness in that industry perpetuated by some unions—in particular, the CFMEU—and, again, this is at threat if Mr Shorten becomes Prime Minister. It's also because of our free trade agenda—a comprehensive free trade agenda that we don't just talk about on this side of the chamber but we actually deliver on, in stark contrast to the previous Labor government, which liked to talk so much about its embrace of a multinational trade agenda but never delivered anything tangible. We've delivered free trade agreements with our most significant trading partners, not only with China but also with Korea, Japan, Peru and the one we were talking about earlier, the Trans-Pacific Partnership with 11 major nations.
This is the very same Trans-Pacific Partnership that the opposition advised us to abandon. Mr Shorten, Mr Clare and others said it was a dead agreement, that there was no hope and that, once the United States pulled out, it would not proceed. How wrong that advice was and how lucky it was that this government, particularly our previous trade minister, Steven Ciobo, did not follow that advice. How lucky it was that they continued to prosecute that trade agreement, now successfully signed, and, I hope, soon successfully legislated through this chamber.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (16:44): I rise to speak on the MPI today. Division, instability and illegitimacy are characteristics that no government wants to be associated with. The division amongst the Liberal Party on energy policy is just one example of how disunity, coupled with a leader who lacked the courage of conviction, can cripple a government. The PM made a wrong decision and paid the ultimate price. However, we should not forget that it is not just the decisions of government that affect Australians; it is the decisions of all of us in this place. We have a responsibility to ensure that we are aware of the consequences of those decisions.
That brings me to division on this side of the chamber in relation to the TPP. Labor is voting for the TPP enabling legislation, in contrast to its national platform. It's going to allow ISDS provisions to be included in the TPP agreement. It is also going to allow the waiving of labour market testing. They are going to do that knowing they could stop it. Centre Alliance, One Nation and the Greens are prepared to vote it down and only need Labor to stop those cancerous provisions being in that particular bill. They know they can stop it, but they have no courage of conviction. That has led to the same situation that Senator Paterson was describing before, where we now see, inside the Labor Party, significant division and we are starting to see leaks popping out through media channels. That, of course, is exactly what happened on the other side of the chamber.
So my message is to both the government and the Labor Party. The government should seriously consider introducing an emissions intensity scheme to deliver industry and consumers significant reductions in power prices. The Australian Labor Party should seriously reconsider its decision to wave through the TPP without any changes to the ISDS clauses and with labour market testing waived. They need to remember who their supporter base is.
Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (16:46): A good government would govern for all Australians. It would ensure that it worked to bring Australians together, rather than constantly allowing division and discord, hatred and lies and attacks on those who cannot defend themselves in this parliament, which takes place from time to time. First Nations people do not see the current Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government leading or, in fact, governing for us. We saw the debacle that took place when the Uluru statement came to this place. It was not even immediately brought to this chamber. It was leaked to some newspaper in Queensland and dribbled out to say there was no interest in acknowledging First Nations people either by way of legislation or by way of constitutional guarantee.
Then we get the absolute absurdity of an envoy being appointed to represent First Nations people. I'm not sure to whom—is it to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, or the Prime Minister, or is it for the First Nations to be representing themselves back through this envoy, Mr Abbott, to one or other of those ministers? I don't know what resources he's got. I don't even know what he's going to do. He's appointed himself to be the schoolmaster of Indigenous kids around Australia, as if many of those families can't look after their own kids. There is an assumption that we cannot look after ourselves and we need a special envoy. One of my friends, who is very ill, when he heard of this—he's a West Australian—said, 'What we need is an Abbott-proof fence. We need to keep this bloke away from us.' Because when he came into power and was supervising the place as the Prime Minister, he called the homelands, where people live in poverty in remote communities, a lifestyle choice. He said the Eora people basically didn't exist. There was empty bush, and the invasion of these lands was a blessing upon us. In 2014 he said, 'When you look around at the glorious city of Sydney, as we see the extraordinary development, it's hard to think that back in 1788 there was nothing but bush.' This is the envoy to the First Nations of this country. What an insult. What an arrogant position the current Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, has taken. He hasn't defined what his position is. He hasn't shown us what he is prepared to do. He hasn't even made a statement as to the obligations of this particular envoy.
Again, when Mr Abbott was the Prime Minister and Mr Hockey was the Treasurer, they slashed the budget to Indigenous programs, which has left us with legacies that we're still trying to mop up. We've seen in recent times the role of the Minister for Indigenous Affairs—I don't know what his role is in relation to this envoy—in slashing the remote housing program, one of the key factors to get social determinants of health actually fixed and to give people, kids and families a decent quality of life. This government have just slashed that and decided that Western Australians, Queenslanders and people in South Australia are of no regard—these are remote Indigenous peoples.
Again, under the community development scheme—I hope the envoy is going to fix this because people are penalised by this draconian program that puts people on penalties for eight weeks, trying to survive without food—in fact, it's a starvation program. It's a horrid program. It creates poverty and despair, and I'm not sure how he's going to help the Minister for Indigenous Affairs fix this or help us fix the problem with his current government.
What we need is a united government that's not divided and can talk to its colleagues, have debates, have arguments but come out with consensus, a clear strategy and a clear approach as to how we're going to get behind the constitutional recognition of the First Nations and social policies that are, in fact, going to lead to equality. We've got some truth-telling to do about how the First Nations people are being denied their rightful place in this country. Thank you.
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia) (16:51): I'll agree with Senator Dodson on at least one thing: unity is important. On this side of the chamber, we have seen a government that is getting on with the job of delivering for Australians. Senator Watt is having a chuckle over there—and he must have had a chuckle when he read the paper this morning with the inside information on the caucus meeting, showing division over trade revealed for all to see, including very fine detail as to what was actually said in that meeting. I'm sure Senator Watt would have had a chuckle then.
What that reveals is an opposition with significant problems, and it comes at a time when we see right around the world a belief in the benefits of trade being challenged by a return to a populist view of economics. Clearly, that is strongly at play in the Labor Party of today where you've got a risk to the benefits of free trade when Australian businesses, Australian workers and Australians on the whole know that Australia is at the end of the line. We are a trading nation. If we do not trade, we have nothing. We need to trade with the rest of the world. In Western Australia, some 95 per cent of the wheat grown needs to be exported. There is no domestic market for it. With our livestock and so many areas of our agricultural production and mineral wealth that we export to the world, we are a trading nation and an exporting nation. We need to develop those trade links with the rest of the world in order to generate the wealth, in order to drive those businesses and in order to drive the jobs and the wages growth that all Australians want and which this government has been delivering.
My two colleagues who spoke before me, Senator Hume and Senator Paterson, talked about the jobs being created, so I won't go into that in detail. But 1,144,500 jobs—more than achieving the commitment of this government to deliver a million jobs in two terms. What do jobs do? Jobs give incomes to families. Jobs give people hope. Jobs give people dignity. The vast majority of those jobs are in the private sector. The majority of those jobs were full-time jobs. This is an unashamedly good-news story built on the back of a stronger economy and significantly positive economic reforms that this government has undertaken over the last five years.
The last quarterly results that came out show an Australian economy growing at 3.4 per cent, surpassing market expectation significantly. In fact, Australia is now in its 27th year of consecutive economic growth—the highest growth rate since 2012, a year, I will note, that was the height of the mining boom. Our economy is growing at a stronger rate than the world's seven largest advanced economies, the G7: the United States, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom and Japan. And we are growing faster than the OECD average. If you listened to those opposite, you'd think that perhaps something very different was the case, but in actual fact our economy is performing extraordinarily well.
And it's not an imbalanced growth; that growth is being shared across the economy and across all states. The strongest growth was, in fact, in South Australia. Victoria is next and then Tasmania—not necessarily the states you would think of as being those driving the economic strength of Australia. But, of course, all states grew in that particular quarter, contributing to that nominal GDP growth rate for the year of 4.7 per cent as of September 2018. That beat the budget forecast of 4.25 per cent.
This means that in the economy no one sector needs to do the heavy lifting. We're not relying on the mining sector to drive economic growth, jobs and opportunities for Australians. It's a broad based economic growth that is good for all Australians. Again, it's good for Australians because it delivers those jobs. It delivers those high-quality jobs—those full-time jobs, those jobs that put food on the table for families and which give opportunities for gain further knowledge, to go and complete more education, and to gain the dignity that exists from having a job in a positive economy.
Household spending is above the long-term average, demonstrating confidence in the economy—confidence by the Australian people. That, in turn, is supporting this strong job creation achieved by the coalition government. And with job creation and a low unemployment rate, that will flow through into wages growth.
For my home state of Western Australia, the consistency in this government has delivered a significant reform to a very intractable problem, which was the GST issue. Since July 2018, along with the release of the Productivity Commission report, we have proposed reforms vital to fixing the issue of GST-sharing arrangements. This government wants to make the GST-sharing arrangements fairer, particularly in light of the situation in WA, whilst also making sure that no state is worse off. Currently—we all know this—Western Australia receives 47c in every dollar. That would jump to 70c and then to 75c under this government's plan. That results in a significant extra amount to spend on things such as schools, hospitals and other services over the next eight years: $4.7 billion. So we see a government that is actually delivering on the ground, delivering for my home state of Western Australia.
What is the flow-on effect of all of this economic growth which I have mentioned, and fixing economic problems like the GST-sharing arrangements and delivering a million-plus jobs into the economy—a vast majority of which, I will say again, are in the private sector and a majority of which are full-time jobs? It's less welfare dependency; it's fewer people who are actually relying on the welfare system. We have seen the percentage of working-age Australians on welfare falling to 15.1 per cent, the lowest rate of welfare dependency in over 25 years. On this side of the chamber, that is unmistakably a positive thing. But I do wonder if that's how those opposite feel.
New welfare reform measures have made the welfare system fairer, more equitable and easier to understand. We have strengthened mutual obligation requirements and are providing more incentives to help people move from welfare to work, and that's what they've done. We have seen jobs created and the welfare rolls fall. This is unashamedly good for the economy as a whole, taking the burden off taxpayers, allowing money to be redirected to important government spending and to tax cuts. It also means that people who are no longer on the welfare roll have a chance of breaking the cycle of welfare dependency that every study shows and everybody knows is so destructive to individual and family wellbeing.
We do believe that the best form of welfare is a job. We've delivered those million-plus jobs over the past five and a bit years, in less than two terms of government, and we will continue to deliver, because that is what this side of the chamber does for the Australian people. We deliver what we say we're going to deliver. We deliver good government and we deliver good economic management, and that allows us to provide such things as income tax relief to hardworking Australians. We're making income taxes lower, fairer and simpler. In 2018-19, around 4.4 million Australians will get tax relief of $530 per year and over 10 million taxpayers will get some tax relief. By the time our tax plan is fully implemented, we will see 94 per cent of taxpayers pay no more than 32.5 cents in the dollar. This is a great economic reform for Australia. It will allow Australian families to keep more of their own hard-earned money and invest that money in their families, their own future, their own education and their own wellbeing. It will give people opportunities into the future—opportunities to perhaps start a small business and create the new jobs of the future, which deliver such benefits to all Australians.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (17:01): One of the many things you learn as a member of parliament, or even working in this building, is to sniff the air. You can feel the tempo in here. I don't think there's anyone working in this chamber at the moment who doesn't feel this government has lost control—total chaos. We've now got the Governor-General's address-in-reply speeches on the parliamentary schedule—on the Dynamic Red. You know they're scraping the bottom of the barrel when they have to bring up the in-reply speeches to the Governor-General's speech, which was delivered nearly two and a half years ago. We've seen the Liberals come in here and filibuster the most obscure bills during the Committee of the Whole stages. Senator Macdonald has been on his feet for nearly half the time we've been in the chamber this week—break the glass and roll out Senator Macdonald if you want a good filibuster. We've seen it. And what did we see this morning? We saw a piece of legislation written for Senator Leyonhjelm, and a minister who couldn't answer the most basic questions. This government has lost control, but I don't want anybody listening to this debate to think it can be seen just in the small things.
Stretch your mind back to only a week ago. We have a government whose numbers are so tight in the House—they are teetering on the edge of a no-confidence motion—that they had to send a junior minister to one of the most important meetings of the International Whaling Commission in 30 years. They couldn't send the environment minister, they couldn't send the Prime Minister and they couldn't even send the foreign minister. They couldn't afford to let anyone go, because their numbers are so tight in this place that they are hanging onto control by the tips of their fingernails.
The week before that we saw a meeting of the Pacific Island leaders putting out videos, one of which I shared on my Facebook page, slamming the Australian government for their lack of action on emissions and on an electricity sector policy to meet our Paris targets. Yesterday, we heard the chair of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, which was recently awarded half a billion dollars of public money, say to a Senate committee that he believed that not only is the Great Barrier Reef in danger from rising emissions but indeed the world's coral reefs are all in danger from rising emissions. This is from a guy who was the CEO of Esso, or ExxonMobil, 30 years ago. He was telling the Senate that all our world's reefs are now in danger on the same day that our new energy minister in that other place was telling the Australian parliament that they have no policy for renewable energy beyond 2020. There is no Renewable Energy Target and no policy for renewables at a time when we most desperately need to reduce emissions.
This is a government that has a by-election looming in the seat of Wentworth. This is a government and a political party that is wracked by internal divisions following the second knifing of a Prime Minister in the last four years. If you want to see how divided this political party is, just have a look at the last votes when Mr Scott Morrison became Prime Minister elect by his own party. Not only did he fail to take more votes off Mr Peter Dutton than Mr Malcolm Turnbull did but he actually lost five votes to Mr Peter Dutton. That's how serious the situation is in the Liberal Party. I've seen it, and it goes back to that first comment about the tempo; even today's flaccid attempt to stand in here and mount some kind of resistance on their government doing a good job—
Senator Molan: That's not very nice!
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Yes, some men don't like that word. I do appreciate that, Senator Molan! Their flaccid resistance in this place today to mount a case for their government is very much what we've seen all week. More than half their senators aren't in here helping. They're not in here helping. I haven't seen them on speaking lists, probably because half of them have been moved from the frontbench to the backbench in recent weeks. This government is on the edge of losing control, but that's okay, because we want an election and we want to boot them out. (Time expired)
DOCUMENTS
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources
Consideration
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (17:07): by leave—I move:
That the Senate take note of document no. 2.
Today we have seen the release of mortality statistics from the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 Livestock mortalities during export by sea report for the period 1 January to 30 June 2018, and they make for grim reading. Thousands of sheep are dying as these live export ships ply the seas in their trade of misery. We are still in the northern summer period for the Middle East, where oppressive heat conditions mean temperatures are reaching above 40 degrees. These are exactly the same conditions the infamous Awassi Express sailed in, which led to the extreme cruelty that we saw on 60 Minutes.
And now the Morrison government has approved the Maysora to go to the Middle East with tens of thousands of sheep. This is an incredibly reckless decision. Sheep are almost guaranteed to die of extreme heat stress. So much for our agricultural minister's crocodile tears for animals when he said that it was bullshit that sheep continue to die at sea on live export ships. For the federal government to give the go-ahead to a new shipment when they haven't even released their review of the live export regulator shows how little they think of this process. They're only interested in paying lip-service to animal welfare and just ticking the boxes.
In May this year the Australian Veterinary Association said that there shouldn't be shipments in the northern summer due to the heat stress risks. And the RSPCA has said that this advice was consistent with the outcomes of the recommendations made by Dr Michael McCarthy. But instead of acting on these recommendations, the government has opted for further testing and consultation, all while continuing to approve further export permits.
Prime Minister Morrison has gone out of his way to humiliate his Liberal colleagues, who actually care about this issue. I'm sorry to say that the time for inside-the-tent diplomacy really has passed. Liberal MPs who support the Greens bill to end the live export trade for sheep must walk the talk and bring it on for debate in the House of Representatives. What more evidence do we need that the Prime Minister does not care about the views of MPs in his own party? If you want to end the long-haul export of sheep to the Middle East, the only way is to vote with your head and your heart.
This ship, the Maysora, has a particularly troubled history. It's an old ship and it is completely unable to meet community expectations. On previous voyages, there were reports of sheep not being able to lie down and having inadequate access to food and water, as well as many sheep mortalities. I also note today's news that 19 crew members of the Maysora, which was preparing to load sheep on the docks in Fremantle for the Middle East, presented themselves to Australian Border Force officers on Monday night, claiming that they had gone unpaid for a long period of time and they did not want to return to the ship. It seems that live exports are not only bad for sheep; they're also bad for workers.
Going ahead with shipments before the review of the regulator is released just proves what we have known all along: that the history and the industry will not change. It really is just a matter of time before we get yet another expose of animal cruelty, the same as we have been getting consistently for 30 long years now. It's time to break this government's fake outrage cycle, commit to real action and end the cruelty. The only option is to ban live exports and to transition to the vastly more profitable and humane chilled meat export industry. No more excuses. The time for action is now.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ): Senator Faruqi, I didn't pull you up at the time, because it wasn't the most egregious breach I've ever heard, but some of the language you used was below the standard expected of the chamber. Even though I know you were quoting someone else, I would ask you to consider that in future.
Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia) (17:12): I rise to take note of the same document. I will talk about outrage to start. I'll talk about the outrage of 1,000 farmers in a community hall in Katanning a few months ago about the threat from radical activist groups and some in this place to their livelihood, to their business, to their economic wellbeing and to their future, based on misinformation and half-truths. I have the document we are considering today in front of me, the livestock mortalities documentation, which is regularly reported as per the legal requirements on the industry. It shows further positive results from the industry in achieving good animal welfare outcomes.
This government has taken note of what occurred on ships last year. There were some particularly egregious instances that the public were rightly outraged at. But the track record of the industry is very good. We see today that mortality rates are 0.6 per cent amongst sheep and 0.14 per cent amongst cattle. There are a very small number of buffaloes that are exported live, and the mortality rate there is 0.08 per cent. We've seen an ongoing commitment from all parts of this industry to improving standards.
The government did ask Dr McCarthy to do a review. The review has reported, and the government has accepted those recommendations. Some of them required further work. There were clearly recommendations that needed to be able to be monitored and measured before they were actually implemented, and how that was to be done in a practical way needed to be worked through. That is an ongoing effort, and the government is committed to it. But the ship that has been in the media today that is going out shortly is largely a cattle ship, and I believe that those directly opposite still support the export of cattle in this way. I certainly hope they do. I certainly hope senators like Senator Watt from Queensland, if they no longer support the export of live cattle, tell the electorate that before the next election—
Senator Watt: We've never said we support that! We were talking about sheep; they're different to cattle.
Senator BROCKMAN: I think you should tell the electorate in Queensland if you're changing your mind on cattle, Senator Watt, because a lot of these issues are being conflated together when, in actual fact, these are very important parts of both the sheep industry, particularly in Western Australia, my home state, and South Australia and the cattle industry across the north of Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland. These are very important issues and getting the live sheep trade going again from Western Australia is a very important part of the economic wellbeing and the future of the industry in Western Australia, and of the economic wellbeing of 5½ thousand families who significantly rely on that trade. If you had been at that public meeting in Katanning a few months ago, you would have seen how dreadfully impacted those families were by what was going on, not only by the way their industry was being characterised, particularly by the Greens, but also by the abandonment of the industry by those in the Labor Party directly opposite us.
The industry does have a track record of positive outcomes and improving outcomes and it can do better; it will do better. This government is committed to allowing it to do better and has made a significant set of changes in order to do that, such as having an independent observer on every vessel leaving Australia. Changes like this have made and will continue to make a positive difference. We need to see the trade from a Western Australian perspective particularly continuing. We need to see strong support—I would hope bipartisan support—for the trade, not just the cattle sector of the trade but the whole trade going forward.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Procedure Committee
Report
Senator WATT (Queensland) (17:17): I present the Procedure Committee's third report of 2018 on disorder outside formal proceedings and I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
This report flows from the statement made by the President on 13 August which dealt with an exchange between two senators on last sitting day in June. From a technical perspective, although the exchange occurred in the Senate while it was sitting, it occurred outside formal proceedings. The President asked the committee to consider the adequacy of the Senate's orders and practices to deal with allegations of disorder in these circumstances. The committee endorsed the approach signalled in the President's statement; in particular, the committee strongly endorsed the President's observations that this is rightly a place of vigorous debate, but personal abuse has no place in this chamber, particularly if it targets personal attributes such as race or gender; nor does the abuse of epithets or labels have a place. The use of such language does nothing to facilitate the operation of a chamber and free debate within it. We are all capable of vigorously arguing our case without resorting to it.
The technicality that conduct alleged to be disorderly occurs alongside but not as part of formal proceedings does not prevent the chair dealing with it in accordance with the standing orders. This is no different than the ability of the chair to deal with points of order about disorderly interjections that are not heard by the chair but are reported by other senators. However, the committee agreed it was generally undesirable to change the basis for dealing with disorder, which requires senators to raise points of order at the time of the incident to which they relate. This ensures those involved are in the Senate when the matter is addressed.
The committee agreed to draw senators' attention to this requirement but also recognised that a senator may not be in a position to draw interjections or other disorderly conduct to the attention of the chair at the time in all circumstances. The committee, therefore, also reminds senators that they have the capacity to make personal explanations by leave under standing order 190. This presents an opportunity to raise such matters outside the strictures of the process for determining points of order. I commend the report to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Scrutiny of Bills Committee
Scrutiny Digest
Senator WATT (Queensland) (17:19): Before I deal with this one, I flag that hopefully I will be dealing with one other report at some point over the next hour. We're waiting on finalisation of that.
On behalf of Senator Polley I present Scrutiny Digest 11 of 2018 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills.
Senator RICE (Victoria) (17:20): I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I thought it was worth bringing to the chamber's attention some of the findings of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee on the legislation that we were considering in scrutiny of bills. In particular, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee was considering the proposed private senator's legislation from Senator Hanson regarding making it an offence for a person to have a full face covering in a public place—her 'ban the burqa bill'. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee had some quite firm views on this proposed legislation. The committee said:
… it may be considered that the bill might restrict both religious freedom and freedom of expression, and as such, may unduly trespass on personal rights and liberties.
The committee notes that the provisions of the bill may unduly trespass on personal rights and liberties. I thought this was worth bringing to the attention of the Senate this afternoon, given that religious freedom is such an ongoing issue in our deliberations at the current time, particularly with our Greens motion that just passed through the Senate in the last hour calling upon the government to table the final report into religious freedoms conducted by Phillip Ruddock. We're wanting the government to table that. The government's now been sitting on that report for the last four months. I think it is important to bring to attention the fact that we have to be paying attention to these issues of both religious freedom and religious discrimination. This is in the context of the rise of religious intolerance in our society today. We need to be very clear in this place that not only do we want to be tolerant but we should be celebrating religious diversity.
As I said, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee says that Senator Hanson's private senator's bill may unduly trespass on personal rights and liberties and restrict both religious freedom and freedom of expression. We know that Senator Hanson does such things regularly in this place. In terms of attacking the rights of people to be of the Muslim faith, she attacks them mercilessly. She insults, humiliates and intimidates, in the words of the 18C legislation. She vilifies, denigrates, defames, belittles, abuses, insults, smears, slanders, stigmatises and denounces. This bill fits into that context. We know that we have got far Right senators in this place who are intolerant and who will attack people on the basis of their religion. We need to know where this government stands and where our new Prime Minister stands. It seems, from our new Prime Minister, that he's all in favour of religious freedom when it comes to further discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer people but is silent on protecting religious freedom when it's protecting the freedom to hold that religion and express that faith, particularly if that faith is not Christianity.
The Scrutiny of Bills Committee noted that, in the event that Senator Hanson's bill progresses further through the parliament, the committee may set out its scrutiny concerns in greater detail in a further Scrutiny Digest. I think it would be very helpful to both the scrutiny of bills consideration of Senator Hanson's bill and for all of us to actually have a lot more information on the table. The Ruddock review was intended to do that. Following the passage of the marriage equality legislation, the Ruddock review was intended to place all that information about balancing religious freedom and religious discrimination. It's way beyond time that we as a parliament and the Australian community had the benefit of those findings of that Ruddock review.
As I said, the Prime Minister and his predecessor, former Prime Minister Turnbull, have now had this review for four months and yet it is still in the dark. We—not only us as parliamentarians but the wider community, and particularly the LGBTI community—are being left in the dark. It's our rights that are being considered. We want to know what Philip Ruddock's review said and how the Prime Minister is responding to those findings. We need to see the Ruddock review. I'm hopeful that the government in fact will see fit to respond to our order for the production of documents and table the Ruddock review so that we can see for ourselves all of this consideration of the various weighing up of religious freedom and religious discrimination—if this is tabled here in this place at 9.30 tomorrow morning, which is when the motion of the Senate has asked it to be tabled.
It's worth noting, when considering these issues of religious freedom, what our Senate inquiry into the exposure draft of the marriage amendment bill said when considering the issues of how you weigh the rights of LGBTI people. Yes, we achieved marriage equality, but the Ruddock review is considering these issues. Our Senate inquiry reached consensus that the right to religious freedom should be positively protected, and the committee suggests that this could be most appropriately achieved through the inclusion of religious belief as a protected attribute in federal discrimination law. That was the finding that our Senate inquiry had. We need to know whether the Ruddock review has in fact embraced that.
You would think that protecting religion as an attribute would be something that Ruddock would have canvassed. Given that we reached consensus in our Senate inquiry, you'd hope that it would be given due consideration, but what we need to know is: does the Ruddock review go further? Does it recommend further discrimination against LGBTI people? We don't know that yet. Even more, we're concerned about it because of what we have heard Prime Minister Morrison say in recent weeks. He has said that he wants to go further and allow people, schools, hospitals and institutions to discriminate further against LGBTI people in the name of religious freedom. These are important issues that need transparency. We need to have all the information on the table to have a full debate.
We achieved a lot last year in reducing discrimination against LGBTI people through achieving marriage equality, but we have a lot further that we need to go. We have to get rid of further discrimination against LGBTI people. I and the Greens are concerned that, unless we keep a focus on this and keep focused on reducing discrimination, we are going to see further religious intolerance. We will see the religious intolerance that has been identified in our Scrutiny of Bills report. We will see intolerance towards LGBTI people in the name of religion, as has been evidenced in some of the statements by Prime Minister Morrison. In conclusion, I think it's very worthwhile to draw the attention of the Senate to the findings of our Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I implore the government to take note of the order for the productions of documents motion and to see fit to produce the Ruddock review tomorrow morning, as requested, for us all to consider.
Question agreed to.
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Additional Information
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (17:29): On behalf of the Chair of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into the provisions of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018.
Regulations and Ordinances Committee
Delegated Legislation Monitor
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (17:29): On behalf of the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I present the Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 11 for 2018.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Report
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (17:30): I present the 10th report of 2018 Human rights scrutiny report and seek leave to have the tabling statement incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
SENATE TABLING STATEMENT
I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' Human Rights Scrutiny Report 10 of 2018.
Of the new bills examined in Chapter 1 of this report, five have been assessed as not raising human rights concerns as they promote, permissibly limit, or do not engage, human rights. For example, the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018 seeks to introduce an entitlement to five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave. These measures promote the right of women not to be discriminated against on the basis of gender and the right to just and favourable conditions at work. The measures in the bill relating to the disclosure of private information have been assessed, in context, as being permissible limitations on the right to privacy. Overall, the measures in bill are therefore welcome from a human rights perspective.
To complete its technical assessment of compatibility with Australia's international human rights law obligations, the committee has also requested further information in relation to two pieces of legislation. For example, the committee is seeking further information about the right to freedom of expression and a measure in the Australian Federal Police Regulations.
Chapter 2 of the report contains the committee's concluded examination of two bills.
Of these, I would like to highlight the Office of National Intelligence Bill 2018 and also an issue related to the right to freedom of expression. As set out in the report, the bill would have introduced an offence that would make any person not employed by Office of National Intelligence or 'ONI' who discloses ONI information that they have received, liable to five years imprisonment, in specific circumstances. In its initial report the committee raised questions as to whether the measure was compatible with the right to freedom of expression and sought further advice from the Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General's response to the committee's inquiries discussed in this report usefully clarified that the ONI Bill would be amended to remove the section containing this offence, noting the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's recommendations in relation to similar proposed offences in the Espionage and Foreign Interference Bill. As such, this addresses concerns as to the compatibility of the particular measure with the right to freedom of expression.
I encourage my fellow Senators and others to examine the committee's latest scrutiny report to better inform their consideration of proposed legislation.
With these comments, I commend the committee's Report 10 of 2018 to the Senate.
Joint Standing Committee on Treaties
Report
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (17:30): I present the 182nd report Oil stocks contracts: Netherlands. I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Question agreed to.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee
Report
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (17:30): I present the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee on the allegations concerning the inappropriate exercise of ministerial powers with respect to the visa status of au pairs and related matters, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
This afternoon, in tabling this report, I confirm that the evidence before the committee shows that Minister Dutton had both a personal connection with the intended employers of au pairs and misled the parliament in claiming otherwise. The report reads:
It is the view of the committee that Minister Dutton had a clear personal connection and existing relationship with the intended employer of the au pair in the Brisbane case. Given his definitive answer in the House of Representatives, it is the view of the committee the minister misled Parliament in relation to this matter.
Minister Dutton was asked in the other place to categorically rule out any personal connection or relationship between the intended employer of either au pair. He began his answer saying, 'The answer's yes. I haven't received any personal benefit. I don't know these people.' This was a categorical denial that Minister Dutton had a personal relationship when his public comments, since this evidence heard during this inquiry, prove otherwise.
If he had no personal connection, then this request for intervention would have gone through the same procedures as any other ministerial intervention, the majority of ministerial interventions which go through the email accounts that everyone else is directed to when they undertake a request for a ministerial intervention. There is no basis for the minister to be able to say that he had no personal connection when the very genesis for this request came through his office because of his personal connections, not through the normal procedures of the department that people are directed to in order to request a ministerial intervention.
On that basis, there are serious and very substantial concerns about Minister Dutton's use of his ministerial powers to grant tourist visas to au pairs. I believe, and the committee has found, this undermines the integrity of Australia's immigration program. The reason there has been so much public interest and public debate about this is Australians have a right to be alarmed and upset when someone with personal connections is treated differently in the kinds of decisions that they receive from government. The report says:
Minister Dutton appears to have failed to give consideration to the damage to public confidence in the integrity of the immigration system that his actions could cause and, at best, reflects very poor judgement on the part of the minister.
As chair of the committee, I want to highlight to the chamber today that we received outstanding questions on notice from the Department of Home Affairs mere hours ago, this morning. We had 169 pages of evidence provided to the committee today, the day we were required to adopt our final report, meaning we could not consider the evidence and include it in our final report. But if we look at the evidence that we received—and I encourage people who have taken a public interest in these matters to look at those answers on notice—it confirms substantially the level of personal connection and the high level of intervention and cooperation by the minister's office with the parties asking for intervention to see these extraordinary cases being intervened in by the minister.
This evidence includes explosive emails from Minister Dutton's own Department of Home Affairs, and it demonstrates the high level of personal service the minister and his office gave in these cases, and which goes, I find, above and beyond the realms of belief. The failure of the Department of Home Affairs to provide this evidence to the committee in a timely manner is unacceptable, and characteristic, I think, of the minister's dismissive approach to this entire inquiry. I would have thought that the minister's officers, representing him in this inquiry when we heard evidence from them last week, should and could have had this information at hand when we held our hearings. Instead, I thought they came to those hearings with a view that they did not want to look too hard for the evidence so that they could obfuscate answering those questions as much as possible.
The inconsistencies presented in the department's evidence, the multiple clarifications of errors or inconsistencies in that evidence and the department's own admission that it was required to search through deficit legacy systems, including paper based records, leaves the committee in significant doubt as to whether all the relevant ministerial interventions have been captured by this inquiry. So, given this haphazard evidence, we may never know the full story or the full intentions of the minister. On that note, I wonder if that is perhaps why the new Prime Minister has stripped responsibility for Australia's immigration program away from Minister Dutton.
We can see from the evidence before the committee that, despite Minister Dutton's categorical denial, he knew the intended employer in the June 2015 case. The new evidence received today shows that Mr Dutton's own office reached out to the host family of the au pair and let them know directly that the minister's personal intervention was successful. Of all of the extraordinary humanitarian cases that require ministerial intervention, I can't but think that this is an extraordinary level of personal service provided by the minister's office and that it underscores the personal nature of those connections. It's definitely not consistent with the testimony provided during the inquiry by other migration agents about how these things are done.
In the same case, a senior departmental liaison officer in Minister Dutton's office stressed that the au pair should not be held in immigration detention. The email states, 'We also need to ensure that,' the redacted name, 'is not held in detention overnight.' Frankly, this is not a normal occurrence for someone who has had their visa cancelled at an Australian airport. If the Australian Border Force suspects you of defying the conditions of your visa, you are normally removed from the country on the next available flight.
The late released evidence shows that in the November 2015 Adelaide case the individual involved was in Australia to work as an au pair and to work for her host family at polo events. The Australian Border Force, the operational arm of the minister's own department, put forward evidence that showed that they disagreed with ministerial submissions, stating that they thought it was inappropriate for the minister to intervene. We had to fight very hard to get that evidence before the committee in terms of drilling down into those questions, and it was very clear that the government was very reluctant for that evidence to come to light. The duty inspector at the command centre emailed, stating:
The ABF does not agree with the content or think it appropriate that the minister intervene.
The individual in this case was already on a flight about to be deported from Australia and was offloaded from that flight before the actual ministerial intervention took place. How extraordinary is that?
I note Minister Dutton also missed signing the decision instrument for his ministerial intervention. So it's very clear today that this evidence, handed over—because the committee asked for it—by Minister Dutton's own department, further reinforces the view provided by the committee in this report that Minister Dutton acted to grant visas to au pairs at airports because he was helping out those with contacts—his mates. (Time expired)
Senator MOLAN (New South Wales) (17:41): Even in the short time I have been here in this place, there are times that I can recognise when this place operates as it should, when it operates in a way that the people expect. This is not one of those times. Use of the term 'explosive' in relation to evidence that has been put before this committee is totally unacceptable. There was no explosion; there was a damp squib.
The dissenting report finds this inquiry has been a shambolic witch-hunt. The inquiry's findings mirror the Labor Party's initial talking points and that's all, which actually fall outside the terms of reference of this inquiry. Labor senators were forced to constantly change the terms of debate in order to try and locate a smoking gun. After the extensive and expensive hearings not only were they unable to locate a smoking gun; they learned that there was absolutely no gun at all. Let me quickly point out the main points of the dissenting report:
The undisputed evidence provided to the Committee was very clear:
That of the 24 subclass 600 interventions signed by Minister Dutton, only two (the already publicised Brisbane and Adelaide cases) related to au pairs;
In both of these cases, the Minister accepted the Department's recommendation to grant a short-term visitor visa to the two individuals involved;
Continuing with the dissenting report:
That neither the Minister nor his office had any contact with the Department on either the Brisbane or Adelaide cases, other than through the usual channel of the Departmental Liaison Officer;
• That no additional costs were incurred by the Department on the two cases;
and
The Minister acted within Ministerial Intervention powers as prescribed under the Migration Act 1958 and the Department's Guidelines for Ministerial Intervention.
What does this tell us? I quote again from the dissenting report:
The evidence has disclosed no instances—
I repeat: no instances—
of inappropriate conduct by the Minister for Home Affairs as has been so recklessly alleged by Labor and Green Senators. The findings listed in the Committee Report are unsustainable.
It is long-standing practice in the Westminster System, including by convention in Australia, that the two Houses of Parliament do not seek to sit in review of each other.
It was highly irregular for Labor senators to seek to call Minister Dutton as a member of the other House. Members of all persuasions have long followed this convention.
If we needed more evidence of the shambolic nature of this inquiry—no explosion—I note the chair's draft of the committee report was provided to the committee an hour and a half after the Senate adjourned on 18 September 2018, the day before the report was scheduled to be tabled. It is of grave concern that material provided to the committee constantly found its way to the media before being provided to committee members. This included correspondence from Mr Roman Quaedvlieg, which was published in Fairfax Media ahead of even the secretariat receiving a copy. Much material was also sent directly to the chair of the committee instead of the committee secretariat, and this tainted the whole inquiry. I also note the committee did not seek to call and cross-examine Mr Roman Quaedvlieg after he made his allegations.
This inquiry was established by Labor and Greens senators in an effort to examine the provision of visas to au pairs by the Minister for Home Affairs. This came after several months of Labor senators and supporters, including Mr Quaedvlieg, seeking to generate suspicion and hype around allegations now shown to be completely false. This included the leaking of internal emails from the Department of Home Affairs, a matter which has been referred to the Australian Federal Police. Despite Labor senators trawling for evidence in the public hearing and correspondence back and forth with the department, there was no evidence to suggest that the minister acted inappropriately. It is now clear, in contrast to media reporting, that only two visas relating to au pairs were considered by the minister, and in both cases the Department of Home Affairs recommended to the minister that he should intervene to provide a short-term tourist visa.
I should address the evidence of Mr Quaedvlieg in some detail. After all, this is the Labor Party's Godwin Grech moment. It is clear that the evidence of the disgraced former Australian Border Force Commissioner was completely lacking credibility, given it was so easily disproved. By disgraced, I mean that Mr Quaedvlieg has been the subject of an investigation by the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, resulting in his termination as commissioner for misconduct. I also note Mr Quaedvlieg remains under criminal investigation by that organisation, the ACLEI. As I said, this is Labor's Godwin Grech moment.
Let me highlight the lack of credibility in Mr Quaedvlieg's evidence. In his 5 September correspondence to the committee, he claimed:
In mid-June 2015 I received a call from the Chief of Staff for the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Craig MacLachlan. He told me that he was ringing me on behalf of Minister Dutton, whom he referred to as 'the boss'. He told me that the Minister's friend, whom he referred to as 'the boss's mate in Brisbane', had encountered a problem with his prospective au pair who had been detained at Brisbane Airport by immigration officials due to an anomaly with her visa.
Contrary to this, in a public statement the minister noted:
Mr Maclachlan was not employed by me at that time and didn't join my staff until 7 October 2015.
Equally, it is impossible for Mr Maclachlan to have had any knowledge of the matter, at that time, because he was not even employed by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.
This is not in dispute. There are other false assertions in Mr Quaedvlieg's 5 September letter, including the assertion he was the Australian Border Force Commissioner. This is false, given he was not appointed as ABF Commissioner until July 2015, as was Also, on the assertion he returned Mr Maclachlan's phone call to advise him of the outcome, there were no emails or other evidence to support Mr Quaedvlieg's version of events.
Following the complete dismantling of Mr Quaedvlieg's claims, he wrote to the committee and desperately sought to create a new straw man:
I concede that I may have been honestly mistaken in anchoring that conversation to a date in June 2015 however in light of the remarkably coincidental information I will provide to you below I contend that not only is it an understandable error, but moreover renders the only logical conclusion that a second Brisbane ministerial intervention case may merit the Committee's further inquiry.
Following these assertions, the Department of Home Affairs was then asked to provide all intervention briefs signed by the minister. The department was clear in its response. The only two cases considered by the minister relating to au pairs were the Brisbane and Adelaide cases, and there were no additional cases involving a person being stopped at Brisbane Airport.
Given the shambolic nature of this witch-hunt, coalition senators recommend:
1.The Minister for Home Affairs be commended for his prudent and diligent work as a Minister;
2.Mr Quaedvlieg's correspondence be referred to the Privileges Committee and be considered as to whether Privilege should apply to these documents; and
3.The Minister for Home Affairs ignore the Majority Report's findings.
As I said, there are times when this place operates as it should and in a way the Australian people understand and appreciate. This politically and personally motivated witch-hunt is not one of them. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave not granted.
Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (17:50): I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on this report. Although the committee was required to conduct its inquiry and present this report in a very short period of time, I believe the committee has done an excellent job in marshalling all the available facts on this matter and in getting to the heart of the issue. I thank all the members of the committee and the staff who supported us in our work.
The question at issue here is whether Minister Dutton exercised the discretionary powers available to him under the act in a manner consistent with both the act and with the Statement of Ministerial Standards. It is not suggested that Mr Dutton acted illegally or unlawfully, or that he acted in a manner that was of benefit to himself. What is suggested, and what I think has been proved as a result of our inquiry, is that he used his discretionary powers in a way that gave preferential treatment to certain individuals who were known to him and who had privileged access to his office. One case was a favour to a family that is a donor to the Liberal Party, and another case benefitted a family that Mr Dutton had known for a long time.
Section 195A of the Migration Act gives the minister the discretion to grant a visa to a person who would not be entitled to one if the usual procedures were followed if the minister believes this to be in the public interest. The committee therefore asked: what public interest was served by granting three-month visas to the individuals concerned in the so-called Brisbane and Adelaide cases? These individuals came to Australia purportedly as tourists but with the intention of working as au pairs, in contravention of the terms of their visas. One of them had prior form in this regard. That was why the Australian Border Force denied them entry. The minister then intervened to overrule the ABF and grant these individuals visas. He said he had done this as some sort of a humanitarian act. The committee fails to see how the minister's actions were in the public interest or, for that matter, what humanitarian issue existed that the minister's action addressed.
Our scepticism about this was reinforced when we heard evidence from several witnesses of a number of cases in which the minister did not use his powers to grant a visa. These were cases of genuine humanitarian need, cases in which the public interest might well have been served by ministerial intervention. Yet in these cases there was no intervention. Why was this? We can only conclude that it was because these cases did not have the sponsorship of people known to the minister, people with influence with the minister or his office, or people who were Liberal Party donors. These were people who had privileged access.
There is a principle in the law known as mens rea, 'the guilty mind'. If the minister had a genuine belief that he had done nothing wrong, he would have accepted our invitation—and it was just an invitation—to come to the hearing and explain his actions. He didn't; he refused to do so. I think it's clear what the minister did, and why he did it. And I think he knows that his actions, while legal, were not in the public interest and were not in conformity with the Statement of Ministerial Standards. His subsequent bluster does not conceal that evidence of a guilty mind.
It's clear he misled the parliament, and in my opinion Minister Dutton should resign. And if he doesn't, the Prime Minister should sack him. Since it doesn't look as though either of those things will happen, the only course open to us is to censure the minister so that the Australian people can see for themselves the truth about his actions.
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (17:54): I would just assure Senator Kitching that the minister won't be resigning and he won't be sacked by the Prime Minister. If it will stop her worrying about whether either of those things will happen, let me put her mind at rest: they never will happen.
Sometimes Senate committees can do very good things for the parliament and for Australians. But sometimes, and, regrettably, all too often these days, they simply become political witch-hunts against individual ministers, and they are always promoted by the Labor Party and the Greens political party. This is a classic case in point. I remember this committee had three attempts, that I can recall, to pillory former Senator Brandis. Why? He was a very effective minister, he was Leader of the Government in the Senate, he ran his portfolio impeccably and he did it in a way that benefited Australia. Notwithstanding that, the Labor Party and the Greens got together and had inquiries with took the resources of the Senate—which are the resources of the taxpayer—on wild political witch-hunts. If they were political processes that were funded by the Labor Party, the unions, the Greens political party and their substantial corporate donors, that's fair enough. But when these purely political activities happen, using the resources of the parliament for political purposes, that really diminishes the whole Senate committee process.
This particular inquiry got off to a bad start. There is, as Senator Molan has said, no smoking gun. In fact, there's not even a gun in this. The minister, as the sensible evidence in this inquiry showed, had done nothing wrong. In fact, ministers are paid to make decisions. Can I say to Senator Kitching: perhaps I don't fit into the category of people she says Mr Dutton bends over to, but I have known Mr Dutton for a while and I am a member of his political party, and I can tell you that I have asked him to do things in this same area and he hasn't done them. He hasn't done them.
I have to say that other immigration ministers over the years, both Labor and Liberal, have used the discretionary power they're given to override the decisions of bureaucrats—and that's what they're paid to do. In fact, I think ministers should indeed do that more often, because ministers are actually accountable to the parliament and, eventually, to the electors. I am one who would urge ministers to take on more and more areas where they make the decisions and don't simply tick off on something the bureaucracy has recommended.
As I said, this inquiry got off to a bad start. I had indicated to the inquiry that, as deputy chairman of this committee, there was one date that I was not available to do committee hearings on because I had a longstanding medical procedure—a minor medical procedure—planned. It had been planned for three or four months, so I wasn't going to change it. I know my friends opposite will be pleased to know when I say as an aside that the medical procedure went well and there were no dramas with it. But I'd set the procedure down for a particular day, and that was the day, would you believe, that the Labor-Greens majority on the inquiry decided to have the first hearing. At that stage, it was to be the only hearing. I'm grateful that my friend and colleague Senator Abetz was able to fill in at short notice and to represent the other government senator on this inquiry. But that's the way the whole inquiry went, to the extent where last night at 8 pm we got the final draft of the chair's report of the committee hearings.
I know we're pretty good on our side; I know we work hard and we work all hours of the day and night. But getting the chair's report, which all of the committee are supposed to read, assess, suggest amendments to or, if they don't agree, draft a dissenting report on is very difficult to do between 8 pm and nine o'clock the next morning, when the committee were to meet. It showed all the way through that there was a lack of good faith in this inquiry. It was an inquiry that wasn't interested in the facts and wasn't interested in fairness but simply sought to attack a very effective minister.
The Labor Party and their mates in the Greens political party and in GetUp! and the radical conservation movement—some of the usual suspects, I call them, in the boat people debate, the illegal maritime arrivals debate—are determined to get rid of Mr Dutton. Why? Because he has administered so well what the Australian people want—that is, protecting our borders. He has taken on from the previous minister, who I'm proud to say is now the Prime Minister, the Operation Sovereign Borders that stopped the 50,000 people coming into Australia illegally and that stopped what we know were some 1,200 people, would-be entrants, who drowned at sea because of Labor's policy. And it was Labor's policy, I might say, and it was totally supported by the Greens political party at the time. Mr Dutton has effectively administered that and because of that he's become the target of the Labor Party, the Greens political party, GetUp! and all the other associated radical ridiculous groups that try to have an influence on Australia. And they're determined to try and get rid of Mr Dutton electorally.
As I've said to the media, I don't think Mr Dutton is in any trouble at all at the next election. It was never an easy seat. It was a seat that was held by the Labor Party and then by Cheryl Kernot, who was once a Democrat and then switched over to the Labor Party and became friendly with different Labor Party politicians. Mr Dutton won that seat from her and he's held it ever since. It was never an easy seat, but he is such a good local member that I'm quite confident that he will easily hold it at the next election. More than that, he is a very effective minister and one who does his job very well. He's clear, he's concise and he's not one who can be bullied. But when the need arises he is one who is very compassionate and can and does make decisions to help other people.
I must say, I've grown to like my colleagues on the committee, even though I don't like their political approach and the fact that they use the Senate's money to investigate purely political activities. The evidence has shown in this hearing, and by any fair assessment of the facts, that Mr Dutton has nothing to answer for. He was criticised for not accepting the majority Senate invitation to appear before the committee. Why would he bother to waste his time? He has got far more serious things to do as a very busy minister and, quite frankly, he knew, as I knew, that the report had been written before the first word of evidence had been taken. We all knew what the majority committee would end up finding, and Mr Dutton, as I say, has far more worthwhile things to do with his time than add to the media circus by appearing before this committee.
Regrettably, this report puts Senate committees backwards a couple of decades and is one that very few people will bother reading and even fewer people will bother taking any notice of.
Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (18:04): This report tells a sad and sordid story of a rampant abuse of power by the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Dutton. It reveals how personal relationships and political donations can influence ministerial decisions in this country. It shows how Minister Dutton was prepared to overrule his own department and intervene to ensure that people who his department believed would be likely to breach their visa conditions if they were allowed to enter the country in fact could enter the country.
It ended up revealing far more than just the privilege of access, the power of political donations and the way that Minister Dutton handles his portfolio. It revealed Minister Peter Dutton to be someone who is prepared to lie to the House of Representatives. That lie occurred on 27 March this year when Mr Adam Bandt, the Greens member for Melbourne, asked Minister Dutton in question time—and I'll quote directly from Mr Bandt's question:
Can you categorically rule out any personal connection or any other relationship between you—
that is, Mr Dutton—
and the intended employer of either of the au pairs?
In response, Minister Dutton did categorically rule out any personal connection or any other relationship to either of the intended employers of the au pairs, by saying:
The answer is yes.
Of course, what this inquiry and other processes in this parliament revealed was that in fact an email was sent to Minister Dutton on Wednesday, 17 June 2015 just after 4 pm by a person whom Mr Dutton worked with in the Queensland police force that began like this:
Peter
Long-time between calls.
So here's Mr Dutton, on one hand, categorically ruling out any personal connection or any other relationship and then we have someone he worked with on the Queensland police force starting an email to Mr Dutton with the words:
Peter
Long-time between calls.
Even if we put aside the preponderance of all of the other evidence that has emerged through this parliament, through the Senate inquiry, through the media, as this saga has unfolded, that email right there puts a lie to Mr Dutton's claim that he did not have any personal connection or any other relationship with the intended employer of either of the relevant au pairs. Of course, what that means is that he's lied to the House of Representatives. What that means is that that is technically a misleading of the House of Representatives and, given that he has not at the first available opportunity come into the House of Representatives and corrected the record, he should no longer have the confidence of the House of Representatives as a minister. He should either resign or, if he fails to do that, he should be sacked by the Prime Minister. That's what should happen here.
Nobody in the country, I reckon, is going to expect Mr Dutton to do the right thing here, because he's built a political career on doing the wrong thing. This is actually a test for Mr Morrison, our new Prime Minister—for whatever reason he ascended to that position—who has to decide if the standard set by Minister Dutton is one that he, Mr Morrison, is prepared to walk past, because the standard you're prepared to walk past is the standard that you accept. If he doesn't sack Minister Dutton, he's sending a message to all of his other ministers that the longstanding Westminster convention—if you're caught out misleading the House you have to go—is not going to apply on Prime Minister Morrison's watch. Let's be clear: Minister Dutton lied to the House and he has to go. And, if he won't resign and do the right thing, the Prime Minister has to sack him. If Mr Morrison fails to sack Mr Dutton for lying to the House of Representatives—and by extension therefore lying to every single man, woman and child in this country—then it is Mr Morrison's reputation that is on the line.
It is true that this committee conducted this inquiry within a very short period of time. In fact, it was the view of the Australian Greens, which we expressed in our dissenting report, that the committee should in fact have requested a further extension to its reporting date from the Senate to give the committee the capacity and time to resolve discrepancies in evidence between the evidence given by the Department of Home Affairs and the evidence given by former Australian Border Force Commissioner Mr Roman Quaedvlieg. We also believe that an extension would have given the committee time to conduct an audit of documents and communications relevant to the inquiry that were generated and held by the Department of Home Affairs, which of course includes the Australian Border Force and the Minister for Home Affairs' office. We believe that, had the committee had an opportunity to do that rigorous audit of relevant documents, it would then have been in a place to invite Mr Quaedvlieg to attend a committee hearing to give evidence. Unfortunately, that wasn't ultimately the view of the committee.
What this committee did recommend in its majority report is particularly important and relevant. Firstly, it recommended that the government strengthen the minister's tabling statements to parliament on ministerial interventions by requiring the minister's statements to declare whether or not each ministerial intervention was 'made in accordance with ministerial guidelines'. I think that's a small but important step. Secondly, the committee recommended in its majority report that the Senate consider censuring the Minister for Home Affairs, the Hon. Peter Dutton MP, 'for the actions examined in the report, for failing to observe fairness in making official decisions as required by the Statement of Ministerial Standards'. I'll put on the record now that the Australian Greens absolutely believe the Senate should censure the minister for that. Thirdly, the majority report recommended that the minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs 'provide, within three sitting days, an explanation to the Senate responding to the matters raised in this report'. I genuinely hope that the minister in this place representing the Minister for Home Affairs acknowledges that recommendation from the majority report and is prepared to come in and make the relevant statement—that is, make an explanation to the Senate responding to the matters raised in this report.
I only have a short time left, but it does give me an opportunity to address one more matter that's emerged through this sad saga, and that is Minister Dutton's beyond-belief claim that he in fact intervened and overrode his department to allow au pairs into Australia because he believed it was a humanitarian act. Give us all a break, Minister Dutton! He is the minister who has overseen a rampant abuse of human rights on Manus Island and Nauru. He is the minister who caused humanitarian calamity after humanitarian calamity on Manus Island and Nauru. He is the minister who fights tooth and nail in the Australian legal system to keep children who are dying away from the medical help and support they so desperately need. He is the minister who colluded with the Papua New Guinean government to order the cutting off of drinking water, food, electricity and much-needed medications for over 600 people in the Lorengau detention centre on 1 November last year. He is the minister who has overseen an offshore detention regime and an onshore detention regime based on cruel— (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
Select Committee on the Future of Work and Workers
Report
Senator WATT (Queensland) (18:15): I present the report of the Select Committee on the Future of Work and Workers, together with the Hansard recording of proceedings and documents presented to the committee, and move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I seek leave to make my remarks on this. I understand there has been agreement across the chamber for that to happen and carry us past 6.17 pm.
Leave granted.
Senator WATT: I thank the chamber for allowing this debate to continue so that we can discuss this report. I've been very pleased, over the last nearly 12 months, to chair a select committee into what is a very important topic facing Australia and Australians, and that is what the future of work holds for all of us. It is a big, complex issue. It embraces many different features, ranging from the risk and opportunities to jobs from automation, robots, artificial intelligence and other technologies to other issues which are affecting Australian workplaces. I would like, at the outset, to thank the secretariat for this committee, who have worked incredibly hard to bring this report to its conclusion. I'd like to thank the other members of the committee and all who have submitted and participated in this inquiry.
The title we've given to this report is Hope is not a strategy—our shared responsibility for the future of work and workers. We need a shared vision and a shared effort to protect the future of work and workers for all of us. The reason why we settled on that title is that the changes that are facing Australian workplaces and Australian workers are so great that sitting back and letting it all happen to us is a recipe for disaster and is a recipe for widening inequality in our society, and that is something that I think most Australians don't want to see happen.
The overarching theme of this report, really, is that the future of work is in our hands. There are people out there in the community who think that the way technology and robots are advancing spells disaster for Australian workers, will eliminate all jobs and will also create changes in workplaces which will result in workers being disadvantaged and inequality widening. It doesn't have to be that way. This is something that we as legislators and policymakers have the capacity to manage into the future if we choose to take the opportunity, such that all Australian workers can benefit from changes that lie ahead rather than being thrown on the scrap heap, as we have sometimes seen occur.
There is no doubt that things in Australian workplaces are changing significantly and, arguably, at a greater pace than anything we have ever seen previously. But this is not a new phenomenon; this is not the first time that we've seen technology changing work in Australia and changing workplaces. A few decades ago, the vast majority of the Australian public were employed in agriculture. That has changed over the years as machines have been introduced and jobs have been eliminated. But, at the same time, new jobs have been created in new industries. The key here, really, is to ensure that we as legislators introduce the laws, policies and institutions within government to ensure that the benefits and costs of change, whether that be from technology or other features of what is happening around the world, are shared and that the costs are shared across the community rather than having a small group of people reap the profits, both literally and metaphorically, of this change while the majority of people are left behind. That is a choice that we have before us, and we have the opportunity to come up with a future and to come up with laws, policies and institutions which will share those benefits and share those costs equally across the community.
I think one of the other messages that came through really strongly in this inquiry was that the countries that do manage change in the future are the countries that will do better. I have to say there are a number of other countries around the world—I'm particularly thinking of places like Canada, Singapore and Germany—that are doing a much better job than Australia of grappling with what change is coming our way in the workplace and what we need to do about it.
One of the key recommendations of our report is simply that Australia, and the Australian government, needs to come up with a plan for the future of work. We need to engage with these issues rather than continuing the approach that the government has taken up until now of just standing back and letting change happen. There is no greater example in recent years than the closure of the car industry in Australia. The government stood by, let it happen and, in some cases, even encouraged it. That is not what we need from our government. We need a government that is prepared to get in there and work with industry, unions and educational institutions to forecast where jobs growth is going to be and where jobs are in danger of being replaced by automation and other things and come up with a plan to ensure that workers are protected through those changes and are assisted to make any transitions that may be required. In doing so, we have to recognise that there are particular groups in the community—women, workers with a disability, workers from multicultural backgrounds, regional workers—who are particularly exposed to risk. This national plan really has to come up with ways to ensure that people in those groups are not just protected but are actually given opportunities into the future as well.
The committee has recommended that a new government body coordinate the efforts of government in this space. It was very clear from one of the hearings that we held in Canberra, where we had representatives of various different departments—who all gave good evidence and are clearly doing the best that they can in this space—that there is no-one within government who is coordinating this approach to forecast and develop policy to ensure a bright future for Australian workers into the future. We have recommended a new central body, loosely called 'the future work commission', be created to take on this task. That is something that we are seeing happen in other countries and something that we think the Australian government should adopt as well. That new government body shouldn't just be sitting off to the side. It needs collaboration with businesses, unions and educational institutions to work out where the jobs of the future are going to be, where the growth is, where the decline is and what courses are being offered by higher education and VET institutions to make sure that we have a workforce that is equipped to fill these jobs. They need to start talking to each other to come up with a shared vision and some policies that we can all get behind.
In the time available, I won't be able to speak at length about a number of the other recommendations, but there are two other features I want to focus on. It would be a really big mistake for people to think that the future of work is all about robots and technology. The reality is that Australian workplaces have been changing significantly, particularly over the last 20 years, as a result of the labour market deregulation that we've seen, particularly under this government. That is resulting in a growing group of have-nots in the Australian workplace.
Evidence to the inquiry demonstrated that we now have a record number of Australians in non-standard work, whether that be casuals, labour hire, contract or gig-economy kind of work. The numbers continue to grow. These are the people who are being faced with worse employment conditions, worse pay and worse job security. It's no surprise that, because of that, we're seeing wages in Australia stagnate under this government at a level we have never seen in Australian history. It is a direct result of the deregulation of the labour market that we have seen from this government. It's got to be fixed if we want to make sure that the Australian public has a decent standard of living into the future. We have made a number of specific recommendations for legislative change, including requiring employers to consult more with unions and workers about the introduction of technology into workplaces and also to broaden the definition of 'employees' to pick up gig-economy workers, who are currently being subject to unfair working conditions.
Obviously the education and skills system also has a critical role to play here. We need to make sure that Australians are being provided with the skills and knowledge that they will need for jobs in the future. That's partly about working with schools, universities and VET institutions about new graduates to make sure they're ready for the new world of work; but also, importantly, we're not doing nearly enough for people in the existing workforce to make sure that their skills keep up with what is required by industry and the economy of the future. We don't want to see a future where mature-age workers particularly are thrown on the scrap heap, as we've seen all too often in Australia's history, and are not provide with the skills and opportunities that they need to ensure that they can have a productive working life for the rest of their lives.
Overall we are optimistic for the future. Australia can seize technology, can create new jobs and can make sure that everyone has a fair go in the Australian workplace. But it is up to us as legislators. Hope is not a strategy; we have to take action. I hope this government is up to the task.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Membership
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Gallacher ) (18:26): The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees.
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (18:26): I move:
That members be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—
On 6 October 2018—
Discharged—Senator Macdonald
Appointed—Senator Hume
On 21 October 2018—
Discharged—Senator Hume
Appointed—Senator Macdonald
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute members:
Senator Bushby to replace Senator Macdonald from 6 October to 21 October 2018
Senator Hanson-Young to replace Senator McKim for the committee’s inquiry into the provisions of the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 and related bill
Participating member: Senator Macdonald
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee—
Appointed—Substitute member: Senator Bushby to replace Senator Macdonald from 6 October to 21 October 2018
Privileges—Standing Committee—
On 6 October 2018—
Discharged—Senator Macdonald
Appointed—Senator Bushby
On 21 October 2018—
Discharged—Senator Bushby
Appointed—Senator Macdonald
Question agreed to.
DELEGATION REPORTS
Australian parliamentary delegation to the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Sweden and Canada
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (18:27): by leave—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Sweden and Canada which took place in October 2017. I seek leave to move a motion to take note of the document.
Leave granted.
Senator SIEWERT: I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
First of all, I'd like to articulate the purpose of this delegation, which was to examine mental health practices and policy perspectives in the selected countries. In particular, the delegation was focused on hearing about the different issues and treatment approaches for mental health care services generally. We were also looking at eating disorders, children and early intervention services, young people with mental health issues and, where possible, Indigenous people's mental health issues, suicide broadly and post-traumatic stress disorder among Defence veterans. Our aim was to examine, listen and develop an understanding of how the respective countries were approaching mental health issues and the examples or practices could possibly be considered for Australia.
I would urge members to read this delegation report, because we covered a huge range of issues. I just articulated the theme and aim of the visits we made. We did in fact cover all those issues. We learnt a great deal. I would like to acknowledge and thank all the people we met with. I think that we had over 35 meetings and we met with a range of government committees, government officers and community organisations. We were very keen also to get the perspective from government and non-government organisations. So I'd like to thank all of the people whom we visited and just touch on some of the highlights of our visit.
We learned a lot about the issues around mental health and the way that those issues were covered. One of the key things that we identified was that, everywhere we went, funding spent on mental health was the same as here—not enough was being spent. But, in England, in the United Kingdom, what we learned was that they have actually committed to, and are very keen to meet, what they call 'parity of esteem'. In other words, mental health is treated at the same level and in the same degree that other broader health issues are. So, parity of funding in terms of the spending proportion in health; the health burden of illness matches the amount of money that's spent on that particular issue. It also includes equal access to the most effective and safest care and treatment; equal efforts to improve the quality of care and the allocation of time, effort and resources on a basis commensurate with the need; equal status within healthcare education and practice; equally high aspirations for service users; and equal status in the measurement of health outcomes. For me, that resonated a lot, in making sure that, as a system and as a country, we acknowledge that we need to meet parity of esteem. I was very impressed by that particular approach. I think the UK is leading in that particular area. They're not there yet, but they seek to address parity of esteem.
What we also learned was that there are different ways that different countries are approaching the specific issues. One of the key themes in all the countries we visited was the degree to which local government provided community services, aged-care services and mental health services. I know that varies across Australia, but I think that no states in Australia provide the level of services through local government that we saw in all the countries we went to. Very importantly also, every place we went to had done the same as Australia had done, which was to deinstitutionalise mental health care but then not provide the same level of services on the ground, and so there have been big problems with that. But some of the places that we visited are making more effort to address that.
The issues around social isolation play out the same here as there, but there are some really good ways of addressing that in some of the examples. For example, in the Netherlands—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Gallacher ): Senator Siewert, the time allotted—
Senator SIEWERT: I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted.
Select Committee on the Future of Work and Workers
Report
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (18:33): I apologise, Mr Acting Deputy President Gallacher, I misinterpreted the actions of the chamber and I think I missed the opportunity to speak on the tabling of the Select Committee on the Future of Work report. I'm wondering whether I could seek the chamber's indulgence to make a short statement in relation to that.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Gallacher ): I'm advised that there are two options. If leave is granted, you could speak now. If not, you could seek leave to continue your remarks, which would mean it would remain on the Notice Paper and you can make a contribution at a later time.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: I seek leave to continue my remarks, if that would be amenable.
Leave granted.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Australian Farmers) Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (18:35): 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 CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (18:35):
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Government stands shoulder to shoulder with our farmers, to ensure they can survive against the severe and widespread drought that has affected so many.
Our farmers are the backbone of the nation, with farming families providing the produce all Australians rely on to feed our families. For this reason, the Government has an important role to play in backing our farmers in difficult times, and this Government is committed to doing what we can to help drought affected farming families across Australia.
The Government can't make it rain. But we can ensure that farming families and their communities get all the support they need to get through the drought, recover and get back on their feet.
On 19 June 2018, the Government extended the availability of the Farm Household Allowance from three to four years, effective from 1 August 2018.
On 5 August 2018, the Government announced a $190 million package of immediate additional financial support to help farming families and their communities fight one of the worst droughts of the past century. The package included further significant changes to the existing Farm Household Allowance to provide two lump sum supplementary payments worth up to $12,000 for eligible couples and $7,600 for singles. Also included were changes to the assets test to allow thousands more farmers to access support.
These changes provide many farming families what they sorely lack during drought – cash income. This income helps put food on the table and cover basic expenses such as bills and school fees, and will flow through to businesses in country towns doing it tough.
The package also included increased funding for mental health support, rural financial counselling and small grants for rural and regional not-for-profit community groups. The package took total support provided by the Commonwealth Government to drought-affected households and communities to more than $576 million.
At the same time, the Government announced that longer-term measures to improve the resilience of rural communities to handle drought conditions were being developed across Government in response to the issues raised with the then Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources during their listening tour of New South Wales and Queensland in early June 2018.
On 19 August 2018, the Government announced the appointment of Major General Stephen Day, DSC, AM, as the National Drought Coordinator. The Government also announced the further expansion of direct assistance and concessional loans to aid drought-affected farmers, increasing total assistance to $1.8 billion, including:
additional funding for the Drought Communities Programme;
extending drought loans through the Regional Investment Corporation;
a dedicated drought preparedness round for the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund;
extension of funding for the Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative;
Regional Weather and Climate Guides (through the Bureau of Meteorology);
streamlined Farm Household Allowance application forms and processing; and
providing an immediate deduction for fodder storage assets.
This Bill gives effect to the tax announcement. It amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to allow primary producers to immediately deduct the cost of fodder storage assets, first used or installed ready for use from 19 August 2018.
Currently, primary producers can deduct the value of fodder storage assets over three years under existing accelerated depreciation arrangements.
Providing an immediate deduction for fodder storage assets will make it easier for primary producers to stockpile fodder.
It will also reduce compliance costs as primary producers will no longer have to track the depreciation of fodder storage assets for more than one year for tax purposes.
This initiative complements the Government's $20,000 instant asset write-off for eligible small businesses, which we are extending to 30 June 2019.
I call on all Parliamentarians to give this Bill their full support so that we can provide farmers with faster tax relief on fodder storage assets, assisting them to better drought-proof their properties.
We will continue to engage with farmers to ensure our drought assistance measures meet their needs.
Full details of the initiative are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (18:36): 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 CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (18:36):
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—
I am pleased to introduce the My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018. The Australian Government takes seriously the security of health information. This Bill will make amendments to the legislation underpinning the My Health Record system to strengthen its privacy protections.
A My Health Record puts consumers at the centre of their healthcare by enabling access to important health information, when and where it is needed, by consumers and their healthcare providers. Consumers can choose whether or not to have a My Health Record and can set their own access controls to limit access to their whole My Health Record or to particular documents in it.
The intent of the My Health Records Act has always been clear – to help improve the healthcare of all Australians.
The My Health Record system aims to address a fundamental problem with the Australian health system – consumers' health information is fragmented because it is spread across a vast number of locations and systems.
A My Health Record does not replace the detailed medical records held by healthcare providers; rather it provides a summary of key health information such as information about allergies, medications, diagnoses and test results like blood tests.
The My Health Records system will improve health outcomes by providing important health information when and where it is needed so that the right treatment can be delivered safer and faster. It enables individual consumers to access all their own individual healthcare records privately and security for the first time.
The My Health Record system has now been operating for more than 6 years. More than 6 million Australians have a My Health Record and more than 13,000 healthcare provider organisations are participating in the system. Almost 7 million clinical documents, 22 million prescription documents and more than 745 million Medicare records have been uploaded.
In June 2012 the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records, or PCEHR, Act took affect and the PCEHR system began operating in July 2012. This Act contained the provisions around disclosure to third parties and the archiving of cancelled records that are being amended by this Bill.
In November 2013 the Coalition Government announced a review into the PCEHR system that subsequently recommended a move to an opt-out system.
In November 2015 the Health Legislation Amendment (eHealth) Bill came into effect. This changed the name of the system from PCEHR to My Health Record and enabled the opt-out approach. The Bill passed with unanimous support in both houses.
On 24 March 2017 the COAG Health Council agreed to a national opt-out model for long-term participation arrangements in the My Health system. This support was reaffirmed in August 2018.
In May 2017 the Government announced national implementation of opt-out as part of the 2017-18 Budget.
On 30 November 2017 the Minister for Health amended the My Health Records (National Application) Rules 2017 to apply the opt-out model of registration to all consumers in Australia, and to specify the period in which consumers could opt-out. The opt-out period commenced on 16 July 2018 and will end on 15 November 2018.
As part of the 2017-18 Budget, this Government announced that, in order to achieve the benefits sooner, the My Health Record system would transition to an opt-out system whereby every Australian will get a My Health Record by the end of this year, unless they've opted out.
The opt-out period started on 16 July this year, and the Australian Digital Health Agency, together with many partner organisations, has been working closely with the healthcare sector to inform consumers about the purpose and benefits of My Health Record, the privacy settings for restricting access, and the right to opt-out.
Soon after the opt-out period concerns were raised by some groups – specifically, that My Health Record information could be disclosed for law enforcement purposes, and that health information would continue to be retained in the system after a consumer has cancelled their My Health Record.
The system has operated for six years and no material has been released for law enforcement purposes. In any event, the policy has been that there would be no release of information without a court order.
I think it's important to be very clear about this – the My Health Record system has its own dedicated privacy controls which are stronger in some cases than the protections afforded by the Commonwealth Privacy Act. The operation and design of the My Health Record system was developed after consultation with consumers, privacy advocates and experts, health sector representatives, health software providers, medical indemnity insurers, and Commonwealth, state and territory government agencies. Further, the system has been operating without incident since July 2012.
Nonetheless, this Government has listened to the recent concerns and, in order to provide additional reassurance, is moving quickly to address them through this Bill. I appreciate the constructive consultations with the Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and I welcome the recently reaffirmed support from all state and territory governments for this important health reform, for the opt-out process and for the strengthened privacy provisions at the recent COAG Health Council meeting.
The Bill will remove the ability of the System Operator – that is, the Australian Digital Health Agency – to disclose health information to law enforcement agencies and other government bodies without a court order or the consumer's express consent. This is consistent with the System Operator's current policy position, which has remained unchanged and has resulted in no My Health Records being disclosed in such circumstances.
The Bill will also require the System Operator to permanently delete health information it holds for any consumer who has cancelled their My Health Record. This makes it clear that the Government will not retain any health information if a person chooses to cancel at any time. The record will be deleted forever.
In addition to these amendments the Minister for Health has already extended the opt-out period by a further month to end on 15 November. This will provide more time for consumers to make up their own mind about opting out of My Health Record. Even after this period a consumer can choose not to participate at any time and cancel their My Health Record – their record will then be cancelled and permanently deleted.
These legislative changes reinforce the existing privacy controls that the system already gives each individual over their My Health Record. Once they have a My Health Record, individuals can set a range of access controls. For example, they can set up an access code so that only those organisations they elect can access their record, and they can be notified when their record is accessed. They can also elect if they don't want their Medicare or other information included in their My Health Record.
The My Health Record system will provide significant health and economic benefits for all Australians through avoided hospital admissions, fewer adverse drug events, reduced duplication of tests, better coordination of care for people seeing multiple healthcare providers, and better informed treatment decisions.
The Australian Government is committed to the My Health Record system because it is changing healthcare in Australia for the better. The Australian Government is equally committed to the privacy of individual's health information. These measures to strengthen the privacy protections demonstrate this commitment.
Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (18:37): by leave—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the former Treasurer, Mr Scott Morrison, was the architect of significant cuts to aged care to the tune of $1.2 billion in the 2016-17 Budget,
(ii) Mr Morrison's $1.2 billion cut to aged care came on top of the almost $500 million from aged care funding Mr Morrison cut in the 2015 MYEFO,
(iii) you don't fix aged care by cutting funding to it, and
(iv) after 5 years of cuts, dithering and inaction on aged care, the Government has essentially called for a royal commission into itself;
(b) condemns:
(i) the Morrison Government for failing to take responsibility for these cuts, and
(ii) the current Prime Minister's refusal to rule out further cuts to aged care in Australia;
(c) calls on the Federal Government to ensure the Royal Commission into Aged Care examines the impact of the Liberals' years of cuts; and
calls on the Federal Government not to wait for the royal commission to start fixing the crisis it has created.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH
Address-in-Reply
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the following address-in-reply be agreed to:
To His Excellency the Governor-General
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY—
We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign and to thank Your Excellency for the speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (18:37): I was in continuation when we suspended this discussion prior to senators' statements earlier today. I indicated then that I would go through some background in relation to the address-in-reply because it's been some time since we addressed this debate. I was highlighting that it's with some surprise that we are now occupying government business time with this debate rather than any agenda that the Morrison government might seek to progress before the Senate.
The Governor-General, His Excellency General the Honourable Sir Peter Cosgrove, addressed both houses of the parliament on 30 August 2016. The day after the address-in-reply was listed for debate in the Senate, Senator Hume moved that the address-in-reply be agreed to. Fortunately for the government, the Senate agreed to suspend standing order 34 enabling the Senate to consider business other than that of a formal character before the address-in-reply to the Governor-General's speech was adopted. That was fortunate, because His Excellency's speech was some two years ago. Here we are still debating the address-in-reply, and we can't escape the glaring fact that this is to fill a spot in the program because the Morrison Liberals don't have enough business. More surprising, too, is that the draft red for tomorrow lists this as the Morrison government's principal item, again, for debate tomorrow. There is still no agenda. This week, we have seen senator after senator on the government side of the chamber line up to waste time and speak repetitively on bills that the opposition and the majority of senators have agreed with. We've even had the farcical spectacle of government senators voting to block Labor's moves to pass the government's bills expeditiously. This occurred twice on Monday.
I'd like to briefly reflect on the stark differences on the handling of this matter between the two houses of the parliament. The Speaker of House of Representatives delivered the address-in-reply to His Excellency at Government House in Yarralumla on Tuesday, 23 May 2017—well over a year ago. In this chamber we have instead seen a legislative program dominated by bills that focus on the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government's obsession with union bashing or helping its mates at the big end of town. For example, we wasted an inordinate amount of time around the enterprise tax bill, which would have seen big businesses get a $65 billion tax cut. There have also been the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the registered organisations bills that the government failed to pass before the last election and used as a trigger for the double dissolution election in 2016—ironically, the bills that led us to this address-in-reply.
What this highlights is that the government has run out of steam. We're only debating this two years on from when this parliament first met, because the Morrison government has no agenda and is simply trying to stack its legislative program with place fillers, like this, that should have been finalised long ago. In fact, this delay in finalising this matter is disrespectful to the Governor-General and should have been addressed some time ago.
Finally, I would like to also make the point that the Prime Minister under whom we are debating this address-in-reply today is not the same Prime Minister who was in office when His Excellency actually delivered the opening speech outlining the Turnbull government's agenda. So we are still technically debating the Turnbull government's agenda. Not only do we have a government that has no agenda and no reason to be in office but we also have a Prime Minister who rolled the former Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, for no apparent reason—well, at least not a reason that any government member, other than perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister, has been able to explain to the Australian people.
Don't get me wrong. The Governor-General's opening speech is a very important process and institution in the parliament, but it shouldn't be used by those opposite as a means of covering up that they are a government in name only. They don't have a plan. They are divided and dramatically disunified and really should be calling an election as soon as possible so that the Australian people can have their say on this chaos that continues to engulf the Liberal Party. They should give the Australian people an opportunity to elect a Labor government that has a clear, fair and responsible plan that is focused on delivering for this nation, for the Australian community, and not just for themselves.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (18:43): I rise to respond to the Governor-General's opening speech during this address-in-reply, and I do so with a view to discussing a situation that we have before us that should be of great concern. As we all know, Australia's national interests are best served by a rules based international order. The 2016 Defence white paper mentioned a rules based order 53 times. The Foreign policy white paper put out by DFAT in 2017 mentioned a rules based order 15 times. We need to practise what we preach, otherwise DFAT will become a rather expensive department that has no credibility, and that's not in the national interests. This overriding national interest is the context of my following remarks.
In March 2002, three months before East Timor became an independent state, Australia's then foreign minister, Mr Alexander Downer, withdrew Australia from the maritime boundary jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. That meant East Timor couldn't claim its right under international law to a maritime boundary halfway between the two countries' coastlines. How's that for a rules based international order?
Meanwhile, on 20 September 2002, the Howard government awarded an exploration contract for an area partly on East Timor's side of the median line. East Timor protested but couldn't go to the independent umpire. The government awarded similar contracts in April 2003 and February 2004, also protested by East Timor. Then, in November 2002, Mr Downer warned East Timor's Prime Minister that Australia could hold up the flow of gas from the Timor Sea for decades. He said, according to a transcript of the negotiating records, 'We don't have to exploit the resources. We can stay for here 20, 40, 50 years. We are very tough. We will not care if you give information to the media. Let me give you a tutorial in politics—not a chance.'
In December 2002, the Sunrise project partners, Woodside, ConocoPhillips, Shell and Osaka Gas, announced the indefinite delay of the project, an obvious tactic to pressure East Timor to accept Mr Downer's demands. The bottom line here is that Mr Downer and Woodside wanted to force East Timor, one of the poorest countries in the world, to surrender most of the revenue from the Greater Sunrise project—revenue that it could have used to do much with, including dealing with its infant mortality rate. Currently, 45 out of 1,000 children in East Timor don't live past the age of one. Yet our plan was to deprive them of oil revenue.
It's prudent at this time to mention that one of Mr Downer's senior advisers at the time was a man named Mr Josh Frydenberg. It's relevant to something I will talk about later.
Mr Downer then ordered the Australian Secret Intelligence Service to bug East Timor's negotiations. ASIS installed listening devices inside East Timor's ministerial rooms and cabinet offices under the cover of a foreign aid program, piling cynicism onto callousness. The espionage operation occurred at the same time the Jemaah Islamiyah terror group bombed the Australian Embassy in Jakarta on 9 September 2004, when Mr Downer and Prime Minister John Howard were assuring the public that they were taking every measure against extreme Muslim terrorism in Indonesia.
Introducing another character into the story, Mr Nick Warner was involved in the spying operation. Mr Warner went on to become the head of ASIS and has since been appointed as the Director-General of the Office of National Intelligence. I also note that Mr Frydenberg was an adviser in the Prime Minister's office at the time of the spying. I will have more to say on that on another day.
Spied on, threatened and unable to seek redress at the International Court of Justice, East Timor signed a treaty in January 2006. This blatantly unfair treaty denied them their right to a maritime border on the median line. It also, in effect, created a permanent regime over the length of the Greater Sunrise project's commercial life. The major beneficiary of this negotiation was Woodside Petroleum. The then Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Dr Ashton Calvert, had already resigned and joined the board of directors of Woodside Petroleum. Mr Downer took a lucrative consultancy with Woodside after leaving parliament in 2008. There are also credible rumours of disquiet within ASIS over the diversion of scarce intelligence assets away from the war on terror and towards East Timor.
Aware of Mr Downer's consultancy work for Woodside, Witness K complained to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security about the East Timor operation. ASIS took steps to effectively terminate his employment—an outcome that is not unusual for whistleblowers in this country. In response, Witness K obtained permission from the IGIS to speak to an ASIS-approved lawyer, Bernard Collaery, a former ACT Attorney-General. After 2½ years of research, Mr Collaery determined that the espionage operation in East Timor was unlawful and may also have been an offence under section 334 of the Criminal Code of the ACT.
Going to the specifics, the case rested on the fact that the then director of ASIS, David Irvine, ordered Witness K, the head of all technical operations for ASIS, to place covert listening devices in the East Timorese government buildings. Those instructions enlivened the section 334 offence in that it constituted a conspiracy to defraud Australia's joint venture partner, East Timor, by gaining advantage through improper methods when the Commonwealth was under a legal obligation to conduct good-faith negotiations.
The events that followed are well known. The East Timorese took Australia to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which saw Australia eventually agree to renegotiate the treaty. That was an acknowledgement that the operation had occurred. As part of those proceedings, Witness K was to give evidence in a confidential hearing. David Irvine—that's the name I introduced a moment ago—in his subsequent role as Director-General of ASIO, organised raids on the homes and offices of Bernard Collaery and Witness K on 3 December 2013. At the same time the raids occurred, the Australian government revoked Witness K's passport. We know from inquiries made at estimates last year by then Senator Xenophon that the competent authority in law advising the foreign minister on Witness K was not the AFP or ASIO, as you would normally expect. Rather, it was ASIS, headed by a somewhat conflicted Nicholas Warner, noting his involvement in the original illegal bugging operation.
The day after the raids, former Attorney-General George Brandis came into this Senate chamber and threatened criminal prosecutions for 'participation, whether as principal or accessory, in offences against the Commonwealth'. I've recently found out through Senate estimates that the AFP received a referral from ASIO about this matter on 13 December 2013. The AFP began its investigation on 10 February 2014, a few months later. One year later, on 18 February 2015, the AFP gave a brief of evidence to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The result? Nothing. Zip. Nada—until now.
In May 2018, three years later, and just after the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties finally held public hearings on the Timor Sea Treaty, the CDPP filed charges. Sarah Naughton SC from the CDPP really has to explain this interesting timing. Did she and her predecessor hold off until diplomacy was out of the way? And that's not all she has to explain. Amongst the charges before the ACT court—this is public domain information—are conversations Collaery is alleged to have had with a number of ABC journalists and producers: Emma Alberici, Peter Lloyd, Connor Duffy, Marian Wilkinson and Peter Cronau. In fact, the first time this was reported in the press, the journalist responsible was Leo Shanahan on 29 May 2013 in The Australian. Shanahan quoted Collaery directly as saying:
Australia clandestinely monitored the negotiation rooms occupied by the other party …
… … …
They broke in and they bugged, in a total breach of sovereignty, the cabinet room, the ministerial offices of then prime minister … and his government.
But Leo Shanahan wasn't mentioned on the charge sheet. Only the ABC journalists were. Is she trying to protect him because she's hoping to get friendly coverage of a case from his employer, The Australian? Is she going after the government's perceived enemies at the ABC? The prosecution requires the consent of the Attorney-General, Mr Christian Porter. Mr Porter consented, claiming on 28 June this year that all he did was agree to an independent decision by the CDPP, but as the Attorney-General he is no cipher. He is well aware he has the power to decline prosecution, for example, by questioning the general deterrent value of such court action. What is the utilitarian value of such a prosecution this former lecturer at the University of Western Australia could have asked?
Relevant to this, on 1 July, three days after the Attorney's press release acknowledging his consent, Niki Savva, former senior adviser to Prime Minister John Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello and now journalist and commentator, said on ABC's Insider:
I just think it's very fraught, the whole thing, because from my understanding, George Brandis had asked for an additional piece of information from the CDPP on this issue which fortuitously or not landed on Christian Porter's desk when he took over with a very strong recommendation to prosecute. So I think if Porter had ignored that and it had subsequently come out, then he would have faced a lot of grief so I don't think he had any choice but to proceed. So everything hinges now on the court case.
This extraordinary statement cries out for an explanation. How would Niki Savva know what Brandis had asked the CDPP for and whether it had been provided to Porter and when or what the CDPP's brief contained? Is there a leak? Did Attorney-General Christian Porter leak the contents of the brief to Niki Savva either directly or through an intermediary or did the CDPP leak it? One thing we do know is that Ms Savva made the remarks and we know she's not a fantasist.
My colleague in the other place Andrew Wilkie referred Niki Savva's statement to the AFP the next day, on 2 July. They wrote to him on 18 July and said they couldn't accept the matter but would reassess if he provided more information. Of course, this is something that's very difficult to do. I asked some questions on notice to the Attorney-General last month and got a rather uninformative response, which I've subsequently written to him about. I'm curious to know why the AFP did not, at the very least, make a few calls to the A-G's department. Surely the A-G would respond properly to a preliminary investigation by the AFP. It's a question I will ask the AFP at our next estimates.
Moving along, I, along with Mr Wilkie and my Senate colleagues Senator McKim and Senator Storer, also asked the AFP to investigate the original conspiracy to defraud the government of East Timor under section 334 of the Criminal Code of the Australian Capital Territory. The AFP advised us that, should further material become available indicating Commonwealth offences were being committed, the AFP will reassess the matter. This is a catch-22 situation if I ever saw one. Clearly, the details of Mr Downer's alleged conspiracy to defraud the government of East Timor are unavailable to people outside the principal alleged conspirators. How are we meant to get those details? There's a prima facie case of a section 334 violation, patently so because Witness K is an amenable witness. It's up to the AFP to request an interview with Witness K himself.
Intelligence officers are not above the law. We know this from a number of cases, including the High Court case of A v Hayden, also known as the ASIS case. The AFP advised me on 3 August this year that they have no jurisdictional issues investigating crimes committed by intelligence agencies, so why haven't they? Perhaps the relations with Minister Frydenberg and the government are more important. Perhaps the fact that the AFP are now technically part of the intelligence community that Mr Nick Warner happens to head has created resistance to investigate.
I did ask the Attorney-General to confirm if the current head of ASIS, Mr Paul Symon, was informed of the prosecution of Witness K and Mr Collaery. I asked the same about Minister Frydenberg and Mr Nick Warner—no response. There are many more questions. Ms McNaughton is handling the case through her organised crime and counterterrorism unit as though Witness K and Bernard Collaery are potential terrorists. The avenue of attack sees the use of the National Security Information Act 2004, which was enacted during the war on terror in response to terrorist threats. It gave enormous power to the prosecution to seek orders from the court to classify information as confidential based on decisions by the executive as to what information is confidential.
Of course some secrecy is needed. ASIS officers' identities must be kept secret, because if foreign governments know who our spies are then they can identify the agents in their countries and take countermeasures against them. If foreign governments were to learn Witness K's real name, they might be able to identify his agents in their countries and take countermeasures against them. People who betray their country would no longer dare risk their safety by dealing with Australian spies.
But Witness K and Mr Collaery appear fully committed to this kind of secrecy. Indeed, Witness K can give evidence whilst having his identity concealed. That is precisely what happened in the British inquest into the downing of an RAF Hercules aircraft in 2005. Among those killed was an Australian airman, Flight Lieutenant Pau Pardoel. All the special forces witnesses who testified had their identities protected. The same method could easily be handled by the ACT Magistrates Court.
But in this case a fundamental unfairness occurs because the prosecution is proposing orders that the entire matter be heard in secrecy. This is from a government which repeatedly makes national security public interest claims in this place in respect of orders for production and has been found to be wrong consistently. This government has lost all credibility in this space. The approach is blatantly aimed at giving the executive the power to classify lawful behaviour as secret and to prevent that behaviour from being disclosed. In plain English, the government is trying to prosecute people for revealing its crimes.
The people of East Timor have traditionally been good allies and loyal friends of Australia. Their support of our soldiers fighting the Japanese in 1942 was vital. The East Timorese suffered 40,000 deaths due to aerial bombings and the destruction of villages suspected of sheltering Australian troops by the Japanese. Australian troops were protected at the expense of and the lives of many, many East Timorese people, Senator Neville Bonner said in a statement to the Senate in 1977. And yet the government ordered an espionage operation against East Timor's negotiators to gain significant advantage in those negotiations. The operation has caused considerable disruption, ending only recently when we renegotiated the treaty—hopefully, this time without spying.
In the period between the spying and now, East Timor's sentiment towards Australia has deteriorated substantially and China has managed to increase its influence through the use of soft power. The government sanctimoniously calls for a rules based international order, and that just looks like sheer humbug. It's time for this farce to end; it's time to bury this issue. We did the wrong thing to East Timor. It was called out by honourable people and now we seek to prosecute them. Australia committed a crime; the government committed a crime. No-one is above the law and we need to investigate that properly. All of this stuff to do with Witness K and Mr Collaery in the courts is just ripping the scar off a wound in East Timor, and I urge the government to rethink the process they're going through. Thank you.
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (19:03): I am responding to the Governor-General's opening address and will tonight be talking about the power of words, and how the choice of words of successive governments has slowly corroded public sentiment towards vulnerable asylum seekers.
Not so long ago, refugees who arrived by sea were just 'boat people'; now they are 'illegal arrivals', even though they have not broken any laws, or 'queue jumpers', even though there is no such queue. The vast majority of asylum seekers are found to be genuine refugees. They've often fled horrors we can only imagine and yet we treat these men, women and children as though they should be punished for seeking asylum in Australia.
Let's look at Australia's hardline policy. Prime Minister Morrison takes pride in having stopped the boats, but this has become such a mindless mantra that the government ignores the irreversible harm its own policy is doing, as though stopping one evil cancels out another. Make no mistake: what Australia is doing to these people amounts to ongoing torture.
The United States has so far taken a few hundred refugees from Manus Island and Nauru, but even if it does eventually resettle the 1,250 refugees that President Trump has begrudgingly agreed on—and that is still a big 'if'—that still leaves hundreds more behind. Where do they go? Unfortunately, their fate is to keep mouldering in offshore detention, because there is no plan B. Their ongoing suffering, their rates of suicide and self-harm, their lack of hope and their disintegrating mental states are preferable, in this government's mind, to any other option put before them. Even New Zealand's generous offer to take an extra 150 asylum seekers was knocked back. Apparently it is better to keep these 150 people in arbitrary detention than risk any softening of its position.
Professor Jane McAdam, who heads up the University of New South Wales's Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, wrote the following late last year about the situation on Manus, and it says everything:
The Australian Immigration Minister boasts that no one has died at sea on his watch, but he has masterminded policies that have broken the lives and spirits of hundreds of people who are instead dying a slow death on land—as some have described it. Their experience is marked by physical insecurity, ill-health, trauma and mental illness, as well as separation from wives and children whom they are told can never reunite with them. This is not only inhumane, but contrary to international law—obligations that Australia has voluntarily accepted. These men are stuck in limbo, even though the majority have been recognised as refugees in need of protection. It is the same for the men, women and children held on Nauru.
The Kaldor Centre exists because of the generosity of its benefactors, philanthropists Andrew and Renata Kaldor, who themselves came to Australia as refugees. In a Sydney Morning Herald interview about the opening of the centre in 2013, Mr Kaldor said the attitude that greeted his family in postwar Australia was 'a welcoming one and an accepting one'. He further said that Australians back then acknowledged that refugees:
… were making a contribution to society. They were not a burden. Today, these people are seen as threats and a cost to society.
What's changed? Not the refugees, who are as desperate for a new life and new opportunity as they've ever been. It is the government rhetoric that has changed.
Ever since Australia tried to reject the asylum seekers rescued by the MV Tampa in 2001 and the 'children overboard affair' in which no children were actually thrown overboard, asylum seekers have been painted as the bad guys. Australians have been encouraged not to feel any sympathy for them because they are queue-jumpers, because they are illegals and because terrorists might sneak in amongst their ranks. The worst is when self-satisfied departmental and governmental officials accuse asylum seekers of self-harming for publicity or because a refugee advocate told them to. It's a disgusting attitude. To me, that says a lot about how much they have distanced themselves from the very real and human impact of Australia's border protection policies.
The government is quite content for Australians to feel suspicious and even fearful towards asylum seekers because it then means the public might not care too much about how these people are ultimately treated. This feeds a perfect loop. Authorities can push increasingly draconian policies, and uncritical supporters can feel justified in applauding something that once they may not have tolerated. On top of this, the government minimises the reality of how asylum seekers are treated by talking about offshore processing. It makes it sound as though claims for protection are being dealt with efficiently and cleanly. Far from it. In reality, there are genuine refugees who have been trapped in offshore camps on Manus and Nauru for up to five years. Many of them have been further traumatised by their indefinite and arbitrary confinement and by living conditions and inadequate health care which would simply be found by all of us here to be unacceptable.
Since Australia dumped its White Australia policy, you would think that we would only progress steadily in the right direction, but we are, instead, sliding backwards. It is the people smugglers who deserve our contempt, not the asylum seekers being demonised as queue-jumpers. Recent governments have thrown around terms like 'illegal arrivals' and 'queue-jumpers' because it is dog whistling at its finest. It appeals to the Australian public's sense of fairness. God knows Australians hate it when people jump a queue! But, as I said earlier, there is no queue. What does that term even mean? Are they less deserving of protection? Are their claims less valid? Are they any less desperate than those who sit in refugee camps?
This government always sounds as though it has forgotten it is dealing with fellow humans when it speaks about asylum seekers, or what the department now terms 'unauthorised maritime arrivals'. It is my hope that, despite this, Australians remember their humanity when they listen to the government's rhetoric on asylum seekers. We should all remember that it is only due to the fortunate circumstances of our birth that we enjoy the rights and privileges Australia has to offer. We are blessed to have been born into a peaceful, democratic and stable society. As a people, we have not had to fight oppressive governments and military regimes. We are not starved of our basic human rights. Our homes are not shelled, our children do not live in terror, our wives, sisters and daughters sleep safely at night, and our men are not routinely rounded up and buried in mass graves. We can protest and express our political beliefs without being jailed or killed. We are truly the lucky country. Is it any wonder that people take desperate actions to flee the terrors of oppression and civil strife of their homelands and try to make their way here? They deserve sympathy and understanding, not the further trauma that Australia has imposed on them in offshore detention.
There is a lot we can do to improve their plight. The most urgent would be to listen to doctors and act immediately on medical transfer requests. Even when patients, including newborn babies, have been classed as 'at risk of dying', it still takes an average of four days to get them to Australia for urgent treatment—four days! Right now we have a crazy situation where it requires a court order or the threat of a court order before any medical transfers are permitted from Nauru. Thirty-five children have so far been brought to Australia this way. Personally, I think the best thing we could do would be to get children and the families off Nauru immediately and resettle them either here or in another stable, prosperous and democratic nation.
In the meantime, one other small yet profound change can make a big difference. We need to change our rhetoric. Words matter. Words hurt and words change perceptions. We must, as a nation, be kinder in how we speak about asylum seekers, and that must be led by government. Maybe that too is a vain hope, but, generally, I'm an optimistic guy.
Senator STORER (South Australia) (19:13): I rise to speak to this motion. This motion asks the Senate to express our loyalty to our most gracious sovereign. As a passionate advocate for Australia becoming a republic, that section of the motion gives me pause for thought. It is the same pause I had when, on entering this chamber, I was required to swear an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her heirs and successors according to law. I accept that this motion follows well-established convention and, as such, will not be moving an amendment or opposing it. I will, however, take this opportunity to reflect on the disappointment I feel that in 2018 we do not make these statements to an Australian head of state.
As I noted in my first speech, it is ironic and telling that to be a member of this chamber you cannot hold British citizenship but you must be British to be our head of state. Why should we have lower standards for our head of state than we set for our parliamentarians? For me, a homegrown, Australian head of state is essential in a nation which defines itself as self-determining. It is the logical next step for us to take as a proud and independent nation. Our head of state should be a patriotic, democratic person who embodies service to our country and its people. Our head of state should be an Australian chosen by Australians, not a foreign monarch who inherits the job. It is fundamentally unfair, undemocratic and undignified for Australia's democracy to be subject to a foreign monarchy. I also believe it is an important step towards more meaningful reconciliation with our First Nations people. I have been actively involved in advocating an Australian republic for over a quarter of a century.
A highlight of my life, amongst others, was organising a republican referendum lunch, with speakers being former Prime Minister Whitlam and now former Prime Minister Turnbull. As we round on the 20-year anniversary of the 1999 referendum, it is time to once again put this important question to the Australian people. I believe, as does the Australian Republic Movement, that in 2020 Australians should be asked two simple questions in a national vote: 'Do you want Australia to have an Australian as our head of state?' and 'How do you want Australia's head of state to be chosen?' With these two questions answered, a referendum question should be prepared and put to the people in 2022. This would be a referendum to change our politics, to modernise our Constitution and to remove alien traditions of heredity and prejudice. It would be a vote to have an Australian as our head of state and to become an Australian republic. I hope in the future these replies made today will be made to an Australian head of state.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2018
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
(Quorum formed)
DOCUMENTS
Religious Freedom Review Expert Panel
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Assistant Minister for Home Affairs) (19:20): by leave—I table a document relating to the order for production of documents concerning the religious freedom review expert panel.
ADJOURNMENT
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ) (19:20): I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Infrastructure
Senator KETTER (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (19:20): I rise tonight to talk about the recent commitment by federal Labor to fund the duplication of the Linkfield Road overpass at Bald Hills. Currently the Linkfield Road overpass is a congestion choke point for motorists coming on and off the Gympie Road arterial in Brisbane, particularly where drivers travelling from the west turn north onto the highway where two lanes merge into one immediately before the turnoff. In recent years there has been significant residential development around Bald Hills, Carseldine and Bracken Ridge, populations that are or should be serviced by this particular road. Unfortunately, despite the growing residential population, the capacity of the overpass continues to be neglected by current Liberal representatives. It's now an infamous stretch for accidents and traffic congestion, and it has been identified by the state's peak road body, the RACQ, as a key priority for government action. That's why on 24 August Labor's shadow minister for infrastructure and transport, Mr Albanese, joined with federal Labor candidates for Petrie, Corinne Mulholland, and Dickson, Ali France, to announce that a Shorten Labor government will invest $60 million to duplicate this overpass. While local Liberal representatives Mr Howarth and Mr Dutton were busy plotting to overthrow former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Corinne Mulholland and Ali France were out there listening to the needs of the community and campaigning to get this commitment.
I want to mention that Corinne Mulholland has been here in Canberra this week meeting with key decision-makers and lobbying on behalf of residents in the Petrie electorate. Locals are telling her that they are fed up with Liberal cuts to health and education. They're fed up with Liberal inaction on transport infrastructure. They are particularly fed up with Liberal re-announcements of already-funded projects, a trick they tried again this year in the Turnbull-Morrison budget in May. Is it any wonder that those opposite have to resort to re-announcing projects? As we saw in media reports today, they are so torn up internally that any semblance of an agenda to take this country forward seems to have been lost.
But, while this chaotic, dysfunctional Liberal government tears itself apart through infighting, bullying, plotting and scheming, Labor is getting on with the job. While those opposite are cancelling COAG and shutting down parliament, Labor is focused on the needs of everyday Australians. We don't want people sitting in traffic for one second longer than they have to. We want workers to have more time at home with their families and friends, engaging in recreational activities and being more productive in the workforce. These are our Labor values. It is strong investment in transport infrastructure, both road and rail, that helps us to achieve these goals.
Our record on this side of the chamber speaks for itself, particularly in the northern suburbs of Brisbane. It was Labor who finally invested in the Redcliffe Peninsula railway line, a project that was talked about for over a century before Labor governments at the state and federal levels stumped up and delivered. Labor again, at both federal and state levels, has delivered billions of dollars in upgrades to the Bruce Highway and the Gateway Motorway. It is Labor who will deliver the Cross River Rail to clear the way for more frequent train services between the city and the northern suburbs, particularly across peak hours. In the electorate of Petrie, Corinne Mulholland has also secured a commitment to expand the availability of parking at the Mango Hill train station.
While those opposite like to turn up to the opening of Labor projects when they're in government, it is Labor who get the work done when we are in government. And while the Liberal-National government is happy to cancel COAG, denying the states and territories the chance to have crucial conversations about funding for key issues like health, education, drought assistance and transport infrastructure, while they're happy to skip out on this important forum, Labor want to work with the states and territories. We relish the chance to hear what they want and what they need.
In Queensland, federal Labor will work with the Palaszczuk government to deliver the transport infrastructure that our suburbs need, like Cross River Rail and the Linkfield Road overpass. Our commitment of $60 million for this upgrade will greatly improve the liveability of nearby suburbs, including Strathpine, Bald Hills, Bracken Ridge, Carseldine, Warner and Albany Creek. This duplication will improve business opportunities in the industrial hub of Brendale and slash local commuter travel times.
I'd like to conclude my brief contribution by quoting the words of the federal Labor candidate for Dickson, Ali France. She says it 'will be a game changer for our community'.
Battle of Megiddo: 100th Anniversary
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (19:25): I rise tonight to acknowledge and pay my respects to the Anzac soldiers who formed part of a six-week long campaign, beginning 100 years ago today, in what is now modern-day Israel. In charge of the campaign was the commander of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force, General Edmund Allenby. Inspired by the success of the horses at Beersheba a year earlier, Allenby's plan involved blasting a hole in the defence line on the Sharon plain and sending the cavalry brigades north through the gap to cut off the retreat of the Turks.
Central to this plan was the Desert Mounted Corps, a force commanded by Australia's own Lieutenant-General Sir Henry Chauvel. Chauvel may not be quite as well-known as Sir John Monash, but he deserves his place as one of Australia's greatest military leaders. He was the first Australian to command an entire corps, and, by the end of World War I, his Desert Mounted Corps consisted of five brigades of Light Horse and cavalry, comprising 34,000 men from Australia, New Zealand, Britain, France and India. This is thought to be the largest body of cavalry ever to serve under one leader.
The action began on 19 September, with an artillery barrage near today's Tel Aviv. As planned, this created an opening for the cavalry to break through the enemies' lines. The 5th Cavalry Division headed north along the coast towards Nazareth and Haifa, and the 4th Cavalry crossed at the Megiddo Pass and then headed towards the Jordan River. Other troops went down the central highway to Jenin. The Chaytor Force, led by New Zealand General Edward Chaytor, captured Amman and dealt with the 4th Turkish army. On the first day alone, the allies captured 15,000 prisoners.
On 24 September, Chauvel sent the Australian Mounted Division to capture the railway intersection in Semakh, near the Sea of Galilee. The station was heavily defended by German guns and German and Turkish troops. The Australians charged the station by moonlight and engaged in the heaviest fighting of this part of the campaign. The battle cost the lives of 14 Australians, with 27 wounded. Nearly half their horses were also lost. However, this was far less than the 98 German and Turkish troops killed and the 365 captured. From here the troops took the rest of northern Palestine and went on to Damascus by 1 October and eventually Aleppo by the end of October.
Among the Australian troops were a sizable contingent of Indigenous soldiers. This included the so-called Queensland Black Watch, which comprised 36 soldiers, 32 of whom were Indigenous. These troops deserve special recognition not just because of the role they played but because they were wrongly denied many of the benefits that other veterans received upon returning home.
Though Beersheba is better known and a more dramatic battle, the breakthrough in 1918 was across a huge 100-kilometre front, attacking three armies and involving many thousands of troops. This called for not only outstanding coordination and organisation but also exceptional execution. In this task, both Sir Henry Chauvel and the Anzac troops he commanded performed admirably.
The contemporary significance of this action and our earlier success in Beersheba was captured very well by former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's speech in Israel last year to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Beersheba battle. As he said, it:
… did not create the State of Israel, but enabled its creation … Had the Ottoman rule in Palestine and Syria not been overthrown by the Australians and the New Zealanders, the Balfour Declaration would have been empty words.
Education
Senator FARUQI ( New South Wales ) ( 19:29 ): I've stood as an engineer and a sustainability academic at the front of lecture theatres more often than I've stood up to speak in parliaments. When you're teaching you spend an awful lot of time looking your students in the eye, as you might imagine. Now that I'm spending less time in the classroom and more time in parliament, I often wonder whether many members in this place wouldn't benefit from having to look some students in the eye every so often. I wonder about this because this parliament's track record of selling out students and the education system seems to suggest that some parliamentarians have little understanding of learning and teaching as more than just a tricky funding issue. They would benefit, I suggest, from more opportunities to speak with students of all ages, to appreciate the breadth of their interests and concerns, to understand their passions and hopes for the future. Then, maybe, we could return to a debate about education centred on the value of learning.
I've taught and run university courses, carried a National Tertiary Education Union card for many years and watched with immense pride as hundreds of my students graduated to pursue their dreams. I don't mention this to talk up my academic credentials—though I'm happy to talk ecological sustainability, engineering and anaerobic wastewater treatment anytime, anywhere. I mention my experience because it means I've spent countless hours with students and as a student studying, teaching, marking, mentoring, listening and learning. I can bear firsthand witness to the difference it makes when teachers and staff have the opportunity to get to know and understand their students. This is an opportunity they find harder and harder to get when funding cuts have been foisted upon them by successive Labor and coalition governments, and these cuts have given university managements an excuse to put pressure on staff to do more with fewer resources.
The result of each new round of cuts, capped off last year by the coalition government's craven decision to take $2.1 billion from the sector over 2018 and 2019 through funding freezes is predictable: larger class sizes, fewer resources, less individual attention to learning needs and, for staff, more and more casual and contract work and less and less job security. Too often the hardest hit are academics at the start of their careers whose professional lives become overwhelmed by the precarious nature of casual work, not knowing each semester whether they will have a job for the next. This is no way to conduct research, and the constant worrying about holding onto your job is certainly no way to teach. It is simply not good enough for governments to distance themselves from university decisions that are not good for staff or students. They have to take responsibility for the link between senseless funding cuts and the pressures it creates for staff and students alike. We must recognise that, in our universities, staff working conditions are student learning outcomes conditions. We cannot have a flourishing public higher education system without secure jobs within it.
During my first speech, less than a month ago, I spoke of the wicked problems we face as a society—problems like climate change, inequality, health services, infrastructure planning and school funding. We will not begin to address these wicked problems unless our best minds are given the time, space, resources and support to tackle them. Universities and our education system as a whole are vital to meeting these challenges now and in the years to come.
The Greens recognise and celebrate this important role unis play. We, like the rest of Australia, see that politicians from both major parties are too often willing to exploit the public relations value of professing an interest in Australian education while using the education system as a political football. The Greens refuse to look at education as anything but a lifelong learning process that starts from a child's very first word and lasts the duration of adult life. This includes early childhood education, schools, TAFE and university. We refuse to think of education as curriculum box-ticking, an exercise in meeting metrics or an opportunity to enable the business models of private sector providers to make profit. Education is not a commodity, students are not customers and teachers are not mere service providers. We see collective action as the only way university staff can get decent working conditions. We will champion well-funded and accessible public education for everyone at all stages of their life. We will remain a party able to look students and teachers in the eye.
Aged Care
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (19:34): I rise this evening to speak about the aged-care crisis that has developed on the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government watch—an aged-care crisis that the latest Prime Minister claims he's only just become aware of in the last few days. But the latest Prime Minister was the architect behind some of the cruellest cuts the aged-care sector has ever seen. It was his cuts that brought us to the crisis point we are at now. In his first year as Treasurer, he tried to rip almost $2 billion from the aged-care sector. Now he's claimed aged care is his top priority and that he is a friend to older Australians. Well, your crocodile tears aren't working, Mr Morrison. Older Australians won't be fooled. If aged care were truly your top priority, it would have had a seat at your cabinet table.
One of Mr Morrison's first acts as Treasurer was to slash almost $500 million from aged-care funding in the 2015 MYEFO. He followed this with an even bigger cut: $1.2 billion from aged-care funding in the 2016 budget. Even as the waiting lists for home care packages blew out to more than 108,000, Mr Morrison's budget this year did not deliver one extra dollar—not one extra dollar of funding to aged care. Let's not forget the 26,000 residential aged-care places he also cut in this year's budget. It's actually quite embarrassing. Mr Morrison acts as though he is only recently interested and is a bystander in all that has taken place, but we know his role in this. Mr Morrison's shameful record on aged care is crystal clear. The budget papers do not lie. He has cut aged care in every single budget he has been responsible for as Treasurer. The fact that he can stand in front of the cameras and deny this is quite unbelievable. It tells you everything you need to know about the new Prime Minister. Older Australians deserve better than a Prime Minister who cuts funding to aged care and then lies about it.
Mr Morrison's belittling response to his aged-care cuts this week have been shameful. First he said that calling him out on this $1.2 billion cut to aged care was childish. Then in question time on Monday he characterised his $1.2 billion cut to aged care as just a 'little fact'—an insult to every older Australian who relies on care. Mr Morrison's $2 billion cut to aged care during his time as Treasurer is just not a little fact. It had a detrimental impact on the sector and on older Australians. Even more disturbing was yesterday when the Prime Minister refused to rule out any further funding cuts to the aged-care sector. I've got a message for the new Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister, and his disillusioned government: you do not fix aged care by cutting it.
Obviously Labor supports the royal commission into the aged care-sector, but the government won't be let off the hook. The government's call for this royal commission is an admission of their failure. They have essentially called for a royal commission into themselves. They've been in charge for five years and have nothing to show for it. I warned those opposite, and Labor warned those opposite, that this royal commission must not become the latest excuse for doing nothing. You cannot fix the wait list by calling a royal commission. You can't afford to wait until the royal commission brings down its findings to invest to resolve these critical issues. The need for more aged-care workers can't wait. The need for better training can't wait. The need for better pay and conditions for those in the aged-care sector can't wait. Of course, the 108,000 older Australians who are waiting for home care packages—88,000 of whom want and need high-needs care, and many of whom are living with dementia—cannot wait until the royal commission brings down its findings. The way to fix this is for this government to show some courage to address these important issues because older Australians deserve nothing less.
Senate adjourned at 19 : 39
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:
[Legislative instruments are identified by a Federal Register of Legislation (FRL) number. An explanatory statement is tabled with an instrument unless otherwise indicated by an asterisk.]
Aged Care Act 1997—Aged Care (Subsidy, Fees and Payments) Amendment (September 2018 Indexation) Determination 2018 [F2018L01297].
Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997—
Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Amendment (September 2018 Indexation) Principles 2018 [F2018L01299].
Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) (Subsidy and Other Measures) Amendment (September 2018 Indexation) Determination 2018 [F2018L01303].
Australian National Maritime Museum Act 1990—Australian National Maritime Museum Regulations 2018 [F2018L01294].
Civil Aviation Act 1988—Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—Repeal of Airworthiness Directive AD/A320/23 Amdt 2—CASA ADCX 012/18 [F2018L01286].
Consular Fees Act 1955—Consular Fees Regulations 2018 [F2018L01290].
Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986—Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Regulations 2018 [F2018L01284].
National Library Act 1960—National Library Regulations 2018 [F2018L01295].
Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017—Parliamentary Business Resources (Office Holder) Amendment Determination (No. 1) 2018 [F2018L01285].
Pooled Development Funds Act 1992—Pooled Development Funds Regulations 2018 [F2018L01291].
Private Health Insurance Act 2007—Private Health Insurance (Prostheses) Amendment Rules 2018 (No. 3) [F2018L01283].
Regional Investment Corporation Act 2018—Regional Investment Corporation Operating Mandate (Amendment) Direction 2018 [F2018L01293].
Statutory Declarations Act 1959—Statutory Declarations Regulations 2018 [F2018L01296].
Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992—Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01289].
Taxation Administration Act 1953—Treasury Laws Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Offences) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01292].
Taxation (Interest on Overpayments and Early Payments) Act 1983—Taxation (Interest on Overpayments and Early Payments) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01288].
Therapeutic Goods Act 1989—Therapeutic Goods Order No. 98 – Microbiological Standards for Medicines 2018 [F2018L01287].
Tabling
The following documents were tabled pursuant to standing order 61(1)(b):
Government documents
1. Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997—Livestock mortalities during export by sea—Report for the period 1 January to 30 June 2018.
2. Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013—Independent review of the operation of the Act and Rule, dated September 2018.