The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 12:00, 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: Committees have lodged proposals to meet as follows:
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 3.30 pm.
Community Affairs References Committee—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 1 pm, for the committee's inquiry into support for Australia's thalidomide survivors.
Education and Employment References Committee—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 3 pm.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security—private briefing during the sitting of the Senate today, from 4 pm.
Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 14 February 2019, from 10 am.
Standing Committee of Senators' Interests—private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 13 February 2019, from 10.30 am.
The PRESIDENT (12:01): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, I will move on.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Tasmania
The PRESIDENT (12:01): I inform the Senate that Senator Bushby resigned his place as a senator for the state of Tasmania on 21 January 2019. Pursuant to the provisions of section 21 of the Constitution, the Governor-General notified the Governor of Tasmania of the vacancy in the representation of that state caused by the resignation. I table the letter of resignation and a copy of a letter to the Governor-General.
PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS
Temporary Chairs of Committees
The PRESIDENT (12:02): Pursuant to standing order 12, I lay on the table a warrant revoking the warrant nominating Senator Dean Smith as a Temporary Chair of Committees.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
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) (12:02): I table for the information of the Senate a revised ministry list. I seek leave to have the document incorporated into Hansardand to make a short statement.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
MORRISON MINISTRY
Title |
Minister |
Prime Minister |
Hon. Scott Morrison MP |
Minister for Indigenous Affairs |
Senator the Hon. Nigel Scullion |
Minister for Women |
Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer MP |
Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister |
Hon. Steve Irons MP |
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development |
Hon. Michael McCormack MP |
Minister for Regional Services, Sport, Local Government and Decentralisation |
Senator the Hon. Bridget McKenzie |
Minister for Cities, Urban Infrastructure and Population |
Hon. Alan Tudge MP |
Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories |
Hon. Sussan Ley MP |
Assistant Minister for Roads and Transport |
Hon. Scott Buchholz MP |
Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister |
Hon. Andrew Gee MP |
Treasurer |
Hon. Josh Frydenberg MP |
Assistant Treasurer |
Hon. Stuart Robert MP |
Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance |
Senator the Hon. Zed Seselja |
Minister for Finance and the Public Service (Vice-President of the Executive Council) (Leader of the Government in the Senate) |
Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann |
Special Minister of State |
Hon. Alex Hawke MP |
Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance |
Senator the Hon. Zed Seselja |
Minister for Defence (Leader of the House) |
Hon. Christopher Pyne MP |
Minister for Defence Industry |
Hon. Steven Ciobo MP |
Minister for Veterans' Affairs |
Hon. Darren Chester MP |
Minister for Defence Personnel (Deputy Leader of the House) |
Hon. Darren Chester MP |
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC |
Hon. Darren Chester MP |
Assistant Minister for Defence |
Senator the Hon. David Fawcett |
Minister for Foreign Affairs |
Senator the Hon. Marise Payne |
Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment (Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) |
Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham |
Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific |
Senator the Hon. Anne Ruston |
Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment |
Hon. Mark Coulton MP |
Attorney-General |
Hon. Christian Porter MP |
Minister for Home Affairs |
Hon. Peter Dutton MP |
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs |
Hon. David Coleman MP |
Assistant Minister for Home Affairs |
Senator the Hon. Linda Reynolds CSC |
Minister for Communications and the Arts (Manager of Government Business in the Senate) |
Senator the Hon. Mitch Fifield |
Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations |
Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer MP |
Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education |
Senator the Hon. Michaelia Cash |
Minister for Resources and Northern Australia |
Senator the Hon. Matthew Canavan |
Minister for Industry, Science and Technology |
Hon. Karen Andrews MP |
Minister for Education |
Hon. Dan Tehan MP |
Minister for Health |
Hon. Greg Hunt MP |
Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care |
Hon. Ken Wyatt AM MP |
Minister for Indigenous Health |
Hon. Ken Wyatt AM MP |
Minister for Families and Social Services |
Hon. Paul Fletcher MP |
Minister for Human Services and Digital Transformation |
Hon. Michael Keenan MP |
Assistant Minister for Social Services, Housing and Disability Services |
Hon. Sarah Henderson MP |
Assistant Minister for Children and Families |
Hon. Michelle Landry MP |
Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources |
Hon. David Littleproud MP |
Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources |
Senator the Hon. Richard Colbeck |
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Drought Preparation and Response |
Hon. David Littleproud MP |
Minister for the Environment |
Hon. Melissa Price MP |
Minister for Energy |
Hon. Angus Taylor MP |
Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there is a Department of Human Services in the Social Services portfolio and a Department of Veterans' Affairs in the Defence portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a minister in all cases. Assistant Ministers in italics are designated as Parliamentary Secretaries under the Ministers of State Act 1952.
Senator CORMANN: Mr President, I advise the Senate that the updated ministry list reflects the appointment of Andrew Gee as the Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister. I also advise the Senate that Senator Dean Smith has been appointed Chief Government Whip and Senator Jonathon Duniam has been appointed a deputy whip.
COMMITTEES
Intelligence and Security Committee
Membership
The PRESIDENT (12:02): I have received a letter requesting changes in the membership of a committee.
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Minister for Communications and the Arts) (12:02): Mr President, I seek leave to move a motion to vary the membership of a committee.
The PRESIDENT: Is leave granted? Senator Collins?
Senator Jacinta Collins: Mr President, by leave, can I just clarify a question here. We have changes to committee memberships as well, and the draft red had it listed for much later in the day. Is there some reason that we're not aware of that it's been brought forward to this stage?
A government senator interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: This, I understand, was mentioned at the cross-whips, referencing the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
Senator Jacinta Collins: My question is: will we be returning to it?
The PRESIDENT: Yes, we will take care of the other variations in committees. Senator Cormann?
Senator Cormann: This is to deal with the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Bushby on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Obviously that is an important committee of the parliament that has some business in front of it as we speak. This course of action, which was communicated to all parties, will facilitate a full membership of that important committee forthwith, should the Senate agree.
The PRESIDENT: We will return to other committee memberships at item 20 on the red. I'll take it that leave is granted for Senator Fifield to move the motion.
Senator FIFIELD: I move:
That Senator Stoker be appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, pursuant to the Intelligence Services Act 2001.
Question agreed to.
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Parliamentary Computing Network
The PRESIDENT (12:04): As senators are aware, the Australian parliamentary computing network has recently been the subject of a security incident. As soon as the incident was identified, the Department of Parliamentary Services worked with the Australian Signals Directorate and its Cyber Security Centre to investigate and remediate the situation. As a consequence of this, the decision was taken last week to implement a number of measures to protect both the network and its users. One specific measure was to reset all network, user, administrator and system level passwords. The reset occurred between the hours of 3 am and 6.30 am last Friday, 8 February. During this time, a range of other measures were also undertaken. I can assure the Senate that this action was carried out as a standard security incident response procedure and precautionary measure to protect user access and information. A conscious decision was made to not advise users in advance, as any communication may have flagged remediation activities to the offender and limited remediation effectiveness.
The majority of APH users attended work on the morning of 8 February and, after logging on, were prompted to change their password. This then enabled users to resume work. The Department of Parliamentary Services ensured that additional resources were available on the 2020 service desk during Friday and the weekend, and leading up to this sitting period to manage the higher volume of calls generated by the password reset. An email was sent to all network users at approximately 9.30 am on Friday advising of the password reset and why it was necessary for it to occur, understanding that users who had not performed the reset would not receive this.
For several years, the Australian Signals Directorate and its Cyber Security Centre have been working with DPS to improve security of the network. DPS has made substantial strides in strengthening cyberdefences, which have been effective in limiting the impact of this incident. While any intrusion to the network is extremely unfortunate, it is important to understand that the methods used by malicious actors are constantly evolving and no network, including the parliamentary computing network, is considered 100 per cent secure. If there is an incident, best practice is possessing the capability to detect it and then remediate it quickly. The relevant agencies have assured the Speaker and me that DPS acted decisively and fully cooperated with their advice, and that the handling of this incident represented best practice. The cooperation continues as DPS works with the experts of ASD to secure the system and protect its users.
Importantly, I would also like to specifically acknowledge the assistance and expertise of staff from the ASD's Cyber Security Centre, who have worked tirelessly alongside DPS to address and mitigate the impact of this incident.
I'm not in a position to provide any information regarding attribution of responsibility for this intrusion. It is also likely to be some time before the investigation into this incident is concluded. I will provide further relevant updates to senators as is appropriate.
I will take this opportunity briefly to also welcome back to the chamber our colleague and friend Senator Sinodinos.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
MOTIONS
Murray-Darling Basin
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (12:07): by leave—I move:
(1) That the Senate:
(a) notes with alarm:
(i) the crisis that has unfolded in Menindee Lakes over the summer with unprecedented fish deaths,
(ii) the Productivity Commission report into the implementation of the Murray Darling Basin Plan,
(iii) the findings of the South Australian Murray Darling Basin Royal Commission, and
(iv) the 1500GL cap on water buybacks for environmental watering,
(b) is of the opinion that the 1500GL cap on water buybacks be repealed;
and
(2) That so much of standing order 111 be suspended, as would prevent Senator Pratt moving that the following bill be introduced at 6 pm today:
A Bill for an Act to amend the Water Act 2007, and for related purposes.
Senator Birmingham: On a point of order: for the assistance of the chamber, would it be possible to get a copy of the motion circulated swiftly please?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, I assume you will be able to pass it to the attendants, who can circulate it.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I bring this motion forward in the Senate today because we have seen unprecedented environmental collapse in the Murray-Darling Basin over the summer and unprecedented fish kills in the lower Darling. We've seen the River Murray and the Darling absolutely crippled by mismanagement, water theft and a failure to implement the objectives of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which was meant to save our river system and give it a fighting chance.
We know that in the Murray-Darling we have our nation's largest river system—a river system that waters our nation's food bowl. It is a symbol of Australia and how we protect our environment and how we look after the sustainability of our environment. More than 2.6 million Australians call the Murray-Darling Basin home. The basin is the food bowl of our nation. The agriculture industry within the basin is worth $24 billion annually. It is responsible for producing around one-third of our nation's food. The basin is, of course, also rich in culture. It has been home to more than 40 Aboriginal nations for thousands and thousands of years. Tourism is worth $8 billion a year to basin communities.
There are 30,000 wetlands across the basin, and 16 are internationally significant. Over three million people have access to fresh, clean drinking water from the basin. The basin is unique, providing diverse habitats for 120 waterbird species and 46 native fish species. The fishing industry in the basin employs 10,000 people. The Murray-Darling Basin is the largest and most complex river system in Australia. It runs, of course, from Queensland, through New South Wales and even the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria, and into my home state in South Australia, spanning 77,000 kilometres of rivers. It covers about 14 per cent of Australia's landmass.
What we have seen this summer is the environment in collapse—a river system on the brink of death. We've seen millions of fish floating on the top of the river because there is not enough water for the system to survive. When I visited Menindee in the days following the second mass fish kill, I was struck by the heartbreak of the locals—farmers in the area who'd been there for generations. One particular man, who was in his late 70s, said to me as he picked up a big, dead Murray cod that this was one of the ones that had got away when he, as a kid, had been fishing on the banks of the Darling.
For generations and for years we have known that the water wars that govern the Murray-Darling Basin have left our river high and dry. We know that there is too much water being taken out of the system to give the environment the chance for resilience and to survive in the drier periods. We know, after years and years of debate on managing the Murray-Darling Basin, that we had to have a set of rules that were fair so that, whatever part of the basin you live in, you would know that the river would be given the chance to survive and be there for future generations. In order to do that, we knew that we had to return more water to the system. That's what the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was meant to do—return water to the river to give it a chance to survive.
Six years after the Murray Darling Basin Plan had been implemented, with $13 billion on the table, what we see is a river system in collapse—$13 billion of Australian taxpayers' money; six years of mismanagement, water theft and corruption. We've brought forward this motion today because the government doesn't want to talk about this. The water minister, David Littleproud, hasn't even bothered to go to Menindee and see the catastrophe for himself. We know that this government continues to do the bidding of big corporate irrigators, at the expense of the environment and river communities and those smaller farmers that need the river to survive. One of the elements of this motion is to call for the immediate repeal of the cap on water buybacks, because with $13 billion on the table we should be having water returned to the river, but instead we have a river system that is being sucked dry. Meanwhile, big corporate irrigators are having their pockets lined with Australian taxpayers' money. The government and the National Party are looking after their big corporate mates, while everybody else is expected to suffer in silence.
In my home state of South Australia, people are pretty angry at what is going on. They're pretty angry that, despite what was meant to be put in place to manage the Murray-Darling Basin, to give the river a fighting chance, we see millions of fish dead, a river system in collapse. Rather than putting more water into the river, lifting that ban on buybacks, getting water into the system, tackling the overallocation of water licences and regulating and properly accounting for the vast amounts of water that are being harvested across flood plains, this government says, 'Don't blame us; just pray for rain.' That's the Prime Minister's answer to the crisis in the Murray-Darling Basin right now: 'Don't blame the National Party. Don't blame Barnaby Joyce. Blame God. Pray for rain, and all will be okay.' There is a total lack of leadership coming from Prime Minister Scott Morrison right now.
This river system is our nation's lifeblood. It waters our nation's food bowl. We need this river if we are to survive as a country that prides itself on clean produce and sustainable agriculture. Those millions of fish floating on the top of the Darling over summer struck a chord with Australians right across the country. Everybody knows there is something wrong with this system. Everybody knows that too much water is being taken out of the river, and it's time we put some back. Australians aren't silly. They know who's been sucking our river dry; it's the greedy big corporate irrigators who care more about their profits than they do about the health of the river and keeping the river system there for future generations. Those big corporate foreign cotton farms don't care if the river runs dry. In fact, they are spending millions of taxpayers' dollars harvesting overland flows and floodwaters so that the water doesn't get into the river system, so they can keep it for watering their cotton crops. There is something rotten with the management of the Murray-Darling Basin, and every Australian who's been watching what's happened this summer knows it.
The Productivity Commission three weeks ago handed down a report into the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The Productivity Commission said very clearly that the objectives of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, to restore environmental flows, had been forgotten. Those objectives are now divorced from the way the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is being implemented. This parliament has approved $13 billion of taxpayers' money that was meant to be spent saving the river system, and we have a river in crisis and fish dead in the lower Darling.
The South Australian royal commission report that was handed down two weeks ago was very clear in its condemnation of the management and implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan as well. In fact, it confirmed many of the things that the government's own Productivity Commission report had said. Clearly, these two reports nail what is going on: maladministration, greed and unlawful activity. What we've seen is a Basin Plan that has become corrupted because of political and corporate interference. What we've seen is the management of the Murray-Darling Basin become more about lining the pockets of big corporate irrigators, the mates of the former water minister Barnaby Joyce, rather than securing the water the river needs.
When Mr Joyce was the water minister, he got caught bragging about how much water he'd taken off the environment to give to his mates in the corporate irrigating industry. What have we got now? A dead river, dead fish, an environment in collapse. If there is anyone responsible for this environmental disaster this summer, it's former water minister Barnaby Joyce. This is on his head. It's up to this government to do something about it. If they won't, this parliament should. One of the urgent things that needs to be done is water needs to be secured for the river. That doesn't mean praying for rain. That means lifting the ban on the buybacks, purchasing water and getting it into the system. We've had the Prime Minister and the current water minister say that there's nothing that can be done. They're in charge of this system. This has happened on their watch. They say it's just drought. Well, no, it's not. It's corporate cotton, it's corruption and it's climate change. While this government has its head buried in the sand on all three of those issues, it's never going to come up with a plan to save the river.
Back home in South Australia, we have the state Liberal government doing whatever they can to cover up the incompetence and corruption that have been going on in Canberra and interstate—so much so that the South Australian water minister was singled out in the South Australian royal commission report because of his failure to stand up for our state. The commissioner, Bret Walker, is clearly not a man to mince his words. He called out the irresponsibility of the South Australian government and the minister, saying that he may have even breached the ministerial code of conduct because he sold South Australia out so badly at the last ministerial council meeting.
I don't think South Australians give two hoots about who fixes the river; they just want it fixed. They want the water returned to the system as we were promised. We know that that extra 450 gigalitres that South Australia was meant to get will never be delivered as long as this government is in charge. South Australians deserve better than this. The people of Menindee deserve better than this. The people living throughout the Murray-Darling Basin and those river communities all deserve better than this.
It's not rocket science; the system has been over-allocated for decades. If we want to save the river, we have to give the environment back its fair share. It doesn't matter how much negotiation there is or how many tricks of accounting this government or the Murray-Darling Basin Authority want to dream up; Mother Nature is crying out for help. The Prime Minister says that what happened in Menindee is a disaster. Well, yes, it is—a man-made disaster on his government's watch, and it's time they did something about it. The things that can be done instantly are lifting the ban on buybacks and ensuring water is purchased for the environment and the river, including the extra 450 gigalitres that South Australia was promised.
South Australians living at the bottom of the system know very, very well that, if we don't fix this river system now, it's never going to happen. The environment is crying out for intervention. Business as usual must change. There is a view that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is too big to fail—that we can't do anything about it because it's too big to fail. Well, it's not. It's failing now, right before our eyes, and we must intervene. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians in this place to look at what has happened, to listen to the scientists, to see the evidence before us and to act. The Prime Minister might want us to pray for rain. I want some water to be returned to the river, as do South Australians and river communities right throughout the basin. If we don't get the water returned to the river it will be too late. A million dead fish, $13 billion of taxpayers' money and some pretty greedy, happy corporate irrigators—clearly something is rotten and it needs cleaning up now. (Time expired)
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:29): I am privileged to speak on this motion, and indicate that the opposition will be supporting the Greens in this respect. In particular, I make reference to the part of the motion which says that the Senate:
(b) is of the opinion that the 1500GL cap on water buybacks be repealed; …
I think that's the essential part of this particular motion.
I was lucky enough to be born on the River Murray, at the great South Australian Murraylands town of Murray Bridge. Like just about all South Australians, I've been passionate about the health of this mighty river system all of my life. The Murray and the Darling systems are not only iconic parts of our Australian landscape and environment; they're the lifeblood of many Australian communities. We have a responsibility to manage the entire system in a way that ensures its health and its sustainability not just for a year or an electoral cycle or the time between one good season of good flows and the next. As federal parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to manage it in the best possible way to ensure its health and sustainability both now and for future generations.
We've seen what happens when the rains stop, and the worrying reports about further mismanagement of the basin. Acting Deputy President Gallacher, I'm sure you've seen this in recent weeks and months, as the report of the South Australian royal commission has shocked people in South Australia. We've seen the theft and corruption that has gone on and been exposed by the royal commission. We've seen a dry riverbed. We've seen dying crops. We've seen those most shocking scenes of Murray cod, golden perch and other native fish suffocating in their thousands and perhaps millions.
A cap on water buybacks was never part of the original Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Of course, that plan was put through this parliament by Tony Burke, the then environment minister, who worked tirelessly for months and years with Prime Minister Julia Gillard to get that plan through this parliament. What the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission has made clear is that the cap on water buybacks should now be repealed. It was a feature of the original Murray-Darling, but, because of the incompetence and the misuse of the plan by the coalition government, we are now of the view that the only way to save the Murray-Darling Basin is to repeal that cap on buybacks. Repealing the cap on buybacks is also a recommendation of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, an independent expert group.
There has to be a mechanism for getting more water through the system to restore it to good health. The Murray-Darling Basin is under pressure from drought and mismanagement by this coalition government. The cap on buybacks reduces the incentive for governments to buy back water for the environment and to develop effective supply projects. Removing the cap removes any legislative barrier to buybacks over 1,500 gigalitres being one of those options. It also means that, if the 650 gigalitres of supply measures—projects that are still under development in some cases—do not deliver, buyback becomes an option into the future.
This parliament must put the sustainability of the Murray-Darling Basin ahead of partisan politics. We must not continue to have the sort of situation we had when Barnaby Joyce was responsible—or perhaps irresponsible—for this portfolio. His South Australian coalition colleagues were more interested in pandering to his personal political interests than they were in standing up for the health of the River Murray in their home state. I can see three of them sitting over there on the other side. Everybody else was calling for action—federal Labor MPs and senators, state Labor MPs and a coalition of local councils along the full length of the River Murray. But where were the government MPs and senators? They were nowhere to be seen. They had trust in New South Wales to deliver on this. Of course, as the royal commission has very clearly identified, that trust was completely misplaced.
Time and time again we've seen undeniable evidence that things are not right with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. But what do we get from those opposite? Not much more than cop-outs. 'We can't make it rain,' they would say. Well, none of us can make it rain, but we can work together to ensure that the incredibly precious and critical resource that we have in the Murray-Darling Basin is managed in a way that anticipates drought. We're all aware of the cycle of drought and flooding rains. That's probably never been more evident than this year, with those floods in Townsville. Those of us who don't have our heads in the sand are also aware that this cycle changes over time. The millennium drought no doubt played a part in increasing the will within politics to deliver the historic agreement reached under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
Recently, we have again seen drought that has had a terrible impact not only on the river system but on many Australian communities. In my home state of South Australia, communities along the river have been ahead of the curve, introducing super-efficient, modern infrastructure and strategies. South Australian irrigators have proven that smart investment and smart management can allow them to make the most of the water that is available to them. We've done it in tough times, but we've made an effort. We need all stakeholders in the health and sustainability of the Murray-Darling Basin to make that effort. I call upon those opposite, in particular my fellow South Australian senators, to work constructively and put the river before politics.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (12:37): It gives me great pleasure to stand in this place to debate the motion that has been put to the Senate by Senator Hanson-Young. Can I say at the outset how tremendously disappointed I am, on behalf of my colleagues, my communities and my people in South Australia, that once again our river communities are going to be pawns in a political battle in the lead-up to an election.
We saw last year in the lead-up to the South Australian election that the Murray-Darling Basin was foremost on the agenda of political debate and, immediately following that, we heard no more. Standing here today on the eve of an election and once again seeing it pop into this parliament, with this motion to debate an issue in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin, I would have to question the motivation of those who are seeking to put this forward. There is no doubt whatsoever that there has been a track record of questionable timing in relation to this particular issue.
Senator Farrell interjecting —
Senator RUSTON: I hear Senator Farrell on the other side, calling out across the chamber. One of the things I would like to do is take Senator Farrell on a journey with me as an irrigator. I hear you come from Murray Bridge. I was wondering how much time you've actually spent on the river in recent times, Senator Farrell. Do you sit on your front deck and watch the river flow past every day? Have you spent your summer holidays sitting on the River Murray, speaking to irrigators? Have you spent time talking—
Senator Farrell interjecting—
Senator RUSTON: I think you spend an awful lot of time in Clare, Senator Farrell, which is a lovely part of South Australia. It grows great wine, and it uses water from the Murray-Darling Basin to grow that great wine in South Australia. I would just like to point out that the crops that are grown across the whole of the Murray-Darling Basin, including the crop that Senator Farrell grows in Clare to make his beautiful wine as well as the roses that he planted last year, which he tells me are blooming beautifully again—they all come from the Murray-Darling Basin, and that's the food bowl of—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Gallacher ): Order! Senator Ruston, resume your seat. A point of order, Senator Farrell?
Senator Farrell: Just a point of clarification. I don't have access to Murray-Darling water on my property.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There is no point of order.
Senator RUSTON: I would draw to the attention of the chamber that Clare does take a certain amount of its water supply from the Murray-Darling Basin. Maybe Senator Farrell lives in the poor part of Clare that hasn't got access to water from the Murray-Darling, and I'm sure his grapes are absolutely lovely because they're all rain irrigated. But, nonetheless, let's get back to the story that we're trying to tell.
At the risk of giving you a history lesson about the development of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, can I pay tribute to those opposite for the extraordinarily bipartisan way the whole of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was developed? When it was originally established back many, many years ago, there were many people who played a significant part in the development of this plan, and I'll acknowledge many of your counterparts, including previous Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Certainly, Tony Burke has had a very big involvement, as has the previous Prime Minister from our side of politics, Malcolm Turnbull. Senator Birmingham was instrumental in the development and putting together of the plan at the time. We have all had an investment in this plan, so let's go back to that time.
I don't think the Australian public has any idea—and certainly, if you listen to her, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, hasn't any idea—about the level of negotiation that was required to enable this plan to be born in the first place. Do many people understand that there were 11 houses of parliament that this legislation had to get through? Eleven houses of parliament had to agree for this plan to be put together. So, what I would say is: let's get back to the table and let's start talking about this in a bipartisan way—certainly, for any plan that is going to take as long as this plan will to implement. We had 12 years to implement this plan. We're halfway through that 12 years. I think that we need to constantly be going back to the plan, looking at ways it can be achieved and making sure that it's achieving its outcomes. But this is throwing in a political time bomb three months out from an election and trying to blow the thing up again.
We went through all of this debate 12 months ago when we had the issue about whether we wanted to support the SDL adjustment or whether we were going to support the northern basin review. So we threw a bomb into this place, creating great uncertainty amongst all of our communities out there in the Murray-Darling Basin. It created great uncertainty, because what we need to realise—and you can stand on your high horse and you can bleat for as long as you like—is that the cold, hard reality is that we are not going to have this plan delivered in full for the benefit of all communities, the river, the river system, the environment, and all Australians unless everybody continues to stay at the table. Constantly poking the bear has the likelihood that, if you poke the bear one too many times, one of our constituencies that have to stay at the table to get this plan delivered will walk away and we will blow the whole plan up. Be it on your head. If you're going to be smart here, you're going to cause one of the parties to walk away from this table that they've sat around. We've negotiated. There have been huge differences of opinion as we've sat around the MinCo table.
Senator Storer interjecting—
Senator RUSTON: Senator, you haven't sat around the MinCo table. I have. I've seen all the people that sit around the MinCo table and I have seen all of the different competing interests from the states and everyone. We're all here for our states—for the best interests of our individual states.
Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—
Senator RUSTON: I'll take Senator Hanson-Young's interjection. States don't have to just look at one aspect; they can look at many more. I can assure you that when I sit around the MinCo table—
Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—
Senator RUSTON: You haven't been there either, Senator Hanson-Young. You just sit there on the sidelines, throwing your bombs. You couldn't care less what the outcome was here; you just want to grandstand on this. I care about delivering an outcome for our environment, for South Australia, for Australia and for all our river communities.
Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—
Senator RUSTON: Well, that's your opinion. I've got to tell you that South Australia currently has 100 per cent of its water allocation—I will say that again: 100 per cent of its water allocation—because of the good management of South Australia over the last 40 or 50 years and the good negotiations of South Australia.
Anyway, let's get back to our history lesson. I want to tell you about my community. My community was the second established irrigation community in the Murray-Darling Basin, after Mildura. My community is Renmark. It was established by the Chaffey brothers. My grandfather was actually the chair of the Renmark Irrigation Trust. Proudly, to this day, it still stands as the only irrigation trust in Australia that has its very own act of parliament.
I am an irrigator, and I am very, very proud of my community. I'm proud of a hundred years of responsible water management. I am proud of the fact that we were innovators; we were leaders in our community. We went to pressurised, piped irrigation systems. We have been the most efficient and effective water users in the country since irrigation first started in this country and first started in the Murray-Darling Basin. So I stand here as a proud, proud member of my community—a proud member of a community that has never done anything that would have a consequential detrimental impact on the river system. So my story is one of great pride, and it's greatly disappointing, and I should imagine that every single member of my community and Mr Morrison: any others who live along the Murray-Darling Basin would be devastated, to see the rubbish that gets said in this place about the community and how they've been handling the river.
I'd just like to comment on a couple of the things that Senator Hanson-Young put forward. She said that the river system is in collapse. Well, certainly, the northern part of the system is suffering an extreme amount of hardship and stress because of the fact that we are in one of the worst droughts that anyone can remember. We remember, in the southern connected basin, the millennium drought and the consequences that that had on us and our irrigation communities, on the health of the river and on the people who rely on the river, whether it be for drinking water, for public amenity or for growing the food that every single one of us in here is quite happy to put on the table for our families and our children to eat for dinner tonight. Let's not forget where that food comes from. So as to suggesting that the river system is 'in collapse': certainly I will accept the fact that the northern system is under a lot of stress. But in South Australia, with 100 per cent of our water allocation, the southern part of the system is actually in reasonably good health at the moment, and part of that can be attributed to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan working. We have 2,100 gigalitres of water that has been returned to the environment. That's flowing down the river as we speak. We've still got some more to go, and we are absolutely committed to getting to the 3,200 gigalitres of water that we said would be returned to the basin under this plan. But in 2024, we have the opportunity to assess where we have actually got to.
In another comment that Senator Hanson-Young made—and I'm not quite sure she actually realised the ridiculousness of her comment—she referred to the Murray-Darling Basin as the food bowl of the country. Well, yes, Senator Hanson-Young—it is the food bowl of the country. But it won't be if you take more water away from irrigators and completely decimate the communities. Just a little lesson in economics, Senator Hanson-Young: if you take so much out of a community that it can no longer exist as a community, the entire irrigation district collapses.
What we sought to do with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is to make sure that we took a responsible approach to making sure that we delivered the outcomes that addressed the concerns and the needs of the entire basin and all of its stakeholders. We're not just going to return the river to pristine environmental condition and completely trash the food bowl of the country and the people who grow the food that will sit on your table for dinner tonight. We're not going to trash river communities so they no longer exist. We're going to work systematically, sensibly and thoroughly through a 12-year process to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full.
Others may want to prosecute whether there's enough water or there isn't enough water. I'd like to think that the Labor Party will remain committed to the bipartisan position that they came to this place with in the first place, and that is that we are going to deliver this plan in full. We accept 3,200 gigalitres is the amount of water that we want to deliver by 2024, when we will reassess the success of the plan. So I'm hoping that they haven't moved away from that—that this particular publicity stunt for political purposes is only about the 1,500 gigalitres, which I'll get to in a minute.
The other comments that we heard coming from the other end of the chamber were about large corporate irrigators sucking the river dry. Certainly there are corporate irrigators along the river system. But what about the tens of thousands of mum-and-dad irrigators, the tens of thousands of people who live in communities just like mine, who might have 20 hectares or 30 hectares? In my case, I had only 11 hectares. These are small irrigators. They are integral parts of the fabric of the community in which they live. They are responsible water users. They have bought their entitlements completely legally. They have participated in the process of trying to find water savings to put back for environmental use.
Our river communities have been through a really tough time, but they're still standing. They're resilient. They've done the hard yards. So it's really disappointing that we should even be standing in this place today. The question has to be: why now? We're halfway through a process. This was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do a great environmental, social and economic readjustment in a system. Why are we talking about it today, but halfway through?
Our international reputation in terms of water management is second to none anywhere around the world. But, standing in this chamber, you'd be excused for thinking that we were anything other than the most incompetent water managers in the world. What I would say to you is that we need to allow the process to take its course. This is a really complex plan. I'm not making any qualms about that whatsoever. We had the initial plan at 2,750 gigalitres. We then dealt with the 650 gigalitres of the sustainable diversion limits, which we put through the parliament with the support of the opposition last year. We are locked into providing the extra 450 gigalitres of up water to supplement the amount of water that's returned to the environment to 3,200 gigalitres. We put in the Northern Basin Review so we can make sure the northern basin considerations are taken as an iterative process as the plan goes forward. It is a very complex plan. If it was easy, it would have been done an awfully long time ago. It's not easy. It is really, really tough balancing the triple bottom line needs of the environment, the social impacts on communities and the economic driver that the Murray-Darling Basin is for the Australian economy. This is an absolutely fundamental piece of public policy that has been supported by those opposite up until now.
Moving on to the 1,500 gigalitre cap to which this particular motion refers, can I say it is extraordinarily lazy or it's extraordinarily political that we should be standing here today dealing with the 1,500 gigalitre cap. Can I just put on the record that, as we stand here today, 270 billion litres of water is still available through the cap buyback. We haven't even reached the cap of 1,500 gigalitres. So why are we standing in this chamber, three months out from an election, having a debate about the cap? If you had come in here and tried to debate some other thing, you might have had some more credibility. But to be debating the cap when you haven't even reached the cap is absolutely hypocritical. You cannot defend what you're doing in any other way than saying that you're doing this for purely political purposes, because you want to be re-elected come the next election.
So I put it on the table: it is lazy politics and it is not good policy. It might be cheaper and it might be easier to buy back water, but that is not the best thing for our river communities. It is not the best thing for our economies that live and grow the food in the Murray-Darling Basin. So it is purely lazy and cheap politics, because it does not take into consideration the communities that depend on the river and the irrigation from the river. And it will have a massively, massively devastating effect for two reasons. Firstly, it will have a devastating effect because, of course, there is more water that has to come out of these communities. But it will also have a devastating effect because you will put these communities back into uncertainty. How much more uncertainty do you want these communities to have to suffer? We have been through 10 years of uncertainty in the Murray-Darling Basin, not knowing from one year to the next how much water we're going to have and whether water has to be taken away.
We gave some certainty back to our River Murray irrigators when we put in a cap of 1,500 gigalitres. We never moved away from the target of 3,200. We stand here rock solid, with everybody in this chamber, that we will deliver the Murray Darling Basin Plan in full. We don't move away from that. All we are saying is, 'Leave our irrigators with the certainty of knowing that they are not going to have buybacks come in and take their water.' Let me make it very clear: a lot of the buybacks that initially happened were not from willing sellers. An awful lot of these people were under stress from banks because they'd just come out of the millennium drought, and they sold their water under hugely stressful conditions. So don't be conned into thinking that there is a whole heap of people out there who want to sell their water to you—there aren't.
I note that this morning, Tony Burke, the shadow minister for water, was talking on ABC Radio South Australia and he made the comment, 'Buybacks at the moment haven't reached the cap.' So Tony Burke, by his own admission, accepts the fact this is not necessary at this time. He went on to say: 'If we get to 2024 and we haven't reached our targets, well, let's have a look at the mechanisms which we might have to use to be able to get that water.' By his own admission he says that this is not something that is needed now, so why are you bringing this into the chamber now? It can only be for politics. You need to justify that to your electorates. And another thing: David Bevan, the ABC journalist who was interviewing Tony Burke, said:
There will be regional communities right across the Murray-Darling Basin who would be very worried about that, because they see buybacks as killing communities.
Guess what Tony Burke said? 'That's right.' Is that okay?
The other thing that I'd love somebody to perhaps ask Tony Burke—and maybe some of you in your contribution to this debate this afternoon could explain this to me—is where these buybacks are going to come from. Are they going to come out of my community in Renmark? Are you going to turn up in Renmark and tell people that you're going to take more water out of their community? I have to tell you right now that Renmark has just recovered from the massive number of buybacks that have come out of the community. They're just back on their feet and the economy is starting to move after a time when every second shop in the main street of Renmark was shut because of the uncertainty and the Swiss-cheese effect of ripping water entitlements out in the middle of a community. The cost of the delivery of our irrigation water went through the roof, because there were half the number of irrigators irrigating off the same system. You don't understand until you're part of these communities how it rips the very guts out of the communities when you come in and randomly take from here and there.
Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—
Senator RUSTON: I'd love to know, Senator Hanson-Young, which communities you are going to take the water from. You tell me. Is it coming out of Renmark? Is it coming out of Berri? Where is it coming from?
Senator Canavan interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Gallacher ): Senators are entitled to be heard in silence. Please allow the senator to make her contribution with the normal courtesy.
Senator RUSTON: In conclusion, I'm tremendously disappointed that anybody in this place or in the other place would seek to use the members of my community as pawns in a political game. They have had enough, and you have to stop. The removal of the cap of 1,500 gigalitres is completely unnecessary because we haven't reached the cap yet. It is totally politically motivated—unless somebody can explain to me otherwise. It is a totally defeatist attitude to think that, six years into a plan, we aren't clever enough and innovative enough to be able to achieve this water recovery. In Senator Farrell's very own words, if we continue with 'smart investment' and 'smart management', we can reach the goals and water targets within this plan without destroying my community.
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (12:57): I rise in support of this motion. Since the last sitting I have travelled the Murray-Darling extensively, right down to Murray Bridge. I've been to Wentworth, where the Murray intersects with the Darling. I've driven up the Lower Darling twice. I've been to Menindee twice, before the highly publicised fish kill. I've been across to Mudgee, up to Dubbo, through Brewarrina, Dalby, Goondiwindi and even to Tilpa, about 200 kilometres north of nowhere in New South Wales, where the river was as dry as a bone. We've seen the fish kills; I don't think we need to talk much more about them. I've seen bone-dry rivers.
When I left Dubbo two Mondays ago to drive north up into the northern basin, there was 1,665 megalitres of flow at Dubbo. A three-hour drive north on the same river, the flows were down to zero. The only thing in between was irrigators taking water for their crop. People say they have an entitlement, but what about the people downstream: the people at Brewarrina, who are desperately worried that they won't have any water; the people at Bourke, who are on the verge of not having any drinking water; the people at Walgett, not on the same river system but in northern New South Wales, who have no drinking water from the river because of the state it is in?
Since the last time I was here, we've also seen the Productivity Commission hand down a review on the state of the Murray-Darling. That review raises some very serious concerns about the risks associated with the 605-gigalitre SDLs and in relation to the 450-gigalitre efficiency measures. We need to have regard to what the Productivity Commission has said.
We've also had a royal commission report handed down. That report was quite scathing. That report suggested in no uncertain terms that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is based on legally and scientifically flawed data. I think all of us who have regard for the rule of law in this place, and indeed for science, need to pay heed to what the royal commissioner has said. The royal commissioner also raised allegations of maladministration and political interference. Those are not my words; they are the words of the royal commissioner. And yet the response to the royal commission was disappointing at best. In fact, it was quite disrespectful in some instances.
I've just been looking at the resume of Mr Walker, an eminent QC. He was appointed for three years as the inaugural Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, a very important role in the context of national security. He ran a special commission into the Sydney Ferries Corporation. He was counsel conducting inquiries into the Casino Control Act in 1992. He conducted the Special Commission of Inquiry into Campbelltown and Camden Hospitals. His resume is quite deep with very important roles, and he is an eminent QC; a man of intellect. And yet some of the responses we saw to the royal commission report were very disrespectful—coming from government ministers. I understand that Mr Niall Blair, the water minister in New South Wales, and Mr Littleproud, the federal minister, both represent communities that have irrigators in them. Mr Littleproud, of course, represents the townships of St George, Dirranbandi, Dalby and Goondiwindi, all cotton-growing and irrigation areas. I would imagine that, if I were ever in the position that he is in, where as a minister he represents the Federation, I would be much more measured in my response to the royal commission and much more respectful. Even in South Australia we've had very soft responses from the Premier there, Steven Marshall. These sorts of responses are quite disrespectful of a royal commissioner, because people just don't want to hear what he has to say. Has anyone said the same sorts of things about Commissioner Hayne? People might have argued the toss, and are arguing the toss, about some of the recommendations that he's made, but they're not playing the man; they're playing the ball. That's the appropriate way in which we should be approaching the report of the royal commissioner.
Senator Hanson-Young stood up and criticised the irrigators, and the corporate irrigators in particular. I'm not going to do that, because they're not actually the problem. They are a symptom of the problem. They take water they are legally entitled to take because the system allows them to do that. I think we need to be careful about directing blame unnecessarily at irrigators. I might add—and we know this from the Four Corners show 'Pumped'—that there were some irrigators who were breaking the law. That is totally unacceptable, and some of them are actually before the courts right at this very moment. That's where they should be, answering charges under judicial processes, so there's fairness. We need to deal very swiftly with people who are taking water unlawfully. The situation we have at the moment is not about breaking laws; it's about broken laws. It's about us letting them do what they do.
I have foreshadowed that tomorrow I will introduce a bill into this parliament to ban the exporting of cotton. I have done so after my trip up into the north, seeing the expanding nature of that industry. Once again, they're not doing anything unlawful; they're doing what they are allowed to do. I've looked at this and said, 'Okay, if we can't solve this problem in a sensible and measured way then we need to look at perhaps more extreme approaches.' If we can't sit around and say, 'Let's deal with the recommendations of the royal commission in a sensible way,' then we might have to do something else.
For me, cotton is a crop that is grown and then merely exported. It is a water-intensive crop that is grown and exported. It is the equivalent of exporting water. That's a silly thing to do in a country that is actually the driest inhabited continent on the planet. It does not make sense. So I've put up what people might call an unpalatable bill, but it is sitting there hoping that we find a better solution, hoping we find a solution that balances out the needs of all the people across the river. We need to look at the river from a needs based perspective and we need to prioritise some of those needs. I have given the example before about what's happening in Dubbo, where all of the water flowing down a river is going to irrigators. I don't mind water going to irrigators, but all of it? And in circumstances where people are running out of river water to drink? We need to look at this properly.
The Murray-Darling Basin Plan, born of unlawful and unscientific methods—according to the royal commissioner, for whom I have great respect—deals with the allocations of water, the total amount of water we can safely take from the river. The royal commissioner comes to the conclusion that it shouldn't be 3,200 gigalitres that we need to return; it should probably be a number starting with '4'. We need look at that again. An allegation has been made by a royal commissioner. We need to tackle that allegation. I would like to have both the state jurisdictions and the federal jurisdiction look at what is written and deal with it. If not, there's an awful bill that I have put up, which only requires passing by this parliament to be enacted into law. It is the total domain of the federation to deal with matters such as export. So we need to be looking at allocations. We need to be looking at the SDL projects, because we know from the Productivity Commission report that there is risk associated with the delivery of that 605 gigalitres. We need to look at the 450 efficiency measures. We know there is risk, and, where there is risk, we must manage it properly.
In February last year, we voted on a northern basin review. This chamber rejected the proposal to return 70 gigalitres of water from the river back to irrigators in the northern basin. Unfortunately, when it was brought back in May, it passed. So we allowed 70 gigalitres to be returned to irrigators, and just look at the situation we are in. It's not necessarily because of that legislation, but, looking at it beside the circumstances we find ourselves in now, I think that was a most unwise thing for the Senate to do. I said at the time that I was concerned about the size. I said at the time that the Senate was not well informed; we didn't have all of the data before us.
We need to look at the river system in terms of not just allocation but also what are the smart crops to grow. We need to look at it and ask: 'Is it right to grow cotton? Is it right to grow almonds? Is it right to grow permanent crops or seasonal crops? What is the right mix of those crops?' That's how we should be approaching this problem. Instead we have denial; we have conflict across this chamber and, indeed, across the community.
Unfortunately, there are too many vested interests in this whole process. On the first day I sat in this chamber, my first day as a senator, I lodged a motion for an order for the production of documents relating to the Murray-Darling. I have been fighting since I've been here for transparency. Indeed, the royal commissioner found that the whole Murray-Darling Basin Plan is being implemented under a veil of secrecy. The Murray-Darling river is not a weapons system; it's not an intelligence operation. We need to be completely transparent in how we are managing that river and how we are spending taxpayers' money, and that is not happening at this point in time.
A claim has been made about political interference. That should alarm people. Indeed, I know Senator Hanson-Young is proposing a federal royal commission. We know that Bret Walker was fettered in his inquiry because the federal government would not cooperate with him, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority would not cooperate with him and other states would not cooperate with him. In a circumstance where questions have been raised as to governance, political interference and maladministration, it is appropriate that we look at things like royal commissions, because it doesn't matter what you do to fix the plan; if the governance structure is corrupted in some way, we just end up landing back in the same space.
Let's stop rejecting ideas; let's sit around the table with cool, calm heads and sort out how to fix what is clearly broken. It doesn't help that Senator Ruston stands and says, 'This is all political'. No-one has controlled the timing of the deaths of murray cod at Menindee. To suggest that somehow this is motivated by an election is, in my view, disingenuous. We've got dry rivers. We've got people running out of—please don't smile, Senator Canavan! We've got people in Walgett without water. I had a briefing the other day from a scientist down from the Coorong, and we've got problems down there too. We need to look at solving the problem. We don't need people with vested interests—I understand people represent their electorates, but you have to be mindful of national interest. We need to fix this. This is about the national interest; it's not about the Nationals' interest. Thank you.
Senator STORER (South Australia) (13:13): We have the balance wrong. It's very clear. The Murray-Darling Basin needs more water to ensure its survival. The intent of the Water Act—to share savings between irrigators and the Commonwealth on a fifty-fifty basis—should be returned to. Irrigators are the primary beneficiaries of a plan originally designed to increase flows to the environment to have a sustainable system. But the irrigators won't benefit for much longer if the river dries up. The Menindee Lakes fish kill will only be the start of much larger and regular catastrophic events. So we must reorientate the plan to fairly balance environmental sustainability of the system with economic concerns of individual irrigators.
Management of the Murray-Darling Basin requires urgent reform. That reform must be pragmatic. We must improve the integrity of the plan carefully and methodically without putting the plan itself at risk. Reforms outlined by the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission, delivered 29 January this year, include critically important recommendations to improve transparency by requiring real-time data sharing and publication on water extractions, and a call to abolish the water buyback cap of 1,500 gigalitres, which we're addressing today. It recommends to undertake further research into return flows, so that we know the effects of irrigation efficiency projects.
The Productivity Commission also delivered its findings to the government, on 19 December last year, pointing out that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's twin roles as overseer of the plan and its regulator are conflicted and that the conflicts will intensify in the next five years. Structural separation of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority into a basin plan regulator and a Murray-Darling Basin agency is required to ensure effective implementation of the plan. That is per the Productivity Commission.
I am encouraged that the Labor Party, the Greens and others are moving to abolish the water buybacks cap following the recommendation of the South Australian royal commission. I drafted an amendment to the Water Act to double the cap, which I had planned to introduce this week. The system needs more water to survive, and water buybacks have proven to be the most successful mechanism to achieve that aim. There is overwhelming evidence that water buybacks are cheaper, more reliable and more effective than other measures of water recovery. It's important to note that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder puts out a blind tender, and those who want to sell put an offer in—so Senator Ruston's analogy regarding Renmark and the irrigators there is not solid—yet, since 2013, water buybacks have stalled just below the 1,500 gigalitre cap imposed by the coalition government in 2015.
I call upon the government to adopt each and every recommendation proposed by the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission, which includes abolishing the water buyback cap of 1,500 gigalitres, and to proceed with the structural separation of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority as proposed by the Productivity Commission. We must act now before it is too late, but we must act carefully and responsibly, putting the sustainability of the system above short-term political gains. I, for one, believe that is the priority.
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (13:17): I find it galling—in fact, the height of hypocrisy. There must be an election on for this debate about the Murray-Darling Basin to be so dominated by South Australians. In fact, the motion is moved by a South Australian. It seems that practically every South Australian in this chamber wants to have their two bob's worth, as if their voices matter more than anybody else's. In fact, I suspect they think that theirs are the only voices that matter.
Now, let's talk about South Australia in the context of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. First of all, Australian water licence holders have sold almost 1,500 gigalitres of water under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. You would think, from all the bleating that has been going on, that the bulk of that has come from South Australia. Not so. Thirty-two gigalitres out of almost 1,500 gigalitres have been bought back from South Australian irrigators. I heard, previously, Senator Ruston say what effect that had had on her town of Renmark. Most of those licences must have been bought back in her area, because the rest of South Australia's irrigators have not felt the pain. I can tell you where the pain has been felt; it has been felt all along the Victorian border, close to the Murray River, and all along the New South Wales rivers. Go to towns like Shepparton, Deniliquin, Griffith and many, many other small towns, where the loss of water and the loss of irrigated farming has had an absolutely devastating effect on those country areas. South Australia's price for participating in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is a pimple on a pumpkin.
Another thing that South Australians seem to forget all the time is that the Lower Lakes are kept artificially fresh. They wouldn't be fresh in their natural state. They are kept fresh because there are barrages across the mouth of the Murray which prevent the Murray from behaving like an estuary—the only river in Australia that is prevented from behaving like an estuary. In an estuary, when the river flow is low, the sea comes in; when the river flow is high, fresh water goes out to sea. That's how the Lower Lakes would be kept wet, permanently wet, so they wouldn't get salt-encrusted shores as occurred in the drought. They would be kept wet. They wouldn't be kept artificially fresh under natural conditions but for those barrages.
Now, of course, that fresh water evaporates in the Lower Lakes. Nine hundred gigalitres a year evaporates from the Lower Lakes, all of it fresh water. Vast quantities of it, naturally enough, are water that has flowed down the Murray, a little bit of it down the Darling River, and into the Lower Lakes, where it evaporates. If those lakes were not kept artificially fresh, that 900 gigalitres of water which evaporates from Lake Alexandrina—and a little from Lake Albert, of course—could easily be brackish water, a mixture of seawater and fresh water. A lot of that 900 gigalitres could be retained further up the system either for environmental benefits or for irrigation and agriculture.
The Lower Lakes are an artificial environment. When we talk about protecting the environment, we are not talking about the natural environment. It's an artificial, man-made environment, and the South Australians don't ever mention that.
The other man-made impact that is very, very significant in this debate—also in South Australia, naturally enough—is the state of the Coorong. Until a few months ago, when I tweeted that the Coorong was dying and got criticised by Senator Hanson-Young for that, I don't think she knew where the Coorong was. Since then she's gone to look at it, and finally she now agrees with me: the Coorong is dying.
But why is it dying? I'll tell you why. It's because, again in South Australia, they have a thing called the south-east drainage project. The swamps and the various other sources of water which stop the land from being productive agricultural land have been channelled into drains. The water is sent down and, instead of draining into the Coorong, which is where it used to go before it was channelled, it now goes straight out to sea. All that fresh water which used to go into the Coorong is now going out to sea. As a result, the tail end of the Coorong—in fact, the bulk of the uphill section, I suppose, if you put it that way—is deprived of fresh water because the water that would, under the natural environment, flow into the Coorong is not going into the Coorong.
Another aspect that I find the South Australians completely hypocritical about is this fish kill in the Menindee Lakes. Why did the fish die in the Menindee Lakes? There are two factors. One is not enough water. The other one is the high temperatures. That's what does it. You get blue-green algae. You get other bugs growing in the water. The water's not flowing; there's not enough of it to maintain an oxygen supply, and it kills the fish. Why was there not enough water in the Menindee Lakes? Because it was sent down the river to South Australia. They let it out. They've done it twice in the last five years. Both times it's caused problems.
Now, the Menindee Lakes are not some sort of sacred environmental thing either. They're man-made. Under the natural environment, they are called ephemeral. They dry out when water flow is low, and, when water flow is high, there's water in them.
I have some sympathy for the people who live around the Menindee Lakes. They like to go out and waterski and ride their boats, but you couldn't call that an environmental argument. In fact, the best person to emerge out of this issue on the Menindee Lakes is the Hon. Niall Blair MLC, the New South Wales Minister for Regional Water, who is now saying there will be no more releases of water from the Menindee Lakes to send down to South Australia. Guess what happens when it gets to South Australia. It ends up in Lake Alexandrina and evaporates. Nobody is any better off, and neither is the environment any better off.
I'm appalled that the South Australian royal commission is being quoted. The South Australian royal commission—despite the fact that it was a New South Wales QC: he might as well have said, 'Give me all your propaganda, South Australia, and I'll put it into a report,' that's what it amounts to—was a fancy argument for saying, 'Send more water to South Australia.' Why? 'The environment.' What about the environment? 'Don't go there—just, "The environment". South Australia needs more water. The whole Murray-Darling is going to die unless South Australia gets more water.'
One final aspect that I want to bring into this discussion about South Australia is the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder is the custodian of all the water owned by the Commonwealth for environmental purposes. But it is asked to release water by the various water owners. There is good evidence that the South Australian government has requested—and it has been acted on—the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder to send water down to the South Australian lakes in order to raise the level of the lakes to allow a sailing regatta to occur at Goolwa. They asked for environmental water to be sent down the river to raise the lakes so they can have a sailing regatta. There is good evidence of that.
So what is the solution we hear from the South Australians? 'Send more water from Victoria and South Australia—and Queensland too, for that matter—down the river to South Australia.' And then they can't even get their rivers right—the Darling and the Murray. They don't even know there is a difference between them. Very little of the water up the Darling River, whether it is stolen or not, ever makes it to South Australia. The average is six per cent—that's it. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.
My solution to this, my advice, is that New South Wales should simply withdraw from the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and tell South Australia to grow up, stop whingeing and answer a few questions. New South Wales should not rejoin any plan involving the Murray-Darling until South Australia can answer some serious questions. Why can't the Murray River return to being an estuary? That's the natural environment. Why is it being artificially blocked in South Australia, with no justification by the South Australians as to why it shouldn't return to being an estuary, the natural environment? Why can't the water from the south-east drainage program go into the Coorong and save it, like it used to? Why should the barrages stay at Goolwa? Why should New South Wales, Victorian and Queensland farmers sacrifice—and they have paid hugely so far for their involvement in the Murray-Darling Basin plan—so that you can have a sailing regatta on the Lower Lakes at Goolwa in South Australia?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (13:28): From the moving of this motion, and from the arguments put in this chamber so far, it is clear that there are two main conclusions to make from the contribution of the Greens—both the presentation of this motion and also the arguments put. One is that the Greens political party, as a movement, is much more interested in problems than solutions. The oxygen that the Greens political party breathes and lives on is around perpetuating a problem, not creating a solution. It is only when problems arise—and problems have arisen over the last couple of months, no-one denies that, in relation to the death of fish in the system—that the Greens appear. They are never involved in trying to find the solution to such problems—the hard work that is involved in getting agreements with a variety of governments and getting support for legislation through parliaments which, obviously, have a variety of different views on a matter like this. Because there is no attempt from the Greens to do that, they can never claim any credit for improvements that are made—and there have been improvements made, as I will go through in my contribution.
The second point is that, for the Greens political movement, emotion always trumps reason and allegations always trump fact. Their contributions are often devoid of fact and are—at least, certainly in this instance—absent of any knowledge of the local circumstances on the ground within the Murray-Darling, which is an enormous environmental system, obviously incredibly complex. It runs from the headwaters around Toowoomba, west of Brisbane in my home state, all the way down to not quite Adelaide but to the east of Adelaide in South Australia. It's the biggest water catchment in the country. In an average season only around eight per cent of the water that falls around Toowoomba and in western Queensland will end up down at the mouth of the Murray. That's in a normal season. In a dry season, like we've had over the past year, or past couple of years in some places, you'll get much, much less than that, often absolutely nothing at all, because there's no connectivity. As people have remarked to me before, the Murray-Darling is like a big, dry, old carpet. It's not a garden hose. You don't put water in one end of the hose and it comes out the other end. You pour water on one corner of the carpet and, if it's wet enough, if there's enough water across the carpet, water will flow from one end to the other, but only in those circumstances where it is wet. And it certainly hasn't been wet recently.
Before I come back to some of those points, I want to put a few of those local facts on the table here in the Senate, particularly as they relate to my area of Queensland and also northern New South Wales, where it has been incredibly dry these last couple of years. Take the Condamine-Balonne subcatchment within the Murray-Darling. It is broadly centred around St George, which is the largest irrigating community around that area, but it does have other large centres at Miles and Chinchilla, although they rely more on groundwater and surface water extraction. But the average annual consumption in the Balonne system is 1,298 gigalitres a year. I apologise for the jargon. It probably doesn't mean much to people—1,298 gigalitres. That amount of water would be about three Sydney Harbours a year—it's probably a bit under that—that is used in the Condamine-Balonne subcatchments. Just keep in mind that that 1,300 gigalitres is the average annual use of water in that system. Some years it's higher; some years it's lower. In 2017, the use in that area was 156 gigalitres. The average is 1,300 gigalitres and in 2017, a relatively dry year, it was 156 gigalitres. Last year, in 2018, it was 73 gigalitres. So far this season—it hasn't been long, but this is when the water would tend to come in that area—only six gigalitres has been used. That is 1,300 down to 156, down to 73. It will obviously rise above six this year, but unfortunately it might not be much higher than that 2017 low this year either.
This is an example of how the system responds. We have a system which does respond. When it's dry, the use of water by farmers, primarily by irrigators, reduces. Most of that 73 gigs last year would have probably been stock and domestic use to keep households and animals alive, and in the towns, including St George and Dirranbandi, for town water. There would have been almost zero use of water for irrigation. I'll come back to that question in a second.
For example, at Cubbie Station, which is often held up, as the Greens have been saying, as corporate farmers or witches—people always want to burn witches in the Murray-Darling Basin. If someone has a witch, that witch has to be burnt. 'If only we could burn that witch, the whole thing would be right.' For some people it's Cubbie Station. For others it's Menindee Lakes. For others it's the Lower Lakes or the Coorong, as Senator Leyonhjelm mentioned. There's always something. 'If only we could get rid of it, everything would be fine.' As I indicated earlier, it's much, much more complex than that. Cubbie Station is sometimes held up as that witch, the witch from western Queensland in this case. Cubbie Station is a large cotton farm in western Queensland. It has not taken any water from the system—not one drop—since 2017. All of last year and so far this year there has not been one allocation of water to Cubbie Station.
But you wouldn't believe that. Over there we heard interjections earlier that it's the big corporate farmers who are responsible here. These corporate farmers are taking the water, and that's preventing the water going to the Menindee or Lower Lakes or lower. The evidence is there, but, as I said earlier, the Greens never resort to bringing a fact to a debate. The facts are all there on the record. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority monitors this very closely. Cubbie Station has not taken any water since 2017.
In fact, around St George—and Cubbie is close to Dirranbandi, which is not too far from St George in Queensland terms, at least—in that immediate area, only one per cent of the area is being planted with cotton or was planted with cotton last year. In a normal year, I think it's about 900 hectares of cotton being planted. That was planted last year because of this lower water use that I mentioned earlier. Down further south—and Senator Williams will be able to speak more about the situation in New South Wales—it's a similar situation in a lot of the dry cotton districts in New South Wales. My understanding is there was no cotton at all grown in Bourke last year, because of the incredibly dry conditions.
This brings us, I think, to an incredibly important point in this debate. I understand why emotion can come into these types of debates and I completely recognise that those not exposed to irrigation districts or the practices of farmers might work under misconceptions of how crop choice works, how farmers decide what to use. But No. 1, in my view, our farmers are our best environmentalists in this country, for a start. They live on the land. They live off the land. If they don't protect the land, they don't have any livelihood for themselves or their families. They know exactly how the environment works and how brutal it can be. They must manage it for the their long-term sustainability and that of their families. The way the system works is that a farmer will be provided with an allocation of water each year. They'll have an entitlement to a certain amount of water. Each year, depending on how much water is in the dam, they'll be allocated a certain amount of water. I mentioned earlier that the allocations in the Balonne have been something like six per cent of their average amount at the moment, and that leaves them less water to use.
In many parts of the system, particularly up in the north, in the upper Darling and Condamine-Balonne areas of the system, water uses can be very variable. There aren't as many dams in that part of the system as there are in the southern part of the system, so you can have a lot more variability in water availability, as we've seen in the last decade. We've had very, very large rainfall in the last decade and 100 per cent allocations for many seasons, but in the last couple of years that's reversed and we've had dry conditions. In that environment, obviously, you want to pick a crop that can respond to that variability. You don't want to plant something or grow something which is going to need water every year without question. That's why in many parts of this system exposed to this variability we have farmers growing what are called 'annual' crops, where you choose every year whether to plant that particular crop. Cotton is one of those. Rice is the other major annual crop in the system.
So, because we have a variable climate, because we know we're a country of flooding rains and droughts, we often have farming systems that respond to that variability and allow a farmer to choose to plant every year. That is the best choice not just for the farmer but for the system as a whole, because it can then respond flexibly to that variability. I want to bust this myth that cotton is terrible and you shouldn't grow it. Actually, because of the variable system, cotton is a perfect crop for that, because, when it's wet it can be very wet, as we've seen in the last decade. It's been very wet around St George for many years with floods. It's sometimes hard to remember those years, but they were only in the last decade. When it's wet, you can ramp up the cotton use. You can plant a lot of cotton and use the water. It's largely going to evaporate anyway; as I said, the whole system is not a garden hose; a lot of it will evaporate. So you can use that water, put it to productive use, make wealth for our country, create jobs and create vibrant communities and towns like St George, which are brilliant places.
Then, in the years when it's dry, as we've just seen, the farmers pull back. They pull all that production back. I know it's the same in the rice-growing districts around Murrumbidgee in Senator Williams's part of the world. We don't grow rice much in Queensland, but down in those areas where rice can be grown they'll do the same thing. I haven't got the stats, but I know that in the previous drought they went back to well over 90 per cent reduction in their rice production during the worst of the drought. They can do that because it's very variable.
If you plant trees, like there are a lot of in South Australia—there's no problem with that; I'm not criticising, but in the South Australian growing districts there are a lot of almond orchards et cetera—they need water every year. You can't rip those plants out when it's dry. So they've invested a lot more in reticulated systems, saving water, in response to the crop choice that they've had in that area. Likewise in Victoria, with again a less variable system and more dams, they have dairy cattle. Cattle need to be fed food and grass every year. You can't just scale your water use back up and down. The system works a lot better because of that.
Because, as I mentioned, the northern part of the system is not as regulated—there are not as many dams and water use is more variable—that system is exposed to the types of events we've seen in the past few months around the death of fish. We've all been touched by that tragedy. It's an unfortunate aspect of nature that we do have floods and then droughts. It does lead to these kinds of events. You can see this locally on the ground. This is a problem with this debate. Not enough people who have contributed to this debate have spent enough time in the areas of the basin where these events occur. They'll turn up for the photo shoot. They'll turn up when the fish die, do a 30-second social media post and then fly back to the city and not think twice about it.
Take Copeton Dam in the Gwydir catchment. Right now it's pretty dry in that area, as it is across many areas. Downstream of Copeton Dam, downstream of the wall, where they can regulate the river because they release water as per need, there are no fish kills. The dam has been able to keep, for now at least, the river full and regulated to an appropriate temperature and height, and there are no fish kills. Just upstream of Copeton Dam in that same local area there have been fish kills, because obviously you can't regulate the water. I might have to step through this for the Greens. Upstream of a dam you can't regulate the amount of water in that river. You can't pump water back up the river. You can only send it down the river. So upstream of the dam there have been fish kills. Downstream of the dam there haven't been any fish kills. This is in the same local area. Why? It's because we have a dam, that's why. The more we have dams, the fewer fish kills we have. The more you can regulate a system, the better you can manage the environment and make sure you don't have these types of events.
As I say, we are exposed to these types of events in the upper Darling in western Queensland because we do not have the same amount of water infrastructure as they have in South Australia with all the locks. You have locks all through South Australia. You can regulate the flow of water. You have the Hume Dam, the Dartmouth Dam and the barrages. You can regulate your system. That's fine; there's no problem with that. But up country we don't have such regulation, for largely good reasons. The topography is not as attractive to the construction of dams as it is in South Australia. So we have to manage these things.
I could go on about this for a long time, but I want to spend some time coming to that point about solutions. We need to find solutions. That is what we as a government have been focused on. I also recognise the efforts of the previous government, who came to an agreement with the states which has been concluded under our government. But it looks like they might be supporting this ridiculous notion, which I suppose is the irresponsibility that comes with opposition. But in government we try to find solutions where we bring parties together, bring states and territories together and get a better-fit deal for South Australia. No-one is questioning the fact that water has been overallocated in the system in the past. That's why we have gone through a more-than-10-year process here to reduce water use in the Murray-Darling Basin and to do so in a way that is responsible, common sense and leads to better outcomes.
We have had better outcomes. We have had enormous watering events right across the Murray-Darling Basin which have led to better environmental outcomes in the Macquarie Marshes, the Lower Lakes and at Menindee as well, notwithstanding the dry conditions they're facing at the moment. But because of the limitations of our infrastructure, because we don't have dams everywhere, we are still going to suffer situations where there is not enough water: not enough water for towns, for farmers, for the environment and for fish as well. We're never going to completely resolve that situation because we cannot build enough dams to store water long enough to get us through the dry period. Anybody who tells you otherwise is selling you absolute snake oil. It cannot happen.
What we have to do is find the best way to manage a scarce resource in the system, to ensure that it is appropriately allocated, so that we can have vibrant communities that produce food for our nation and so that we can have and protect the wonderful environment we have, and that's a managed environment. Senator Leyonhjelm was right when he said that the Lower Lakes and other parts of the South Australian system are regulated. They're not like they were when there was no-one from European countries here, but that's fine. We have made, in my view, a better system through those regulation dams because we can at least manage them. If we didn't have those dams, we would probably have fish kills downstream of Copeton Dam—we almost certainly would right now—but, because we have Copeton Dam, we don't. So that is a good outcome.
Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—
Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—
Senator CANAVAN: Another important aspect of how we've sought to balance this—and this is something I think we've improved on from what we were left with from the Labor Party, and I recognise the work that the former Labor government did—is putting a cap on the amount of buybacks.
Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Kitching ): There's a point of order, Senator Canavan.
Senator Williams: I'm trying to listen to Minister Canavan here, and I'm getting interjections from Senator Hanson-Young all the time. She was free to speak without interjections. Could you ask her to show the same respect to others in this chamber, please?
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young and Senator Whish-Wilson, I know you've been interjecting. If you could cease that under standing order 197, that would be helpful. Thank you. Senator Canavan, you may resume.
Senator CANAVAN: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. The one thing I think we really have improved on is putting a cap on the amount of buyback from the system. Those on the other side of this debate would have you believe that that has put a cap on the amount of water that can be returned to the environment. That is wrong. There has always been, under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan—before we were in government and now—a variety of means to recover water. One of the ways is to buy directly from farmers, willing sellers, to take that water out of the system. The other main way is to improve the efficiency of the system by lining channels and by better levelling our country. You save water, and the saved water can go back to environmental purposes.
In our view, we've got to have an appropriate balance. That's because, as we've seen—Senator Williams, myself and others, and I think Senator Ruston was mentioning similar outcomes—when you buy too much water out of an individual community you take away the economic base of that community. It has enormous impacts, not just on the irrigators—actually, the irrigators do okay because they get to sell their water and do something else with their life—but also on the local petrol station, the local newsagent and the coffee shop in town. They are left destitute because they no longer have the business that they did when the irrigation was in the community. So we've got to find that appropriate balance. I know—I've been out to Dirranbandi since we started this process, and it's had a terrible impact on that town. I think we've managed that better since we've been in government.
I firmly believe that what we need to do going forward is ensure we continue the good work of this government in finding a sustainable outcome to this problem. It is a wicked problem. But the outcome that will be sustainable for the long term is one that still creates food production and jobs in the Murray-Darling; still creates social communities where people can have the confidence to invest and buy houses in their local towns and join sporting clubs—do all the great things people in communities do; and also protects the environment for the long term. If we don't do those three things, if we just focus on one, it won't be a sustainable solution.
One reason is there'll be in-built issues that will come back to get us. The other reason is political reactions—there will be a political reaction if we don't properly manage all of those issues. Notwithstanding what we've seen over summer, the system is much better than it was 10 years ago. It's moving in the right direction. All of the responsible people in this parliament need to keep contributing to the good work that has been done.
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) (13:48): I had not intended to contribute to this debate, but given some of the assertions that have been made by some contributors in this debate I think it is very important that, on behalf of our national government, I summarise the position of the government succinctly.
Let me make it very, very clear at the outset that the government will not be removing the 1,500-gigalitre cap on surface-water buybacks. We are currently 276 gigalitres below the cap, as has been mentioned by others. This is well beyond the amount of water we actually need to achieve sustainable diversion limits under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. At present, just 30 gigalitres of surface water is needed to bridge the gap to the Basin Plan's SDLs. The government legislated the cap in 2015 to provide greater certainty to basin communities, and that has been an incredibly important reform indeed. Open buybacks have been shown to have negative social and economic consequences. The Northern Basin Review and the report on the southern basin communities made these impacts very clear. We have made very good progress towards the Basin Plan's water recovery targets, and we remain committed to ensuring these targets are achieved. The initiative by Labor and the Greens here today puts these significant achievements at risk.
Back on 14 December 2018, the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council agreed a number of key actions, including the application of additional social, economic and associated assessment processes for efficiency measures: projects that contribute to the additional 450 gigalitres to be recovered for the environment; a commitment by New South Wales and Queensland to protecting environmental water; the provision of high-quality, well-consulted water resource plans for accreditation; and the creation of a permanent Indigenous member position on the Murray-Darling Basin Authority board. What the Greens are trying to do today is essentially to hijack this whole process and try to make a unilateral decision that would make the situation worse. It would manifestly and demonstrably make the situation worse.
The Commonwealth and the basin states are working to ensure sustainable diversion limits take effect from 1 July 2019 and to have all of the relevant plans accredited by the end of 2019. The government will continue to work with basin states on delivering the outcomes of the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism in the Northern Basin Review to meet the sustainable diversion limits in 2019. We have also taken action to improve compliance and enforcement across the basin through the appointment of Mick Keelty as the Northern Basin Commissioner and a $20 million investment in improved hydromatic and satellite monitoring. When it comes to the delivery of the Basin Plan, the government is getting on with the job. We are working with all relevant stakeholders to ensure that we continue to take the most appropriate way forward that is fair to everyone and delivers the best possible environmental outcomes.
We know that the Murray-Darling Basin is facing difficult times. We have seen that this summer, with fish deaths across the system and communities and irrigators being without water. We are responding and taking appropriate action to those recent events. The fish deaths we have seen over recent months are absolutely horrible. On 24 January 2019, the New South Wales government Fish death interim investigation report found that the devastating fish death events in recent months appear to be a result of a range of factors—primarily, the breakdown of the stratification of water layers but also the breakdown of organic matter, algal blooms and the high temperatures followed by cooler periods. The poor inflow conditions are not unique to Menindee and the lower Darling. They are being experienced in systems across the northern basin. Without rain it is true that further fish deaths are a possibility.
The Murray-Darling Basin Authority convened meetings of water managers, environmental water holders and state fisheries experts to look at the immediate risk of further fish deaths and at options to mitigate and avoid this risk where feasible. The government also announced $5 million in funding through the Murray-Darling Basin Authority for the development of a native fish management and recovery strategy. This strategy will support the emergency response and recovery actions and additional research into native fish stocks and their management. An independent panel, chaired by Professor Robert Vertessy, has been established to identify the causes of the fish deaths in the lower Darling and to make recommendations on strategies to prevent similar events in the future. Only the other week, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority announced that up to 26 gigalitres of environmental water would be released to the lower Murrumbidgee over coming weeks to improve river flows and help reduce the risk of further fish losses in the lower Murrumbidgee.
The New South Wales Department of Primary Industries has also commenced a rescue effort involving the movement of fish to the lower Darling or to some of the New South Wales government hatcheries. Basin governments are working together in doing everything possible to respond to recent events and to mitigate the risk of similar events occurring in the future.
Achieving the best possible outcomes in the Murray-Darling is not going to be helped by this latest stunt by the Greens political party. The truth is that the Greens political party has now gazumped nearly two hours of government business time. We've got about 2½ sitting days left this week. There's a lot of important legislation on the agenda. We've had lots of non-government senators contributing to this debate. I counted at least three non-government senators before the government got the call back. The point I would make to the chamber is: reflect very carefully on the workload. There are normal, routine processes available to anyone who actually, in good faith and genuinely, wants to introduce a piece of legislation rather than to pursue a stunt. There is an established Senate process available to the Greens if what they want to do is introduce legislation. It is rather novel to have a Greens senator moving a motion to introduce a Labor bill. I mean, I'm—
Senator Wong interjecting—
Senator CORMANN: Oh, apparently there is a Labor-Greens coalition starting to get formed. I gather that there are some other discussions taking place elsewhere in order to ensure that Labor gets closer to the Greens again when it comes to weakening our border protection arrangements. That is, of course, the other conversation that is taking place around the parliament today: Labor getting captured by the Greens, getting moved by the Greens into ever worse policy positions. And so what I would say to the Australian people is: be very careful about a Labor-Greens alliance on the other side of the election. I can tell you that the Liberal-National coalition will continue to make our country stronger, will continue to make our economy stronger and will continue to make our border stronger, whereas, of course, any Labor-Greens alternative, as is being witnessed again today, would make our country weaker, would make our borders weaker and would put the Murray-Darling Basin in a worse position, in a weaker, environmentally less sound position. So what I would say to the Australian—
Senator Wong: Bring it on!
Senator CORMANN: And Senator Wong has now come in on the debate. She says: 'Bring it on! Bring it on!' I've got to say the cockiness of the Labor Party—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator CORMANN: They have their tape measure out to measure the curtains at The Lodge. Let me tell you: there is still a little formality in front of you, and it's called an election.
If Senator Wong could refer to the clock—if Senator Wong could have a short look at the clock—she'd see I've got another minute and a half to share my pearls of wisdom with Senator Wong and the chamber. What I would like Senator Wong to understand is that between now and the election we will be fighting every single day for a stronger Australia, for stronger borders, for an Australia where Australian families have the best possible opportunity to get ahead and where we're doing the right thing by the environment in a way that is economically responsible. We will continue as a strong and united team. We will continue to work, as a strong and united team, to do the right thing by the environment in a way that is economically responsible.
This Greens stance, seeking to pursue Labor legislation, is not the way to do the right thing by the environment in a way that is economically or socially responsible. Of course, it seeks to cut across very important processes designed to ensure that the way forward is fair and environmentally, socially and economically sustainable for all of the relevant communities involved. This attempt by the Greens to hijack this very important process today is not in our national interest. The Liberal and National coalition, as we always do, will stand up for what is right. We will stand up for a stronger Australia and we will continue to fight the attempt of the Labor Party to make Australia weaker and to make Australians poorer. With those few words, Mr President, I think I might finish my contribution to this debate. But I have not yet sat down. I don't know that— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: It being 2 pm, we will move on.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales) (14:00): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. I refer to Prime Minister Turnbull's comments last week on the banking royal commission that:
You can make a very good case for saying it was started perhaps a year later than it should have been, or 18 months later than it should have been.
Why did the government delay in holding the banks to account for 18 months?
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): It is clear that Senator Keneally and the Labor Party are stuck in the past. They are very much stuck in the past. The very sensible comments made by former Prime Minister Turnbull the other day are 100 per cent consistent with the comments he made as Prime Minister in relation to the banking royal commission after the inquiry got underway, entirely consistent with the comments that our now Prime Minister made as the then Treasurer in relation to the royal commission after it was underway and entirely consistent with the comments that I made some months ago in relation to the calling of the banking royal commission.
Let me make a number of observations. Firstly, it was the Liberal-National government that called the royal commission, it was the Liberal-National government that determined the terms of reference, it was the Liberal-National government that chose Commissioner Hayne—who did an outstanding job, as is widely recognised—to conduct this royal commission and it is the Liberal-National coalition which is now taking action in relation to the 76 recommendations that were made by Commissioner Hayne. What have we had from the Labor Party? All we've had from the Labor Party are weasel words. Following the Shorten precedent, the shadow Treasurer said, 'We will back all of the recommendations sight unseen.' Even before the report was delivered he said, 'We'll be supporting them, whatever they are.' But guess what happened after the report was released? Instead of saying, 'We'll support all the recommendations,' Labor said, 'We support all the recommendations in principle.' We still don't know what Labor's position is.
What the Australian people can be absolutely confident about is that this government will continue to take action protecting consumers and making sure that we can continue to have a strong, stable and competitive financial system to underpin our future economic success. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Keneally, a supplementary question.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales) (14:02): Why did Mr Morrison and Senator Cormann leave their 'trainee Treasurer' alone to announce the government's response to the banking royal commission last Monday? Were they hiding because they were part of the economic team responsible for the government voting 26 times against a royal commission into the disgraceful behaviour of Australia's banks?
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Order on my right and left!
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) (14:03): That is an incredibly juvenile framing of a question in relation to a very serious matter, and it just shows that the Labor Party is not fit for office. You are stuck in your university politics days, Senator Keneally, unless it was a question that was put to you by the tactics committee and you're just reading it out. What I would say to you is that the Treasurer, Mr Frydenberg, has done an outstanding job on behalf of the Liberal-National government in leading the government's response to the recommendations in relation to the royal commission into the banks.
Senator Colbeck: Where's your response?
Senator CORMANN: Senator Colbeck is 100 per cent right: all we're getting from the Labor Party is smoke and mirrors. We haven't had a firm response on what the Labor Party will actually do for the whole period since the report— (Time expired)
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: I know there's a bit of pent-up frustration, but can we keep our behaviour in check—all senators! Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question.
Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales) (14:04): Both Mr Morrison and Mr Frydenberg have refused to say sorry to the Australian people for getting it wrong on the need for a banking royal commission. Why won't Mr Morrison apologise to the Australian people for failing to act on the rigging, the rorts and the rip-offs by the big banks?
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) (14:05): We have canvassed that question on a number of occasions now. The government have acknowledged—the Prime Minister has acknowledged, both in his current position and in his former position as Treasurer, and I have acknowledged and others have acknowledged—that, with the benefit of hindsight, we should have called the banking royal commission earlier.
But what I would also say is that our intentions and our motivations were entirely pure. Our motivation or intention was to take action in relation to the issues that were well understood, which was also a point that former Prime Minister Turnbull made in his contribution the other day. We had the financial systems inquiry, also referred to as the Murray inquiry; we had various Senate committee inquiries into ASIC, into the banks. I mean, there was a plethora of recommendations on how the system could and should be improved, and the government's genuine—and I would argue at the time, legitimate—motivation was to get cracking, to take decisions to improve the regulatory framework to better protect consumers. (Time expired)
National Security
Senator SINODINOS (New South Wales) (14:06): It's great to be back, and it's good to see nothing's changed. My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Why, Senator Cormann, is it so important that the Liberal-National government maintains Australia's strong and successful border security arrangements?
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) (14:06): I warmly welcome Senator Sinodinos back to this chamber, and I thank him for this question.
Before joining this chamber, in a past life Senator Sinodinos was the chief of staff to one of our most distinguished and outstanding Prime Ministers in our history ever. I would just refer you to a very important statement that he made in relation to our borders. He made this point:
It's about this nation saying to the world we are a generous open hearted people taking more refugees on a per capita basis than any nation except Canada, we have a proud record of welcoming people from 140 different nations.
But we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.
When we came into government in 2013, after Labor had dismantled the successful border protection policies of the Howard government, we inherited chaos and dysfunction on our border: 50,000 illegal arrivals by boat, on 800 boats; 1,200 deaths at sea. It took our efforts to fix the absolute chaos and dysfunction that we inherited, to put back a strong border protection framework.
And you'd think that Labor would have learned from their mistakes. No; they are at it again. Senator Sinodinos asked why it is important. Let me say why it is important. We have delivered a human dividend that is both compassionate and fair. We have stopped the deaths at sea. We have closed 19 detention centres. Remember that there were more than 8,000 children in detention under the previous Labor-Green government. Now there are none. All the children are off Nauru, or have their bags packed for the United States. That's what strong border protection delivers. Our plan is simple. We won't change it, we won't weaken it. We know that Bill Shorten, in a desperate attempt to score some tactical political points, is prepared to compromise our national security, is prepared to compromise our border security arrangements. He should stand condemned for it. The Australian people can't trust Bill Shorten with our borders.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Sinodinos, a supplementary question.
Senator SINODINOS (New South Wales) (14:09): What is the government's position in relation to proposals to change Australia's border protection regime?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and the Public Service, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:09): The government are 100 per cent committed to our current strong border protection policy framework, unamended. Of course, we will not be supporting any attempts to weaken our strong border protection arrangements.
I draw the Senate's attention to this particular reality: Mr Shorten decided to back a watering down of our border protection arrangements, which today he had to admit and confess would have prevented us from turning away criminals from Australia, and which today he had to confess, through his amendments, would have put the pull factor back into our border protection arrangements, which is, of course, at the heart of the product that the people smugglers sell to those poor people who take their chances across the high seas—many of them, too many of them, at risk to their lives. I say it again: Bill Shorten cannot be trusted with protecting our borders. He would make our country weaker.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Sinodinos, a final supplementary question.
Senator SINODINOS (New South Wales) (14:10): Noting the strong words of the minister, why is the government so strongly committed to keeping Australia's borders safe and secure?
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) (14:10): Australia is a great migrant nation. We have welcomed generations and generations of migrants from all corners of the world. Indeed, we have welcomed to Australia many, many thousands of refugees and asylum seekers from all around the world. But, as John Howard quite rightly pointed out, we decide who comes to this country and the circumstance in which they come. In our system, the Australian people give expression to their wishes at an election. It is up to the elected government of Australia to determine how our borders are managed. There should not be any suggestion whatsoever that this is a responsibility that should be contracted out. It is absolutely unbelievable to us on this side of the chamber that, after Labor's disastrous track record on this, they would go back there and try to fiddle with this when their last attempt to fiddle with this had such disastrous consequences. The Australian people will condemn them for it.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The PRESIDENT (14:11): Before I come to Senator O'Neill, I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of a delegation of parliamentary staff from Malaysia. 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
Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:11): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Can the minister confirm that the decision to hold a royal commission into the banks, 26 times after the government voted against one, was made by former Prime Minister Turnbull? Can the minister further confirm media reports quoting government sources that the then Treasurer and now Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, was—and I quote—'the last hold-out'?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and the Public Service, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:12): I reject the premise of the question. The decision to hold a royal commission was made by the government following usual government processes.
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:12): The same media report states that sources close to Mr Morrison confirmed he issued warnings of 'reputational damage' to the government if they backflipped and supported a royal commission. Why was Mr Morrison more concerned with the government's reputation than with protecting the victims of banking misconduct?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and the Public Service, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:12): I completely reject the assertion in that question. It was Prime Minister Morrison who as Treasurer introduced the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, which, of course, is designed to hold banking executives to account and which was absolutely supported, positively supported, by the royal commissioner. In fact, he wants us to expand it into other areas. It was Scott Morrison as the Treasurer who led the charge, alongside Kelly O'Dwyer as the relevant minister at the time, when it came to the establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. It was Scott Morrison as the Treasurer who made sure that ASIC and APRA had more resources and more power so that they could do their job effectively. Indeed, it was Scott Morrison as the Treasurer who led the charge when it came to putting the terms of reference together for the banking royal commission and, indeed, when it came to the decision-making in relation to the appointment of the royal commissioner. It is Scott Morrison now, as Prime Minister, who will lead the charge in our response. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question.
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (14:14): Can the minister confirm that the last hold-out, Mr Morrison, only backflipped on a royal commission after the banks wrote and requested one? Why won't this bank-loving and out-of-touch Mr Morrison immediately act to implement the royal commission's recommendations by recalling parliament in March?
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) (14:14): Firstly, unlike the Labor Party, we are taking action on all 76 recommendations now. In fact, we have legislation in the Senate this week which, courtesy of the Greens, we haven't been able to deal with over the last two hours.
We have legislation to increase penalties on white-collar crime, to increase the powers for APRA. Indeed, we have legislation, which we would like to see the Labor Party support, to abolish exit fees from superannuation accounts for those Australians saving for their retirement. But guess what? I would be interested to see how the Labor Party acts on that. Are you going to act in the interests of Australians saving for their retirement or are you going to act in the interests of those union-dominated industry funds?
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Cormann. Senator Wong, on a point of order.
Senator Wong: I know they want to talk about everything else but themselves, but the question was: why won't he recall parliament?
The PRESIDENT: The question, Senator Wong, also did have an opening statement referring to the actions of the then Treasurer. I'll draw the minister's attention to that. He can be directly relevant to any part of the question. Senator Cormann.
Senator CORMANN: The core response is: the government is still taking action. We're still waiting on the response from the Labor Party. We are taking action, including through legislation. I tell you why we're not going to recall the parliament. It's because—
Senator Wong: A part-time government!
Senator CORMANN: No. I'll tell you why. Because as the Law Council rightly pointed out—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Cormann. Time for the answer has expired.
Climate Change
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:15): My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate representing the Prime Minister. Minister, we're back for our first question time after summer, and since we were last here we've had the hottest-ever January on record, we've seen some of the most devastating bushfires ever in Tasmania, we've seen the Darling River with a million dead fish and we've also seen those horrific torrential rains and flash flooding in Queensland. Minister, do you accept now that these are not simply natural disasters but, indeed, are the result of the breakdown of our climate system?
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) (14:16): I've got to say I'm somewhat surprised that Senator Di Natale is coming back here. The first point I would make is that, of course, the government is absolutely committed to effective action on climate change. I want to just remind people that Australia has exceeded the emissions reduction targets for Kyoto 1, is on track to exceed the emissions reduction targets for Kyoto 2, and that we will meet and probably exceed our emissions reduction target of 26 per cent on 2005 levels agreed to in Paris by 2030.
What I would say is that on this side of the chamber we believe that we can pursue effective action on climate change in a way that is economically responsible. We don't believe that whacking on a higher tax will be an effective way to address climate change when all it will do is shift emissions, alongside jobs and economic activity, to other parts of the world where emissions will be higher for the same amount of economic output, which, as I seem to recall, must have been the Greens' position when the Greens voted with the Liberal-National Party to defeat Labor's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. If you were so committed to a carbon pollution reduction scheme, why didn't you vote for it? I mean, you come in here, week in, week out, trying to take the high moral ground. The truth is that when you had the chance, you didn't do it. I mean, when you had the chance, I could only assume that you took our view that we needed effective environmental action in a way that was economically responsible, and that is why you sided with us in voting down Labor's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. So don't ask questions of us.
We are committed to effective action on climate change. We are delivering the outcomes that we promised that we would deliver. We are on track to deliver the outcomes that we promised for the future. That has been consistently our position over the last five-and-a-half-years. So, Senator Di Natale, maybe you should ask yourself a question, or maybe you should ask Senator Siewert a question: why she, alongside Senator Hanson-Young, voted with Liberal-National senators against Senator Wong over the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Cormann. The time for the answer has expired. Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question.
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:18): Malcolm Turnbull doesn't think you're too committed to climate action; he doesn't think so. Given that Australia is the world's biggest coal exporter and burning coal is the biggest contributor to climate damage, is the government willing to accept that the climate damage we've seen right throughout this summer is a result of burning coal here and overseas?
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) (14:19): I think that is a gross oversimplification. I'm looking at Senator Colbeck, who has a fantastic front page, if someone could pass that on to me? Remember Dr Bob Brown? You know what he said? 'Coal power—best option'. That was of course when he was opposing the hydro power in Tasmania. It is true that coal is one important energy source and is also an important export product for Australia, but on our side of the Senate, on our side of the chamber, we are committed to effective action on climate change in a way that is economically responsible. What that means is we're pursuing sensible policy when it comes to promoting renewable energies— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Di Natale, a final supplementary question.
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:20): Minister, 80 per cent of the thermal coal that Australia digs up is shipped off and burnt overseas. Your policy and, indeed, the opposition's policy, is to do nothing about the biggest contributor to global warming in this country. Do you accept that, unless we phase out the mining and burning of coal both here in Australia and overseas, we're going to see more disasters and more Australians affected?
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and the Public Service, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:21): It must be very comfortable being on the pulpit without having to take responsibility for the consequences of your statements. The truth is that Australian coal, when it displaces dirty coal in many other parts of the world, makes a magnificent contribution to environmental outcomes. If you want us to stop exporting cleaner Australian coal so that it can be substituted with dirtier coal overseas, if that makes you feel better that we have somehow sacrificed jobs in Australia, hurt families, damaged the economy, but you feel better, even though emissions in the world are up by more, if that makes you feel better, that is not our way to do business for the Australian people. We care about people as well as the environment. We care about making sure the economy is stronger so that families around Australia have the best possible opportunity to get ahead.
Pet Food Industry
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (14:22): My question is to Senator Canavan, representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Yesterday the media ran a story saying Minister Littleproud asked the working group reviewing pet food regulation to expedite its work. That group was set up following the outbreak of incurable megaesophagus, which struck down well over 100 dogs and which Melbourne University's U-vet linked to ADVANCE Dermocare dry dog food. The Senate inquiry into the safety of the $4 billion pet food industry tabled its report in October last year. This report made seven recommendations, including that the working group be directed to look at mechanisms for mandatory pet food standards and mandatory labelling requirements, and also consider better testing such as feeding trials in the standards. Has the minister directed the working group to consider the recommendations of the Senate report, and to also review the evidence and submissions presented to the inquiry?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:23): I thank Senator Griff for his question. Minister Littleproud has welcomed the findings of the parliamentary inquiry into the pet food industry. As you mentioned, Senator Griff, the report was released late last year, October last year, with a number of recommendations around standards and accountability. Minister Littleproud has written to his state and territory counterparts following that review, requesting support for a review into the safety and regulation of pet food. My understanding is that all states and territories have replied and support such a review.
Minister Littleproud has advised me that the review working group that is taking forward this review has met twice. It is reviewing the Australian standards for the manufacturing and marketing of pet food and the legislation covering pet food. The group will report back to the agricultural senior officials committee within the next 12 months. The safety and regulation of pet food was last reviewed in 2012. The Australian standard for the manufacturing and marketing of pet food was developed at that time. This standard was reviewed and updated in 2017. Australia exports a range of pet food products which are regulated differently depending on product risk file and importing country requirements, although my understanding and advice here is that most of the regulation around pet food is handled by states and territories in consultation through the COAG process.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Griff, a supplementary question.
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (14:24): Minister, can you advise if the working group's findings will be made public given the high degree of public interest in pet food regulation following the outbreak of megaesophagus and, indeed, in the last week, a very high profile dog food brand having a worldwide recall?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:24): I don't have information, Senator Griff, on whether the working group will make its findings public. I will take that on notice. I can, however, outline to the Senate that the review working group consists of representatives from the department, the Pet Food Industry Association of Australia, the Australian Veterinary Association, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Safe Food Production Queensland, and veterinarians from Agriculture Victoria and the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries.
You are right around some of the events in recent times that are particularly linked to megaesophagus. However, the information I have is that, in the instance here, while the primary cause is perhaps related to the issues you have raised, there is potentially a multifactorial reason for some of those incidents. We are carrying out more extensive laboratory ingredient testing to come to the bottom of those issues.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Griff, a final supplementary question.
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (14:25): Minister, I hope you can take on notice that last question as to whether it will be made public. Given it has been four months since the Senate inquiry submitted its report, and over a year since those dogs died, can you advise when the government intends to release its response to the Senate inquiry recommendations? If you can't provide a date, will you guarantee that the government will respond before we go to an election?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:26): I apologise, Senator Griff, if you did not hear me earlier. I did take on notice your second question. I apologise; I'll have to take that question on notice as well. I don't have detail in front of me about when the government response will be finalised.
Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (14:26): My question is to the Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education, Senator Cash. In May last year the minister publicly stated that she had issued instructions for a subpoena relating to court proceedings brought by the Australian Workers' Union to be set aside. Given the minister has now agreed to appear before the court later this week on this matter, will she cooperate with the court by giving a full and frank account of her involvement in the leaking of details of the Federal Police raid on AWU offices to the media?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education) (14:27): I thank Senator Cameron for the question. Senator Cameron, you are aware that the matter is before the court, so it would be inappropriate to comment, but of course I will absolutely cooperate with the court.
Can I just make one small point in relation to what the proceedings themselves are actually about. The proceedings themselves are between the AWU and the Registered Organisations Commission. It is in relation to the proper authorisation of documents and donations made by the AWU to Mr Shorten's own election campaign and to GetUp!. Despite what those on the other side say, that is actually what these proceedings are about.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron, a supplementary question.
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (14:28): I refer to reports that her former media adviser, Mr De Garis, has today told the court that he was informed in advance of the AWU raids by the minister's then chief of staff, Mr Davies. Is this correct? When did the minister first become aware of this conversation between Mr De Garis and Mr Davies?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education) (14:28): Again, because the matter is before the court, Senator Cameron, it would be completely inappropriate for me to comment.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron, a final supplementary question.
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (14:29): Did the minister have any conversation with her then chief of staff, Mr Davies, on or before 23 October 2017 with regard to foreknowledge of Federal Police raids on the AWU? Did she at any point in these discussions discuss tipping off the media about these raids?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education) (14:29): Again, Senator Cameron, I have answered copious questions at estimates in relation to this matter. But, as the matter is before the court—and Senator Cameron well knows this—it would be inappropriate to make further comment. But I will again remind Senator Cameron what the case is about. It is about the proper authorisations of donations made by the AWU to Bill Shorten's own political campaign and $100,000 to GetUp! Don't actually forget what the actual court case is about, despite everything you say.
National Security
Senator STOKER (Queensland) (14:30): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Cash. Minister, what measures have the Liberal-National government put in place to secure our nation's borders?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education) (14:30): I thank Senator Stoker for the question. Following on from what the Leader of the Government in the Senate articulated earlier today, we've put in place the policies that have enabled the coalition government to stop the boats. That's right—policies have been put in place to stop the boats. But, in particular, Mr President, those policies consist of, as you know, turn-backs, which is something that those on the other side said would never work. Well, guess what? We didn't blink, we put them in place and the policy has been proven to be effective. We also enforced offshore processing. Offshore processing is a key tenet of putting in place policies that secure Australia's borders.
But those on the other side are not interested in border protection. They are interested in outsourcing Australia's border protection and national security. They are interested in handing it back over to the people smugglers. We know what the legacy is, as Senator Cormann said, but let's go through it again so that the Australian public understands the very, very clear difference between those of us on the coalition side, who will protect our borders every step of the way, and those on the other side, who were ready this week to say to the people smugglers, 'Come on down.' Fifty thousand people arrived on over 800 boats, 1,200 people died at sea and over 8,000 children were detained in detention whilst those on the other side, Labor, were in government. They were forced to open 17 detention centres to deal with the influx of boat arrivals. We believe in strong policy measures and we will stand by them. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Stoker, a supplementary question.
Senator STOKER (Queensland) (14:32): Senator Cash, why is it important for the government to have full control over our nation's border security so as to ensure a more secure future for the Australian people?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education) (14:32): As the Prime Minister, a former minister for immigration, and Minister Dutton, the minister for border protection, have consistently made clear, if you blink, if you even hesitate for less than a second, you send a very clear message to the people smugglers, who are just waiting—they have queues of boats, as we know—to come down to Australia. That is why, when it comes to protecting our borders, you need to put in place the tough policies, which we have done, to stop the boats. But, after that, you need to show resolve, especially when you are faced with the type of behaviour we see from those opposite in the Labor Party and, of course, the Australian Greens, Labor's partner in crime. The legacy left to this government by those on the other side is shameful, and we never want to see a return to the chaos on the borders. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Stoker, a final supplementary question.
Senator STOKER (Queensland) (14:33): Minister, are you aware of any risks to our nation's future border security?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education) (14:34): There's a bloc down there; it's called the Australian Greens. We don't need to name to them individually; it's just an absolute bloc. But there are also those on the other side, some of whom are fundamentally committed to reopening our borders. They have no issues at all with handing over border security to the people smugglers. At a previous election, Mr Rudd said to the Australian people he'd be tough on border security. Was he tough on border security? No, because the legacy lives on today—50,000 boat arrivals, 800 boats, 1,200 deaths at sea, children in detention and 17 detention centres being opened. And then, of course, there's the cost of all this to the Australian taxpayer, because it's their money that is actually being wasted by those on the other side—in excess of $11 billion. We do not want to return to that. (Time expired)
Child Sexual Abuse
Senator HINCH (Victoria) (14:35): My question is to Senator Cash, who is representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Dutton. Everybody in this chamber, and probably across Australia, knows I've campaigned for years on one issue—I've even been to jail over it!—and that's the need for a national public register of convicted child-sex offenders. I want to compliment the Morrison government for embracing my long campaign, and my thanks go to Mr Dutton for getting most, if not all, of what I wanted through cabinet. We now need the cooperation of state and territory governments, and my question is: what progress, if any, has been made, and is it now on the COAG agenda?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education) (14:35): Thank you, Senator Hinch, for the question. I do acknowledge your longstanding interest in relation to child-sex offender reforms. I do also acknowledge the comments you made in relation to the government, and, of course, we remain strongly committed to safeguarding children from sexual abuse in Australia, online and abroad.
In response to your question, the government is working with states and territories and key non-government stakeholders to establish the national public register of child-sex offenders to deter offenders and enhance community safety. We need, as you know, this nationally consistent approach. It is vital to afford nationwide community protection and ensure offenders cannot exploit jurisdictional differences to evade public scrutiny. I am advised that the Department of Home Affairs has consulted states and territories and targeted non-government stakeholders on a preliminary model. The department has received feedback through written submissions, as well as via a multijurisdictional teleconference with senior law and justice officials. I also understand that the minister is now considering the outcomes of this initial consultation process.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hinch, a supplementary question?
Senator HINCH (Victoria) (14:37): Can the minister tell us which state or territory is closest to coming on board? It was a Liberal Party policy at the state election in Victoria. Where is Victoria at now?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education) (14:37): Thank you, Senator Hinch. In relation to Victoria, I don't have that specific information, but I will take it to the relevant minister that I represent and see if I can get any further information for you. My understanding is, and I am instructed, that some states and territories already see the benefit of publicly releasing certain information about child-sex offenders and have expanded their registration schemes in recent years. If I can come back to you with any further information, I will.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hunch, a final supplementary question?
Senator HINCH: I forfeit.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The PRESIDENT (14:38): Order! Could I take the time to draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence of a parliamentary delegation from the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, led by the Hon. Lidia Norberta dos Santos Martins MP. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the floor of the Senate.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
The delegation was seated accordingly.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:38): My question is to the Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education, Senator Cash. I refer to the minister's previous statement to Senate estimates on 25 October 2017 that her media adviser Mr De Garis had received information that raids on the AWU might take place 'from a media source'. Given that Mr De Garis has now named the minister's then chief of staff as the source of that information, will the minister now correct the record?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education) (14:39): Senator Wong, in relation to your question, the answers that I provided were based on the knowledge that I had at the time. To the extent that you have put that statement to me, at this point in time I'm not aware of that statement.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a supplementary question?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:39): Perhaps the minister can enlighten us if she's not aware of her own statement or of the statement given today. But I will continue. I refer to another statement by this minister at estimates, on 26 October 2017, in which the minister stated that she had 'spoken to each individual staff member' and had asked them:
'Were you aware of the raids prior to them occurring, and did you speak to any journalists prior to the raids?' They have all responded no.
Does the minister stand by this statement? Did the minister receive such an assurance from her then chief of staff?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education) (14:39): The answer to both questions is yes and yes.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a final supplementary question?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (14:40): The minister's account to Senate estimates is inconsistent with the evidence given by her former employee today in the Federal Court. Will the minister now correct the Senate record as she is obliged to do?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education) (14:40): Again, Senator Wong, you are a lawyer, and therefore you would understand that as this matter is before the court it is actually inappropriate for me to comment.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong on a point of order?
Senator Wong: This is not a sub judice matter. This is about evidence given to the Senate which is not correct. The minister is obliged to correct the record. If she wishes to go back to her office and check, I understand that; but she is obliged to correct the record if she believes it is incorrect.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann, on the point of order?
Senator Cormann: There is no basis on which Senator Wong can deduce that Senator Cash in any way misled the Senate based on her answers to the questions that she has asked. Senator Wong made a number of assertions about what somebody else asserted today. As Senator Cash very clearly indicated in her answers today, her statements to Senate estimates and since have been based on her state of knowledge. As I understand from her answers, her state of knowledge hasn't changed. The point of order is to reject the proposition of Senator Wong that somehow there is an answer to be provided in relation to misleading the Senate. There isn't, because I think that Senator Cash's answers to the first two questions were self-explanatory. Senator Cash made very clear—in fact she was emphatic, in particular, in relation to the second question, answering 'yes and yes'—that she maintains and stands by the statements that she has made, and the statement in relation to the first matter was based on her state of knowledge at the time. There is nothing that has indicated that her state of knowledge has changed since that time, irrespective of the statements that may or may not have been made by a third party.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, on the point of order?
Senator Wong: I didn't clarify the point I was making, and the Leader of the Government in the Senate has responded perhaps on a different point. The point I was making and that we seek your ruling on is the minister's assertion that because this is before the courts she ought not have to answer. My point of order to you is that the sub judice rule does not apply in these circumstances. The question goes to correcting the Senate record, not to a matter which may prejudice a finding before the court.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann?
Senator Cormann: On that same point, what Senator Wong has put to Senator Cash are statements that were made by a witness in some proceedings which are yet to be tested. It is entirely inappropriate for Senator Cash to be asked to provide a running commentary in relation to statements that apparently have been made. She has consistently put her position based on her state of knowledge. She has confirmed her position again today. If Senator Wong is asserting that somehow what Senator Cash is saying is not in her state of mind then she should say that. She cannot ask Senator Cash to provide a running commentary on the evidence provided by a witness in a court proceeding.
The PRESIDENT: Can I rule on the two matters that have been raised in this point of order. I'll start with the matter of sub judice. I will quote now from Odgers' Senate Practice, the 13th edition, page 250, if anyone would like to look at it:
The sub judice convention is a restriction on debate which the Senate imposes upon itself, whereby debate is avoided which could involve a substantial danger of prejudice to proceedings before a court …
The convention … is interpreted and applied by the chair and by the Senate according to circumstances.
Page 253 goes on to outline three conditions, or principles, about the application of this:
there should be an assessment of whether there is a real danger of prejudice—
of a trial—
in the sense of either creating an atmosphere where a jury would be unable to deal fairly with the evidence put before it—
or where it would affect the—
witness in the giving of evidence …
… … …
the danger of prejudice must be weighed against the public interest in the matters under discussion
the danger of prejudice is greater when a matter is actually before a magistrate or a jury.
On the issue of it being inappropriate or sub judice, I'm not going to say this matter as asked by Senator Wong breaches those principles. This matter is not before a jury or a magistrate, I understand, today and I don't foresee this necessarily prejudicing the procedures that, I understand, are currently before the court. However, I cannot direct the minister how to answer a question. It is entirely appropriate for the minister to refer to past statements and potentially to future events that may be coming up, and that is a matter for others to judge. It is not for me to direct a minister to make a statement or otherwise; it is a matter for the contest of the Senate. Senator Bernardi, on a point of order?
Senator Bernardi: I seek one further item of clarification. I think Senator Cormann raised a very good point. Senator Wong put forward some statements that she said had been made in the court today. The minister, in her response, said, 'I'm not aware of those statements,' and so she can't be drawn on responding to them. Is it in order for people to put allegations to a minister and then for them to have to respond to something that they're not aware of?
The PRESIDENT: As I understand your point of order, Senator Bernardi, it would be entirely in order for a minister to say they are not aware of the statements being put to them in a question. And that is the way to deal with a statement the minister is not aware of that is put to a minister in a question.
I will finally conclude on this other paragraph in Odgers':
It would be an undue restriction on the freedom of the Senate to debate matters of public interest if debate were to be restrained simply on the basis that matters may come before a court in the future.
That is a direct quote from Odgers' in a similar section.
Queensland: Floods
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (14:46): My question is to Senator Canavan, representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. The minister would be well aware that the area I live in in North Queensland, where I'm based, has been subject to very severe rain and flooding events in the past week. I ask the minister: could he update the Senate on the impact that these floods have had on the people of North Queensland? I know the minister and most of us here understand, particularly through media reports and through the visit of the Prime Minister, what's happened in Townsville, but could you perhaps indicate, Minister, as I'm interested in this as well: what is happening in the north-west part of Queensland, in the areas of the western part of the electorate of Kennedy, which have also been very severely affected by floods, with what I read to be great loss of livestock?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:47): I thank Senator Macdonald for his question and recognise the impact that this natural disaster has had on his area and community. There have been multiple disasters wrapped up in one. There's been the immediate impact of the flood and the monsoon low on Townsville, near where Senator Macdonald lives and where his office is located, which has done enormous damage to households and resulted in the tragic loss of two lives. There's been enormous damage to our agricultural sector and the loss of many, many stock. The numbers will probably never be known. Of course, in these types of events there's always damage to infrastructure, which cuts towns off, sometimes for months, and it takes a while to rebuild. We also recognise that the tough times to come in that rebuilding exercise are something we will be there for to make sure local communities can do that.
I don't have as much knowledge on this event as others in this chamber. I know Senator O'Sullivan has been to visit these areas. I appreciate Senator Reynolds's time up in North Queensland in responding so quickly to people's needs. I also of course want to pay tribute to the emergency services personnel, who did such a fantastic job on the ground. I suppose it was in some senses fortunate that Townsville had a military base right there. The Army did a sensational job, may I say, particularly in helping to get people out of harm's way when uncontrolled releases from the Ross River Dam occurred. At their peak, those releases were flowing out at 2,000 cubic metres per second, and they occurred overnight. While they were anticipated by a few hours, it wasn't a long time to prepare.
I also recognise there are other areas that have been impacted. They perhaps haven't had as much of the focus, but the sugar industry around Burdekin has had significant losses. I was contacted yesterday by a grazier from Etheridge shire, which has also had significant losses. This has been a widespread disaster and it will take efforts from state and federal governments to make sure we respond properly. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, a supplementary question.
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (14:49): I thank the minister for that answer and particularly for his acknowledgement of the wonderful work the Army and, indeed, all the emergency services and the Townsville council have done in that area. I ask the minister if he could tell the Senate what the government is doing to assist those who've been affected by the floods. I know the emergency services minister, Senator Reynolds, has been just about living in those flood areas herself and helping out with assistance, but could the minister tell the Senate what the government has been offering to date?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:50): So far, more than $40 million has been paid into people's accounts in disaster relief payments. That's just in the last six days. I do thank and pay tribute to the officials. Senator Reynolds is leading a fantastic team with Emergency Management Australia. They have honed their responses to these types of events. I have seen that firsthand in others. They have processed now almost 33,000 claims across those six days. I don't have the particular information here in front of me, but the last time I looked at it just under 90 per cent of claims had been processed in a matter of days. That disaster payment is a one-off payment of $1,000 for eligible households and $400 if they have children. My message mainly, though, is to anybody who needs assistance: please get on to us.
I want to pay tribute also to the Prime Minister. With any issue that there has been in getting funding, help and assistance to producers, to people, he has cut through the red tape and made sure that happens.
The PRESIDENT: Senator MacDonald, a final supplementary question.
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (14:51): Again I thank the minister. The minister will be aware that many farmers in the north-west who've been looking after livestock for years in a drought situation, hand-feeding them, have now in many cases lost all of their livestock, and there's been very substantial damage. I'm wondering if the minister could indicate what the government is doing to assist farmers who've had such heavy losses with their stock and their land?
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:52): Again, the Prime Minister in particular has been willing to pull out all stops to make sure we get the assistance flowing to those hurting from this unprecedented event. Already the government has lifted the assistance available to all primary producers from $25,000 to $75,000. That funding, I believe, is already flowing. We also have a range of concessional loans for farmers, and the ADF is providing assistance to get fuel and fodder out to those farms that need it. But the main thing that I want to focus on is not what we have done but what we will do. We will make sure we'll be here for the long term for these communities. It will take many months, if not years, for some areas to recover from this event, and my message to them is: the government is with you to help. We will do everything we can make to make sure people get back on their feet. There is a bright future for many of these areas, particularly given the rain they have received; they will just need a lot of assistance and help to get there, and we're going to provide it to them.
Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education
Senator WATT (Queensland) (14:53): My question is to Senator Cash, the Minister representing the Attorney-General. On 23 May 2018, the minister admitted to Senate estimates that taxpayers are funding her legal representation in proceedings brought against her regarding the AWU raids scandal. Can the minister advise the Senate whether the Morrison government has agreed to indemnify current or former employees of her office involved in current legal proceedings or cover in any other way associated legal costs?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education) (14:53): I don't actually have a brief in relation to that, Senator Watt, but I would assume all usual processes in relation to staff or former staff would actually apply.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, a supplementary question.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order across the chamber! Senator Wong, Senator Watt is on his feet. Senator Macdonald.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (14:53): I ask the minister again: Who is paying the legal costs of her former advisor Mr De Garis? If she'd care to do so, she might want to elaborate on what the usual arrangements are in relation to staff.
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education) (14:54): Senator Watt, I have got some instructions now from the Attorney-General's folder. It actually states: 'Questions should be referred to the Department of Finance.' So the Department of Finance must be responsible for this matter.
Senator Jacinta Collins: Remember the whiteboard!
The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, a final supplementary question.
Senator WATT (Queensland) (14:55): It's clear that no whiteboard is big enough for this minister. I ask again: who is paying the costs of the minister's former adviser, Mr De Garis? Given we know Australian taxpayers are footing the bill to defend Senator Cash, how much will taxpayers pay to defend her against actions arising from the leaking of confidential police information from her office to the media?
Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education) (14:55): Senator Watt, I need to refer you to my previous answer.
al-Araibi, Mr Hakeem
Senator McGRATH (Queensland) (14:55): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. Can the minister provide an update on Hakeem al-Araibi, a Bahraini footballer, who has received protection in Australia?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:55): I thank Senator McGrath for his question. We welcome the Thai government's decision to allow Mr al-Araibi to return to Australia. We know that all Australians deeply appreciate the decision allowing him to return to his wife, his family and friends. I want to commend the Thai government's commitment to due process and to human rights, which has led the government to take this decision. We know it was not an easy decision. The issue was not of Thailand's making. The circumstances in relation to this matter have been subject to a review.
I also want to thank the Thai immigration and prison officials for facilitating regular access by the Australian embassy to Mr al-Araibi throughout his detention. I'm proud of the extensive efforts of the Australian government, with the support of so many actors in the Australian and international community, in bringing Mr al-Araibi home. I would like to thank the Australian diplomatic network: officials in our embassies in Bangkok and Riyadh, which has representation to Bahrain, and in DFAT Canberra, who have worked behind the scenes for months to secure Mr al-Araibi's release. I also want to acknowledge the members of this chamber and of the other place for their engagement with me on this issue—in this chamber: Senator Wong and Senator Di Natale; and in the other place: Mr Bert van Manen, the member for Forde, with Senator Watt, in their co-convening of the parliamentary football group.
This welcome outcome is thanks in large part to the strength and depth of our relationships with both Thailand and Bahrain over decades. The outpouring of support from the Pascoe Vale Football Club to the advocacy of Mr Craig Foster, Football Federation Australia, FIFA, the IOC, Australian athletes within the Olympic family, the United Nations and so many other human rights groups and so many other Australians is a testament to how deeply Mr al-Araibi's situation has touched Australians.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McGrath, a supplementary question.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland) (14:57): Can the Minister further advise how Australia engaged with Thailand on this matter?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:57): Senator McGrath reminds us that Australia and Thailand enjoy a long, deep and enduring partnership. Throughout Mr al-Araibi's detention, the Prime Minister and I maintained regular and respectful contact with our Thai counterparts, including during my own visit to Bangkok in early January. We deeply appreciate the way in which Thailand has engaged with Australia throughout Mr al-Araibi's detention, which is reflective of the strength of that partnership.
The people of Australia have a great affection for Thailand and the Thai people. Thailand is a close regional partner with whom we cooperate closely on a wide range of issues. Late last year, we announced that we would work with Thailand and other regional partners on a new five-year phase to support the management of the Mekong—a vital, vital river source in that part of the world. Thailand is our ninth-largest trading partner. We'll also be working very closely with Thailand this year in support of its role as chair of ASEAN.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McGrath, a final supplementary question.
Senator McGRATH (Queensland) (14:59): Can the Minister advise how Australia worked with Bahrain to ensure Mr al-Araibi's release back home to his wife and friends?
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:59): I do also want to acknowledge the constructive dialogue that we have had with Bahrain in helping to resolve this issue over the past few weeks. I have spoken with my Bahraini counterpart, Shaikh Khalid Bin Ahmed Al Khalifa, as has Australia's ambassador in Riyadh, to convey Australia's position on this matter. Australia and Bahrain also share a friendly and longstanding relationship. It's underpinned by trade, by people-to-people links and by shared interests in both defence and regional security.
Australia is cooperating with Bahrain on major global and regional security issues, including in the anti-Daesh coalition, and through the presence of Australian military personnel in Bahrain as part of the 33-nation Combined Maritime Forces, which combats terrorism and piracy in the region. I have visited Australian personnel deployed in Bahrain personally. We recognise the important contribution that Bahrain makes to regional security and look forward to continuing to strengthen our partnership. (Time expired)
Senator Cormann: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
MOTIONS
Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:00): Mr President, I seek leave to move a motion relating to a requirement for the Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education attending the Senate to make a statement of not more than five minutes to correct the record and apologise to the chamber.
Leave not granted.
Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry
Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (15:00): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance and the Public Service (Senator Cormann) and the Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education (Senator Cash) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.
I note, for the people who are here in the gallery today, that they're some of the lucky few people who are going to actually see this parliament work, because what we've got is a part-time parliament going on here. We've got a government that are running away from doing the job that they should do, and they certainly should be here. We've been calling on them, as the opposition, to come in and do their job as the government and respond to the banking royal commission that was delivered by Mr Hayne.
We've all got bank accounts. We're all interacting with the banks. And for years we have seen egregious action by the banks. We saw it; we called it. We called for a banking royal commission. And while we called for that for 600 days—600 days!—you heard in Senator Cormann's responses today a few of the things that the government did to try to plug the gap that exists between their reality and the reality that you and I know, that friends and family are experiencing with greedy banks—that is, they have broken an ethical and important relationship with the Australian people. Mr Morrison ran a protection racket for his big-end-of-town mates. And now with his part-time parliament, he's continuing that behaviour of protection.
One of the 76 recommendations that Commissioner Hayne made was that grandfathered conflicted commissions for financial advice should be removed, and he said it should be done 'as soon as reasonably practicable'. Mr Morrison was the last hold out; he was the very last one in the Liberal Party who finally caved and said: 'Okay. All right. We'll go ahead with the royal commission.' He only did that after the banks sent him a letter to do it. What's he doing now? Mr Morrison and Mr Frydenberg want to kick this reform off into the never-never. They say they won't do anything about that urgent issue until 2021. So what we're seeing today is a government, which voted against a royal commission 26 times, that has the hide to come in here and say it's doing a good job in response to that royal commission into banking—banking that we interact with every single day.
We know that the royal commission and all of the stories that we heard of families and people that were profoundly impacted have revealed a sector that has been operating in a manner that puts itself ahead of people, ahead of ethics and ahead of the law. And Mr Morrison did not see that. He didn't see it before. He opposed it on 26 occasions. He held it up for 600 days. He delayed the commencement of that inquiry by 18 months. We could have legislated by now. We could have done the work to protect the Australian people if this arrogant, out-of-touch government had listened to the people of Australia, had listened to the evidence of people walking these corridors day in and day out and telling us there was something rotten in the banks. If this government had the dignity of a real government and had the sense to listen, we would've had a response to the banking royal commission long before this.
After Mr Morrison had called the action of establishing the royal commission 'regrettable' and 'a populist whinge', now we finally have the report. With the report in their hands, do you think that the government could show up to work and undertake the legislation that needs to be undertaken to give protection to the Australian people? No, they're too busy with their infighting. They're too busy with the internecine warfare going on in the family of the Liberal Party. They're fighting with the Nats. The Nats are fighting with the Nats. The Libs are fighting with the Libs, former Libs and independents. People in that party are in a state of decay. They've decided that they know better than anybody else what should happen with the banks and they've decided that they're not going to come along and do the work that the Australian people need them to do, to protect us and to protect the very underpinning of business in this country, our banking sector. We all rely on it. We all need it to be ethical. We need it to be managed properly and the government— (Time expired)
Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (15:06): It is great to be back for a new parliamentary year. Welcome back, colleagues. I regret to say, though, that it appears the opposition has decided to start the new parliamentary year by taking the low road. Instead of focusing themselves today on weighty matters of state and substantive issues of policy, they've decided to pursue a strategy of personal smear, personal destruction and personal attack. It's a familiar theme for those opposite and I have no doubt that, further on in the taking note of answers debate, we'll hear more of it. As a government, though, we're focused on the things that actually matter to the people of Australia and actually affect their lives.
Senator O'Neill interjecting—
Senator PATERSON: I'll take up Senator O'Neill's interjection about the banking royal commission. The opposition is very focused on playing petty politics here and on point scoring about who called for a royal commission when. They're very fond of pointing out the fact that they called for a royal commission before we did. What they're less fond of admitting to and acknowledging is that, in fact, there was a time when they too opposed a royal commission and when they voted against a royal commission after the Greens first presented a motion calling for one here in this chamber. We could have a debate about who was first in favour of it and who has been in favour of it longest, or we could instead focus on the 76 substantive recommendations made by Commissioner Hayne, how they will improve the lives of Australian people and how they will improve trust in the banking system.
Of course, when the government received the royal commission's recommendations, the opposition made a big song and dance about how we were taking far too long to release the report and far too long to respond to it. Well, in just a matter of days, the government was able to release, in full, a comprehensive response to the banking royal commission and allow the markets and the Australian public to observe our response. The opposition, on the other hand, who have now had twice the length of time that the government took to provide a response, are yet to provide any substantive response to the royal commission. Prior to the release of the recommendations, they said that they would implement them in full. What a careless, unthinking promise that was to make. Actually, now that they've realised that perhaps there might be a recommendation or two in there that they're not completely delighted by—or, more importantly, key constituencies of theirs, such as the union movement and the industry super funds that they control, might not be completely delighted by—they've instead moved to say that they will adopt all 76 recommendations 'in principle', whatever that means. We're yet to learn what that means. Yet they have the gall to come in here, to this chamber and to the other place, and say that this parliament needs to sit for extra weeks so that we can progress the recommendations that they don't even know what they're going to do with yet—quite a claim.
Another observation made today by those opposite, which no doubt we will hear more of this week, is the 26 times which the government is alleged to have voted against a royal commission. I haven't checked that figure; I'm not sure it's right. One figure that I do know is absolutely right, though, is the 22 times that those opposite in this chamber voted for a piece of legislation that their opposition leader and their shadow cabinet are now desperately trying to amend in the lower house because they've realised the disastrous consequences of that bill.
Every single one of you voted for a bill that your leader and your shadow cabinet now acknowledge could have allowed child sex offenders, murderers and other criminals to come to Australia without any recourse for the minister to prevent that from happening, without any recourse at all. You voted for a piece of legislation 22 times that even the opposition leader, Mr Shorten, recognises now is a dangerous piece of legislation that urgently needs to be amended in the House of Representatives. If they're successful in doing that, I hope when it comes back here that at least some of you have the decency to stand up and admit how wrong you were to hastily vote for a piece of legislation that had been poorly drafted, that had been ill-thought through. The advice of security agencies had not been sought before deciding on those votes; that is on your heads. It is on your heads, not just what you proposed to do but the legacy from your government.
As we heard in question time today, 1,200 deaths at sea occurred under your watch when you last tried to weaken our border protection laws, 50,000 people arrived by boat when you last weakened our border protection laws, 800 boats arrived, 17 new detention centres were established and thousands of children were placed in detention, which this government have got out of detention. We've been able to get the kids out of detention and off Manus and Nauru because we put in place, first and foremost, a strong border protection regime that discourages people from getting on boats in the first place. Yet again, you have proven you have not learnt the lessons of history and that you're prepared to make the same mistakes again.
Senator CAMERON ( New South Wales ) ( 15:11 ): Senator Paterson talks about matters of state. Nothing can be more important than the public having confidence in ministers of a government. And what we see now is that the community, the public and the parliament have lost confidence in Minister Cash. Minister Cash argued that we shouldn't forget what this is about—another smoke screen, another whiteboard to try and disguise her involvement and the involvement of her office in the leaking of a raid on AWU offices.
This is a rabble of a government. It's a government with a disgraced minister in Minister Cash. This is a minister who has suffered a spectacular collapse of credibility and a minister who will not accept ministerial accountability. This is a discredited minister. Each time she stands up, she will not tell the truth. She has got contempt for the Senate, she's got contempt for parliament and she's got contempt for the people of Australia. She has got contempt for ministerial accountability. Five times she came to Senate estimates and denied there was any involvement of her staff in leaking information that the Federal Police said could have put their people in danger. She denied that on five occasions. And then what happened? She has had to come back in and concede that her staff were involved. She threw one of her junior staff under the bus.
What we've found out today is this was not about junior staff; this was about her chief of staff leaking information to the media, information that could have put the Federal Police, as they indicated, in danger. This is unacceptable, it's a criminal act, and it beggars belief that the DPP cannot find a way to prosecute the people who we already know were involved in this leak. And probably part of the reason they couldn't prosecute was that the minister herself has been disassembling, has been trying to cover up and has been using parliamentary privilege and the argument that the matters are before the court not to be honest and upfront with the people of Australia. This is a minister and a government with contempt for the people of Australia. The reason we are here on this is that this government has used government authorities to run their political attacks on their opponents. The Registered Organisations Commission, the ABCC and the Fair Work Ombudsman have all been engaged in this nonsense, this problem that we have with a minister who's not prepared to stand up and tell the truth.
What happened when this minister was put under pressure? She attacked young women in the Leader of the Opposition's office to try and cover up, and try and divert from, what was happening in her office. She accused them of all sorts of terrible things. It's one of the most pathetic performances I've ever seen in the 11 years I've been in this place, where a minister attacks these young women in the Leader of the Opposition's office to try and cover up what her office was involved in. We've now got concessions that they breached the law, and it's not the first time this has happened. Under Minister Cash's leadership, the ABCC commissioner Nigel Hadgkiss had to resign in disgrace.
This is a government that has seen its time out. This is a government that does not care. This is a government that will say anything and do anything. This is a government that needs to go. The sooner we get to an election, the sooner this place will be a better place. (Time expired)
Senator HUME (Victoria—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (15:16): Madam Deputy President, have you ever heard the phrase 'if you don't like what they're saying about you, change the conversation'? I have never heard the conversation changed quite so much today, during this take note session, as we've just seen from Senator Cameron. How extraordinary! You've got to feel sorry for the Labor Party; they've had a bad day. It's been a bad day when one of your members, the member for Lindsay, didn't turn up to work on a day when there's a crucial vote—she just made it, just slipped in—and when your coalition partners in the Australian Greens decide that, actually, they've changed their minds about you and they're not going to support your legislation through. When you've had a bad day like that, what's the best thing you can do? The best thing you can do is deflect. 'Look over there,' they say. That's exactly what the Labor Party have done today.
It's a shame, because they had a bit of pep in the step and glide in the stride over late last year—but it does seem to have diminished somewhat in recent weeks. I think that maybe they were getting a little bit too comfortable, a little bit too complacent, a little bit too confident, but that's certainly not the case. You can see the turmoil that the Labor Party find themselves in, particularly over this banking royal commission that was commissioned by the Liberal-National government and announced in November 2017. There have been 68 days of hearings. There have been 130 witnesses. They've reviewed more than 10,000 submissions. Now we have 76 separate recommendations that the government has considered and will take action on—all 76. We didn't jump the gun. We didn't say, 'We're going to support everything even though we're not entirely sure what we're supporting.' We waited. We considered the report that came from Justice Hayne. We went through every single one of those recommendations, one by one, and then we made a comment on each.
Unfortunately, the poor old Labor Party—I'm a compassionate person; I feel quite sorry for them—have gone: 'Some of those recommendations are a little bit uncomfortable. What are we going to do about default super?' Justice Hayne said there should be one single default super fund for all Australians. That doesn't sit particularly well with a Labor Party that has vested interests in the industry superannuation sector through its union affiliations. I mean, what can you do? Senator Cameron himself was a board member of an industry super fund. Senator Ketter was a board member of an industry super fund. Goodness me! The Leader of the Opposition himself was a board member of an industry super fund. How do you decouple superannuation from industrial relations, as Commissioner Hayne has suggested, while looking after your vested interests? It's a very difficult thing to do, which is why the Labor Party don't want to talk about it. They also don't want to talk about mortgage brokers. There are 27,000 individual mortgage brokers out there in Australia, and they provide over 50 per cent of the loans. Not only do they provide 50 per cent of the home loans but they are also responsible for improving competition in our banking sector, competition that is so very, very important.
Commissioner Hayne has made a series of recommendations, which the government has considered. Of those recommendations to do with mortgage brokers, we have said that we will adopt putting in place a best interest duty and that we will ban trail commissions and volume based bonuses on new loans, starting from July 2020, but we are not yet comfortable with the idea of banning upfront commissions. We're not yet comfortable with that because it will essentially decimate the mortgage broking industry—the 27,000 mortgage broking employees and the 17,000 broking businesses that are out there.
Ask the Labor Party what it is that they want to do on mortgage brokers, because they haven't actually landed on a solution yet. They've gone silent. Instead, they're saying: 'Look the other way. Look the other way.' They haven't landed on a decision about what to do with superannuation. What are they going to do about default super? What are you going to do about default super? What are you going to say to your vested interests? Are you going to say, 'Yes, you're right: we'll decouple industrial relations from superannuation from retirement incomes'? That should have been done years ago. But they can't do it because they have vested interests. Look the other way. If you don't like what they're saying about you, change the conversation, and that's exactly what the ALP have done today. (Time expired)
Senator WATT (Queensland) (15:21): I also rise to take note of the answers from Senator Cash to questions today regarding this never-ending scandal involving her and her office over the leaking to members of the media of confidential police information regarding a police raid, something which the commissioner of the Australian Federal Police himself described as conduct that endangered the lives of his police officers.
Just a quick refresher for those who've forgotten the detail: what this involved was a leak of police information about an imminent police raid on union offices, which was leaked to the media by a former member of Minister Cash's staff. We know that that's how it occurred because Minister Cash, eventually, under protest, confirmed to Senate estimates that the leak had come from one of her own staff members and that he had finally admitted this in the process of resigning from her office. But, of course, before we got to finding out the truth—that this leak came from a former staff member of Minister Cash—we had to sit through Minister Cash on five occasions misleading the Senate and Senate estimates by saying that no-one in her office leaked the information and that she didn't know anything about it. In fact, at the estimates hearing on 26 October 2017—and we've referred back to what she said on that occasion—she assured the Senate that she had interviewed every member of her staff when this story finally broke and asked them whether they were aware of the police raids prior to them occurring. She told the Senate that every one of her staff members had said that they did not know and that they were not aware of these raids. We learnt today, through court proceedings brought by the Australian Workers' Union, that that is actually not true. Yet again it seems that we have Senator Cash providing incorrect, false information to the Senate.
Yesterday, in proceedings brought by the Australian Workers' Union, Minister Cash's former staff member, who resigned over this affair, refused to answer questions as to who informed him about the imminent police raids. The reason he gave for why he wouldn't answer those questions was very interesting. It was because he believed that he would incriminate himself. If that doesn't show illegal conduct, conduct that would potentially make him the subject of police or other legal action, I don't know what does.
Today, the truth has finally come out. Today, in evidence before the Federal Court, the former staff member of Minister Cash has identified Minister Cash's former chief of staff as the person who informed him that the raids were imminent. Let's remember, back in October 2017, the day that these raids occurred, the day that this scandal blew up, Minister Cash finally came into the Senate and Senate estimates and admitted that it had come from her office but that she had spoken to every single one of her staff members and they had assured her that they didn't know anything about these raids.
We now know today, through evidence given in court, that in fact the source of this information was her former chief of staff. Contrary to what she has said, it is in fact the case that other members of her staff knew about the raids and were in on the scandal. There really can only be two situations here: either Minister Cash was telling the truth at the time, and all her other staff members lied to her in saying that they did not know about these raids; or we have a former chief of staff of Minister Cash being fingered in evidence, given up in evidence by another member of the staff, and it would seem that someone has potentially lied before the court. Either of those situations is very serious and there will be definitely be more questions to answer.
Now that we know that more than one member of Senator Cash's staff knew about the raids, the obvious question is: who else knew? We have been saying for some months now that it is impossible to believe that only one member of Minister Cash's staff knew about the imminent raids and was in on the leak. We have learned today that it now involves two members, including her former chief of staff. It defies belief to think that it is confined to those two staff members and that other staff members were not involved, and perhaps even Minister Cash herself was involved in this. But of course we continue to get this refusal from Minister Cash to answer questions. She wheels out the whiteboard before estimates; she's effectively wheeled out a whiteboard again today. But I can assure her that we're not going to let this rest and there are more questions coming.
Question agreed to.
Climate Change
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:26): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance and the Public Service (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Di Natale today relating to climate change.
Here we are, after the Christmas break, in the middle of summer, where we come on the back of a January where we have recorded the hottest-ever temperatures on record: 2018, again, was one of the hottest years on record and the last five years the hottest years on record since records were kept. Here we are on the back of those horrendous disasters: bushfires in Tasmania; parts of Tasmania that have never seen fire now being burnt; the shocking floods and torrential rains in Queensland, causing so much death and destruction; a Murray-Darling Basin that is in crisis and on the brink of collapse, with a million dead fish, including 70-year-old Murray cod that have survived countless droughts.
We know that these are not natural disasters. This is the result of a climate that is breaking down. We have to do something about it. Yet here we are, back in the parliament, with records tumbling and disasters across the country, and what has the coalition got? Nothing. More fear, more division within the community, beating up on innocent people seeking asylum, preventing them from getting the health care they need. Nothing to deal with the climate crisis that we're confronting right now. No plan to deal with coal. Eighty per cent of the coal that is dug up in this country ends up on a ship and is being burnt overseas. What is the government's plan? Indeed, what is the Labor Party's plan to deal with that coal, which is the single biggest contributor to the climate crisis we're confronting? We heard today from Minister Cormann. He gave us the drug dealer's defence: if we don't do it, someone else will. If we don't burn it, someone else will.
That's not good enough. We know that we have to do something about the coal that we're digging up and exporting and which is being burnt overseas. That's the challenge for us. We know we've got two big parties that are beholden to their corporate donors, to their big mates in the coal industry. They are hamstrung. They will not act in the national interest.
They say the economy needs it. Well, we have an economy that is transforming before our eyes. The Asian Renewable Energy Hub right now in the Pilbara has plans to export renewable energy—solar and wind—to parts of Asia. Japan and South Korea, two of our three biggest coal customers, have put out a global tender to be supplied with hydrogen. We could be supplying renewable hydrogen to the rest of the world rather than contributing to catastrophic climate damage. We need a plan to help manufacturers cut their emissions, to strengthen their bottom line. We've got a plan. The Greens have a plan to help households install more solar panels, to increase energy storage, to ensure we get the electrification of our transport networks and to get energy efficiency and energy productivity back on track, but this government needs to listen not just to the Greens but to the community that's screaming out for a plan. It needs to listen to the voices of those young people, the school strikers, who were out there campaigning for their future, which is being ripped away from them by a government too busy doing the bidding of their big fossil fuel donors. These incredible children right across the country were saying: 'We need leadership. We need you to act because you are damaging our prospects for living in a safe and healthy climate.'
The natural disasters that we are enduring this summer are not natural disasters. They are climate-induced disasters, and we are on the front line of these climate-induced disasters. We're both the canary and the coalmine. Minister, we need to act. We need to act now. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
CONDOLENCES
Scholes, Hon. Gordon Glen Denton, AO
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (15:32): It is with deep regret I inform the Senate of the death on 9 December 2018 of the Hon. Gordon Glen Denton Scholes AO, a former Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and the Public Service, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:32): I seek leave to move a motion relating to the death of the Hon. Gordon Glen Denton Scholes AO.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted.
Senator CORMANN: I move:
That the Senate records its deep sorrow at the death on 9 December 2018 of the Hon. Gordon Scholes AO, a former member of the House of Representatives for the division of Corio, Speaker of the House in the Whitlam government and Minister for Defence and Minister for Territories in the Hawke government; places on record its gratitude for his service to the parliament and the nation; and extends its deepest sympathies to his family in their bereavement.
The Hon. Gordon Scholes AO was a man of many talents and vocations: a train driver, fireman, heavyweight boxing champion, parliamentarian, Speaker, cabinet minister, family man—an impressive list stretching from the railways of Victoria through to the halls of Parliament House and the cabinet table. And, in each of those roles and throughout his entire life, Gordon served his family, his community and his country with distinction.
Born on 7 June 1931 to Thomas and Mary Scholes, much of Gordon's childhood was spent following his family as they moved from place to place. Before entering the political arena, Gordon found success in an entirely different arena, though perhaps not so different at all. He was so good at boxing that in 1949 he became the Victorian amateur heavyweight boxing champion. By day he worked as a railwayman for Victorian Railways from 1949 until 1967 and also served his community as a fireman and fire engine driver from 1955. Clearly, in the early years of his career he took on the two dream jobs of many boys, I'm sure, across Australia at the time—certainly during my childhood across Belgium at the time, train driver and fire engine driver sound like the sorts of jobs that any boy aspires to while growing up.
Some might say that politics was an unlikely path for Gordon. As one family member would later note, at the time he married his loving wife, Della Robinson, in late July 1957, life on the federal political circuit seemed a world away. However, having settled in Geelong in the 1950s, Gordon joined the Australian Labor Party in 1955 and went on to serve in a range of positions, including as president of the Labor Party's Geelong branch between 1962 and 1964 and as president of the Geelong Trades Hall college from 1965 to 1966. His foray into formal elected office began in earnest with his election as a City of Geelong councillor in 1965, a post that he held until the year of his election to the federal parliament.
Gordon was at first unsuccessful when contesting the seat of Corio. However, when long-time Liberal incumbent, Sir Hubert Opperman OBE, retired from politics a year or so later, Gordon recontested the seat, this time successfully, in the July 1967 by-election. He would go on to retain the seat at 10 subsequent elections—sometimes comfortably, at other times decidedly less so, including by a razor-thin but still winning margin of just 20 votes after the December 1975 election.
In his first speech, Gordon showed a keen interest in policy, touching on issues that ranged from defence industry to social services. Commendably, he spoke passionately in favour of the needs of Australia's First World War veterans, many of whom were reaching the end of their lives at the time he entered the parliament. He also displayed his keen local focus, advocating for rail infrastructure that would benefit his local electorate. It is a credit to the person and the good character of Gordon Scholes that he also took the time in his first speech to acknowledge his predecessor, commending his many years of service, just as he set about his own work for the people of Corio. Appointed as Deputy Speaker in February 1973, he served diligently in that role and was thrust quite literally into the hot seat during one of the most tumultuous periods in our nation's political history, becoming Speaker of the House of Representatives in February 1975 and remaining in that role until the defeat of the Whitlam government.
Notably, he did not allow those turbulent years in Canberra to distract him from his local community. He played a key role in establishing Deakin University in 1974, an achievement that many point to as one of his most significant contributions to the city. As well as serving initially as Manager of Opposition Business in the House, Gordon became Labor's defence spokesperson during the ensuing opposition years and took on a vast portfolio faced with significant technological and political transitions in the years following the end of the Vietnam War. Ever locally minded, he was also acutely aware that the government's aircraft factories, which had played an important role in the nation's defence industry until that point, were nestled within his own electorate.
When Labor next formed government under then Prime Minister Bob Hawke, he retained his portfolio and ascended to what would be his most significant job in government, serving as Minister for Defence from the Hawke government's election in 1983 through to December 1984. At the time The Canberra Times involved his sporting past with a clever 1983 headline declaring 'Ex-boxer retains his sure-footedness in a tricky portfolio'.
Gordon also served as minister leading the newly formed Department of Territories, remaining in that role until he departed the ministry in July 1987. In the years that followed he remained active within the walls of parliament and outside them, working diligently for his constituents and serving as Deputy Chairman of Committees from May 1990 through to his retirement. Choosing to retire just prior to the 1993 federal election, Gordon's final speech, made a quarter of a century after his first, made clear that over 25 years of Canberra life had not dimmed his earthy and practical approach to politics. The same man who began his parliamentary career with a focus on policy and pragmatism ended it in the same way, calling on the parliament of the day to better meet the expectations of the public and more effectively serve a changing Australia. Having been appointed as an Officer of the Order of Australia in 1993 in recognition of his lengthy service to the Australian community, he was honoured further, a decade after his retirement, with the receipt of a Centenary Medal in 2003. A keen stamp-collector in his later years, he was also appointed as an honorary member of the Geelong Philatelic Society.
Ultimately, it was Gordon's family that was his rock through it all. Though politics may not have been on the horizon at the time of their marriage, Gordon's wife, Dell, was a constant source of support through his parliamentary career and the 55 years of marriage that they shared before her passing. Indeed, in his valedictory speech he noted just how essential his family's support had been and expressed a depth of gratitude that I'm sure many of us in this chamber would sincerely empathise with.
It is to Gordon's two daughters, Kerry and Anne, and his two grandchildren, Monica and Jed, that on behalf of the Australian government and the Australian Senate I extend my sincerest condolences on the passing of a good and humble man whose service to this parliament and our nation, shaped and coloured by a busy life well lived, will not be forgotten.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:41): I rise on behalf of the opposition to acknowledge the passing of another member of the Labor family, the Hon. Gordon Glen Denton Scholes AO, who passed away in December 2018 at the age of 87. At the outset, I convey the opposition's condolences to relatives and friends of Mr Scholes. I particularly acknowledge in the gallery his daughters, Anne and Kerry, who have travelled to be with us here today—proud daughters of a great Labor man and a wonderful Labor parliamentarian.
Gordon Scholes served for 2½ decades in the Australian parliament, a period which coincided with a period of enormous economic and social change, and in many ways he came to symbolise that transition. Like Ben Chifley, he entered the parliament after a career driving trains and left the parliament having held some of the highest offices in the land. Gordon Scholes was the member for Corio in the House of Representatives from 1967 until his retirement in February 1993. Although he had contested the seat against the renowned cyclist Sir Hubert Opperman in 1966, he didn't win the seat until Oppy, as he was known, was appointed as the High Commissioner to Malta in early 1967. His campaign was strongly supported by Gough Whitlam, and the win by Mr Scholes on the back of a swing of more than 11 per cent was seen by many as the beginning of the way back for Labor after the disastrous split.
From his election until his retirement, his principle policy focus was the welfare of working-class people, who had to battle to sustain a reasonable standard of living, and this was evident in his first speech. Unlike the contemporary practice, where first speeches are often replete with noble sentiment and high aspiration, first speeches at that time addressed the more practical legislative issues of the day, yet Mr Scholes found a place in his speech on the 1967 budget—delivered, of course, in Old Parliament House—to advance his view that a primary role of the parliament was to legislate the social services that protect the nation's standard of living and to restore the economic and political liberties of the nation's First Peoples. He was an early advocate Aboriginal rights. In his final speech—delivered in this house—Gordon Scholes again addressed the need for parliament to improve the processes that enable it to deliver on its primary function, legislation.
Gordon Scholes became Speaker of the House of Representatives in February 1975, guiding the House through the tumultuous events of November 1975 and standing down from the position in February 1976. He was also Minister for Defence in the first Hawke ministry from March 1983 until December 1984 and Minister for Territories until 1987. It was from that office that he laid the building blocks of self-government for the Australian Capital Territory. A man of integrity, humanity and humility, Mr Scholes filled each of these roles with a quiet, purposeful dignity, and although he had left the federal parliamentary Labor Party caucus almost a decade before I took my place in the Senate, his reputation was his legacy, and I am proud, as are others on this side, to belong to a great Labor tradition of which he was such a loyal and hardworking member.
Gordon Scholes was born into the Great Depression, the global economic disaster that affected virtually every family in this country, and his family was no exception. His father, grandfather and great-grandfather all worked for the Victorian Railways: his father as a ganger and his antecedents as station masters. Being a ganger meant his father was always on the move, and this led to Mr Scholes spending long periods of his childhood living with uncles, aunts and other family members. His disrupted family life and uneven educational opportunities meant that by the end of 1939 he had undergone little more than two years education but at five different schools. He then attended a number of Catholic schools, including St Ambrose's in Brunswick, which had the distinction of including John Curtin and BA Santamaria amongst its alumni.
By the time he had finished school at age 15 he had attended some 16 schools, but he wasn't awarded the merit certificate, as it was then called, on the completion of grade 8 because he had not attended each of the previous two years continuously. He had spent several months in the children's hospital in Melbourne. Mr Scholes was determined that the same disruption would not affect his own family. He and his wife, Dell, worked together to ensure that their daughters, Kerry and Anne, enjoyed the stability, the lack of which he lamented.
After a short stint at the Daylesford Technical High School, he took his first job at the woollen mills. And his final exposure to the education system formally was the Ballarat School of Mines in 1948, where he did a night course in fitting and turning. But the railways were in his blood. It wasn't long before he joined the Victorian Railways to become, first of all, a locomotive fireman, shovelling some 40 tonnes of coal into the steam locomotives between Melbourne and Wodonga and finally earning his drivers ticket to achieve his childhood ambition to stand on the footplate as the driver of the Spirit of Progress—well named!
Gordon Scholes was a keen sportsman, a passion he pursued throughout his life. He was an Australian Rules footballer and an avid Cats supporter—but we still like him. He was a low handicapper and pennant golfer, and a king of the snooker table. He won the Parliament House championship at Old Parliament House in 1981, but I understand he was most renowned as a boxer. I'm not sure how many members of parliament have made it to the Melbourne Sporting Globe, a famous, but now defunct, pink tabloid. But he did in 1949, when he won the Victorian amateur heavyweight championship. A short quote from the Globe gives you the flavour of the journal: 'As soon as he felt that Green, his opponent, was anchored, Scholes started a right from behind his heels that landed in Green's dining room. I feel for Green.'
Mr Scholes had an unusual and rather vivid knowledge of world affairs that would resonate in the contemporary world of electronic media and constant visual images. During his layovers in Melbourne between driving the Spirit of Progress down from Wodonga then back up again, he would sit in the old Century Newsreel Theatre in Swanston Street or the Tatler Newsreels Theatrette in the basement of the Australia Hotel in Collins Street watching Movietone newsreels—no bars, but rather continuous self-improvement, and his memory for detail was amazing.
While stationed in Wodonga, Gordon Scholes joined our party, the Australian Labor Party. He had been active in the AFULE, the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Employees, the world's oldest railway union, founded in 1861. Moving to Geelong in the late 1950s, he joined the local branch and then, as an AFULE member, became a delegate to the Geelong Trades Hall Council. He was vice-president from 1964 and President from 1965 to 1967.
His path to federal politics began in the early 1960s with a local issue—the survival of a kindergarten. Even though they hadn't funded it, the local council, controlled by the conservatives, at the time decided to close it down anyway. They ignored the pleas of the local community, but they hadn't reckoned with Gordon Scholes. They reversed their decision, he was elected to council and, two years later to the day, he was elected as the federal member for Corio.
The parliamentary career of Gordon Scholes was one of dogged determination; a determination to represent his electors and to anchor, to the best of his ability, a stable and progressive Labor government. That became increasingly trickier as 1975 unfolded, though his steady hand on the tiller of the Speakership certainly protected the dignity and proper functioning of the House of Representatives. The terrible events of 11 November 1975 have been recorded many times and I don't propose to rehearse them today; suffice to say Mr Scholes could never bring himself to forgive the profound discourtesy shown by the then Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, to the parliament. Kerr pointedly refused to meet the Speaker when Mr Scholes called on him to inform him that the person whom he had appointed behind the back of the elected Prime Minister had lost the confidence of the House and, hence, had no right to advise an election. He was kept waiting for over an hour, during which time the writs were issued.
In the first Hawke government, Mr Scholes was a diligent and hardworking minister, serious to the point of diffidence. His proudest achievement, in many ways, was to have persuaded Whitlam to establish Deakin University, which transformed Geelong into a university town, allowing local students to attend university close to home rather than having to board in Melbourne to attend Melbourne, Monash, RMIT or Swinburne. I also am advised that, in his life after politics, he was an avid stamp collector and a recognised expert on what are known as 'Australian colonial covers' and what are known as 'half lengths', which those who have his interest and knowledge of the philatelic world will know is impressive. It's a kind of historical echo which, in his understated way, Mr Scholes particularly enjoyed. Following his retirement, he remained active in our party, mentoring a number of aspiring politicians at both the state and the federal level. Of course, he was a devoted family man, showering his family with the love, affection and stability that may have been absent for some of his own peripatetic childhood.
Gordon Scholes was an honourable man. He had an abiding care for people, especially those who were down on their luck. He knew what hardship was like and he worked tirelessly for the betterment of working people and their families. Paul Keating summed up his career succinctly when he said, on the last sitting day of 1992, that Mr Scholes had acquitted himself 'with great dignity, thoughtfully and carefully'. Dignity, thoughtfulness and care make a fine epitaph for a fine man. I again express our sympathy to his family and friends.
Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.
Cooney, Bernard Cornelius 'Barney'
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (15:52): It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 9 February 2019 of Bernard 'Barney' Cornelius Cooney, a senator for the state of Victoria from 1984 to 2002. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Cormann.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and the Public Service, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:52): by leave—I move:
That the Senate records its deep sorrow at the death on 9 February 2019 of Mr Bernard 'Barney' Cooney, a former senator for Victoria, places on record its gratitude for his long service to the parliament and the nation, and extends its sincere sympathies to the family in their bereavement.
Spanning 17 years, Barney Cooney's time in the Senate was marked by a decency and collegiality that earned him the respect of those on all sides of the Senate chamber. He was born on 11 July 1934 to Bernard, whose name he took, and Constance, or 'Corrie', Cooney on Tasmania's King Island into a family whose Irish heritage in Tasmania stretched back to the 1820s. However, much of his childhood was spent moving through towns dotted across regional Victoria—Culgoa, Gunbower and Yarck among them.
As the family of a bank branch manager, Barney's family was spared the full pain of the Great Depression, but in his youth he witnessed some of the social toll that it imposed on others. His formative years were spent watching impoverished itinerant men, many of them veterans of the First World War, visiting his home for help. His mother's generosity in giving them food and, where she could, the dignity of work had a profound and lasting impact on his social conscience. In time, Barney's family moved to the city and ran a milk bar in South Melbourne. Following his father's passing in 1951, Barney's mother continued to run the family business, with the help of her children, until her own passing in 1968.
Despite losing his father at a young age, Barney excelled at St Kevin's Christian Brothers college and secured a scholarship that saw him take up studies in arts and law at the University of Melbourne. While there, he fully engaged in university life: completing his national service, representing his campus as a boxer—another one; there's a theme here—and joining the university's ALP Club, later joining the St Kilda branch of the ALP. Barney refused to allow the sectarian tensions that had so riven his party through the 1950s and 1960s to colour his time within its ranks. He was well known for his dual commitment to the Labor cause and to his Catholic faith.
Once armed with his Bachelor of Law, Barney was admitted to the Victorian Bar in 1961. His work centred on the personal injury and industrial law spaces and spanned two decades prior to his election to parliament. Notably, his legal activities didn't end when he came to Canberra, and he remained on the bar roll throughout his time in this place. I should note that his legal career brought him more than just a livelihood, because in April 1962 he married Lillian Gill, a fellow lawyer, with whom he would have five children, one of whom they tragically lost in infancy.
On 1 December 1984, Barney was elected to represent the state of Victoria in the Senate, which was the beginning of 17 years in an office that he took very seriously indeed, and in a chamber whose role in checking and reviewing government he held in high regard. Indeed, his concerns about executive overreach, articulated passionately in his first speech, were a defining feature of his parliamentary service.
A Westminster traditionalist, nowhere did his belief in the Senate's crucial democratic function come through more strongly than in his approach to the Senate committee system. As a prolific committee contributor, he chaired seven Senate committees and participated in a formidable 25 parliamentary committees in total. Those roles gave him insight into a wide range of issues and topics, from animal welfare to telecommunications through to law and order and much more. Among the committees that he chaired were the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. However, in line with his convictions, some of Barney's most famous contributions were those that he made on the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, of which he was regarded by many to have been one of the most outstanding chairs ever.
His emphasis on liberty often stirred him to action, sometimes even against his own party, as was seen in his vigorous critique of the Hawke government's proposed national identity card legislation. Yet whatever the disagreements he may have had, Barney was widely known to be a man of geniality and good humour. Indeed, when one looks back through the commentary of his contemporaries, the high regard in which he was held comes through very clearly. Barney regularly spoke about the importance of civility in politics, and no-one could doubt that he met the high bar that he so regularly set. It is a tribute to his character that, at the time of his retirement, so many senators lined up across partisan lines to farewell their departing friend. My good friend and former Liberal senator for South Australia Alan Ferguson captured the sentiment very well:
Everybody knows Senator Cooney because he is the most gracious man who greets every new member and makes them feel so much at home.
In his own valedictory speech, Barney displayed that same grace. Rather than focus on himself, he turned the chamber's attention to the work of his staff, friends and colleagues. So plentiful was his list of thank yous that to be safe he conceded that the only way to ensure that he wouldn't miss anyone was to table the entire phone book.
Though he retired from the parliament in 2002, Barney's passion for life and politics was undimmed. In 2003 he was named patron of the Conciliation Assistants Representing Employees Group, and in 2005 he was appointed chair of the advisory group to the Elder Abuse Prevention Project established by the Victorian government.
As he battled ill-health in his later life, he kept busy. Indeed, he was politically involved to the very end and attended meetings just last month. I commend in particular his deep commitment to community service, which saw him provide pro bono legal support even in retirement. With his lengthy service to the community now having come to an end, Barney leaves behind his loving wife, Lillian, their four children and their grandchildren. As they mourn the loss of their husband and father, the Senate mourns the loss of a kind, decent and committed public servant. On behalf of the Australian government and the Australian Senate, I extend to Barney's loved ones our sincerest condolences.
Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (15:59): On behalf of the opposition, I would like to convey our condolences to Barney Cooney's family. I had the great pleasure of knowing Barney over many, many years. I offer these remarks in the context of that knowledge and will concentrate on the areas of work that we did together. I don't want to take away from the work that he did in so many other areas. It's the nature of these types of discussions that one invariably concentrates on aspects of people's lives and, without meaning to, neglects so many other areas of their lives that are very, very important. I don't often contribute in condolence debates, so this is a particular exception. Because of the nature of Barney's contribution, I made a particular point of seeking to make this representation to the Senate.
Barney was a prominent member of the generation of Labor politicians who, I think, played a critical role in casting off the legacies of the 1950s split in the Labor Party. He joined the Labor Party in 1964. He was in fact made a life member in 2004. His contribution and that of his generation were that they paved the way for the return of the Labor Party to power, nationally under Gough Whitlam and in Victoria under John Cain.
Barney was also a very proud member of the Socialist Left in Victoria. Some people regarded this as ironic. I never did. He was at heart a democratic socialist who upheld core Labor values, but he was also deeply religious. He remained a devout Catholic throughout his life. And Barney himself saw no contradiction between his faith and his politics. Many people once saw that there was this fundamental gap. I trust that few do today. The fact that they have seen this change is a legacy of the work that people like Barney undertook—that is, to overcome the sectarian nature of the split. Those who thought that way of Barney's belief paradoxically failed to grasp that there are more paths to a vision of a better Australia than those shared by those of the doctrinaire views of the Left. You don't have to be a card-carrying member of the atheist brigade to appreciate the fact that tolerance and respect for others are not confined to one particular variety of views.
Many on the Left have thought that bigotry was the preserve of the churches. It's not. It can be found in many groups of people who adopt a very blinkered view of the way in which the world works. Barney was one of those people who are able to encounter that blinkered view and overcome it. I think it was because of the way in which he was able to interact with people that he was able to get on so well with people of so many different strands of thought. People like him, Catholics who remained in the Labor Party rather than joining the DLP—Arthur Calwell might be thought of as another—endured a hostility not just within sections of the Labor movement but within the church itself. It was in large part because of the example set by people like Barney that they were able to overcome old animosities and consign that view to the past. The golden thread, as I saw it, in Barney's work was his commitment to social justice and the defence of working people—and Senator Cormann outlined that in his contribution today. From the very time Barney entered university, in his training at Newman College, it became consistent with his understanding of the Catholic faith; indeed, it may well be argued that it arose from it. He believed that all people had an inherent dignity because, as he would put it, they were made in the image of his god.
Barney never chose to wear his religion on his sleeve, but it is important, if you are to understand his politics, to understand his deep religious conviction. For Barney, the implications of this belief were absolutely clear. He was never afraid to stand with those that had been socially ostracised or those that had been consigned to the margins of society, and that included some in the industrial wing of the Labor movement whose militancy and fondness for plain speaking did not always endear them to others in the Labor Party, let alone to conservatives. These were people that were unashamedly Barney's comrades. They were his close friends: people like Wally Curran, the secretary of the meatworkers union, for instance, with whom he had a very, very close personal relationship. There were people like Tom Ryan, the long-serving secretary of the Food Preservers' Union—people like Peter Marshall, secretary of the firefighters union.
Even if he had never served in this chamber, Barney would be remembered as a great defender of the union movement and as an advocate for workers' rights. That's evident not only in his cases as a lawyer but in his working with people like Graham Bird from the meatworkers union or Jenny Doran from the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Barney chaired an inquiry into workers' compensation, and that work led to a comprehensive overhaul of the workers' comp laws in the state of Victoria. That report—along with a fair bit of political struggle, I might add—became the basis of the present WorkCover system in Victoria.
Barney was widely respected across the Labor movement, and I mean widely respected across the Labor movement, for a combination of these qualities. And, of course, these are the same qualities that made him stand out in this chamber. He was conspicuous for his grace as well as his courage, for his courtesy and his generosity of spirit, and that was shown to all.
Late in his time here, he wrote:
Courtesy and grace are forever needed in debate. A civil society cannot be at its best unless its constituents treat each other civilly.
That Barney lived this prescription was acknowledged by those who reported on this parliament and by those who served in it. Alex Kirk, the ABC journalist, described him as a man 'who never descends into vitriol, who bears no grudges and doesn't say a bad word about anyone'.
Senators on the other side of the chamber tended to agree. Amanda Vanstone, who was noted, I think, for her ability to come up with a quick barb, seemed in an interview with Alex Kirk to have a soft spot for Barney. She said:
I think the real reason is all of us in Parliament have got a mixture of politician and parliamentarian, and Barney's got the highest portion of the latter that I've come across.
Barney's courtesy and respect for others was learned early in life, and these points have been made. He was born on King Island in Tasmania with his father, Bernard, a branch manager for the Commercial Bank. The family's Irish forebears were connected in Tasmania dating back to the 1820s, and in 1937 they were transferred through to the Mallee in western Victoria.
On this period, points have been made. I think that Senator Cormann drew upon the notes that were distributed on this matter. In the wake of the Depression there were still many, many people wandering the back roads of the Mallee, and they'd often visit the family home asking for food. Barney's political awakening was found in this experience. He said that the courtesy and kindness shown to the itinerant men by his mother, Corrie, formed a lasting impression on him. In this interview with Alex Kirk, he remembered it this way:
They'd come to the door, knock on the door, and ask for something to eat and something to drink. The sort of thing, I suppose, that Henry Lawson used to describe in his story. She would always give them work if she could, chopping the wood, that gave them dignity and she'd always give them supper, no matter who they were, because they were human beings and in many cases they were return soldiers from World War I and many of the younger ones were going to be soldiers in World War II. That was always a lesson to me, that no matter who you were, you were entitled to be treated in a particular way.
The Cooney family later moved to the city, and they ran a milk bar in South Melbourne. Upon Barney's father's death, Corrie kept up the business until her own death in 1968.
Barney attended St Kevin's College from 1947 through to '52, and he won a Commonwealth scholarship—I think that's important: he actually won a Commonwealth scholarship—to study arts and law at the University of Melbourne, where he did his national service and took up boxing. Active in undergraduate life, he was particularly active in the ALP Club and the Newman Society. Barney was admitted to the bar in 1961. He remained on the bar roll throughout his political career and after his retirement from politics, when he continued to do pro bono work. I can tell you there were many people who simply could not afford a lawyer who turned to him and received that legal assistance.
Within the Victorian ALP, Barney was originally a member of what was known as the Participants, which became the Independent faction after the intervention in the Victorian branch by the ALP federal executive in 1970. The Independents came to hold the balance of power between the Left and the Right in the 1970s, including many who were associated with Labor's return to power: John Button, John Cain, Michael Duffy and Richard McGarvie. Barney was elected to the ALP state Administrative Committee as an Independent, but didn't stay that long with that faction. He joined the Socialist Left in 1994, and, of course, remained with that to his death.
He was by then a member of the Senate. He was elected in 1985, with a No. 3 on the ticket. He actually had been selected on the Socialist Left spot on the ticket. It's a measure of the high regard in which he was held that he won preselection after an intense battle between two leading members of the Left, Bruce Hartnett and Bill Hartley. Each of them was vying for that spot.
Barney was a widely-welcomed compromise candidate—I say that in the very best sense of the term. At the time of his election he was 50. He came equipped with more than 20 years experience resolving workers' legal problems. In his first speech, Barney quoted the often abused term from Lord Acton, the famous dictum of 'power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. He turned that on its head and he said: 'If power corrupts, then the lack of power corrodes absolutely.' Barney said that those in Australia who lack power to give at least minimum expression to their needs, included Indigenous people, the unemployed and the non-English speaking migrants, especially women:
The more they can be effectively equipped with power the more likely it is that their social distress will be abated and the community as a whole benefit.
From that fundamental commitment, he never wavered in the 17 years he was in this chamber. I think he regarded this Senate as actually the best place to check the abuses of power, particularly because of this chamber's committee system.
Barney chaired seven committees, and he's best remembered for his outstanding work on the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. We should all remember that that committee's primary function is to guard against legislation which would trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties, and that, of course, reflected his own deepest personal instincts. Barney was not afraid, however, to criticise people in authority, even in the Labor Party—particularly when he felt they'd transgressed on those fundamental principles. In caucus, he opposed the Hawke government's proposed national identity card, which he described publicly as an Orwellian measure. He said, 'You should never need a licence to be a citizen.'
During his final years in the Senate, Barney was greatly disturbed by the increasing amount of legislation under the Howard government, particularly on asylum seekers and on measures against terrorism, that he regarded as curbing the rights of the individual. Speaking on various antiterrorism measures, he warned:
What happens with legislation is that it creeps. You cannot look at legislation simply in terms of what is happening now, you have to look at what might happen later on. Once you proscribe an organisation, people say ‘that’s how things are done’. What was put in as an exception originally becomes the precedent for more and more power to be given to the executive, and that is a real problem.
Barney was so well regarded across this parliament. I think that will become apparent if others speak on this matter, but there is ample evidence of that. He was noted for his loyalty, not just to his caucus colleagues but particularly to staff. I want to emphasise this point. Many people who worked on this side of the chamber and who are now quite senior politicians have said to me that his courtesy, in terms of the way he treated individual staff members and officials of this parliament, has to be acknowledged. I must say: all too often in this place we hear of examples where members of this parliament fail to fulfil their obligations in that regard. During his valedictory speech, as has already been indicated, he made the point of tabling the phone directory in case he forgot anybody.
Barney's goodwill was also the source of some frustration.
Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—
Senator KIM CARR: Yes, it's true, Senator Collins. I'll relay this story: he was not the person to be trusted with an attack question. From time to time, as we all know, the opposition will choose to seek out a minister who's weak or in trouble and make the point politically. Barney was, on occasion, given such an attack question, and I recall—
Senator Jacinta Collins: This is when you were manager.
Senator KIM CARR: Yes, well, that might have been the case. That might have been my problem! He would spend a good deal of time rewriting the question in such a manner as to congratulate the minister who was under attack, somewhat weakening the thrust of our criticism and, of course, making it more difficult for others to press the attack. It didn't impress the hard men of the Senate, I can assure you. He remained, however, undaunted by their remarks and was quite happy not to get any more questions, I might say!
Barney remained politically active long after his retirement and even in his final illness. He was grievously ill for a very long time. While his body deteriorated, his mind did not. He was a member of the Trades Hall Council and Literary Institute, which is a committee of management that actually runs the grants for the Trades Hall Council in Melbourne. He attended meetings in late January this year. He attended union Christmas parties before Christmas, and I think many people were shocked to see the physical deterioration that had occurred.
Barney was a friend and a mentor to many of us in the Labor Party and the broader Labor movement. We are in his debt in so many ways. Australian public life, and this chamber especially, are the richer for his contribution. I repeat passing on the opposition's condolences to his family. I know senators will join me in offering those condolences to his wife, Lillian, and their surviving children.
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (16:20): As someone who worked with Barney Cooney for 12 years, I just want to ever so briefly associate myself with the condolence motion and the words of Senator Cormann and, indeed, Senator Carr. I think Senator Cormann used the words 'decency' and 'collegiality', and that was certainly my recollection of Barney. He had a wry smile and a wicked, if very quiet, sense of humour. I'm surprised to hear today, for the first time, that he was a boxer, because his gentleness, his graciousness and his courtesy in the chamber would make one struggle to believe that he was a prize-fighter.
I particularly liked Barney. I don't always, dare I say, like a lot of people from the Labor Party, but Barney was one that I did. He was a wonderful and very, very fine man. I was interested to see in a paper that Senator Carr must have written some time ago about Barney Cooney that Barney used to oppose things in caucus regularly, and I can accept that that would be correct. He was a fairly independent thinker in the time that I knew him. He certainly had a very, very bright mind, and I can imagine that he would've been a very competent and successful barrister. I just wanted to, as I say, associate myself with the condolence motion and to include my condolences to his family and friends.
Senator MARSHALL (Victoria) (16:21): Many kind things have already been said about Barney Cooney, and I wish to associate myself with all of those comments, particularly the very considered and thoughtful comments by my friend Senator Carr in relation to Barney, who we both knew very well over a long period of time. I wasn't here to work with Barney in this place—in fact, I replaced Barney after his retirement in 2002—but I have certainly enjoyed some of the reflected glory of his legacy in this place.
What I would like to do is say a number of words on behalf of his children, who have contacted me, in the very place where their father so eloquently contributed to some of the great debates of this nation. It's a great honour to do so on their behalf. They say:
Dad died peacefully in his sleep on Saturday, 9 February 2019. His sister Jane was by his side which was fitting as she was there at his birth and was reading traditional Irish stories to him just before he passed. Although most of dad's mainly Irish forebears lived in Tasmania for several generations, one dating back to the 1820s, Dad still lived the old Irish stories.'
Barney spent the last couple of years of his life in an aged care centre. One of the carers at the centre told the family that Barney never spoke about himself. But Barney knew the names of every carer and always knew something about them or their families. That's typical of Barney, his whole life was spent thinking about the wellbeing of others before his own. Even when things weren't going great for him as the final couple of years were not easy for him.
Dad was a creature of habit and would go to the same stores at the Victoria market every time he went there. He'd always chat to the storeowners about how they were going, how their families were going and the state of their businesses. It always put a smile on their face every time he would turn up to their stores. Dad hasn't been able to get to the Victoria market for a while now and it appears that we have inherited the same habits as Dad as we go to the same shops as he used to go to. Although he hasn't been there for a few years now they still ask after him every time.
Just before Christmas in 2018, we took dad and mum to Anglesea, a rare visit for them in recent times. Mum and dad used to take us there all the time when we were growing up. Running and swimming on the beach, having the traditional Australian barbeques and bush walks. They were great times that dad's children, Sean, Justin, Megan and Jerome will never forget. Dad and mum, and their children would've loved for the youngest sibling, Geraldine, to be there, also.
Barney's grandchildren have this to say about him: Granddad was a great man. His tenacious upholding of personal values is inspiring to us. However, nothing defined his character more than his unique ability to provide unconditional love and kindness to those close to him. Demonstrative of this he used to come and watch the grandkids swimming each week at Melbourne University. This became increasingly difficult for him but he'd turn up each week and take the grandkids for donuts and muffins afterwards.
Dad played footy in his youth, and loved South Melbourne where he grew up as a teenager. However, when they moved to Sydney and transformed into the flashy Sydney Swans complete with dancing girls this was too much for him. Dad decided to support a local club so he changed allegiances to Fitzroy. Like the old South Melbourne, Fitzroy were not team that featured often in the finals. Soon after, Fitzroy moved to Brisbane and became the Brisbane Lions. After that Dad gave up supporting a club. Some say it was a matter of principle for him that he couldn't support a team that was not local but we think it was more to do with the success the Brisbane Lions had winning back to back grand finals which didn't sit well with his support for the underdogs on and off the field.
We've heard a lot about dad's principles and decency and kindness, but dad was also a practical man. In September 1987, dad trekked out to Waverley Park with this family to watch the VFL Preliminary Final between Hawthorn and Melbourne. This match has gone down in history due to a rare error from the great Melbourne Irish import, Jim Stynes.
The final moments of the game went something like this:
Gary Buckenara from Hawthorn received a free kick, 55 metres out. Although a good kick, 55 metres was probably beyond him. The siren went. Game over. Except for the crowd waiting for the free kick. He lined up, the crowded stadium on the edge of their seats. Buckenara needed to kick the goal for Hawthorn to win. Then, in one of the great moments in finals history, Jim Stynes accidently gave away a 15 metres penalty which put Buckenara 40 metres out. It was Hawthorn—and not Melbourne—that advanced to the Grand Final that year.
And where was Barney and his family when this historic drama unfolded .... they were already in the car headed back home as dad wanted to leave early to beat the traffic.
Barney was a thoroughly decent human being and a credit to the labour movement and to this place. He never abandoned his humanity or his sense of obligation to those less fortunate and less powerful during his 18 years in this place.
In his maiden speech, Barney said:
Power corrupts; lack of power corrodes absolutely. People who are powerless to give at least minimum expression to their needs are at risk of being rendered hopeless, desperate, alienated, physically ill, mentally ill, or a combination of two or more of those things.
Barney never forgot those people in his time here. He was never afraid to speak his mind or to stand up for what he believed in, but he always did so with courtesy and dignity and was a man always willing to extend the hand of friendship across the aisle, and that has been reflected in the very kind and heartfelt tributes extended to him from former colleagues across the political spectrum.
Barney is survived by his wife, Lillian, whom he met at the University of Melbourne and had loved ever since. Rest in peace, Barney Cooney.
Senator STOKER (Queensland) (16:28): I rise this afternoon to support this condolence motion and pay my respects to the late Victorian Labor senator Bernard Cooney, or Barney, as everyone knew him. I wasn't fortunate enough to know the senator personally. What I do know is his reputation—a reputation that few enjoy and that many aspire to on all sides of politics. It's this legacy and some urging from those who knew him well that has compelled me to speak today.
I'm a believer in the need for us all to work towards raising the standard of civility in this place, and one way to do it is to acknowledge the strengths of those across the aisle. Much has been said about Senator Cooney's decades-long legal career before he took up office in 1985 and the pro bono work he took up after his retirement in 2002. Much has been made, and rightfully so, of his outstanding committee work, for he was a master of the committee system. He was well respected as a chair. Committee work played to his strengths, his humanity and his decency. He could set people at ease and foster reasonableness, preferring a much more informal style of discussion than the combat of the chamber. As Amanda Vanstone once said of him: 'Why wouldn't you be happy to take questions from a decent person who always frames them decently and is genuinely interested in the answer? He asks the question pleasantly, he's never personally abusive and he's genuinely interested in the answer, so of course you'd show him respect.'
He was most celebrated for his work as chair of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. Speaking on the role of the committee, he said, 'Legislation is often passed which unintentionally imposes quite severely upon the sort of life we like to live. It's proper that there should be a committee of all parties who sit down and look at it and scrutinise it and make sure that those sorts of liberties that we all enjoy are not in any way diminished.' It's a sentiment I share. It was a deep commitment to protecting civil liberties that defined Senator Cooney's parliamentary career, most notably when he criticised the Hawke government's proposed national identity card as an Orwellian measure. He was a person of principle and conviction. He wasn't afraid to criticise the Liberal Party or, indeed, his own party, when he saw that individual freedom was in jeopardy.
As has been noted, he was a deeply religious man. In the debate on voluntary euthanasia, to which he was staunchly opposed, he unashamedly invoked his Catholic faith. He didn't argue that it went against his religion; rather, he had a way of linking the religious, cultural and social beliefs that reject euthanasia, and he pointed out that they are held by a godly proportion of Australian citizens, including him. He said, 'A person's stance on a particular matter should not be labelled invalid simply because it is based on his or her faith.' That still rings true today.
Going back to his unwavering belief in the Senate's role in legislative oversight, he said of the so-called Andrews bill, 'Where the state chooses to give sanction to killing, and where we as legislators approve of that, then there is a sea change in the sort of society we legislate for. Legislative creep is a common occurrence.' It was a refrain he would draw upon again when he opposed antiterror and asylum seeker legislation.
Senator Cooney was a loyal and dedicated party man who at the same time drew respect from all sides of politics for his diplomacy. He was able to form friendships with people who held very different views to his. In his last week in the Senate, Liberal senator and government leader at the time, Robert Hill, called him 'one of the really decent senators within the ALP'. Australian Democrats Senator Vicki Bourne sought special leave to draw attention to his chairmanship of the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee, and Liberal senator Rod Kemp said that no-one had done more to raise standards than Cooney and praised him for welcoming him as a new senator when others had not.
Senator Cooney seemed to return this affection in spades. In his valedictory speech, he spoke generously not just of his family and grandchildren, but also of his colleagues—so much so that he tabled the entire directory for the 40th parliament to pay tribute to every person in the chamber. That's how much he genuinely valued everyone he came across in his 17 years in the Senate. It showed again what a gentleman he was and why he was so well liked by all. It is a testament to Senator Cooney's reputation that, after his retirement, newcomers to the Senate sought out his wisdom on parliamentary matters. He was also a much-valued participant in university courses on parliamentary practices and conduct. I'm glad to be able to stand here and contribute something to recognising his qualities. I don't stand on the same side of the chamber as he did, but I have no doubt that he would have treated my colleagues and me with the same respect that he afforded everyone.
Of course, it's a little sad that I didn't get to share the chamber with him and witness his unique wit firsthand. I'm told we shared a love of books and that he read widely in history and enjoyed the Shakespearean comedies in particular. It's no surprise to those who knew him that his favourite play was Twelfth Night. His was a humour and style that, to this day, stands out in this chamber's long history. As The Age said for the departing senator back in 2002, 'So long, and thanks for all the quips.'
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (16:35): Barney Cooney was indeed a great man. I was very saddened to hear of his passing, and I'd like to indicate my appreciation to Senator Carr for his very comprehensive coverage of Barney Cooney's career not only in this place but well beyond this place, both before and after his presence here. I was recently described as being in the twilight of my political career, and it's caused me to reflect on who shared their time with Barney: Senator Carr, me, Senator Macdonald and Senator Abetz. I think that's it—just the four of us who can reflect on the day-to-day experience we had in this place.
For me, it was arriving as a young pregnant woman in a chamber that had very few other women. Barney showed me the civility that has been characterised today in spades. Barney was a very good resource for our new senators. His generosity and his kindness extended into the time he shared with helping new senators understand this place and understand how to most effectively extend our resources, not only as individual senators but as a team. I'd like to think that, from some of my early time with Barney, I acquired the capacity to further develop the Senate committee system through my years, mostly in opposition, in a way that has enabled Labor senators to use opposition in a way that best serves the Australian public at large and is relatively unique to the Australian political system.
I only wanted to say these few words because Senator Carr has covered Barney's participation within the socialist left of the party. The goodwill towards Barney was shared not only by all members of the Labor Party but by all members of this Senate. Thank you.
The PRESIDENT (16:37): I'm going to take this opportunity to make a few brief comments on this myself and to associate myself with comments made about Senator Cooney, particularly by those who knew him. I attended the same school as Senator Cooney. To complete a reference by Senator Wong about Mr Scholes earlier, it happened also to be the same high school of BA Santamaria and Diamond Jim McClelland, albeit at slightly different times for all of us. I met him in my final year, when he addressed our year level and spoke to our politics class. Already interested in politics, I was pretty obviously leaning the other way, but Senator Cooney went to a great deal of trouble to outline not just what he did but why it was important and what motivated him—as Senator Carr outlined, in particular, his faith and his care for those less privileged than others.
His passion for politics was apparent not just for combat but for values and the outcomes for those he believed he was fighting for. He was proud to be a senator. Indeed, he was a proud member of the Labor Party, but he was proud to be a senator in particular and a legislator first. He represented a Senate that sometimes seemed a little bit more distant than it used to, one that placed an extraordinarily high value on the role of this place—what dedicated individuals can do with hard work, a sense of cooperation and a willingness to compromise and working to find common ground with others who want to achieve some sort of result. As others have highlighted, he believed in civil discourse and debate and in decency in its broadest sense in public life. I won't repeat what has been said by other senators this afternoon other than to say there is rarely such agreement about a member of this place.
I met him again in the early 1990s, when I came to work in this place. I think the quote from former Senator Alan Ferguson that he was 'constantly courteous', which Senator Cormann referred to, is particularly apt. When I first came to this place many years later as a senator, he was one of those people who was mentioned to me by trusted elders, both officials and senators, as someone that could be a role model for those coming to this place, in the tradition on my side of people like Senator Alan Missen. That is as true today as it was then.
Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.
Neville, Paul Christopher
The PRESIDENT (16:40): It is also with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 1 January 2019 of Paul Christopher Neville, a member of the House of Representatives for the division of Hinkler, Queensland from 1993 to 2013.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (16:40): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Abetz from 12 February to 14 February 2019, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator Corman: gave contingent notices of motion as follows:
No. 1—To move (contingent on any senator objecting to a motion being taken as formal)—That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion being moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.
No. 2—To move (contingent on any senator being refused leave to move an amendment to a motion discovered during formal business)—That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent that senator moving the amendment to the motion.
No. 3—To move (contingent on the chair declaring that the time allotted for the consideration of a bill, or any stage of a bill, has expired)—That so much of standing order 142 be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the bill, or the stage of the bill, without limitation time or for a specified period.
No. 4—To move (contingent on any senator being refused leave to make a statement to the Senate)—That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent that senator making that statement.
NOTICES
Postponement
The Clerk: Postponement notifications have been lodged as follows:
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of Senator Rice for today, proposing a reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, postponed till 4 June 2019.
COMMITTEES
Reporting Date
The Clerk: Notifications of extensions of time for committees to report have been lodged in respect of the following:
Environment and Communications References Committee—
Impact of feral deer, pigs and goats in Australia—extended from second sitting Wednesday in February 2019 to 17 September 2019
Rehabilitation of mining and resources projects—extended from 13 February to 20 March 2019
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018 and all circulated amendments—extended from 11 February to today
The PRESIDENT (16:41): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, we will move on.
NOTICES
Withdrawal
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (16:41): I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 1338, relating to the Assistant Treasurer, standing in my name for today.
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (16:42): At the request of Senator Farrell, withdrew general business notice of motion no. 1349 standing in the name of Senator Farrell for today, proposing an order for the production of documents by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (16:42): I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 1237 standing in my name for today, proposing an order for the production of documents by the Minister representing the Minister for Health.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator Fifield to move on the next day of sitting:
That on Wednesday, 13 February 2019, following valedictory statements being made relating to SenatorWilliams, that valedictory statements be also made relating to Senator Leyonhjelm.
Senator Fifield to move on the next day of sitting:
That, on Thursday, 14 February 2019, contingent on the tabling of the Prime Minister's annual report on Closing the Gap, the documents be considered at the time for general business, for not more than 2 hours.
Senator Hanson to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to require photographic identification on Medicare cards to prevent misuse and fraud, and for related purposes. Human Services Amendment (Photographic Identification and Fraud Prevention) Bill 2019.
Senator Hanson to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate calls on the Federal Government to divert the allocation for foreign aid in the upcoming 2019 Budget to relief assistance for drought, fire and flooding victims from across Australia.
Senator Hanson to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate demands that the Federal Government ban all forms of unstunned animal slaughter, such as unstunned halal slaughter, in line with the recommendations of the RSPCA.
Senator Hanson to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate calls on the Federal Government immediately to allocate $10 billion to commence the construction of the much-needed hybrid Bradfield Scheme.
Senator Griff to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to unsolicited communications, and for related purposes. Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Unsolicited Communications) Bill 2019.
Senator Williams to move 15 sitting days after today:
That the Industry Research and Development (Artificial Intelligence Capability Program) Instrument 2018, made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, be disallowed [F2018L01419].
Senator Williams to move 15 sitting days after today:
That the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Amendment Regulations 2018, made under the Defence Act 1903, be disallowed [F2018L01428].
Senator Steele-John to move on the next day of sitting:
(1) That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) despite the hard-won progress of the disability rights movement, disabled Australians continue to be subjected to discrimination and are routinely denied the right guaranteed them under international law,
(ii) this discrimination creates and sustains the barriers to employment, education, transport, social and political participation experienced by disabled Australians and, most concerning, manifests itself in horrific violence, abuse and neglect to which they are subjected, and
(iii) from July to September 2018, over 184 incidents of abuse and neglect were reported to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (the Commission) – the Commission has also released data that shows in the same three months it received 62 reports of expected and unexpected deaths, 91 reports of injuries, 34 complaints against individual staff or service providers and 75 cases of unauthorised restrictive practices; and
(b) calls on the House of Representatives to support the immediate establishment of a royal commission to investigate violence, abuse and neglect of disabled people.
(2) That a message be sent to the House of Representatives seeking its concurrence in this resolution.
Senator Griff to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (the Royal Commission) commenced on 18 January 2019, and started hearing evidence from witnesses in Adelaide this week,
(ii) part of the Royal Commission's task is to examine substandard care and the causes of any systematic failures that have affected the quality or safety of aged care services,
(iii) the Royal Commission will also examine existing policy, regulations and practices in order to consider reform and change to deliver better outcomes for those receiving aged care in Australia now and into the future,
(iv) the Honourable Richard Tracey AM RFD QC stated that the Royal Commission was a "once in a lifetime opportunity" and cautioned the aged care sector against instructing staff not to talk to the Royal Commission or to withhold information,
(v) aged care providers approved under the Commonwealth Aged Care Act 1997 were asked to provide information to the Royal Commission, with the largest 100 providers invited to make written submissions by 7 January 2019, and the remaining 1,882 approved aged care providers to provide their written submissions by 8 February 2019, and
(vi) at the commencement of the Royal Commission, fewer than half of the 1,982 approved providers had responded to the Royal Commission's invitation for submissions;
(b) urges every approved aged care provider who has not yet put forward a submission to the Royal Commission to do so, as a matter of urgency;
(c) further notes that, under section 6M of the Royal Commissions Act 1902, it is a criminal offence for a person to punish, disadvantage or otherwise injure a person who has appeared as a witness or produced a document or given information or a statement pursuant to a summons requirement or notice issued by the Royal Commission; and
(d) denounces any attempt by aged care providers to stop current or former employees from participating freely in the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety.
Senator Griff to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) congratulates refugee Mr Behrouz Boochani on winning Australia's richest literary award, the $100,000 Victorian Prize for Literature, as well as claiming $25,000 for first place in the category of non-fiction;
(b) recognises that Mr Boochani won the literary prizes for his memoir, No Friend But the Mountains: Writing from Manus Prison, which was written on a mobile phone and charts his flight from Iran and his experiences in offshore detention;
(c) notes that Mr Boochani described his win as "It is a victory not only for us, but for literature and art, and above all, it is a victory for humanity – a victory for human beings and human dignity ... A victory against a system that has never recognised us as human beings. It is a victory against a system that has reduced us to numbers. This is a beautiful moment."; and
(d) expresses its dismay that Mr Boochani was not able to attend the awards ceremony as the lranian-Kurdish journalist remains on Manus Island where he has been in detention since 2013.
Senator Patrick to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Export Control Act 1982, and for related purposes. Export Control Amendment (Banning Cotton Exports to Ensure Water Security) Bill 2019.
Senator Hinch to move on 14 February 2019:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, and for other purposes. Environment Legislation Amendment (Protecting Dugongs and Turtles) Bill 2019.
Senator Seselja to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to mutual entities, and for related purposes. Treasury Laws Amendment (Mutual Reforms) Bill 2019.
Senator Birmingham to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Wine Australia Act 2013, and for related purposes. Wine Australia Amendment (Trade with United Kingdom) Bill 2019.
Senator Di Natale to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) over the 2018-19 summer, more than five people have died or been injured as a result of taking illicit drugs,
(ii) there is a real possibility that these deaths could have been prevented and harm reduced if pill testing services had been offered at music festivals and in the community,
(iii) best-practice pill testing models involve a consultation with a health practitioner about the content of the pill, and a person's choices about whether or not to consume illicit drugs,
(iv) pill testing services give health services critical information about what has been consumed and provide people with more information about what is in the pills that they are taking than they otherwise have access to,
(v) a large number of relevant medical professional organisations have declared their support for pill testing over the summer period, including the Royal College of Physicians, the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the Australian Medical Association, and
(vi) members of Parliament from both the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party have expressed support for pill testing, but the leaders of both of the parties are refusing to consider these real and critically-important benefits; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) urgently develop and implement a pill testing policy to prevent more deaths and harm, and
(ii) work with the medical community, community groups and all state and territory governments to implement existing models which demonstrably have worked and helped save lives.
Senator Singh to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes with concern that:
(i) the Pacific region is especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change, many of which are already beginning to be felt and to threaten the lives and livelihoods of the region's residents, and
(ii) this region will soon be home to around 10 million people, residing in some of the world's least developed and most infrastructure-poor nations;
(b) further notes that:
(i) Prime Minister Scott Morrison completed a state visit to Fiji and Vanuatu in January this year,
(ii) during this visit, the Prime Minister of Fiji expressed his hope that Australia would join Fiji 'on the frontlines of the global campaign for climate action',
(iii) despite making a small pledge to combat the effects of climate change in the Pacific, the Federal Government has failed to adopt effective policy designed to lower emissions and prevent further climate change from occurring, and is now refusing to support the Green Climate Fund - the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's official method of supporting less developed countries, such as Fiji, in their efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change on their citizens, and
(iv) as a result, since 2014, Australia's greenhouse emissions have consistently grown, are currently at a seven-year high, and are projected to increase all the way to 2030, as far as government projections go;
(c) recognises that climate change is the single greatest threat to the livelihoods, security and wellbeing of the peoples of the Pacific region; and
(d) calls upon the Federal Government to:
(i) take effective and immediate action to combat the causes of climate change, and
(ii) to work in partnership with Pacific nations in the development of measures to combat climate change's effects.
Senator Bilyk to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 5 February 2019 was Safer Internet Day, an annual, worldwide event to help raise awareness about internet safety, and empower individuals and communities to have more positive online experiences,
(ii) the internet has opened an unprecedented opportunity for people to communicate and receive information anywhere and at any time,
(iii) internet users of all ages are exposed to risks and threats online, including fraud, identity theft, unauthorised access to personal information, image-based abuse, cyberbullying, stalking and exposure to unreliable information or illicit materials, and
(iv) this year's theme, 'Together for a better internet', encourages everyone to take responsibility for making the internet a positive experience by being kind and respectful to others, seeking out positive opportunities to create and connect, and reporting inappropriate or illegal content and behaviour online;
(b) encourages all Australians to promote internet safety and to help make the internet a positive experience for all users; and
(c) calls on the Australian Government, and all future Australian governments, to continue working with state and territory governments, schools, community groups, the information and communications technology industry and the wider community to make the internet safer.
Senator Bilyk to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 12 February 2019 was World Cholangiocarcinoma Day, an international effort to raise awareness of a form of liver cancer that develops in the bile duct cells,
(ii) 1 in 67,000 Australians are diagnosed each year with cholangiocarcinoma – around one per day,
(iii) in Australia, cholangiocarcinoma generally has a five-year survival rate of around 30%, and
(iv) many cholangiocarcinoma patients are diagnosed too late for potentially curative surgery; and
(b) recognises the need for continued efforts to improve the diagnosis, treatment and survival rates for rare and less common cancers, such as cholangiocarcinoma.
Senators McCarthy and Siewert to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) observes that:
(i) this week marks Ochre Ribbon Week, raising awareness of the devastating impacts of family violence in First Nations communities and calling for action to end the violence against First Nations, especially our women and children, and
(ii) the Ochre Ribbon Campaign is an initiative supported by the National Family Violence Prevention Legal Services Forum and its member organisations across Australia;
(b) recognises:
(i) that First Nations women are 32 times more likely to be hospitalised from family violence, and 10 times more likely to be killed as a result of violent assault,
(ii) the damaging impacts of intergenerational trauma, invasion and racism on First Nations communities, and
(iii) that First Nations men and women are working to address family violence and community safety at the grassroots and their efforts should be supported; and
(c) calls on the Morrison Government to:
(i) ensure all First Nations women have access to culturally-safe, specialist legal services, regardless of where they live, and
(ii) develop justice targets to reduce family violence and incarceration rates in First Nations communities.
Senator Cash to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to telecommunications, and for other purposes. Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019.
Senator Storer to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Murray-Darling Basin needs more water to ensure its survival, the latest evidence of this being the fish-kills at Menindee Lakes,
(ii) the management of the Murray-Darling Basin requires urgent reform,
(iii) the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission delivered its findings on 29 January 2019, including recommendations to:
(A) improve transparency by "requiring real-time data sharing and publication on water extractions",
(B) abolish the water buybacks cap of 1,500 gigalitres, and
(C) undertake further research into return flows so that we know the effects of irrigation efficiency projects, and
(iv) the Productivity Commission delivered its findings to the Federal Government on 19 December 2018, pointing out that:
(A) the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's twin roles as overseer of the Plan and its regulator are "conflicted and the conflicts will intensity in the next five years", and
(B) structural separation of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority into a Basin Plan Regulator and Murray-Darling Basin Agency is required to ensure effective implementation of the Plan; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) adopt each and every recommendation proposed by the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission, and
(ii) proceed with the structural separation of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, as proposed by the Productivity Commission.
Senator O'Neill to move on the next day of sitting:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services on its inquiry into the Franchising Code of Conduct and Oil Code of Conduct be extended to 14 March 2019.
Senator Polley to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) February is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month,
(ii) this year, Australians are being encouraged to take 'ovary-action' by knowing the signs, symptoms and risk factors of ovarian cancer,
(iii) there has been very little improvement in treatment in 50 years and there is still no early detection test, and
(iv) the best way of detecting ovarian cancer is to know and recognise the signs, symptoms and risk factors; and
(b) urges all levels of government to encourage Australians to become more aware of the signs and symptoms of ovarian cancer, to know their family history, where to get help, and to create communities where people openly talk about ovarian cancer.
Senator Polley to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate acknowledges and congratulates:
(a) the 35 worthy Tasmanians who were recipients of the 2019 Australia Day honours on 26 January 2019 for their outstanding achievement and services to Tasmania, and Australia more broadly;
(b) Member of the Order of Australia (AM) recipients: Mrs Jennifer Mary Ball, Mr Ian Andrew Chesterman, Mr Graeme Bernard Lynch, Dr Donald Raymond McTaggart, Mr Kevin William Perkins and Dr Bryan Geoffrey Walpole;
(c) Officer of the Order of Australia (AO) recipients: Professor Donald Roderick Chalmers and Professor Ross Raymond Large;
(d) Order of Australia Medal (OAM) recipients: the Honourable Dick Godfrey Adams, Mrs Rachel Alamil Bessant, Mr Peter Sheu Cheong Chung, Mrs Ketrina Jane Clarke, Ms Denise Jae Delphin, Mrs Anne Margaret Fagg, Mr Michael George Gandy, Dr William Peter Holm, Mr Terry William Kay, Mr Stephen John Knight, Mr Thomas Joseph O'Halloran, Mr Adam George Marshall, Mr Robert Maurice Patterson RFD, Mr Michael Charles Perkins, Mr Phillip John Pyke, Mr Peter John Quigley, Mr Kevin John Shadbolt, Mr Peter James Tonkin and Ms Joan Lesley Wright;
(e) Police Medal recipients: Constable Tania Curtis and Sergeant Rodney Stacey;
(f) Fire Service Medal recipients: Tasmania Fire Service Chief Officer, Mr Chris Arnol; Burnie Fire Brigade volunteer, Mr Scott Clarke; and Wattle Hill Fire Brigade volunteer, Mr Terrance White; and
(g) Emergency Services Medal recipients: Regional officer for the southern region, Mr Mark Dance; SES volunteer unit manager for Circular Head, Mr Lynton Free; and Huon Valley SES volunteer and deputy unit manager, Mr Alton Bond.
Senator Collins to move on the next day of sitting:
That, on Thursday, 14 February 2019:
(a) from 12.45 pm, non-controversial government business be considered, followed by the Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 5) Bill 2018; and
(b) if by 1.50 pm the Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 5) Bill 2018 has not been finally considered:
(i) the questions on all remaining stages shall be put without debate, and
(ii) for the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings on the bill, the President or the chair shall put forthwith:
(A) the question on any amendment or motion already proposed from the chair,
(B) the question on any proposed amendments which have been circulated among senators by 12.45 pm and no other amendments or new clauses or schedules, and
(C) any other question requisite to dispose of the business before the Senate or committee.
Senator Collins to move on the next day of sitting:
That there be laid on the table by the Leader of the Government in the Senate
(Senator Cormann), by no later than 3.30 pm on 14 February 2019, all outstanding answers to questions on notice as at 31 January 2019 from the 2018-19 supplementary Budget estimates hearings in the following portfolios:
(a) Health (210 answers);
(b) Human Services (91 answers);
(c) Industry, Innovation and Science (7 answers);
(d) Treasury (14 answers);
(e) Education and Training (22 answers);
(f) Jobs and Small Business (4 answers);
(g) Communications and the Arts (1 answer);
(h) Environment and Energy (2 answers);
(i) Prime Minister and Cabinet (including cross-portfolio Indigenous matters and agencies) (8 answers);
(j) Defence, including Veterans' Affairs (75 answers);
(k) Foreign Affairs and Trade (1 answer); and
(l) Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities (1 answer).
Senator McKim to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 2 April 2019:
The role of the Department of Home Affairs and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in the recent detention in Thailand of Mr Hakeem Al-Araibi, with particular reference to:
(a) processes that led to Australia notifying Thailand that Mr Al-Araibi was travelling, and the subject of an INTERPOL Red Notice;
(b) the actions of the AFP following Mr Al-Araibi's arrest in Thailand;
(c) the actions of Australian authorities in relation to Mr Al-Araibi's arrest and detention;
(d) the duty of care Australia owes its citizens and permanent residents who are at risk of facing inhumane treatment overseas;
(e) the operation of the INTERPOL Red Notice system, and whether it adequately protects the rights of Australian citizens and permanent residents;
(f) measures that could be implemented to prevent similar cases from occurring in future; and
(g) any other related matters.
Senator Waters to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the gambling industry donated almost $3 million dollars to the Liberal, Labor and Australian Conservatives political parties in 2017-18,
(ii) these donations came from sports betting companies, casinos and poker machine operators,
(iii) the Australian Hotels Association was the second largest political donor in the country for the 2017-18 year, with declared political gifts leaping from $153,000 in 2016-17 to $1.1 million last financial year,
(iv) Australia has the world's worst per-capita gambling losses of $1,000 a head,
(v) there are at least 115,000 Australians at the moment who are directly and seriously harmed by gambling, and another 280,000 experiencing significant risk,
(vi) for every person directly harmed by gambling, between 5 and 10 friends, family and others, including employers, are also affected – this means that up to 5 million Australians could be negatively affected,
(vii) online wagering is the fastest growing gambling segment, with over $1.4 billion gambled online each year,
(viii) pokies cause the most harm, with three out of four people being harmed by gambling, principally using poker machines, and
(ix) enormous donations from the gambling lobby to the major political parties has resulted in consecutive Australian governments failing to support harm-minimisation reforms that would help protect people from predatory gambling; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) ban corporate donations from the gambling industry,
(ii) introduce evidence-based harm-minimisation and product safety measures to reduce the development of problem gambling, and to assist gamblers to limit their expenditure,
(iii) phase out poker machines, and, in the meantime, implement $1 maximum bets per spin, $20 machine load-up limits, and $500 jackpot limits, and mandatory pre-commitment for pokies and sports betting, and
(iv) ban sports betting advertisements during the broadcast of sporting events and children's viewing times.
Senator Hanson-Young to move on the next day of sitting:
That—
(a) the Senate notes that:
(i) the German-based Association for the Conservation of Threatened Parrots (ACTP) received permission to export 232 birds between 2015 and November 2018 for exhibition purposes,
(ii) among the birds exported were endangered Carnaby's black cockatoos, vulnerable Baudin's black cockatoos, naretha bluebonnets, gang-gang cockatoos and mutation varieties of king parrots and galahs,
(iii) the legal import and export of rare and endangered birds is governed by the 1975 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), of which Australia and Germany are signatories, and
(iv) the ACTP has no facilities freely open to the public; and
(b) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, by 15 February 2019, all documents and correspondence, including meeting minutes, that set out the owners of parrots that were supplied for the ACTP prior to the consignments being collated for export.
Senator Hinch to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the National Redress Scheme, which was established in response to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, has been operating since July 2018,
(ii) as of November last year, 2,335 survivors have made applications to the National Redress Scheme, but only 28 have received compensation,
(iii) the primary reason for this delay is due to institutions that are responsible for child sexual abuse not opting into the Scheme or staggering their entry into the Scheme, and
(iv) the National Redress Scheme was a key recommendation of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2015, and institutions have had sufficient time to prepare for their entry into the Scheme; and
(b) calls on the Minister for Families and Social Services to:
(i) continue encouraging all institutions within states and territories which are currently signed on to the National Redress Scheme, to opt in,
(ii) seek a timeframe from institutions that have publically stated their intention to join the Scheme as to when they will start fully participating in the Scheme, and
(iii) make this timeframe publically available so that survivors, many of whom are elderly or ill, can have some clarity about when they will receive the redress that is owed to them.
Senator Collins to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) requires legislation committees to set a deadline for the return of answers to questions on notice from the 2018-19 additional estimates of not later than Friday, 29 March 2019; and
(b) for the 2019-20 Budget estimates only, varies the order of the Senate of 25 June 2014, Estimates hearings - Unanswered questions on notice, to require that the statement required under paragraph (1) of the order be laid on the table by not later than Monday, 1 April 2019.
Senator Wong to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that, on 25 October 2017, the then Minister for Jobs and Small Business
Senator Cash told a supplementary Budget estimates hearing that her media adviser, Mr De Garis, had received information that raids on the AWU may take place "from a media source";
(b) further notes that, in court proceedings on 12 February 2019, Mr De Garis has now named the Minister's then-Chief of Staff as the source of the information; and
(c) orders the Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education, to attend the Senate at 2 pm on Thursday, 14 February 2019, prior to questions being called on, to make a statement of not more than five minutes to correct the record and apologise to the chamber for misleading the Senate.
Senator Rice to move on the next day of sitting:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, by no later than 9.30 am on 14 February 2019: draft advice issued to states and territories by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources in relation to proposed amendments to the Gene Technology Regulations 2001, discussed at the Legislative and Governance Forum on Gene Technology meeting in October 2018.
Senator Rice to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) until 24 November 1992, gay, lesbian and bisexual people were explicitly banned from serving in the Australian Defence Force (ADF),
(ii) between 1953 and 1992, at least 489 men and 165 women in the ADF were investigated for being LGBT – data provided to Parliament in 1992 on discharges between 1987 to 1992 revealed 73 honourable discharges of lesbian, gay and bisexual people and 21 dishonourable discharges of LGB people across Army, Navy and Royal Australian Air Force,
(iii) a recent report by ACU Associate Professor Noah Riseman, indicates that LGBT personnel were subject to harrowing interviews that probed intimate personal details and surveillance of movements during and outside of service hours – these practices saw LGBT service members humiliated and intimidated, forcing many of them to resign their posts or be dishonourably discharged,
(iv) lifting the ban in 1992 ended the threat of dismissal for lesbians, gays and bisexuals, but it did not grant equal treatment to LGB service members – many Defence members still kept their same-sex relationships a secret for fear of bullying or other persecution, and
(v) transgender people continued to be subject to policies, until September 2010, that required them to discharge if they intended to affirm their gender; and
(b) calls on all parliamentarians to:
(i) acknowledge the personal and professional harm that these policies have caused,
(ii) recognise that discriminatory dismissals on account of sexuality or gender identity, suspected or otherwise, continue to impact the mental health and wellbeing of some affected ex-service members, and
(iii) celebrates the contribution of the LGBTQ people who bravely served in the ADF despite these discriminatory policies.
Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the Federal Government is spending $48.7 million to commemorate the 250th anniversary of James Cook's first voyage to Australia and the Pacific, of which $6.7 million is being spent on a replica of the HMB Endeavour to circumnavigate Australia;
(b) recognises that First Nations peoples are still feeling the impacts of ongoing dispossession and oppression and continue to have poor health, employment, justice, housing and education outcomes, and high rates of child removals; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to reverse the $48.7 million allocated to commemorating the anniversary of James Cook and reallocate this funding towards meeting our Closing the Gap targets.
Senator Hanson to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes the critical situation facing many Townsville small tradesmen and businesses as a result of the recent devastating floods; many such tradesmen and businesses who are still trying to recover from the collapse of Mr Clive Palmer's Queensland Nickel; and
(b) calls on Mr Palmer to immediately:
(i) meet his outstanding debts to creditors resulting from the collapse of Queensland Nickel, and
(ii) repay the Australian taxpayers for the dollars paid out to meet employment entitlements owed to workers following the collapse of Queensland Nickel.
Senator Hanson-Young to move on the next day of sitting—
(1) That the Senate notes that:
(a) the South Australian Royal Commission handed down its findings on 29 January 29 2019; and
(b) Commissioner Bret Walker SC found that the construction of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was unlawful.
(2) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, all legal advice received by the Department or relevant agencies, including the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and the National Water Commission, relating to the development of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the 2,750GL water recovery target.
Senator Hanson-Young to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to establish an inquiry into the management of the Murray-Darling Basin, and for related purposes. Murray-Darling Basin Commission of Inquiry Bill 2019.
Senator Faruqi to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Asset Energy is planning to conduct further seismic testing for gas off the coast of Newcastle and the Central Coast in New South Wales,
(ii) seismic air gun blasting for offshore drilling creates underwater noise at extraordinarily high volumes, and it poses major risks to marine life of all sizes, including whales and dolphins,
(iii tourism and local fishing industries rely on healthy oceans and have the potential to be severely impacted by seismic testing and offshore fossil fuel rigs, and
(iv) the community is deeply opposed to this proposal and hundreds of people have rallied against it along the coast of New South Wales; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to suspend Asset Energy's permit to conduct seismic testing off the coast of Newcastle and the Central Coast.
Senator Faruqi to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes the decision of the NSW Land and Environment Court to block the proposed Rocky Hill coal mine on the ground that it will contribute to climate change – Chief Judge Brian Preston, SC noted in his judgment that the proposed coal mine "will be a material source of greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to climate change";
(b) acknowledges the link between burning coal and climate change;
(c) recognises the power of grassroots community activism and the outstanding work by Groundswell Gloucester and the Environmental Defenders Office; and
(d) congratulates the community and Groundswell Gloucester on this landmark decision.
Senators McGrath, O'Sullivan, Stoker, Macdonald and Canavan to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) recognises the severe impact that flooding in North Queensland and the Gulf region has had on families, businesses, agricultural producers and the transport industry;
(b) notes with regret that in excess of an estimated 300,000 head of livestock have perished due to the floods;
(c) further notes the long-term effects this will have on the livestock industry in North Queensland and the Gulf; and
(d) commends the Federal, state and local Governments for the assistance provided to flood-stricken communities thus far, whilst noting that sustained support will be needed to allow affected communities and industries to properly recover.
Senator Pratt to move on the next day of sitting:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Water Act 2007, and for related purposes. Water Amendment (Purchase Limit Repeal) Bill 2019.
Senator Anning to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) affirms the right of every citizen to feel safe in their own home;
(b) recognises the sad reality that the police cannot be everywhere at every time;
(c) accepts that Australian citizens have the absolute right to defend themselves and their family from harm;
(d) notes that, due to the failure of the current Government to restrict immigration from lawless Third World countries, criminal types are being allowed to come here and subsequently terrorise the Australian public with home invasions;
(e) acknowledges the growing public outrage at Sudanese gang crime as expressed at the recent rally of concerned citizens at St Kilda; and
(f) calls on the Commonwealth and state Governments to legislate Castle Doctrine into Australian law to allow Australian citizens the right to defend their families and homes with, up to and including, lethal force against Sudanese gangs and other criminals.
Senator Anning to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) in the last 15 years, Labor Governments around Australia have progressively forced Parliaments and every government department and instrumentality to begin public meetings with a secular genuflection to Aboriginal prior settlement called "acknowledgement of country",
(ii) this practice constitutes a tokenistic exercise invented by left-wing white activists, with absolutely no relationship to any authentic Aboriginal tradition, and simply seeks to co-opt aboriginal identity as a political weapon to undermine European settlement,
(iii) the bogus nature of this manufactured 'tradition' is highlighted by the fact that the wording used in Federal Parliament acknowledges the Ngunnawal people as the so-called "traditional custodians" when in fact the Kamberri people were the original Aboriginal inhabitants of the region from which Canberra took its name, and
(iv) while the Gillard Labor Government imposed this left-wing tokenism on the Federal Parliament in 2010, subsequent Liberal-National Governments have notably failed to remove it from the standing orders, and this stands as a metaphor for their lack of conservative commitment and weakness of political will;
(b) seeks to assist the current Liberal-National Government to listen to its conservative conscience, and its political constituency, by proposing the removal of this socialist mantra for them; and
(c) amends standing order 50, by omitting the following:
(i) the words "and acknowledgement of country" in the title of standing order 50, and
(ii) "The President shall then make an acknowledgement of country in the following terms: I acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples who are the traditional custodians of the Canberra area and pay respect to the elders, past and present, of all Australia's Indigenous peoples.".
Senator Leyonhjelm to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) recent violent crimes against numerous women,
(ii) that blame for these crimes rests with the perpetrators, not the victims,
(iii) that, despite all policy efforts and wishful thinking, there will always be some individual men in our community intent on violence against women,
(iv) that the first duty of government is to protect citizens from harm, but police cannot be everywhere at all times, so citizens must be allowed, if they choose, to deter and defend against attacks,
(v) that the innate ability of individuals to deter and defend against attacks varies, with women and the elderly generally more vulnerable,
(vi) that pepper spray can assist deterrence and self-defence, particularly for the vulnerable,
(vii) that the use of pepper spray is generally non-lethal and does not require prior training,
(viii) that pepper spray is unlikely to be used for criminal attacks, and
(ix) that, in most other countries, pepper sprays are not even regulated, let alone prohibited; and
(b) calls on the Australian Government to legalise the importation of pepper spray, subject to the state governments legalising the carrying of pepper spray, to deter and defend against attacks.
Senator Hanson-Young to move on the next day of sitting:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the South Australian Royal Commission into the Murray-Darling Basin has recently reported to the South Australian Governor, and
(ii) the Commissioner made 44 recommendations to address the ill-health and mismanagement of the Basin; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to adopt the recommendations in full.
MOTIONS
Queensland: Floods
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (16:42): by leave—I, and also on behalf of all other Queensland senators, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes the heartbreak and loss suffered by the residents of the Townsville region following the record breaking floods last week and expresses its support and understanding;
(b) further notes the magnificent efforts of the Australian Defence Force and Emergency Service Workers, Police, Council staff, all other agencies and individuals involved in protecting life and property during the floods and the subsequent clean-up and expresses the gratitude and support of the Parliament and the Australian people; and
(c) acknowledges and applauds the selfless and compassionate actions of:
(i) the great "tinnie navy" of ordinary folk who rescued residents as well as their pets from rising waters at all hours of the day and night,
(ii) the masses of Townsville residents who have donated clothing, food, money and household items,
(iii) the local businesses who put their hands in their pocket to boost the flood appeal by more than $1m,
(iv) the volunteers who assisted at drop-off centres, and
(v) the mud army tackling the mould and grime.
I seek leave to make a very short statement about the motion.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator IAN MACDONALD: I know all Queensland senators and, indeed, I suspect, all senators will agree with this motion. I just mention that it's times of calamities like what happened unexpectedly and unusually in Townsville last week that bring out the best in people. The way neighbours got in to help each other and people they didn't even know—I particularly want to again mention the huge work the Australian Army did. Many of its members themselves had been affected by the floods, but they were out helping others. There are all sorts of people that are mentioned in the motion and there were more besides.
My motion deals particularly with Townsville, but I also do acknowledge, as we did in question time, that there is an unfolding drama and tragedy happening in north-west Queensland as the unprecedented rain out there also takes effect.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (16:46): by leave—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:
That the Senate notes that:
The South Australian Royal Commission into the Murray-Darling Basin has recently reported to the South Australian governor and the commissioner made 44 recommendations to address the ill health and mismanagement of the basin.
The Senate calls on the government to adopt the recommendations in full.
BILLS
Ministers of State (Checks for Security Purposes) Bill 2019
First Reading
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (16:47): I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to provide for security background checks of Ministers of State, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
Senator PATRICK: I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (16:48): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
Senator PATRICK: I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard and to continue my remarks.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
MINISTERS OF STATE (CHECKS FOR SECURITY PURPOSES) BILL 2019
The purpose of the Ministers of State (Checks for Security Purposes) Bill 2019 is to ensure that the Prime Minister is fully informed of any security issues that may arise from the personal background and circumstances of persons who have been appointed as Ministers of State including Assistant Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries.
Ministers of State occupy positions of the highest trust within the Australian Government. Cabinet Ministers are privy to the most sensitive decisions and information, including the highest levels of national security classified information. Other Ministers, Assistant Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries also have routine access to highly sensitive information including national security information.
Ministers of State are currently exempt from the security checking and clearance processes that apply to all Australian Government personnel who are allowed access to sensitive and security classified government information. Security checking and clearance requirements apply to the staff of Ministers, but not to Ministers themselves.
This Bill seeks to strengthen security at the highest levels of the Australian Government. While avoiding subjecting Ministers to a security clearance process that would override the Prime Minister's independent decisions on Ministerial appointments, the Bill will ensure that the Prime Minister has access to relevant security information relating to Ministers of State.
Security information relating to Ministers, conveyed in the form of reports by the Director-General of Security, will provide the Prime Minister with confidence that comprehensive checks have been made to identify any possible security issues that might affect a Minister's ability to perform their duties including maintaining Cabinet confidentiality and protecting other sensitive and national security classified information.
In the event that security background checks reveal an issue of security concern, the Prime Minister will be free to determine what steps might be required to resolve the matter.
Implementation of such a scheme would address a significant gap in Australia's Protective Security Framework. In this the Bill supports the objectives of recent legislation relating to espionage and foreign interference in Australia and will provide the Parliament and the Australian public greater assurance that security will be maintained at the highest levels of the Australian Government.
The current Australian Protective Security Policy Framework observes that "access to sensitive and security classified information necessitates a high level of assurance of a person's integrity. This is due to the potential harm associated with compromise of that information."
A key component of Australian Government protective security arrangements is the requirement that persons with ongoing access to sensitive or security classified information or material must be security cleared at an appropriate level.
The Australian Protective Security Policy Framework sets out four levels of security clearance checking, each involving more rigorous checking:
B aseline Vetting for access to classified information up to and including the PROTECTED level;
Negative Vetting Level 1 for access to classified information up to and including the SECRET level;
Negative Vetting Level 2 for access to classified information up to and including the TOP SECRET level.; and
Positive Vetting for access to information at all classification levels, including certain types of caveated and codeword information.
Negative Vetting Level 2 checking includes verification of identity, confirmation of Australian citizenship and status of any other citizenships, a background check covering residences, employment and other personal details over the previous 10 years, an official secrets declaration and a statutory declaration covering the provision of information, referee checks, a digital footprint check, a national police records check, a comprehensive financial statement and financial history check, a security assessment ASIO, and a security interview.
Positive Vetting includes the same checks as Negative Vetting Level 2 with the addition of a background check covering more than 10 years from the age of 16, additional financial checking with supporting documentation, a financial probity check, and a psychological assessment.
The security clearance process, applied to many thousands of Australian public servants, Australian Defence Force personnel, law enforcement personnel, government contractors and state and territory government personnel whose duties require access to sensitive or national security classified Australian Government information is an essential foundation for the Australian Government's protective security framework including the investigation of foreign espionage and interference activities.
It is also the case, however, that the current Australian Protective Security Policy Framework identifies certain Australian office holders who are not required to hold a security clearance to access security classified information while exercising the duties of their office.
These office holders include Members and Senators of the Commonwealth Parliament and members of the Federal Executive Council.
Under this policy Ministers of State are excluded from security clearance requirements by virtue of their status as Members of Parliament and as members of the Federal Executive Council.
The exemption from security clearances for Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries was first publicly acknowledged in answers given by the then Attorney-General, the Hon Daryl Williams MP, to questions on notice asked in the House of Representatives in 2002. However no explanation was given for this policy which appears to date back to the beginning of the Australian Government's security clearance system in the 1940s.
Minister of State, it appears, have always been taken on trust.
The current Australian Protective Security Policy Framework advances no reasons to support this policy.
In contrast the Government of Canada conducts security background checks in relation to Federal Ministers.
This policy was introduced by the Conservative Government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper in a context of concerns about foreign espionage and interference in Canada. The policy has continued under the Liberal Government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. This policy appears to be broadly accepted as compatible with longstanding ministerial and parliamentary conventions.
The Canadian Privy Council Office (the secretariat of the federal Cabinet of Canada) arranges for security background checks to be conducted in relation to Members of Parliament who are being considered by the Prime Minister for appointment as Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries.
The Privy Council Office has indicated that the security background checking process entails records checks with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, a check with the Canada Revenue Agency regarding tax compliance, and a check with the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy regarding bankruptcy and insolvency.
Prospective Canadian Government Ministers are required to provide the Privy Council Office with extensive personal information including financial disclosures. Security interviews are also conducted.
The arrangements for security checking Canadian Ministers are informal and ultimately at the discretion of the Prime Minister. In 2015 Prime Minister Harper directed that Ministerial security checks be renewed every two years.
Canadian security practice highlights how it is highly anomalous that Australian Ministers of State, office holders who participate in the highest levels of executive government decision making and who have access to some of the most sensitive and highly classified government information, should be exempt from a mandatory security background checking process.
The number of persons appointed as Ministers of State in the Australian Government is significant.
143 people have been appointed as a Ministers of State (variously designated as Prime Minister, Minister, Assistant Minister or Parliamentary Secretary) since the appointment of the first Rudd Ministry was sworn in on 3 December 2007. Of these 143 people, 68 were in Labor Ministries and 75 were in Coalition Ministries.
It can be reasonably assumed that similar numbers will be appointed over the next decade.
Regrettably it cannot be assumed that persons appointed as Ministers will always be free of characteristics, activities, associations, connections or obligations that may compromise, or risk compromise of national security within the executive government.
Recent experience concerning non-compliance by Members of Parliament with constitutional requirements for election to the Commonwealth Parliament show that party preselection processes, electoral and media scrutiny as well as selection to serve in the Ministry cannot be relied on to identify and resolve matters that would be an issue in a security background checking process.
Instances of corruption involving Australian political figures including Ministers and Members of Parliament at the State and Federal levels show that Ministers may succumb to temptations that may make them vulnerable to compromise. Over the past decade issues have also arisen relating to the involvement of Members of Parliament including Ministers and Shadow Ministers with foreign persons and organisations that have raised security issues. There are numerous examples in a range of overseas jurisdictions of parliamentarians, including Ministers, who have been compromised by foreign intelligence services or have otherwise engaged in activities highly prejudicial to the national security of their country. It would be naïve to think the Australian Ministers of State will always be immune from such failings.
A security checking process for Ministers of State should not involve a potential administrative veto over the appointment of Ministers or their continuance in office.
Recognising the special position of democratically elected Members of Parliament, this Bill provides for the establishment of a mandatory security background checking process to provide information to the Prime Minister and thereby ensure that the Prime Minister is fully informed of any security issues that may arise from the personal background and circumstances of persons who have been appointed as Ministers of State.
This process will apply to persons who have been appointed as Ministers of State including Assistant Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. It would not apply to Members of Parliament generally, only to those appointed to Ministerial office in the executive government and who have ongoing access to highly sensitive and national security classified information.
The security checking process would involve the preparation of reports by the Director-General of Security on any matters relating to security that arise from a comprehensive examination of the personal background and circumstances of Ministers.
Such reports would be solely for the information of the Prime Minister and would be subject to strict security arrangements.
The preparation of reports on security matters would not constitute a security clearance in the form of those applied to Australian Government personnel and other persons under the Australian Protective Security Policy Framework and would not constitute a security assessment made under Part IV of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (ASIO Act).
Rather, reports would be available solely for the confidential information of the Prime Minister who would be free to respond however he or she considered appropriate. Matters concerning the appointment of Ministers, their duties and the composition of the Ministry would remain matters of political judgment for the Prime Minister. However those judgments and decisions would be informed by comprehensive and reliable information relating to security.
The Bill proposes that reports relating to security will be prepared by the Director-General of Security, rather than another agency such as the Australian Government Security Vetting Agency which provides centralised vetting services for most government departments and agencies. This is most appropriate given the particular sensitivity of this task and the statutory provisions that govern the independent and apolitical work of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.
The roles of the Director-General of Security and ASIO proposed in this Bill are within ASIO's statutory function set out in paragraph 17(1) (a) of the ASIO Act "to obtain, correlate and evaluate intelligence relevant to security".
Also of relevance is section 29 of the ASIO Act which sets out the special responsibility of the Director-General of Security to ensure that ASIO's work is strictly limited to what is necessary for the purposes of the discharge of its functions, and to ensure that ASIO "is kept free from any influences or considerations not relevant to its functions and nothing is done that might lend colour to any suggestion that it is concerned to further or protect the interests of any particular section of the community, or with any matters other than the discharge of its functions."
The Bill does not limit the ability of the Prime Minister to seek and obtain security advice from the Director-General of Security at any time relating to Ministers or persons who may be under consideration for possible appointment as a Minister. A Prime Minister may or may not choose to seek such advice prior to recommending a person to the Governor-General for appointment as a Minister of State. This will remain a matter for the discretion of the Prime Minister. It should also be recognised that the formation of a new Ministry and the appointment of new Ministers may take place very quickly and that time may not be available for any consultation between the Prime Minister and the Director-General of Security concerning any security issues relating to possible ministerial appointees.
The Bill will establish a mandatory requirement for the Prime Minister to direct the Director-General of Security to provide reports on matters relating to security that arise from examination of the personal background and circumstances of persons appointed as Ministers of State. The Prime Minister will be obliged to issue such directions within 14 days of the appointment of a Minister (and from the commencement of the Act) and the Director-General will be required to furnish a report to the Prime Minister within 120 days.
The Bill requires the Director-General to obtain information and undertake inquiries that are equivalent to the information and inquiries required for security purposes of ASIO employees.
In practice this will involve inquiries and information gathering equivalent to that required for Positive Vetting to allowaccess to information and resources at all classification levels, including certain types of caveated and codeword information. This level of investigation and checking would be appropriate for Ministers of State given their access to the most sensitive and highest levels of classified information.
The security checking proposed by this Bill would inevitably involve intrusive inquiries into the personal background and circumstances of Ministers of State. While some Ministers may find this uncomfortable it should be accepted as part of their ministerial duty and a necessary measure to protect national security. However it should be emphasised that the resultant reports will be required to only contain information and advice that is strictly relevant to security as defined in the ASIO Act.
The Bill also contains provisions for the safeguarding of reports and requires the Director-General of Security to ensure that reports are properly secured and that reports and all information obtained in the course of making inquiries are only used for the purposes of the Act – that is informing the Prime Minister about security issues relating to Ministers.
The work of the Director-General of Security and ASIO under the provisions of this proposed legislation will also be subject to the oversight role of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security under the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986.
Overall, the Ministers of State (Checks for Security Purposes) Bill 2019 will strengthen protective security within Australia's executive government by ensuring that the Prime Minister is fully informed of any security issues arising from the background and circumstances of Ministers. Persons who wish to be considered for possible appointment to Ministerial office will be clearly and transparently forewarned of the background security checking process they will be subject to and assured that checking process will be undertaken by the Director-General of Security in completely confidential and apolitical circumstances.
Security at the highest levels of the Australian Government should never be compromised. This Bill will plug a major gap in Australia's protective security framework.
Debate adjourned.
Banking System Reform (Separation of Banks) Bill 2019
First Reading
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (16:49): I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to re-establish confidence in the banking system, to separate retail commercial banking activities involving the holding of deposits from wholesale and investment banking involving risky activities, and for other purposes.
Question agreed to.
Senator HANSON: I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (16:50): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
Senator HANSON: I table an explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Hayne Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry has highlighted the necessity for banks to be limited to their core industry.
The vertical integration of the banks providing additional services including financial advice, insurance and superannuation have been shown to be the root cause of rorts, over charging and profit gouging.
Australia's best-known finance commentator Alan Kohler wrote in The Australian on 3 December 2018 and I quote:
I have been opening a random sample of the 10,140 submissions — just short ones from individuals. Without exception they called for the banks to be broken up and most of them, surprisingly, used the term 'Glass-Steagall' – suggesting that the now-repealed American law that used to forcibly separate banking from insurance and investment banking be introduced into Australia.
Alan Kohler stated further:
That would certainly be a fertile field for the Royal Commissioner to plough, although most of the banks have already announced plans to break themselves up along those lines so perhaps such a recommendation would lack drama.
Unlike most commentators and politicians, however, Kohler is not totally fooled by these moves from the banks that appear as if they are separating voluntarily.
Continuing, he made the following very important point:
But Westpac says it will keep its insurance and wealth management division and AMP and Macquarie have not announced any plans to get rid of their banks, so an Australian version of Glass-Steagall would make it uniform and would make sure they didn't slide back into their bad old 'one stop shop' ways in future.
Kohler now joins the ranks of other notable Australian experts who have endorsed the Glass-Steagall option.
In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, Don Argus, former CEO of National Australia Bank and former Chairman of BHP, said in The Australian on 17 September 2011 and I quote:
People are lashing out and creating all sorts of regulation, but the issue is whether they're creating the right regulation … What has to be done is to separate commercial banking from investment banking.
Former ANZ director John Dahlsen wrote in the Australian Financial Review on 21 August 2018 and I quote:-
Problems in banking will not be solved until the structure is changed ... With barriers removed it is possible that banks and the investment market will move to unlock shareholder value in structural separation, following the principle of the US Glass-Steagall Act, which kept commercial and retail banking separate. Voluntary demergers would threaten the gravy train of 'coupon clipping' for fee extraction, but enforced separation in Australia seems inevitable...
Former ACCC chairman Professor Alan Fels was quoted in The Australian on 9 August 2018 and again I quote:
There are a number of serious structural issues that need to be considered, the first and most obvious is the separation of the activity of creating financial products and then offering so-called independent advisory services to customers on what are the best products. A second very important one is whether there should be a structural separation between traditional banking activities and the more risky investment activities … Banks benefit from the implicit guarantee on their deposit liabilities which flows into their trading activities.
Banking expert Martin North of Digital Finance Analytics stated in his submission to the Interim Report of the Royal Commission:
The large players are too big to fail and too complex to manage, and need to be broken apart. A modern Glass-Steagall separation would achieve this, and is proven to reduce risk, and drive better customer outcomes and right-size our finance sector.
Former APRA Principal Researcher Dr Wilson Sy recommended in his submission to the Royal Commission:
The financial system should be structurally separated to simplify regulation, increase competition and innovation, and better serve the community.
The Banking System Reform (Separation of Banks) Bill 2018, previously introduced by the Honourable Bob Katter MP in the House of Representatives but since lapsed, is being introduced by Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party into the Senate due to my party's ongoing commitment to overcome the systemic failure in our banking system and, more importantly, in bank management per se.
The Australian population are appalled at the bad behaviour of bank management.
The quest for greater profits to the detriment of their own depositors is disgraceful.
The quest for greater bonuses has transcended into pressure on staff throughout the banking system to push their depositors into taking that bank's financial services advice which results in those depositors taking out related company insurance and superannuation policies without concern as to their suitability.
Of course, the epitome of that bad behaviour is taking fees from estates of deceased persons.
The Banking System Reform (Separation of Banks) Bill 2019 will put in place a banking system that, I hope, will prevent a repetition of the history being aired before the Hayne Royal Commission.
I commend this Bill to the Senate.
Senator HANSON: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Broadcasting Services Amendment (Audio Description) Bill 2019
First Reading
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (16:50): I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (16:51): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum related to the bill.
Leave granted.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: I table the explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Australian Greens wholeheartedly support The Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill 2019 which would ensure broadcasters provide a minimum number of hours of audio description per week.
It is embarrassing that Australia is the only English-speaking nation in the OECD that doesn't offer Audio Description for free-to-air television, lagging behind countries like the UK, US, Canada and New Zealand. This bill gives us the opportunity to remedy that.
Audio description is an accessibility feature that assists people who are blind, vision impaired, or have print, learning, and physical disabilities to enjoy television, film and live performances by describing what is happening as it happens. It can also help people with autism, by explaining the emotions of characters they see on screen.
Free-to-air television broadcasters are already required to caption all news and current affairs programs and any program screened on their primary or main channels between 6am to midnight, unless it's music-only or not in English. It's great that people who are deaf or hearing impaired get to watch the shows they love but why are people who are blind or vision impaired excluded?
This section of the community watches almost as much TV as sighted people. According to a study undertaken by Comcast and the American Foundation for the Blind, 96% of adults with a visual impairment watch TV on a regular basis.
These changes will give people who are blind or have low vision similar access to television services as their families, friends and peers, and give clear legislative guidance to broadcasters as to their obligations to provide audio description.
Television and video content is a significant part of our social and recreational lives and everyone should have the right to access it.
Audio description was introduced on New Zealand television in 2011, the US introduced it in 2010, and the UK has the most developed and regulated laws, with audio description featuring on both free-to-air and subscription channels since 2003. Germany, Austria, Ireland, France, Switzerland and other European countries have also had some audio described programming. Even Australian productions such as Neighbours and Home and Away are produced with audio description for overseas release but this is not a feature available for Australian viewers.
There have been two government-funded audio description trials already conducted – one on ABC1 in 2012 and the other on iView in 2015–16. And then, in 2017 the Government set up an Audio Description Working Group (under the Department of Communications and the Arts) who examined and reported 12 months ago on the options for increasing the availability of audio description services in Australia. And yet, so far, the Government has failed to act on this issue.
This bill has the support and backing of key stakeholders and advocacy bodies in the sector including Vision Australia, Blind Citizens Australia and Australian Communications Consumer Action Network
In addition it is a relatively simple proposition. As with Closed Captions for people who are deaf or hearing impaired, it can be turned on or off as needed. It is also relatively inexpensive to deliver and, in fact, is already integrated into many of the programs that are imported from overseas. Different services currently offer Audio Description at the movies, online, while travelling by plane, at libraries, on DVDs and while using apps. In fact Screen Australia has made it a condition as of 2011 that all Australian-made films it funds have to produce an audio description track.
The Australian Greens don't believe it's acceptable for people who are blind or vision impaired to be excluded in our society. People with disabilities continue to fall through the cracks, to be locked out of the community and denied the same rights as other Australians. Failings of successive Labor and Coalition governments have perpetuated this discrimination, often denying people with disabilities access to services and the supports they need to live a good life, including audio description. We must do better. it's time to allow everyone the right to participate equally in our society, and that includes watching TV, a right that most of us take for granted. I urge the Government and opposition to support this bill.
Senator STEELE-JOHN: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
DOCUMENTS
Universal Service Obligation
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (16:51): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1335 standing in my name for today concerning an order for the production of documents relating to the universal service obligation reform options.
Leave granted.
Senator GRIFF: I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) independent reviews conducted by the Regional Telecommunications Review Committee, the Productivity Commission and the Australian National Audit Office have all issued critical reports on the Universal Service Obligation (USO),
(ii) the Productivity Commission has found the number of Australian payphones has almost halved over the last decade,
(iii) the Department of Communications and the Arts estimates that 22% of copper services and 9% of payphones have been phased out since 2012,
(iv) Telstra is currently paid almost $300 million a year to maintain these services under the USO,
(v) the Department of Communications and the Arts estimates the equivalent universal broadband delivery obligation on NBNCo for fixed wireless and satellite in regional areas will cost the entity in excess of $800 million per annum, if operating on a full cost-recovery basis, and
(vi) on 5 December 2018, the Minister for Communications and the Arts announced that the Government does not intend to change current USO arrangements, despite the Minister's report stating: "Network Strategies concluded that the delivery of voice services using wireless (mobile and fixed) and satellite technologies would be more cost effective than the current arrangements", and "Potential savings in the hundreds of millions of dollars over the period from 2020 to 2032 were identified"; and
(b) orders that there be laid on the table by the Minister for Communications and the Arts, by midday on 14 February 2019:
(i) the high-level cost modelling of the USO reform options, and
(ii) the advice provided by NBNCo about the financial costs of servicing additional ADSL customers.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (16:52): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: Releasing the high-level cost modelling of the universal service guarantee reform options and the cost impacts on NBN Co. of servicing additional ADSL costs would significantly compromise any future negotiations with the industry over the future delivery of the voice, payphone and broadband services covered by the USO. This would have the contrary effect to the motion's intent, which is presumably to achieve a lower long-term USO delivery cost. Further information on the costings will be provided in the regulation impact statement prepared by the department of communications, which will be published by the Office of Best Practice Regulation.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
National Rental Affordability Scheme
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (16:53): I wish to inform the chamber that Senator Storer will also sponsor the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senator Storer, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) will soon start to phase out this year after the Abbott Government made the decision to discontinue it in 2014,
(ii) hundreds of dwellings will be dropping off the scheme in a matter of months, yet there has been no replacement scheme or extension to the NRAS announced by the Government, and
(iii) many vulnerable people will be left unable to access affordable housing and could face homelessness; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to urgently commit to a replacement scheme or an extension of the NRAS.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator FARUQI: Hundreds of homes have started to drop off the National Rental Affordability Scheme, NRAS, with the number of homes swelling to thousands next year. This means many vulnerable people, including families on low incomes, will be left without support and will face homelessness. We are facing a cliff in the housing crisis. Social housing hasn't increased since the turn of the century, despite the rise in homelessness and the rising numbers of those in housing stress. Rental support needs to continue. What we really need is a massive federal investment in building new social housing. It is well beyond time for the major parties to take the housing crisis seriously.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (16:54): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator CHISHOLM: Labor is proud to have established the National Rental Affordability Scheme when last in government. NRAS has successfully increased the availability of affordable rental housing to low- and moderate-income households and is helping more than 63,000 Australians secure long-term rental housing. The scheme has reduced the proportion of NRAS households in rental stress by over 22 percentage points. The government's failure to offer alternative policy or to address the funding gap has exacerbated Australia's housing affordability and homelessness crisis. A Shorten Labor government will directly address the funding gap. In December Bill Shorten announced that a Labor government will improve housing supply and provide long-term affordable housing for low- and middle-income Australians through the construction of 250,000 new affordable homes. Building on the NRAS, Labor will drive residential construction activity through a secure, long-term pipeline of investment, scale up the capacity of the community housing sector, boost employment, and meaningfully address the profound shortage of affordable housing in Australia.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (16:55): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: Housing is primarily the responsibility of the states and territories. However, the government understands how important the issue is and is doing its share of the heavy lifting. The government delivered a comprehensive housing affordability plan in the 2017-18 budget. It included providing more than $7.5 billion to the states and territories over the next five years through the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, which includes $620 million in indexed funding for homelessness services, which will be matched by the state governments.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (16:55): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator HANSON: The National Rental Affordability Scheme was introduced in 2008. It was going to solve the affordable housing problem by providing a total of 50,000 dwelling units around the country. By 2012, the Gillard government had seen the deficiency in the scheme and revised the 50,000 figure back to 35,000 dwellings. The plan was to provide financial incentives to invest in rental housing which would be affordable for low- and fixed-income families. In effect, the scheme provided an opportunistic incentive to construct low-cost blocks of small, one-bedroom units near student campuses for investors, many from overseas, to purchase and rent to domestic and international students. In the end, it has done little to meet the need for low-cost housing for low- and fixed-income people. One Nation believes that subsidies are better targeted directly to those who need it and not as costly incentives to developers and investors. The continuation of the scheme, which has done little to improve housing affordability for families and pensioners, cannot be supported.
Question agreed to.
Dugongs
Senator HINCH (Victoria) (16:57): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) recognises:
(i) the sovereign right of Indigenous Australians to hunt culturally significant species under the Native Title Act 1993 (the Act), and
(ii) while native title was envisaged to maintain this cultural connection, hunting rights under the Act must still be subject to laws which relate to animal cruelty; and
(b) notes that:
(i) the populations of both dugongs and sea turtles have declined significantly over the last 15 years,
(ii) this population decline is due to cumulative pressures, such as ocean acidification, pollution, commercial fishing and other human impacts that include Indigenous hunting,
(iii) protections for dugong and turtle populations from threats of poaching, illegal commercial trade and illegal transportation were supposedly enhanced in 2013 by the tripling of financial penalties for such practices within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park,
(iv) there is little information regarding the number of dugongs and sea turtles killed by hunters, and there have been credible allegations raised within local Indigenous communities of animal cruelty committed by those who purport to be hunting under native title,
(v) such allegations include the use of high-power motorboats, machetes and other cruel methods which maim animals and leave them suffering before dying,
(vi) Indigenous leaders are calling out for help to ensure that culturally significant practices are not undermined by the illegal actions of others,
(vii) several Indigenous clans have adopted sustainable take practices through Traditional Use of Marine Resource Agreements and some have called for zero take of endangered species, and
(viii) in the first sitting week of 2019, Senator Hinch will be introducing a bill to stop the cruel slaughter of endangered creatures, like dugongs and sea turtles.
Question agreed to.
United Nations Youth Representative Program
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (16:57): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Youth Representative Consultation Report was released in December 2018,
(ii) the report, written by Mr Amos Washington, the 2018 Youth Representative to the United Nations, is the culmination of consultations with thousands of young people across the country and a six-week placement at the Australian Permanent Mission to the United Nations, where the Youth Representative worked on behalf of young Australians,
(iii) the Youth Representative Program provides young Australians with an important platform to have their voices heard around Australia and on the international stage,
(iv) the report identifies mental health and wellbeing, discrimination and inequality, and education as the top issues facing young Australians, and
(v) while the vast majority of young people surveyed are interested in current global events and in learning more about how the government makes decisions, less than one in five of the young people surveyed feel like their opinions are represented by politicians in government;
(b) supports the Youth Representative's efforts to provide young Australians with an opportunity to have their perspectives heard and considered;
(c) recognises the importance of supporting the wellbeing of young Australians;
(d) recognises that young people have perspectives that can enrich policy conversations;
(e) emphasises the need to continually consider how young people can be further involved in policy decision-making; and
(f) commits to:
(i) supporting the Youth Representative Program into the future,
(ii) exploring opportunities for meaningful consultation with young people when creating policy, and
(iii) placing the needs of young Australians at the forefront of policymaking.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (16:58): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: Australia is a founding member of the United Nations and has been an active participant in the UN for 70 years. We welcome the participation of young Australians as part of our next generation of leaders in the UN's work. The Australian government supports our UN youth representatives by funding their participation at the UN in New York. Former Australian government UN youth representative Chris Eigeland was appointed by the government in 2017 as a member of Australia's UNESCO National Commission. In that role, he advises the government on youth and communication issues relating to the United Nations. The Australian government's plan for strong economy, return to budget balance and the delivery of essential services is designed to support the future of young Australians.
Question agreed to.
Fishing Industry
Senator McGRATH (Queensland) (16:59): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) takes note of the importance of the fishing industry to the Queensland economy, which was worth $294 million in 2015-16, and the particular significance of this industry to Queensland's coastal towns;
(b) notes the excellent occasion that is the Hervey Bay Seafood Festival, held annually on the second Sunday in August, the only such event in Australia managed by the men and women who catch the seafood;
(c) recognises the positive impact the Hervey Bay Seafood Festival has on the local economy, with over 50% of patrons travelling to Hervey Bay from other areas;
(d) further notes that the team behind the Festival, Hervey Bay Seafood Inc, have also launched 'Wide Bay Wild Catch' – a promotional brand to showcase the story of the resident seafood industry, the men and women across all sectors of seafood in the region from Rainbow Beach north to Bundaberg, and their pride in legendary local seafood for seafood lovers the world over; and the
(e) commends Hervey Bay Seafood Inc for their brilliant work in promoting local seafood products in the Wide Bay region, and for providing another draw point for tourists to the region.
Question agreed to.
President of the Maldives
Senator McGRATH (Queensland) (16:59): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the recent Maldivian presidential election held on 23 September 2018, and
(ii) that His Excellency Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, candidate for the Maldivian Democratic Party and, as part of a coalition of opposition parties, was victorious as the Maldives' democratically-elected President;
(b) formally extends its congratulations to His Excellency Ibrahim (lbu) Mohamed Solih on his election as President of the Republic of Maldives; and
(c) acknowledges the desire of The Maldives to be re-admitted to the Commonwealth of Nations.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Prevention of Exploitation of Indigenous Cultural Expressions) Bill 2019
First Reading
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (17:00): I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to prevent unfair practices in the supply of goods that exhibit Indigenous cultural expressions, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and now be read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (17:01): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
I rise today to speak in favour of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Prevention of Exploitation of Indigenous Cultural Expressions) Bill 2019. The profile of Indigenous art has grown tremendously in recent decades. This has resulted in earning and income opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and contributed to both the preservation and dissemination of culture. This rise in awareness and value of Indigenous art has also led to a growing market in fake art and merchandise.
These commercially-produced goods – mostly aimed at the tourist market – are often made from non-traditional materials and feature inauthentic and culturally inappropriate designs. This trade misappropriates Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture, undermining the role of communities. It denies Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists economic and other opportunities as well as deceiving and misleading buyers.
The main purpose of this legislation is to ensure an end to the proliferation of fake Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art and art products. It creates a a legislative solution which makes it an offence to supply or offer commercial goods to a consumer that include Indigenous cultural expression unless it is supplied by, or in accordance with a transparent arrangement with an Indigenous artist or relevant Indigenous community.
If this parliament were to agree to this bill and pass it into law, they will be supporting artists like Banduk Marika, who said that,
" The ecosystem, the environment we live in is full of natural resources. Our art is our resource, it belongs to us, we use it in a ceremonial context; it is a resource for our survival. If control of that resource is taken away from us, we cannot meet our cultural obligations; we cannot use it for our families ' benefit. Exploiting our resource needs to be negotiated on our terms, we need to have control of how that ' s done "
I put it to the Senate that it is time to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island artists and communities and end the exploitation of Indigenous Cultural Expression.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
DOCUMENTS
Complementary Medicines
Order for the Production of Documents
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:01): At the request of Senator Carr, I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, by no later than 3pm on 13 February 2019: any correspondence between the Prime Minister and the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology regarding the Australian Complementary Medicine industry.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Poverty
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:02): At the request of Senator Moore, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Micah, a movement of Australian Christians, churches and organisations, are raising their voices for a world free from poverty – this week hundreds of Christian delegates from across our country gathered in Parliament House for 'Voices for Justice 2018', to share their concern for the world's poor, oppressed and displaced and to advocate for doing more for the world's poorest, those trapped in slavery and the displaced,
(ii) significant progress has been made in recent decades as the world increased its focus on the problems of global poverty, however, these gains are fragile as climate change, conflicts and governance concerns are threatening to push more people into poverty and vulnerability and undo the progress to this point, and
(iii) since September 2013, the Australian International Development Assistance budget has been reduced by the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Government, and is now at 0.22% of gross national income; and
(b) calls upon the Federal Government to consider the voices of the Micah delegates and their concerns about the need for investment in a global response to ending the desperate impact of poverty.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (17:02): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: The coalition government supports Micah's aspiration for a world free from poverty. Our national interests are served by contributing to sustainable economic development and poverty reduction. Australia's total official development assistance budget of $4.2 billion supports countries to improve their governance, capacity building and economic development, including $1 billion over five years to support developing countries build their climate change resilience. We are stepping up our support for a more secure and prosperous Pacific by providing $1.3 billion in development assistance and $3 billion to support infrastructure initiatives.
Question agreed to.
National Security
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (17:03): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges that ASIO and Australian Federal Police have extensive data on the country-of-origin of potential extremists;
(b) notes that, in other issues in relation to the immigration system, when rorts and problems are identified from certain countries, the tap is turned off; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to introduce a travel ban, similar to that imposed by the Trump administration in the United States of America, on people from countries that are known sources of radicalism coming into Australia.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (17:03): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: The government have strengthened our migration program, including through legislation to ensure applications for temporary and permanent entry to Australia are subject to extensive background and character checks so that any individual who may pose a threat to Australia is denied entry. The government do not support a travel ban and will continue to assess each individual application on its merits, consistent with our non-discriminatory migration policy.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 1331 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [17:08]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Family Law
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (17:13): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges that:
(i) male suicides increase significantly over Christmas, and
(ii) discriminatory aspects of Australia's family law system, which acts to separate children from parents and grandparents at Christmas time, contribute to this increase; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to take urgent steps to deal with discriminatory aspects of the Australian family law system.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (17:09): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: The family law system is a complex and challenging area. The government are deeply committed to ensuring that Australian families have all the support they need, especially at difficult moments in their lives which can occur when they are caught up for long periods of time in the court system. That is why we have proposed the reforms to the family courts that are before the Senate to improve outcomes for families. We have also established the first comprehensive inquiry into the family law system, which is being overseen by the Australian Law Reform Commission. The government will carefully consider the ALRC's report and recommendations once it is delivered on 31 March 2019.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (17:14): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator CHISHOLM: Although Labor opposes this motion, Labor is acutely aware of the failings of the family law system and the impact these deficiencies can have on families and children. It is important to acknowledge that mental ill health and family breakdown are complex issues and suicide is always a tragedy. There is currently a major Senate inquiry into the government's proposed Family Court amalgamation, which will report in March, and a comprehensive review of the family law system is also being undertaken by the Australian Law Reform Commission, which will report back to the Australian people in April next year. Labor will carefully consider the outcomes of both of these major inquiries before deciding whether a further inquiry, including a royal commission into the family law system, with all the enormous costs and delays that would involve, would assist. In the meantime, Labor will continue to fight for improvements to the family law system, including increased funding for more court registrars, judges and legal assistant services, and capital works for court buildings to make them safer.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (17:15): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator HANSON: My motion here is about male suicides, especially over Christmas. We've just had the Christmas break. The discriminatory aspects of the Australian family law, which act to separate children from parents and grandparents, actually contribute to the increase. Nothing was done about family law until I actually came back to this parliament and started pushing for something to be done. There are deaths happening in this country because everyone is sitting on their hands and doing nothing about it. You say you're going to put more money into it, but it needs more than just more money put into the whole system. It is unfair, and mostly it's unfair to fathers. It's estimated that about three men are suiciding a day and one woman is murdered a week. We need to do something about this urgently. Don't just sit there and think you feel sympathetic about it. We are the legislators of this country. We need to start really doing something. We need to have a royal commission into the family law court matters and start sorting out the problems. It's not only the children who are affected but also the parents.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 1332 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [17:17]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Child Support
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (17:21): I move:
That the Senate calls on the Federal Government to establish a royal commission to inquire into the child support system and the family law system, with the terms of reference to include:
(a) the conduct of lawyers and costs of legal advice;
(b) the adequacy of legal aid and its budget;
(c) the cost of transcripts of court proceedings;
(d) the costs, adequacy and effectiveness of supervised visitation;
(e) the conduct and costs of those providing expert advice including psychologists;
(f) the cost and cause of delays;
(g) the use of courts at night;
(h) the effectiveness and efficiency of the child support system;
(i) suicides related to the child support system and the family law system; and
(j) the experience of children.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (17:21): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: Family law and child support are complex and challenging areas. The government is committed to ensuring that Australian families have all the support they need. It has proposed reforms to the family courts that are before the Senate to improve outcomes for families. Establishing a royal commission before the government has concluded the reform of the family court system and the Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry into the family law system would not be the best process, as was observed by the Chief Justice of the Family Court. Additionally, the Joint Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs conducted an inquiry into the child support program in 2015 which did not recommend a royal commission but following which the government implemented a number of important recommendations.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (17:22): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator CHISHOLM: Although Labor oppose this motion, once again we are acutely aware of the failings of the family law system and the impact these deficiencies can have on families and children in particular. This has only worsened over the last five years of neglect of the family law system under three coalition Prime Ministers with no interest in these matters. However, there is currently a major Senate inquiry into the government's proposed Family Court amalgamation that will report in March. A comprehensive review of the family law system is also being undertaken by the Australian Law Reform Commission, and it will report back to the Australian people in April. Labor will carefully consider the outcomes of both of these major inquiries before deciding whether a further inquiry, and the cost and delay that would involve, would assist. In the meantime, Labor will continue to fight for improvements to the family law system, including increased funding for more court registrars, judges, legal assistant services and capital works for court buildings to make them more safe for families using them.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (17:22): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator HANSON: The family law courts and child support are among the biggest issues that come across our desk on a daily basis. The people that we meet on the streets are all concerned about family law court matters and child support. They feel that parliamentarians are not listening to them and their concerns. The family law court also deals with suicides and murders.
You say you're doing something about it, but you're doing absolutely nothing about it. It's the same as how you rejected and did not want a royal commission into the banking sector. You refused to have that because of the cost to the people. We have costs of lives there and how people feel about it. How are you going to feel when the people realise how you're going to vote on this—that you are not interested in dealing with the problems of the family law court that affect nearly every Australian out there? You're turning your back on it. The child support system does not work either. It is unfair and it does not work properly for the Australian people. Think about what you're doing. Listen to the Australian people. They want an investigation into it like the banking royal commission. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 1342 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [17:25]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Great Australian Bight
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (17:28): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) a six year survey of the Great Australian Bight (the Bight), conducted as part of a joint effort by the South Australian Research and Development Institute, CSIRO, the University of Adelaide, Flinders University and BP, has discovered more than 400 previously unknown species,
(ii) the Bight is one of the most biodiverse places on the planet,
(iii) BP and Equinor's own modelling of an oil spill in the Bight shows the scale of disaster that is possible, and
(iv) Equinor plans to commence drilling in the Bight as early as next year; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to suspend all current oil and gas exploration and drilling licences, and move to ban future oil and gas drilling in the Bight.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (17:28): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: The government supports the safe and responsible development of Australia's offshore oil and gas resources. Australia's offshore regime has strong environmental, health and safety protections overseen by an independent expert regulator, in NOPSEMA, the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority. Rather than unscientific bans, NOPSEMA relies on expert scientific evidence and will not allow any activity to proceed unless it is safe for the environment, the community and the workers.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (17:29): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator CHISHOLM: Labor notes the motion, the new information provided as part of the BP assessment process and the concern raised around oil spills. Labor expects all relevant information to be considered as part of environmental assessments.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 1343 in the name of Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.
The Senate divided: 17:30
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Queensland: Crocodiles
Senator McGRATH (Queensland) (17:34): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes the threat that crocodiles pose to humans, livestock and aquaculture in Central, North and Far North Queensland;
(b) recognises that, whilst it is always an admirable goal to protect and conserve wildlife species, measures to minimise the risk of monetary damage, injury or death to humans should always take precedence – that is, that human lives are more important than crocodiles;
(c) recognises that states and territories are responsible for managing crocodiles, including for public safety; and
(d) calls on states and territories to consider all options for the protection of human lives consistent with national law, including sustainable culls.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: Crocodile numbers in North and Far North Queensland are increasing rapidly. Accordingly, crocodiles are encroaching on regional and urban areas and posing a threat to humans, livestock and aquaculture. The priority of a government should always be to reduce the risk of injury or harm to humans. In Queensland we cull kangaroos, we cull rabbits—we cull rabbits on my place, out at Warwick—yet we do not cull animals that pose a tangible threat to human safety. A sustainable crocodile cull should be considered by the Queensland state government—humans, first; crocodiles, second.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (17:35): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator CHISHOLM: Labor notes that crocodile management, including any need for culling, is a matter that is determined by states and territories. There have been times when culling of native animals has been permitted, for example, when animals are suffering from starvation. Labor notes that the states and territories already have plans in place for crocodile management. Labor also recognises the important role that Indigenous protected areas and Indigenous rangers play in managing crocodiles. Labor supports the work of the states and the Northern Territory planning and management rights in this area.
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (17:35): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator HANSON: I support Senator McGrath on this motion, because if you know North Queensland, especially the area around Cairns and as far down south as Townsville, you'll find crocs. People are in danger of having their lives taken. It is quite evident that it does happen on the shore, where horses and dogs have been taken and even children have lost their lives. People have lost their lives because of crocs—and the crocs are moving south. I cannot believe that Senator Chisholm, who is speaking on behalf of the Labor Party and who is supposed to be a senator for Queensland, has no idea of what is happening in North Queensland with regard to this. It would be quite interesting to see if you are going to support this motion.
Opposition senators: We are!
Senator HANSON: Fantastic! I'm pleased to hear that, because, by the sounds of it, I thought you were pushing it across to state Labor.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I'm going to strictly enforce the standing orders on this section of debate, because I have commented previously on how it's slipping. The question is that motion No. 1344 be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Donations to Political Parties
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (17:37): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) trust in Australian democracy has halved in the last decade, with fewer than 41% of Australian citizens reporting a sense of satisfaction with the way democracy works, down from 86% in 2007, according to research from the Museum of Australian Democracy and the University of Canberra published today,
(ii) women are generally less satisfied with democracy and more distrusting of politicians and political institutions – those most critical of the current state of our democracy are women in their forties who are struggling on less than $50,000 a year,
(iii) people most likely to feel satisfied with the status quo include those aged 55 and over, and those earning more than $200,000 a year,
(iv) the three main grievances electors have with Australia's democratic system are politicians not being accountable for broken promises; politicians not dealing with the issues that really matter; and big business having too much power,
(v) plummeting levels of trust in politics-as-usual is prompting young people to mobilise in unprecedented numbers, with thousands of schoolchildren protesting the Government's lack of long-term policies for climate justice over the last week, across all Australian capitals, and
(vi) younger voters are concerned that their vote does not count because of the overwhelming influence of political donations, which result in more and more people being denied necessary resources and basic human rights; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) ban corporate donations from vested interests that seek to influence government policy,
(ii) cap all other donations to political parties to $1000 per year, and
(iii) take measures to increase the participation of women and people from minority backgrounds in Australia's political system.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (17:37): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator CHISHOLM: Labor will not be supporting this motion. This is yet again more hypocritical posturing from the Greens, instead of genuine electoral reform. The Greens are yet to explain why they were happy to take $1.6 million from a single corporate donor and accept half a million dollars from a professional gambler, who is being investigated for tax fraud. Labor has a clear policy to improve transparency in politics and help restore faith in our democracy. It was Labor that worked with our charities and not-for-profits to ensure advocacy work was protected and foreign donations were banned from domestic elections. It will continue to be Labor that pursues genuine electoral reform in the public interest.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 1345 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [17:44]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Parliamentarians' Entitlements
Senator ANNING (Queensland) (17:42): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the revelations last year of dual citizenship and holding office for profit under the Crown that led to some of those sitting in the Senate to be found to have been ineligible to have been elected,
(ii) that, in some cases, those concerned knew or might reasonably have been expected to know that they were not entitled to claim to be a senator but still continued to sit in the Senate,
(iii) that under the circumstances in which an individual knew that they were not entitled to sit in the Senate but continued to collect a salary and allowances as though they were a senator, they have defrauded the Australian people, and
(iv) that despite being removed from the Senate by order of the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, some of these individuals who knowingly received remuneration to which they were not entitled are again trying to return to the Senate; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government, in circumstances in which such previously disqualified individuals succeed in returning to the Senate, to impose a garnishee on any remuneration that they would receive as senators in order to recover all salary and allowances previously collected by them for which they had no entitlement.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (17:42): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator CHISHOLM: The opposition will not be supporting this motion. The many cases of eligibility before this parliament are diverse and varied. Each is considered on a case-by-case basis, and the opposition support this approach.
Question negatived.
Donations to Political Parties
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (17:43): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the Australian Electoral Commission published figures about political donations received in the 2017-18 financial year on 1 February 2019,
(ii) that voters have the right to know which bodies are donating how much to which political party in the lead up to an election, and
(iii) that transparency in relation to electoral donations is critical to the healthy functioning of democracy; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) ban corporate donations from vested interests that seek to influence government policy,
(ii) cap all other donations to political parties to $1000 per year, and
(iii) implement real-time disclosure of donations to political parties.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (17:44): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator CHISHOLM: The opposition will not be supporting this motion. This is again, as we have heard before, more posturing from the Greens in place of genuine reform. Labor has a clear policy to improve transparency in politics through donation reform to help restore faith in our democracy. It was Labor that worked with our charities and not-for-profits to ensure advocacy work was protected, and foreign donations were finally banned from general elections. It will continue to be Labor that pursues genuine electoral reform in the public interest. As usual, the Greens have chosen politics over policy.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [17: 45]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
Reference
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (17:48): I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of notion No. 2, standing in my name for today, proposing a reference to a committee, before asking that it be taken as formal.
Leave is granted.
Senator FARUQI: I move the motion as amended:
That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 19 August 2019:
The feasibility of a National Horse Traceability Register for all horses, with particular reference to:
(a) the existence and adequacy of state or industry-based registers;
(b) the benefits of a national register, including for animal welfare, biosecurity safety (including for the prevention and management of Emergency Animal Diseases, such as equine influenza and African Horse Sickness), backyard breeding and the integrity of trade in horses;
(c) overseas models of national tracking systems for horses;
(d) funding, enforcement and penalty implications; and
(e) any related matters.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (17:48): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: Before making my statement, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the foreign minister from Vanuatu, Minister Regenvanu, and his colleagues.
On 8 February 2019, Commonwealth, state and territory agricultural ministers noted that the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries is convening a state and territory working group to consider national horse identification and registration processes to potentially support management of emergency animal disease and natural disaster preparedness and rider safety and to reduce stock theft.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that business of the Senate motion No. 2, as amended, standing in the name of Senator Faruqi be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [17:53]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
MOTIONS
In Home Care Program
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (17:56): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) changes to the In Home Childcare Program, including to the hourly rate cap, have had the unintended consequence of leaving hundreds of families with complex childcare needs without affordable childcare which affects their ability to work, attend medical appointments and respite,
(ii) this group includes parents and carers with significant medical problems, including terminal illness and mental health issues, as well as children with developmental delays and severe disabilities, and
(iii) although some of these families have transitioned to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, many have not;
(b) recognises that, although there were problems with the In Home Childcare Program, some families with complex needs are facing a childcare crisis as a result of the changes;
(c) further notes that numerous providers have been forced to close as a result, and a large number of carers have been left without job; and
(d) calls on the Federal Government to provide emergency funding for sufficient childcare subsidies to high-needs families affected by the change and to provide a long-term solution to this issue.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator FARUQI: I brought this motion forward to draw the parliament's and the minister's attention to this important issue. Changes to the subsidy to the hourly rate of in-home child care now means that high-needs families are unable to get the child care they need to attend medical appointments, receive respite and go to work. Service providers are leaving the industry and carers are losing their jobs. As noted in the motion, we should recognise that although there are problems with the in-home childcare program some families with complex needs are facing a childcare crisis as a result of the changes. Some changes have been made, but they are not enough. I urge the government to take concrete action on this.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (17:57): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: The government does not support this motion. The government has increased the in-home care hourly rate to $32 per hour, which equates to $38.40 per hour for families eligible for the additional childcare subsidy. The government has also increased the number of places available by 200 places nationally, effective from 1 January 2019.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 1336 be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [17:59]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Queensland Agricultural Training Colleges
Senator McGRATH (Queensland) (18:01): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) recognises that Queensland Agricultural Training Colleges provide vital skills to graduates, and contribute to the viability of the Queensland agricultural sector as a whole, which employs over 57,000 people in the agriculture, forestry and fishing industries and was worth over $19 billion to the State's economy in 2017-18;
(b) notes that the flagship Longreach and Emerald Training Colleges are being shut down after operating for more than 50 years, have helped thousands of graduates to achieve rewarding careers over this time, and that, between the two colleges, they employ over 100 staff;
(c) further notes that the Queensland Labor Government is responsible for the decision to close training colleges;
(d) calls on the Queensland Labor Government to reconsider its decision to close the Longreach and Emerald Queensland Agricultural Training Colleges; and
(e) condemns the Queensland Labor Government for turning its back on $245 million in Federal funding from the Skilling Australians Fund, which would have created 50,000 new apprenticeships in Queensland over the next four years.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator McGRATH: The iconic Longreach and Emerald training colleges are an important component in the Queensland agricultural sector. These colleges have operated for more than 50 years and seen multiple generations of students graduate from them. The colleges are vital to numerous rural and regional communities. I understand that meetings have taken place between the state Labor government and stakeholders. However, there has been no official announcement that these colleges will remain open. The state Labor government needs to publicly reverse the decision to close the training colleges and give certainty to an agricultural sector hit by flood, fire and drought.
Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (18:02): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator CHISHOLM: This is a blatant political attack by the coalition on a considered decision made by the state government, a decision based on an independent review where 70 stakeholders were consulted, including the local Queensland Liberal National member, Lachlan Millar. This is from a government that has withdrawn funding from Primary Industries Education Foundation Australia, funding that Labor will return. This is from a government that has cut more than $3 billion from vocational education and skills and has stood by while apprentice numbers have dropped by 140,000. This is from a coalition that has failed to create a viable vocational education and training policy after being in government for five years. Instead, they have stood by while TAFE campuses and courses in regional and rural Australia have been closing, course fees have escalated and enrolments have plummeted.
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (18:04): I seek leave to move an amendment to general business notice of motion No. 1354 moved by Senator McGrath.
Leave not granted.
Senator FARUQI: I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator FARUQI: The Greens always have and always will stand for publicly owned and operated and publicly funded vocational training colleges and TAFEs. The two major parties have used vocational training and TAFE as a political football for way too long. We have had enough. Through their bipartisan commitment to so-called contestability funding, public TAFE has been gutted. The closure of these two colleges by the Queensland Labor government should be condemned.
I had an amendment to remove the point about the Skilling Australians Fund, a point which only serves to muddy the waters. Unfortunately, this was not agreed to. This motion says these colleges are being closed because the Queensland government refused the Skilling Australians Fund. These colleges aren't being closed because they refused the fund; rather, the Queensland government has failed to properly plan and attract students to the Emerald and Longreach agriculture colleges. They need to be rebuilt, not torn down.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that motion No. 1354 moved by Senator McGrath be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [18:06]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
United Nations Global Compact on Refugees
Senator ANNING (Queensland) (18:09): I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1309 standing in my name for today, relating to the UN Global Compact on Refugees, be taken as a formal motion.
The PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?
An honourable senator: Yes.
The PRESIDENT: There is, Senator Anning, so formality has been denied.
Cambodia
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (18:09): I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1340 standing in my name for today, relating to Cambodia, be taken as a formal motion.
The PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?
An honourable senator: Yes.
The PRESIDENT: There is, Senator Di Natale.
Senator DI NATALE: In lieu of suspending standing orders, I seek leave to make a one-minute statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator DI NATALE: Once again we see the government blocking the will of the Senate and refusing us the chance to vote on what is an important motion. Cambodia's democracy has crumbled. We've seen a sham election and disgraceful abuses of human rights by Hun Sen's regime. The Greens stand shoulder to shoulder with the Cambodian community. We say loudly and clearly to Hun Sen: we will not stand by while you dismantle Cambodia's democracy. We certainly welcome the position that the ALP have taken with their strong words against the regime in the House last year, but we are disappointed that they've chosen not to co-sponsor this motion with us. Enough is enough. People's human rights are being abused by an autocratic regime. We need targeted sanctions of Cambodia and we need them implemented right now.
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (18:10): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RUSTON: The Australian government has expressed its concern with Cambodia's 2018 election process on multiple occasions, including directly to the Cambodian government and in statements to the UN Human Rights Council. Reflecting these concerns, Australia chose not to send observers to monitor the elections and was not represented at the inauguration of Cambodia's National Assembly. The Australian government welcomed the release of the opposition leader from house arrest and continues to urge Cambodia to allow free political participation and debate without violence or intimidation. Allegations of illegal activity by Cambodians in Australia have been referred to the relevant authorities.
Paris Agreement
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (18:11): I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1330 standing in my name for today, relating to the Paris climate deal, be taken as formal.
The PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?
An honourable senator: Yes.
The PRESIDENT: There is. Formality has been denied, Senator Hanson. That concludes formal business, but for colleagues' planning I'll give you some advance notice. By my count, tomorrow there are 33 notices of motion, six private senators' bills, four motions of an administrative nature and several government bills. So clear the diaries.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Banking and Financial Services
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (18:12): I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am today seven proposals were received. In accordance with standing order 75, the question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Collins:
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
'The Morrison Government's failure to act on delivering better protections for Australian consumers after voting against a banking royal commission 26 times'
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
Senator KETTER (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (18:13): I rise today to speak in relation to this matter of public importance and the vitally important issue of consumer protection. It's quite clear that the Morrison Liberal government has failed to act on delivering better protections for consumers on a whole range of issues, not least of which the issue we're talking about: the reform of the financial sector.
I am going to come back to that issue, but I want to outline some of the history leading up to this. I want to make the point firstly that when it comes to stepping up and addressing issues that are of concern to Australian families the coalition has either been missing in action or has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing. I'm talking about some of the big issues in Australian history, going to some of the fundamental protections that Australian families enjoy—things like universal health care. Universal health care was opposed by the coalition government at the time, in the 1970s with Medibank and later with Medicare. When it comes to the retirement savings of Australians and the formation of the occupational superannuation system, again, this was something that the coalition opposed vehemently. When we come to reform of the financial sector and the appalling scandals that have bedevilled Australians, not only in the last few years but over the previous 10 years or so, we see once again the government choosing to stick its head in the sand, looking after its big business mates and its banking mates, and eventually having to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing.
We know the precursor to the more recent scandals—some of the scandals that took place under the previous Labor government. We saw things like the collapse of Storm Financial, Trio Capital and Westpoint. All of these things were looked at by the previous Labor government. There was a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services inquiry in 2011-12. The reforms that came out of that included financial advice providers being legally required to act in the best interests of their clients and eliminating kickbacks to financial advisers. But these things were fought by the coalition. They voted against Labor's future of financial advice legislation in the House, they voted against FOFA in the Senate and they tried to undermine the functioning of the FOFA reforms when they came to government. But, thanks to Labor taking up the fight on the finance front, FOFA was able to continue, and we went on to see some further work being done by ASIC down the track. For example, in 2016 they found that customers were paying fees for financial advice that was never provided. There were more than 300,000 customers affected by this scandal.
In the face of all these scandals at the time, not only was the government dissembling and trying to fight against Labor's sensible reforms—I remember at the time the comments from the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann, and Senator Sinodinos opposing some of these changes—but then we saw further scandals erupting. It wasn't until after those scandals that Labor started to call for the royal commission. That was in April 2016. We called for that royal commission in light of all the mounting evidence that was there. We saw the pain that was inflicted on ordinary Australians by banks which had a total culture of greed, being driven by the profit motive and return to shareholders at all costs. That was what was driving the system. In the face of that, Labor decided that there was a need for a royal commission. But once again the coalition was there to block Labor's sensible proposals. Over the 601 days or so that Labor was calling for a royal commission and the coalition was holding out, we had the Prime Minister at the time, Mr Turnbull, adamant that there was not going to be a royal commission. He said that it was just going to be a report and nothing would come out of that. He talked about the royal commission being a waste of money and said that the only thing a royal commission can do is ask questions and that it would be a political exercise that wouldn't do anything to resolve people's needs and concerns. He talked about the fact that the royal commission would be a forum for the legal profession and would go on for years—this is what Mr Turnbull said—and would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and not tell us anything new. How wrong Mr Turnbull was, as it turns out and as many of us were aware.
Mr Turnbull also said that the royal commission would be a waste of time. He said it was a populist campaign. He said that it was just a slogan and nothing of substance. He said it was a political exercise, a cynical exploitation. He talked about it being crass populism. We know that the royal commission has handed down a very substantial report. There is a lot of work to be done, but I think we all are in debt to the work that Commissioner Hayne has done in this area. He has shone a light, over the 12 months of his commission, on some egregious conduct, something which I think many of us wouldn't have expected would have come out. Many of us thought that the situation was bad, but we didn't know just how bad it really was. So this opposition to the royal commission, I think, has been a low point for the coalition.
But the opposition to the royal commission is not the only way in which this government has let down Australian consumers. I can make reference to some of the work the Senate Economics References Committee has done in its inquiries in a range of areas: looking at the issue of non-conforming building products and the very slow rate of response by the government to a whole range of issues that are coming out there, particularly asbestos coming into Australia continuously, and the government's failure to protect Australians in their homes by taking the step of supporting Labor's principled position of proposing a ban on the introduction of flammable cladding into Australia. The issue of foreign bribery is an area where the government has had an extremely slow response. On the issue of general insurance protections, we had a report in this area, Australia's general insurance industry: sapping consumers of the will to compare, finding that there were issues with competition in the general insurance market. Of course, I've already talked about the future of financial advice and the scrutiny of financial advice as well, which has been an area where the government has been completely missing in action.
When it comes to the protection of consumers in a financial sense, I also want to make reference to the superannuation area, where we've also seen the government missing in action when it comes to superannuation guarantee nonpayments, which affect the most vulnerable in society. The rates of nonpayment of superannuation are in the billions of dollars. This has occurred under this government's watch, and collection and enforcement action by the ATO has been very, very disappointing. The best response that this government came up with was an amnesty, and, of course, as part of that, companies got a tax benefit from the underpayment of superannuation. It's come up at the Productivity Commission review, and the royal commission has dealt with this as well. This government shies away from debate on these issues, dragging its feet on reform over and over again. So many times super bills have been listed on the Notice Paper, and yet we never get to debate them.
There are a number of other areas where this government has been missing in action on consumer protection—for example, payday lending. I give a shout-out to Mr Dick, who has dealt with this particular issue, and, on dodgy rural lending practices and local bank closures, a shout-out to Zac Beers, our candidate in the seat of Flynn. It is having effects on local businesses in Dickson, and our candidate in Dickson, Ali France, is dealing with this issue very clearly. It's time for a Labor government to step in and address this particular issue.
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (18:24): I'm very happy to stand and talk on this motion today. The first thing I wanted to highlight to the Labor Party was how long they took to support the call for a royal commission. It's often not discussed, and it's certainly not in the media frame around royal commissions at the moment, but I think it's important considering we're debating how long it took the Liberals to support a royal commission, and it absolutely did take them too long. The previous Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has recently gone on the record as saying that he wished he'd done it earlier. Well, the call for a royal commission was first made in 2013 by a Senate inquiry which Labor was a key part of. I know from my work in that Senate inquiry that it took me and the Greens nearly two years to get Labor on board. So, if you want to talk about delays to getting outcomes for consumers and taking on the financial services industry for misconduct, it's taken all of us in this chamber way too long to get to this point where we are today.
I think it's really important to point out that this has been a nearly five-year journey by a large number of good people to get it to where it is. I would've actually liked to have heard Senator Williams's contribution today, because I think Senator Williams played a key role in calling for this royal commission in the first place. Certainly, the recommendations, which were supported by Senator Williams and by former senator Mark Bishop, who was a chair of that committee, and call for a royal commission would have just remained by the side of the road—a pit stop in time—had it not been for the Greens, who built the wagon, campaigned and moved it down the road through numerous Senate inquiries. In fact, I remember both Labor and the Liberals voting against a Greens motion in this Senate to call a royal commission into the financial services industry. There was no point of difference between you guys. But let me say that I am still very appreciative that Labor did decide to join the Greens in our call for a royal commission in 2016.
Today, in the remaining few minutes that I have, I'd like to discuss what I've been talking about, which is the 'royal omission'—something that wasn't looked at in the royal commission into banking and financial services. Commissioner Hayne, in his very first public hearing, made it very clear that he felt that the rotten heart of the financial services industry was simply greed—a profit-at-all-costs mentality, a culture that puts profits before people. He told the CEOs in that first briefing to go away and see if they could find the balance and where that balance lay between their pursuit of profits and their ethical duty to customers and other stakeholders.
There are inherent conflicts of interest in the financial services industry, which became very clear throughout a number of witness hearings. I want to talk about the toxic culture and the inherent conflict of interest that is in this place—in politics—that is very much part of the misconduct story in the financial services industry and very much part of why it took five years for Labor and the Liberals to support a royal commission. You've got mountains of money washing around in this place; you've got both Labor and Liberals taking donations from the financial services companies—millions of dollars in donations over the time period that the royal commission looked into. When we saw systemic misconduct and potential fraudulent and criminal conduct, both the big parties were taking donations. No wonder it took so long for this royal commission to happen; no wonder it took so long to get outcomes.
If we don't fix that culture of greed—that toxic culture at the heart of our democracy—how are we going to possibly fix the problems in the financial services industry? It really saddened me to hear Labor say last week that they were going to continue to take donations from the big banks and the financial services companies. If we're going to get on with the job, we need to understand and respect that lobbyists and donations, pay for play, have caused a big part of a problem that we dealt with in the royal commission and that we deal with in legislation in here. So I would like to see Labor give that money back and the Liberals give that money back. Why don't you put it into a fund for victims of financial crime? I'd like to see CEO bonuses put into a fund for victims of financial crime. We've got to travel a lot further down this road if we're going to fix the problems in the financial services— (Time expired)
Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (18:29): We've come to the end of a royal commission that the current Prime Minister and former Treasurer, Mr Morrison, voted 26 times to prevent. It's an understatement to say Mr Morrison was dragged kicking and screaming to this commission. When the former Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, folded to public pressure and announced the government would finally establish a royal commission, the then Treasurer could not have looked more despondent. He described it as a 'regrettable but necessary action' only taken because 'politics is doing damage to our banking and financial system'. Let's reflect on that a little bit more. It was politics, he asserted, doing damage to our banking and financial system. Those words haven't really aged well, have they? The evidence unearthed by the royal commission is shocking, and it has shown that the royal commission was about much more than responding to political concerns. It was about exposing serious systemic deficiencies. Even the head of the Australian Banking Association has admitted:
Suffice to say that it is in everyone's interest that we build a better banking system. And that as painful as the process has been, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
It might have been better had Mr Morrison heeded those ideas a little earlier.
It's worth contemplating exactly what it meant for Mr Morrison, as Treasurer, and all of his colleagues, to vote 26 times against the establishment of this commission. These are the things that the Prime Minister voted 26 times to hide. These are the scandals, the issues and the problems in the sector that the Prime Minister thought should never be exposed to sunlight. There were multiple institutions charging fees for providing advice to people who had died. There were the financial planners from the Commonwealth Bank subsidiary Count Financial. There were the NAB superannuation services that charged more than 4,000 dead customers. There was AMP deducting life insurance premiums from the superannuation accounts of more than 4,000 dead people. It's just shameful and, in fact, shameless.
The commission also exposed the aggressive sales culture that took advantage of vulnerable people. The commission heard a now infamous and harrowing recording of a phone call in which a young man with Down syndrome was cold-called and aggressively sold life insurance. When his father tried to cancel the policy on behalf of his son, staff belittled the family in internal messages, and one message referred to that man as a 'bloody whinger'. It was part of a culture that incentivised sales over everything else. There was evidence of luxury overseas holidays handed out as incentives to salespeople, and those incentives were at the heart of the culture of greed that drove these abhorrent and immoral behaviours.
There were the aggressive claims-handling processes by insurance companies to avoid payouts. CommInsure rejected a woman's claim for treatment for breast cancer because the surgery wasn't radical enough. Another insurer, TAL, hired a private investigator who filmed a nurse in her home and in her pool to fight her claim for income protection arising from an anxiety disorder.
The commission also heard about the irresponsible provision of credit. There were stories from people who had received credit card increases after confessing to their banks that they had a gambling problem and asking their banks to cut them off. It comes on top of the routine underestimation of customers' living and other expenses, including the use of benchmarks like the Henderson poverty index, which is in no way a way to undertake assessments in relation to responsible lending obligations.
All of these things came to light through the work of the commission. These are all the things that Mr Morrison and all of his colleagues sought to hide over and over again in their refusal to support a royal commission. What did the commissioner say about all of this behaviour? He said:
First, in almost every case, the conduct in issue was driven not only by the relevant entity's pursuit of profit but also by individuals' pursuit of gain … Providing a service to customers was relegated to second place. Sales became all important. Those who dealt with customers became sellers. And the confusion of roles extended well beyond frontline service staff. Advisers became sellers and sellers became advisers.
… … …
Rewarding misconduct is wrong. Yet incentive, bonus and commission schemes throughout the financial services industry have measured sales and profit, but not compliance with the law and proper standards … rewards have been paid, regardless of whether the sale was made, or profit derived, in accordance with law. Rewards have been paid regardless of whether the person rewarded should have done what they did.
Why did they act this way? The commissioner was very clear: because they could.
It was damning evidence and damning commentary, but the royal commission has now run its course. The evidence, the findings and the recommendations are in the public domain, and it is now the responsibility of the parliament and the government to act. The government is shirking its responsibilities. We've heard from the Manager of Government Business in the House that the issues arising from the royal commission won't be dealt with until after the election. This part-time government, barely sitting in the first half of this year, cannot make time, it appears, to deal with the recommendations in the report. The Prime Minister and his cabinet have lined up to say that the issues are very complex and they need to take the time to work through them.
Well, maybe some other government, some other government with a different track record, some other government with a different frontbench, could get away with saying this. But does any Australian, anyone out there, really think that this government and this Prime Minister really want to take their time for this purpose? Are they really taking time because they want to do the hard work and get the policy settings right? No, they don't. No-one believes anything they say when it comes to banking. They have no credibility, after spending more than a year using every trick in the book to avoid the royal commission being started. Once it did start, they continued to disparage it. They continued to say that it wasn't important. The then Treasurer, now Prime Minister, said in April last year:
Other agencies certainly have addressed many issues being raised. I think that will more directly impact on the public consciousness of these things, but they are not things that the government was not aware of.
Why didn't the government do something about it, if they knew all about it? Everything about their behaviour suggests that they just don't care. Does any Australian really believe that this government has now seen the light and is beavering away so that if it's re-elected, once the public pressure is off, it can introduce a comprehensive set of reforms? Or is it more likely that the government's delay, its refusal to schedule more parliamentary time to deal with these things, is just another attempt in a very long list to delay action?
We've seen it before when the government takes its time to get it right on financial services protections. It's been reported that the Assistant Treasurer, Mr Robert, got emotional in the other place today describing his experiences with the banks. Maybe he should spare a thought for the families whose lives have been turned upside down on his watch by the actions of unscrupulous payday lenders and consumer lease operators. For more than two years the government has been sitting on clear recommendations to amend the SACC legislation, to put in place protections for vulnerable Australians who have been charged outrageous amounts of interests by predatory lenders. It's been more than a year since the government released an exposure draft of legislation that would respond to those allegations. But it has disappeared into the moor of chaos and indifference on the other side. Nothing is being done to support these very low-income people. Nothing is being done to rein in scandalous behaviour in that sector.
The government cannot be trusted to act on financial services reform. They have not acted on the payday lenders, despite saying that they would. Is there any reason for anyone to believe that they will act on these recommendations? Why should we give them the chance? Time and time again they've been presented with an opportunity to make change and they have failed that test. In fact, one of the first things they did upon attaining power was to seek to wind back the FOFA reforms. Their first priority when coming to government was to remove protections for consumers. Every fibre of their being sees every problem in the banking sector through the perspective of the banks and the financial services sector. So many of their people are drawn from that sector that they are unable to see these things through the lens of the consumers. They cannot be trusted to act on financial services reform unless their feet are held to the fire. History repeats itself: delay on SACC; delay on response to the royal commission. Australians deserve a great deal better than what they're getting.
Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:39): I think I would agree with all senators in this place that the banking royal commission has revealed for us some terribly damning happenings in the financial services sector; things that none of us want to turn our backs on and ignore, things that do need to be addressed. This is why I find it a bit rich when senators opposite complain about the government and the time it's taking to outline its plans to respond to the recommendations of the Hayne royal commission. It's something that we've outlined quite clearly and very publicly; it's something that the opposition have not yet been able to do.
It is not often that I agree with my friend and fellow Tasmanian Senator Whish-Wilson—about as much as I agree with Senator Polley, I suppose, which is not very often either—but the point made by Senator Whish-Wilson in his contribution is something that I think Australians need to be aware of, and that is that the opposition, who talk about this historic fact of how many times a government voted against motions for a royal commission, spent two years rejecting the same calls for a similar inquiry. Now they are trying to take the moral high ground. They come in here and say, 'This government should've done it the first time we moved a motion.' What happened between the years 2013 and 2014? They are as guilty as those they point the finger at. So we're not in here to have a history lesson. We're not here to rake over the coals of history. That has been done. We've had the royal commission. We've heard the heart-rending stories. We've seen the terrible deeds that have been done to hardworking Australians, who simply wanted to get ahead and trusted the banks, the insurance providers, the superannuation funds and all the other entities involved in this inquiry. We now need to act.
Before the commission's findings had been presented to government, we had the opposition demanding that everything be released immediately, including the government's response. Yet here we are, days later, and the opposition are yet to outline a position when it comes to default superannuation funds and what they'll do for the small business operators, the mortgage brokers, who have been quite vociferous in their communication with members of this parliament about how the recommendations, if implemented, would impact on their business. I think we need to take stock of what would happen.
The point made by the opposition is that they would agree in principle to all the recommendations—which is part of what they've said; I'm not sure what that actually means. This would devastate the mortgage broking sector. The great majority of home loans provided to hardworking Australian families is, as I understand it, through mortgage brokers. You only have to think about the competition that they provide. If you go to a particular big bank, they're not going to tell you about the bank down the road and the rates they're going to offer. They're not going to tell you about the small credit union and how they might be a bit better for you. That's what a mortgage broker does. Let's not forget that these people are small businesses. There are 17,000 of them across the country, employing more than 20,000 people and providing a service which has seen a reduction in rates that banks apply to home loans in great numbers.
The opposition can rake over the coals of history, but there is an election coming up later this year and this is a group of people who say they want to be in government, who say they can be trusted to run this country. I would encourage them to provide us, to provide the Australian people, with their answer to the royal commission and its recommendations. What are they going to do? If they are going to implement everything which they agree with in principle, as they say they will, how will it impact on those who rely on the services that mortgage brokers provide? Tell us what they're going to do about the default superannuation situation. How are they going to address these things? They haven't and they won't.
In the few seconds remaining to me, I think it is important to talk about what we have done. To sit there and rake over the coals of history about how many times a motion had been voted against is one thing, but we should actually look at the facts of what has happened in this place over a period of time and what measures the government has put in place to make the financial services sector better for consumers. There was the inquiry in 2013 and the Bank Executive Accountability Regime, which started in July 2018; the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, which started last November—a free service; and $170 million in more funding to ASIC—just to name a few. Action has been taken. They can rake over the coals of history but they should stump up now and tell us exactly what they're going to do. (Time expired)
(Quorum formed)
Senator ANNING (Queensland) (18:47): As a matter of public record, the Turnbull-Morrison government fought tooth and nail on behalf of its bank cronies to prevent a royal commission into banking. The royal commission only occurred because a backbench revolt led by Senator O'Sullivan forced the government's hand. Then, when we finally got the royal commission, the government tried to turn it into a whitewash, appointing only a single commissioner, severely limiting the time allowed for it to report and, of course, greatly restricting the terms of reference. At my instigation, a motion was passed unanimously by the Senate calling on the government to extend the terms of reference to include liquidators, receivers, auditors and the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation and increase the time available for the commission, yet the government simply ignored this motion. During the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, around 6,000 victims were allowed to tell their stories to the commission. However, during the royal commission into the banks, only a tiny handful of small-business owners and farmers were allowed to testify.
In response to this, on 14 August last year I organised a meeting for farmers here at Parliament House to tell their stories. Around 150 farmers attended and put on formal record the appalling accounts of mistreatment—tales in which banks imposed millions of dollars in penalties in response to single missed payments, in which banks used the police as their private goon squad and in which one bank manager actually urged a desperate farmer to kill herself. I approached the Leader of the Government in the Senate privately and asked that the government listen to the victims and act on the motions passed by the Senate, but my request fell on deaf ears. Again today I met with bank victims here at Parliament House to discuss what we could do to get them justice.
The fact is that the royal commission has been a tragic missed opportunity. It has uncovered serious criminal misconduct by the banks, but it has also not actually recommended any criminal charges be laid. It has identified gross failings and mistreatment of borrowers, but it has not recommended any legislative response. For the thousands of desperate rural families who have lost their properties due to criminal misconduct by the banks, there is no solace in this and certainly no appropriate compensation. As things stand, the royal commission and the government have failed utterly to meet the expectations of the Australian community.
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (18:49): I rise to speak on the Morrison government's failure to act on delivering better protections for Australian consumers after it voted 26 times against establishing a banking royal commission. We now know the finance sector has fallen short of treating Australians honestly and fairly. The finance sector has made mistakes and needs to apologise for those mistakes. Mr Morrison, I ask you: where is your apology? The big banks have, one after another, admitted wrongdoing. Where is your apology to hardworking Australians who have been taken advantage of daily by those big banks? Mr Morrison, where is your apology for being so out of touch as to claim that there simply was no problem and that Labor's insight was just a populist whinge? Well, Mr Morrison, the issue is quite popular now, isn't it? The Australian people have received your response loud and clear. You chose to pass the buck, to push ownership elsewhere, anywhere but where it lies—with yourself.
'Labor was to blame' was your response. The irony is not lost on Australia. It was Labor who, for month after month, called for a banking royal commission, and it was you who fought tooth and nail against it—26 times, in fact, you voted against it. That is 26 times you denied a fair go to ordinary Australians, 26 times you failed to protect and stand up for Australians and 26 times that you—as Treasurer no less—defended what has now come to light about the 54,000 breaches of terrorism-financing and money-laundering laws. And that was just one bank. Was it not yesterday that you stood in front of the Australian people and proclaimed that the Liberals were the party of strength, that you were protecting Australia from organised crime and money laundering and that keeping Australia safe and secure was the government's top priority? That's cute, isn't it?
Why should the Australian people trust a government that had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, in the first place, to hold this royal commission? If there is one thing the banking royal commission revealed it's an issue close to my heart, the exploitation of older Australians by people in positions of trust, be they financial institutions, family, friends or carers. Revelations of irresponsible lending from the banking royal commission are a sobering reminder of the banks' failure to help protect older Australians from financial abuse, scams and fraud. These revelations are also a reminder that this incompetent government stood in the way and failed to act in the best interest of these people for years.
The pattern is clear, and we ask ourselves: what institution will fall next because of this government's neglect? I think of our aged-care sector, which has reached a crisis point under this government: '26 times too late' is the cry of the Australian people. It is now the cry of our elderly. Our aged-care system is in such a mess under this incompetent, do-nothing government that it had to call a royal commission into its own failings. That is how incompetent and inept this government is. Those opposite should be ashamed of the five years of their government's failure to protect older Australians.
Time and time again, Mr Morrison, you refused to cooperate, offering nothing but scaremongering and empty rhetoric about a so-called conspiracy aimed at undermining confidence in our financial system—$100 million in fines later, with more on the way, and I must admit that you were right, Mr Morrison. This has been quite the conspiracy. It has been the conspiracy of a government uninterested in keeping our big banks accountable and uninterested in protecting the financial interests of hardworking Australians. It has been a conspiracy embedded within neglect by this out-of-touch government and the out-of-touch attitude that has plagued it from day one. It has been a conspiracy that cares more for the profit of the government's own interests than for a fair go for the Australian people.
This government has let Australians down and is still doing it, day after day. It's time the government called an election so the Australian people can voice their opinions on how inept the government is and how it has failed them right across the board, whether we are talking about the banking royal commission or about the royal commission into the aged-care sector and its own failing— (Time expired)
Senator HUME (Victoria—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:54): I rise to speak on the matter of public importance proposed by Senator Collins, but before I do I would like to remind the chamber of a little bit of history. The Labor Party had six years in government—six years in government—in which they could have called a royal commission. In fact, so many of the incidents that Commissioner Hayne heard about when the royal commission hearings were underway in the last 12 months occurred under Labor's watch. It was in fact the current opposition leader, Mr Shorten, who was at the time the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. Despite all of this going on under his nose—despite the financial scandals of Trio, Storm and Opes Prime—not only did the Labor Party not call for a banking royal commission; in fact, they defended themselves against one. In fact, Mr Shorten, who was, I remind the chamber, at the time the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, said at the time:
Australia has some of the best banks in the world. It is partly because of our excellent regulatory system and prudent management.
That was Mr Shorten, quoted in The Australian in February 2012. So it's ironic, hypocritical and highly convenient that the Labor Party would now start wagging the finger at the coalition—the coalition who did in fact announce a royal commission into the banking sector, in November 2017. In the last 12 months we've had 68 days of hearings and heard from 130 witnesses, and more than 10,000 submissions have been accepted.
But that wasn't the beginning of the coalition's attention towards the banking sector. In fact, the moment we came to government the Financial System Inquiry was commenced. I might add: that was against the will of the Labor Party. That was in December 2013. The Murray inquiry was one of the most far-reaching inquiries into the financial sector in decades.
We also, I will remind the chamber, brought in the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, known as the BEAR, which came into effect from July last year. Once again, we brought the Labor Party along with us on these reforms, kicking and screaming.
Indeed, the pattern repeats itself again. The Australian Financial Complaints Authority, AFCA, began last year, in November. And, on top of that, additional funding of $170 million has been provided to the regulators, to ASIC and APRA, and also to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the Federal Court, so that they can effectively pursue misconduct in this sector. Additionally, the coalition appointed a new chair of ASIC and new deputy chairs of ASIC and APRA. So action had been taken well before the banking royal commission was even called.
That said, the royal commission itself was an important undertaking. Commissioner Hayne found that the financial sector misconduct had been driven by a culture of greed in the pursuit of short-term profit ahead of the interests of customers. In fact, the commissioner's own words were:
There can be no doubt that the primary responsibility for misconduct in the financial services industry lies with the entities concerned, and … their boards and senior management.
Of course, the irony now is that the Labor Party is calling for legislative change but Commissioner Hayne in fact said that more often than not the conduct that was condemned was contrary to existing laws; they simply weren't officially enforced.
Commissioner Hayne made 76 recommendations, 40 of which require legislative change. I understand the convenience of suggesting haste in making those 40 legislative changes, but those opposite know full well that making appropriate, considered, measured legislative change can't be done in an extra fortnight of sittings. Where's the stakeholder engagement? Where's the consultation process? If we don't want to risk unintended consequences that would have negative effects for consumers—that wouldn't protect consumers but would have negative effects on consumers—then these things will take a little more time. A knee-jerk reaction will do no good for anyone.
Those 76 recommendations—and the government has committed to acting on all of them—fall into four different areas: improving outcomes for consumers, enhancing the accountability of the industry, ensuring strong and effective regulators, and providing redress for those who have been most harmed by misconduct. However, the government not only has said it will take action on all 76 recommendations but has expanded the Federal Court's jurisdiction to incorporate criminal misconduct and it's also expanded the BEAR, the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, to non-prudentially regulated entities. These recommendations go above and beyond those of Commissioner Hayne.
There has been a number of consumer outcomes to do with protecting farmers and to do with advice and superannuation. But I personally think that the real interest is in the extraordinary hypocrisy that has arisen today in the accusation of the Labor Party that the coalition are not acting on those 76 recommendations. Not only have we said that we will act on all of them, and we have been quite definitive about that, but the Labor Party are yet to come out and tell us if they will. They have said they will agree in principle with the 76 recommendations; they just haven't landed on a few of them—for instance, default superannuation. Commissioner Hayne said there should be one default superannuation fund for all participants in the industry. I can understand why the Labor Party might feel a bit uncomfortable with this, because decoupling superannuation from industrial relations is a bit of a sticking point for you guys. It goes against the entire vested interests that you have within the superannuation industry—that unholy alliance between the Labor Party, the union movement and particularly the industry superannuation funds. How are you guys going to manage to propose reforms to superannuation as recommended not just by Hayne but also by the Productivity Commission to protect consumers if you have those vested interests? You cannot. You are incapable of reforming superannuation to advantage consumers over providers because of those vested interests. It's just not possible for you. Only the coalition can reform superannuation in favour of consumers over providers.
The ultimate irony is that we have legislation right in front of us today, right now, sitting on my desk, that is addressing some of the issues that Hayne specifically mentioned. For instance, we have the Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 in front of us right now and yet we have spent so much time today wasting the chamber's time, doing almost anything else other than dealing with government business that would in fact enact some of those Hayne recommendations.
My great frustration in this is that the government have been reforming the financial services sector from the first day we were elected. The financial systems inquiry started that ball rolling and we have been systematically addressing the recommendations made by the Murray review. The Treasurer has led a very comprehensive response to the royal commission in just days. In fact, it was only two days, I think, after we had the commission's report before we released the government's response. The opposition has had that report for more than twice the time that the government has had it and yet has not come out with anything even vaguely comprehensive.
Labor don't know how to reform the financial services sector. They never have been able to because of those vested interests. The Law Council made the same point just today. The government will deal with the recommendations from Hayne in a very sensible and prudent manner and, most importantly, will put customer interests first, not unions and not industry superannuation. Labor's vested interests prevent them from ever making meaningful reforms that prioritise consumers over providers.
Restoring trust in Australia's financial system is part of the coalition's plan for a stronger economy. Australians can trust the coalition and do trust the coalition when it comes to managing the economy. They do trust the coalition when it comes to managing the economy because we don't go and beat an important sector of our economy with a baseball bat senselessly, thinking that the consequences are meaningless. (Time expired)
An opposition senator interjecting —
Senator Hume: Did you just threaten—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ): Order!
Senator GEORGIOU (Western Australia) (19:04): Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: On a point of order, Senator Hume?
Senator Hume: I believe that Senator Sterle threatened to beat me over the head with a baseball bat. I don't think that's particularly parliamentary. Do you?
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If, indeed, there was an intimation that a baseball bat was going to be wielded against another senator, I would ask that to be withdrawn.
Senator Sterle: Oh, Mr Acting Deputy President, what a load of rubbish! Not even in my worst times would I think that that was funny. What a load of bulldust. I did not say it. If the senator is that deaf and thinks that, my goodness me—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Sterle!
Senator Hume interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Senator Hume.
Senator Sterle: That is crap.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Sterle, order! That's disorderly. A senator has asked for an opinion. I asked whether—
Senator Sterle interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Resume your seat. Just a moment, Senator. I asked if you'd said it and whether you'd withdraw it. We don't want a debate about it at all. You haven't made a positive contribution to it. You've said you didn't say it, and we accept that. Senator Hume, on another point of order.
Senator Hume: I would have thought from a political party that prides itself—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is this a point of order?
Senator HUME: on its respect for women that perhaps—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There's no point of order.
Senator HUME: its senators would have slightly more respect for women in the chamber not necessarily from its own side.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hume, that's a debating point which is not relevant. Resume your seat. Would you reset the clock, please, for Senator Georgiou.
Senator GEORGIOU (Western Australia) (19:06): Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. That's why nothing gets done in this chamber, because the two major parties are too busy arguing against each other. Can I reset the clock?
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Georgiou, we will reset the clock for the third time.
Senator GEORGIOU: It's taken about 10 years to uncover and expose the dirt, lies and misconduct committed by many of our banks. We were all shocked to hear of the fraudulent money-laundering schemes, charges against dead people and a host of other irregularities, not to mention the losses our farmers and primary producers suffered at the hands of the banks. In the wake of the royal commission, 24 cases have been referred for possible civil and criminal prosecution. While the government voted 26 times against a royal commission happening, it seems the bankers and the executives have got off scot-free. Perhaps the government knew the result, hence they voted the way they did 26 times, but that doesn't make it right. Then again, what did Labor do prior to the 2013 election when it was still in power? The Labor Party had chances to call for a commission but instead sat on its hands, and now it wants to play the righteous card.
I put motion after motion calling for a royal commission in this chamber, only to be ignored by both major parties. Meanwhile, scores of Australians and many businesses have been annihilated and lost millions of dollars. What's even more alarming now is we have the mortgage brokers coming under fire for simply trying to do their jobs and get people into the housing market. The royal commission came out swinging and, as a result, has knocked the head off the mortgage-broking industry. Meanwhile, the bankers have been given a slap on the wrist and their share prices have increased.
Both sides of politics have chosen self-preservation, influenced by big donations by the big four and political pointscoring instead of protecting Australians who have been financially affected by the banks. Both sides of politics spruik their ideology, but when the time comes to put their philosophy into practice they are all hot air. One Nation, on the other hand, has been standing up for farmers and consumers who have been shafted by the banks since day dot. Shame on you all. You can't fool the Australian people, and we will show this come the May election.
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (19:09): I rise to contribute to this debate. Now the politics start. Let me give you a bit of a history lesson. Of course I called for a royal commission many years ago when I got involved with Storm Financial and many other things. But what's happened since then? I'll tell you what's happened. I met with whistleblower Jeff Morris, who will be here tomorrow for my final speech. We got working on the Commonwealth financial planning and worked with Adele Ferguson. It all became public and so on it went.
At Senate estimates one night I said to Peter Kell, the Deputy Commissioner of ASIC, 'Mr Kell, why did it take 16 months for you to react to the whistleblowers when they got in touch with you?' He said, 'We got a great result, Senator Williams—we had an enforceable undertaking'. I asked the question again. Mr Kell did not answer the question. I turned to the then chair, Senator Mark Bishop. I said, 'Chair, how do we get these people to answer a question?' He said, 'I can't direct them how to answer the question.' Luckily, Senator Cameron's staffer was watching. The staffer said to Senator Cameron, 'Dougie, they're belting Wacka up, you better help him.' Senator Cameron came into the Senate estimates—I'll repeat this tomorrow in my valedictory speech—and said, 'Mr Kell, don't give me the run around the mulberry bush like you gave Senator Williams, I warn you.' After that little display of Senator Cameron's front-foot activities, he walked out and said to me, 'Wacka, we should have an inquiry into ASIC.' I said, 'Good point, Dougie'.
We drew up the terms of reference. All the chamber agreed with it. We had an inquiry into ASIC and how it did its job. At the end of the inquiry, a great job chaired by Mark Bishop, the then Labor senator from Western Australia—and a decent bloke, I might add—we recommended a royal commission. Who opposed it? Labor opposed it. The government opposed it. I imagine some of the crossbenchers opposed it. When the motion was put forward by Senator Whish-Wilson of the Greens to have a royal commission, I crossed the floor and sat with the Greens. I remember saying to Senator Di Natale, 'When I join the Greens I will become leader—you watch me and see how I go.' I got a giggle back. Senator Dastyari was sitting over there. He voted against a royal commission. That's where the big force came from—that committee. That's where it was driven from. It was a couple of years later that Labor finally supported it. What really brought the royal commission on, it's all about numbers in here and the other place. We always knew that the royal commission would pass a vote in the Senate, but it would not pass in the House. That is until two MPs, The Nationals' George Christensen and Llew O'Brien, went out public and said, 'If it comes to the House, we will vote for it.' So the numbers were in the House because of the National Party members Llew O'Brien and George Christensen there—make no mistake about that. The banks realised that the numbers were there in both houses to pass a royal commission. They wrote to the government and said, 'Bring it on.' The rest is history.
When we drew up the terms of reference—I commend my colleague Senator Barry O'Sullivan for this—we included superannuation in the terms of reference. If Labor had drawn up the terms of reference, I would have been very surprised if they had included superannuation, because they would want to cover the industry super funds and their friends there. What did the royal commission tell us? It told us that there are a lot of bad doings and wrongdoings and bad behaviour in the superannuation funds, especially the retail funds.
The royal commission has done a great job. The media have done a great job highlighting the wrongdoings. I commend the bank leadership now for saying that they know it's wrong and they have to fix it. That is exactly how it will be. But the question is, for how long? How long will the right activities be carried out? We don't know. In 10 or 15 years we will have different board members in the banks, and life insurance companies like AMP will have different CEOs. Will it still be right then? We've had numerous inquiries: the Martin inquiry, the Murray inquiry, numerous parliamentary inquiries and now the royal commission. The situation of people before profit must be embedded.
There's a new code of conduct coming out on 1 July in the banking industry. It's voluntary. You don't have to join; but if you join, you must abide by it. I think we should lock in a mandatory code of conduct in the finance industry to see that good behaviour and respect carries on not for five or 10 years, but for 50 or 100. It's disappointing to see the banks' reputation being trashed. When I was a young fellow the bank manager was the most respected bloke in the town. There were no women bank managers in those days; they seemed to be all blokes. Thankfully, it has changed now, and they are giving women a much fairer go in the senior positions. But we need to make it last. I commend the government for taking it on. I commend my colleagues Llew O'Brien and George Christensen from the other place, the MPs. They gave the numbers. I commend the banks for asking for it. I don't think they realised how much they were throwing themselves under the bus. Now it's done. AFCA's in place. Let's get the wrongs righted. Let's cement it in for decades to come. That's the big issue: how long will it last? I hope it lasts for generations and generations. I hope that faith is restored in the banking industry, because we need banks. We need good, strong banks. We have good, strong banks. We need them to behave properly with many of the other institutions as well.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ): Thank you, Senator Williams. The time for the discussion has expired.
DOCUMENTS
Consideration
The following documents were considered:
Documents tabled earlier today (see entry no. 2) were considered as follows:
Motion to take note of documents nos 2, 4, 5, 12 to 14, 16, 18, 19, 24, 26, 30, 33, 35, 38 to 41, 46, 47, 49, 50, 65, 67 and 68 moved by Senator Ketter. Consideration to resume on Thursday at general business.
Motion to take note of document no. 8 moved by Senator Rice. Consideration to resume on Thursday at general business.
COMMITTEES
Select Committee on Electric Vehicles
Report
Senator STORER (South Australia) (19:17): As chair of the Select Committee on Electric Vehicles, it's my great pleasure to report to the Senate on the outcome of this important inquiry, and I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
The seven-month inquiry held five public hearings, received 137 submissions and heard from 85 witnesses. It produced a consensus report, which was tabled on 30 January. It included 17 recommendations designed to help accelerate Australia's EV uptake and take advantage of the substantial opportunities the EV transformation presents.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank everyone who contributed to the inquiry, including all of those who provided submissions, appeared as witnesses and hosted the committee on site visits. Special thanks to my fellow senators and our staff, and to our secretariat, led by Ann Palmer, who worked tirelessly to deliver this report.
With the right leadership, Australia can truly capitalise on the global EV transformation, delivering benefits to the economy, the environment, motorists and public health. As a first step, I call on the government to move swiftly to implement the consensus recommendations of this inquiry agreed to by senators from the coalition, ALP and Australian Greens. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Corporations and Financial Services Committee
Report
Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (19:19): I move:
That the Senate take note of Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services report Options for greater involvement by private sector lifeinsurers in worker rehabilitation.
In the very short time that remains, I indicate that the report was tabled today by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. I just indicate that I know the insurance industry is meeting with friends of the insurance industry here in the parliament right now, and insurance is very important. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ) (19:20): Order! It being 7.20 pm, I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Ovarian Cancer
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (19:20): I rise this evening to speak in support of Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. This year, the theme is 'It's time for ovary action'—a clever play on words. You can make what you want of its meaning, but one thing is clear: we need action, 'ovary action', because too many women are dying from ovarian cancer. Each day, four Australian women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer and three will die. It's time for all Australians to be able to identify ovarian cancer and to take 'ovary action' so we can change the statistics for future generations.
When it comes to women's health, and ovarian cancer more specifically, there is no such thing as an overreaction—or, should I say, an 'ovary action'! When it comes to the signs and symptoms of ovarian cancer, we need to know the signs, symptoms and risk factors and we need to talk about them. We also need to educate ourselves on the risk factors of ovarian cancer, because some of us are more susceptible to the disease. There is no early detection test for ovarian cancer, so the best way of detecting the disease is to know and recognise the signs and symptoms. This is what will save lives. The symptoms of ovarian cancer are often dismissed as common discomfort that women experience regularly, but we need to listen to our bodies and take these symptoms seriously. Pushing them to the side or being told by GPs, or anyone else, for that matter, that we are overreacting has to stop.
It is not okay that women like Sue visit the GP an average of three times before being properly diagnosed. Sue knew something was wrong when she started to feel bloated all the time. She just couldn't work out why. She lived with this discomfort for two months before finally going to see a doctor. The doctor told her to give up wheat, milk and alcohol, but nothing seemed to work. She lived with the discomfort, as I said, and eventually went back to her doctor, who told her she had a blockage. She was so unwell that she couldn't get upstairs to her bedroom. Fed up, Sue's daughter booked her in to see a different doctor, who sent her straight to hospital to have fluid drained from her abdomen, and they confirmed that it was stage 3 ovarian cancer. It's also not okay that a woman like Lauren, who was so bloated she looked like she was about six months pregnant, was told by three different doctors that she had irritable bowel syndrome. Lauren specifically told her first doctor she was worried it was ovarian cancer, but the doctor said it was probably IBS and delayed the diagnosis. One night the abdominal pain got so bad she was rushed into hospital, where they found tumours. Lauren went on to be diagnosed with stage 2 ovarian cancer. She ended up having two lots of surgery, chemotherapy and blood transfusions and, sadly, Lauren is no longer with us.
Stories like these frustrate and anger me. We need better awareness and education in the community—and this includes in medical circles. Better education amongst our GPs and specialists is absolutely crucial to survival. When it comes to a diagnosis, every minute is vital because, if ovarian cancer is found in its early stages, women have an 80 per cent chance of being alive and well after five years.
I implore my fellow Australians to not let another Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month go by without 'ovary action'. Let's 'ovary act' by learning the signs and symptoms and having conversations and learning about any family history of ovarian cancer. Talking about it to other women empowers women. Let's encourage women to talk about their family history and health history and have those conversations with their doctors. But the only way we're going to save lives is for women to pursue a second opinion if they're not satisfied with what their local doctor tells them. We have to have these conversations.
I want to thank all at Ovarian Cancer Australia for all the wonderful work that's done by our researchers, who are working hard to learn more about ovarian cancer and how to treat it. Cancers like ovarian cancer, which are often diagnosed at a later stage, are the ones that we need to be funding more. We need to change the statistics around ovarian cancer, and it is the continuing responsibility of this government and future governments to provide more funding to support this research so that we can change these awful statistics.
Shark Bay
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (19:25): This summer we've had a very strong focus on some of the climate extremes our country is facing. Also over the last couple of weeks, due to family circumstances, I've been giving a lot of thought to the future of our planet and the future of this country. The extremes that we've been facing this summer bring into stark reality the impacts of climate change. Over the summer we've had heat extremes. We've broken record after record. At one stage, we had the 15 hottest places on the planet. We've had those tragic floods and we've had fires in Tasmania, where we've lost not only properties but also irreplaceable ecosystems.
We continue to see, of course, the devastation that mismanagement and climate change are having on the Murray-Darling Basin. We've seen the impacts of climate change and coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. We've seen the reports of species being driven to extinction in the Wet Tropics, the reports of the impact of climate change on species in the Northern Territory, and, over the last couple of days, the reports of the impact of climate change on the Shark Bay region in Western Australia. That is an absolute tragedy.
Shark Bay is a World Heritage area in Western Australia. It was created in 1991, and I'm proud to say that I was a key part of the campaign to get Shark Bay listed on the World Heritage List. I was also a member of the Shark Bay World Heritage Advisory Committee for many years. It's about 830 kilometres north of Perth, and, for those who don't know it, I would highly recommend that you visit Shark Bay. Unfortunately, the news is not good, so I'd suggest you do it fairly quickly unless we see dramatic action on climate change. It is an absolute tragedy that nearly 30 years later we have not seen the action on climate change that we need. We continue to see this government in denial. We continue to see the hands out taking big donations from the miners and from the big developers that refuse to acknowledge that climate change is having an impact.
For those who don't know Shark Bay, it is one of a handful of World Heritage properties around the world that meet all four natural criteria for listing. It has spectacular natural landscapes—it's described as 'superlative'. It is an example of exceptional beauty, which is one of the criteria for natural listing. It is an example representing the major stages of the earth's history, and I will come back to that in a minute. And it has significant ongoing ecological and biological processes and important and significant natural habitats for conservation of biodiversity.
World Heritage listing was absolutely deserved for Shark Bay. But the impacts of climate change, which is predominantly affecting the marine environment in Shark Bay, saw a marine heatwave in 2011 which wiped out 36 per cent of the seagrasses. The seagrasses are an absolutely key part of the World Heritage listing and an absolutely key part of the ecosystems. Those seagrasses were irreplaceable. Because Shark Bay is at the boundary of the southern and northern extreme of the ecosystems, it has systems that are found nowhere else—that are irreplaceable. It also means that the seagrasses are living at the edge of their extremes. So any increase in temperature is going to start wiping those out, which is what we've seen.
The problem here is that enough research money is not being put in to look at these impacts. There are about 115 projects funded for the Great Barrier Reef, which is great, but only nine for Shark Bay. Not only do we need to act absolutely urgently on greenhouse emissions and on climate change but we need to invest very heavily in saving the Shark Bay World Heritage area. It is a tragedy that that area is under such threat.
Government
Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (19:30): We have to get government under control. Government is a result of politicians with no principles, public servants whose first principle is to look after their own careers and a legacy of policies and programs introduced long ago for reasons no-one remembers. We have to start asking, 'Why does government do that?' and, 'Can't that be done by people using their own money?'
My frustration at restrictions on our ability just to live our lives and make our own decisions without being harassed by governments supposed to serve us is what motivated me to get into politics. I definitely didn't do it for fun or to make money. If we were free to go about our business and make our own decisions, paying for these decisions from our own pockets, we'd be better off, both individually and collectively. Individually, we'd be masters of our own futures, and, collectively, we'd form communities of choice rather than forced association.
Most of us could look after our own health care, education and child care in a way that we individually prefer, not the way the government dictates. There would be more money in our pockets, greater respect for privacy and more time to spend with loved ones. There would also be more money to look after the genuinely unfortunate—those who actually do need a hand up rather than those who demand, and too often are given, a handout.
What concerns me is that younger Australians won't even have the freedom I had to establish a business or to pursue their dreams more broadly. Maddening bureaucracy makes it difficult to focus on your craft and your customers. Punitive workplace regulations make it difficult to hire staff. Crippling taxes make you question whether it's all worth it. And the option of a cushy Public Service job, or even welfare, further reduces your motivation.
With the government providing more and more of our needs, even though we need government less and less, given widespread economic growth and prosperity, younger Australians are being left with the heavy debt my generation has placed on them. We've been borrowing to spend rather than invest. This has been going on under Labor and Liberal governments alike; there is hardly any difference between the two.
The Liberal Democrats' mantra of personal responsibility and living within our means reflects the interests of all Australians: the Indigenous and the migrants, the black and white, the latte sipping and the beer chugging. None of us is served by a fawning monster of a government, and with government out of the way much of the antagonism between different groups in Australian society can fall away. I don't mind what the guy next door is doing because I'm not paying for it. My government doesn't need to ban what they're doing, and they don't need to ban what I'm doing.
The Liberal Democrats will keep fighting for the good, because the alternative is selling out your principles, as the major parties did long ago. It's clearly a recipe for disastrous government and voter contempt. To those voters who continue to vote for a major party: please wake up and start using your votes smartly. Government can't be fixed by those who broke it; it can only be fixed by outsiders with a coherent vision of a better way. We can do so much better, not through more government but through less.
Australian Public Service
Senator STORER (South Australia) (19:35): An efficient, professional and well-resourced public service is at the heart of a healthy democracy. Without it, people cannot get the services they expect and deserve, and respect for the political process is likely to decline, as is respect for democracy itself. For these reasons, I believe in the value of a well-functioning and well-resourced public service.
How can we solve the many challenges we face as a nation if we do not have the right people working in the public interest to identify policy solutions and programs to address those challenges? I am particularly concerned about the loss of corporate knowledge and the quality of services to the public associated with outsourcing. Between 2013 and 2017 Public Service staffing was cut by more than 14,000, with the government insisting that the level return to, and not exceed, the level of 2006-07. The irony is that this has not necessarily saved money. Over the same period, spending on external consultants has risen from a shade under $400 million to close to $700 million. Nor has it necessarily improved the quality or delivery of services. For example, there were problems with the 2016 census which undermined public confidence in this essential policy-making tool. The data it contains is critical in the development of the widest range of decisions affecting all Australians, from the provision of roads, schools and hospitals to the priorities for budget planning as the age profile of the Australian population changes. Who can forget the cost to the government's reputation of the robo-debt saga, Centrelink's automated debt recovery scheme, and the stress it caused some benefit recipients when it mismatched their employment and payment records? Public servants skilled and experienced in managing benefits would have identified inconsistencies within the computerised system. Targeted recipients would have suffered less anguish, the costs would have been lower and the government would not have suffered all the bad publicity—grief would have been avoided all around. For similar reasons, and to protect our national security, I am opposed to the privatisation of our visa services.
I will do whatever I can to fight these measures. They are short-sighted and reduce the expertise of the Public Service. They have eroded the quality of service Australians have come to expect and in real terms have done little or nothing to reduce the cost to the taxpayer.
Petrie Electorate
Senator KETTER (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (19:37): I rise tonight to update the Senate on Labor's activities in my duty electorate of Petrie, with special emphasis on the issue of aged care. Aged care will be a key battleground in the next federal election. We know that the coalition is scrambling to put money back into the aged-care sector after having cut $1.2 billion from it when Mr Morrison was Treasurer. We know that there are 127,000 Australians on the waiting list for home care. We know that there are dozens of reviews that have been ignored by the government and that Mr Morrison is now hiding behind the royal commission. In contrast, Labor continues to listen to the aged-care community. We're committed to improving our aged-care system, and we can stand proud on our record, having delivered the $3.7 billion Living Longer Living Better reforms when we were last in government.
So Labor is out talking to the community. I give particular respect to Corinne Mulholland, who is Labor's candidate in the seat of Petrie. She has taken it upon herself to listen to members of the aged-care community. Together we've been going to a number of aged-care facilities over the last number of months. We went to the OPEL North Lakes facility—thanks to operations manager, Andrew, there for hosting us. We went to Seasons Aged Care Mango Hill—thanks to Kelly, Rosemary and the team there for organising the activity, which included a lovely morning tea. We were pleased to give a donation to the Foodbank fundraising drive on the day. We went also to Lodges on George. There was a very informative tour of the facility, and I look forward to visiting that facility again in the future to tour their newest wing.
It's always very good to meet with residents, family and friends during these visits and to answer their questions about the parliamentary process and the Senate. We have some very lively discussions during the course of our episodes there. I look forward to visiting many other aged-care facilities and retirement facilities across my duty electorates in coming months. I'm really looking forward to hosting the shadow assistant minister for ageing and my friend, Senator Helen Polley, to meet with our candidate, Corinne Mulholland, and local seniors in the Petrie electorate next month.
There are other campaign activities which we're involved with in the Petrie electorate. It's important to note that the campaign office for Petrie was launched on 27 January. So many supporters from the community and branch members came along to witness that event. Many House of Representatives and Senate colleagues also attended the launch of the campaign office. We had doorknocking in Fitzgibbon with a community barbecue on Sunday and Stirling Hinchliffe, one of the local state members, was in attendance. Coming up, we have the Griffin twilight community barbecue this Sunday afternoon at Peppercorn Street Park in Griffin. It is important to note that shadow finance minister, Jim Chalmers, will be joining Corinne Mulholland and me for a banking forum on 23 February at the Bracken Ridge Tavern. I look forward to members of the community coming along there to hear from the shadow minister about the royal commission and the ramifications of it.
Our fantastic candidate Corinne Mulholland is out doorknocking every day in the Petrie electorate, talking to locals about school funding. She is talking about the fact that Labor will deliver $23.3 million more for Petrie schools than the Liberals over the next three years. In the area of health, Corinne has announced that we will restore the Liberals' cuts to health funding and deliver new MRI licences for Redcliff Hospital and the Prince Charles Hospital at Chermside.
On infrastructure, we're talking about the fact that it was Labor that delivered the Moreton Bay rail line. We'll build on that by delivering the Cross River Rail and delivering the Linkfield Road overpass at Bald Hills and by expanding the Mango Hill train station park and rides. It is clear that while Liberals play catch-up, copying Labor's commitments in Petrie, I'm proud to be supporting Corinne Mulholland, one of the hardest workers I know.
Australia Day Honours
Senator HUME (Victoria—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (19:43): I rise this evening to offer my most sincere and heartfelt congratulations to this year's Australia Day Honours recipients. Those recognised by these honours are Australians from all across our great nation who have selflessly dedicated their time in pursuit of a better Australia. Coming from all walks of life, they are exemplary in leadership, commitment and resolve—three virtues animating the Australian spirit. These Australians have taken to heart the words of the old proverb which exalts us to be the change that we want to see in the world.
As all members of this chamber well know, I am an immensely proud Victorian and, as is the case year-in, year-out, Victorians are once again very well represented in this round of Australia Day Honours. I wish to wholeheartedly congratulate Victorian recipients of the recognitions of their achievement. Each and every one is so richly deserved. More specifically, I'd like to single out my congratulations and thank the following Victorian recipients who have so significantly contributed to and strengthened the fabric of our society. To the recipients of the Medal of the Order of Australia, or the OAM, in the general division, my sincere congratulations go to Mr Robert Bath of Ballarat for his service to the community of Ballarat through arts, sport and education; Mr Colin Campbell of Rutherglen for his service to the wine-making industry for more than 25 years; Mrs Carmel Clemson of Gisborne for her multifaceted service to the community of the Macedon Ranges; Mr Ian Glanville of Bendigo for service to the print and broadcast media and also to the community of Bendigo; Mrs Jean Hamilton of Longwood for service to the community of Longwood for more than 40 years; the Reverend Father Edward Harte of Bendigo for service to the Catholic Church of Australian and the wider Victorian community; Mrs Margaret Lonsdale of Keilore East for service to the sport of dance in Australia and the representation of our nation in the sport; Mrs Marilyn McQualter of Whittlesea for her service to the community of Whittlesea through her continued volunteerism; Mr John Mildren of Ballarat for his service to the Parliament of Australia and also to the community of Ballarat; Mr John Mitchell of Corryong for his service to the community as a philanthropist and also to the health sector; Ms Susan Natoli of Box Hill for her service to the sport of canoeing and to youth; Mr Graeme Pearce of Mandurang for his service to the community, particularly through the CFA; Mrs Margaret Saker of Benalla for her service to the community of Narooma; Mr Peter Stokie of Bright for his service to the conservation of the Victorian malleefowl; Mr John Taylor of Myrtleford for his service to the Myrtleford community through education and also history; Mr Walter Van Nieuwkuyk of Burwood for his service to the performing arts; Mr Russell Walker of Gisborne for his service to the community of Victoria more broadly in a number of quite varied roles; and Ms Frances Walsh of Rutherglen for her service to local government and the community of the Indigo shire.
I also have a couple of particular friends that I would like to mention—personal friends—including Ms Patricia Vejby, Trish, for her service to her local community. Trish has held a number of board positions, including Commissioner to the board of the Legal Aid Commission of Victoria and Director of the Royal Victorian Association of Honorary Justices board. She's very proudly from the western suburbs of Melbourne and has made an extraordinary contribution to Victorian public life. Trish, thank you very much for your extraordinary work. I'd also like to recognise a very good friend of mine, Ms Felicity Frederico, for service to her local community. I've known Felicity for the better part of a decade now and through that time she's been a passionate advocate for women's sport, particularly women's football. She was the mayor of Bayside Council and, while she was there, she launched a program called the Grass Ceiling campaign to address the lack of female change rooms within the municipality's sporting facilities. This resulted in a series of redevelopments through the Bayside Council's sport clubs to provide women's change rooms. Felicity truly has been a tireless advocate of female participation in sport. She's been effective even in motivating me to be more active, which is no small feat. She got me into stand-up paddleboarding, something I will never forgive her for! I assure you, Mr Acting Deputy President McGrath, it is, in fact, a real sport. Nonetheless, I'd like to congratulate Felicity and all the OAM recipients. Congratulations again to all of these recipients.
I also want to congratulate those that have been awarded membership of the Order of Australia for their outstanding and selfless public service. To the recipients of the Member of the Order of Australia, or the AM, in the general division—there are too many to name all of them individually, but I want to make mention of just a very special few. They are the Hon. William Robert Baxter of Rutherglen for his significant service to the people of the Parliament of Victoria; Ms Mary Therese Draper of Alphington for her significant service to community health as a consumer advocate through her contributions to delivery standards as well as governance; Adjunct Professor Ian Maxwell Dunn of North Fitzroy for his significant services to the law, legal standards, education and specialist accreditation, and as a practitioner in the areas of negotiation and dispute resolution; Dr Gillian Margaret Gale of Box Hill North for her significant service as an educator to children who are blind or have low vision; Mr Gary William Morgan AFSM of Alfredton for his significant service to the community through emergency response organisations; the Hon. Professor Howard Tomaz Nathan QC of Bendigo for his significant service to the law and to the judiciary through the Supreme Court of Victoria; Mr John Wilson Payne of Surrey Hills for significant service to art conservation and restoration as a leading practitioner, scholar, teacher and mentor; and Professor David George Wood of Tawonga for his significant service to chemical engineering as a researcher, mentor and academic. Congratulations to all those AM recipients.
I would now like to recognise Professor Caroline Finch of Soldiers Hill. On this Australia Day, Professor Finch was welcomed as an Officer, AO, of the General Division of the Order of Australia. Professor Finch was recognised for her distinguished service to sports medicine, particularly in the area of injury prevention, as an educator, researcher and author and for her promotion of improved health in athletes and all those who exercise.
I would also like to extend my warmest, personal congratulations to those awarded the Companionship of the Order of Australia, General Division. This is an extraordinary honour, recognising our most outstanding citizens and the extraordinary work they do. Professor Rhys Jones of Blackburn North received the award for eminent services to mechanical and aerospace engineering. Professor Jones has been the head of the Royal Australian Air Force at the Centre of Expertise in Structural Mechanics for more than 22 years. Professor David William Kissane of Surrey Hills received the award for his eminent services to psychiatry. Professor Kissane has been a leader and trailblazer in the palliative medicine sector in Australia and served as foundation chair for palliative medicine while also holding the position of director of palliative care at the Centre for Palliative Care at St Vincent's Hospital in Melbourne.
I would also like to acknowledge and congratulate those most recent recipients of military crosses, medals and commendations, many of whom cannot be publicly named due to their ongoing operational commitments.
There is, finally, one more person who I would like to mention, and that is Mr Stuart Wood QC. I have known Stuart a very, very long time—since we were at university. He received an AM this year for significant service to the legal profession, particularly in the area of industrial relations. Stuart is one of this country's leading workplace relations QCs. He is gifted with an extraordinarily fine legal mind and a terrific sense of humour to boot. I have known Stuart for such a long time. He was slightly more successful in his classes at university than was I. Stuart, congratulations on your award. It is much deserved.
There are two special times of the year in which the government and the community can express our sincere gratitude to those exemplary citizens who represent the very, very best of the Australian spirit. It is an absolute honour to be able to stand here this evening to name and honour these dedicated and conscientious Victorians. I thank the chamber for its indulgence.
Murray-Darling Basin
Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (19:52): Just a few weeks ago, I was out at Menindee to see firsthand the Murray-Darling Basin in ecosystem collapse. The Darling River, the Barka, is dying. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan isn't working and the government tells us: 'Everything is fine. Nothing to see here.' I saw stagnant rivers, cracked, dry earth and locals red hot with anger at the federal government and the New South Wales Liberal-National government for their role in the slow death of the Murray-Darling Basin.
This is an urgent and a national crisis. State and federal governments have used and abused the system and turned a blind eye to blatant water theft and greed. The New South Wales government, especially, sides with the big corporate irrigators against the community, against their drinking water, against the environment and against river health. It is a case of profit over people. It is a case of profit over the environment. We know of the gross maladministration, the corruption, the negligence and the unlawful actions that have occurred. This has been confirmed by the recent South Australian royal commission.
Bret Walker SC severely criticised the plan for its lack of consideration of climate change. The report highlighted the particular lack of commitment to the plan from the Victorian and New South Wales governments. We also know of the water theft, the overallocation and the tampering with meters. Once again, politics, shamefully, wins over science.
As always, it is the community, the environment and the animals that bear the cost of corrupt public policy. We have seen well over a million fish dead in multiple fish kills. Locals told me about seeing dead goannas, dead birds and dead kangaroos around the riverbanks. They told me about the threats and intimidation from vested interests when they speak out. That's why we in here must speak out for the people and the planet. I spoke with Aboriginal elder Uncle Badger Bates about the Barka, its cultural importance to Aboriginal people and how they have watched the river slowly peter away, not just over the last few years but over the last few decades.
We know that climate change is biting. We are in the middle of a climate emergency and things will only get worse. Every minute we stay silent is a minute lost acting on climate change and protecting our precious water. You lot definitely need a big lesson in science. As a water engineer, I know that healthy river systems only function when they're allowed to have significant environmental flows. The system has been denied that for years by rules that privilege big corporations and operators over the environment and the community. For years this river system has been used and abused for profit. At every meeting I went to in Menindee, there were a few very clear asks—in particular, for return flows from upstream, to establish a royal commission to get to the bottom of this disaster and to criminally prosecute the politicians that are responsible for this.
We need to overhaul the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, put the environment at the centre and ensure that any future modelling is done in the context of climate change. The impending collapse of the basin, comprised of 77,000 kilometres of rivers, is of utmost importance and it is critical that we act now. We cannot hope to protect our mighty Murray-Darling system if we don't address the elephant in the room: dangerous climate change. That will mean more and more severe droughts and heatwaves. That means prioritising the environment and the people. Climate change is pushing us closer and closer to the edge. Natural disasters like bushfires, extreme heat events, drought, flooding and ecological failure of our rivers are becoming more and more common. How much more disaster, loss of life and environmental catastrophe will it take for this government and this parliament to take real action on climate change? Why can't politicians see what the community clearly sees? Why are politicians so wilfully ignorant of the need for urgent and rapid action to save our planet?
Even when they do recognise the need to act on climate change, they refuse to acknowledge 'king coal' as the biggest single source of carbon dioxide emissions from human activity. Both the Labor and Liberal parties are addicted to coal—or perhaps, more correctly, they are addicted to the corporate donations from the fossil fuel industries. Over the last three years, Liberals, Nationals and Labor have taken almost $3.7 million of dirty money from fossil fuel companies. That influences their judgements and their decisions. How else can you explain the Labor shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, coming out and saying there will be no Adani ban on his watch? Alex Turnbull, the son of ex-Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has revealed the sickening influence of coal barons on Liberal Party policy. Contrast this to Germany, the fourth-largest economy in the world, which is going to phase out all coal power by 2038.
We see you for what you are: a bunch of cowards who are happier to see our country burn than to take on vested interests that stymie real climate action. How can you not see that our ecosystem is in crisis, from the disastrous fish kills in far-west New South Wales, to Tasmania burning in devastating and unprecedented fires, to Townsville being hit by 1.4 metres of rain in less than two weeks—around double what falls in London in a whole year—which led to massive floods? Every day you delay action on climate change, you're contributing to making Australia less safe.
It's no surprise, though, that we don't have policy on climate change and quitting coal. Corporate donors are buying policy outcomes that suit their bottom line because they know both the Labor and Liberal parties are up for sale. We need the Greens in the Senate because this is a disease that affects both the Labor and Liberal parties. They remain beholden to mining giants, property developers, the gambling industry and the big banks. Whether it's a meeting here or a dinner there, whether it's a slight adjustment to some legislation or just an extra few years of a loophole being left open, these are the small corruptions that rot the entire system. The Greens will hold both parties to account and make sure it is the interests of the community that are heard in parliament, not big corporate interests. We will clean up politics of corporate donations and stop the revolving door of politicians and lobbyists. We will lift the fog that shrouds the halls of power. I'm proud to be part of the Greens New South Wales. We are a party funded and wholly directed by members and community, entirely free from the influence of business interests.
For me, though, having integrity in politics goes far further than refusing to take corporate donations or to let lobbyists write your legislation, though both of those things are crucial. Being a politician of integrity involves being in this place for the right reasons. I'm a career engineer, not a career politician. I'm here for public service, not to wait for a pension or a plush board appointment when I retire, and I think our politics would be better if more people took that view. I've sat in parliament and watched career politicians pass bills written by lobbyists. I've sat in committees and watched MPs ignore expert advice and evidence because it doesn't match up with what their donors are telling them. I've sat in inquiries where witnesses have begged the major parties to listen to common sense and act in the interests of the people. But the interests of the people didn't match the interests of the developers, so the developers won out. If we are to have a parliament of integrity then we must have a parliament that can't be bought. The Greens cannot be bought, and we will never sell out the community.
Hillier, Mr Gavin Maxwell
Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (20:01): I rise tonight to honour Gavin Hillier, a courageous unionist, a fiercely loyal Labor man and a flamboyant Elvis fan. I convey my sadness and deepest condolences to his relatives and friends.
Gavin Hillier was a colleague and a comrade. He was a roof tiler from the country who, when working at Laminex Customwood in Wagga Wagga, got involved in his union because he thought he could do a better job of representing its members. He went on to lead the Australian Timber Workers Union in New South Wales and its successor, the Forestry and Furnishing Products Division of the CFMEU. In this position he played a pivotal role in the forestry disputes of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Gavin was tough, brave, constructive, influential and effective. A person of extraordinary ability with an outsized personality to match, he would later work as an organiser in the New South Wales branch of the AWU.
Gavin Hillier attributed his unionism to his father, also a loyal unionist but later left high and dry by the union he had fought for and done the job for. Whilst this broke his father, Gavin's response was to very quickly get involved and help him out. This demonstrates two elements that were to mark Gavin's later career in our movement: he recognised that union leaders had to make tough decisions but that they must always act in the interests of members. It also showed that his instinctive response was to lead from the front, taking personal responsibility when things needed to be done.
Gavin joined the Australian Timber Workers Union in the early 1980s. It was reported by The Sydney Morning Herald that he found the union executive was not interested in the members' welfare and he decided to correct this by becoming active within the union. When he became secretary of the New South Wales branch of the ATWU in February 1987, he replaced Joe Weir, who had held the position for 45 years. This union later merged to form part of the CFMEU in the early 1990s, and around this time I moved to New South Wales from South Australia and joined the union as an industrial officer. These were formative times, and I was fortunate to have Gavin as a colleague and comrade. The closeness of our connection and the impact he made upon me are reflected in my words here tonight.
When Gavin took over, timber workers were poorly represented and underpaid and had to work in unsanitary conditions. Working in a sawmill is dangerous, with many fatal accidents each year. Gavin set about fixing these wrongs with zeal, often relishing the disputes with employers along the way. In his first three years as a union leader, Gavin shook the sawdust of decades from the union's structures and more than doubled its membership. It was for these people that he fought the hardest. He got the biggest real wage improvement for timber workers in Australian history. He achieved wage improvements of 18 per cent in real terms during his time as secretary, and then he added superannuation to them.
Gavin's involvement with the timber workers and later the CFMEU led to heightened activism within the New South Wales timber industry. He had the courage to recognise that the union could not keep operating the way it had and he took on a huge internal fight about the restructuring of the timber industry that was to last over a decade. He also made clear he would rather try to make alliances with conservationists than the employers, but he also recognised that he needed their buy-in too if the industry were to survive.
The challenges of leading the Timber Workers Union at a time of significant change, not in the forestry sector but across the Australian economy, were not ones that Gavin shied from. Too many leaders tell people what they want to hear and few have the courage to speak hard truths. Gavin had such courage. On one occasion he had to go to Eden on the south coast of New South Wales, and he insisted on going alone. Sawmilling of timber was an important industry for most of the life of the town, and for over 100 years the collection and export of wattle bark was also a major industry. At the time, he had to sell the changes to the timber industry to understandably hostile members. I remember him calling me and speaking to me about being spat on and screamed at as he walked down the main street—a journey he took by himself deliberately. He was jeered and heckled in a fiery meeting attended by timber workers and their supporters, including their families, all encouraged by the employer. These were not easy times. The decisions he made, the leadership he provided helped to sustain an industry that might otherwise have been wiped out. And today the major export handled by the Port of Eden is still wood chips.
Gavin Hillier's career was defined by his representation of the union during the forestry debate of the 1990s. He was one of the primary negotiators of the package, in partnership with then Labor leader and later Premier, Bob Carr, and Kim Yeadon, who became the land and water conservation minister in Carr's government. Having worked with Gavin at the union, I then saw this policy debate from the political side as an adviser to Mr Yeadon in the mid-1990s.
Gavin had previously been burned by government decisions that were not accompanied by consultation, and had also disagreed with Labor in state opposition and federal government. Famously, he and many others once organised a picket of the whole of Parliament House while Labor was in government, and I was on that picket line as a union official representing our members. Gavin also received support from the ACTU secretary, Bill Kelty, who spoke lovingly at his funeral. Bill Kelty described the agreement that Gavin engaged in as a matter of enormous achievement and was very clear about his praise of Gavin's role in this.
Logging of native forests, then as now, was contested and controversial, and the conflict, then as now, was not only around environmental policy; it was about the livelihood and way of life of timber communities. Gavin Hillier recognised that the reliance on native forest was becoming unsustainable politically, economically and environmentally, and his objective was to carve out a better path for his members and their families. His vision was for an industry that could move to higher-value jobs in soft wood, plantation and downstream processing, and lessen its reliance on native forests. He saw this path delivering better jobs, higher pay and more security than the annual political fight over timber quotas could deliver, and for this he was prepared to agree to a more rigorous process of forest assessment.
The package he was part of negotiating phased out logging of old-growth forests and provided millions of dollars for the retraining and relocation of workers. It increased plantation timber whilst delivering industry support for value-added production. Native forests were protected with the creation of 24 new national parks, and a rigorous system of forest assessment towards creating a comprehensive and representative reserve system was entered into. To enable industry reform and restructure, measures including reducing timber quotas by 50 per cent were implemented, but they were made tradeable and they were extended to terms of five years. What did this do? This provided certainty. It provided certainty to industry and ensured that timber could go to the highest-value users. It was a complete package: new national parks, ending old-growth logging, reducing timber quotas and supporting workers and rigorous forest assessment.
Yet I recall members of the Greens political party still calling us 'tree killers', which demonstrated to me very clearly that purity and virtue signalling, for that political party, came first. Gavin Hillier contributed more for forest conservation in New South Wales than the many politicians and environmentalists who preen publicly, and to do so he had to show personal courage. And it was a reform delivered in his conviction that it was the right thing for his members.
Gavin passed away in December of last year. His funeral was held in Wagga Wagga just prior to Christmas. The music of Elvis Presley, another of his great loves, was heavily featured. I deeply regretted that I wasn't able to attend the funeral, but I'm grateful to those who have been in contact in recent weeks as we have spoken about Gavin Hillier. I particularly want to acknowledge Mary Stuart, and also the words of Bill Kelty. In his eulogy, Mr Kelty described Gavin as: 'A very significant character in the Australian industrial landscape. Simply put, Gavin Hillier is actually one of the bravest, toughest and most effective union leaders I have ever worked with. He was certainly one of the most unusual—he certainly was the most unusual. Of that there is no doubt. And he was loving, caring and committed.'
Bill Kelty is rightly recognised as one of Australia's most significant, consequential and respected trade union leaders—one of the most respected in our history. That he would speak at Gavin's funeral and give such a stirring tribute speaks volumes about the respect and the regard in which Gavin was held. So we mourn Gavin Hillier's passing, but we remember his courage, toughness and leadership. But perhaps most of all we remember his heart—loving, kind, brave. He has been described as friend, mentor and hero and, as Bill Kelty said, his spirit will never die. I again express my condolences to his family and his many comrades.
Members of Parliament: Conduct
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (20:11): I rise tonight to share my disappointment at another case of serious sexual harassment by a current senator that is currently under investigation—a married senator. This same senator has also forced the Australian taxpayer to pay out other previous unfair dismissal cases during his term. Each of those people has been gagged from speaking publicly about their experience, and I respect the decision they have made to accept those terms and remain silent. But what is disappointing is that this parliament has allowed the horrible treatment of staff to continue without this senator being forced to go through some form of training to prevent the poor treatment of his employees. I'm not talking about one or two staff: I'm talking about more than six in this term of parliament. And I blame this parliament for allowing the gag orders to leave this vulnerable woman exposed to the treatment she's gone through. This gutless wonder we call senator should tonight hang his head in shame.
I expect the behaviour of all elected members to be honourable. What senators in this place need to understand is that our staff are no different to us. Just because you wear the red pin doesn't give you permission to place your unwanted hands or lips on your staff.
International Year of Indigenous Languages
Senator MOORE (Queensland) (20:12): 2019 has been determined as the International Year of Indigenous Languages. This gives us an opportunity both here and across the world to celebrate and engage in conversations about Indigenous languages and the fact that 90 per cent of Indigenous languages around the world are considered endangered. It's through language that we communicate with the world, define our identity, express our history and our culture, learn, defend our human rights and participate in all aspects of society. Through language people preserve their community's history, customs and traditions, memory, unique modes of thinking, meaning and expression. They also use it to construct their futures. Language is pivotal and essential in the areas of human rights protection and good governance, peace building, reconciliation and sustainable development. All of these are key to the 2030 agenda. Our focus this year is in terms of Indigenous languages, but it fits into this continuing conversation across the world about our culture, our unity and our future.
A person's right to use his or her chosen language is a prerequisite for freedom of thought, opinion and expression, access to education and information, employment, building inclusive societies and the values that we've enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Many of us take it for granted that we can conduct our lives in our home languages without any constraints or prejudice. But this is simply not the case for everyone.
Of the almost 7,000 existing languages across the world, the majority have been created and spoken by indigenous peoples, who represent the greater part of the world's cultural diversity. Yet it's been identified that many of these languages are disappearing at an alarming rate, as the communities speaking them are confronted with forced assimilation, enforced relocation, educational disadvantage, poverty, illiteracy, migration and other forms of discrimination and human rights violations. This is certainly true in our own country, where we have an opportunity this year, with great support, to celebrate Indigenous languages. In Australia, we know that our history has been cruel to First Nations languages. In fact, the research that has been done indicates that the danger to Indigenous languages continues to be very severe in our nation. The elders, who have been the protectors of the language, need to have our absolute support so that we can protect the beauty, the integrity and the future of Indigenous languages in Australia.
AIATSIS, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, has been maintaining Aboriginal language documentation since 1964. It's clearly a national leader in the collection, documentation, preservation, research and essential revival of Australian Indigenous languages. There are surveys done to look at what's happening with Indigenous languages in Australia. There's a wonderful quote that is being celebrated this year as part of International Year of Indigenous Languages, by Brooke Joy, a descendant of the Boandik people from the Mount Gambier region in South Australia. Her comment about her own language was:
Strong cultural identity enables one to feel proud of themselves, and speaking and maintaining one's language raises self-esteem and enables one to feel good about themselves. Traditional language is important for maintaining strong cultural connections. Where traditional languages have been taken away from communities, a sense of loss, grief and inadequacy develops. To keep communities and generations strong, traditional language being passed from one generation to another is vital.
One of the absolute joys that I've had since I've been in this place is my work on the National Library Council—that absolute treasure of our nation which exists three blocks away from Parliament House. In this International Year of Indigenous Languages, the National Library is working closely with AIATSIS to examine issues around Indigenous languages in our nation. The first official event for the year's celebrations is the launch of a wonderful book, Ngana Ngai, or Who am I? I apologise, in using a native language, that I probably have just destroyed the pronunciation of the name of this wonderful book, but I had the chance to look at the book last week. It's an engaging paperback book for young children and it's being published this month to celebrate the year. The book introduces young readers both to native animals and the concept of Indigenous language, in this case the Kaurna language from South Australia. Through this book, everybody—not just children but everybody—has the opportunity to learn the words for animals such as parrot, wombat, kangaroo, cockatoo and echidna and discover a simple fact about each animal. Excitingly, Australian Standing Orders Scholastic, a book distributor to the education sector, has purchased 1,000 copies of the book, which means it will be distributed to schools throughout the country as well as being sold in bookshops across Australia and New Zealand. It is an essential element of the celebrations of our year that we engage with children so that they can learn about the beauty of Australian First Nations languages and also feel confident and proud to use these languages and, as Brooke said, understand the value of culture.
Throughout the year, there will be many exhibitions, and many activities and calendars of events will be put up across the country. The Department of Communications and the Arts is the relevant department which is organising this. Also, we have very active engagement at the national level and internationally. People may know that recently the wonderful Cook and the Pacific exhibit closed at the National Library. One of the core elements of that exhibit was looking at native languages. As Cook travelled around the Pacific, he and the other people onboard ship took amazing records and actually kept records of Pacific languages as they were moving around. These treasures were available when people went to see the exhibit at the National Library.
The closing event of the Cook and the Pacific exhibition marked the commencement of the Year of Indigenous Languages. Last weekend, Language Keepers: Preserving Indigenous Languages was a forum which focused on the word lists recorded on Cook's three Pacific voyages. These have become invaluable sources for historians and First Nations people. Over the weekend, experts in Australia and the Pacific discussed how the revitalisation of Indigenous languages is supporting practice and healing, and also focused clearly on the role of libraries and archives to support language restoration.
We have opportunities through this year to learn, to enjoy, to celebrate. We are part not just of this opportunity in Australia but also of the international discussions. As I said, the loss of the native languages across our country has meant the loss of identity. The library also has plans for improving access to the existing language collections through the year, particularly through digitisation and consultation and by working closely with AIATSIS to ensure that people across this nation will be able to preserve and understand original product written in First Nations language by talking to elders, talking with people who research in this area to maintain the exquisite and quite wonderful tonal native elements of First Nations language. This is an important time for all of us. I think we need to learn, we need to engage in this process and we need to understand that, working together, we can preserve language and then, through that, preserve culture.
China
Senator BURSTON (New South Wales) (20:21): I seek leave to table three documents to better inform the Senate on matters I wish to bring to the Senate's and nation's attention.
Leave not granted.
Senator BURSTON: Australia in recent times has experienced disturbing developments in the threats to the nation's security and to its political and economic independence. Our very democracy is challenged by Chinese state owned government companies that are systematically targeting every sector of our society for their own national interest and using unlimited funds to buy their way into Australian society. The Chinese communist government is in the process of taking over our culture. Nearly every one of the Chinese departments at our universities is funded by the communist government of China. If we follow the money, scholarships, research projects, student and lecture exchanges will all be used to ensure that the Australian view and the view given to the Australian government reflects the view of the Chinese government and what it is in its best interests, not ours.
Some courses at Sydney University are majority attended by Chinese nationals. The great learning assets of our nation have, in essence, been handed over to another power so they are no longer available to Australian students to the extent they used to be. Sydney University conducts graduation ceremonies in Beijing, awarding degrees and postgraduate degrees that in earlier times would have been awarded to Australian citizens. Money has been used as an effective tool to suppress our national conscience and deprive our children of their heritage. Even Event Cinemas over Christmas had 50 per cent or more of movies other than children's movies made in China with English subtitles.
The attack on our Australian way of life is deliberate and well-coordinated and well-funded by the Chinese government, a government that has no respect for our democratic institutions, including this parliament, or the sovereignty of the Australian people. We have seen the communist government of China thumb its nose at the International Court of Justice and continue to expand and militarise the South China Sea. Justice to the government of China means doing what you're told and doing what China wants. Indeed, every member of this parliament has at one time or another been subject to lobbying by individuals paid and recruited by the Chinese government controlled companies in Australia to do their bidding.
Millions of Chinese citizens suffer and do not enjoy the basic freedoms we enjoy in Australia, because of the repressive and undemocratic practices of the communist government of China. China should not have those principles, and members of the Australian parliament should not do the bidding of a foreign power. Last year in this place we saw how a Labor member of parliament was having his expenses paid by Chinese government owned companies and how that senator was quick to support Chinese government expansion in the South China Sea. Likewise, a Liberal minister was quick to endorse a Chinese company's takeover of Darwin Port and then accept a job paying over $800,000 a year as an executive of that company. Thirty pieces of silver is all that it takes to buy Australian sovereignty. In my home state of New South Wales, Chinese interests have now acquired rights to the Port of Newcastle.
I must warn all Australians of the serious threat they face to their sovereignty and freedom by the failure of our elected leaders to protect and defend our nation. I am particularly concerned about the Western Australian Labor government and Liberal opposition teaming up—in particular, their increasing camaraderie with Chinese state owned enterprises that seek control of Australian property and critical infrastructure. Make no mistake: this is a matter of national security and alarming for all Australians.
Recently we've seen Western Australian Labor MP and upper house whip, Pierre Yang, being forced to resign from organisations affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party. These Chinese communist government organisations are dedicated to extending Chinese communist government influence in Australia and supporting the establishment of Chinese government military bases in the South China Sea. Mr Yang also spent several months on a Chinese government ship searching for the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370. Was this a vessel spying on the Australian military? I ask that because it spent little time in the actual search zone.
China's relentless pursuit of Australian politicians is worrying for anyone who values our nation's democratic freedom and sovereignty. It was reported in The Australian that Mr Yang's political mentor, Edward Zhang, is a member of several Chinese based organisations that are run by the Chinese Communist Party. Western Australian Labor Premier Mark McGowan and the Liberal Party opposition leader in the Western Australian state parliament recently attended a gala dinner hosted by Mr Zhang. Both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party have received large donations from Chinese government associates in the past.
Labor Premier McGowan, at the instigation of Mr Yang, recently visited China in Mr Yang's company to meet members of the Chinese government. Following the Premier's meeting with the Chinese government, Labor Premier McGowan announced in state parliament that he was prepared to change state legislation which guaranteed Australian company Mineralogy rights in the Pilbara to, in essence, favour China's biggest conglomerate, the Chinese government owned CITIC Limited. Such a move would result, if legal, in the Chinese government's subsidiaries controlling the $5 billion port facility at Cape Preston in the Pilbara which has been established on Mineralogy leases.
Further, despite the existence of an airstrip at Karratha, which is used by BHP, Woodside Energy and other mining companies, Chinese government owned companies, under a cloak of secrecy, have built an international-standard airstrip capable of landing jets. This is part of China's strategy to control all approaches by land, sea and air to the port at Cape Preston. Chinese government control of Australian ports and airports is a matter of national security for all Australians. No Australian could control a port in China or build a private airport in China capable of landing and operating fighter jets and bombers. Even Pig Iron Bob Menzies would not have allowed the Japanese to establish a naval base and airport on the Australian mainland prior to World War II.
The Western Australian Labor government is favouring Chinese government interests over the rights of Australians and Australian national security. Either Western Australian Labor Premier McGowan is so naive that he is blind to the stealth of their approach or he is too weak to challenge them and stand up for Australia. The United Australia Party will, after the next federal election, in this place move to establish a Senate committee to inquire into the role played by Chinese government owned companies in our economy that threaten Australia's security.
In August 2018, the Australian government disqualified Chinese owned tech giant Huawei from taking part in the rollout of 5G mobile infrastructure due to growing national security concerns. Soon afterwards, our government blocked the $13 billion sale of Australian owned energy company APA to Cheung Kong Infrastructure, or CKI. APA owns a $20 billion 15-kilometre-pipeline network which delivers natural gas to 1.3 million Australian homes and businesses. The sale would have given CKI and another Chinese state owned company ownership of 100 per cent of gas transmission pipelines in New South Wales and the ACT, 99 per cent in Victoria, 86 per cent in South Australia, 78 per cent in Queensland, 74 per cent in the Northern Territory and 65 per cent in Western Australia. The sale was blocked because it was contrary to the national interest. Why, then, is it deemed acceptable to allow Chinese government owned corporations to control major infrastructure and exert an unhealthy influence over an Australian state government and Australian politicians? The government's role should be to protect the Australian people and put Australia first. Anything less is an act of treason. The Anzacs put Australia first. It's time this parliament does.
Tasmania: Bushfires
Climate Change
Senator SINGH (Tasmania) (20:30): Once again, bushfires have plagued Tasmania for the start of 2019. It is not something that Tasmanians are unfamiliar with. We suffered terrible losses around Lake Mackenzie in the Tasmanian central plateau in 2016 and the destruction of the fishing town of Dunalley in 2013 and, of course, so many Tasmanians, including my parents, remember the 1967 bushfires that plagued the state, killing 64 people and destroying whole towns. But this January, 2019, was Australia's hottest month since records began. It was Tasmania's driest January ever. The Tasmania Fire Service has stated that fuel loads were 20 per cent to 30 per cent drier than average. Tasmania's maximum temperatures were much more than three degrees above the long-term average for the month. So, of course, the fires came, and they haven't stopped. Already they've burnt some three per cent of Tasmania's forests, with the Central Highlands and the Huon Valley suffering extensive devastation.
It is a climate change tragedy, a tragedy that has, despite the outstanding work of firefighters from Tasmania, the mainland and our neighbours across in New Zealand and even with the help of water bombers from overseas, removed a horrifying amount of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area off the map. We have lost homes, businesses and tens of thousands of hectares of alpine vegetation. The flames were scorching the edge of the largest remaining forest of thousand-year-old King Billy pines in the world. We have lost key wilderness tourist attractions, like the iconic Tahune AirWalk in Geeveston. I have fond memories of visiting the Tahune AirWalk—the treetops of it—with my children when they were young. Everyone loved this incredible wilderness attraction of feeling like you were almost on top of the world, walking amongst the trees. But now the incredible photos taken by Matthew Newton of the ash debris after the wildfires just show how devastating they've been through Tahune and elsewhere. The owner of the Tahune AirWalk, Ken Stronach, reflected, though, that we do have now an opportunity to re-create this attraction and give it a rebirth as the forest slowly regenerates over the years ahead. I do hope the air walk will take us into the sky again to join with Australia's tallest tree, which, I'm glad to report, was protected from the bushfires burning in the Huon Valley. At 100 metres tall, the centurion tree, a Eucalyptus regnans and the world's tallest flowering plant, is near the Tahune AirWalk, but the Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service and the Tasmania Fire Service were able to protect this globally significant tree that lives in Tasmania.
As the fires burnt southern parts of the state, I was walking the iconic Three Capes Track—48 kilometres of cliff-hugging wilderness in the Tasmanian peninsula which is just one per cent of Tasmania's land area but has one-third of Tasmania's flora. What an incredible place our island home is, and what an amazing walk. From the melaleucas to the moorlands, to the Cape Pillar she-oaks and sea cliffs and views of past lives with the lighthouse on Tasman Island, from the Blade to the fairytale rainforests, then back on the coastal cliffs with Cathedral Rock, the Monument, Hippolyte Rocks and the Totem Pole, and all the Tasmanian plant species and wildlife in between. But as I walked along the cliffs, I could see and I could smell the smoke drifting all the way to New Zealand from fires 100 kilometres or more away. In fact, it was reported that New Zealand firefighters were called to attend a fire near Milford Sound due to thick smoke in the area, only for the crew to discover that there was no fire to be put out. Indeed, the smoke was coming from Tasmania.
Within this tragedy, though, heroes have emerged. Heroes like Geeveston pharmacist, Ian Magill, who stayed, despite the emergency warning for his town, to ensure that other residents in the town had access to urgent medical support; like firefighters and volunteers and those that travelled from interstate and overseas to help protect lives and property; like local Tasmanian volunteer firefighter Tom Andrews, who missed Christmas, missed his son's first birthday and even missed his wedding anniversary. Local ABC Radio was a vital source of information, and journalists routinely went into the heart of the action to keep us informed and provide life-saving warnings to local residents.
But if the experts are to be listened to, this extreme heat is a sign of things to come. December 2018 was the warmest on record. There were heatwaves in every state and territory according to the Bureau of Meteorology, who have warned that temperatures are set to rise further in years ahead as a result of climate change. Climate scientists from the University of Tasmania have warned that dry lightning strikes, like the ones that started some 60 fires across Tasmania in mid-January, including the fires that I've already talked about, will increase in frequency because climate change and the hot, dry conditions that turn Tasmania into a tinderbox will become more common. Tasmanian author Richard Flanagan said:
Tasmania's world heritage area was our Great Barrier Reef, and, like the Great Barrier Reef, it seemed doomed by climate change.
Flanagan points out:
Climate change isn't just happening. It's happening far quicker than has been predicted. Each careful scientific prediction is rapidly overtaken by the horror of profound natural changes that seem to be accelerating, with old predictions routinely outdone by the worsening reality—hotter, colder, wetter, drier, windier, wilder, and ever more destructive.
Tasmania's iconic leatherwood honey industry has been destroyed as part of this as well. Even before the fires, these unprecedented temperatures had already dried the flowers of Tasmania's native leatherwood trees, unique to our island and found only in the cold and remote wilderness currently ablaze in the Gell River, Tahune and West Coast fires. The hives have now been burnt, and in the sad words of Tasmanian Beekeepers Association Vice-President, Peter Norris:
Leatherwood doesn't handle fire, it takes a couple of hundred years to come back.
… … …
We're never going to see it recover—once it's gone, it's gone.
Meeting the challenge of future wildfire in Tasmania is a matter not just for our state, but also for this place. Australia already experiences severe problems with wildfire, coastal and river management, and flooding and drought, and yet we're only at the beginning of runaway climate change. The 2018 Red Cross World Disasters Report ranked Australia 10th in the world for the cost of damage caused by disasters between 2008 and 2017, with a disaster damage bill of $38 billion. The damage these more-regular extreme-weather events keep delivering will demand money and time to rebuild, while also devastating productivity as higher average temperatures and lower rainfall smash our agricultural production.
Everyone knows that there needs to be action and that action should have should have started years ago—but we really need it now. That's why we do need bipartisan action from federal and state politicians to try and meet or mitigate this threat. Everyone knows that Labor is committed to cutting our carbon pollution by 45 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030 and to reaching net zero emissions by 2050. But at this moment in time it is important to recognise how communities have come together in times of crisis, as we have seen in Tasmania, and the resilience of communities. I thank every remote area firefighter who kept fighting those fires beyond exhaustion in conditions beyond imagination; every volunteer firefighter who worked day in and day out on the front line and behind fire fronts to help and protect Tasmanian communities; and every person in those communities impacted by the firestorm who have faced this disaster with courage and resilience.
Private Health Insurance
Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (20:41): I rise today to comment on the government's response, tabled outside of sittings last December, to the report Value and affordability of private health insurance and out-of-pocket medical costs. First, it has taken a full year for the government to respond to this very important inquiry. This is surprising when you note that the report was supported by the majority of committee members, that there were no dissenting reports and that governments senators only provided additional comments to the report.
Inquiries and their resultant recommendations are undertaken to inform the parliament, and particularly the government, when there is a breakdown in service provision or delivery, or a need to improve regulations or legislation for the betterment of the community. It is our duty as elected members of parliament to pay attention to their findings and to act on them where appropriate. Reports are not meant to gather dust in a minister's office or to be brushed off with a simple 'The government notes these recommendations,' which, as we all know, usually means no further action will be taken unless there is pressure to do so. This government's response to these recommendations is very much in the 'brushed off' category, despite the government's initial work to reform private health and its embryonic effects on fee transparency.
Before I refer to some of their responses, it's important to note that, as a policy area, both parties over recent years have done very little to rein in the ever increasing costs of private health. Private health insurance premiums have increased by an average of 5.35 per cent since 2000, more than twice the rate of CPI and almost double that of wage growth. Government spin claims that in the past two years premium increases have been the lowest in a decade. I accept that claim on face value, but point out that the increases are still more than double that of inflation and wage growth. In other words, government has, through regulated increases, actually sanctioned increasing the cost burden of private health insurance on ordinary Australians. No wonder so many Australians are dropping out. The level of downgraded cover and dropout numbers is the highest we've seen in a decade, and this has occurred at a time when many insurers enjoy record profit margins, some with returns on equity that are more than double those of the banks. One of the largest insurers, Bupa, is even on the ATO list as a significant risk for tax evasion from transfer pricing. What does that tell us? It tells us that, irrespective of what we are told, private health insurance for some is a licence to print money. The opposition also has failed to grasp the opportunity for significant reform. Its approach—to cap premium growth to two per cent a year—will only lead to insurers closing unprofitable policies and further drops in the level of cover. Nothing good will come from their cost reduction method either.
The inquiry heard from insurers, hospitals, clinicians, patients, community groups and the Department of Health. It found glaring problems with anticompetitive behaviour by the large health funds with respect to individual providers. It found many private hospitals enjoy record net operating margins of 10 per cent or more. And it found that there had been no effort from either the government or the opposition to bring the private hospital system under the watchful eye of the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority.
The inquiry also heard that 70 per cent of costs associated with private health are spent on private hospitals, with doctors and prosthesis costs each representing just 15 per cent. The health minister's response to this report failed to make even a single statement regarding improving the efficiency of private hospitals. Private hospitals have enjoyed record profit margins, with Ramsay Health Care, the largest operator, having increased its share price 25 times over the last two decades—what a stellar record, very much at the expense of the privately-insured public. Day surgery, which is the largest growth area for private hospitals, has net operating margins—just think about this—of 20 per cent. Yet the government has chosen not to accept the recommendations of the inquiry that private hospitals and day surgeries should also be included in the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority's analysis of hospital pricing. What is the government frightened of? What is the opposition frightened of? Upsetting donors or future employers or future consultancy opportunities? It does make you wonder, when no action is being taken against the category that represents the biggest costs yet the highest profits.
Now, to some of the specific recommendations. Recommendations 2 and 3 of the report relate to transparency, requiring private health insurers to publish rebates by policy and item number, and for the Department of Health to publish medical practitioner fees in a searchable database. Transparency was very much a key outcome of the inquiry and this is an area that I am focused on more broadly. Improving transparency of medical costs, practitioner performance and health outcomes is ambitious yet vital. It is potentially the biggest game-changer for consumers. When it comes to fees and gaps, consumers are confused and find it difficult to determine benefit levels in an easy, understandable way. Medical practitioner fees vary substantially and are often not fully known until a patient receives their bill. Late last year the government received recommendations from the ministerial advisory committee on out-of-pocket costs, which was tasked with modelling ways to make out-of-pocket costs transparent for consumers. However, it has yet to publish these recommendations, much less act on them. The government has dodged the issue of publicly publishing policy benefit rates by using commercial-in-confidence excuses—what a cop out. The PHI funds are backed by $6.3 billion in taxpayer-funded rebates. There should be no excuses for failing to clearly state what rebate is paid for each item number and outed on a publicly searchable website.
Recommendation 4 of the report relates to auditing the much-trumpeted reduction in the prosthesis list cost to ensure savings have indeed been passed on to consumers. The government's response is that it supports this in principle, but there is no pathway or commitment at this stage to on act it. Recommendation 11 covers paediatric dentistry. The committee heard from paediatric dentists about the issues associated with providing dental care in hospitals for children requiring anaesthesia and sedation. The government states this is a strictly private commercial arrangement and has lost sight of the fact that this is a failed market, where all the power is on the side of the insurers.
Recommendation 12 seeks to prohibit the practice of differential rebates for the same treatment—that is, where a consumer is paid a different rebate according to where they live or where their procedure was undertaken. This is despite the fact that they pay the same premium as everybody else and that the same insurance product is what they have taken. The government states:
Consumers are free to choose a private health insurance policy that pays a set benefit regardless of provider, and many insurers offer such products.
What it ignores is the fact that there is no one location for consumers to discover what insurers offer.
Recommendation 17 was mirrored in the dissenting report by government senators. It relates to a reasonable period of notice for policy changes. By rejecting this recommendation, the government has chosen to leave consumers at the mercy of insurers, who can change their policy and coverage with as little as 60 days notice, leaving consumers who have commenced or have planned to commence treatment floundering. This is a poor position for consumers, and one I and the committee would have thought would not have been strongly supported by government.
All-up, out of the 19 recommendations, government agreed to just five, or a little over a quarter. It outright rejected a further five and noted a further nine, which likely means no action will be taken on them. This was a very important inquiry, and I sincerely implore this government or the next to review and reconsider the recommendations which have been noted or rejected, to ensure the public receives the best possible, most affordable and most transparent private health care possible.
Neville, Mr Paul Christopher
Senator STOKER (Queensland) (20:51): I was sad to hear of the passing of former Nationals MP Paul Neville at the start of this year. Mr Neville was one of the greats—a true gentleman with a wicked sense of humour. Neville entered parliament in 1993, the member for Hinkler. He was appointed Nationals Whip in 1998. He would go on to be one of Australia's longest-serving party whips and one of the longest-serving parliamentarians in the Wide Bay region, leaving on his own terms when he decided not to recontest election in 2013.
Some of Neville's greatest achievements were in the area of media and telecommunications. He was passionate about maintaining diversity in regional media content and in ownership. He fought to ensure continued access to vital communications services in rural and regional areas throughout his parliamentary career. In 1999, he was the first person to mention in parliament the tiny rural town of Ubobo, which was fighting Telstra's decision to remove its one and only payphone. This small story hit national headlines—a symbol, Neville said, of a growing problem right around Australia of stripping essential services from regional areas. In the end, Neville and Ubobo won, and they got to keep their phone box. He won a lot of battles in that same humble, grassroots, local way.
Neville was very close to his electorate and he knew the fishing and sugarcane industries inside out. He would always listen to what the electorate had to say, whether it was about a little phone box in Ubobo or larger transport or health issues, and he would always bring people's concerns right to his colleagues. He was known as one of the greatest contributors to debate in the party room. His Nationals colleague and good friend Ron Boswell shared an anecdote with me that I think encapsulates this quality of Neville's. Back during the Howard government, Treasury proposed to reduce the required maturation point of Bundaberg Rum. You see, the longer rum was left to mature in the keg, the less the Treasury could collect in excise, so they wanted to get it out sooner rather than later. Neville led the charge to stop this money grab. He was outraged. He asked then Treasurer Peter Costello how on earth, as a fellow member of parliament, he could possibly contemplate opposing the most iconic thing to come from his electorate. Ultimately, Costello agreed, and the vote was shelved.
The former member for Wide Bay, Warren Truss, tells another story, of the time Neville stepped off a plane in Bundaberg. Everyone around him started spontaneously clapping. He looked around, wondering who it was for. It was his constituents applauding him for standing up to his then party leader at the time and refusing to support a bill that he knew his electorate wouldn't stand for. And that really speaks to the core of Neville's character: a parliamentarian who always put the wishes of local people first and expected no special treatment for it.
It would be remiss to talk about Neville and not mention his skills as a raconteur. He was famous for it and always had a funny story to tell. If you ever need to get a good sense of Neville's humour and a good laugh for yourself, have a read of the story he tells in his valedictory speech about his chat with an RAAF officer and their discussion on how airmen handle fatigue.
Vale, Paul Neville. Your passion, your kindness and your jokes will be remembered by all of us for many years to come, though we know you'll be sorely missed by Margaret and the rest of your family and, I suspect, the people of Hinkler.
Murray-Darling Basin
Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (20:55): I would like to take this opportunity to speak about the Murray-Darling Basin—a subject of vital importance to South Australia and Australia generally. By way of introduction, I want to recall a cautionary tale from my state's history. Melrose is the oldest town in South Australia's Flinders Ranges. If you drive a bit north of the town, on the edge of the barren Willochra Plain, you can find a monument commemorating Goyder's Line of 1865.
For those who don't know the story, in 1865 South Australian Surveyor General, George Goyder, was asked by the South Australian government to map the boundary between districts suitable for agriculture and those prone to drought. After travelling some 3,200 kilometres on horseback, Goyder produced a report and a map with a line of demarcation between the northern areas he judged liable to drought and suitable only for grazing and areas to the south suitable for wheat and other crops. Goyder's approach was carefully scientific, including close observations of changes in vegetation, especially the prevalence of various types of saltbush.
On the basis of Goyder's line, the South Australian government initially discouraged agricultural settlement in the state's north. However, a few good seasons of rain fuelled political pressure to open new areas for settlement and farmers were allowed to move north, planting wheat in anticipation of more good seasons. Early crops were good, but a few years later the rain reverted to its normal pattern. Severe drought forced the abandonment of hundreds of farms. Farmers and their families faced great hardship and were forced to retreat, leaving ruins scattered across the Willochra Plain and elsewhere in South Australia's north.
The story of Goyder's Line has been told to successive generations of South Australian school students as a lesson about the realities of climate change and the dangers of pushing the environmental envelope in the hope of profit. More than 150 years after Goyder drew his line, Royal Commissioner Bret Walker has delivered another salutary warning about Australia's environment and the dangers of narrow commercial interest prevailing over environmental realities. Over more than 700 pages of his report, Commissioner Walker has drawn up a scathing indictment of maladministration, unlawful action and political interference in the management of the water resources of the Murray-Darling Basin.
The royal commissioner found that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan has ignored the potentially catastrophic risk of climate change. Good science has been pushed aside by narrow self-interests, both political and economic. The royal commissioner has condemned the so-called triple bottom line approach through which the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and basin governments have weighed economic and social factors to radically reduce water recovery for the environment. Not only has this process lacked transparent scientific foundation; it is at odds with the Commonwealth Water Act 2007, which requires that the basin's water resources be managed in the national interest and, among other things, protect, restore and provide for the Murray-Darling ecosystem. I emphasise the word 'restore' because, when this parliament passed the Water Act, it legislated that the Murray-Darling system had to be restored, not merely maintained in an environmentally degraded status quo. Commissioner Walker has recommended a complete overhaul of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Large-scale water buybacks and a consequent reduction in irrigation, especially in the northern basin, are essential to restoring the river system. Of course, during the summer we've all seen the appalling fish kills on the lower Darling River.
Against a background of obvious environmental crisis, a crisis in which communities have been unable to access safe drinking water, one might have thought the royal commissioner's report would receive a positive response or at least trigger constructive debate about water management reform. Regrettably, the New South Wales and Queensland governments have effectively rejected the report and its recommendations out of hand. The Australian government appears indifferent, while the South Australian government's response has been low key to the point of timidity. We have a merry-go-round of blame shifting, taking the Murray-Darling Basin absolutely nowhere.
In these circumstances it is, regrettably, necessary to open debate on other, unpalatable measures to protect and restore the environmental health of the Murray-Darling. In this, the role of cotton cannot be ignored. The overwhelming majority, 98 per cent, of cotton is grown in the Murray-Darling Basin, with some 90 per cent exported, mainly to China and India. This is a large and successful industry but one that imposes a major drain on the—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Leyonhjelm ): Order! Senator, the time for your contribution has expired.
Senator PATRICK: Mr Acting Deputy President, I was down for ten minutes, not five. We're in the 10-minute session.
Senator Carol Brown: The clock wasn't restarted.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It wasn't reset.
Senator Ruston: We get the gist of what you're saying. It's okay.
Senator PATRICK: Thank you, Minister, for your assistance here. Do you mind if I continue?
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Carry on, Senator Patrick.
Senator PATRICK: This is a large and successful industry but one that imposes a major drain on the resources of the Murray-Darling Basin. I could go through the Australian Bureau of Statistics' figures on water use, but I will just state that, on average, cotton takes more than 20 per cent of the irrigation allocation in the Murray-Darling Basin. Noting that cotton is a water-intensive crop, we are effectively exporting 20 per cent of our river, something that makes no sense for the driest inhabited continent on the planet. The royal commissioner does not single out cotton—
Senator Ruston: No, but you do.
Senator PATRICK: I do so, Minister, on the basis that you can't cherrypick; you can't simply take one part of the royal commissioner's recommendations and say, 'That's what he said.' You have to look at the document in its entire context. Please—we can't cherrypick.
In the absence of following the royal commissioner's recommendations, or any other national or state commitments to implementing the commissioner's recommendations, that's precisely what we must do. Restoring the environmental health of our rivers, guaranteeing water security and food production, must be our national priority, not cotton exports. Consequently, Centre Alliance has moved to introduce legislation to ban cotton. Our aim is to open critical debate on the future of the cotton industry in the Murray-Darling Basin. Unsurprisingly, our initiative has been greeted with outrage. Long-serving Cotton Australia Chief Executive, Adam Kay, declared we are engaged in a dangerous and outrageous political attack. National Party politicians in New South Wales and Queensland denounced what they claim to be a South Australian assault on cotton producers. The list of critics includes the federal Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, David Littleproud; the New South Wales Minister for Primary Industries, Niall Blair; and the New South Wales MPs Mark Coulton, Austin Evans and Scot MacDonald. All this is unsurprising. They are, after all, lobbyists for the cotton industry.
Faced with an export ban, some cotton farmers would shift production to other irrigated crops. Overall, however, it can be anticipated that ending the cotton export market would result in significant reductions in demand on basin water resources. Of course, if basin governments were able to come together and agree on real reforms based on transparent science, as recommended by the royal commissioner, the cotton ban proposed in the bill that we'll introduce tomorrow would be unnecessary. In the absence of such action, the environmental degradation of the Murray-Darling Basin system will continue. It may well become Australia's equivalent of the Aral Sea, and calls for action, most likely focused on the industry, will most likely grow. Royal Commissioner Walker, like Surveyor-General Goyder 150 years ago, has offered good advice based on science that warns about pushing the environmental limits in a country characterised by drought and finite water resources. If we don't act, someone may well end up putting up another monument, perhaps the Bret Walker monument, this time near another South Australian town, Goolwa, saying, 'The Murray River once flowed to the sea near here.' That would be a great tragedy.
Coal Seam Gas Mining
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (21:05): I rise to speak tonight on an issue that I think is emblematic of the struggle of communities in being heard by politicians in this place against the interests of big corporates. It's something that unfortunately this parliament doesn't talk a lot about. Certainly it's something that the Greens have tried to talk about a lot and have sought to introduce legislation on many, many times, but we're yet to receive support from either of the large parties. It's unconventional gas and fracking for unconventional gas. It is still, and has been for ten years now, threatening our best food-producing land, of course on top of climate change, which is the other threat to our food-producing land. It flies in the face of the science and it flies in the face of protecting that precious food-producing land.
Given that Australia is the driest inhabited continent on the planet and we have some of the worst soil on the planet, surely our food-producing land should be off limits for mining and gas activities. But the mining and gas companies make massive donations to both sides of politics, so naturally they get to write their own rules. I was reflecting on the history of this issue earlier today. It's been 7½ years since I first raised this issue in the Senate. I introduced a bill to give landholders the right to say no to coal seam gas mines and coalmines on their land. This is primarily to protect food-producing land, to protect the rights of traditional owners and to make sure that our water table—water being our most precious resource in this country—isn't going to be contaminated by those fracking chemicals which are blasted through aquifers to break open coal seams to extract the gas because this government doesn't realise that renewables can do the job. It's 7½ years on and we still don't have any decent laws to protect the community, our farmland, our water or our climate from the impacts of coal seam gas, shale and tight gas. Collectively, we call that unconventional gas.
I introduced that first bill back in July 2011. It got voted down. I introduced it again in 2013, from memory. It got voted down. I introduced it again in 2015. We haven't been able to bring that on for a final vote yet. It's very convenient for the big parties to make sure it can't come on for a vote, because they still support this industry. I am incredibly disappointed that our state administration, just last week, has been trumpeting the release of more precious land for gas companies, most of them multinational gas companies, many of whom make large donations to both sides of politics. The state government has been trumpeting the release of more land to be opened up for fracking. It seems that they've learned nothing from the science. It seems they continue to ignore the pleas of the community across Queensland, who are sick of the health impacts; who are sick of the intrusion on their way of life and onto their land; who are sick of their groundwater bores dropping, sometimes by up to hundreds of metres; and who are sick of being ripped off by these companies that they don't have the right to say no to who are trampling all over their land. So it beggars belief that we still have bipartisan support for the dangerous, experimental fossil fuel industry that is gas fracking for unconventional gas, much of which is for export in any case.
We in the Greens know that we don't have alternatives to food or water, but we have a multitude of alternatives for energy sources. We know that clean energy is more job intensive, will help us address climate change and won't threaten our food-producing land. But it's no coincidence that the renewable energy industry and, indeed, the farmers aren't making the big donations that the coal seam gas and other fossil fuel industries are making. We just did the figures, because the new donations data was released last week. Five million dollars went to both sides of politics over the last four years from fossil fuel companies, including coal seam gas and unconventional gas companies. That clearly has bought the support of both parties, because there's never been an unconventional gas application rejected by the federal government, no matter which party has been in power. All of those proposals have been waved through; they've been approved.
I still remember back when we were fighting to get protection for water into our federal environmental laws. That was in August 2011, a few months after I began the role of speaking for the community in Queensland. It then took another couple of years for us to convince one of the big parties—it was Labor in government at the time—to bring in that water trigger. We welcomed that. It wasn't as strong as we wanted, but it was certainly a step forward. But the tragedy at that time was that, about two weeks before they legislated the water trigger, the environment minister at the time ticked off on two of the big coal seam gas proposals. It was very convenient that they didn't have to consider the water impacts before approving these developments for companies that, incidentally, had made donations. Then two weeks later Labor decided, 'Oh, we'll tighten up the laws now.' Again, it's a very cosy relationship that we see between the gas companies and both sides of politics.
You might think that the community would lose heart given the consistent approach of parliament ignoring their needs and the big parties not listening to their concerns, but Queenslanders and Australians are strong. We are resilient and we're fighters. We don't give up. Tonight I wanted to pay tribute to the strength of those communities. Despite having their health impacted, their very ways of life being impacted, often their farm profitability impacted and their groundwater level impacted, despite facing all of these personal impacts on a daily basis from this industry—and I include in that, sadly, the loss of some family members and, in particular, I want to mention the Bender family, who lost their father, George, several years ago after the stress of dealing with one of these companies—and despite all of the threats that these communities face and the pressure that's been brought to bear on them, they are still strong and they are still fighting this industry.
Lock the Gate have been a real lightning rod in this regard. They started in Queensland—I'm very proud of that—and they've sprung up as a national movement to give voice to those communities who just want to keep farming their land and growing food for all of us, who just want their kids to have the opportunity to continue in their footsteps, who just want to make sure that they can continue to live their lives and not be bullied by these big, often multinational corporations that have bought off the big parties and are treating these communities like dirt, like they have no rights. Of course, sadly, the law says they don't have those rights because this parliament has not passed my bill to give those communities rights to say no to those coal and coal seam gas companies.
I know those communities won't give up fighting and neither will we. It's been 7½ years now that we've been trying to get legislation to give these communities rights to protect their farmland. We got success on that water trigger bill, and we will not give up trying to make sure that people can protect the land on which they grow all of our food. Of course, they export some of that food, too. This is simply a message of thanks to those communities that continue to stand strong against the pressure, the bullying and the awfulness of what this industry has been subjecting them to for years. And it's once again a call to the big parties to please stop letting the dirty donations that flow into your re-election coffers cloud your judgement. Please stop letting those donations get in the way of listening to what the community is calling for you to do—that is to protect their land, to safeguard their future, to protect the water that we all rely upon and to make sure that we've got community cohesion and a parliament that works for people, listens to the community and represents their interests. Surely that's what we're meant to be doing here in this place?
So we won't stop talking about this. We've got an election coming up, folks. I hope to still be talking about this issue in the next term of parliament, but, if I'm not, there will be other Greens in this place that will continue to talk about coal seam gas and unconventional gas. We will proudly continue to be the voice for communities against multinational fossil fuel companies that want to pillage their land because they've made very big donations to the major parties and bought the policy outcomes that suit their corporate profits, but rip off and ignore communities.
So I look forward to continuing the work that we started 7½ years ago. I do hope that, ultimately, we see some success here, because communities deserve that. They deserve decent representation, and our democracy deserves to be run by people, not by the interests of big donors. We saw in the donations data released on 1 February the extent of corporate influence over our democracy. It's no wonder that the Australian community is fed up with politicians. They don't feel listened to anymore, because they can see that big money is influencing both of the big parties. So not only do we want to clean up those donations laws but we want to give communities the ability to protect their food-producing land, to protect the water and climate that we all rely on and to just get on with living their life growing our food.
Gender and Sexual Orientation
Environment
Senator RICE (Victoria) (21:15): I found last week pretty difficult. We had two full days of hearings into the proposed legislation to end discrimination in schools, the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018. Our inquiry heard and the submissions outlined story after story about the damage being done to LGBTIQ people—young and old, students and staff—through ongoing discrimination against them in some faith based schools.
We heard stories like that from a teacher who is a member of the Independent Education Union. The teacher, working in a learning support role, shared their experience of some of their young students who were bullied because they were perceived to be gay. The first was a boy in year 5 who had started to think and write about his attraction to boys, who was told by his bullies that being gay was demonic, that God hated him and that he was going to hell. When questioned by the teacher, the bully said, 'We were just telling him what the Bible says, and it's what God says.' On one occasion when crossing a road one student said to the boy that he should stay on the road and get run over and die because he was gay and God hated him. The student froze and had to be pulled off the road by one of his friends. The teacher logged an incident report but was later told that it had been lost, so there was no record. The boy tried to harm himself. Again he was told he was going to hell and was possessed by a demon. The teacher persisted in writing up incident reports after each incident. Eventually the bullies were suspended, but the victim was being treated as though he was the real problem, and the teacher was warned against 'overstepping my role'. The teacher then told of coming to terms with their own sexuality at the same time as this was happening, acknowledging that they could not safely tell anyone at the school. They eventually had their position at the school cut. They write: 'So far as I'm aware I lost my job not because I was gay; I lost my job just for trying to ensure a safe environment for my gay students.'
The teacher also wrote about a second boy, a 12-year-old, who had a very outgoing, flamboyant personality and was a talented singer and actor. Over the course of the year, the student was getting more and more negative attention from his class teachers and senior staff over issues like his attitude and emotionality and was the target of some verbal homophobic bullying from other students. One day the teacher found him curled up on the floor, sobbing and shaking, behind a door: 'He told me that the deputy principal had said that he didn't like the way he talked.' The deputy principal had said to his student: 'You disgust me.' The boy described feeling angry and confused because he didn't know how to be a different person from who he was.
This is absolutely heartbreaking. No person, let alone a 12-year-old, should ever be made to feel ashamed of who they are, and no person, let alone a child, should ever experience this harassment, bullying and shaming behaviour anywhere in society, let alone in a school and let alone from a teacher. The teacher said, 'Schools like my former workplace rely on the exemptions, not necessarily directly, to expel students or sack staff, but indirectly, to legitimise their poor treatment of LGBT students and staff.' Schools are supposed to be safe places where teachers support and nurture young people, not where teachers tell students, 'You disgust me.'
During our inquiry, we considered the government's proposed amendments to the removing discrimination against students bill. If these amendments were adopted, they would further entrench the rights of religious schools to discriminate against LGBTIQ+ students, staff and teachers. Our Greens amendments, in contrast, would remove discrimination against staff as well as students, because otherwise schools will continue to be unsafe places for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, gender diverse and queer students, teachers and other staff. LGBTIQ people should not walk through the school gates every morning and wonder if they'll be marched out by the afternoon just because of who they are. The Greens believe that religious schools should be able to teach according the doctrines of their faith, but not in a way that causes harm to LGBTIQ+ people. We know that it's possible for faith based schools to teach their faith and not discriminate against same-sex attracted and gender-diverse people, because this is how it's been in Tasmania and Queensland for decades. The rest of Australia needs to catch up. It's time to remove all discrimination in our schools. We can and we must—no ifs, no buts.
I was at the huge 'Stop Adani' rally out the front of Parliament House this morning, and I'll be at the forest rally out the front tomorrow. We have millions of young people all over the world marching, protesting and making their voices heard for action on climate change and for action to protect nature and our life support systems from the blow after blow of fires, floods, fish kills, coral bleaching and flying foxes literally falling dead out of the sky in their tens of thousands after the furnace of a supercharged hot day. Australia is in the grip of an extinction crisis. We have the worst mammal extinction rate in the world. Let that sink in. We are the second worst in the world for total biodiversity loss, beaten only by Indonesia. And it's only getting worse, with ongoing habitat destruction through logging and land clearing and ongoing climate change from the burning of coal and gas and oil. We have 477 animals on our national threatened and endangered species list, including the critically endangered Leadbeater's possum in Victoria and the critically endangered swift parrot in Tasmania, with fewer than 2,000 left in the wild. Even our beloved koala, a global icon, is predicted to become extinct in New South Wales if the current trajectory of habitat destruction continues. This is a tragedy unfolding before our very eyes and a tragedy that is entirely preventable. We have utterly weak federal environment laws that are failing to protect nature, and we have the Labor, Liberal and National parties standing by as the precious natural places that provide homes for our threatened animals get destroyed.
I'm currently chairing a Senate inquiry into Australia's animal extinction crisis. We've seen and heard horrifying evidence of environmental destruction. At the Tasmanian hearings last week, we heard explosive testimony from Dr Matthew Webb, a scientist at the ANU who had previously worked in the Tasmanian state government. He told us:
There's this very, very strong top-down political pressure on the people remaining within government to approve whatever these developments or logging operations are, and it's very difficult for anyone to give really honest, clear advice anymore … because, quite frankly, if you have kids and a mortgage, you need to keep your job.
When asked whether he was suggesting that public servants are compromising their advice because they're worried about losing their jobs, Dr Webb replied, 'Most certainly.' At the Melbourne hearings last year, we heard staggering testimony regarding the forest task force that the Andrews government in Victoria set up before the 2014 elections as an election promise. The purpose of the task force was to find a way forward that would protect precious areas of forest in the Great Forest National Park and other reserves while giving certainty to industry. Cut to after the election: the task force made up of environmentalists, industry and unions laboured for well over a year but in the end was disbanded without resolution. Our inquiry learned that Premier Andrews broke his election promise, because VicForests, the state owned logging company, got their way. VicForests would not have been able to fulfil their future contracts if the parks were declared, so the logging destroying critical natural habitat continues.
You would think our federal environment laws would be able to override something so destructive as logging and woodchipping—but no. Logging done under the regional forest agreements is effectively exempt from our national environment laws. When will the Labor-Liberal-National parties sit up and take notice that our very future is on the brink? It's astounding and appalling that a country as wealthy as ours is robbing future generations of their chance to know and love our nature and wildlife.
I've been so inspired by the young people I've met who are involved in politics and protest for nature and for climate. For their sake, we need action to protect our future now—not after the next election, not in a year or five or 10 years but now!
Kerin, Professor Paul
Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) (21:25): I rise tonight to pay tribute to Professor Paul Kerin. Sadly, Professor Kerin passed away on 30 December last year. Paul was an economist, an adviser, a mediator, a media commentator and a champion for those less well off in our community. His passion for social justice started at a very young age. Although Dr Kerin had a highly successful career in business and academia, tonight I would like to focus on the enormous contribution Paul made to a number of South Australian and national disability and not-for-profit organisations.
As Paul was a type 1 diabetic, his involvement in Diabetes SA, including serving on its board, was not surprising. Family experience and friendship also led Paul to become an adviser to and eventually a board member of Down Syndrome South Australia. Prior to joining the board of Down Syndrome South Australia, Dr Kerin was a member of their governance advisory committee and provided strong advice and assistance which was invaluable in meeting the many challenges membership based disability organisations faced with the rollout of the NDIS.
As a board member of Down Syndrome South Australia, Paul helped shape the board's focus on their long-term financial sustainability. That sustainability is vital for any organisation seeking to meet the ongoing needs of their membership. Being an economist, Dr Kerin was adamant that sustainability needed to be a longer term view than the traditional six- to 12-month funding cycle. Apart from the fact that this represented good governance, in Paul's view a longer term sustainable financial outcome was necessary to attract and retain the best possible staff and to ensure quality and guaranteed support to members and their families.
Paul wasn't on the board of Down Syndrome South Australia for long before he took on the role of representing South Australia on the board of Down Syndrome Australia. DSA is a relatively young federated organisation, and having some of Professor Kerin's high-powered business and commercial experience, along with his governance expertise and fierce intellect, would have been invaluable.
Paul's involvement with and commitment to Down Syndrome South Australia saw him suggest an amalgamation with the Adelaide based service provider, Orana. After a significant process of evaluation and due diligence reviews on both sides, along with consultations with the Down Syndrome South Australia membership, the amalgamation proceeded last year. The merger was seen as beneficial to both organisations. Orana was able to provide Down Syndrome SA the financial stability Paul regarded as essential and with statewide reach, and the lively mixture of members and volunteers of Down Syndrome South Australia will help modernise the operations of Orana and introduce them to a new generation of South Australians that need their support. This amalgamation saw Paul leave the board of Down Syndrome Australia. He took a seat on the board of Orana on behalf of Down Syndrome SA.
Paul was a lifelong supporter of many charities, but Diabetes SA and Down Syndrome SA held a special place. In addition to the charities and organisations that Paul supported both personally and financially, economics, music, family and friends were important to Paul. In addition to expressing my condolence to the membership of Down Syndrome South Australia and Down Syndrome Australia, I would like to take this opportunity to pass on my sympathies to Paul's sons, Jack and Alex, and his close friends and family.
Building and Construction Industry
Senator WATT (Queensland) (21:30): I've spoken before in this place about the very great problem experienced by many small businesses, particularly in the building industry, in the form of phoenix companies. This involves the deliberate burning of companies by company directors in order to avoid paying debts to their creditors. It's particularly rife in the building industry and even more so on the Gold Coast, where my electorate office is based. This is an issue I've pursued vigorously in the Senate in estimates and in the public domain—particularly on the Gold Coast because we've seen far too many company collapses on the Gold Coast, where innocent building subcontractors and suppliers have been left with tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills unpaid. Not surprisingly, on many occasions, that leaves the subcontractors themselves facing bankruptcy.
I've met families who have been literally been broken up by the unpaid debts of developers and building companies who choose to burn their companies and send them insolvent rather than pay their debts, only to go and set up in another company form down the track to do it all over again, which is exactly why they're referred to as phoenix companies. Some of the most prominent examples on the Gold Coast have involved the Cullen Group, Q1 Homes and many other examples. Unfortunately this is a problem we're seeing well beyond the Gold Coast. Late last year we saw the collapse of a large building company based in Rockhampton, JN Kelly. We've even seen this form of phoenixing and corporate misconduct inflict pain on building subcontractors on Commonwealth-funded projects—for example, the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing Road and the Amberley air base redevelopment.
I want to pay tribute to the efforts of a number of groups, including building trade unions and Subbies United, who have done a lot of work to recover monies owed to subcontractors and to put this issue on the agenda. It's largely as a result of the work that those groups have done that many of the regional papers in Queensland over the last week or so have been giving this issue the coverage that it deserves.
As I said, this is an issue I've raised in this chamber before, and also at Senate estimates. Last year I asked a number of questions of ASIC executives to try to get to the bottom of what they've actually done about this problem, and I have to say that I found their evidence very underwhelming. It was clear that they haven't taken this issue seriously. Unfortunately, we can put this alongside the misconduct we've seen in the banking industry; it's another area where ASIC dropped the ball and innocent people have felt the consequences.
I welcome the attention this issue is now getting from media outlets in Queensland. I also welcome action that the state Labor government, Annastacia Palaszczuk's government, has taken to try to protect the interests of subbies, particularly in relation to projects funded by the state government. In doing so, they had to reverse a lot of changes that had been made by the Newman LNP government which opened the door to building subbies and other suppliers being done over in this manner.
Unfortunately, the one group that is not taking action, despite all of this publicity and all of these corporate collapses we're seeing, is this LNP federal government. I want to particularly call out the lack of action by the LNP members of parliament on the Gold Coast. Every single federal seat on the Gold Coast is held by the LNP. We hear day in and day out how they care about small businesses on the Gold Coast and across Australia. Here is a good example of an issue where small businesses are actually being hurt by larger businesses, and the LNP is doing nothing about it. Over the last 12 months, Labor has outlined a range of commitments, after consultation with the industry, that we believe will make a significant difference to the lives these building subbies, ranging from requiring company directors to obtain director ID numbers so that they can be tracked to prevent this kind of phoenixing, to increasing the penalties that are imposed on phoenix companies and their directors. These are sensible proposals that we have being calling on the government to follow us on for months now. Yet we are still waiting, and therefore we are still seeing subbies go to the wall. It's time that the LNP actually delivered on their claims that they care about small business. Stand with Labor and protect these subbies from going under.
Senate adjourned at 21 : 35
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:
The Clerk tabled the following documents pursuant to statute:
[Legislative instruments are identified by a Federal Register of Legislation (FRL) number. An explanatory statement is tabled with an instrument unless otherwise indicated by an asterisk.]
A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act 1999, Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Corporations Act 2001, Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993—Treasury Laws Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01691].
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999—Child Care Subsidy Minister's Amendment Rules (No. 3) 2018 [F2018L01830].
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Act 2017—Child Care Subsidy Minister's Amendment Rules (No. 1) 2019 [F2019L00107].
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection (Bellwood Sacred Site) Emergency Declaration 2018-Extension [F2018L01794].
Adelaide Airport Curfew Act 2000—Adelaide Airport Curfew Regulations 2018 [F2018L01689].
Aged Care Act 1997—User Rights Amendment (Specialist Dementia Care Program) Principles 2018 [F2018L01741].
Aged Care Act 1997, Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 and Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act 2018—Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments) Rules 2018 [F2018L01840].
Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act 2018—Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Rules 2018 [F2018L01837].
Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994—Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Instrument No. 4 (MRL Standard) Amendment Instrument 2019 (No. 1) [F2019L00061].
Air Navigation Act 1920—
Air Navigation (Essendon Fields Airport) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01687].
Air Navigation (Gold Coast Airport Curfew) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01688].
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006—Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Rules Amendment Instrument 2018 (No. 3) [F2018L01813].
Appropriation Act (No. 2) 2018-2019—Advance to the Finance Minister Determination (No. 1 of 2018-2019) [F2018L01816].
Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975—
Survey of Income and Housing 2019-20—Proposal No. 1 of 2019.
Survey of Mineral and Petroleum Exploration—Proposal No. 2 of 2019.
Australian Citizenship Act 2007—
Australian Citizenship Amendment (Payment of Fees) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01713].
Australian Citizenship (LIN 19/066: Persons Who May Receive a Pledge of Commitment) Instrument 2019 [F2019L00045].
Australian Crime Commission Act 2002—Australian Crime Commission Regulations 2018 [F2018L01780].
Australian Education Act 2013—
Australian Education Amendment (2018 Measures No. 3) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01677].
Australian Education (Financial Assistance for Non-participating States and Territories) Determination 2018 [F2018L01715].
Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997—
Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Export of Sheep by Sea to Middle East—Northern Winter) Order 2018 [F2018L01529]—Replacement explanatory statement.
Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Export of Sheep by Sea to Middle East) Order 2018 [F2018L01010]—Replacement explanatory statement.
Australian National University Act 1991—
Australian National University (ANU Foundation) Statute 2018 [F2018L01773].
Australian National University (University House) Repeal Statute 2018 [F2018L01772].
Vice-Chancellorship Statute 2013—Research Awards Rule 2018 [F2018L01771].
Australian Passports (Application Fees) Act 2005—Australian Passports (Application Fees) Amendment Determination 2018 [F2018L01803].
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998—Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Regulations 2018 [F2018L01680].
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998—Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Regulations 2018 [F2018L01694].
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999—Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Repeal and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01700].
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Licence Charges) Act 1998—Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Licence Charges) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01697].
Australian Research Council Act 2001—
Approval of ARC 2018 Linkage Projects for funding commencing in 2019—
Determination No. 184.
Determination No. 187.
Determination No. 188.
Approval of ARC Discovery Indigenous scheme for funding commencing in 2018—Determination No. 186.
Approval of ARC Discovery Project for funding commencing in 2019—Determination No. 189.
Approval of ARC Discovery Projects scheme for funding commencing in 2019—Determination No. 183.
Approval of ARC Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities scheme for funding commencing in 2019—Determination No. 185.
Grant Guidelines for the Discovery Program (2018) (Amended) [F2018L01778].
Grant Guidelines for the Linkage Program (2018) Linkage Projects [F2019L00002].
Grant Guidelines for the Linkage Program (2018) Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities [F2019L00042].
Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 and Corporations Act 2001—
Amendments to Australian Auditing Standards - December 2018—ASA 2018‑1 [F2019L00016].
Auditing Accounting Estimates and Related Disclosures – December 2018—ASA 540 [F2019L00014].
Aviation Transport Security Act 2004—
Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Carriage of Powders) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01785].
Aviation Transport Security (Incident Reporting) Instrument 2018 [F2018L01370]—Replacement explanatory statement.
Banking Act 1959, Insurance Act 1973, Life Insurance Act 1995, Private Health Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Act 2015 and Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993—Banking, Insurance, Life Insurance, Health Insurance and Superannuation (prudential standard) determination No. 1 of 2018 – Prudential Standard CPS 234 Information Security [F2018L01745].
Biosecurity Act 2015—Biosecurity Legislation (Prohibited and Conditionally Non‑prohibited Goods) Amendment (Alternative Conditions—Rawhide Chews) Determination 2018 [F2018L01810].
Broadcasting Services Act 1992—Broadcasting Services (Australian Content in Advertising) Standard 2018 [F2018L01765].
Charter of the United Nations Act 1945—
Charter of the United Nations (Sanctions—Democratic People's Republic of Korea) Amendment (Shipping) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01698].
Charter of the United Nations (Sanctions—South Sudan) Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2019 [F2019L00112].
Charter of the United Nations (UN Sanction Enforcement Law) Amendment Declaration 2019 (No. 1) [F2019L00113].
Christmas Island Act 1958—Christmas Island Utilities and Services Ordinance 2016—Christmas Island Utilities and Services (Electricity Supply and Services Fees) Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Determination 2018 [F2018L01665].
Civil Aviation Act 1988—
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988—
Number of Cabin Attendants (Alliance Airlines) Direction 2019—CASA 01/19 [F2019L00095].
Repeal of CASA 178/10 Instrument 2019—CASA 03/19 [F2019L00066].
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—
The 2019 Bright Open Australian Nationals Instrument 2019—CASA EX01/19 [F2019L00011].
The 2019 Corryong Hang Gliding Cup Instrument 2018—CASA EX174/18 [F2018L01847].
The 2019 Corryong Paragliding Open Instrument 2019—CASA EX09/19 [F2019L00047].
Civil Aviation Safety Amendment (Part 91) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01783].
Civil Aviation Safety Amendment (Part 119) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01787].
Civil Aviation Safety Amendment (Part 121) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01784].
Civil Aviation Safety Amendment (Part 133) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01788].
Civil Aviation Safety Amendment (Part 135) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01782].
Civil Aviation Safety Amendment (Part 138) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01789].
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—
Authorised Flight Examiners Exemption 2018—CASA EX159/18 [F2018L01636]—Replacement explanatory statement.
Authorised Release Certificate (FAA and EASA Approved Components) Exemption 2018—CASA EX168/18 [F2018L01793].
Carriage of cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders exemption 2019—CASA EX10/19 [F2019L00078].
Elevator Push Tube - Replacement—AD/DW-1/1 [F2019L00097].
Emergency Power Lever Shear Wire—AD/CESSNA 208/18 Amdt 1 [F2019L00082].
English Language Proficiency Assessments Exemption 2018—CASA EX111/18 [F2018L01214]—Replacement explanatory statement.
Horizontal Stabilizer—AD/BELL 206/57 Amdt 4 [F2019L00063].
Horizontal Stabiliser – Centre Hinge Bracket Flange—AD/DHC-6/77 [F2019L00105].
Life jacket standard (Skyplan Australia Pty Ltd) exemption 2019—CASA EX11/19 [F2019L00075].
Part 149 (Approved Self-administering Aviation Organisations) Manual of Standards 2018 [F2018L01800].
Passenger Seats and Passenger Seat Attachment Fittings—AD/DHC-2/26 Amdt 1 [F2019L00019].
Recording of Time-in-service (Class A Aircraft) Exemption 2018—CASA EX167/18 [F2018L01792].
Repeal of Airworthiness Directive AD/DHC-6/71—CASA ADCX 003/19 [F2019L00104].
Repeal of Airworthiness Directive AD/F406/16—CASA ADCX 002/19 [F2019L00101].
Repeal of Airworthiness Directives AD/DHC-6/31 Amdt 4, AD/DHC-6/50, AD/DHC-6/51 Amdt 4 and AD/DHC-6/70—CASA ADCX 001/19 [F2019L00041].
Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012—Clean Energy Finance Corporation Investment Mandate Direction 2018 [F2018L01768].
Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955—Cocos (Keeling) Islands Utilities and Services Ordinance 2016—Cocos (Keeling) Islands Utilities and Services (Electricity Supply and Services Fees) Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Determination 2018 [F2018L01666].
Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act 1905—Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Amendment (Incorporation of Information Standards) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01726].
Commissioner of Taxation—Public Rulings—
Class Rulings—
CR 2018/52-CR 2018/60.
CR 2019/1-CR 2019/9.
Erratum—CR 2018/52.
Goods and Services Tax Determination—Addendum—GSTD 2003/1.
Goods and Services Tax Rulings—Addenda—GSTR 2000/19, GSTR 2004/9 and GSTR 2006/9.
Product Rulings PR 2018/14 and PR 2018/15.
Taxation Determination TD 2018/16.
Taxation Ruling—Addendum—TR 2004/11.
Competition and Consumer Act 2010—
Monitoring of Prices, Costs and Profits Relating to the Supply of Petroleum Products in the Petroleum Industry in Australia [F2019L00064].
Monitoring of the prices, costs and profits relating to the supply of certain feminine hygiene products [F2018L01826].
Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01754].
Consular Privileges and Immunities Act 1972—Consular Privileges and Immunities (Indirect Tax Concession Scheme) Amendment (Costa Rica, Guatemala and Kazakhstan) Determination 2018 [F2018L01731].
Control of Naval Waters Act 1918—Control of Naval Waters (Henderson and Osborne) Proclamation 2019 [F2019L00103].
Copyright Act 1968—Copyright Amendment (Service Providers) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01718].
Corporations Act 2001—
Amendments to Australian Accounting Standards – Definition of a Business—AASB 2018-6 [F2019L00020].
Amendments to Australian Accounting Standards – Definition of Material—AASB 2018-7 [F2019L00021].
Amendments to Australian Accounting Standards – Right-of-Use Assets of Not-for-Profit Entities—AASB 2018-8 [F2019L00023].
ASIC Corporations (Amendment) Instrument 2018/1088 [F2018L01714].
ASIC Corporations (Amendment) Instrument 2018/1098 [F2018L01667].
ASIC Corporations (Asia Region Funds Passport) Instrument 2019/75 [F2019L00084].
ASIC Corporations (ASIC Close Down Period) Instrument 2018/1034 [F2018L01699].
ASIC Market Integrity Rules (NSXA Market) Repeal Instrument 2018/1157 [F2019L00033].
ASIC Market Integrity Rules (Securities Markets) 2017—
ASIC Market Integrity Rules (Securities Markets) Determination 2018/1131 [F2018L01684].
ASIC Market Integrity Rules (Securities Markets) Repeal Instrument 2018/1132 [F2018L01686].
Corporations (Provisional Relevant Providers—Expressions) Determination 2018 [F2018L01775].
Corporations (Relevant Providers Continuing Professional Development Standard) Determination 2018 [F2018L01817].
Corporations (Relevant Providers Degrees, Qualifications and Courses Standard) Determination 2018 [F2018L01833].
Corporations (Relevant Providers Exams Standard) Determination 2019 [F2019L00098].
Corporations (Work and Training Professional Year Standard) Determination 2018 [F2018L01804].
Insolvency Practice Rules (Corporations) Amendment (Restricting Related Creditor Voting Rights) Rules 2018 [F2018L01669].
Currency Act 1965—
Currency (Perth Mint) Amendment Determination (No. 5) 2018 [F2018L01781].
Currency (Perth Mint) Determination (No. 6) 2018 [F2018L01749].
Currency (Royal Australian Mint) Determination (No. 8) 2018 [F2018L01828].
Customs Act 1901—Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01755].
Defence Act 1903—
Defence Determination, Conditions of Service Amendment (Living-in accommodation and review of housing contributions and allowances) Determination 2018 (No. 43) [F2018L01807].
Defence Determination, Conditions of Service Amendment (Puckapunyal housing trial and rent ceiling for overlapping posting locations) Determination 2019 (No. 3) [F2019L00046].
Defence Determination, Conditions of Service Amendment (Salary non‑reduction) Determination 2018 (No. 42) [F2018L01808].
Defence Determination, Conditions of Service Amendment (Salary non‑reduction) Determination 2019 (No. 6) [F2019L00100].
Defence Determination, Conditions of Service Amendment (Sale of own home in posting location and own means travel) Determination 2019 (No. 5) [F2019L00052].
Defence Determination, Conditions of Service Amendment (Stand-down period, post index locations – Israel and summer schools – Vietnam) Determination 2019 (No. 2) [F2019L00043].
Defence Determination, Conditions of Service Amendment (Utilities and deployment allowance) Determination 2019 (No. 1) [F2019L00018].
Defence Determination, Conditions of Service Amendment (Victoria Cross for Australia, long service leave, travel and overseas public holidays) Determination 2019 (No. 4) [F2019L00051].
Defence Determination, Force Commander, Multinational Force and Observers – supporting benefits Amendment Determination 2018 [F2018L01662].
Defence (Individual Housing Assistance – Post termination of service) Determination 2018 [F2018L01757].
Defence (Payments to ADF Cadets) Determination 2019 [F2019L00059].
Defence (State of Emergency – Townsville floods) Determination 2019 (No. 1) [F2019L00108].
Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014—Determination of Exclusion Periods for Amber Zone 1 and Amber Zone 2 for Financial Year 2018-2019 Amendment No. 1 [F2019L00102].
Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1967—Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities (Indirect Tax Concession Scheme) Amendment (Costa Rica, Guatemala and Cote d'Ivoire) Determination 2018 [F2018L01732].
Disability Services Act 1986—Disability Services (Principles and Objectives) Instrument 2018 [F2019L00035].
Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Act 2012—Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) (Risk Rated Premium and Special Tuition Protection Components) Instrument 2018 [F2018L01832].
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999—
Amendment of List of Exempt Native Specimens – Aquaculture Multiple Fisheries December 2018—EPBC303/DC/SFS/2018/18 [F2018L01796].
Amendment of List of Exempt Native Specimens – Commonwealth Northern Prawn Fishery, December 2018—EPBC303DC/SFS/2018/15 [F2019L00015].
Amendment of List of Exempt Native Specimens – Northern Territory Coastal Line Fishery, January 2019—EPBC303/DC/SFS/2018/20 [F2019L00085].
Amendment of List of Exempt Native Specimens – Queensland East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery, December 2018—EPBC303DC/SFS/2018/17 [F2019L00010].
Amendment of List of Exempt Native Specimens – Queensland Gulf of Carpentaria Inshore Fin Fish Fishery, December 2018—EPBC303/DC/SFS/2018/19 [F2018L01734].
Conservation Theme for Prioritising Nominations for Listing Threatened Species, Threatened Ecological Communities and Key Threatening Processes for the Assessment Period Commencing 1 October 2019 (210) [F2019L00036].
Instrument Making the National Recovery Plan for the Macquarie Perch (Macquaria australasica) [F2019L00106].
List of CITES Species Amendment 2018 (No. 1) [F2018L01845].
List of Migratory Species Amendment (Orcaella Species Name Update) Instrument 2018 [F2018L01721].
List of Specimens taken to be Suitable for Live Import Amendment (Cecidochares connexa) Instrument 2018 [F2019L00056].
List of Specimens taken to be Suitable for Live Import Amendment (Electric Yellow Cichlid) Instrument 2018 [F2019L00058].
List of Specimens taken to be Suitable for Live Import Amendment (Oncomelania hupensis quadrasi) Instrument 2018 [F2019L00057].
Evidence Act 1995—Evidence Regulations 2018 [F2018L01705].
Export Control Act 1982—Export Control (Orders) Regulations 1982—Export Control (Meat and Meat Products) Amendment (Trade Description Grain Fed) Order 2018 [F2018L01735].
Fair Work Act 2009—Fair Work Amendment (Casual Loading Offset) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01770].
Federal Financial Relations Act 2009—Federal Financial Relations (National Partnership Payments) Determination No. 140 (November 2018) [F2018L01664].
Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997—
Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Agriculture and Water Resources Measures No. 4) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01720].
Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Communications and the Arts Measures No. 3) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01716].
Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Education and Training Measures No. 4) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01761].
Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Environment and Energy Measures No. 2) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01717].
Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Foreign Affairs and Trade Measures No. 2) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01723].
Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Health Measures No. 5) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01719].
Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities Measures No. 3) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01724].
Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001—
Financial Sector (Collection of Data) (reporting standard) determination No. 1 of 2019 – ARS 701.0 ABS/RBA Definitions for the EFS Collection [F2019L00087].
Financial Sector (Collection of Data) (reporting standard) determination No. 2 of 2019 – ARS 720.0 ABS/RBA Statement of Financial Position [F2019L00088].
Financial Sector (Collection of Data) (reporting standard) determination No. 3 of 2019 – ARS 720.1 ABS/RBA Loans and Finance Leases [F2019L00086].
Financial Sector (Collection of Data) (reporting standard) determination No. 4 of 2019 – ARS 720.2 ABS/RBA Deposits [F2019L00089].
Financial Sector (Collection of Data) (reporting standard) determination No. 5 of 2019 – ARS 720.3 ABS/RBA Intra-group Assets and Liabilities [F2019L00090].
Financial Sector (Collection of Data) (reporting standard) determination No. 6 of 2019 – ARS 720.4 ABS/RBA Debt Securities Held [F2019L00091].
Financial Sector (Collection of Data) (reporting standard) determination No. 7 of 2019 – ARS 720.5 ABS/RBA Equity Securities Held [F2019L00092].
Financial Sector (Collection of Data) (reporting standard) determination No. 8 of 2019 – ARS720.6 ABS/RBA Securities on Issue [F2019L00093].
Financial Sector (Collection of Data) (reporting standard) determination No. 9 of 2019 – ARS 720.7 ABS/RBA Bill Acceptances and Endorsements [F2019L00094].
Financial Sector (Transfer and Restructure) Act 1999—Financial Sector (Transfer and Restructure) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01676].
Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991—
Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code — Schedule 20 — Maximum residue limits Variation Instrument No. APVMA 1, 2019 [F2019L00083].
Food Standards (Application A1129 – Monk Fruit Extract as a Food Additive) Variation [F2019L00037].
Food Standards (Application A1156 – Food derived from Super High Oleic Safflower Lines 26 and 40) Variation [F2019L00038].
Food Standards (Application A1157 – Enzymatic production of Rebaudioside M) Variation [F2019L00039].
Food Standards (Application A1158 – Rosemary Extract as a Food Additive) Variation [F2019L00040].
Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018—
Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme (Disclosure in Communications Activity) Amendment Rules 2018 [F2018L01846].
Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme (Disclosure in Communications Activity) Rules 2018 [F2018L01701].
Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Rules 2018 [F2018L01696].
Health Insurance Act 1973—
Health Insurance (Pathologist-determinable Services) Amendment Determination 2018 [F2018L01777].
Health Insurance (Quality Assurance Activity) Declaration 2018 (No. 4) [F2018L01744].
Health Insurance (Quality Assurance Activity) Declaration 2018 (No. 5) [F2018L01739].
Health Insurance (Section 3C Co-Dependent Pathology Services) Amendment Determination 2019 [F2019L00044].
Health Insurance (Section 3C Co-Dependent Pathology Services) Amendment Determination (No. 3) 2018 [F2018L01776].
Health Insurance (Section 3C General Medical Services – Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) Determination 2018 [F2018L01670].
Higher Education Support Act 2003—
Higher Education Provider Approval No. 3 of 2018 [F2018L01805].
Higher Education Support (Churchill Education Pty Ltd as trustee for Decelle Investment Trust, ACN 120 692 159) VET Provider Approval Revocation 2018 [F2018L01704].
Higher Education Support (Maximum Payments for Commonwealth Scholarships) Determination 2018 [F2018L01801].
Higher Education Support (Maximum Payments for Indigenous Student Assistance Grants) Amendment Determination 2018 [F2018L01751].
Higher Education Support (Maximum Payments for Other Grants) Determination 2018 [F2018L01798].
Higher Education Support (Parapharm Pty Ltd) Higher Education Provider Approval Revocation 2018 [F2018L01835].
Higher Education Support (VET) Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Student Protection) Guidelines 2018 [F2018L01827].
Indigenous Student Assistance Grants Amendment Guidelines 2018 [F2018L01774].
List of Maximum Grant Amounts under Division 41 for 2019 [F2018L01799].
Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946—Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01708].
Industry Research and Development Act 1986—Industry Research and Development (Cooperative Research Centres Projects Program) Instrument 2018 [F2019L00017].
Judiciary Act 1903, Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act 1976 and High Court of Australia Act 1979—High Court Amendment (Fees) Rules 2018 [F2018L01681].
Legislation Act 2003—
Legislation (Deferral of Sunsetting—Air Navigation (Aircraft Engine Emissions) Regulations) Certificate 2018 [F2018L01769].
Legislation (Deferral of Sunsetting—Australian Postal Corporation Regulations) Certificate 2018 [F2019L00025].
Legislation (Deferral of Sunsetting—Income Tax Assessment Regulations) Certificate 2018 [F2019L00024].
Legislation (Deferral of Sunsetting—Jabiru Town Plan) Certificate 2018 [F2018L01737].
Legislation (Deferral of Sunsetting—Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations) Certificate 2018 [F2018L01736].
Legislation (Deferral of Sunsetting—Public Service Regulations) Certificate 2018 [F2019L00027].
Legislation (Environment Protection Instruments) Sunset-altering Declaration 2018 [F2018L01743].
Legislation (Telecommunications Instruments) Sunset-altering Declaration 2018 [F2018L01747].
Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Act 2012—Marine Order 503 (Certificates of survey — national law) Amendment Order 2018—AMSA MO 2018/11 [F2018L01671].
Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003—Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security (Incident Reporting) Instrument 2018 [F2018L01380]—Replacement explanatory statement.
Migration Act 1958—
Migration Amendment (Enhanced Integrity) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01707].
Migration (LIN 18/219: Determination of International Trade Obligations Relating to Labour Market Testing) Instrument 2018—LIN 18/219 [F2018L01821].
Migration (LIN 19/087: Granting of Contributory Parent Visas, Parent Visas and Other Family Visas in the 2018/2019 Financial Year) Instrument 2019—LIN 19/087 [F2019L00065].
Migration Regulations 1994—
Migration (LIN 18/138: Specification of Income Threshold and Exemptions for Subclass 189 (Skilled – Independent) Visa (New Zealand Stream)) Instrument 2018—LIN 18/138 [F2018L01738].
Migration (LIN 18/170: Professional Year Programs) Instrument 2018—LIN 18/170 [F2018L01758].
Migration (LIN 18/215: Class of Persons eligible for a nil visa application charge for Class GG Visa and Subclass 408 (Temporary Activity) Visa) Instrument 2018—LIN 18/215 [F2018L01786].
Migration (LIN 19/001: Payment of Visa Application Charges and Fees in Foreign Currencies) Instrument 2019—LIN 19/001 [F2018L01823].
Migration (LIN 19/002: Places and Currencies for Paying of Fees) Instrument 2019—LIN 19/002 [F2018L01824].
Migration Regulations (LIN 18/081: Specification of Regional Areas for a Safe Haven Enterprise Visa) Instrument 2018—LIN 18/081 [F2018L01668].
Military Superannuation and Benefits Act 1991—Military Superannuation and Benefits (Eligible Members) Amendment Declaration 2018 [F2019L00013].
Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989—
Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 4/05 – Seatbelts) 2012 Amendment 2 [F2019L00022].
Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 4/06 – Seatbelts) 2018 [F2019L00026].
Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 5/05 – Anchorages for Seatbelts) 2006 Amendment 2 [F2019L00028].
Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 5/06 – Anchorages for Seatbelts) 2018 [F2019L00029].
Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 34/02 – Child Restraint Anchorages and Child Restraint Anchor Fittings) 2012 Amendment 2 [F2019L00030].
Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 34/03 – Child Restraint Anchorages and Child Restraint Anchor Fittings) 2017 Amendment 1 [F2019L00031].
Mutual Recognition Act 1992—Mutual Recognition Amendment (ACT Container Deposit Scheme) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01672].
National Health Act 1953—
National Health (Efficient Funding of Chemotherapy) Special Arrangement Amendment Instrument 2018 (No. 12)—PB 112 of 2018 [F2018L01818].
National Health (Efficient Funding of Chemotherapy) Special Arrangement Amendment Instrument 2019 (No. 1)—PB 4 of 2019 [F2019L00074].
National Health (Growth Hormone Program) Special Arrangement Amendment Instrument 2018 (No. 3)—PB 113 of 2018 [F2018L01815].
National Health (Highly Specialised drugs program) Amendment (Approval of certain hospital authorities) Special Arrangement 2018—PB 107 of 2018 [F2018L01673].
National Health (Highly specialised drugs program) Special Arrangement Amendment Instrument 2018 (No. 12)—PB 111 of 2018 [F2018L01814].
National Health (Highly specialised drugs program) Special Arrangement Amendment Instrument 2019 (No. 1)—PB 3 of 2019 [F2019L00081].
National Health (Immunisation Program – Designated Vaccines) Variation Determination (No. 5) 2018 [F2019L00034].
National Health (Indexation of concession or entitlement card fee) Amendment Determination 2018)—PB 116 of 2018 [F2018L01759].
National Health (Listed drugs on F1 or F2) Amendment Determination 2018 (No. 10)—PB 114 of 2018 [F2018L01809].
National Health (Listed drugs on F1 or F2) Amendment Determination 2019 (No. 1)—PB 5 of 2019 [F2019L00077].
National Health (Listing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Amendment Instrument 2018 (No. 13)—PB 110 of 2018 [F2018L01802].
National Health (Listing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Amendment Instrument 2019 (No. 1)—PB 1 of 2019 [F2019L00073].
National Health (Originator Brand) Amendment Determination 2019 (No. 1)—PB 6 of 2019 [F2019L00079].
National Health (Pharmaceutical Benefits – early supply) Amendment Instrument 2019 (No. 1)—PB 2 of 2019 [F2019L00076].
National Health (Price and Special Patient Contribution) Amendment Determination 2018 (No. 10)—PB 115 of 2018 [F2018L01811].
National Health (Price and Special Patient Contribution) Amendment Determination 2019 (No. 1)—PB 7 of 2019 [F2019L00080].
National Health (Supplies of out-patient medication) Determination 2019—PB 8 of 2019 [F2019L00053].
National Health (Weighted average disclosed price – April 2019 reduction day) Determination 2018—PB 109 of 2018 [F2018L01767].
National Land Transport Act 2014—Roads to Recovery List 2019 [F2019L00060].
Navigation Act 2012—Marine Order 11 (Living and working conditions on vessels) Amendment Order 2018—AMSA MO 2018/12 [F2018L01729].
Norfolk Island Act 1979—
Norfolk Island Applied Laws Amendment (Local Government Elections) Ordinance 2018 [F2018L01703].
Norfolk Island Legislation Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable People) Ordinance 2018 [F2018L01377]—Replacement explanatory statement.
Norfolk Island Standard Time Amendment (Daylight Saving) Ordinance 2018 [F2018L01702].
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989—Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Amendment (Methyl Bromide, Fire Protection and Other Measures) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01730].
Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017—Remuneration Tribunal (Members of Parliament) Determination 2018 [F2018L01748].
Private Health Insurance Act 2007—
Private Health Insurance (Benefit Requirements) Amendment Rules 2018 (No. 6) [F2018L01797].
Private Health Insurance (Benefit Requirements) Amendment Rules 2019 (No. 1) [F2019L00048].
Private Health Insurance (Reforms) Amendment Rules (No. 3) 2018 [F2018L01795].
Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986—Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Regulations 2018 [F2018L01710].
Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013—
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation purchased additional shares in Clarity Pharmaceuticals Limited—14 December 2018.
Commonwealth acquired shares in Australian Naval Infrastructure Pty Ltd—
2 July 2018.
29 November 2018.
Establishment of IBA Wilpena Solar Pty Ltd—30 October 2018.
Issue of shares—IBA Tourism Asset Management Pty Ltd—30 October 2018.
Sale of shares—Tennant Creek Land Holding Trust and Tennant Creek Foodbarn Partnership—30 October 2018.
Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Section 75 Transfers) Amendment Determination 2016-2017 (No. 10) [F2018L01750].
Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Section 75 Transfers) Amendment Determination 2016-2017 (No. 11) [F2018L01819].
Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Section 75 Transfers) Amendment Determination 2017-2018 (No. 3) [F2018L01742].
Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Section 75 Transfers) Amendment Determination 2017-2018 (No. 4) [F2019L00055].
Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Section 75 Transfers) Amendment Determination 2018-2019 (No. 1) [F2018L01820].
Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Section 75 Transfers) Amendment Determination 2018-2019 (No. 2) [F2019L00054].
Public Service Act 1999—Public Service Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01722].
Radiocommunications Act 1992—Radiocommunications (Digital Radio Channels — NSW/ACT) Plan Variation 2019 (No. 1) [F2019L00070].
Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Act 1983—Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Amendment Determination 2019 (No. 1) [F2019L00072].
Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Act 1983—Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Amendment Determination 2019 (No. 1) [F2019L00071].
Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973—
Remuneration Tribunal Amendment Determination (No. 4) 2018 [F2018L01812].
Remuneration Tribunal (Members' Fees and Allowances) Amendment (President's Fees) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01764].
Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000—Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Solar Water Heater Eligibility) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01683].
Royal Commissions Act 1902—Royal Commissions Amendment (Service of Documents) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01711].
Shipping Registration Act 1981—Shipping Registration (International Registration—Minimum Wages and Compensation) Determination 2018 [F2018L01709].
Social Security Act 1991—
Social Security Amendment (Class of Visas – Newly Arrived Resident's Waiting Period for Special Benefit) Determination 2018 [F2018L01806].
Social Security (Assurances of Support) Amendment Determination 2018 (No. 2) [F2018L01831].
Social Security (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Determination 2019 (No. 1)—LIN 19/112 [F2019L00099].
Social Security (Lifetime Support Authority of South Australia's Self-Directed Supports Program) Determination 2018 [F2018L01752].
Social Security (LIN 19/116: Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Determination 2019 (No. 2)—LIN 19/116 [F2019L00110].
Social Security (LIN 19/130: Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Determination 2019 (No. 3)—LIN 19/130 [F2019L00111].
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999—
Social Security (Administration) (Declared child protection State or Territory — Western Australia) Determination 2019 [F2019L00068].
Social Security (Administration) (Deductible portion — section 123XI) Specification 2019 [F2019L00067].
Student Assistance Act 1973—Student Assistance (Education Institutions and Courses) Determination 2019 [F2019L00062].
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993—ASIC Superannuation (Amendment) Instrument 2018/1080 [F2018L01779].
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 and Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997—Treasury Laws Amendment (Work Test Exemption) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01682].
Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997—Minister's Direction to the Slot Manager—2018 (No. 1).
Telecommunications Act 1997—
Telecommunications Amendment (Access to Mobile Number Information for Authorised Research) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01756].
Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Exemption – NSW Telco Authority) Determination 2018 [F2018L01825].
Telecommunications (Customer Equipment Safety) Technical Standard 2018 [F2018L01725].
Telecommunications (Labelling Notice for Customer Equipment and Customer Cabling) Amendment Instrument 2018 (No. 1) [F2018L01733].
Telecommunications (Mobile Equipment Air Interface) Technical Standard 2018 [F2018L01727].
Telecommunications Act 1997 and Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999—Telecommunications (Arbitration) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01740].
Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Act 1997—
Telecommunications (Annual Carrier Licence Charge) Determination 2018 [F2018L01791].
Telecommunications (Specification of Costs by the ACMA) Determination 2018 [F2018L01790].
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979—Telecommunications (Interception and Access) (Communications Access Co-ordinator) Amendment Instrument 2018—LIN 18/202 [F2019L00001].
Telstra Corporation Act 1991—Telstra Corporation (Ownership—Interests in Shares) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01712].
Terrorism Insurance Act 2003—Terrorism Insurance (Premiums) Direction 2019 [F2019L00069].
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011—Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Fit and Proper Person Determination 2018 [F2018L01753].
Therapeutic Goods Act 1989—
Poisons Standard February 2019 [F2019L00032].
Therapeutic Goods (Advertising Complaints and Investigations Information) Specification 2019 [F2019L00050].
Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medical Devices—Information that Must Accompany Application for Inclusion) Determination 2018 [F2018L01822].
Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Scheduling Advisory Committee Members) Regulations 2019 [F2019L00109].
Therapeutic Goods (Information relating to Shortages and Discontinuations of Supply of Medicines) Specification 2018 [F2018L01746].
Therapeutic Goods (Medicines Watch List) Determination 2018 [F2018L01679].
Therapeutic Goods (Microbiological Standards for Medicines) (TGO 100) Order 2018 [F2018L01685].
Therapeutic Goods (Permissible Ingredients) Determination (No. 4) 2018 [F2018L01690].
Therapeutic Goods (Reportable Medicines) Determination 2018 [F2018L01678].
Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011—Tobacco Plain Packaging Amendment (Track and Trace Identifiers) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01706].
Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997—
Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Amendment (ACT Container Deposit Scheme) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01675].
Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Amendment (NSW Container Deposit Scheme) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01692].
Underwater Cultural Heritage Act 2018—Underwater Cultural Heritage Rules 2018 [F2019L00096].
VET Student Loans Act 2016—
VET Student Loans Amendment Rules (No. 1) 2018 [F2018L01762].
VET Student Loans (Courses and Loan Caps) Amendment Determination (No. 4) 2018 [F2018L01829].
Veterans ' Entitlements Act 1986—
Amendment Statement of Principles concerning localised sclerosis (Balance of Probabilities)—No. 16 of 2019 [F2019L00006].
Amendment Statement of Principles concerning localised sclerosis (Reasonable Hypothesis)—No. 15 of 2019 [F2019L00005].
Amendment Statement of Principles concerning sarcoidosis (Balance of Probabilities)—No. 14 of 2019 [F2019L00004].
Amendment Statement of Principles concerning sarcoidosis (Reasonable Hypothesis)—No. 13 of 2019 [F2019L00003].
Statement of Principles concerning chondromalacia patella (Balance of Probabilities)—No. 2 of 2019 [F2018L01836].
Statement of Principles concerning chondromalacia patella (Reasonable Hypothesis)—No. 1 of 2019 [F2018L01834].
Statement of Principles concerning Dupuytren disease (Balance of Probabilities)—No. 10 of 2019 [F2019L00008].
Statement of Principles concerning Dupuytren disease (Reasonable Hypothesis)—No. 9 of 2019 [F2019L00007].
Statement of Principles concerning human immunodeficiency virus infection (Balance of Probabilities)—No. 6 of 2019 [F2018L01842].
Statement of Principles concerning human immunodeficiency virus infection (Reasonable Hypothesis)—No. 5 of 2019 [F2018L01841].
Statement of Principles concerning hypopituitarism (Balance of Probabilities) (No. 12 of 2019)—No. 12 of 2019 [F2019L00012].
Statement of Principles concerning hypopituitarism (Reasonable Hypothesis)—No. 11 of 2019 [F2019L00009].
Statement of Principles concerning iliotibial band syndrome (Balance of Probabilities)—No. 4 of 2019 [F2018L01839].
Statement of Principles concerning iliotibial band syndrome (Reasonable Hypothesis)—No. 3 of 2019 [F2018L01838].
Statement of Principles concerning internal derangement of the knee (Balance of Probabilities)—No. 8 of 2019 [F2018L01844].
Statement of Principles concerning internal derangement of the knee (Reasonable Hypothesis)—No. 7 of 2019 [F2018L01843].
Veterans' Affairs (Extended Eligibility for Treatment) Amendment Instrument 2018—2018 No. R74 [F2018L01663].
Veterans ' Entitlements Act 1986 and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004—Veterans' Affairs (Treatment Principles – Orthotists) Amendment Instrument 2018—2018 No. R88/MRCC88 [F2019L00049].
Water Act 2007—
Water Amendment (Interaction with New South Wales Water Resource Plans) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01693].
Water Amendment (Murray-Darling Basin Agreement—Basin Salinity Management) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01674].
Water Amendment (Water Resource Plan Accreditation) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01695].
Weapons of Mass Destruction (Prevention of Proliferation) Act 1995—Weapons of Mass Destruction Regulations 2018 [F2018L01763].
Witness Protection Act 1994—Witness Protection Regulations 2018 [F2018L01728].
Work Health and Safety Act 2011—Work Health and Safety Amendment (Labelling of Hazardous Chemicals) Regulations 2018 [F2018L01766].
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and Work Health and Safety (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Act 2011—Work Health and Safety Regulations 2011—Work Health and Safety (Safety Data Sheets and Labelling Hazardous Chemicals – Lockheed Martin Australia Pty Ltd, HAAS/WESCO Group Australia Pty Ltd and Department of Defence) Exemption 2018 [F2018L01760].
Tabling
The Clerk tabled the following documents pursuant to statute:
Returns to order—
Indexed lists of departmental and agency files—
Entity contracts—Department of Human Services
Departmental and agency appointments and vacancies—Attorney-General's portfolio; Resources and Northern Australia portfolio; Social Services portfolio
Departmental and agency grants—Attorney-General's portfolio; Department of Agriculture and Water Resources [2]
Tabling
The following government documents were tabled:
Documents presented by the President
1. Department of the Senate—Register of Senate senior executive officers' interests incorporating statements of registrable interests and notifications of alterations lodged between 1 January and 31 December 2018, dated February 2019.
2. Fair Work Act 2009—Quarterly reports by the Commonwealth Ombudsman for the periods—
15 September to 31 December 2017. [Received 7 December 2018]
1 January to 31 March 2018. [Received 7 December 2018]
1 April to 30 June 2018. [Received 7 December 2018]
1 July to 30 September 2018. [Received 7 December 2018]
3. President's report to the Senate on the status of government responses to parliamentary committee reports as at 31 December 2018.
Documents in response to orders for the production of documents
4. Drug and alcohol treatment services—Funding—Mount Gambier—Order of 6 December 2018—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Indigenous Affairs (Senator Scullion), dated 20 December 2018, responding to the order and raising public interest immunity claims, and attachments. [Received 20 December 2018]
5. Financial sector entities—Tax information—Order of 5 December 2018—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Finance and the Public Service (Senator Cormann), dated 6 December 2018, responding to the order. [Received 7December2018]
6. Live animal exports—Review—Order of 28 November 2018—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia (Senator Canavan) responding to the order and raising public interest immunity claims, and attachments. [Received 8 January 2019]
7. Queensland—Adani coal mine—Departmental investigation—Order of 4 December 2018—Letters to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment (Senator Birmingham) [2], responding to the order and raising public interest immunity claims, and attachments. [Received 7December 2018 and 9 January 2019]
8. Regional Forest Agreements—Order of 5 December 2018—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia (Senator Canavan), dated 5 December 2018, responding to the order, and attachments. [Received 7 December 2018]
9. Tourism Australia—Contracts—Order of 29 November 2018—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Finance and the Public Service (Senator Cormann), dated 11 December 2018, responding to the order. [Received 12December2018]
Auditor-General ' s reports for 2018-19
10. No. 8—Performance audit—Management of Commonwealth leased property: Department of Finance—Corrigendum. [Received 18 December 2018]
11. No. 15—Performance audit—Human Servicesʼ compliance strategies: Department of Human Services.
12. No. 16—Performance audit—Implementation of the Australian Government's workplace bargaining framework: Across entities. [Received 13 December 2018].
13. No. 17—Performance audit—Implementation of the annual performance statements requirements 2017-18: Across entities. [Received 17 December 2018].
14. No. 18—Performance audit—Administration of the Renewable Energy Target: Clean Energy Regulator. [Received 17 December 2018]
15. No. 19—Financial statements audit—Audits of the financial statements of Australian Government entities for the period ended 30 June 2018—
Report. [Received 17 December 2018].
Corrigendum. [Received 7 February 2019]
16. No. 20—2017-18 Major Projects Report: Department of Defence. [Received 18December 2018]
17. No. 21—Performance audit—Cape Class patrol boat – In service support arrangements: Department of Home Affairs. [Received 18 December 2018]
18. No. 22—Performance audit—Award of a $443.3 million grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation: Department of the Environment and Energy. [Received 16 January 2019]
19. No. 23—Performance audit—Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy – follow-on audit: Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. [Received 17January 2019]
20. No. 24—Performance audit—The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission's administration of the Biometric Identification Services project: Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. [Received 21 January 2019]
21. No. 25—Performance audit—Efficiency of the processing of applications for citizenship by conferral: Department of Home Affairs. [Received 11 February 2019]
Government documents
22. Aboriginal Land Commissioner—Report for 2017-18.
23. Audio-Visual Copyright Society Limited (Screenrights)—Report for 2017-18.
24. Australia Jobs Act 2013—Review of the implementation of the Act, dated 26 November 2018. [Received 18 January 2019]
25. Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA)—Report for 2017‑18.
26. Australian Law Reform Commission—Report no. 134—Integrity, fairness and efficiency: an inquiry into class action proceedings and third-party litigation funders—Final report, dated December 2018. [Received 24 January 2019]
27. Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority—Report for 2017-18—Addendum. [Received 22 January 2019]
Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016—
28. Review on the operation of the Act, dated October 2018.
29. Government response, dated December 2018.
30. Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012—Statutory review of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation—Report, dated 10 October 2018. [Received 14December 2018]
31. Criminal Code Act 1995—Control orders, preventative detention orders, and continuing detention orders—Report for 2017-18. [Received 20 December 2018]
32. Department of Defence—Special purpose flights—Schedule for the period 1 January to 30 June 2018. [Received 20 December 2018]
Department of Finance—
33. Campaign advertising by Australian Government departments and agencies—Report for 2017-18. [Received 20 December 2018]
34. Consolidated financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2018. [Received 12 December 2018]
35. Department of the Treasury—Tax Benchmarks and Variations Statement 2018. [Received 29 January 2019]
36. Education and Care Services Ombudsman, National Education and Care Services Freedom of Information Commissioner and National Education and Care Services Privacy Commissioner—Report for 2017-18.
37. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999—National Heritage List and the Commonwealth Heritage List—Report for the period 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2018. [Received 4February 2019]
Fair Work Commission—General Manager's reports under the Fair Work Act 2009 for the period 2015-18—
38. Developments in making enterprise agreements.
39. Individual flexibility arrangements.
40. Operation of the provisions of the National Employment Standards relating to requests for flexible working arrangements and extensions of unpaid parental leave.
41. Fair Work Ombudsman and Registered Organisations Commission Entity—Report for 2017-18—Correction. [Received 20 December 2018]
42. High Court of Australia—Report for 2017-18. [Received 12 December 2018]
43. Illegal Logging Prohibition Act 2012—Report on the statutory review of the Act, dated November 2018. [Received 16 January 2019]
44. Institutional Response to Child Sexual Abuse—Royal Commission—Implementation of recommendations from the final report—Annual progress report. [Received 14 December 2018]
45. Joint Australian and NSW Government response to the Independent review of the report on progress with implementation of the NSW regional forest agreements for the second and third five-yearly reviews 2004-2014—Report, dated August 2018. [Received 17 December 2018]
46. Mid-year economic and fiscal outlook 2018-19—Statement by the Treasurer (Mr Frydenberg) and the Minister for Finance and the Public Service (Senator Cormann).
47. Misconduct in the banking, superannuation and financial services industry—Royal Commission—Final report (3 volumes). [Received 4 February 2019]
48. National Health Practitioner Ombudsman and Privacy Commissioner—Report for 2017-18.
Productivity Commission—Reports—
49. No. 90—Murray-Darling Basin Plan: five-year assessment, dated 19 December 2018. [Received 25 January 2019]
50. No. 91—Superannuation: assessing efficiency and competitiveness, dated 21 December 2018. [Received 10January 2019]
51. Register of Foreign Ownership of Agricultural Land Act 2015—Report of registrations for 2017-18. [Received 20 December 2018]
52. Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002—Report on the operation of the Act for the period 1 March to 31 August 2018. [Received 12 December 2018]
53. Snowy Hydro Limited—Report for 2017-18. [Received 14 December 2018]
54. Telecommunications Act 1997—Funding of telecommunications consumer representation grants—Report for 2017-18. [Received 22 January 2019]
Treaties—Bilateral—Text, together with national interest analysis—
55. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste relating to Air Services (Dili, 26 May 2017) and annexures.
56. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Hungary concerning Oil Stock Contracts (Canberra, 30 October 2018).
57. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand relating to Air Services (Bangkok, 3 August 2017) and annexure.
58. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Italian Republic regarding the undertaking of work by cohabiting family members of diplomatic, consular and technical and administrative staff (Canberra, 27 November 2017).
59. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Papua New Guinea relating to Air Services (Port Moresby, 6 October 2017) and annexures.
60. Agreement on Mutual Recognition in Relation to Conformity Assessment, Certificates and Markings between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (London, 18 January 2019).
61. Agreement on Trade in Wine between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (London, 18 January 2019) and annexures.
62. Treaty between Australia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands on the Ongoing Presence of Australian Personnel in the Netherlands for the Purpose of Responding to the Downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 (The Hague, 18 December 2018).
Wet Tropics Management Authority—
63. Report for 2017-18. [Received 4 February 2019]
64. State of the Wet Tropics—Report for 2017-18. [Received 4 February 2019]
65. Workplace Gender and Equality Agency—Report for 2017-18.
Responses to Senate resolutions
66. Fire and Emergency Service Overseas Medal—Resolution of 26 November 2018—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister (Mr Irons), dated 6 December 2018.
67. Gene technology—SDN-1 altered organisms—Resolution of 15 October 2018—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Minister for Regional Services (Senator McKenzie), dated 11 December 2018, and attachment.
68. Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry—Royal Commission—Publication of submissions—Resolution of 26 November 2018—Letter to the President of the Senate from the Commissioner of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry (Mr Hayne), dated 6 December 2018.
69. Shark mitigation methods—Resolution of 3 December 2018—Letters to the President of the Senate from—
Tasmanian Minister for Environment (Ms Archer), dated 18 December 2018.
Western Australian Minister for Fisheries (Mr Kelly), dated 5 February 2019.
Documents pursuant to continuing orders
70. Departmental and agency appointments and vacancies—Letters of advice pursuant to the order of the Senate of 24 June 2008—
Additional estimates 2018-19—
Agriculture and Water Resources portfolio. [Received 8 February 2019]
Defence portfolio. [Received 7 February 2019]
Education and Training portfolio. [Received 11 February 2019]
Finance portfolio. [Received 8 February 2019]
Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio. [Received 11 February 2019]
Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities portfolio. [Received 11February 2019]
Home Affairs portfolio. [Received 7 February 2019]
Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. [Received 8 February 2019]
Budget estimates 2018-19 (Supplementary)—Industry, Innovation and Science portfolio—Correction. [Received 19 December 2018]
71. Departmental and agency grants—Additional estimates 2018-19—Letters of advice pursuant to the order of the Senate of 24 June 2008—
Australian Research Council. [Received 11 February 2019]
Defence portfolio. [Received 7 February 2019]
Department of Education and Training. [Received 11 February 2019]
Department of Education and Training (Skills and Vocational Education). [Received 11 February 2019]
Finance portfolio. [Received 8 February 2019]
Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio. [Received 11 February 2019]
Home Affairs portfolio. [Received 7 February 2019]
Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities portfolio. [Received 11February 2019]
National Health and Medical Research Council. [Received 8 February 2019]
Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. [Received 8 February 2019]
72. Estimates hearings—Unanswered questions on notice—Budget estimates 2018‑19 (Supplementary)—Statements pursuant to the order of the Senate of 25 June 2014—
Agriculture and Water Resources portfolio. [Received 7 February 2019]
Attorney-Generalʼs portfolio. [Received 8 February 2019]
Australian Public Service Commission. [Received 18 January 2019]
Australian Trade and Investment Commission (Austrade). [Received 8February 2019]
Communications and the Arts portfolio. [Received 7 February 2019]
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. [Received 8 February 2019]
Department of Veteransʼ Affairs. [Received 4 February 2019]
Education and Training portfolio. [Received 11 February 2019]
Education and Training portfolio (Skills and Vocational Education). [Received 11 February 2019]
Environment and Energy portfolio. [Received 11 February 2019]
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation. [Received 8 February 2019]
Finance portfolio. [Received 24 January 2019]
Health portfolio. [Received 7 February 2019]
Home Affairs portfolio. [Received 7 February 2019]
Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities portfolio. [Received 11February 2019]
Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. [Received 11 February 2019]
Social Services portfolio. [Received 16 January 2019]
Special Minister of State. [Received 24 January 2019]
Tourism Australia. [Received 8 February 2019]
73. Former ministers—Meetings—Budget estimates 2018-19—Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 23 November 2016—Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities portfolio. [Received 11 February 2019].
74. Indexed lists of departmental and agency files—Statement relating to the order of the Senate of 30 May 1996, as amended—Department of Defence. [Received 17 December 2018]
Government responses to committee reports presented out of sitting
75. Community Affairs References Committee—Report—Value and affordability of private health insurance and out-of-pocket medical costs—Government response, dated December 2018. [Received 19 December 2018]
76. Economics Legislation Committee—Report—Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 [Provisions]—Government response, dated December 2018. [Received 10 December 2018]
Education and Employment References Committee—
77. They never came home – The framework surrounding the prevention, investigation and prosecution of industrial deaths in Australia—Report—Government response, dated December 2018. [Received 20 December 2018]
78. Work health and safety of workers in the offshore petroleum industry—Report—Government response, dated January 2019. [Received 8 January 2019]
79. Health—Select Committee—Fifth interim report—Black lung: 'It has buggered my life'—Government response, dated April 2018. [Received 7 February2019]
80. Red Tape—Select Committee—Fifth interim report—Effect of red tape on health services—Government response, dated November 2018. [Received 19December 2018]
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Government responses, dated December 2018—
81. Effect of market consolidation on the red meat processing sector—Interim and final reports. [Received 17 December2018]
82. Australia's rail industry—Report. [Received 19 December 2018]
83. Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—179th report—Reprocessing Nuclear Fuel – France; PACER Plus Agreement—Government response, dated December 2018. [Received 18December2018]
Committee reports presented out of sitting
84. Electric Vehicles—Select Committee—Report, dated January 2019, Hansard record of proceedings, documents presented to the committee, additional information and submissions. [Received 30January 2019]
National Disability Insurance Scheme—Joint Standing Committee—Reports, dated December 2018—
85. NDIS ICT Systems, Hansard record of the proceedings, additional information and submissions. [Received 8 January 2019]
86. Provision of assistive technology under the NDIS, Hansard record of the proceedings, additional information and submissions. [Received 12December 2018]
87. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Independence of regulatory decisions made by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA)—Report, dated February 2019, Hansard record of proceedings, document presented to the committee, additional information and submissions.[Received 1February2019]
88. Senators' Interests—Standing Committee—Register of senators' interests incorporating statements of registrable interests and notifications of alterations lodged between 1 July and 31 December 2018, dated January 2019.[Received 21 January 2019]
NOT AVAILABLE FOR DEBATE
Committee reports pursuant to reference from the Selection of Bills Committee presented out of sitting
[committee reports relating to the consideration of bills—not available for consideration]
Economics Legislation Committee—Reports, dated February 2019—
89. Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting Retirement Incomes) Bill 2018 [Provisions], and submissions.[Received 11 February 2019]
90. Timor Sea Maritime Boundaries Treaty Consequential Amendments Bill 2018 [Provisions] and Passenger Movement Charge Amendment (Timor Sea Maritime Boundaries Treaty) Bill 2018 [Provisions], and submissions.[Received 8February2019]
91. Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018 [Provisions], Hansard record of proceedings, additional information and submissions.[Received 11 February 2019]
92. Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving the Energy Efficiency of Rental Properties) Bill 2018—Report, dated November 2018, Hansard record of proceedings, documents presented to the committee, additional information and submissions.[Received 6 February 2019]
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—Reports, dated February 2019—
93. Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Amendment (Strengthening Governance and Transparency) Bill 2018, and submissions.[Received 11February2019]
94. Future Drought Fund Bill 2018 [Provisions] and Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018 [Provisions], and submissions.[Received 8February2019]
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—
95. Judiciary Amendment (Commonwealth Model Litigant Obligations) Bill 2017—Report, dated December 2018, Hansard record of proceedings, additional information and submissions.[Received 7December2018]
96. Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2018 [Provisions]—Report, dated December 2018, and submissions.[Received 17 December 2018]
97. Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018 and all circulated amendments—Progress report, dated 7 February 2019.[Received 8February2019]
98. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Regulation) Bill 2018 [Provisions]—Report, dated February 2019, and submissions.[Received 11February2019]